Does the Doctor Have a Favourite? [Updated "Who is the Doctorâs Favourite" Tournament Masterpost]
Many fans swear their favourite character is also the Doctorâs favourite. Others swear that the Doctor doesnât really have a favourite at all. Both of these concepts often serve viewer comfort rather than textual analysis of a very complicated and imperfect sci-fi character. I want to analyze the question in a fair way.
One particular traditional-style tournament tested this, but it was based on opinion only rather than textual evidence. I set out on a mission almost a year ago to try and run a tournament on Tumblr that forces participants to vote on evidence rather than simply picking their preferred character directly or voted against a disliked character directly. That mission continues. Read below for character profiles, the evolution of the tournament, and rules.Â
if this tournament interests you, please share or reblog this new Masterpost so everyone is updated.
The Evolution of the Tournament
This project began as a bracket-style tournament. Contestants from Classic Who, the Expanded Universe, and Modern Who were all chosen based on who seemed to have the strongest rational arguments made in their favour on the traditional pollâarguments that deserved to have their own voice rather than be swallowed up by pure bias. The aim was to give lesser-known and controversial characters a fair shot.
At first, Ace McShane and Fitz Kreiner came out victorious against Amy Pond and Clara Oswald in their one-on-one face-offs. However, when Rose Tyler and Charley Pollard went head-to-head, it became clear that there was a much higher potential volume of evidence for certain characters than I initially expected. I realized that what mattered most was not individual head-to-heads on short one- or two-week submission time spans, but rather providing ample opportunity for every possible argument to be made for each character.
Moving Away from Brackets
My first revision was to allow redemption rounds, giving characters like Amy and Clara a second chance to gain arguments from users who had missed the initial call for submissions. During that time, I also gave other characters more chances based on conversations with their most passionate fans about whether everything there was to be said about them had actually been said.
Over the course of the entire tournament, the brackets proved redundant. Doing my best to give each character as much of a chance as possible, Amy Pond, Clara Oswald, and Rose Tyler have emerged as the most likely to be the Doctorâs favourite.
Amy Pond and Clara Oswald have had months of me actively recruiting submissions, whereas Roseâs recruitment phase was limited by the original bracket format. To simplify things, I am opening up one more month of submissions for ANY contestants. I am focusing primarily on recruiting for Amy, Clara, and Rose since the winner will likely be one or more of them. But I will take submissions for anyone at this point and am open to things shifting. Just keep in mind that the odds arenât great that the winner will be anyone else besides Amy, Clara, or Rose unless a lot of submissions roll in for someone else. Still, itâs good to have every possible argument recorded for everyone.
I opened up for new submissions for a month a couple weeks ago, but had no new submissions for anyone. So, I will restart the month now under this much more organized post. Scroll to see their contestant profiles so you know whatâs already been submitted. You may submit propaganda for ANY character mentioned in this post as long as you understand I am only doing full detailed polls for those with 50 or more submissions. Which only applies to the top three characters right now.
Honorable Mentions & Special Categories
Every character in this tournamentâand even many of those who didnât make the cut to be part of the main bracketâmean a great deal to the Doctor and the show. Despite my pursuit of either a single winner or a close tie within our obvious top three, I want to have special mentions and runner-up positions for everyone I can. Feel free to submit ideas for those as well!
More complicated figures like the TARDIS, River Song, and the Master will have their own methodology to compare against the leaderboard, and I will run those as breaks from the final three-way vote.
Full list of contenders and links to their info
Below, this post as well as another separate character profile post will include links to each main contestantâs profile, alongside explanations for those eligible for a different method of comparison or special mention. Details will include:
⢠Arguments submitted for them.
⢠What category they currently fall under
⢠Biases in their favour or against them.
