|
Post by sinjin on Jan 1, 2009 19:58:16 GMT -5
And while I'm at it KidV:
WTH? I find someone scummy on Day one and can't find someone else more scummy on subsequent days? Did you guys even read any of my posts or are you basing all of this on just votes with no analysis?
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 1, 2009 21:03:26 GMT -5
<FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">My vote wasn't a bandwagon vote. In fact unless my mind is gone, shaggy was not in the lead when I placed my vote. Not that it makes me look better, but I think my vote and reasoning was more likely the cause of the lynch than a +1. I mostly objected to seemingly being put in the top two by you after that list. Also I didn't find a real point v Santo in your lists, however when I was rereading the day one lynch to see how close it really was and hence how much weight we can put on someone having a dbi vote that day, I noticed Santo was the one who seemed to turn the tide onto bufftabby. Not that it wasn't a good reason, it was just something I noticed. Again, I merely made a comment, offering my opinion on that particular set of data points. I didn't put you in the top two of anything except players that look scummy based on a very limited and vulnerable criteria. I'll be looking at Day Three very closely, as I said. If my memory has placed you in the wrong place in the Shaggy lynch, of course I apologize. <FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">I don't necessarily like the way KidV performs the analysis, but I think there are good points to be found. I'm so confused about the voting that I don't dare cast one right now, but if I could misterblockey would be my target. One part for not voting and one part gut feeling. You don't like the conclusions I'm drawing? Or you think the data isn't useful?
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 1, 2009 21:13:48 GMT -5
Did you guys even read any of my posts or are you basing all of this on just votes with no analysis? Oh, for fucks sake. No. No I have NOT read your posts (re-read, that is), or yours, Ed, or yours, Blockey, and I frickin SAID THAT. I also said I'm not basing anything at all on any of the lists I've posted so far, and I don't expect anybody else to, either... they're just pieces of information that may or may not be useful when looked at in aggregate with other pieces of information. I did toss in that line at the end about my cooking, just to see if anybody wanted to comment on what I'd posted so far. The reactions have been... interesting.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Jan 1, 2009 21:18:46 GMT -5
You don't like the conclusions I'm drawing? Or you think the data isn't useful? Out of principle, I don't like setting strict "rules" for stuff like this. Used as a base for discussion (like we are now) is fine, but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on a list as subjective as yours. (Well.. the yellows are subjective at least) However, the conclusions (if you can call them that) fits my view of the game so far. The people you seem inclined to call town matches my perception of the game pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jan 1, 2009 21:56:58 GMT -5
Did you guys even read any of my posts or are you basing all of this on just votes with no analysis? Oh, for fucks sake. No. No I have NOT read your posts (re-read, that is), or yours, Ed, or yours, Blockey, and I frickin SAID THAT. I also said I'm not basing anything at all on any of the lists I've posted so far, and I don't expect anybody else to, either... they're just pieces of information that may or may not be useful when looked at in aggregate with other pieces of information. I did toss in that line at the end about my cooking, just to see if anybody wanted to comment on what I'd posted so far. The reactions have been... interesting. Italics mine. But then you said: Which seems like a total forehand smudge to me. I am not liking this at all.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 2, 2009 1:23:18 GMT -5
I'm so confused about the voting that I don't dare cast one right now, but if I could misterblockey would be my target. One part for not voting and one part gut feeling. Well, as Nanook explained (and very well at that) earlier, this mechanic does work similar to normal voting. The issue is really only a problem for those who do the first "vote(s)" on people (i.e. before any unvotes are registered). They can end up creating a series of unvotes that cannot be countered. This is why the system can be gamed. It's not easy to coordinate, but it can be done. However, anyone who does so will instantly become suspicious, so it's a very risky intentional gambit for someone to pull. The problem is, if people aren't aware of how this system can be gamed, they can inadvertently do it. I'll try to present a clear example of what I'm getting at: Since currently, no one has any unvotes on them, one could vote one of you, unvote you, vote someone else, unvote them, vote a third, unvote them, etc. and each of you would now have 1 unvote towards lynch, and due the rules, the only way for those unvotes to be erased would be for a different individual to vote for each of you. (And the first individual could vote once more for one of you to remove an earlier unvote). Now if someone else comes along and does what this person did at the same time, where they both vote for someone and then both unvote them, everyone will now have 2 unvotes on them, and there is no way to cancel all of the unvotes. Because it takes two votes to cancel two unvotes, and we can only have one vote active at a time, if an entire scum team were to do this, they could completely game the system by essentially creating a bunch of unvotes on a handful of people that there aren't enough players around to adequately cancel with votes. I don't