Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:No you can take 9 riptide in one riptide wing lol (3x3)

Didn't know that. Thanks for the information.

notredameguy10 wrote:This is 100% incorrect. Reecius specifically said, multiple times in the comment section of the poll that EVERYONE could vote and it would count. The ITC rankings was just to collect more data.

And how much do you want to bet that the "data" the ITC were collecting from the people with ITC numbers were the votes that would actually decide the poll?

Orock wrote:
Except reece came right out and said the reason they were thinking of making this vote private, was because in the past there was tampering. And at the time I disagreed, because it makes more sense for everyone who it would effect, from the store level all the way up, to have a fair vote. But if they really dont even do basics like check for fake email accounts, and refuse to do so, then mabye they shouldnt change things at all. Its WAY to easy to rig.

The way that the ITC got around the vote-tempering issues was to link the votes that mattered to the ITC numbers. Sure, you could have a fake email account, but unless you hacked the ITC's database the email doesn't matter, only the ITC number.

Again, EVERY SINGLE PERSON COULD VOTE. you did not need an ITC number to vote. The linked the vote to your IP address. If you tried to go back into the poll it said "You have already participated in this..."

@Pain: Ok. That's what I thought. I don't know if it's a hoax, but it could be for sure. I figured that's what you are saying. "Who could say?" I think maybe only a web geek working for FLG could say for sure. Just a bummer that the specter of cheating / fraud was raised. I just want to scream "This is why we can't have nice things!"

The tau vote, as I said didn't affect me, although it's my second largest army. Just so much tax in that contingent. The ork vote upsets me. Because I asked for it and wanted some buff for the Boyz. Now it feels tainted.

I didn't even get to vote. Grrrr.

Only 925 votes were given to the first question. The CF (2nd) got 947 votes, the other 2 Tau Q's were 944 and 942. Two Stompa questions had 944 and 941 respectively.

Why not vote for all questions? Would be interesting to see just the ITC registered votes.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:No you can take 9 riptide in one riptide wing lol (3x3)

Didn't know that. Thanks for the information.

notredameguy10 wrote:This is 100% incorrect. Reecius specifically said, multiple times in the comment section of the poll that EVERYONE could vote and it would count. The ITC rankings was just to collect more data.

And how much do you want to bet that the "data" the ITC were collecting from the people with ITC numbers were the votes that would actually decide the poll?

Orock wrote:
Except reece came right out and said the reason they were thinking of making this vote private, was because in the past there was tampering. And at the time I disagreed, because it makes more sense for everyone who it would effect, from the store level all the way up, to have a fair vote. But if they really dont even do basics like check for fake email accounts, and refuse to do so, then mabye they shouldnt change things at all. Its WAY to easy to rig.

The way that the ITC got around the vote-tempering issues was to link the votes that mattered to the ITC numbers. Sure, you could have a fake email account, but unless you hacked the ITC's database the email doesn't matter, only the ITC number.

Read it again, anyone who had an email could vote. It says NOTHING about having to be in an itc event with a record. What you are suggesting is that they "told" everyone their vote would count, but in the end threw all the non tournament players votes away like trash. And if they DID lie like that, then nobody should use their system, because that is a scummy thing to do. So which is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:No you can take 9 riptide in one riptide wing lol (3x3)

Didn't know that. Thanks for the information.

notredameguy10 wrote:This is 100% incorrect. Reecius specifically said, multiple times in the comment section of the poll that EVERYONE could vote and it would count. The ITC rankings was just to collect more data.

And how much do you want to bet that the "data" the ITC were collecting from the people with ITC numbers were the votes that would actually decide the poll?

Orock wrote:
Except reece came right out and said the reason they were thinking of making this vote private, was because in the past there was tampering. And at the time I disagreed, because it makes more sense for everyone who it would effect, from the store level all the way up, to have a fair vote. But if they really dont even do basics like check for fake email accounts, and refuse to do so, then mabye they shouldnt change things at all. Its WAY to easy to rig.

