Going to go with another
No Vote, but will also add a
Vote No. I'm against the rule change because I worry it establishes a precedent that could make things harder on future hosts, but that mostly just means slightly more work for mostly Kushrenada.
As for this:
Alright, based on my careful examination of the Day 1 no-vote fiasco I a have determined the following people to be quite suspicious:
Nickmitch
I will probably vote for one of them based on their reactions to this aspersion.
I have two questions. What about my no vote was suspicious? I generally don't like day 1 bandwagons to begin with, so I went it. Also, I think mine was the second No Vote, so the chances of me colluding with anyone aren't super high.
Second question: What is a reaction that would cause you not to vote for me? Hopefully, it's this one, but I've been in this situation before, and usually, it only serves as a way to stir up suspicion towards someone. If one plays it too cool, they look like they're trying to hard not to look suspicious, and if someone is too defensive, then they look just as suspicious. So, what is the right answer?