Wherein bundy tries really hard to pretend that he hasn't spent copious time whining about being excluded from a club that he is totally too cool for now.

As long as you are happy to suppress opposing views by banning your opponents I'm cool with it

Can we please get all politards out of here, from both sides of the spectrum? They have their own forum to AIDS up.

Should have made the voting restrictions much simpler.
Anyone with more than 5 lifetime politics forum posts is ineligible.
Anyone as annoying as bundy is ineligible.

And since the voting rules have already been changed about a dozen times since this thing began, why not change them once more?

The obvious answer is to use the rules and voting eligibility requirements that Lektor started the contest with, and which were not changed or debated until after the contest had already started ftmp.

i propose an amendment to the rules declaring all votes against AOC invalid

i call it the voting integrity and jobs act

I agree.

Lektor should use whatever rules that will get the most politards upset.

That would be a rule that simply declares AOC the immediate winner, and the contest is now over. That would ruffle maximum feathers, even more than simply disqualifying her immediately.

Then you agree that there is no minimum OOT post requirement, just as there was none last year, and which is what Lektor refers to with the post he quoted in the original rules and eligibility requirements.

Whatever the rules were before the AOC vote should be upheld. Need to learn from this episode for next year's Miss OOT though.

It's silly to get all worked up over a dumb little contest, but that's what makes it fun: the arguments are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small. The "x posts in OOT" requirement was originally instituted to prevent other forums (i.e. BBV4L) from hijacking the contest. I got rid of the rule because Ms OOT participation was down 50% from a few years ago, so trying to keep people out of a dying contest in a moribund forum seemed counterproductive.

Now that it's being hijacked by another forum, it makes sense to limit it to OTTers. It's perhaps unfortunate that the rules were changed in the middle of a round (I didn't bother voting since AOC was running away with it by such a large margin), but who cares? AOC was never winning without a groundswell of proletarian internationalism, which isn't in the spirit of the contest, so whether she goes out in round 2 or round 3 doesn't matter, and it's not Lektor's fault that so many here couldn't handle her candidacy without getting the vapours. Enough jimmies were rustled and lawnmowers launched into orbit that she has served her purpose, plus she starts her new job this week so she probably won't have much to compete anyway.

VIAJA? May I suggest a slight change, to the:

Voting Integrity And Greatness Raising Act!

Much better.

Were the voting requirements different last year than in previous years? I always recall it being 100 & 10, but I don't really remember anything about last year's contest at all.

.

Agree with both points.

There are about 200 voters and maybe the same 15 people posting here and it's tough to know what the other people think I should do. I misread the mood of OOT by suggesting we change the rules from the elimination rounds on (I had in mind something like to qualify you need to be a regular voter from the previous rounds or years), obviously other people posted more when I suggested that, which is why it's not happening.

To be clear, we're still using 2017 ruleset 1 referred to in the 2018 nomination thread:

Rather than 2017 ruleset 2 which existed after gregorio changed the rules mid-competition:

The rules aren't changing this year.

Great, so let's go with last year's rules, that you quoted and referred to at the beginning of this year's competition.

This "ruleset 1" specifically says that the 10 OOT post rule was a PAST rule, but that it will now be relaxed, i.e. lessened. Being active in the nominations thread is meant to ensure eligibility, i.e. guarantee it or make it certain, but that is not the actual relaxing of the past rules, and is not necessary for voting eligibility.

This "ruleset 2" now explains what the actual relaxing of the past rules entails. It does not change anything in ruleset 1, it clarifies it, and says that in order to vote, you must have an account in good standing, and do not need 10 OOT posts to vote.

If you are requiring 10 OOT posts, then you are indeed changing the rules from last year's rules.

Change the title from Ms. OOT to Ms. Horseface with John Elway Teeth Plus No Tits & Googly Eyes. Problem solved. Your welcome.

Ruleset 1 doesn't guarantee anyone who has less than 10 posts the right to vote and suggests it's down primarily to participation in the nomination thread. It also suggests the final word is down the the organizer.

Ruleset 2 (which I didn't refer to in 2018 at all) basically clarifies that eligibility criteria are to be junked entirely and participation in the nomination thread was a waste of time (presumably because of the amount of hard work checking eligibility requires without special software - and even with it if people are recruiting large numbers of voters from outside OOT). It also doesn't follow from the justification given in earlier post. A thread with 15 people posting and 200 voting is not of lower quality than one with 15 people posting and 250 people voting. Ruleset 1 states that the justification for relaxing the rules is to increase the quality of the competition. Incidentally this is yet another asterix next to Gal Gadot's victory last year.

Ruleset 1 was posted at the start of the 2018 nomination thread, not ruleset 2. If you want to argue that means I've changed the rules since 2017 then ok, but I haven't changed them since the start of the competition.

If we are changing anything it should be granting a wildcard entry to Toni Lahren. She was robbed in the rapecharge and would cause maximum butthurt.

#lettonifight

This could be the first time in history that the POTY was posted on Jan 1

Voting has begun in Group F.

Patron is undeniably correct in regards to the spirit of the rules posted in the nomination thread last year and the actual letter of the rules throughout the entire competition, so I don't understand why you're trying to argue otherwise. Just admit you didn't know what the rules were last year when you said they'd apply this year, or that you didn't really think much about the rules at all until you didn't like the way Group A was going so you made a rule to try to preserve the integrity of the contest.

When Lektor decides he's had enough bitching and just walks away, which one of you whiny turds is going to step up and finish the contest?

which whiny turds? the whiny turds voting in the contest or the whiny turds assigning lektor a bunch of extra work investigating every vote for the contestant whose politics they don't like?