Tag: SFWA

In Section B.2, Matthew Johnson appears to reveal the real source of the SFWA’s institutional fury, which is the fact that I have drawn attention to the organization’s increasingly shabby reputation and nonexistent integrity.  It is a little ironic, as again, there is nothing that I could do as a single member that could possibly be more damaging to the organization than its selective prosecution of me for a one-time action that several dozen members, including its current president, have provably committed.

And, as you’ll see, once again the Canadian Regional Director shows himself to be guilty of doing what he falsely claims I have done.

2. Attacks on the reputation and integrity of the organization

Mr. Beale has made statements on numerous platforms, including but not limited to his blog, that can be seen as attacks on the reputation and integrity of SFWA. This report does not consider the question of whether Mr. Beale’s statements meet the legal tests for defamation in any jurisdiction. Instead, it examines more broadly whether these comments were intentionally harmful to the reputation and integrity of SFWA and, if so, whether or not they were made as criticisms in the spirit of good faith. General evidence on whether or not Mr. Beale has been acting in good faith towards the organization is found in Section C.

However, there are specific questions which must be considered in asking whether Mr. Beale’s accusations were made in good faith:

• Were the accusations either openly stated or clearly implied?
• Did Mr. Beale present evidence to support his accusations?
• Did Mr. Beale believe that evidence to be accurate and relevant?

Accusations of corruption and unfair business practices

Most of the statements made by Mr. Beale that can be seen as attacks on the reputation and integrity of SFWA relate to accusations of corruption and unfair business practices. For instance, he has described SFWA of being “the very people who have created a global cottage industry out of thinly disguised necrophilia and bestiality” (see Fig B.18) and accused SFWA of acting as a monopoly:

Comment from demonl: It’s amazing to contrast the online interactions of fantasy/sci fi writers with the online social interactions of model ship builders.

Comment from VD [Beale]: The difference is that one group of model ship builders isn’t actively trying to prevent another group of them from being able to build model ships. (See Fig B.19)

The majority of Beale’s accusations of corruption relate to the Nebula Awards and are found in two posts on his blog and one at the online magazine Black Gate. In his first post on the topic, “Amazon, the SFWA and authorial corruption” (December 27 2012) he states that “corruption… is absolutely rife within SFWA, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Organization” (see Fig B.20). While he avoided making the accusation openly in the title of the blog post, he was less circumspect in his tweet of the blog, which read “How SFWA corruption proves Amazon is right to limit author-written reviews” (see Fig B.21).

As noted above, there is an important distinction between genuine criticism of the organization and attacks on its reputation. There is nothing that inherently prevents an accusation of corruption from being genuine criticism so long as it is supported by evidence and done in good faith. The original “Amazon, the SFWA and authorial corruption” post offers no evidence, instead inviting readers to find it
in his post at Black Gate. The title of that post, “SF/F Corruption: Part I”, avoids making direct accusations against SFWA in the title, but within the text says “the Nebula Award is, first and foremost, a means for various small groups of people to shamelessly and dishonestly promote the works of themselves and their friends.”

Note that he does not frame this in terms of these individuals misusing or gaming the system, but in terms of the Nebula system – and by extension SFWA – being itself corrupt. (See Fig B.22) No evidence is provided for this beyond the actual Nebula results and Beale’s personal opinion of the aesthetic merits of various books that won or did not win awards. In the comments, Beale also implies further corruption in SFWA, saying “the Nebulas are the least of it” (see Fig B.23) and openly states that “Corruption in SFWA is a documented and easily proven fact” (see Fig B.24). In this comment, and another where he is challenged to substantiate his accusations, Beale says that “this is merely Part I” (ibid.) and “Did you miss the part about Part I?” (see Fig B.25)

So far as I am able to determine, however, no sequel to this post ever appeared at Black Gate, and his post at his own blog titled “SF/F Corruption: Part II” also provides no evidence, instead saying “I had intended to continue on the SFWA theme with which I began the Corruption in Science Fiction series, but a pair of articles concerning the legitimacy of the bestseller lists caught my attention” and then focusing on whether publishers are gaming bestseller lists (see Fig B.26)

In an edit to the original post on his blog, however, Beale did present what he claimed was direct evidence, and it’s worth looking at that in detail. In an edit to the original “SF/F Corruption: Part I” post, Beale added:

UPDATE: An SFWA insider confirms my observations: “[Vox] is correct when it comes to the inbred logrolling. As SFWA Bulletin editor from 1999-2002 I can attest to this first hand. A small clique and their “in” friends control quite a bit of what goes on in SFWA (at least it did back then and I have no reason to doubt that things have changed).” (See Fig B.27)

The phrase “An SFWA insider confirms my observations,” provided as it is without elaboration or context, would seem to imply two things: first, that the source is a member of SFWA; second, that the source agrees with Beale’s accusations of corruption in this post. Neither, however, is true. The quote is taken from commenter “Dave T.” in response to Beale’s Black Gate post, and the text is quoted accurately (see Fig B.28). Later posts by the same commenter, however, show that he had not been a member of SFWA since roughly 2003, or nine years before the post (see Fig B.29), and also that he did not agree with Beale’s overall point about the Nebula process (and by extension SFWA) being corrupt (see Fig B.30). Moreover, it is clear that Beale knew both of these facts, because he participated actively in the comment thread following the article and actually responded to Dave T’s second comment (see Fig B.31).

