Talk:Principia Moderni III (Map Game)

Initial Discussions
We agreed that we would not make the page until 1 January 2014. Sorry that memo was not communicated here. Mscoree (talk) 19:31, December 23, 2013 (UTC)

Its under construction, these things aren't done overnight. Scandinator (talk) 01:44, December 24, 2013 (UTC)

Im claiming the Timurids just so ya know. DS|The Rainbow Machete 22:42, December 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being mostly useless last game, I'll try to use my brain this time :D Airlinesguy (talk) 15:15, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

One last warning to anyone claiming anything in Italy. Don't want to ruin the game for anyone, but your game will be pretty short if you're in Italy. CrimsonAssassin- "I have special eyes" 14:03, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Korea is not a vassal to china. Japan owns korea. ShadowKnights1234 12/29/13 10:20 (EST)

Aborigines? Mafia CBA doing his signature. Don't judge Him. This Sig is inspired by Guns. 16:05, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

The nation list is not complete. This page is under construction. Mscoree (talk) 16:12, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Can I add the Aborigines? And under what name should I add them, if I can add them? Mafia CBA doing his signature. Don't judge Him. This Sig is inspired by Guns. 16:13, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Shadow, Korea was always a vassal of China up until the 1910s. Japanese never able to successful invade and conquer Korea, and it remained under Chinese protection until 1912 when Japan annexed it following the collapse of the Qing Empire, which could no longer defend Korea. And besides, the first Japanese invasion of Korea didn't take place until 1593, two hundred years from the game start, and before that, Japan wasn't even unified. As of 1400, both China and Korea are in better positions that Japan. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:26, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe in PM4 Ill be a mod lol DS|The Rainbow Machete 12:54, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

^Weep for this game's future.

Genoa is not a French vassal, hell it even was a naval supperpower at that time. OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Actually, Oct is right. Genoa wasn't a vassal until the Doge (wow such Genoan. Much naval. Wow) of Genoa signed Genoa as a French vassal in 1458. That being said, Oct, it really went downhill since it had a really costly war with Venice. That and the rising Ottomans killed the power Genoa held in the 14th century. That being said, it isn't impossible to get it back. CrimsonAssassin- "I have special eyes" 16:20, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Genoa will most probably be devastated after with someone else, am I right, Crim?

17:31, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

lol. Doge... Much Map Game. Many ASB. Very PMII. 17:58, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

So Caliphate. Such Wales. Much ASB wow doge.

18:11, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

GUYS, can we just get this organized? I swear, the Soviet Union was better off then this.

I believe Lx claimed Novgorod. Out of tradition we should respect this claim.

21:09, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Numerous parts of Eastern Europe seem to be missing from the list. For example, I don't see Poland-Lithuania or Moldova anywhere. 77topaz (talk) 23:42, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

The nation list is not complete. This page is under construction. Mscoree (talk) 23:44, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm... a Labelled map please. because france is certainly causing some confusion to me. 0.o to many states and idk for sure which ones i control. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 00:23, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Once the official map is done and colored, a labeled map will likely follow. Mscoree (talk) 00:29, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

@Oct, My apologies, I took information from the wrong source.

@Everyone else, I'm creating the nations list as I work trough what is on the map and what isn't, the map is slightly larger and much more complex this time around with the borders completely accurate to the start of the 15th century. A labelled map will follow the completion of the game map to my satisfaction. Scandinator (talk) 04:43, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

The Luxembourg states have their own section, but Luxembourg also appears in the main HRE list; and, Limburg appears twice in the HRE list. 77topaz (talk) 05:43, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Scandinator, why you do this? Mscoree (talk) 15:49, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

The extra Luxembourg section should be removed (it is superfluous now) and Millgy's stuff should be moved around to the new section(s). 77topaz (talk) 19:56, December 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider it done.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:32, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * I was halfway through cleaning the HRE list... Its a nightmare. Scandinator (talk) 14:04, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * What did i do wrong? I just took off the Luxembourg-ruled states section, seeing that all of the states already had a counterpart in the rest of the list.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:54, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

My Opinion on Yall (Holding Nothing Back)
My Opinion on All of You

Where the hell am  I on that list? Spartian300 (talk) 13:48, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Sicily
I saw the discussion on Sicily's status.But, to clarify, since we can't use the sign-ups list to do that:

According to Feudalplague: "Dynastic union means owned as far i know.. that means Aragon pretty much owns Sicily"

Sine replied with: "Not quite, Otherwise Half of france would already be mine lol) Personal Union does mean Aragon Owns Sicily. Else means that if Sicily's king dies it means Aragon may take over it. or that Aragon and Sicily are allied or just Sicily is under its influence."