The way that the ITC got around the vote-tempering issues was to link the votes that mattered to the ITC numbers. Sure, you could have a fake email account, but unless you hacked the ITC's database the email doesn't matter, only the ITC number.

Again, EVERY SINGLE PERSON COULD VOTE. you did not need an ITC number to vote. The linked the vote to your IP address. If you tried to go back into the poll it said "You have already participated in this..."

you do know there are programs where you can change your IP address on a whim, right? And people that do this kind of things hide behind proxies all the time.

@notredam. Thanks for clarification on the not voting twice thing. That's reassuring actually.

 doktor_g wrote:
@notredam. Thanks for clarification on the not voting twice thing. That's reassuring actually.

'

I was hinting at the fact that you can change your IP address in about 5 seconds over and over again if you really wanted to. And i am 100% sure there are people who did that

notredameguy10 wrote:Again, EVERY SINGLE PERSON COULD VOTE. you did not need an ITC number to vote. The linked the vote to your IP address. If you tried to go back into the poll it said "You have already participated in this..."

That's a standard polling program response that's designed to prevent people from taking the poll multiple times.

While ITC numbers were optional, all the available evidence (especially the small poll tally) points to the voting being linked to the ITC number.

Orock wrote:Read it again, anyone who had an email could vote. It says NOTHING about having to be in an itc event with a record. What you are suggesting is that they "told" everyone their vote would count, but in the end threw all the non tournament players votes away like trash. And if they DID lie like that, then nobody should use their system, because that is a scummy thing to do. So which is it?

It was made clear at the beginning that there were measure taken to prevent people from voting more than once. Why should the poll organizer give away the poll security measures? The ITC number field was a dead giveaway anyway.

Orock wrote:you do know there are programs where you can change your IP address on a whim, right? And people that do this kind of things hide behind proxies all the time.

Sure, you can change your IP address on a whim. Can you point me to programs that can change your ITC number? Because all evidence points to that as the poll security measure.

Naw wrote:Only 925 votes were given to the first question. The CF (2nd) got 947 votes, the other 2 Tau Q's were 944 and 942. Two Stompa questions had 944 and 941 respectively.

Why not vote for all questions? Would be interesting to see just the ITC registered votes.

You don't find it more than a little interesting that out of the potentially thousands of people who were made aware of the poll and voted, less than a thousand votes were actually tallied?

 doktor_g wrote:
@notredam. Thanks for clarification on the not voting twice thing. That's reassuring actually.

yeah I think you misunderstand......

he is saying its easy as pie. not that the magical IP fairy will protect us from fraud.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:Again, EVERY SINGLE PERSON COULD VOTE. you did not need an ITC number to vote. The linked the vote to your IP address. If you tried to go back into the poll it said "You have already participated in this..."

That's a standard polling program response that's designed to prevent people from taking the poll multiple times.

While ITC numbers were optional, all the available evidence (especially the small poll tally) points to the voting being linked to the ITC number.

Orock wrote:Read it again, anyone who had an email could vote. It says NOTHING about having to be in an itc event with a record. What you are suggesting is that they "told" everyone their vote would count, but in the end threw all the non tournament players votes away like trash. And if they DID lie like that, then nobody should use their system, because that is a scummy thing to do. So which is it?

It was made clear at the beginning that there were measure taken to prevent people from voting more than once. Why should the poll organizer give away the poll security measures? The ITC number field was a dead giveaway anyway.

Orock wrote:you do know there are programs where you can change your IP address on a whim, right? And people that do this kind of things hide behind proxies all the time.

Sure, you can change your IP address on a whim. Can you point me to programs that can change your ITC number? Because all evidence points to that as the poll security measure.

Naw wrote:Only 925 votes were given to the first question. The CF (2nd) got 947 votes, the other 2 Tau Q's were 944 and 942. Two Stompa questions had 944 and 941 respectively.

Why not vote for all questions? Would be interesting to see just the ITC registered votes.

You don't find it more than a little interesting that out of the potentially thousands of people who were made aware of the poll and voted, less than a thousand votes were actually tallied?

