the craziest thing about clarke is, if you actually watch the show, she gets less sexy year over year. so for her to be in this competition now? it's like, wtf show are you even watching? did you see the terminator movie she was in? 3 more months off her diet and melissa mcarthy is beating her out for roles. but that ****in game of thrones, they ****ed up so big hiring her, cause they're stuck with her, she knew she was definitely making it to the end so she's like, "no more topless scenes, and i'm not gonna stay thin anymore, forcing you to awkwardly shoot me any time i'm wearing less than full plate armor". **** her

You’re smart enough to make better arguments than this straw man. Lektor’s objection is to politics posters dunning their threads with requests trolling this contest and then seeing many more votes cast in the AOC brackets than any other. Those facts create at least an inference of a problem.

You can frame the problem differently, but some other process foul isn’t what Lektor is trying to address.

Nor is the Ivanka/Lahren point relevant. Nobody — literally nobody— is objecting to AOC being in the contest. It’s that universally left politics posters are pulling in voters from other forums and asking them to troll the contest, along with their projective masturbation bull**** and racism accusations.

I suspect you’re trolling with all this, but at least some of it seems sincere. Plus you nominated Sara Calixto last year, so you have that going for you.

I’m with you on this issue. I’m not a big Clarke fan, although I did think her season one performance was rather better than the rest of the series. Other than her, they did a fine job casting that show: Tyrion, Jaime, Cersei, Tywin, Theon and several others were perfect for their roles.

The. ****. Is. This?

At the very least she went nude, again, in season 6 which was like 2 years ago. I'm so sad I know this

Rules for thee but not for me

only because the plot forced her to (her clothes burned off), and the entire thing was SO CGI it was embarrassing. like who do they think they're fooling? we've been watching her this whole season this is not what she looks like. and it was all shadows and flames, but i remember being blown away with how ****ty they cgi'd her body in that scene. i'm not counting that as a nude scene at all, that was 90% computer editing.

hate to break it to you but there was never any collusion, howard. believe me.

the only collusion was done by the other side, and i have a lot of evidence, people are sending me some incredible things, and i'll be presenting that evidence to all of you very shortly

You’re almost always funny.

HT,

The most literal reading of the specific sentence quoted by Fabian has you only having to pay off if you are the one to introduce politics talk into a thread. So you could reply to an offhand one-liner political joke with pages and pages of politics talk replies and not have to pay up. Seems against the point of the bet/offer, but that’s the most literal reading of the word inject in that sentence.

I'll be interested to see it free from fabrication of course

I’m against posters who have no inclination to participate in OOT going forward participating just for the lulz of trolling the contest.

I’m just reflecting on El D’s proposal that votes be limited to people with 10 recent OOT posts. I think it would also have improved the contest. Any rule will have some undesirable outcomes.

Had I posted pages and pages of politics talk, I would have paid Fabian instantly and without complaint. Or if my comment ITT encouraged political discussion and somehow demanded a response — as in challenging or responding to a differing political view. My point here was different, and while I did think it was close to the line, I did not think it was over.

I’ve heard from LKJ and gregorio has asked for short briefs by the end of the week.

Or always almost funny.

This is a tough Elite 8 for me. I like Riley the most, and while she's smart and scores well on attainability, she just doesn't have the horsepower in the looks or relevance department. If I'm being honest with myself I don't think she's worthy of the Mrs. OOT title.

The 18 year old chick and the Mudd girl are goners in earlier rounds in any other Mrs. OOT imo, so I guess I'm rooting for a power outage or like a corrupted database during their round...idk.

I don't really like Underwood or Garcia, but they at least have one elite attribute each: hotness. I guess I will begrudgingly give the nod to Underwood (although I voted against her in earlier rounds) b/c I can't support Garcia due to the fact she perpetuates the cartoon sized ass look which I despise.

AOC is an obvious LOL.

Soberano is an easy pick in her Elite 8 round. She's super attractive but not really hot; has decent attainability but pretty much zero relevance imo. Also her Instagram is decidedly meh. What is up with all the product ads....seriously. She's only 21 so ummm maybe she'll become relevant???

Perhaps an inference of a problem, but not necessarily an actual problem. They way to find out if there is an actual problem is to do what just about every other Ms OOT in history has done: examine the voters and disqualify those who do not meet the eligibility requirements, in this case the 100/10 rule. If a Politics poster is not an OOT poster, they should be disqualified. If a Politics poster is also an OOT poster, their vote should count. It is that simple. Lektor previously said this would not be a problem.

However, he then decided mid-competition, with no consultation, to break his own word and make an immoral decision which created an actual problem - arbitrarily disqualifying more than half of the voters and many of OOT's greatest posters. Even if he had the noble intention of not letting non-OOT posters overrun the competition, his execution was abysmal and led to a far, far worse problem than the one he was trying to address.

Both you and Lektor have effectively agreed with the above, by agreeing that my list of disqualified voters should obviously be allowed to vote. But that does not solve the problem, it just demonstrates the magnitude of it and then selectively helps a small portion of those who Lektor never should have disqualified in the first place. There are still an enormous number of correctly eligible voters who remain disenfranchised.

