Ms OOT is great and synonymous with holiday family gatherings. It sounds like a fun time, but instantly turns into nothing but pointless arguing, trolling, bitterness, and butthurt. And then we always do it again the next year.

the idea that politics forum is organizing a miss oot coup is a hoax. there is no such movement. and this campaign against AOC and her supporters is nothing more than a BAD! UNFAIR! WITCH HUNT!

My platform for taking over is just a straight heads up thread with Toni vs AOC and 12 months allowed for voting

Lektor's a big boy, and has already made his statements on this issue. Sounds more like you're the one whining. Have you read this thread or even just the OP?

How about a separate contest for hottest right wing nutjob female politarder (Fox news anchors, etc)? The winner will then go head to head with AOC in a Ms OOT Politard Battle Royale.

I'll vote for Stacey Dash in that one.

To me it's pretty clear that relaxing "those rules a bit in order to encourage some better nominations and a more active contest. If you want to ensure that you qualify to vote, bring something to the table in this thread:" excludes junking eligibility criteria almost entirely as that does nothing to encourage better nominations and isn't only "a bit". I don't blame you for doing that last year - it's enough work already to run this already without worrying about eligibility criteria - and no problems resulted from it. However I think I'm justified in calling it a rule change rather than a mere clarification.

However I quoted ruleset 1 in the 2018 nominations OP and not ruleset 2 (or the clarification if you prefer). If I'd wanted ruleset 2 to apply I'd have quoted it instead.

The 2018 Group A OP is a direct copy and almost the same as the 2017 Group A OP except it doesn't contain the "clarification" that contrary to the nomination thread OP anyone can vote. I don't remember actually removing it but I probably did so as it was contrary to my understanding of what the rules were meant to be. So this is important, I didn't revive the 10 posts rule selectively because I didn't like the result, I understood it to be in force all the time.

I don't care that much who gets through and I don't have anything particular against AOC. There are people ITT who wanted to ban all politics-based candidates. I wasn't one of them (and fwiw like almost everyone who lives in Europe my politics are probably closer to hers than to the other political Ms OOT hopefuls - though I don't generally think it's healthy to consider oneself to "have a dog in the fight" of the politics of other countries).

The thing I didn't like was it becoming a 2p2 rather than OOT contest and I thought (and still think) people from this forum would expect me to defend it against that. If Robbie supporters want her to get through then rather than posting her nudes, the most effective thing they can do is recruit voters from some MAGA subforum that doesn't like AOC. We've lost something when that happens.

I am willing to admit I didn't bother to check eligibility through the repecharge rounds and only started doing it when reports of voters from elsewhere started to come in. Now I have software to help me I'm checking all newly appearing voters who haven't voted this year or in any of the 2017 threads that were linked from the discussion thread (the 3 new ones who voted in Group B were all eligible).

I'm not going to walk away, but if the consensus is that I'm messing this up and someone else with more standing and respect here wants to finish it off then I'm happy to hand over e.g. from the elimination rounds onwards.

The elimination rounds should be pretty easy to run because you just need to quote the bios/pics of the candidates from the OPs of previous rounds and maybe swap any pictures from the threads where someone has improved things (e.g. I'm going to put first pic of AOC from post 13 of the group A thread instead of picture 3 of her OP).

So it's a definite no to the Toni Lahren wildcard idea?

Do you need to know before you give a view on whether or not I'm messing up?

I wouldn't mind doing krunic's idea of a Ms. OOT / Ms. Politics crossover with all the political candidates/nominees from 2016-2018, with the eligibility criteria as 10 votes in OOT or Politics. I'd only do it as one round though.

If I start it in the gap between Group H starting an the sweet sixteen it might move all the politics talk into that thread so we can get this thread back to important topics like why so many people are voting for candidates who look like men, aren't attainable etc.

Voting in Group G has just commenced.

It's a definite yes, actually. Just make sure it's over in politics. I'm sure Wookie will love it.

I'm fine with how the voting is/has been handled but get this "repecharge" **** outta here.