Therefore, it would seem that Beale knowingly misrepresented someone as a current member of SFWA who was not, misrepresented him as an authoritative source of evidence for Beale’s accusation (since the accusations related directly to the 2012 Nebulas, and Dave T. said he had not been a member since 2003) and misrepresented Dave T’s comments in order to provide support for an otherwise unsubstantiated attack on the reputation and integrity of SFWA.

As a result, it is my conclusion that Mr. Beale made open accusations harmful to the reputation and integrity of SFWA, provided no supporting evidence that would show that he was making an honest criticism in good faith, and furthermore knowingly distorted evidence in support of those accusations.

It is true that I have openly questioned the integrity of the organization’s award process as well as the competence of past and present officers.  The lack of authorial integrity with regards to awards and reviews is a real problem, as evidenced by Amazon’s decision to bar authors from reviewing books on its site. But let’s consider the opinions of some other SFWA members, including a few who have openly called for my expulsion.

“Funny thing is, the Hugos are the cleanest major award in American SF. The Nebs are dreadful.”
– Teresa Nielsen Hayden, March 11, 2005

“The Nebulas are one of the two major awards in literary science fiction, but their luster has dimmed over the last several years; they are no longer the equal to the Hugos in terms of relevance and timeliness, and their nomination process leaves them open to accusations of nomination via logrolling rather than literary quality.”
– John Scalzi, former SFWA president, 2007 platform 

“Getting back to the nebulas: log-rolling is indeed a problem. In fact, it’s encouraged by the structure of the nebula process. The only excuse for the process that I can see is that too much eligible fiction is published in any given year for the jury to read it all, so some sort of pre-filtering is necessary, and the way the pre-filtering evolved within the nebula process just happened to end up FUBARed beyond all recursive acronymisation.”
– Charles Stross, SFWA member, November 30, 2007

“For the 2009
ballot, SFWA members could see how many nominations each story received
in the lead-up to the ballot selection. I really liked this because it
allowed members to know which stories were gaining attention. If a story
was surging in the tally, many members would go out of their way to
read and consider it. However, there was a downside to having a public
tally–logrolling. People could see who supported each story. Because of
this, it was claimed some SFWA members pledged to vote for different
people’s stories if those people voted for their own tales. Now, I
personally thought this practice was rarer than people stated, but it
was still a concern.”
– Jason Sanford, SFWA member, February 20, 2012

“I have served on Neb juries too. And the Election Committee. I used to be a member of SFWA.  Trust me on this, I have never been as pressured and log-rolled for a
nomination as I have been by male authors. Right down to almost in
person physical arm twisting. Women hardly did anything at all, other
than send their works to me. And everyone does it.”
– C. Foxessa, ex-SFWA member, December 29, 2012


“I thought SFWA would be my ‘union’ capable of enhancing or
protecting my interests.  It’s not really been so.  At least in my very
limited experience. Especially not when I stumbled across an e-mail exchange between
several SFWA members who were essentially discussing ways to turf my
chances on the Nebula, Hugo, and Campbell ballots in 2012. Why
should I pay money to remain a member of an organization that seems
(too often?) to be infested with personalities who explicitly want to
hurt my career?  Or at least want to blunt my opportunities?”
– Brad Torgerson, SFWA member, July 9, 2013

“Remember kids, SFWA aren’t just clueless and sexist, they’re also a great platform for log-rolling piss weak fiction into award season glory.”
– Jonathan McCalmont, SF critic, June 13, 2013

I note that one need not present any evidence at all for one to express one’s opinion in good faith.  None of the SFWA members quoted here presented any, and yet they are not being prosecuted by the SFWA Board for their very similar opinions concerning the “dreadful” nature of the SFWA’s awards. Because I am no longer blogging at Black Gate, I don’t write much about the business of science fiction and fantasy anymore; it being an area of less interest to the readers of VP and AG than those of Black Gate.  So, I haven’t gotten around to finishing the series on corruption in SF/F.  I may never finish it. But the fact that I haven’t publicly presented my evidence yet doesn’t mean that it does not exist, nor do I face any obligation to present it to anyone.