The only fair solution is to allow all voters and then disqualify those who do not meet the 100/10 rule.

Their disenfranchisement is an abstraction. If they ask and wish to vote and meet the criterion, their votes will count and they are not disenfranchised. If they don’t care enough to ask to vote, then their disenfranchisement is immaterial, if only because they don’t care about their votes.

Lektor’s solution is reasonable and fair given the circumstances, ie deliberate trolling requests in politics threads.

If you were putting in the work to run this contest, then I’d line up behind your solution. But you are not, instead devoting long post after long post to criticize it in an unhelpful way. Here, however, Lektor deserves deference.

Your friend,

Howard

Sounds like both people are putting in work and yet old man Howard only wants to recognize the merit of the one he favors

This is false. Even after those on my list were reinstated, multiple other OOT posters who meet the criteria have spoken up, some of them longtime regs, and they remain disenfranchised.

Also, voter suppression is a real thing. If you tell a bunch of people they are not allowed to vote, many of them will not vote or ask to vote, even if they might have wished to or voted otherwise. Also, some people vote in the threads but don't read every post in this lengthy discussion thread, and when they see the wrong and immoral disqualification notice in the OP's of each voting thread, they just get upset and go away, even though they deserve to vote.

You should also note that your position is similar to:
1) All people of X race are disqualified from voting.
2) That's wrong and immoral, they should be allowed to vote!
3) Fine, fine, if any person of X race really wants to vote, they can speak up and ask nicely in a non-voting thread, but we're still gonna post notices in every voting thread that people of X race are not allowed to vote.

Is (3) a fair solution to the problem in (1)?


This is also false. I am criticizing it in the most helpful way possible - by posting the fair solution. Interestingly, it is also the solution that has been used in almost all of Ms OOT history. Also interestingly, it is the solution that Lektor himself always promised to use and said would be no problem to use...until 35 hrs ago, over halfway through the competition.

It is beyond obvious that the only fair solution is to use the rules from the beginning of the competition, which are the same as the rules for almost the entire history of the contest.

This is the most helpful thing that can be posted at this point, until these fair and historical rules are restored.

So far it's been difficult to get people to "help" even by writing bios of the candidates they nominated themselves.

If you're volunteering to help, well so far I've got up to the s16 round with Robbie / Ocasio-Cortez (the one where goofyballer was in another subforum encouraging people to vote regardless of eligiblity as I would sort it out - which I have, just not how he expected.) Please post lists of which of Robbie's voters do and don't meet the 100/10 rule then we'll start work on Ocasio-Cortez's, then we'll move to the next s16 round and so on.

@JohnnyA - the software can just give me a list of people who haven't been checked yet - it can't open up 2p2 and do a search for their OOT posts. If there are a couple of new voters per round that's fine, it only takes a minute. goofyballer took that option off the table though.

If people voted for Lexi Sun, Lieke Martens or Mikaela Shiffrin because they like their sport that's fine. If they went out of OOT to recruit voters it's not.

I'm getting "Database error" when I try to count posts but anyone who meets the criteria El Diablo suggests of having 20 posts in OOT between from 1 Jan 2018 to 29 Nov 2018 should assume their vote will count.

I'm really surprised that Howard would try to lawyer his way out of this with talks of "literal language" and court of law speak. He is well aware of the history, context and spirit of his no politics in OOT freerolls. When we agreed to renew the freeroll, I thought a quick one line agreement was fine, without the need to nail down conditions and clauses etc. I didn't think it was necessary because this isn't babs or mbabs, and I thought Howard and I both perfectly understood what the spirit of "no politics in OOT" meant, as we've been talking about it (and have had freerolls on it) before.

If you don't want to talk politics in OOT, then I suggest not telling OOT that you disagree with AOC's policies. There's a politics forum for that, as you know from the many previous times we've had this discussion.

If we must talk context and interpretation of intent, it's probably worth it to look at the other two posts in the original thread where this freeroll was set up. Again, I can't link to them directly, but the quotes:

"Howard,

In for a new negative freeroll to not bring politics into OOT, perhaps? How about $200 and a year, this time?"

and

"Fabian,

Done."

I think saying "he didn't bring it in, he was just responding to others" is ridiculous, in the babsian "I'm only posting to defend myself" sense. If that's the interpretation the ombudsmen are going with, then fair enough, but at least to me, telling OOT that he disagrees with AOC's policies is a clear violation of our freeroll, and I didn't expect there to be any disagreement tbh.

I'm not going to send any "briefs" by PM as has been suggested, the above will suffice. Curious what you others think.

Wait so now we are changing the rules yet again?

Lololololololol

Lol PVN doing a good job instead

If I and/or others help, then you agree to (1) return to the historical 100/10 rule that you already said you would abide by, (2) eliminate the mid-competition (1/13) rules change, and (3) not change these rules going forward?

Wookie,

All lektor is trying to do is to limit the voters to current OOT participants, that’s all. I think that’s reasonable given the spirit of the contest.