Character of the Week

[Polehaus53]

I don't think Tea will ever compile the results, but I did.

Wow! Thanks, Bob! This is an impressive compilation! It is very clear to read and well-organinzed. It looks like a lot of work went into it. Thank you for doing that, it is much appreciated!

I like your guideline recommendations you have written out. I’m going to go through some of your points to give feedback and to get some clarification:

1) ROUND TIMING/MANAGEMENT
a) There should be a set time rounds end and begin. Traditionally it is sometime on Saturday or Sunday, but a specific set time would improve things. I would recommend it be sometime between Sunday sunset and Monday sunrise, but the details should be decided by y'all.

Yes, a set time for each round would help. I agree with you about it being between Sunday sunset and Monday sunrise. That seems like an adequate amount of time. A specific time of when voting ends might help, though. Say 12:00am EST?

b) As a sanity-checking practice, it should be made clear when voting for a round is beginning. Perhaps the round numbers could be used - e.g. 'Round #X is over and the winner is Bob; round #Y is beginning". The first person on Monday should probably be the one to announce the previous week's winner, ending the previous week and starting the new one at once.

I like this. Stating what is ended using the number, announcing the winner and then saying that the new round is beginning would definitely help keep track of everything. But cooperation from all participants would be needed if the first person to post on Monday is supposed to be the one posting all this.

c) Always look at the actual dates when evaluating whether a round is ongoing; don't just take someone's word for it.
d) If a lot of time elapses between one round and another, the new poster should still give the final results for the last round, the same as if it had happened recently.

I agree on both two points: Yes, others may make a mistake, so everyone should check the calendar to be sure that a round is still going on. I like the second one, Point 1d, which states that if a lot of time passes, then the new poster would still need to give the results in the proper format from above. This will work well if we ever accidentally miss a week. Again, cooperation with getting the correct format will be needed from the person posting.

The only problem I can see with Point 1d is that if this topic abruptly goes dead for an extremely long period of time in the middle of a voting period, a new member may revive this topic without looking at the previous posts and may not realize they need to post the results for that previous week. This is probably an inevitable problem, but hopefully if we use correct format consistently, then it will help make this clear.

e) If a round begins late, say, on a Thursday, it should simply be a short round. That is, the hard rule of 'the round ends on such and such a time on the weekend' should always remain in play. In practice, the rounds are too difficult to manage any other way, even if 168 hours per round would be more fair.

I completely agree with this. Keeping the timing is important and would help keep track of rounds better. When round #63 started late in the week (on Tuesday), I nominated Bart and made sure voting ended on the day it usually started (Sunday) without having it drag out another week. I agree with you that it’s the best way to manage each round.

2) VOTING AND VOTE-COUNTING REGULATIONS
a) When voting for someone, a member should put the character they're voting for's name in a distinctive fashion, like bold text. Nobody should have to guess or assume your vote.

Yes, I like this. Keeping voting distinctive is important. A person making clear statement of, “I vote Smith” with the character written in bold letters should make it pretty obvious as to the person they are voting for.

b) Nominations should always necessarily include a vote for that character.

I’m slightly confused about this one. Can you please clarify? When you say, “include a vote for their character”, do you mean that a person will need to make two separate statements, one saying “I nominate Jay and then another one saying, “I vote Jay”? Or could it just be assumed that the person is also voting for the character they nominated without making another statement that they vote for the person they nominated? I always assumed that nominating a character was the same as casting your one vote.

c) Roll calls are useful for establishing accurate vote counts. A good 'closing' post for a round should probably include each vote, in turn, and the names of those who voted for them. This makes it easier to account for vote-changing.

A list of the characters each person voted for sounds good. So, the first person who posts at the end of the week would also include this list, I suppose?

d) There is a common practice of counting the votes while the round is ongoing. Sometimes this is helpful, but often it just confuses people, especially when someone misses a vote or two (as happens frequently), counts both votes from members who have changed their vote, or includes their own new vote in the total. If you do count votes while the round is ongoing, I strongly recommend that you do it with a complete roll call, not just a flat assertion like "x - 5, y - 4".