see this likely, since it will essentially cluster all the scum together. However, I can easily see a townie doing the following: Assuming none of those I vote for have any votes on them, I vote/unvote Ed. This gives him a count of 1. I then decide to change my vote, so I vote/unvote someone else who hadn't had an unvote on them yet. Now someone else has an unvote count of 1 as well as Ed. I'll just come along and revote Ed, so that only my other target is the one with a count on him. So far so good, but if I want to change again, this time to a third person without any unvotes on him, I'll have to unvote Ed again (now he's got an unvote on him), have to vote the other person, and then unvote them. I now essentially have 3 unvotes in the counting, and I only really want one of them. I can vote for one of the others to cancel that unvote that I left on them earlier, but somone will get screwed with an extra undesired count against them. Under the normal vote/unvote system, you can never have more votes than players. Because the additions happen first before the subtractions. In this system, you can have more unvotes than total players, because the subtractions happen first and negative counts are ignored. That's the pitfall of this system.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 2, 2009 1:41:02 GMT -5
I'm so confused about the voting that I don't dare cast one right now, but if I could misterblockey would be my target. One part for not voting and one part gut feeling. Well, as Nanook explained (and very well at that) earlier, this mechanic does work similar to normal voting. The issue is really only a problem for those who do the first "vote(s)" on people (i.e. before any unvotes are registered). They can end up creating a series of unvotes that cannot be countered. This is why the system can be gamed. It's not easy to coordinate, but it can be done. However, anyone who does so will instantly become suspicious, so it's a very risky intentional gambit for someone to pull. The problem is, if people aren't aware of how this system can be gamed, they can inadvertently do it. I'll try to present a clear example of what I'm getting at: Since currently, no one has any unvotes on them, one could vote one of you, unvote you, vote someone else, unvote them, vote a third, unvote them, etc. and each of you would now have 1 unvote towards lynch, and due the rules, the only way for those unvotes to be erased would be for a different individual to vote for each of you. (And the first individual could vote once more for one of you to remove an earlier unvote). Now if someone else comes along and does what this person did at the same time, where they both vote for someone and then both unvote them, everyone will now have 2 unvotes on them, and there is no way to cancel all of the unvotes. Because it takes two votes to cancel two unvotes, and we can only have one vote active at a time, if an entire scum team were to do this, they could completely game the system by essentially creating a bunch of unvotes on a handful of people that there aren't enough players around to adequately cancel with votes. I don't see this likely, since it will essentially cluster all the scum together. However, I can easily see a townie doing the following: Assuming none of those I vote for have any votes on them, I vote/unvote Ed. This gives him a count of 1. I then decide to change my vote, so I vote/unvote someone else who hadn't had an unvote on them yet. Now someone else has an unvote count of 1 as well as Ed. I'll just come along and revote Ed, so that only my other target is the one with a count on him. So far so good, but if I want to change again, this time to a third person without any unvotes on him, I'll have to unvote Ed again (now he's got an unvote on him), have to vote the other person, and then unvote them. I now essentially have 3 unvotes in the counting, and I only really want one of them. I can vote for one of the others to cancel that unvote that I left on them earlier, but somone will get screwed with an extra undesired count against them. Under the normal vote/unvote system, you can never have more votes than players. Because the additions happen first before the subtractions. In this system, you can have more unvotes than total players, because the subtractions happen first and negative counts are ignored. That's the pitfall of this system. I think you left out 1 key point. If you vote/unvote me, I'll have one count toward a lynch. Now if someone else votes me, I go back to 0, then their unvote gives me one unvote (or count toward a lynch) So, basically, if everyone goes around voting and unvoting, at most a person can have is 1 unvote. What we MUST do to get a higher vote on someone, is like this: Have 5 (or any number) people vote for a player WITHOUT unvoting. At that point, the person has 0 unvotes. Then when all 5 unvote, the person has 5 unvotes counting toward a lynch. If it's done at different times, each new person's vote cancels the previous unvote, so they'll max out at 1 unvote. Am I making sense?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 2, 2009 3:11:27 GMT -5
Total Lost had a vote on Zeriel from back on Page 2, and I don't recall her removing it. Did she? Hypothetically, if she changes her mind, we have a problem. Either she will have to basically abstain from voting how she would prefer, or someone else would have to step up and volunteer to abstain from their individual voice in the lynch by countering her unvote on Zeriel.
For the sake of limiting cooperation and manipulation, I think we should all take individual responsibility, so if TL hypothetically changes her mind about Zeriel, she should just leave her gun cocked as it is, not pull the trigger at all Today, and limit her participation in the remaining lynchee-selection conversation to advocating her views only.
