@Wiz@tsundere.love @AlphaKiloPapa@noauthority.social @Clambino@noauthority.social @Coyote@shitposter.world @Economic_Hitman@noauthority.social @FaggotTourney@tsundere.love @Nicktherat@noauthority.social @Twig@clew.lol @Twig@noauthority.social @adam@psyopshop.com @bonifartius@noauthority.social @eriner@noauthority.social @fkq1q2r2@noauthority.social @gr1mr33p3r@noauthority.social @jeffcliff@shitposter.world @truthbait@noauthority.social Anyway, seeing as Ratposter *did* meet that conditional, and given that monkyyy has in the past cast similar votes before without issue (in the first and second tourneys, he did this almost every match and I counted it based on his conditional), and given *further* that there was never any indication given that conditional votes would be discarded, and *even furthermore* that the vote did contain the phrase "I vote for," I think there is a strong case that his vote should be counted. Any case for overturning it needs to be more compelling than those four points.