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)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LektorAJ
Because it's difficult to count "posts ever" by subforum from a non-mod account [it's not], under Rule 7 of the Ms. OOT regulations I am introducing a new enhanced voter eligibility determination system from the Sweet Sixteen onwards. Software is currently being developed to encode certain key criteria and run it.
Like the current system it will be designed so as to enable all OOTers to vote.
Then someone suggests:
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
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.
(which would be the most restrictive terms even in a Ms OOT) and you reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by LektorAJ
Good plan.
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.