Again, you are just making stuff up on the fly. Compare the number of votes in this to all past polls and they are THE SAME. that means all votes counted lol. Stop making stuff up

aka past votes had about 1000 entries and anyone could vote. this had about 1000 entries lol. do the math.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Game design isn't, but balancing and FAQing the game can be.

Again, the margin of passing the measure to nerf CFP passed by only eight votes. There was a definite split in how the community wanted this, which is why we're still having this conversation.

The ITC could sit down and rebalance the entire game, but at that point you might as well just design a whole new game system.

The new year will bring new tournaments, and the BAO and LOV follow ITC rules. I'm sure that we'll get another update poll based on new releases and the takeaways from those tournaments.

Well, of course balancing 40k entirely would be a larger task than just starting from scratch, but a home brew game is much less likely to receive a following than a 'Revised 40k' from a well known group of people.

That aside, I maintain that the whole process isn't a democracy, in that the popular vote should not decide what gets buffed and nerfed. People should feel free to post their thoughts and feedback as much as they want in a useful and thought out manner, but ultimately, whoever is heading the project and has access to all the data should be making the final call in an (ideally) unbiased manner. There's a reason no game uses a vote system to action certain buffs/nerfs, but instead uses polls and forums to gauge general thoughts and get a number of potential fixes.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:Again, EVERY SINGLE PERSON COULD VOTE. you did not need an ITC number to vote. The linked the vote to your IP address. If you tried to go back into the poll it said "You have already participated in this..."

That's a standard polling program response that's designed to prevent people from taking the poll multiple times.

While ITC numbers were optional, all the available evidence (especially the small poll tally) points to the voting being linked to the ITC number.

Orock wrote:Read it again, anyone who had an email could vote. It says NOTHING about having to be in an itc event with a record. What you are suggesting is that they "told" everyone their vote would count, but in the end threw all the non tournament players votes away like trash. And if they DID lie like that, then nobody should use their system, because that is a scummy thing to do. So which is it?

It was made clear at the beginning that there were measure taken to prevent people from voting more than once. Why should the poll organizer give away the poll security measures? The ITC number field was a dead giveaway anyway.

Orock wrote:you do know there are programs where you can change your IP address on a whim, right? And people that do this kind of things hide behind proxies all the time.

Sure, you can change your IP address on a whim. Can you point me to programs that can change your ITC number? Because all evidence points to that as the poll security measure.

Naw wrote:Only 925 votes were given to the first question. The CF (2nd) got 947 votes, the other 2 Tau Q's were 944 and 942. Two Stompa questions had 944 and 941 respectively.

Why not vote for all questions? Would be interesting to see just the ITC registered votes.

You don't find it more than a little interesting that out of the potentially thousands of people who were made aware of the poll and voted, less than a thousand votes were actually tallied?

Good then. Our area can stop using their system. Id rather use a broken set of rules than a bunch of liars system. If they arent counting the "unwashed non tournament attending masses" votes, then I dont need to support them either.

 TheNewBlood wrote:


While ITC numbers were optional, all the available evidence (especially the small poll tally) points to the voting being linked to the ITC number.

I saw complaints that people did not know a vote was taking place, although someone pointed out that at least in Dakka there was a six page thread.

I'll take your explanation with a grain of salt until it is verified by a more official voice.

Naw wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:


While ITC numbers were optional, all the available evidence (especially the small poll tally) points to the voting being linked to the ITC number.

I saw complaints that people did not know a vote was taking place, although someone pointed out that at least in Dakka there was a six page thread.

I'll take your explanation with a grain of salt until it is verified by a more official voice.

I have already proved he is just making crap up. All past ITC polls have had ~1000 votes and had no ITC numbers. This one had about 1000 votes as well.

Also, Reecius said, multiple times, ALL VOTES WILL COUNT AND NO ITC NUMBER IS NEEDED

You're 100% positive someone cared that much to change their IP address lots of times to vote? Wishful thinking, but unlikely. I could say someone who was to tau did the same, hince the 5 vote difference. So if it were the other way with results, and I was contesting it, would you be angry?