Now let’s look at Matthew Johnson’s accusation that I thrice misrepresented DaveT’s comments and “knowingly distorted evidence in support of those accusations.”  Mark his weasely “it would seem” which suggests that the SFWA Board member knows he is playing fast and loose with the facts here.  And keep in mind that this is the SFWA Board member accusing me of harming SFWA’s precious “integrity” in his official SFWA capacity.  There are three components to his accusation.

1. The first charge of misrepresentation is false. I did not misrepresent anyone as a current member of SFWA who was not a current member.  I didn’t say anything at all about DaveT’s membership status as of December 2012, and I even provided a link to the comment where he made it clear that he quit the organization sometime around 2003.  It would have been more precise to describe him as “a former SFWA Bulletin editor who quit the organization” than “an SFWA insider”, but it is hardly misrepresenting him to describe him as precisely what he was, an SFWA insider who edited the official SFWA magazine for three years and knows considerably more about the organization than most of its members.

2.  The second charge of misrepresentation is false. I did not misrepresent DaveT as an authoritative source of evidence for my accusation.  Johnson is straight out lying here.  He claims: “(since the accusations related directly to the 2012 Nebulas,
and Dave T. said he had not been a member since 2003)”.  However, the greater part of my accusation and the subsequent discussion concerned the 2002 Best Novel award given to Catharine Asaro for The Quantum Rose; in addition to the post concerned prominently featuring the cover of that novel, there is even a debate about the connection of that award and her popularity which led to her being elected to SFWA office around the same time

I also denied making any accusations about the 2012 Nebulas in the very comment thread quoted by Mr. Johnson.

Jo Walton: “I am not a member of SFWA and never have been. I think that disposes of your accusations of my logrolling for a Nebula.”

Theo: “I never made any such accusation.”

More importantly, Johnson ignores the way I specifically stated that my accusations primarily relate to the period between 2000 and 2010 in my original post, the very time period during which DaveT was the editor of the Bulletin.

“One of the things that rapidly became obvious to anyone who attempted to
participate honestly in the system between 2000 and 2010 was that the
Nebula Award is, first and foremost, a means for various small groups of
people to shamelessly and dishonestly promote the works of themselves
and their friends.”

3. The third charge of misrepresentation is false.  I did not “misrepresent
Dave T’s comments in order to provide support for an otherwise
unsubstantiated attack on the reputation and integrity of SFWA.”  Here is where Johnson’s blatant dishonesty becomes impossible to deny.  He knowingly misrepresents DaveT’s reminder about the possibility of a simple statistical explanation for Tor’s many awards as a disagreement with my overall point. Johnson writes of DaveT:

“he did not agree with Beale’s overall point about the Nebula process (and by extension SFWA) being corrupt….”

That is totally false, as DaveT clearly did agree with and substantiate my overall point:

“I have merely concurred with Theo that there are
shenanigans going on re the Nebs voting process that I think are
deplorable. There are cliques who stick together (as in most
organizations), and some of them even go so far as to purposely avoid
voting for certain types of SF they don’t like (i.e. the perceived
Analog _stereotypical_ story, for but one example)…. I personally got fed up with the cliques, in-fighting, nastiness,
politics, and all the rest of it, which is why I resigned my Bulletin
editorship in 2002 and let my membership lapse a year or so later.”  [Emphasis added]

What was Johnson’s basis for claiming DaveT disagreed with me?  Fig. B.30, which is below, next to the text from DaveT’s comment.

“If nearly 25% of all Nebs recs since 1986 were from Tor, then this
means that just over 75% of the Nebs recs since 1986 were not from Tor.
Now, take into account that Tor is the largest SF book publisher in the
United States and it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine that a fair
number of their books might just earn a Neb rec. I bought a red car some years ago. A friend was quick to point out
that statistics showed that more red cars get into accidents than any
other color. To which I replied, “Maybe there are just more red cars on
the road.” To wit, maybe there’s just more Tor books to nominate from,
and they must be doing something right re quality and sales for them to
be the leading SF book publisher in the country (if not the world). Just a thought.”

It’s just a thought.  It is obviously not proof of DaveT failing to agree with my overall point.  In fact, it’s not even a disagreement with me!  I myself brought up the possibility that Tor is simply a very good publisher, in addition to some observations, such as:

• “the unusually heavy involvement of its authors in the
  awards process”
• “their representation in the organization’s offices”
• “the confirmed logrolling in the recent past”
• “how many of those award-winning books neither seem to sell particularly
  well nor be especially well-regarded by Amazon reviewers”

In fact, our only area of potential disagreement on the subject was that DaveT believes Tor is not cheating, but merely “has an active and successful marketing and networking strategy”, whereas, on the basis of my experience in the music industry, I am less certain that Tor Books has never gamed various awards and bestseller lists.  Tomato, Tomahto.

