- Ratings are assumed to be on Difficult Mode.
- Votes need some explanation regarding their gameplay performance to be counted (unless they fall into the general parameters of the average rating, but reasoning is still strongly encouraged on those even if you just wanna quote people) — incredibly low scores or high scores without proper justification will not be counted. Don't put in some random text thinking it'd count as justification. Put in at least a little thought and give REAL reasoning.
- Numbers for votes, please - not something like "Marcus/10", etc. Proper justification will be determined by me and whoever decides to help, whether it be Integrity and Integrity again or sometegrity else.
+/- ≤1 point extra regarding personality/appearance is okay, but no more.
- Votes out of 10, or something proportional to it. Makes it easy to calculate, please and thank you~!
- Every ranking phase ends whenever I get out of bed, between 0700 and 0800 EST. Do the math for your timezone, Brits.
- I will insist you do not use the "Not X" reason on any character, where X is another unit. If you do, your vote will be thrown out.
- Ratings for characters should always assume the gameplay route YOU judge them best on. If I see "doesn't exist on ephraim" ANYWHERE in your rating for Innes I will be very cross and will probably throw out your vote out of spite.
good marisa lost to neimi
l'arachel is getting a full point bias from me just for having a sexy name
EDIT: Also I'm going to paste this here so that I can be more secure that it gets read:
Now, two things:
1/10. I never saw the point.
Eirika is a Lord Myrmidon, Joshua is an earlier gained Myrmidon. she will always be locked to swords. and will be worse than other sword locked units.
She has the tower. But even then why waste the time when Joshua is easier to train and Eirika promotes as part of the plot?
I let this slide because it's within parameters and because I don't recall you voting before, but please don't do it again. I would seriously rather have no justification than justification that consists only of "she's not x or y".
Secondly, @Ein: If you're going to continue to post in these threads, I'm going to insist that you cut off the sarcasm. You're not being funny and you're just making my job tallying harder.
(read: if I see you mention Seth again I'm going to stop counting your votes out of spite)
Edited by Integrity, 23 February 2012 - 06:56 AM.