 TheNewBlood wrote:


While ITC numbers were optional, all the available evidence (especially the small poll tally) points to the voting being linked to the ITC number.

I saw complaints that people did not know a vote was taking place, although someone pointed out that at least in Dakka there was a six page thread.

I'll take your explanation with a grain of salt until it is verified by a more official voice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:Again, EVERY SINGLE PERSON COULD VOTE. you did not need an ITC number to vote. The linked the vote to your IP address. If you tried to go back into the poll it said "You have already participated in this..."

That's a standard polling program response that's designed to prevent people from taking the poll multiple times.

While ITC numbers were optional, all the available evidence (especially the small poll tally) points to the voting being linked to the ITC number.

Orock wrote:Read it again, anyone who had an email could vote. It says NOTHING about having to be in an itc event with a record. What you are suggesting is that they "told" everyone their vote would count, but in the end threw all the non tournament players votes away like trash. And if they DID lie like that, then nobody should use their system, because that is a scummy thing to do. So which is it?

It was made clear at the beginning that there were measure taken to prevent people from voting more than once. Why should the poll organizer give away the poll security measures? The ITC number field was a dead giveaway anyway.

Orock wrote:you do know there are programs where you can change your IP address on a whim, right? And people that do this kind of things hide behind proxies all the time.

Sure, you can change your IP address on a whim. Can you point me to programs that can change your ITC number? Because all evidence points to that as the poll security measure.

Naw wrote:Only 925 votes were given to the first question. The CF (2nd) got 947 votes, the other 2 Tau Q's were 944 and 942. Two Stompa questions had 944 and 941 respectively.

Why not vote for all questions? Would be interesting to see just the ITC registered votes.

You don't find it more than a little interesting that out of the potentially thousands of people who were made aware of the poll and voted, less than a thousand votes were actually tallied?

So when Reece wrote "So, we adjusted our procedures to eliminate this type of behavior. As a result, we got less votes than last time, but, probably close to the same umber of unique voters." he didn't actually mean it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
You're 100% positive someone cared that much to change their IP address lots of times to vote? Wishful thinking, but unlikely. I could say someone who was to tau did the same, hince the 5 vote difference. So if it were the other way with results, and I was contesting it, would you be angry?

I can't take you seriously anymore. What is this 5 vote difference with a Tau vote?

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
You're 100% positive someone cared that much to change their IP address lots of times to vote? Wishful thinking, but unlikely. I could say someone who was to tau did the same, hince the 5 vote difference. So if it were the other way with results, and I was contesting it, would you be angry?

I would say the same. The vote needs to come with an email confirmation to the alleged address to be clicked on for a "did you vote in this poll". I am going to convince my friends until its proven one way or another we need to suspend itc rulings, or mabye look for another system. If it IS ballot stuffing, this is clownshoes and we can find better.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
NEW INFO! From reecius himself.. A tau player made the tau questions for this poll... So no more can the tau players QQ about the wording. It was your own brothers doing

Good to know anybody who plays tau is part of the secret society.


And, as shocking as this might seem, some players may actually want to nerf the OP parts of their armies. I, for example, would like to nerf riptides. That's the thing. I don't think people would mind as much if it was directly communicated that this was a balance vote, instead of pretending it is a rules one. I'm fine with fixing balence issues. Now, I don't think popular vote is the way to do that, but that's another matter entirely.

From a non-40K player, it really is surprising how....viciously partisan this is, with bad faith being assumed on all sides. Maybe it's because of the size of 40K armies, that most people are unlikely to play more than one faction, and far more attached to "defending" their own?

 Elemental wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
NEW INFO! From reecius himself.. A tau player made the tau questions for this poll... So no more can the tau players QQ about the wording. It was your own brothers doing

Good to know anybody who plays tau is part of the secret society.


