Bolding Votes/Unvotes is different, that gives the mod a big help in spotting game-deciding actions. But an Unvote is valid whether or not you name the person you're unvoting (because it's ceased to be an active part of the game), and thus I wouldn't require it.
Other players should also be paying attention to who unvotes whom, and that's one reason I endeavour to always have a vote count near the top of each page, so they can compare notes.Phoebus wrote:Naming whom you unvote means you are paying attention to the game and not being lackadaisical.
I don't know; if you're going to be rigid about something, you can't later say "well, a few mistakes are okay" - that leads to the dreaded Mod Interference label, and I think a metaploy like "I never unvoted X so you can't really count my vote for Y" is silly, if not harmful to the game.Dasquian wrote:In my games, I generally acknowledge and pointedly refuse to accept "second votes" (ie the player should've unvoted first), and generally don't see a problem with people forgetting after the first couple of times. One advantage to following this protocol so rigidly is that there is no room for ambiguity - and also it allows semi-meta tactics like deliberately not unvoting first to place a dud vote on someone (though this doesn't happen often!)
...
In summary - I like to force players to unvote first, but once that becomes the accepted culture a few mistakes or errant unvotes don't seem to be too prevalent.
What we do, as moderators, is run mafia games. I don't believe we should be encoding special circumstances for "online" games that wouldn't be at least theoretically reasonable in other venues, like face to face.
But that's just me. I could be wrong. *clink*clink*