Good point. It is not really necessary for the results so far to be counted in the middle of the week. If we do, an additional roll call makes sense.

e) Roll calls and greater awareness of what round it is will go a long way towards protecting against this, but if you voted in a round before, and change your vote, it should be customary to note that you are changing your vote from x and instead voting for y. It might not be strictly necessary, but it makes counting things easier.

I also agree with this one. A clear statement would definitely help keep track of who switched their votes.

3) MISC.
a) Off-topic chatter should be in other threads. Although I'm not sure what SS's policy is, it seems like it would be better to make a 'Character of the week' chat thread than to clutter things up here.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. I completely agree that off-topic chatter should be in different threads. But what exactly do you mean by making a ‘Character of the Week’ chat thread? Creating a new topic for any discussion related to this topic? I don’t understand.
Also, what do you mean by “Off-topic chatter”? Would reasoning as to why a character deserves to be the winner be considered off-topic? While I agree that discussions about life events (such as crashing bikes into fences) or anything else not related to electing a character are entirely off-topic in this thread, I think that discussion about why a character deserves to be Character of the week is relevant. Do you mean that discussion about that deserves a separate thread?

4) PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RULES + commentary
a) Nelson proposed that previous winners should not be able to repeat, and people generally agreed to this rule I’d be in favor of this rule.

I also agree with this. Although I think it would help to reset everything and have previous winners become available for nomination again. It has been more than five years since some of those characters have won. Maybe we can make a rule that says if a certain amount of time passes then previous winners can be nominated again?

b) Bethany Shepard suggested that there be a 3-character limit on nominations, but nobody else really seemed to respond

I’m not sure I’d be a fan of this either. But I’m willing to discuss it.




I agree with mostly all of these guidelines. I’m going to summarize everything; let me know if I got this right:

Voting begins at a specific time on Sunday and would end on Monday of the next week. The first person to post on Monday would make a post that includes the round number that ended, the winner of that round in bold, colored lettering, a list of the participant’s votes in that round, the numbered round that is now beginning, and a clear statement of who is being nominated with the character being written in bold letters. It would look something like this:

Round #164 is over and the winner is Buck Oliver.

Person #1 voted for Jay Smouse.
Person #2, #3, and #4 voted for Buck Oliver.
Person #5 voted for John Whittaker but changed their vote to Matthew Parker.

Round #165 is now beginning. This week, I nominate Zoe Grant.

Everyone else will either nominate or vote with their characters written in bold letters. If anyone wants to change their votes, they must make a clear statement indicating what they are changing their vote to.
A roll call of who has voted for who so far is required if anyone wants to count the current results in the middle of the week.
If the voting for the week starts late, the round will still conclude on usual ending date, which is Monday.
Previous winners will not be available to nominate again.
Anything off-topic should be moved to a different thread.
(I think I covered everything.)


Again, the main thing that is needed is cooperation from all participants to use the correct format when it comes to nominating characters and starting a new week if they are the first person to post at the end of the allotted voting time. If we consistently keep this format, then there should not be a problem.

Now, there are some things that we need to figure out:
I suggest we have a specific time that the voting period ends. I propose 12:00am EST, since that’s the time zone that the Soda Shop is set to whenever I’m not logged in.
Bob suggested that a character who has already won cannot be nominated again. I suggested this be changed to the winning character becoming available for nomination again after a certain amount of time passes. Would everyone agree with this idea?




Anyway, those are my thoughts on the guidelines. I agree with mostly everything Bob suggested, but I’d like to know other people’s input. What does everyone else think?

Thanks again for doing this, Bob!

[Bob]

1) ROUND TIMING/MANAGEMENT
a) There should be a set time rounds end and begin. Traditionally it is sometime on Saturday or Sunday, but a specific set time would improve things. I would recommend it be sometime between Sunday sunset and Monday sunrise, but the details should be decided by y'all.

Yes, a set time for each round would help. I agree with you about it being between Sunday sunset and Monday sunrise. That seems like an adequate amount of time. A specific time of when voting ends might help, though. Say 12:00am EST?

Ja, I was hoping that someone would recommend a specific point in time, like midnight; that was one of the 'details'. I just didn't want to impose it on anyone, especially since I haven't actually played the game prior to this point, so I left the point of what specific time open for y'all's decision.

