@FaggotTourney@tsundere.love @bigmattoidchimpin@annihilation.social @Twig@noauthority.social @JoeBravo77@poa.st Mat did it. The greatest twist. Joe too. Imagine the tournament organizers trying to conjecture the meaning and intention of every post, treating each one as a possible vote. "I voot FF!" Apparently Mat and Joe wisely avoided using any word resembling "vote" at all. Why? Because they knew the organizers would first have to interpret the post before counting it. And that is precisely the problem. Vote casting should be straightforward counting. It should not require interpretation. The moment interpretation enters the process, every participant can bring their own canon into the arena. One person's "voot" means vote. Another person's "boot" means vote. A third person's ten-paragraph, thousand-word manifesto secretly means vote. Soon everyone arrives with homemade canon balls and competing interpretations. Ironically, the tournament organizer is both the primary beneficiary and the first victim of the "I vote for..." rule. The rule exists primarily for the benefit of the organizer because it eliminates the need to interpret every post before counting it. And yet the organizer can also become the first victim when that rule breaks down, because the burden shifts from counting votes to deciding what counts as a vote. Because if a vote requires interpretation before it can be counted, then it has already failed to be a vote and become an exercise in judgment. Once judgment enters, accusations of favoritism inevitably follow. A vote is supposed to be counted, not interpreted. Voot, boot, or a ten-paragraph, thousand-word manifesto, all are canons. 69-69 🐾