I wanted to vote for whoever was against AoC because that's pretty much how the votes SHOULD be going, but like someone above said, she's somehow up against someone that doesn't do it for me as much as she does, so I guess it's off to the races next round?

This is what I like...two normally pretty women, not ridiculous freaks of nature

AOC has all the vivacity of a young Vivian Vance.

or your leg.

Its been said but I'll echo it: How is AOC up against someone less hot than her at this late stage of the competition? Margot Robbie must be rolling over in her grave.

Reluctantly voting AOC.

fyp

I would wait 90 days for AOC.

I can't tell whether I'm eligible to vote or not, but I do have a highly inappropriate girl crush on AOC, so I'm voting for her anyway.

VR,

You are obviously an eligible voter, and your vote should be counted once Lektor re-agrees to the historically correct rules he previously said he would abide by.

That goes for all posters with 10 OOT posts, who should be eligible voters and should just vote if they wish to.

Lek,

Thoughts?

I'm fine if she wins. Ultimately it's me who let her in and made her number one seed even though people said I shouldn't - because there were plenty of OOT regulars who wanted her as a candidate and she had more seconders than any other candidate.

My only job is to make sure it's Ms. OOT that she's winning, not Ms. 2p2. My role in doing that makes me perceived as being against her (and recognizing that perception is why I crowdsourced the decision on which pics to use in her OP) but I'm pretty confident I would react the same way if it involved another candidate.

Following El Diablo's suggestion, people who've not made the cut as judges but who have a 20 posts in OOT from 1 Jan 2018 to 29 Nov 2018 and want to get involved at this stage can do so.

Then why are you continuing to disqualify hundreds of OOT regs? Disqualifying Politics posters who do not also post in OOT is fine. But you are continuing to intentionally disenfranchise hundreds of OOT regs, which is asinine and immoral, and as 27offsuit says, "this is pretty damning evidence."

Immoral? Maybe unjust. Immoral is taking your criticism way too far.

Who is still disenfranchised that you consider a reg?

If they don't have 20 posts in 2018 up to nominations and haven't been seriously involved in Ms. OOT this year then I'm fine with that.

Hundreds of people, according to this guy:

Whether others agree with this definition of reg or not, it is what you yourself defined it to be, before you didn't like the outcome of your own rules and then changed them multiple times, including a few hours ago. Have some integrity and abide by your word. The excuse you always gave was that it was too hard to check all the new voters. Well, people have stepped up to check them, but you are continuing to change the rules and stack the deck.

Also, even by much more onerous definitions of reg, there are several longtime regs who have posted recently in the discussion thread asking/complaining (and rightfully so) about their disenfranchisement, who remain disenfranchised. And likely many many more, since all of those who feel that way do not necessarily read or post in the discussion thread. It should be obvious that the solution is not to check and post the names of every OOT reg ever in order to qualify them, but to allow all votes and then disqualify those who do not meet the proper eligibility requirements. People have volunteered to help check and disqualify voters to accomplish this, which is the way it has always been done in just about all of Ms OOT history.



This was a troll suggestion. The guy who suggested it also suggested a brand new repechage round with brand new nominees as well as nominees who just lost. He may come back itt and claim otherwise, but he is also a forum-reknown master troll who was making obvious troll suggestions.

I'm not a reg and my vote won't count, but I feel like this clip is relevant.

I think the part that you're missing is that ~everyone that reads/posts in politics also reads/posts in OOT.

Then removing the subset of voters that don't post in OOT should have ~no effect on the result.

Which is why changing the rules and making lists makes no sense, unless you're trying to change the results.

Indeed, I am in the same boat. Plus regardless of what I think of her politics, AOC and I share an alma mater.

Go Terriers

jt217 making some good points.

Lektor, have you updated the eligibility lists according to the post below, which is what you asked for, under the terms you asked for help with?

I understand why the votes are the way they are, but I've always had a thing for Rachel Riley, being pretty, smart, and funny as she is. I watched as much 8 out of 10 Cats Does Countdown as I could from youtube. She has it all.

Current scores:

AOC 138-38 = 100

RR 107-14 = 93

Bump