And, as shocking as this might seem, some players may actually want to nerf the OP parts of their armies. I, for example, would like to nerf riptides. That's the thing. I don't think people would mind as much if it was directly communicated that this was a balance vote, instead of pretending it is a rules one. I'm fine with fixing balence issues. Now, I don't think popular vote is the way to do that, but that's another matter entirely.

From a non-40K player, it really is surprising how....viciously partisan this is, with bad faith being assumed on all sides. Maybe it's because of the size of 40K armies, that most people are unlikely to play more than one faction, and far more attached to "defending" their own?

I am a 40k player, but I'm right there with you. This is an incredible amount of butthurtedness coming off a post that appeared on 4Chan.

I sent a polite email to the ITC with this. If everyone wants them to speak up I encourage you to send polite emails to them. Don't send wild accusations one way or the other. That's not going to improve anyone's mood.

Manchu wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Principal rules design? Awful idea. Secondary rules design? i.e. clarification and FAQs? Pretty good idea, I think. Better than one or two TOs making house rules and pretending their own biases aren't entering the equation. (Genuine answer, BTW.)

Seems secondary design is better left to designers responding to closed/open playtesting rather than gamers voting on the internet. That said, it would have been wise in this case to only count the votes from ITC members, which amounts to closed playtesting, albeit in a backwards way.

I'll give you that, but that's like saying cold fusion is a better power source than fossil fuels, lol. GW refuses to administer over their own game, especially for competitive purposes. The best solution is not on the table, so now we must seek second best.

Blacksails wrote:Well, of course balancing 40k entirely would be a larger task than just starting from scratch, but a home brew game is much less likely to receive a following than a 'Revised 40k' from a well known group of people.

That aside, I maintain that the whole process isn't a democracy, in that the popular vote should not decide what gets buffed and nerfed. People should feel free to post their thoughts and feedback as much as they want in a useful and thought out manner, but ultimately, whoever is heading the project and has access to all the data should be making the final call in an (ideally) unbiased manner. There's a reason no game uses a vote system to action certain buffs/nerfs, but instead uses polls and forums to gauge general thoughts and get a number of potential fixes.

But again, Reecius prior to the vote made clear his personal opinions about the CFP rule. While it's pretty clear he was misinterpreting it RAW, his intent behind the reading was clear, and was mirrored in the poll questions. As I've said before, if Reecius just announced that he had decided to nerf Tau CFP, there would be a lot more complaining than if there had been an organized vote.

As GW does not support tournaments anymore, it is up to the gaming groups themselves to decide how they want to play. The ITC and its players have narrowly decided that within the context of their house rules system the game would be more balanced if Tau CFP did not share special rules.

notredameguy10 wrote:
I have already proved he is just making crap up. All past ITC polls have had ~1000 votes and had no ITC numbers. This one had about 1000 votes as well.

Also, Reecius said, multiple times, ALL VOTES WILL COUNT AND NO ITC NUMBER IS NEEDED

No prior ITC update had been done outside of their quarterly schedule, not had any been publicized to the extent this previous one was. If anything, the consistency of the voting numbers adds to the poll's legitimacy, as it proves that aroudn the same number of ITC players are voting in every poll.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Blacksails wrote:Well, of course balancing 40k entirely would be a larger task than just starting from scratch, but a home brew game is much less likely to receive a following than a 'Revised 40k' from a well known group of people.

That aside, I maintain that the whole process isn't a democracy, in that the popular vote should not decide what gets buffed and nerfed. People should feel free to post their thoughts and feedback as much as they want in a useful and thought out manner, but ultimately, whoever is heading the project and has access to all the data should be making the final call in an (ideally) unbiased manner. There's a reason no game uses a vote system to action certain buffs/nerfs, but instead uses polls and forums to gauge general thoughts and get a number of potential fixes.

But again, Reecius prior to the vote made clear his personal opinions about the CFP rule. While it's pretty clear he was misinterpreting it RAW, his intent behind the reading was clear, and was mirrored in the poll questions. As I've said before, if Reecius just announced that he had decided to nerf Tau CFP, there would be a lot more complaining than if there had been an organized vote.

