I generally try to but I don't like arguing with a few kents so I rolled over But as I said, given that Wilson's votes wouldn't have affected the final standing, I will enforce a "4 or nothing" rule from now on. At least that seems the most consistent way of doing it.
Disagree, certainly for the first round, theres going to be times I'm not familiar with all 8 people, or times where I only really rate 3 of them - I'm not wanting to choose a 4th random one just for the sake of it, especially as a vote for them could end up knocking out one of my chosen 3. Yet I'll still want to vote. Voting for just one is a bit much, but I don't see the issue with having one abstain available to use.
It doesn't matter if you vote for one or three. As long as you're voting for less than four your votes are worth more than the others. Put it this way, you're voting to eliminate the people you're not voting for. People who vote for four people get four votes. People who only vote for three essentially get five votes.
Crock of shite TBH. Your vote is worth the same if you vote for one or 4 - each vote counts as one to the person named. People aren't going out because you didn't vote for them, people are going through because you did. By voting for 3 you aren't saying 'I want 5 out', you are saying 'I want these 3 through, I'm ambivalent about the 4th so I'll let others have more of a say'
I think its highly unlikely that in a battle of 8 people, there's really only one you recognise their forum prescience and don't completely despise them. Unless your Fiery of course I mean, I've not voted on this battle because I don't really know most of the posters, I'm guessing they tend to frequent different area's of the forum to me (Rugby subbies, Aus/NZ ones etc...). i'm pretty much only Crabs/Allstars, British subbie, and then the Football/Pub areas of the main forum.
Who are you to judge whether someone should or shouldn't think only one person should be worthy of a vote.