According to Scan: "Dynastic Union means the two nations are governed by two different people that are related somehow, it meant almost squat in European politics though"

However, i noticed that Sicily is a different case.in 1400, the Sicilian monarch is, who will rule until 1401 in OTL.of course, after 1400 anything can happen here, but, as of 1440, Maria is married to and as of 1 January 1400, has a heir,, that in OTL will die between August and November 1400.However, Martin of Sicily is the heir of the King of Aragon, , who in OTL became King of Sicily in 1409..Okay, all of this looks like unnecessary exposition, but: This is a case where the Dynastic Union will lead to a Personal Union in a few years, regardless of what happens (Maria of Sicily is the last legitimate scion of her branch of the House of Barcelona, and niece of Martin of Aragon, so even if the heirs do not survive, Sicily falls back into Aragon anyway.).So,what should we do?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:11, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Spartian300 (talk) 13:45, January 1, 2014 (UTC)Let the Papal States turned it into a Vassal. It's the only solution.

I didn't understand.I have done this section because DatStar is selecting Sicily, but, if he keeps his choice, he will have no nation to play with, as Aragon and Sicily will fall into personal union relatively soon.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:55, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Peter died in an accident. ATL he will likely survive as most 2 years dont get spears through the head as a cause of death. Thus Sicily can remain independent from Aragon. Scandinator (talk) 14:07, January 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * What i was saying is that regardless of his survival, Sicily will enter a personal union under Aragon.After all, he is his father's only heir, and said father is also the only heir of Peter's grandfather.So, if Peter dies, as soon as Martin of Aragon dies, Martin of Sicily becomes king of Aragon, and when Martin of Sicily dies, Peter becomes King of Aragon and Sicily.Considering that Martin is 44 years old in 1400.And if Peter dies, Martin of Sicily most likely will become King of Aragon and Sicily anyway. So, Sicily will have a very short run as a independent state on this game (no more than 30 years, probably).And i don't know what should be done in this case.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:42, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Should we  start the game now? It IS January 1st. - Spartian
 * Not yet.Neither the map nor the rules are ready.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:42, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

So in conclusion the nation of Sicily is open for someone to play as it, however their playtime may be cut short by Aragon taking them over. Mscoree (talk) 14:29, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * That was Spartian who asked that. Mscoree (talk) 16:10, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Don't bother asking me; I'd be biased in such a situation, but Martin of Aragon has no direct heirs, so really it has to go to them (Sicilian monarchs) sooner or later after which they are in union.

18:40, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Martin's only heir is married to the Sicilian queen and will keep the throne in case of her death.Anyway, I am trying to figure out whether i should advise DatStar to move to another nation, since Sicily is not going to last too long.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:46, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything can happen on ATL, Peter and Martin can have new heirs, and the 2 kingdoms may take separate ways Quashi (talk) 01:34, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * No not at this point. You can't just change the family like that; also, Martin needs to get married and make new children or some BS law that passes over the Sicilians, which is really BS.
 * 01:41, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Is not change the family, is just make them live longer Quashi (talk) 03:00, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * That does not change anything. The throne will still pass to them.
 * 03:19, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Who knows... Quashi (talk) 04:27, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Choosing a nation
I chose Ming-China yesterday, but today I look again and Scandiator erased my name and put his name there, did he reserved it or something? Some clarity please.

Mr YOLO (talk) 15:43, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

I told you on your talk page.Scan claimed China officially two days before you, and had claimed it unofficially three months ago.However, you didn't see it because he was reworking the nations list at the time.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:47, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed.

18:36, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I will pick another nation.Mr YOLO (talk) 08:13, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Yo!
Hey guys! I think I'm having a good timing on returning, eh? :P Wondering if anyone still remembers me. o.O Lots of new faces.  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 16:12, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

You do realize those new faces find this creepy?Spartian300 (talk) 16:33, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Creepy is my profession. ;)  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 16:38, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

I see the Doc is back in town. ;)  Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:50, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Imp, Indeed. ^.^  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 17:35, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Just shut up, dear God, I feel like I'm Griff from Red vs Blue.

Spartian300 (talk) 16:33, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Sign your posts Spartian, as per regulation.

