Quote:
Originally Posted by El Diablo
Mullen,
I said trying his best, not necessarily succeeding.
Most fair would prob be to just start the whole thing over with clear, 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: a repechage with any candidates potentially impacted by previous voting rules, as well as any overlooked candidates that clearly belonged in the contest.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong
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?
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.