The only person who “knowingly distorted evidence in support of… accusations” here is Matthew Johnson.  By now, it should be abundantly clear that with his intentional misrepresentations and false accusations, Matthew Johnson, the current Canadian Regional Director and SFWA Board member, is considerably more harmful to SFWA’s reputation and integrity than I am.  And we’ve only reached page 21 of 34.

But since we’re on the subject of the Nebulas and the SFWA Board, I’ve heard there was a bit of disappointment at the SFWA’s secret headquarters following the 2012 Awards.

Response Part VII

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding
the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by
any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright. 

In section B.1, Matthew Johnson plumbs new depths, as he attempts to frame my oft-satirical responses to repeated attacks on me by former SFWA President John Scalzi, current SFWA Board member (who has not recused herself from the process) Lee Martindale, SFWA Associate Member Teresa Nielsen Hayden, and others over the last eight years as “attacks on members”.

1. Attacks on members

Attacks on members which occurred through SFWA channels or in SFWA-controlled spaces are addressed in part A. The following looks at attacks and threats which were made in his blog and other public space.

Personal attacks

Beale has made numerous attacks on fellow SFWA members which may be seen as going outside the bounds of professional conduct. The best-known and most consistent is likely his use of derogatory nicknames, such as “McRapey” for John Scalzi and “McRacist” for N.K. Jemisin (see Fig B.1). He has also compared Amal el-Mohtar to an Egyptian cleric who has, according to Beale, called for the ethnic cleansing of Egypt (Fig B.2); accused James Enge of “despicable behavior” (see Fig B.3); accused Ms. Jemisin of plagiarism (see Fig B.4); and has published a blog comment claiming that Teresa Nielsen Hayden has herpes. (See Appendix I for the question of whether and why to consider blog comments. In this case, though, Beale actually reprinted the comment in one of his own blog posts, making him more clearly the publisher of the comment: see Fig B.5)

Threats by commenters

Beale has permitted and, arguably, encouraged threats of violence against SFWA members on his blogs and elsewhere. (See Appendix I for the question of whether and why to consider blog comments.) As we have seen, Beale allowed one threat of rape against Ms. Jemisin to remain in the post that was published through the SFWAAuthors Twitter feed; a similar threat was made in the June 13 post “SFWA Forum: the moderated posts”:

“Jemisin libeled him. the SFWA is aiding and abetting her in this libel. come get some, bitch.” (See Fig B.6)

On June 18 an implicit threat was made by a commenter against member Aliette de Bodard:
“Didn’t we used to drop bombs on Europeans who were fascinated by racial literature? Eventually people like de Bodard will need the air raid sirens.” (See Fig B.7)

Another series of threats was made against Lee Martindale following a comment she made on Jim Hines’ blog (see Fig B.8) to which Beale took offense (see Fig B.9). Commenters to Beale’s blog post posted threats such as suggestions that she should commit suicide (see Fig B.10), statements that “she needs to get punched or laid… or maybe both in quick succession” (see Fig B.11), requests to “Post her home address, I dare you…” (see Fig B.12) and detailed descriptions of her murder: I’m pretty sure that Bane [a former commenter] would have had a long, eloquent post about seeing an eye through a scope and then the brilliant crimson & grey spatter when he caressed the trigger, or maybe something about the slippery, warm feel of entrails spilling over his hand. (See Fig B.13. Note that Beale ended this post with “This post is dedicated to the memory of Bane”; see Fig B.14]

One comment provided instructions on how to “SWAT” her (send a police SWAT team to her house): “If you want to SWAT at the gnatstys [Internet spelling of “nasties”], you could use skype from a café and call into the police phone number local to the threat, impersonating the threat and saying something like you’ve just killed your family, are going to blow up a school, etc. and watch the militarized blue-coats go after them.” (see Fig B.15)

A few notes may be valuable in providing context. First, the suggestion that Beale should provide Martindale’s home address was not an idle one: on at least one prior occasion Beale has posted the home address of a reviewer (not an SFWA member) he felt had not read his book before reviewing it (see Fig B.16. for the post in which this happened. Although the full address was removed by the time that screenshot was taken, the comment seen in Fig B.17 shows that it had been posted.)

Finally, on June 15 2013 (two days after Beale’s attack on Ms. Jemisin went out via the SFWAAuthors Twitter feed) Martindale also received a threat by e-mail which, while it cannot be traced directly to Beale, echoes threats made against her, and the specific language used in them, on his blogs:

“Keep on doing what you do, keep on following the same routine, you will be located, and you will be dealt with just like you deserve to be. My friends are starting a bail fund for me. See, you’re not the only one who can make veiled threats of violence, you fat, stinking, ugly cunt. Kill yourself now and save someone else the trouble you rotten, repulsive piece of human trash.”

