Assuming the spirit of the contest is the OOT community voting on their preferred candidate, how does excluding a large portion of longtime OOT regulars/contributors from voting accomplish that?

El D,

FWIW I believe every post of yours is entirely sincere.

Are these members mostly out to troll a contest? Guess again sweety.

This seems fair to the people who already voted and have seen their votes diluted due to the voter fraud.

Im not even sure I can figure this out. Only one answer is acceptable.

Lol no it is not because this is OOT mother****ers! We have RULES around here. Has Dids returned from his hiatus after being triggered to the moons of saturn?

If there are people fitting that profile missing from patron's list then they can ask ITT to be added.

El Diablo's suggestion of at least 20 posts in OOT in 2018 prior to nominations opening seems about right.

OTOH people who used to post here 10 years ago before they decided it wasn't the place for them should start their own Ms. Politics, Ms. The Lounge or whatever.

Obviously. Your pony is pretty slow, El D, this has been entirely clear for a while.

Agreed, arbitrary bannings and driving away any strong female presence is completely in the spirit of OOT.

I’m starting to think this contest is a farce.

When someone pointed that out to Lektor, he added a stack of people to the list without regard to who they would vote for. So he has tried to fix that particular problem. At the same time, It’s absolutely clear that some number of politics *******s want to export their sanctimonious trolling stupidity over here. Phrased that way, what do you think Lektor should have done to stem the troll invasion?

Mullen,


I said trying his best, not necessarily succeeding.

Most fair would prob be to just start the whole thing over with clear and simple voting rules.

But that’s a whole big ordeal and throws out a lot of time and effort already spent by many.

That’s why the solution is clear. Newly updated clear and simple voting rules, with a repechage including any candidates potentially impacted by previous voting rules, as well as any overlooked candidates that clearly belonged in the contest.

Clinton is kinda hot ...

The issue with that solution is the changing of the rules mid-contest to fit a specific narrative. I agree this is all super arduous, but the best solution would have been to let this contest play out and simply amend the rules for next year. Recounting each individual vote for every candidate seems like a really time consuming process.


The same way it’s always been - a minimum amount of lifetime/recent posts in OOT. I can’t recall specific rules but I think it maybe was 50 lifetime posts and 10 in the last year. That weeds out any “trolls”. I suppose that doesn’t exclude Politics (or other forums) regulars that also post in OOT but it seems like those people should be eligible assuming they reasonably contribute.

If it’s just going to be OOT-only groupthink, conduct a private, invite only vote and that would be better.

I mean the fact that the list had to get posted is kind of proof that the rule change is bad, no? If there’s that many exceptions surely it indicates that the rule change was flawed.

Lek this is pretty damning evidence.

FTR I am still qualified because I voted in all polls. I'm also looking forward to banning a lot of people.

So people are going to be required to have checked that janky ass list before they vote or eat a ban? LOL

Not sure why I should have to request anything. Just make it private.

Granted I haven’t posted much in oot since getting scammed by 27, ElD and possibly banks but I have never posted in politics in ~20 years on this site.

And you still owe me $.01.

Better square that up before the SB prop bet starts up DAWG.

Mullen,

My understanding was the reason for lektor’s changes was an influx of voters who didn’t meet voting qualification criteria and it being too much of a pain to verify them all individually. If voters met qualification criteria, but the issue is simply behind the scenes lobbying for a candidate, I don’t see a problem with those votes.

More importantly, how can anyone argue against adding a repechage to this year’s contest?

No, they are going to be banned when they eventually post something political, which they always do.

Long time poster, first time post reporter here. Just wanted to say that I am glad you're working on cleaning things up. However, it seems as if there is a systematic bias in who you intend to enforce rules against. I'd encourage you to take an equally hardline stance on posters who violate other forum rules, especially ones that are also against the site's TOS. I reported one such post that was problematic.

I think you may be misreading. I do not think you get banned if you vote while ineligible, but Lektor will ignore your vote. 27 is threatening a ban for anyone who posts about politics. I am likely close to an edge on this point, as I often am, and if I step over the line, I suspect 27 will take some mild pleasure in temp-banning me.

LektorAJ, on the other hand, is a Politics regular, which is part of what makes this whole carcrash so very entertaining.

Speaking of your inevitable banning, where the heck is Fabian?

Lektor said he found some software to make checking voter eligibility easy, so that isn't the reason for the change. It's simply as you state in your second sentence, that there are qualified voters who he doesn't want voting due to his belief that there is a concerted politics push for AOC (despite that fact that the evidence doesn't really support this as the list of AOC voters includes tons of people who never post in politics).

Yeah, don’t think I’ve ever posted in Politics. If I have, under 10 posts lifetime.

I did find a Lektor post in politics from late December, discussing AOC and saying anyone with 10 posts in OOT prior to the contest was indeed eligible to vote. He noted however, that she was a gimmick candidate likely to fail, just like Ivanka and Tomi Lahren.

That begs the question - what changed in a couple weeks to invalidate the previously stated 10 post rule?

I'm starting to question if Scarlet Johansson really was the winner of Ms OOT 2012.

Since lektor’s objective is targeted disenfranchisement of voters who also post in the politics forum, you should be fine.