But cooperation from all participants would be needed if the first person to post on Monday is supposed to be the one posting all this.

That's the key flaw in this (and many other similar) proposals, that it requires people to actually follow these recommendations and do the work to implement them. I think it can be done.

b) Nominations should always necessarily include a vote for that character.

I’m slightly confused about this one. Can you please clarify? When you say, “include a vote for their character”, do you mean that a person will need to make two separate statements, one saying “I nominate Jay and then another one saying, “I vote Jay”? Or could it just be assumed that the person is also voting for the character they nominated without making another statement that they vote for the person they nominated? I always assumed that nominating a character was the same as casting your one vote.

I intended it to mean in the sense that a nomination is the same as a vote.
Most people have made the same assumption, and in practice that is how it usually works (and how I counted up most of the votes). However, I don't know that it was ever explicitly stated, and there have been a few times when someone nominated a character while explicitly voting for someone else. Furthermore, there's been a few times when someone 'nominated and voted' for someone, implying that they felt it was possible to nominate without voting. If you don't think your nominee deserves your vote, of course, it's hard to make the case that anyone else should vote for them, so these kinds of nominations have never had much of an impact. But I feel it is worth clarifying this and closing this 'loophole'.

A list of the characters each person voted for sounds good. So, the first person who posts at the end of the week would also include this list, I suppose?

That's right.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. I completely agree that off-topic chatter should be in different threads. But what exactly do you mean by making a ‘Character of the Week’ chat thread? Creating a new topic for any discussion related to this topic? I don’t understand.
Also, what do you mean by “Off-topic chatter”? Would reasoning as to why a character deserves to be the winner be considered off-topic? While I agree that discussions about life events (such as crashing bikes into fences) or anything else not related to electing a character are entirely off-topic in this thread, I think that discussion about why a character deserves to be Character of the week is relevant. Do you mean that discussion about that deserves a separate thread?

Well, I think this recommendation was largely brought about by my observation of some of the earlier posts, where there were at least a couple of occasions where members then jumped off into a discussion not having anything to do with voting or AIO characters. These conversations were often inspired by events here and could be said to 'proceed' from this thread, so it is technically 'Character of the Week' chat, and for the sake of organization and order, might be appropriate in a CotW thread on another board (presumably the Courtyard), to denote that CotW related events are the cause of the discussion.

Naturally, things that pertain to voting and AIO characters (specifically, the AIO characters who are being nominated) are appropriate here.

a) Nelson proposed that previous winners should not be able to repeat

I also agree with this. Although I think it would help to reset everything and have previous winners become available for nomination again. It has been more than five years since some of those characters have won. Maybe we can make a rule that says if a certain amount of time passes then previous winners can be nominated again?

Bob suggested that a character who has already won cannot be nominated again. I suggested this be changed to the winning character becoming available for nomination again after a certain amount of time passes. Would everyone agree with this idea?

From reading your response and your summary, it seems you might have taken this to mean, 'Previous winners cannot win again (or at least not until some point in time long after their win)'.

However, Nelson's proposal (#23) (not mine!) wasn't that previous winners (in general) can't win again, it was that "the previous winner can't enter in the newest contest". In other words, the wording only seems to block a single character, the one who won the previous contest (that is, the contest immediately before the current/ newest contest), from entering the current contest. So, it blocks consecutive, aka, "repeat" or "repeated" wins.

If anyone needs more proof that's what it meant: Nobody at the time interpreted that to mean that Emily couldn't be nominated or win other contests in the near future. Emily won #27, apparently without protest from either Nelson or PF (who were there when the rule was proposed). When Aftershocker asked about whether they could vote for Emily on round #29, not too long after Nelson's post, the consensus seemed to be 'why not'. That could be interpreted as the players forgetting about the new rule, but I'm more inclined to believe that they understood it to be less strict than a universal ban on previous winners, especially since the game at the time tended to rely on appointed leaders to help regulate the game. Even if newbies didn't notice the oversight, the regulars should have; the fact that they (especially Nelson) didn't see any contradiction implies that there wasn't one.

