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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LektorAJ
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".
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.
Quote:
However I think I'm justified in calling it a rule change rather than a mere clarification.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.