With regards to my “attacks on fellow SFWA members”, I will simply note the following:

1. John Scalzi, the former SFWA president to whom I refer by the derogatory nickname “McRapey” has publicly referred to me in the following ways since 2005:

• the lunatic fringe
• a jackass, and a fairly ignorant jackass at that
• your head is pretty far up your ass
• there’s a definite head-ass conjunction on his part
• his sphincto-cranial position
• stupid and sexist
• a sexist pig
• he deserves a thumping, and a thumping is what he’s getting
• Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit
• sociopathic assbag
• that pathetic ball of issues

There are hundreds of references on Mr. Scalzi’s blog and several other SFWA member blogs such as Electrolite referring to me as either “Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit” or “RSHD”. It would be informative to learn if the SFWA Board considers that to be inside “the bounds of professional conduct”. Mr. Scalzi has also referred to the readers of my blog as:

• VD’s tribe of sexist assbags
• your own pit of manstink
• the gibbering follow monkeys of that Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit who has an adorable mancrush on me
• his clutch of equally insecure racist sexist homophobic dipshit admirers
• gibbering monkey followers 
• dipshits

Note that in addition to demonstrating that the “derogatory nickname” I use for John Scalzi is well within the bounds of professional conduct as demonstrated by the SFWA president’s own example, this would appear to indicate that it is John Scalzi who is truly the racist, as I am a Writer of Color and I have a large number of black and Hispanic readers to whom the presumably white Mr. Scalzi openly refers as “monkeys”.

Moreover, given that Mr. Scalzi has openly, (however satirically), written “I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women
without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually” and was recorded stating “John Scalzi is a rapist” on Canadian radio, it can hardly be deemed outrageous to satirize him as “McRapey”.

2. The comment “claiming that Teresa Nielsen Hayden has herpes” was clearly satirical, considering that it was written from the perspective of a Sonoran Desert Toad. As in, the warty little frog-like animal that hops.  The full quote was: “I would point out that
licking *me*
brings on a state of euphoria and a series of pleasant
hallucinations, while licking Ms. Nielson would cause spastic
uncontrolled vomiting and give you herpes.”

Moreover, Ms Nielsen Hayden has addressed me in the following professional manner since 2005:

• It’s really, really obvious that VD is not acquainted with actual women. (2005)
• he’s had little or no social interaction of any sort (2005)
• VD fears and dislikes women (2005)
• a third-rate intellect (2005)
•  a tad unbalanced (2005)
• a generally unpleasant fellow (2005)
• He is a wuss. (2007)
• You’re also a singularly inept sockpuppet, O Bane/Vox/Theeeeeodore. (2007)
• Vox Day’s true opinion of women has always been clear to me: he’s terrified of them. (2007)
• out-of-the-closet racist (2008)
• obviously unbalanced (2008)
• been known to put in a good word for the Nazis (2008)

3. In the interest of keeping this less than entirely tedious, I will address the other accusations in my actual response to the Board.  In the meantime, I will simply point out that my “attacks” have almost always been responses to the attacks of others.

With regards to the various statements made by commenters, both here and at other blogs, I will simply point out that I maintain a very light moderation policy with rules that are clearly posted, which is one reason why my blogs are among the most popular in the SFWA, with 1,170,000 pageviews last month alone.  I find it strange to have to point out to a professional writer’s organization that I am obviously not responsible, in any way, for anyone’s words or actions besides my own.  Nor have I ever incited anyone to do anything; quite to the contrary, I have actively dissuaded my readers from responding to various forms of attacks in kind.

I have already shown in my response to section A.3 that Mr. Johnson’s assertion of a previous “rape threat” to Ms Jemisin was, in fact, not a threat at all, and the following three comments, all of which still remain on this blog in addition to many other similar comments, should suffice to demonstrate that my failure to delete a comment does not indicate either permission for, encouragement of, or agreement with the comment, its sentiments, or the commenter.

• “You sad, silly little fuck. Your father really screwed you over for life, didn’t he?” (Phoenician February 04, 2013 4:16 PM) 
• “I own your mental space. First Scalzi made you his little bitch. And now I’ve made you my little bitch. You’ll have to face up to the fact that this isn’t a coincidence. It seems to be in your nature to seek out a dominant male and make him treat you like a bottom.” (Pheonician February 09, 2013 8:53 PM)
• “What a strange, depressing man you are. And how fearful and strange and depressing many of the folks in the comments are. This post is full of logical fallacies that sort of laugh in the face of psychology and history, but . . . it’s not even worth getting into them with you. If you’ve ignored facts up to this point in your life, there’s no real any evidence that you’d start taking them into consideration now.”  (Maggie Stiefvater June 14, 2013 3:14 PM )

Of the 136,270 comments presently available on this blog, a statistically significant percentage of them contain sentiments of which I do not approve, assertions with which I disagree, and claims which I believe to be false.  I am not responsible for any of them.  And I am most certainly not responsible for any threats made here or elsewhere to others by others.