And don't be rude.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. "

Good old brotherhood sense. Love you guys!  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 18:05, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Look at Spartan, thinking he is an important user, swaggering around like his 171 edits mean something. Welcome back Doc, just hang around this time round lol. :P  Imp (Say Hi?!) 18:36, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you back, but this is not the place for this conversation. CourageousLife (talk) 18:37, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

^ thats how i feel about this conversation.Spartian300 (talk) 18:43, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Spartian,



That's new.I don't think i ever saw a player making trouble before the game even starts.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:43, January 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * ^ Where on earth is this side of Collie? I would like to see this side of Collie more often please ;) [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:06, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Wosshappening here??
Woah! I guess the vote was a success... but I can't make heads or tails of what happened! Someone want to fill me in?

Also, can I say that it's not really fair that the votes were carried out over break? I, for one could not post. I don't really care about myself, the modships look alright, but there were many users who could not post.

22:00, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Also, didn't Lx claim Novgorod?

23:27, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

No. Mscoree (talk) 23:33, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Well that expressed worlds, and those worlds better not be the worlds I think they are, or else, you sir are in for a world of hurt.

23:37, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

The nations list is still under construction, and there are claims all over the place. 77topaz (talk) 23:57, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about other worlds. Those too though.

At this point, I need to drop that metaphor.

00:02, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

A Question
Forgive me for being an ignorant newbie, but what do the dark gray states mean on the map? Is the meaning different from PMII (fragmented)? Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

Hi Bfo, good to see that you are back! Dark gray states are still fragmented as they were in PMII. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 01:41, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Yup, rejoined at just the right time. Was worrying about missing the PMIII bandwagon. Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

Hey!
So I thought that since I finally had access to the Internet for the first time in ages, I'd check out what had happened on PMII. Well, boy was I in for a surprise! Anyway, since PMIII is going ahead, I just want to Briefly say a few things. Firstly, the current working map is really very nice; the German Kleinstaaterei are much more accurately portrayed this time around. Secondly, seeing as we aren't meant to edit the German States section, I'll use this page to advertise the fact that I (un)officially claimed the County of Oldenburg on the PMII talk page, and fervently wish to play as that state this game. My final point is that I don't think the "Australian Aborigines" should be a playable nation. I think that the whole Koori Union thing really took away a lot of PMII's plausibility. The simple fact of the matter is that the Aborigines (through no fault of their own) simply did not have any domesticable animals or plants (or oftentimes enough water) to independently create a state-based agricultural civilisation. That's not to say that someone couldn't play as one of the individual tribes and carve out a regional kingdom. So that's all I have to say, I'll be back to normal activity in about five days. Callumthered (talk) 09:59, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't need domesticable plants or animals to establish a state. The Comanche relied on buffalo while the Tonga relied on fish. All you need is a food source, and if the Aborigines run across southeastern Australia, then they can find some type of food source to use to feed their people. If not, then there is always the sea. A nation-state isn't a simplistic "Option A" or "Option B" thing. It can be established under any circumstances regardless of environment. The Inuit could have established their own nation, but they lack the will and motive, as well as communication over vast distances. Same with the Aborigines. They need a reason first, then everything else comes after. Finding and exploiting a stable food source could be the business of such a government. As time passes and need increases, it could begin to stretch out its responsibilities to grow into a nation-state one would recognize, should as developing a standing army to end disputes between tribes, a common currency for easier trading, and a system of laws that could be enforced in all tribes so that travelers need not adapt themselves to the customs of a foreign tribe. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 16:51, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it was a bit of a mess. As for the Aborigines, I don't think we should strike them from the playable list just because of the Koori Union. You can plausibly build something there if you want, just not as quickly as some would like. I actually gave some thought to playing as the Papuans myself  this go-round (not much, but thought about it). Plus, the Selk'nam were in about the same shape as the Aborigines when I started with them and I was able to semi-plausibly ramp them up based on interaction with neighboring colonies. It's a bit of a strech, but if you really wanted to, you could spend a few hundred years domesticating wallabies (Roos might be a stretch) and staging some sort of Neolithic Revolution in what is now Victoria - or wait until post colonizatin and adopt technology from the colonists. Anyone who is crazy enough to play there would be very heavily supervised, and in that particular region we have a good number of self-proclaimed Australians palying the game who could help regulate it (that and I do quite a lot of Australian-related stuff myself). But I think we should leave tribal options open for those who want to hack it. Commandante Lemming (talk) 16:06, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

