Page 3 of 5

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 11 Oct 2011, 19:57
by salmondine
In the name of all thats holy! Elect Matt for GM, before the world ends in 2012.
Think of it like the make a wish foundation!
Imagine a kinder, gentler Matt.....Okay, thats not working but you get the point.
There are many reasons to elect Matt for GM.
1. He has a near endless supply of old rares...imagine the endless hours of sucking up.
2. He almost never plays, so there is the anarchist vote.
3. He deserves to be GM, stay with me, think purgatory...

For these and a thousand other reasons I voted YES YES YES....

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 11 Oct 2011, 20:59
by Matt
I am kind and gentle. Just not on the internets.
And to brazil people.

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 01 Jan 2012, 19:54
by adoolah2
Who is Matt?

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 03 Jan 2012, 13:59
by Matt
adoolah2 wrote:Who is Matt?
Who are you?

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 04 Jan 2012, 13:53
by i
YES! Yes~!

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 06:43
by yourmistakes
changed my vote to "no" because he isn't a GOP candidate.

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 09 Jan 2012, 13:06
by hermes
I vote "No".

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 09 Jan 2012, 14:02
by argul
I voted yes due to my kind experience in IRC with Matt :)

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 13:42
by cardmaster
hermes wrote:I vote "No".
Not sure but people with 20 posts can vote :/
as i said i voted yes :d

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 18:27
by o11c
cardmaster wrote:
hermes wrote:I vote "No".
Not sure but people with 20 posts can vote :/
as i said i voted yes :d
People who spam themselves over 20 posts and have them deleted don't automatically get de-privileged. When such people vote, they just make the job of the vote-verifiers harder.

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 15 Jan 2012, 15:57
by Axalix
"NO".
Never seen him online for last 4 years.

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 15 Jan 2012, 16:08
by Frost
Axalix wrote:"NO".
Never seen him online for last 4 years.
This isn't a real discussion. It's just an old thread that was necro'd first by cardmaster and then again by adoolah.
Ironically, both were spamming to reach 20 posts to vote in a different GM poll. It doesn't look like either of them actually read this thread.

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 15 Jan 2012, 17:20
by Matt
Frost wrote: This isn't a real discussion.
:shock:

Why, oh why? :(

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 18 Jan 2012, 23:16
by argul
me strongly supports Matt, whereas I dont support people trying to get 20 posts.

Re: Matt for GM

Posted: 21 Jan 2012, 12:27
by cardmaster
argul wrote:me strongly supports Matt, whereas I dont support people trying to get 20 posts.
There are some people out there :L