Unlike many members of the SFWA, I believe in unmitigated free speech and free expression.  Calling speech “hate speech” does not justify limiting it any more than calling it “blasphemy” or “uppity negro speech” does.  I find it absolutely and utterly reprehensible that the SFWA Board has abandoned the organization’s formerly strong position on free speech and is not only prosecuting a member for his own free speech, but for permitting others free speech as well.

Stephen Brust might be thinking to mock the critics of SFWA with his “Anthem of the SFWA Fascists, but the simple fact is that the SFWA Board is acting as if it wears “rainbow-colored jackboots” as it actively attempts to limit the ability of its members to freely express their opinions in a hypocritical and one-sided manner. And I find it extremely amusing to observe that Mr. Brust has turned off comments for the video.

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding
the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by
any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright.

Section B outlines Matthew Johnson’s creative attempt to expand the complaint from a single violation of the Twitter feed guidelines to cover my own blog posts here and at Black Gate, the comments made by commenters on my blog, and comments made by commenters on other blogs.

B. Continuing pattern of actions prejudicial to SFWA

This section of the report examines the evidence on the question of whether Theodore Beale has engaged in ongoing and deliberate efforts to disrupt SFWA’s mission and to undermine the credibility of the organization both among the membership and the general public that did not occur in SFWA controlled spaces or in ways that directly violate SFWA bylaws and policies.

While they may not be in direct violation of SFWA bylaws or policies, they may be taken as evidence that Beale’s actions and continued membership in SFWA pose a significant risk of imminent and serious harm to the organization.

Three general issues will be addressed in this section:

1. Attacks on members
1.1. Personal attacks
1.2. Threats by commenters

2. Attacks on the reputation and integrity of the organization
2.1. Accusations of corruption

3. Effect of Beale’s continued membership on SFWA

Needless to say, as will become clear, the “attacks on members” are, for the most part, responses to their attacks on me.  Matthew Johnson mostly omits that minor fact from his “comprehensive” report; even when he does mention that a current board member openly threatened me he attempts to minimize her actions.  He fails to mention, of course, that the same member also attacked me in the SFWA channel known as the SFWA discussion forums.

Unlike the previous section, where he never got around to the fifth general issue, Johnson does actually address the three issues raised in this section, none of which, by his own admission, have anything to do with any violation of SFWA bylaws or policies.

Now, there is nothing I could do that could possibly undermine SFWA’s mission to promote the publishing of science fiction as much as the Board’s determination to expand that mission into matters that are of no legitimate concern to the organization. There is nothing I could say that would undermine the credibility of the organization more than the repeated awarding of Nebulas to trivial works of fiction by mediocre authors.

On the subject of SFWA’s credibility, I think the decision to publicly assert that the eminently forgettable sixth novel in the Saga of the Skolian Empire was the Best Novel of 2001 permanently undermined the credibility of the organization as a legitimate writer’s association.


“The beautiful young noblewoman Kamoj Quanta Argali rules a declining
province on a distant planet that has lost the high technology of its
original colonists. To save her people, Kamoj has contracted to marry
Jax Ironbridge, the moody, unpredictable ruler of a prosperous land.
Then a mysterious stranger from another world proposes a marriage that
neither honor nor law will allow Kamoj to refuse.”

The Quantum Rose
#1,989,497 in Books
#323,201 Paid in Kindle Store 
27 reviews
3.7 rating
2001 Nebula Award winner for Best Novel

SFWA was once an organization that nominated bestselling science fiction authors like Jerry Pournelle and Mike Resnick for its highest awards.  Now it is an organization full of mediocre and derivative writers who are openly attempting to drive those authors out of the organization.  One cannot undermine a nonexistent credibility.

At this point, not even Hitler can salvage the SFWA’s credibility. Though I do look forward to eventually hearing about the copious new rules, policies, and guidelines that will soon be going into effect in order to belatedly defend it, especially the very important rule about not posting Hitler parody videos that refer to the organization.

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding
the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by
any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright.

Section 4 isn’t particularly interesting or relevant, except for what it reveals about Matthew Johnson’s competence and the extremely arbitrary nature of their charges.

  4. Threats of harassment and mischief against SFWA and members

This section will look specifically at threats of harassment and mischief made in SFWA-controlled spaces; other threats can be found in section C.

This investigation has found two threats of harassment and mischief against SFWA and members made by Mr. Beale in a SFWA-controlled space, both in a post later removed by moderators from the online Forums:

You can certainly try it [expulsion]. […] I’ll just tell you right now, I will absolutely be insisting on a Nebula award as part of any settlement.
    (See Fig A.26)

This would seem to imply that he is suggesting that he means to extort SFWA in some way so as to be guaranteed a Nebula award.

