OOT Survivor VII RJ vs. DB / Idi vs. Mr. Francis

[bonds]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

Discussion and rulings with [censored] are finished. The final vote count is

Exile DB 124
Exile RJ 123

[censored] will post more about any rulings that took place, and I will make the spreadsheet available as soon as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rigged.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]


[censored] it doesn't matter. Just go with the actual results without screwing around and changing the rules. He loses next time (to hopefully Diablo).

[/ QUOTE ]

fwiw, [censored] made this ruling without knowing what the tally was.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored],

It seems like changing the voting rules after voting is one of the few things db could use to wiggle out of the result, and actually have a legit argument.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hahahahaha....tomorrow DB will be posting in OOT saying he "doesn't recognize the results," as they are obviously tainted by bias.

In related news, El D's head explodes.

[epiLog]

[ QUOTE ]
All - in the challenge thread, there was absolutely no mention of barring gimmick accounts from voting. Additionally, the OP in this thread mentions nothing of gimmick accounts, and cites the 100 minimum post/min reg. date as criteria.

If ANY account meets the 100 min. post/10-1-06 reg date, their vote should be allowed to stand.

[/ QUOTE ]

[[censored]]

All,

i dont see this as changing the rules. when I first made survivor it was my intention that gimmick accounts, multiple accunts would not be a factor, this is why I made the voting process the way I did. you will also notice that non_comformist did not vote.

there were two instances idi, and neal both who supported db. idi's votes was counted (as I do not know if the main account voted), neal's was not. thus it broke both ways

[skunkworks]

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, [censored] made this ruling without knowing what the tally was and opening multiple SnGs to negate his bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Hoya]

[ QUOTE ]
All - in the challenge thread, there was absolutely no mention of barring gimmick accounts from voting. Additionally, the OP in this thread mentions nothing of gimmick accounts, and cites the 100 minimum post/min reg. date as criteria.

If ANY account meets the 100 min. post/10-1-06 reg date, their vote should be allowed to stand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice, NOW we have drama.

[TheMetetron]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling this is going to be Gore in Florida 2000 all over again, where someone with the last name Sklansky is playing the part of the judiciary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like you were right.

[onthebutton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[censored] it doesn't matter. Just go with the actual results without screwing around and changing the rules. He loses next time (to hopefully Diablo).

[/ QUOTE ]

fwiw, [censored] made this ruling without knowing what the tally was.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but everyone assumed that if there were ANY shenanigans concerning gimmicks, they would favor diebitter.

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Dids. Diebitter clearly stated his terms in the other thread. There was nothing in there prohibiting gimmicks. In fact, some posters, including El D, were worried that the gimmicks would help carry Diebitter in the match. As much as I want to see RJ stay and Diebitter go, it's unfair to change the rules now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahah so let me get this straight - gimmicks can't vote, but they can be actual participants in OOT Survivors [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

-Al