It might end up being safe to have one unvote on Zeriel if she changes her mind, but that would require another target having a comfortable lead.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 2, 2009 11:46:02 GMT -5
I think you left out 1 key point. If you vote/unvote me, I'll have one count toward a lynch. Now if someone else votes me, I go back to 0, then their unvote gives me one unvote (or count toward a lynch) So, basically, if everyone goes around voting and unvoting, at most a person can have is 1 unvote. What we MUST do to get a higher vote on someone, is like this: Have 5 (or any number) people vote for a player WITHOUT unvoting. At that point, the person has 0 unvotes. Then when all 5 unvote, the person has 5 unvotes counting toward a lynch. If it's done at different times, each new person's vote cancels the previous unvote, so they'll max out at 1 unvote. Am I making sense? Yes. But it doesn't change the fact that we can have in theory up to 196 unvotes at the end of the Day, if all players were to vote for somone, then unvote that person, then vote somone else, then unvote that person, etc. In the normal system, we'd never have more than 14 votes. That was the point I was making.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 2, 2009 12:02:05 GMT -5
Total Lost had a vote on Zeriel from back on Page 2, and I don't recall her removing it. Did she? Hypothetically, if she changes her mind, we have a problem. Either she will have to basically abstain from voting how she would prefer, or someone else would have to step up and volunteer to abstain from their individual voice in the lynch by countering her unvote on Zeriel. For the sake of limiting cooperation and manipulation, I think we should all take individual responsibility, so if TL hypothetically changes her mind about Zeriel, she should just leave her gun cocked as it is, not pull the trigger at all Today, and limit her participation in the remaining lynchee-selection conversation to advocating her views only. It might end up being safe to have one unvote on Zeriel if she changes her mind, but that would require another target having a comfortable lead. I'll not unvote yet. For now I'm very happy with my Zeriel-vote and the best way to look at it (IMO) is that I happened to make my vote in blue and not yellow. But if we're going to vote and then unvote "at the same time" we're going to decide soon when to start the un-voting.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Jan 2, 2009 12:08:05 GMT -5
Couldn't we just mock vote and one day before deadline cast the unvotes? Then everything would work like normal?
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 2, 2009 12:13:21 GMT -5
Couldn't we just mock vote and one day before deadline cast the unvotes? Then everything would work like normal? If I understand correctly how this works, everybody placing and leaving a vote, prior to the unvotes, opens up the field for scum to coordinate a hammer.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 2, 2009 12:13:54 GMT -5
I hate to be the one to bring it up, is this a good day for a no-lynch?
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Jan 2, 2009 12:18:41 GMT -5
Couldn't we just mock vote and one day before deadline cast the unvotes? Then everything would work like normal? If I understand correctly how this works, everybody placing and leaving a vote, prior to the unvotes, opens up the field for scum to coordinate a hammer. What the plan is: Everyone votes as normal in yellow(or any other color except ones used). When we reach "real vote" time, everyone votes and unvotes the winner. This way, scum can't do anything without us knowing who scum is, and we still get a vote in. I utterly dislike the vote confusion as it basically deprives an already trailing town of a days worth of discussion. Not much has been posted today except discussion on how to vote. I doubt that is going to expose scum.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 2, 2009 12:23:43 GMT -5
Chucara, maybe I'm still confused... don't we need to get all the votes in, before the unvotes start?