Now, it seems that other people have proposed a long-term ban on previous winners. Tea did, for instance, at the time he talked about compiling the list, which might have influenced your understanding, of both the rule and my discussion of it. I didn't notice Tea's proposal at the time I made my post, or I would have included it as a separate rule proposal, with commentary, like so:

c) T.S. proposed not allowing repeat nominations if a character has already won in a particular year. Whether the rule is good or bad depends on your perspective, what you think this game is about. If you think that it's exclusively about giving as wide a variety of characters recognition as possible, one for each week of the year, then it stands to reason that a character might only be allowed to win periodically. If it's about almost anything else, then there's not really a reason to restrict voting that way.

I agree with mostly all of these guidelines. I’m going to summarize everything; let me know if I got this right:

Voting begins at a specific time on Sunday and would end on Monday of the next week. The first person to post on Monday would make a post that includes the round number that ended, the winner of that round in bold, colored lettering, a list of the participant’s votes in that round, the numbered round that is now beginning, and a clear statement of who is being nominated with the character being written in bold letters. It would look something like this:

Round #164 is over and the winner is Buck Oliver.

Person #1 voted for Jay Smouse.
Person #2, #3, and #4 voted for Buck Oliver.
Person #5 voted for John Whittaker but changed their vote to Matthew Parker.

Round #165 is now beginning. This week, I nominate Zoe Grant.

Everyone else will either nominate or vote with their characters written in bold letters. If anyone wants to change their votes, they must make a clear statement indicating what they are changing their vote to.
A roll call of who has voted for who so far is required if anyone wants to count the current results in the middle of the week.
If the voting for the week starts late, the round will still conclude on usual ending date, which is Monday.
Previous winners will not be available to nominate again.
Anything off-topic should be moved to a different thread.
(I think I covered everything.)

The main things I'd note, not including things I addressed earlier in this post (especially nominations for previous winners):
1. I didn't intend to make the thing about bold or colored text prescriptive just because that's how I did it in my examples. The main thing is that it needs to stand out clearly in some way. Bold and/or colored text is a reasonable way to do that, and it arguably may even be the best way. However, I'm not sure it has to be the only way. I would use a phrase meaning something like 'in a distinctive manner' in all of the places where the summary reads 'bold', 'colored', or 'bold and colored'.
2. The times in this summary aren't quite synced; presently, it implies that voting for a round begins before the previous one ends. It should read something like "voting for a round begins at x time, and ends the same time of the next week".
3. On the manner roll calls are done, I would outline and clarify the recommended format in a way that is like the style I used in my summary.

Listing off everyone's votes, one at a time, admittedly seems a bit cumbersome, but it involves an attention to detail that is conducive to writing a good closing summary, and, importantly, the results directly correspond to the actual vote posts people made (and are thus easy to double-check). The implication is that the member went to the start of the round and carefully wrote down each vote in turn. Although I didn't recommend making the bold/colored text mandatory (solely on the grounds of that being how I did it in my examples), I do strongly recommend this style of roll call in this fashion, because it seems the best and most future-proof way to verify, short of personally rereading the actual posts, that the final listed results are the legitimate ones.

Here is an amended summary with your content that's done in the format I used. I threw in some different formatting options, to show what distinctive text might look like that is not bold, or colored.

Round #164 is over, and the winner is Buck Oliver.

Member_2 voted for Buck Oliver (1).
Member_1 voted for Jay Smouse (1).
Member_5 voted for John Whittaker (1).
Member_3 voted for Buck Oliver (2).
Member_4 voted for Buck Oliver (3).
Member_5 voted for Matthew Parker (1), changing from John Whittaker (0).

Round #165 is now beginning. This week, I nominate Zoe Grant.

At this point I might also note that the person who makes the first Monday post probably shouldn't be required to nominate someone.

I suggest we have a specific time that the voting period ends. I propose 12:00am EST, since that’s the time zone that the Soda Shop is set to whenever I’m not logged in.

That seems like a fair basis for determining a time zone, and midnight is an easy time to understand. I'm not sure whether a little earlier or a little later mightn't be even better, but any specific time is going to have pros and cons, and one has to be decided upon. The point isn't important enough to belabor (similar to, I'm afraid, other points I've discussed here ).

[Bob]

As the discussion has probably taken the focus away from the contest, I'd like to restore some balance by voting for Emily Jones.

[Polehaus53]

Thanks for the response and for the corrections, Bob!

