"SFWA members not eligible."

See, that there is what you might call a "red flag"...

I was curious, so started digging. @unfitmagazine has a blog post about "Clear Bias at the SFWA." https://longshotpress.com/a-clear-bias-at-the-sfwa/

I remember this issue. Thinkerbeat was the submission site for Longshot Press. So yes, SFWA's warning should have named Longshot as the publisher, not Thinkerbeat.

The larger problem being called out was Longshot publicly listing the names and rankings of rejected authors.

SFWA's original post: https://www.facebook.com/SFWA.org/posts/10158419271824789

Their statement holds true: "This publisher’s behavior is far outside of industry standards and is contrary to the interests of writers. Humiliating writers, betraying their trust, and violating their privacy is not acceptable."

Longshot's post also complains that their magazines were not semi-pro, because they paid above the minimum rate. I'm glad they paid well. That's awesome! But "semi-pro" can refer to more than just pay rate.

Also, for the record, "semi-pro" is a descriptor, not an insult.

Another Longshot complaint: "A story by Rebecca Roanhorse won multiple awards, pushing forward recognition for diversity. Well done. Congratulations. But her story starts with a quote by author Sherman Alexie. Does the SFWA not know about the #metoo movement?"

...what?

Because SFWA is responsible for Roanhorse's awards? Or maybe Longshot believes SFWA should be censuring Roanhouse for quoting Alexie in a story? I'm sorry, I can't follow this one at all.

Longshot again: "People, trusting people, bought into what the SFWA was pushing regarding the publisher of Unfit/Unreal. A fact that was easy to check. The SFWA has made no effort to remove the fake news and publicly apologize."

People did check the facts and confirmed that the publisher was listing rejected stories and their rankings. That practice appears to have stopped after SFWA shone their spotlight on it.

The only real problem I can find with SFWA's statement is that it conflated the submission site and the publisher's name. And yes, that certainly seems to be a mistake on @SFWA's part. I haven't seen a follow-up or correction from them on that point.

But between posting and ranking rejected authors, the "No SFWA members allowed" guidelines, and the bizarre blog post about SFWA's "bias," I'm gonna go ahead and recommend avoiding Longshot Press.