mneme | (Reply)

From:

I'm at least as angry about the 1000 disenfranchised voters as I am about the political dossiers badly compiled by the old guard volunteers and the "Not Eligibles" disqualified by Dave, and I'm personal friends with one of the so-called Not Eligibles.

their votes -were- highly coordinated in suspicious ways

1) I haven't seen anything about suspicious coordination beyond people just angry that there were ~1000 Chinese voters and/or people still saying slate voting shouldn't be allowed at all. Maybe that got lost in the noise. I've read a fair bit on the 2023 Hugos, though admittedly not the 50-page PDF numbers analysis from Heather Rose Jones and Camestros Felaptoon https://file770.com/charting-the-cliff-an-investigation-into-the-2023-hugo-nomination-statistics-by-camestros-felapton-and-heather-rose-jones/ has the intro, high level discussion, and conclusions).
2) A magazine posting a suggestion of 8 works/creators for categories when only 6 people can even be nominated for each category sounds like a *feature*, not a bug. If the magazine had been trying to create a slate, they'd have put down 6 names each.

Separating the Hugos from the individual Worldcons sounds good at first, except, hey wait, what centralized group would that have gone to in previous years when that was being proposed? Why, people like Dave McCarty. And Ben Yalow. Centralization is no guarantee at all of fairness, it seems.