I intended it to mean in the sense that a nomination is the same as a vote.

Thanks for confirming that. Just wanted to make sure.

what exactly do you mean by making a ‘Character of the Week’ chat thread? Creating a new topic for any discussion related to this topic? I don’t understand.
Also, what do you mean by “Off-topic chatter”? Would reasoning as to why a character deserves to be the winner be considered off-topic? While I agree that discussions about life events (such as crashing bikes into fences) or anything else not related to electing a character are entirely off-topic in this thread, I think that discussion about why a character deserves to be Character of the week is relevant. Do you mean that discussion about that deserves a separate thread?

Well, I think this recommendation was largely brought about by my observation of some of the earlier posts, where there were at least a couple of occasions where members then jumped off into a discussion not having anything to do with voting or AIO characters. These conversations were often inspired by events here and could be said to 'proceed' from this thread, so it is technically 'Character of the Week' chat, and for the sake of organization and order, might be appropriate in a CotW thread on another board (presumably the Courtyard), to denote that CotW related events are the cause of the discussion.

Alright. That makes sense. But I think we’ve stayed on topic pretty well so far. If anyone else wants to, they can make the thread.

From reading your response and your summary, it seems you might have taken this to mean, 'Previous winners cannot win again (or at least not until some point in time long after their win)'.

However, Nelson's proposal (#23) (not mine!) wasn't that previous winners (in general) can't win again, it was that "the previous winner can't enter in the newest contest". In other words, the wording only seems to block a single character, the one who won the previous contest (that is, the contest immediately before the current/ newest contest), from entering the current contest. So, it blocks consecutive, aka, "repeat" or "repeated" wins.

Whoops, I completely misunderstood that! Upon rereading, I now understand; The proposed rule was not allowing the winner from the previous round to enter the newest round. Not a permanent prohibition from ever entering again. Tea’s proposal probably gave me the idea. Sorry about that.
And it looks like I also wrongly attributed the idea to you. You're right, it wasn’t your idea, it was Nelson’s. I didn’t mean to make it sound that way.
I apologize for the misunderstandings.

The main things I'd note, not including things I addressed earlier in this post (especially nominations for previous winners):
1. I didn't intend to make the thing about bold or colored text prescriptive just because that's how I did it in my examples. The main thing is that it needs to stand out clearly in some way. Bold and/or colored text is a reasonable way to do that, and it arguably may even be the best way. However, I'm not sure it has to be the only way. I would use a phrase meaning something like 'in a distinctive manner' in all of the places where the summary reads 'bold', 'colored', or 'bold and colored'.

Of course, bold and colored text is not the only way. Just as long it is done in a distinctive way. I can rephrase that. I just liked the way you formatted it in your examples and I’m personally pretty fussy about consistency. But I agree, just as long as it’s done in a distinctive fashion it’s fine.

2. The times in this summary aren't quite synced; presently, it implies that voting for a round begins before the previous one ends. It should read something like "voting for a round begins at x time, and ends the same time of the next week".

Ah, okay. Sorry, I got the dating wrong. So, to get specific, I can say “Voting for a round begins at 12:00am EST on Monday and ends the same time next week.”

3. On the manner roll calls are done, I would outline and clarify the recommended format in a way that is like the style I used in my summary.

Here is an amended summary with your content that's done in the format I used. I threw in some different formatting options, to show what distinctive text might look like that is not bold, or colored.

Round #164 is over, and the winner is Buck Oliver.

Member_2 voted for Buck Oliver (1).
Member_1 voted for Jay Smouse (1).
Member_5 voted for John Whittaker (1).
Member_3 voted for Buck Oliver (2).
Member_4 voted for Buck Oliver (3).
Member_5 voted for Matthew Parker (1), changing from John Whittaker (0).

Round #165 is now beginning. This week, I nominate Zoe Grant.

That’s fine. I like the way that it was done.

At this point I might also note that the person who makes the first Monday post probably shouldn't be required to nominate someone.

Of course, not required. I was the first to post this week and I didn’t nominate anyone. I just included nomination in my example to show how it would look with the formatting.

midnight is an easy time to understand. I'm not sure whether a little earlier or a little later mightn't be even better, but any specific time is going to have pros and cons, and one has to be decided upon.

