Yep agree - definite darkhorse

I suggest only allow contests run by and votes from people who have posted in oot for at least five years on their current account.

Anything else is suspect.

Voting is underway in Group E.

There are 20 votes for AOC (and 1 for Miniutti) in group A from ineligible voters (listed in the thread). So the final order for that group is

1. Miniutti (faces subchampion of group B - likely Lili Simmons)
2. AOC (faces champion of group B - likely Margot Robbie)

Good plan.

So let me get this straight:

• You stated this contest by referring to the rules I used last year, which have no minimum OOT posts requirement.
• When you didn't like how the AOC round was going, you decided to change the rules in the middle of a round to make it a minimum of 10 posts in OOT.
• At some point you announce you'll be changing the rules "from the next round onwards"
• And then somewhere along the line you cut 20 votes from AOC in this round?

Do you even know what rules you're enforcing? I thought somewhere along the line you decided to make it minimum 10 posts in OOT, but then why is pvn ineligible? He has over 250 posts in OOT in the last year and a half. Does he not qualify under the rule below, whatever it's supposed to mean (I can't even tell if this is a serious post or irony)?
Then someone suggests:
(which would be the most restrictive terms even in a Ms OOT) and you reply So have you changed the rules again to what markksman proposed? Do you even know? Or will you just see how things go next round and keep changing the rules as needed?

There is nothing wrong with limiting who can vote if results are being hijacked from posters in another forum. But to change the rules (3 or 4 times--can anyone really tell how many times you've changed the rules so far?) in the middle of a round once the voting is well underway is outrageous.

There is nothing worse in a Ms OOT than everyone seeing vote totals showing the poll going one way, and then at the end they learn that the vote totals were just fiction all along. Nobody wants a contest where you can't follow the results and then someone steps in at the end and tells you who has won.

At least you've managed to eventually get around to a set of rules that ensure the candidate you want to lose goes up in the next round against the candidate most likely to win the whole thing, so job well done I guess. If things go as planned next round, you may not even need to ever figure out what the actual rules are.

I think you need to chill, gregorio.

It was a mistake to allow in the first place nominees such as AOC or Lahren for obvious reasons.

I - and some others - could see the disaster coming, but he didn't and that's on him. At that point however he made the right call, which was to find a FAIR way to reduce the impact of the troll votes coming from another subforum. He could have just said **** it, and either let AOC go all the way, or take the other easy way and straight remove her from the competition. Instead he went for the more complicated, fairer way, to make things right.

I don't think rules are gonna change again, and I don't think he's trying to rig the votes in favor/against X or Y candidate. (Would anyone really try THAT hard? lol) It's just about correcting a mistake. I'm sure you know all that very well, so not sure if you're just disappointed it's now gonna be harder troll ?

Apparently appreciating a woman as something other than a sex object is trolling. K.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...-nsfw-1729634/

At least 100 posts, and at least 10 in OOT. Exceptions for people who bring value to the nomination thread.

Unless I've gone wrong none of 20 people listed in my post in the Group A thread qualify.

Even so, the point of having such lax rules IMHO is to avoid shutting out people who are new OOTers - rather than to allow drive-by votes from other subforums.

It was pretty time consuming to check the post counts when there were 67 drive-by votes for AOC and you can only do a search every 15 seconds, so I'd like to change the eligibility rules to something more easily policeable and that more closely defines who's an OOTer. If there is a consensus ITT against changing the rules (and no change has occurred yet) then I won't do it.

The main thing that will kill AOC is not going up against Robbie - its that she has a base of 90 eligible voters that isn't going to expand - of which 47 are people from another thread who will soon be bored with their thread being derailed by discussion of a beauty contest.

Not that I care anyway, I'd vote for her myself ahead of e.g. Brosnahan or Delevignge. I accepted her as a candidate and made her number 1 seed. That she attracts political controversy is fine with me - as long as the controversy is between people from this subforum and not elsewhere.

Not too late to fix this travesty and cancel Ms OOT 2018.
Its 2019 now afterall

Who the **** are you to tell me to chill, and what are those obvious reasons? Lahren was in Ms OOT two years ago along with Ivanka. Nobody was crying about them being in it back then.

They are not troll votes Pervy mcprrverson.

Okay. So the contest is over as you have just made yourself ineligible to run it and vote in it.

I agree changing the rules because you don’t like the results is lol.

I’m curious though why this bothers you so much? The whole contest is fairly dumb anyway. And honestly, while most of the women in this contest would delight in their inclusion, since their entire existence revolves around being objectified, I doubt AOC is one of them.

bc they are good looking and fiscally responsible

pvn was there incorrectly. Should be 19 people.

Given it's so controversial probably it's going to be best to keep gregorio's thing of 10 posts in OOT and 100 total, or valuable participation in the nomination thread.

I've written an app to help me, now I can just paste the voter list in and get it to tell me who the new voters are each time. There aren't normally many so it's not going to be too much work.

Dunno whose gimmick accounts these are, but they should be DQ'd from participating.

This, in a nutshell, shows why we need voter ID laws.

Wouldn't this be a Miss Politics poll instead? I'd sincerely doubt you would allow due to that objectifying women thing but as said before you politics regs seem to be ok with this by advancing AOC to another round.

Ms OOT has always been about more than strictly looks (cf. annual debates/whining about relevance and attainability, the disqualification of women in certain professions, etc.). Should I be forbidden from taking into account Hedy Lamar's contributions to torpedo warfare when voting for Ms OOT 1944?

If anything, I may have underestimated. Need more popcorn.

i have no choice but to auto vote aoc in every round from now on in order to combat this injustice

Yes attainability has been a significant factor together with attractiveness. How do you think AOC ranks for attainability? You reckon she'd bunker up with one of us plebs?

I think you should eliminate everyone's votes but mine.

Good job missing the point.

lolbundy

No I got it - beauty is only a very minor part of the criteria for you politics regs.