These are good points, which is why I said at the end that I thought people could play as an individual tribe and carve out a regional kingdom for themselves. What I'm really opposed to is people signing up as "the Australian Aborigines" as though they are one homogenous group of people, forgetting the fact that they spoke over three hundred different languages. If someone played as the Eora people, for example, I think it is possible for them to eventually (independent of any outside help) expand to take the whole Sydney-Parramatta area and even stretch up to otl Newcastle. What I'm opposed to is people signing up as the "Australian Aborigines" and within like two turns somehow uniting all the hundreds of different nations and discovering agriculture and writing and metalworking and domesticating kangaroos or something. What made the Selk'nam thing nicely plausible and cool was that, as Lemming said, their success was based partly on careful interactions with neighbouring colonies, which provided them with the technology to expand in a plausible way and become a recognised member of the international community. If, say, the Eora player expanded to have all of the Sydney area and some of the adjacent hinterland by the time of the arrival of European (or East Asian or Middle Eastern or Ethiopian) colonists, then like Selk'nam, they could, through careful negotiation and interaction, use the modern technology brought by the colonists to expand further; and through adaptation of agricultural practises, grow their population. It is interesting to note, Viva, that the Aborigines already had fairly stable food sources; Kangaroos don't migrate. I was doing a research assignment on the aborigines a few months ago, and I read (in a book!) that Aborigines at the time of European contact had some semi-agricultural practises of their own. For example, some tribes replanted yams in places well-adapted to yam-growing. Many utilised fire to clear bush land, thus giving kangaroos and wallabies more open land to feed on, therefore giving the Aborigines more food. And some tribes built quite complex eel farms in rivers and streams (the author went on to say that had they been left alone for another thousand years, some tribes could have had fully-developed agriculture). So the motive of finding a food source really isn't enough to stimulate the creation of any sort of government other than the one they already had (a sort of elder-dominated loose tribe system). It is interesting too to note that the Aborigines had trade networks which stretched over vast distances, proven by archeologists finding seashell piles in desert areas and various types of ochre in places they should not be found. And through the message stick system, messages (for example about an upcoming feast) could be sent over hundreds of kilometres. But even with the ability to move goods and messages over long distances, the Aborigines of otl did not create any sort of nation state. Finally, I definitely agree with Lemming that anyone who does choose to play as an Aboriginal group needs to be supervised heavily and needs to fully understand the limitations of their chosen group, so we avoid another Koori Union. Callumthered (talk) 22:10, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree with all of those points. Well researched Cal. Kudos. By the way, what's a "book"? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:23, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I hear it's like an e-book, except it has actual pages. Weird. Also, it's big. And the words don't change. It's the latest fad!

22:26, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Oh I agree that someone would have to pick a single Aboriginal group (which in fairness, the Koori Union was a at least based on the Koori grouping).The label "Australian Aborigines" should probably remain as is just because there are so many groups (I'm working on a grad school thing about the Northern Territory so I've had to look at that ethnic map a few times). Obviously if someone actually plays, we'll have to make sure they sign up as the Warlpri or the Arrente or the Tiwi (who would be particularly fun from a geographic perspective) or whatever - but in the interest of simplicity on the map I'm fine leaving overarching terms like "Australian Aborigines"...or "Papuans" for that matter. Commandante Lemming (talk) 23:36, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. If possible, perhaps "Ausalian Aborigines" could be a heading to avoid confusion? The Torres Sait Islanders would also be really cool to play. I've read that they sort of terrorised the mainland Aborigines of Cape York with their better technology. Callumthered (talk) 01:06, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Category
Is there a reason why Lordganon changed the "Principia Moderni III" category to "Principia Moderni III map game"? It's been an unofficial rule that game categories are specifically not named that, and games have been renamed from it in the past. Unless Lordganon wants to rename basically thousands of items, I advise against this move. Mscoree (talk) 15:14, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

The Principia Moderni category was agreed to only be put on the (hasn't happened yet) timeline version. Same with PMII. And I think it will be the case with PMIII. It has always happened, so I am not sure what you are talking about Ms, sorry. Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:04, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but PM2, PM, and PM3 until now all did not have "map game" in the title. Neither has pretty much any other map game that did it correctly (a few examples: NotLAH, AvA, and all its other games in the series) Mscoree (talk) 19:13, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Are you joking? Of course it needs to have "map game" in the title... that's always been the rule. Just let it be, and stop second-guessing everything anyone does.