Immediately afterwards he adds:

What I find amusing is that some of you actually seem to think I’m being difficult now. (Ibid.)

It is not difficult to interpret this statement as a threat of harassment and mischief.

The first thing I note is that Johnson gets the figure wrong.  There is no  Fig A.26.  He actually means Fig A.25, which is one of his nine screencapped violations of SFWA discussion forum confidentiality.  And it’s interesting to note that he felt it necessary to selectively edit the text of my post, because the whole text shows that not only am I not harassing anyone, I am simply responding to what amounts to eight years of public harassment by members of the organization, including several of the current Board members presently adjudicating this matter.

[REDACTED]

Sure it isn’t.  By that standard, you’re going to have to discipline dozens of members who have attacked other members in the Bulletin, the Forum, and in their official capacity as an SFWA officer.  And you’re not fooling anyone with that transparent dodge.  The “misuse of Twitter feed” already has a clearly defined penalty: “Marking blog posts for inclusion that include threats or personal attacks or obvious trolling will also be grounds for removal.”

My blog has already been removed from the feed.  Now the board is discussing if you think you can get away with adding a second penalty on top of that one… for a first offense.

I’m perfectly aware there are some who would love to use this as an excuse to kick me, and anyone who happens to think like me, out of the organization.  There are members who have been talking openly about wanting to expel me for my opinions and nothing else since 2005. You can certainly try it. I’ll just tell you right now, I will absolutely be insisting on a Nebula Award as part of any settlement.  What I find amusing about this is that some of you actually seem to think I’m being difficult now.

It’s actually impossible to interpret the statement as any such threat.  Standing on my rights and adhering firmly to the letter of the law and the organization’s rules is neither harassment nor mischief.  As will soon become clear through copious documentary evidence, I have been the object of harassment by multiple SFWA members for eight years, and I am now being harassed by their allies on the Board who have targeted me with this irrational, arbitrary, and malicious report.

As further evidence of the Board’s arbitrary behavior, because Mr. Johnson was referring in his report to moderate-deleted Forum posts to which I have no access, and since other members have made threats against me in the Forums which were deleted by the moderators, yesterday I requested access to both the Forum and the moderator-deleted Forum posts.  This morning, I received the following response:

As was noted in earlier correspondence, your access to the SFWA discussion forums has been suspended due to your repeated reposting of discussion forum posts, without permission of the authors, culminating in your blog post of July 10, 2013. The right of all our members for confidentiality outweighs your request in light of your continued repostings. Accordingly, your request is refused.

Matthew Johnson
Canadian Region Director
SFWA

Note that Mr. Johnson’s claim is obviously false as I could not have reposted posts from a discussion forum to which I do not even have access. I merely posted graphic elements from the non-confidential report that Mr. Johnson himself sent me unsolicited.

UPDATE: In light of the “threat of harassment” charges, it may be informative to note that there are no less than 59 instances of actual harassment from what looks like a single individual here on this blog in 2013 alone.

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding
the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by
any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright. 

This is a short, but amusing section.  The SFWA Board is falsely charging me with publicizing confidential SFWA material while openly violating the SFWA discussion forum confidentiality rules itself.

2. Publication of confidential SFWA material
Mr. Beale has violated this policy on at least one occasion in the past (see Fig A.7) and been reprimanded for it (see Fig A.8). More recently, he has quoted on his blog of June 5, 2013, “Seriously Fascist Women’s Association”, from a warning received from Forum moderator Cat Rambo: “It’s also intriguing to see how these liberal fascists claim labeling two old men ‘sexist bigots’ and openly calling for an end to their column is acceptable, but identifying them as ‘censorious’ is, and here I quote the SFWA moderator, ‘abusive behavior’.” (See Fig A.9) The phrase “abusive behavior” is, in fact, an automatically-generated heading for the message sent to Mr. Beale, but Mr. Beale seems to have believed that he was publishing Ms. Rambo’s own words and intended to do so. A post made to the SFWA online forums on June 1, 2013 provides more evidence that he believed he was posting Ms. Rambo’s own words: “And speaking of those differences, the fact that my expression of my opinion about MsTobler’s laudable example, which is entirely sincere, was declared by Cat Rambo to be “abusive behavior” and somehow merits a schoolmarmish ‘warning’ only underlines how intellectually feeble and fascistic the organization has become over time.” (See Fig A.10) While the content he was reproducing was innocuous, this example suggests that despite an earlier warning and sanction he has shown little respect for the confidentiality of SFWA material.

In light of this charge, it is indeed ironic that in the Appendix to the report, the Board member and Board-appointed investigator Matthew Johnson violates the discussion forum confidentiality rules no less than nine times by re-posting screencaps taken from the SFWA Forum without my permission.  The SFWA Forums clearly state:  “The SFWA discussion forums are for SFWA members only, and all posts made
here are confidential. Material may not be re-posted outside these
forums without the explicit permission of their authors.”