Characters are broken down into three categories:
Top contenders: these characters have 50 or more arguments and are the front runners. Every valid argument submitted for them will be rated via poll. 2.Underdogs: these characters may have some arguments that have been polled but they may also have some default scores of 6 since they are currently unlikely to be a top contender and I need to prioritize scoring for top contenders. Can become a top contender with 50 or more arguments. 3. Complicated cases: these are The TARDIS, the Master, and River Song. These canât be scored directly as most characters can and their final placement will be determined by how they compare in simple polls against scored characters. More information on why they are complicated cases are in their associated links.
Top Contenders
Clara Oswald
Amy Pond
Rose Tyler
Underdogs
Fitz Kreiner
Jamie Mcrimmon
Susan Foreman
Sarah Jane Smith
The Brigadier
Ace Mcshane
Charley Pollard
Donna Noble
Wilfred Mott
Complicated Cases
the TARDIS
The Master
River Song
Tournament Rules and Procedures
NO Discourse. Starting discourse within this specific tournament subjects you to an immediate block for tournament duration if I see it. Which is taking a while. Grievances should be handled via anonymous ask. Which could result in a poll being evaluated for validity or a caveat being put on the poll. The only exception is if I post or poll specifically says this rule is paused temporarily for that specific post or poll only. 2. Strong textual evidence over headcanon. I accept most arguments but reserve the right to reject them if they are based on headcanon. Usually I assess this with a separate poll just asking if itâs even true or not according to peopleâs interpretations. I also donât accept arguments that arenât direct about the characterâs bond with the Doctor. For instance, how many doctors they knew or how long they knew the Doctor. 3. Scoring info and the 0 vote. I score polls by letting people vote 0-10 on how strong the argument is, then average the results. Every vote counts. I may remove the 0 option in some cases, as it is only intended to be used if an alternate interpretation of a situation exists (e.g., if you don't believe the Doctor and Clara are the Hybrid). 0 is not intended for small moments that reveal affection. Even if it is a small thing, if itâs more than what a stranger gets, itâs not meant to be a 0. If itâs not unique, I expect to hear it for more than one character, meaning it wonât give an unfair advantage. 4. Controversial Interpretations. If an argument depends on a controversial topic such as who the hybrid is or whether the metacrisis is the Doctor, I may do a poll or reference another accountâs to ensure itâs a widely accepted interpretation before accepting the argument. 41% yes to the interpretation is generally the threshold. 5. Submission formats. I prefer anonymous asks for submissions and grievances, but may still accept everything if you forget or are not comfortable with anonymous. Or if you need to submit files anonymous wonât allow. 6. Timeline for Submissions. Right now I would like to start up polls again on August 31st but will allow more time for submissions if regaining engagement is slow. Submissions are subject to being closed entirely once polls start back up. So, the deadline could be August 31st. 7.Every valid submission counts. Whether itâs a default score of 6 for Underdogs, a simple poll for Complicated Cases, or full scoring for Top Contenders. 8. Special Awards. Creation of special awards and honourable mention categories is ongoing. You may submit arguments for characters not on this list. But they may only be eligible for honourable mention unless lots of arguments are submitted. 9. Ties I reserve the right to declare this tournament a tie between two or more characters if final scores are similar enough between anyone. 10. Host Accountability I may have missed arguments that shouldâve been added since I last worked on this. I will do my best to double check but donât hesitate to call out that or any other mistake Iâve made. 11. Small Moments Matter A big chunk of what makes up relationships that leads to favouritism are the small moments. I will not remove arguments on the basis that they are not unique or big enough. Those are reasons to score them lower than others, but not to zero them out or remove them. If theyâre not unique, send in an argument with similar content for another character. Thats how we even the playing field. 12. Expanded Universe Material. Since a few contestants only exist in the expanded universe, almost all expanded universe material is accepted. This means you may submit textual evidence not just from TV but from Big Finish audios, book, novelizations, and comics as well. If something submitted is contradicted by anything we can include that as a side note or caveat and let voters decide what prevails for them personally. But unless something directly contradicts the show, please treat EU material with the same respect youâd treat TV material.