22:13, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Not the title, the category. As you can see the title of this section is "Category", not "page title". Mscoree (talk) 22:40, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Where?
Where is my beautiful Hungary? :'(  Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:09, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

The map isn't done yet. Mscoree (talk) 19:14, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Well, Hungary is on the map, at least.However, it still isn't in the sign-ups list.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:23, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I have a better question. Where's my beautiful Oyo? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:04, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

The [insert aspect of the main page not done yet] isn't done yet. Mscoree (talk) 22:42, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Start Date
I see that this is coming along, and I am wondering if we have a rough idea of when this is beginning. Is there a set date? Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

There's no set date as of right now. Once we get everything done it should start soon, so probably in one to three weeks. Mscoree (talk) 22:37, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

WE WILL NEVER START! It's a trap! The Force is strong within this one! Han shot first! (Scraw, help me, I'm out).

22:44, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, if you don't actually have anything to contribute you don't have to say anything. Tr0llis (talk) 22:53, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

And if the world all went like that, nothing interesting would happen.

Besides... I'm Guns, Troll. Now shoo.

23:08, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

The game should be starting in 1400. CrimsonAssassin- "I have special eyes" 23:22, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you're trolling. Mscoree (talk) 23:32, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

And as for the calendar date I assume as soon as we get it up and running - kiboshing PMII almost 90 years early made it a little less seamless lol Commandante Lemming (talk) 23:26, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

1400, in-game.If you are talking about day on real life, late January, probably.i am waiting fro Scan to finish the map and the rules.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:12, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear...
We need to do the mod elections over! A bunch of users could not post over Christmas! Come on! Even if it doesn't affect anything this is a democracy!!

22:08, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I guess now you know what it's like to be cheated by a supposedly unfair voting system. Tr0llis (talk) 22:52, January 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't need this kind of negativity. CourageousLife (talk) 23:07, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * Guns trolls Tr0llis a lot. Mscoree (talk) 23:09, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be equally unfair to forfeit the last mod vote for a second time along with the choice of the newest players, to include new voters. Most of the community voted on the mods, and there are still some votes that need a swing vote to get new mods, so they can vote on that. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:44, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * Trollis deserves said trollings exactly for negativity like this.  23:46, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

If any users feel that the need to endorse or dispute one or more of the mods elected, they can feel free to do so below. If not, it can be assumed that the users have given their consensus that the mods are adequate. If any new nominations are to be made, they can be made below as well. CourageousLife (talk) 23:07, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cour. I believe that has been the standard upto this point. Mscoree (talk) 23:10, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Almost everybody with any interest got to vote. I missed it, raised the issue after returning, and was given a special election by Collie in whicdh there were a good number of votes. I personally would have no problem submitting the current mod-panel to individual Yes/No votes again before the game starts, but it's not a terribly controversial slate. Also, at the end of the day I don't think there's an dispute that Collie is Mod-In-Chief, so if we trust him to run the show then I guess we can trust his decision on moderation. Commandante Lemming (talk) 23:22, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I want to rerun only one vote, and now I feel bad about it, but after his past track record as mod... I want to hold MSCOREE's vote once more.

23:46, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

How about no? Everytime Ms runs for goddamn anything it starts an argument, which has you on one side and some idiot on the other and all the poor blokes in between. Then there's both sides attempting to convince other people (ie, myself) to change their vote or vote for their side. Really, it starts a little battle in our civil war every damn time. Even if we add your vote to the supporters, he still loses, so ye.

15:51, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Liberals shall win this time.Spartian300 (talk) 16:25, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

If there is ever a new mod election i would like to throw my hat in the ring of consideration. I am a long time wiki member and have generally tried to be plausable and attempt to mediate often in conflicts. I feel I would be an excellent choice not to toot my own horn so to speak. Very Good, Much No ASB. Wow. Doge approved.Trust Me, I'm The Doctor (talk) 02:18, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

^ Good point, why isn't he already? Ok, so two votes: An impeachment of Ms and a nomination of Andy. 02:21, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

I already won the original election. Mscoree (talk) 16:27, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * MSCOREE won, Scraw. I wish him to lose. He proved quite nicely in NotLAH that he starts arguments by the shite-load. We're adding my influential vote to the detractors. A-HEM.
 * 00:55, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * No offence, but, at least on this game, you have been starting more arguments than him.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:26, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'm also not a mod, Collie :D.  18:08, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't even play NotLAH. Tr0llis (talk) 03:05, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Any retard can go back and read the page, Ms.
 * 03:07, January 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * I will create a new section for Andrew's nomination, since he asked. As for the impeachment of Ms, I will not be making a section. Let him prove his worth here. If he proves incapable, then we will address this when the issue arises. Give him a chance. CourageousLife (talk) 18:03, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Andrew

 * Aye
 * CourageousLife (talk) 18:03, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 18:08, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yank 01:39, January 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * Nay