>>52823626>>52823637Correct me if this wasn't your intention, but the way you're framing it makes it sound like you think only the players who voted to take action get to vote for which action to take.
If that was the case, I'd agree this is a BS kangaroo suspect to get rid of tera, because then the votes for reasonable action would be split and outnumbered by votes to ban.
But that isn't the case. Read the rules more carefully.
Even if you vote "no action", you still get to rank your preferred choices if action does end up being taken. And because anyone who votes "no action" is overwhelmingly likely to list banning at the bottom of their preferred actions, the suspect is actually biased against a ban.
If they wanted tera gone, this is the worst possible way to go about it.