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 2, 2009 12:24:05 GMT -5
If I understand correctly how this works, everybody placing and leaving a vote, prior to the unvotes, opens up the field for scum to coordinate a hammer. What the plan is: Everyone votes as normal in yellow(or any other color except ones used). When we reach "real vote" time, everyone votes and unvotes the winner. This way, scum can't do anything without us knowing who scum is, and we still get a vote in. I utterly dislike the vote confusion as it basically deprives an already trailing town of a days worth of discussion. Not much has been posted today except discussion on how to vote. I doubt that is going to expose scum. Except I can't unvote in that scenario without leaving an unvote on Zeriel. But I guess I would just not be a part of the unvoting in that case (unless someone can see why I did vote Zeriel in the first place and we agree on him)
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 2, 2009 12:34:16 GMT -5
If I understand correctly how this works, everybody placing and leaving a vote, prior to the unvotes, opens up the field for scum to coordinate a hammer. Yep. Part of the reason why I wanted to form the Masons/Hoopy/Investigations block. Our numbers would roughly equal scum's. Unfortunately, the modkill kind of through a wrench into that. (Speaking of, my post above should actually use the numbers 13 and 169 since I forgot we're down to 13 players now.) I hate to be the one to bring it up, is this a good day for a no-lynch? Nope. Although, this vote mechanic is very anti-town, I think a no-lynch at this point would be even worse. What the plan is: Everyone votes as normal in yellow(or any other color except ones used). When we reach "real vote" time, everyone votes and unvotes the winner. This way, scum can't do anything without us knowing who scum is, and we still get a vote in. I utterly dislike the vote confusion as it basically deprives an already trailing town of a days worth of discussion. Not much has been posted today except discussion on how to vote. I doubt that is going to expose scum. I really like this plan. We use the faux votes (and in TL's case her real vote at this point) as the vote record, and have people vote the one person who wins. It really doesn't matter which of us do the final voting, as long as KidV can be the hammer vote. And no one really needs to vote after the hammer, since the faux-votes are what we use as the record. Now, I finally should have a large enough block of time to look closer at Ed's posts this game. I've only been able to drives-by until now.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 2, 2009 12:38:26 GMT -5
Chucara, maybe I'm still confused... don't we need to get all the votes in, before the unvotes start? Yes, but it's a way of figuring out where the votes will fall. Personally, with a Day end on Tuesday at 5, I think we should solidify that all fauxvotes be in by Sunday at 5. Hopefully, that gives enough time for people to claim if they need to. We then try to have the official "votes" in by Monday at 5. The last 24 hours will be everyone unvoting up until the hammer point, and then you come in with it. It's not elegant by any stretch, but it's probably the best we can do.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Jan 2, 2009 12:40:44 GMT -5
KidV: Sorry that I'm awful at explaining. Let me do so by example.
First of all, my gut feeling tells me to vote misterblockey right now, so I'll will
pinkvote Misterblockey
Someone (I will volunteer) counts the votes instead of Idle. The pink votes (and unvotes) work as normal, and whoever is in the lead by the end of the day gets voted and unvoted by all. This means that we will still have the pink votes as information, and that we will lynch as normal. The price of this is a bit of work and the shortening of the day by one?
Unless someone opposes, I think we should start dong this right away, or it'll be too late. I will gladly count the votes, and you can count the above vote as the first one. Just keep votes and unvotes all in bold pink, and I'll figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 2, 2009 12:42:10 GMT -5
pinkvote Special Ed
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Jan 2, 2009 12:54:53 GMT -5
Bah.. I just reread.. pink OR yellow is fine. Sorry Hoopy and others.. Must've missed half a page somewhere along the way. Next time I log on, I'll count the votes in yellow (and pink). Only one per player, so Hoopy's don't get counted double. Sorry about that guys
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jan 2, 2009 13:01:58 GMT -5
I think this is a good idea but can we do the faux voting in yellow or lime green? I can't read the pink votes at all
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Jan 2, 2009 13:13:45 GMT -5
I might as well make it more clear:
Instead of normal votes, please faux-vote and unvote in yellow. Read above for more explanation. All votes in yellow or pink will be counted shortly.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Jan 2, 2009 13:18:41 GMT -5
Faux-vote count so far:
Mr. Special Ed (2) - Nanook, Hoopy Frood Mister Blockey (1) - Chucara
Remember, faux votes and unvotes work as normal, all in yellow. If you see any errors in the above, please let me know.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 2, 2009 14:23:40 GMT -5
Faux-vote count so far: Mr. Special Ed (2) - Nanook, Hoopy Frood Mister Blockey (1) - Chucara Remember, faux votes and unvotes work as normal, all in yellow. If you see any errors in the above, please let me know. I would think my vote (even not a faux vote) should count as well. I really strongly believe Zeriel to be scum and I did state the reasons for my vote as well.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 2, 2009 14:24:19 GMT -5
Day Four Mushroom Kingdom
d4.22 - Zeriel opens with a vote against Almost Human, citing my pursuit of her the previous Night, d4.27 - and almost immediately unvotes AH to vote Total Lost for suggesting a suicide option. d4.33 - Santo votes Totallost with no justification
At this point, Almost Human is "not feeling the Totallost votes", Shaggy objects to the attention being paid Almost Human and Totallost because, paraphrased, they're thinking like him but more articulate, so must be Town.
d4.41 - Almost Human votes Nanook, citing a Storyteller trust list and lurking.
Here, Sinjin points out that Blockey is participating less than Nanook, and comments on percieved Facebook snuggling. Almost Human admits her vote is BS, and objects to being included in the Facebook-debacle.
d4.48 - Nanook mostly reiterates points already raised by Sinjin, and votes Almost Human, citing her gut.