Yep, I thought midnight would be simple enough. I’m willing to discuss it if anyone wants to do it earlier or later. Since nobody else has said anything, I assume they don’t have a problem with this time.

Alright, I'm going to write out my example again with the appropriate corrections.

Voting for a round begins at 12:00am EST on Monday and ends the same time next week.

Within that time, everyone else will either nominate or vote with their characters written in a distinctive fashion (bold, colored, underlined, large text, etc.). If anyone wants to change their votes, they must make a clear statement indicating what they are changing their vote to.

A roll call of who has voted for who so far is required if anyone wants to count the current results in the middle of the week.

Roll calls must include the name of each member and the character they voted for. If any member changed their vote, write out who they ended up voting for and make a note of the character they had had initially voted. Keep track of the total score while listing each member’s vote.

If the voting for the week starts late, the round will still conclude on usual ending date, Monday 12:00am EST.

The first person to post on Monday makes a post that includes the following:

-the round number that ended
-the winner(s) of that round written in a distinctive manner
-a roll call of the participant’s votes in that round
-the round number that is now beginning
-a clear statement of who is being nominated with the character being written in a distinctive manner

The post would look something like this:

Round #164 is over and the winner is Buck Oliver.

Member_2 voted for Buck Oliver (1).
Member_1 voted for Jay Smouse (1).
Member_5 voted for John Whittaker (1).
Member_3 voted for Buck Oliver (2).
Member_4 voted for Buck Oliver (3).
Member_5 voted for Matthew Parker (1), changing from John Whittaker (0).

Round #165 is now beginning. This week, I nominate Zoe Grant.

The first person to post on Monday is not required to nominate a character if they don't want to.

Winners from the previous round will not be available to nominate for the ongoing round.

Anything off-topic should be moved to a different thread.

I hope I've covered everything correctly.

As the discussion has probably taken the focus away from the contest, I'd like to restore some balance by voting for Emily Jones.

Indeed it has. I also vote for Emily Jones.

[Bob]

It looks good! The only thing I might consider is changing is 'Sunday' to 'Monday', since it is midnight (when that day begins).

____

I thought about nominating someone else, but decided to wait until next week for competition. It's easier now to be an Emily fan than it has ever been, so she would probably win anyway. Besides, I would like Emily to win too, and I don't want to detract from her or another character by making a comparison.

[Bob]

Round #64 is over, and as expected, Emily Jones won unopposed!

Monica Stone: Emily Jones (1)
ASmouseInTheHouse: Emily Jones (2)
Bob: Emily Jones (3)
Polehaus53: Emily Jones (4)

This week is Round #65.

______

Looking through the character nomination list, I was a little surprised to discover this character has never once won, or even been nominated: and yet she's consistently sweet, lovable, the kind of friend (or sister) everyone would like to have. Perhaps nobody wanted to subject her to the rigors of a competition. In my opinion, and I hope everyone will agree, it is past time for Mandy Straussberg to be recognized!

[Polehaus53]

Mandy has never won? That's a surprise. I recently listened to "Seeing Red" and "Split Ends", and I must say that her preformance was excellent. I also vote for Mandy Straussberg!

The only thing I might consider is changing is 'Sunday' to 'Monday', since it is midnight (when that day begins).

I edited it. I feel that Sunday is easier to keep track of, though.

[Bob]

Well, Monday (midnight) does put it 'between Sunday sunset and Monday sunrise'. Besides, this way Sunday is mostly an off day, since most of the activity can be expected to have happened by then, and yet the next round won't start until the day after.

_____

I was slightly surprised that Mandy never won, but very much so that she was never even nominated. Of course, there are other major characters who haven't gotten attention, and with hundreds of characters and only 60+ rounds, it's inevitable that some will fall through the cracks. Probably if voting took place faithfully every week, she would have multiple wins by now. But it still seems odd in light of the fact that Jared, Liz, Trent, Alex, and even Cal Jordan all have wins, and sometimes multiple wins. The only thing I can figure is either 1) people felt that she was too obvious or had plenty of recognition as it was, and/or 2) perhaps she isn't 'exciting' in the way that characters like Emily, Jason, and Jared are, and excitement correlates to character-of-the-week voting. Between people voting for exciting characters and people voting for underdogs, it's somewhat understandable that Mandy might get left out, but it's time to redress that omission.

