[Elu Ancalime]

Lommy........<sigh> (I like Elendil)

++Treebeard

He really didnt do anything, and besides, he could've prevented the attack on the Entwives. If the Ents checked up the Wives more regularly, maybe the Wives would have stayed West of the ANduin, and Sauron might have left them alone.

SpM, you do have a point about character flaws. This may invalidate my own vote for Elrond, but to an extemt you are right. It is Tolkien-based if one makes a vote based on an assumption from character. However....I regret to say I can not find any direct proof that Elrond is a sissy. That is my perception of him (in a Mirthful way) But then there would be exact specifications on what can and can not be assumed, if assumption is allowed. But then a character like Oropher would be gone, only because 'he never did anything.' So, putting it in that perspective, I would then theoretically totally support Elrond, and campaign against 'idles', but then if that was true, Formendacil, or any other Survivor Mod should not have put Idles in to maintain that.

Oh, come on, you're just being stubborn. "Elrond is a sissy" is obviously not a legitimate argument. No where in Tolkien's books does Tolkien hint at Elrond being a sissy. On the contrary, Tolkien describes him as strong. If Formendacil accepted a vote that said "Elrond is a sissy", he would have to accept a vote for Sauron that said "Sauron is a messy eater".

But see, assuming Formendacil is a government and not one person, a vote like that should be accepted regardless because most ballots anywhere dont have three lines after where you write why. If that was true, then the democratic world would have the best leaders. My dad once made a joke that he couldnt vote for Al Gore in '00, because:

"Joe Lieberman looks funny"

Now he didnt do that, but nobody cares about that, because in popular vote, the idea is that the people can vote for any candidate. Debates and speeches are for the people, so that they can think why they would consider this candidate. The reasoning is for the person, not the people. As a person, they have justification to vote for somebody and not have to tell anybody else who they voted for or why, because they wouldnt vote unless they had a reason, no matter how silly. Even the fact that most people only see one side of an issue, if they are completely ignorant to the fact, they are allowed to vote. That is an example that nobodys perfect.

Also, this was posted in Formendacil's opening post and other past Survivor Mod posts. Obviously this is Formen's game, but just a general idea of Survivor. Survivor Sillmarillion was a little bit different as it including reasoning on challenges, so i dont think its liable in this instance.

=Formy The person will be evicted from the game by the voting of YOU the readers

I assume this implies personal justification, which is eprsonal.

=Glirdan2) You have to come up with a funny excuse for you reason to vote that person out. It can be an inside joke or something that everyone will get. It doesn't matter as long as it's comedic.3) Lastly (and most importantly I might add), HAVE FUN!!!!!

This is a little critisism for Formen, but Boromir88 who created survivor on the Downs said this.

Please list votes like so ++Frodo, and it would be funner if you give an explanation as to why. By all means, this is Middle-earth Mirth, think of something totally whacky.

Since this is Mirth, I think the silly and absurd reasoning should be allowed to a healthy point. I really did not expect a bandwagon to start about how sissy somebody was. I expected a bandwagon about evicting Elrond.
________
Vt800