I wanted to like this villainess, I really did, and some of the ideas are good ones; but ultimately they would need more work to render playable and complete than those submissions that got my vote. So unfortunately, this character misses out. The potential is there, but it's too deeply buried by extrania.
If you get through, I would take the bits that everyone has acknowledged are interesting and chop the rest out, then rebuild from that foundation of interest. The current version reads too much as though you had one idea and then had a second, better, one which you forced into unhappy marraige with the first. What we have here are two character ideas squeezed into one, detracting and distracting from each other.
Some seriously cool ideas in this character. The whole nursery rhyme aspect of the concept is brilliant. Yes, there are some rough patches in the execution but what's there and good is more than sufficient platform and inspiration to erect my own answers to those questions. Since that's what I'm looking for, you get my vote.
Unlike the judges (and perhaps most of the voters), I am less concerned with completeness than I am with inspiration. I always expect to have to reskin or rebuild most characters before I can use them anyway. And the epic scale combined with the fuzzyness of this character's ambitions leave a lot of room for me to take the character and make it my own within one of my games. So you have my vote to continue.
Some really cool creepiness in this villain concept, and that's what wins my vote. Yes, there are some elements that need revision or fleshing out; but the fundamentals are there and fascinating. I do disagree with some of the comments by the judges, since identifying the need for additional content can be sufficient, enabling a GM to craft his own connections and make them unique from campaign to campaign. I would rather have something that's 70% inspiring and 20% not there than something that's 20% inspiring and complete.
I'm always a fan of characters that push the boundaries of morality - villains who do what they do because they are good guys and think the end justifies the means, and the like. I voted for this villain on the basis of potential; I don't think the execution is quite there, the judge's comments seemed pretty much on the mark. Despite the general 'no' recommendation, I voted yes because I can see the potential for a fascinating villain here - one who opposes other villains for his own benefit, but who also commits evil acts, leaving the PCs in the quandary of supporting him or not. I would have this Villain ally with the PCs and use them as cover, protection, and (if necessary, fall guys) while he persues his own agenda. That whiff of alliance and betrayal is what persuades me that he rises above the threshold from no to yes.
This villain got my vote on sheer potential, because most of the execution falls flat for me. But I could happily take the House-Of-Wax-ish concept and reskin the rest as necessary to get something that would be both useful and interesting in a number of my different campaigns, and that was my criteria. Bottom line: the concept is inspiring.