http://io9.gizmodo.com/last-years-hugo-award-drama-is-not-going-away-any-time-1773184986

The article gives a decent run-down of how things turned out this year. And how the puppies are changing their style by slating items that probably would have gotten nominated anyway, so that when some of them win they can claim victory. Vox Day and his Rabid Puppies are doing the same thing they did last year by nominating themselves and the items from their vanity publishing house, so those will get shot down in the final voting.

The article is missing an important point, though, even it the article's title: This is the last year that this shit can happen. Next year, the updated nomination ruleset (nicknamed "E Pluribus Hugo") goes into effect, which nullifies the advantages of slates. The drama *is* going away soon, in fact, the 2017 Hugos will be back to normal again. I just wish the rules could have allowed them to ratify E. Pluribus Hugo *this* year instead of in 2017. Ah well.

And here's how it came out:

https://andrewrcameron.com/2016/08/21/the-2016-hugo-awards-the-results/

With this side note of why Chuck Tingle was in the listing at all:

http://boingboing.net/2016/05/06/weird-porn-author-who-was-drag.html

Another good report on the 2016 results:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016...ugo_awards.html

Note that this is the last year that we expect the puppies to use slate voting to influence the Hugo Awards, since they passed and ratified a change, nicknamed "E Pluribus Hugo", to the nomination system this year. It's a somewhat complicated system which nullifies the effect of slate voting. The only reason it wasn't in place yet this year is that changes to the nomination and voting rules are a somewhat careful two-year process with the Hugos.