Lektor, you're not messing this up, and you're doing a great job overall and obviously putting in a ton of work, and we all appreciate it, even the complainers. Thank you for your service.

Now if you could just work on your reading comprehension of last year's rules, that'd be great.

For example, you bolded one part of what you quoted, but ignored the other part:

Can't just ignore the "and a more active contest" tho. Lowering the voting eligibility requirements was meant in part to encourage more votes and/or posts, even from OOT lurkers or occasional browsers. Therefore it does not exclude lowering eligibility requirements to not include a minimum # of OOT posts. Contrary to one of your previous posts, a thread with 15 people posting and 200 voting is definitively less active than one with 15 people posting and 250 people voting, even if one wants to argue about quality.

No rule was changed last year. Nothing in ruleset 2 changes or contradicts anything in ruleset 1. If anything, ruleset 1 is unclear and does not say how much the PAST rules will be relaxed, and what the exact new eligibility requirements will be. That is why ruleset 2 clarifies what they will be.

That's fine if that's what you intended, but is not clear from your nominations OP, and ruleset 1 itself does not imply a 10 OOT post minimum for this year, but rather the opposite, a less than 10 OOT post, which was clarified last year to mean no minimum post # requirement.

Yes, this is obviously what happened, and it is fair. If you just stated that part, and that you were therefore changing the rules from last year's competition, and not actually relaxing the requirements overall like the nominations OP implies other than a few possible exceptions, then there would be no contradiction.

I feel like this is one of those things where the intent is clear, but everyone is asking for things to be spelled out just to be nitty. It's like the rule is "don't be a jerk," and some people are whining that "jerk is too broad. You need to say exactly what behaviors are OK/not OK," while others are bitching that "you said you wouldn't change the rules. Last year it said 'don't be a dick,' not 'jerk.' You changed the rules, you lying liar."

So the OP didn't specify exactly how the 100/10 rule would be relaxed "a bit." So what? Everyone should know that if you fit that criteria, you're fine, and if not it would be a judgement call. If I were Lektor, I'd allow newer voters who seemed to be good faith OOT folks, and disallow gimmicks and drive-by voters.

I also think the nittery of "you didn't check every vote" is dumb. This is a silly little contest, how much work do you want the runner to do? It's bitching like this that makes people unwilling to run games and contests.

Stop being nits, and just let the metaphorical floorman enforce the metaphorical RRoP Rule 2.1: "Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling."

^ To be fair, patron and gregorio are basically saying that while they're right, they can also see it from my side too.

I'm guessing this isn't the time to float my idea of renaming the sweet sixteen to the octofinals?

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/...ish/octofinals

Yup. Which is why I'm calling it nittery.

Right. Someone made a good point about how there were many different possible ways to use a forum. Some of us with a high post count probably should probably lurk more often and post less often.

There were two "ineligible" new voters in Group C (does not affect the ordering). One has a 2005 join date and has never posted in 2p2, one has a 2013 join date and has 11 posts, none of which are in OOT. I'll listen to views ITT but I'm tempted to just accept them as part of the established OOT dark matter and let them continue voting if they want.

it's legitimately ****ing hilarious how triggered AOC gets the maga chuds.

Too much negativity in this thread.

For example AOC is about the right age for me, I'm intelligent, not bad looking, I'm liberal royalty where I come from and I've got the the kind of British accent the American girls all love. Sure she's attainable.

Generally, the actresses are often going to pair up with actors and directors where they can, but the rest are totally attainable - some girl with an instagram isn't looking for her dream instagram boy, it doesn't work like that - women don't look for copies of themselves. Hot girls way outnumber genuinely hot guys and often it's enough to be basically ok in terms of looks, status, kindness etc. For example sometimes they're just hoping to find someone with a sympathetic ear and a vibrating leg.

AOC's main problem in this competition is this smoking gun evidence that's just come out that suggests she might be a closet muslim:


OOT has never elected a muslim Ms. OOT before.

This should be everyone's undertitle

Wait, Lektor is British?

Group H is now up.

Where did you think I was from?

wp sir.