Now Sinjin cites a series of snuggles between Facebook players, in response to objections by said players. Totallost continues to complain, but (IMO) appears to misunderstand the nature of Sinjins (and others) objections.
Vote count is currently: Total Lost - 2 votes (zeriel, santo rugger) Nanook - 1 vote (Almost Human) Almost Human - 1 vote (Nanook)
d4.54 - Almost Human unvotes Nanook
More Facebook brouhaha. Silence ensues.
d4.76 - KidV votes Almost Human, citing Almost Humans apparent PIS in the speculation of whether scum can talk during the split, and her usage of another players trust list as almost a sole basis for her vote for Nanook.
Vote count is now: Total Lost - 2 votes (zeriel, santo rugger) Almost Human - 2 votes (Nanook, KidV)
d4.79 - Sinjin votes Totallost, citing a statement made Day Two about Mhayes death. d4.81 - Totallost votes Zeriel, in what amounts to a pure OMGUS vote... her cite is Zeriels vote for her, see above. d4.87 - Almost Human votes for Shaggy, citing a whole bunch of apparent inconstencies in his posts.
Vote count is now: Total Lost - 3 votes (Zeriel, Santo, Sinjin) Almost Human - 2 votes (Nanook, KidV) Zeriel - 1 vote (Totallost) Shaggy - 1 vote (Almost Human)
d4.89 - Shaggy votes Sinjin, citing the Facebook brouhaha. d4.94 - Misterblockey votes Shaggy, citing snuggling and the Day One sub of molefan. d4.95 - Shaggy unvotes Sinjin and votes Almost Human, with a point by point rebutal of her case. d4.99 - Sinjin unvotes Totallost, claiming to have mixed her and Almost Human.
Vote count is now: Almost Human - 3 votes (Nanook, KidV, Shaggy) Total Lost - 2 votes (Zeriel, Santo) Shaggy - 2 votes (Almost Human, Misterblockey) Zeriel - 1 vote (Totallost)
d4.104 - Sinjin votes Shaggy... I'm not sure what she's citing here, I'm going to have to let that post speak for itself. d4.109 - Santo unvotes Totallost and votes Shaggy, again w/o justification (other than he thinks they're both scum)
Vote count is now: Shaggy - 4 votes (Almost Human, Misterblockey, Sinjin, Santo) Almost Human - 3 votes (Nanook, KidV, Shaggy) Total Lost - 1 vote (Zeriel) Zeriel - 1 vote (Totallost)
And the day is over. Shaggy swings.
I'm going to go look at some other Days now... I think I'm starting to see what I expected to see, but I'd sure love it if some other folks (specifically Hoopy, Kat, and Miteymouse, but anybody really) would take a good hard look at the above timeline, and then go check the justifications for the various votes, before I say anything more.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 2, 2009 14:30:07 GMT -5
Also, as long as I'm using my Mason status as cover to float stupid ideas, is there any value in faux-voting up to three other players? Maybe even Borda? We might get a more accurate consensus, if it's worth the trouble.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Jan 2, 2009 14:30:59 GMT -5
Faux-vote count so far: Mr. Special Ed (2) - Nanook, Hoopy Frood Mister Blockey (1) - Chucara Remember, faux votes and unvotes work as normal, all in yellow. If you see any errors in the above, please let me know. I would think my vote (even not a faux vote) should count as well. I really strongly believe Zeriel to be scum and I did state the reasons for my vote as well. You are absolutely right, new count: Mr. Special Ed (2) - Nanook, Hoopy Frood Mister Blockey (1) - Chucara Zeriel (1) - Totallost
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jan 2, 2009 14:34:12 GMT -5
What the plan is: Everyone votes as normal in yellow(or any other color except ones used). When we reach "real vote" time, everyone votes and unvotes the winner. This way, scum can't do anything without us knowing who scum is, and we still get a vote in. I utterly dislike the vote confusion as it basically deprives an already trailing town of a days worth of discussion. Not much has been posted today except discussion on how to vote. I doubt that is going to expose scum. Except I can't unvote in that scenario without leaving an unvote on Zeriel. But I guess I would just not be a part of the unvoting in that case (unless someone can see why I did vote Zeriel in the first place and we agree on him) Remember, you may have as many unvotes on other people as you want. You can have 4 or 5 or even more unvotes on different people at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jan 2, 2009 15:02:20 GMT -5
Also, as long as I'm using my Mason status as cover to float stupid ideas, is there any value in faux-voting up to three other players? Maybe even Borda? We might get a more accurate consensus, if it's worth the trouble. Can we please not make this days voting even more complicated than it is? If you had not claimed mason exactly when you did I would be voting for you right now.
|
|