=|

[Ashe]

It may appear the exact same to many people, but I read the two following statements very differently, depending on the understanding of the rules.

1. Not voting has the same effect as voting No Lynch.
2. Voting No Lynch has the same effect as not voting.

It varies depending on whether the mechanic being adjusted becomes a passive stance of carrying zero weight (not voting) or an active stance as a preventive measure (Not to lynch).

So Teemer, when using my examples, I do realize that 9/18 is exactly 50% and therefore not more than a majority. When read with the thought that "All absent votes will also be considered votes to not lynch", it changes that to a majority vote by adding to them.

It ultimately doesn't matter. I'm likely the only person that focuses that much on phrasing and word use to the point of differentiating those phrases that seem like reflexive properties of one another, ultimately leading to a misunderstanding that is so (apparently) odd that I unfortunately couldn't get it cleared up in time to do much about it.

Rose: I actually did state that I knew you had put a lot of effort into balancing it and that I know you meant well and that I simply still felt that despite the precautions, the mechanic was not playing out as intended. When I commented on "overriding votes", it was in reference to my earlier post about how (when assuming a No Lynch vote was an active stance with weight to it to disable Lynching - which was not actually a mechanic but I misunderstood it to be by my interpretation) a majority could vote to Not Lynch someone and then have the Shit Stirrer just Lynch for them anyway. In the context of "No Lynch is the absence of a vote rather than being a vote itself", its an entirely different situation as it would work exactly as complained about, whereas in the context of "The group can choose to not lynch that day" as the understanding, the Shit Stirrer is overriding it and deciding the group's fate for them. Just to really clarify it. It essentially all comes down to those mechanics having entirely different perspectives over such a minor contextual change, at least to ... well, I won't even go as far as to say some, but at least to me.

I really was trying to avoid any actual anger going through while still conveying the sheer frustration of the issue, as it had the feel of repeatedly going to the teacher to make sure you understood exactly how something worked and getting reassured and then when you finally sit down on the exam, you fail it by a fundamental core flaw in your entire understanding of the exam's subject, despite being uncertain about that exact situation the entire time. I absolutely do not feel you were out to get anyone, or slipping people cheats, or anything of bad intentions. I just wanted to at least state my concerns.