As GW does not support tournaments anymore, it is up to the gaming groups themselves to decide how they want to play. The ITC and its players have narrowly decided that within the context of their house rules system the game would be more balanced if Tau CFP did not share special rules.

notredameguy10 wrote:
I have already proved he is just making crap up. All past ITC polls have had ~1000 votes and had no ITC numbers. This one had about 1000 votes as well.

Also, Reecius said, multiple times, ALL VOTES WILL COUNT AND NO ITC NUMBER IS NEEDED

No prior ITC update had been done outside of their quarterly schedule, not had any been publicized to the extent this previous one was. If anything, the consistency of the voting numbers adds to the poll's legitimacy, as it proves that aroudn the same number of ITC players are voting in every poll.

What are you talking about? The previous polls did not require people to input an ITC number...

And of course they voted it down. It would be amazing against deathstars and MC/GC. There are very few tau players in relation to all other armies, so logically people would vote against it to help their own self interests. aka make sure their armies don't get hurt by it

 TheNewBlood wrote:

But again, Reecius prior to the vote made clear his personal opinions about the CFP rule. While it's pretty clear he was misinterpreting it RAW, his intent behind the reading was clear, and was mirrored in the poll questions. As I've said before, if Reecius just announced that he had decided to nerf Tau CFP, there would be a lot more complaining than if there had been an organized vote.

As GW does not support tournaments anymore, it is up to the gaming groups themselves to decide how they want to play. The ITC and its players have narrowly decided that within the context of their house rules system the game would be more balanced if Tau CFP did not share special rules.

My point is that a vote to decide on the course of action is not good for a game. When you factor in every little bias, misinformation, and general partisanship or spite, you'll always end up with a result that is less optimal than a small team that filters a large amount of feedback and tests the potential fixes to see which one comes the closest to creating a fair match for all involved.

If Reecius had just picked the option outright and announced what he was going to do, any and all rage/upset feelings/cheering would be directed at the person who made the decision, and no one else. Now, we have this nonsense of rigging, finger pointing, partisanship, ignorance, and a number of other factors of people all bitching and moaning at eachother and the ITC for several reasons rather than just one contentious ruling. Plus, if the ITC were to redact or change their ruling after a vote, it basically nullifies the whole process anyways, and they'd have been better off just deciding themselves so they can change it later and not seem like they're going against some majority of vote casting players.

A game really really shouldn't be a democracy for any sort of design choice. You need a small number of experts who's goal is to remain as unbiased and knowledgeable as possible, who work with a larger group of lesser experts or specialized experts, who help filter a larger number of opinions and forum feedback from all sources in order to come up with the best plan possible.

Voting on it sounds like a cool idea until you get nonsense like this.

But hey, I'm sure we can all agree we wouldn't even be here if GW could write themselves out of a paper bag.

I just talked to a good friend who is somewhat of an IT expert and he said this is basically something impossible to do... plus 4chan - really ?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I just talked to a good friend who is somewhat of an IT expert and he said this is basically something impossible to do... plus 4chan - really ?

Not much of an IT expert then i guess. It is EXTREMELY easy to change your IP address. it takes like 5 seconds if you use VPN/Proxies

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I just talked to a good friend who is somewhat of an IT expert and he said this is basically something impossible to do... plus 4chan - really ?

Not much of an IT expert then i guess. It is EXTREMELY easy to change your IP address. it takes like 5 seconds if you use VPN/Proxies

This is true and its easy to make new emails for them.

Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?

As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.

I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!

See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?

As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.

I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!

See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.

They are not unsubstantiated. We were talking about it because people have been posting they voted 50 times against Tau. Thats what brought this discussion up.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?

As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.

I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!

See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.

I brought it up. They stated tau players hath to much pride to do so

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?

As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.

I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!

See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.

They are not unsubstantiated. We were talking about it because people have been posting they voted 50 times against Tau. Thats what brought this discussion up.

By "people" we mean "one person on 4chan who claims to have made over 50 accounts to vote against Tau".