Just to provide one of the nine examples of his violation of the confidentiality rules, as can be seen in the image to the right, the Canadian Regional Director clearly re-posted the Forum message I posted on 01 June, 2013 – 08:28 PM on Page 11 of  SFWA Discussion Forums→ SFWA Publications→ SFWA Bulletin→ Issue 202.  I did not grant permission for any such reposting. The text is as follows:

[REDACTED]

It’s not hard at all.  Whining about sexism and racism bores me too.  Sweet Saint Sanger, how it bores me!  But do you not understand that there are a number of SFWA members who, judging by their blogs and their books, truly aren’t interested in doing anything else?  If it’s not complaining about the Dialogues, or complaining about me, or complaining about someone else insufficiently kowtowing to their views, they’ll complain about the number of books published by women, or the number of books reviewed by women, or the number of books published by women but not reviewed, etc.

I’m not going to pretend that the two gentlemen concerned hold me spellbound with their meanderings in every issue, but the institutional memory they represent, and the occasional golden tidbit they produce amidst the dross, is well worth putting up with their idiosyncracies.  Perhaps you disagree.  That’s fine; I imagine one or the other will be dead soon enough and all the offended parties can dance on their graves.  But in the meantime, it doesn’t materially harm anyone to let them remind us of what science fiction used to be, regardless of whether one regrets or celebrates the fact that it is different now.  If one can’t respect the men or their opinions, one should at least be able to respect their past service to the organization.

And speaking of those differences, the fact that my expression of my opinion about Ms Tobler’s laudable example, which is entirely sincere, was declared by Cat Rambo to be “abusive behavior” and somehow merits a schoolmarmish “warning” only underlines how intellectually feeble and fascistic the organization has become over time.

Furthermore, there is evidence that the Canadian Regional Director knowingly and willfully violated the SFWA discussion forum confidentiality rules based on whose permission he sought to obtain in the process of writing his report, and whose permission he did not seek.  And in its endorsement of his report by vote, the entire Board now bears responsibility for that publication of confidential SFWA material from the discussion forums.

More importantly, the charge itself not only contains an indictment of the Board, but the information that exonerates me concerning the same charge.  Johnson correctly points out “The phrase “abusive behavior” is, in fact, an automatically-generated heading for the message sent to Mr. Beale.”

That is true.  The phrase was contained in an email sent to me, and while I did incorrectly believe they were Ms Rambo’s own words, I also knew it could not possibly be covered by SFWA discussion forum confidentiality rules because the phrase was contained in an email delivered to my inbox.  Johnson’s logic is incorrect and “this example” cannot possibly suggest “that despite an earlier warning and sanction he
has shown little respect for the confidentiality of SFWA material” for the obvious reason that the automatically-generated heading was not covered by any SFWA confidentiality rules.

It is, in fact, entirely clear that I have considerably more respect for the confidentiality rules than he does, as there are more than 20 violations of discussion forum confidentiality in his report alone.

UPDATE:  SFWA President Steven Gould repeats his appeal to nonexistent “confidentiality”.  Only this time it is nonexistent “professional confidentiality” as opposed to nonexistent “SFWA confidentiality rules”:

On Confidentiality and Board Deliberations

The SFWA Board would like to thank members for their strong support and patience as we continue the investigation of recent complaints against one of our members. Because our mandate and desire is to respect all parties by maintaining confidentiality, details of the investigation will continue to be private. However, as the member under investigation has not respected professional confidentiality, we have been asked about the possibility of information becoming public that would inappropriately identify individuals. Please be assured that, per our standard procedures, no members who wrote to the Board to express their opinions were identified in this report, and any portions of emails which were included were reproduced with their authors’ permissions.

Thank you.

Steven Gould, President
For the Board

What is this “professional confidentiality” of which he speaks?  Attorney-Client? Doctor-Patient? Notice too that Gould admits the Board obtained permission from some members, while we know it did not do so for others, thus proving that the Board was aware it was repeatedly violating the discussion forum confidentiality rules by re-posting forum posts.

UPDATE II: Despite the fact that it is he and Matthew Johnson who have been violating the SFWA discussion forum confidentiality rules, Mr. Gould has removed my access to them.  Which was sort of redundant, as they had already banned everyone from discussing my case and blocked me from posting there since July 4th.

Dear Mr. Beale,

Effective immediately, I have directed our webmaster to remove your access to the SFWA discussion boards for repeated violations of of the SFWA Discussion Forum Guidelines, specifically:

Reading privileges will not ordinarily be curtailed. However, posting forum messages outside the forums without permission can lead to losing reading privileges.

Steven Gould
President
Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America

Now, I knew he would be an inept president, but his performance here is truly remarkable.

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding
the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by
any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright.