It's very simple:

It's not a matter of "do I like these people."

It is a matter of "Do I think these people will genuinely push progress to improve the game, spot break points, address exploits and endorse ideas that can improve the quality of the game?"

I'll be the first to admit. Some of my more fond ideas are ones I culled from other people. Most of them are from over a year ago, so I cannot remember WHO was the original poster.

One of the ideas I can confirm came from a person who I wouldn't **** on to put a fire out. Doesn't mean that person didn't have anything good to contribute.

Look at the people running. Look at the legwork they do.

Do they contribute? If yes, vote for them.

WILL they contribute? If yes, vote for them.

Do you feel someone else will do a better job? Then vote for that guy.

I'm a very results-driven individual. I don't give a rat's ass if I like you if what you say has a provable foundation. I value function over form, balance and parity, and because it's a game, the focus should be on making it more enjoyable to play at every turn.

If I'm not elected, cross and pokey are at the top of my list because cross has proven that he can get things running, and I work well with pokey because he provides excellent input.

He also doesn't agree with me unless he feels my data justifies it.

The odds of either playing "yes man" rapidly approach zero once you start poking at how they do things.

There is creating content...