[ASmouseInTheHouse]

I vote Mandy Straussberg!

[Polehaus53]

Round #65 is over, and the winner by unanimous election is Mandy Straussberg!

Bob voted for: Mandy Straussberg (1).
Polehaus53 voted for: Mandy Straussberg (2).
ASmouseInTheHouse voted for: Mandy Straussberg (3).

Round #66 is now beginning.



This week, I nominate Katrina Meltsner. I recently listened to "For Better or For Worse, Parts 1-2" and I enjoyed hearing her interactions with Eugene. Furthermore, I just looked through Bob's list of characters who have won Character of the Week and it looks like she has never won before! Considering the important impact that she has made in Odyssey by marrying Eugene, I believe she deserves this recognition.

Everyone vote for Katrina Meltsner!

I am the first person to post today (Monday) and I think I have followed everything about this new format correctly to the best of my ability. Anyone can feel free to correct me on anything I may have missed or can imporve upon.

Well, Monday (midnight) does put it 'between Sunday sunset and Monday sunrise'. Besides, this way Sunday is mostly an off day, since most of the activity can be expected to have happened by then, and yet the next round won't start until the day after.

Ah, okay. That makes sense.

[Monica Stone]

It's late in the week but hey, what a great nomination! I also vote for Katrina Meltsner. She's a great character who is criminally underrated and needs to appear again soon! She hasn't appeared since "Lifted Out of Context" (December 2019). She deserves more attention from both fans and the writers!

[djchatswithu]

It's late in the week but hey, what a great nomination! I also vote for Katrina Meltsner. She's a great character who is criminally underrated and needs to appear again soon! She hasn't appeared since "Lifted Out of Context" (December 2019). She deserves more attention from both fans and the writers!

Totally agree, so I also vote Katrina Meltsner (although I am surprised she hasn't been character of the week yet). I think I write more about about her and Eugene as when I was introduced to Odyssey their story was 'woven' throughout the cds/cassettes they lent me.

[MasterLink4eva]

I vote for...
DONNA BARCLAY!!!!!

I feel like Donna is the UNDERRATED member of the Barclay family. She may come off as mean and bossy and first, but she is a very sweet, loving, and caring young lady who has been through a lot. And when paired up with Jimmy, *chef's kiss* comedy gold. SO EVERYONE, VOTE FOR DONNA BARCLAY!!!

[Bob]

For Round #66, the previous round, the winner was Katrina Meltsner, in another unanimous decision.

Polehaus53 voted for: Katrina Meltsner (1).
Monica Stone voted for: Katrina Meltsner (2).
djchatswithu voted for: Katrina Meltsner (3).

Round #67 began this Monday. MasterLink4eva began the cycle by nominating Donna Barclay.

[cheesesoup123]

As weird as this may seem, I vote for Bart Rathbone

RFD:
1. The episodes Bart is in are always very funny. He's a terrible person, yes, but the episodes and what he says are hilarious.
2. Ok, I really loved Bart in Prequels of Love
3. Bart can make anyone laugh

[ASmouseInTheHouse]

I vote Bart Rathbone!

[Bob]

Bart is an okay pick, but he has already won, and quite recently. Donna has never won, but certainly there's no reason why she shouldn't. If her classmates thought enough of her to draft her and nominate her for a position without her knowledge or consent, we should certainly be willing to recognize her, one of the greatest characters, to win a character of the week round.

[Polehaus53]

Good points, Bob. I also vote for Donna Barclay!

[Bob]

Round #67 is over, and Donna Barclay has won the nomination, in a close decision.

MasterLink4eva voted for: Donna Barclay (1).
cheesesoup123 voted for: Bart Rathbone (1).
ASmouseInTheHouse voted for: Bart Rathbone (2).
Bob voted for: Donna Barclay (2).
Polehaus53 voted for: Donna Barclay (3).

Round #68 has now begun.

[cheesesoup123]

I nominate Penny Bassett née Wise because
1. She's really creative
2. She's relatable, her quirky personality is funny too
3. I don't think she's won before
4. She's realistic