SCREEEEEEEEEECHH!!!
Just had an idea and Jury selection is important for it. I'd like to note first that I don't actualy agree with any of this but I think we could put up a good argument for it.
I've heard complaints in the past about how the mods, I want to say Matt specifically, have banned a lot of old posters that used to "make the hype fun." I'm thinking we narrow it down a bit and focus on their crime being hurting Hype Survivor by getting rid of so many of the early players who used to "make the game great and exciting."
It would take a lot of work but I'm thinking that we'll have to find out, if possible, who banned what former players like Kibobe, Holly, etc. We'll have to focus on how Survivor used to be HUGE but now it's not as big and how that was directly the result of the bannings.
It may not work, you might not like it, but it was just a thought.
Also, as far as Jury selection goes I recommend two things. Get people who are still active hypsters but used to frequent LSP and play Survivor over there (where the banned members went oftentimes). Secondly, find some old threads that talked about the "good old days" when hype was more "fun" and find Survivor players from then who were upset by the bannings, etc. If we can get a good number of Jury members who agree with us on that regard we could have ourselves a chance of winning.
Thoughts? It was just something I thought of and it might not work. We'd have to have a good argument otherwise it's not going to work.
What the defnese would say is:
Survivor has been kept going by two mods: Matt and Spider-Fan. Our defense for that is that the Mods have hurt Survivor so bad with their bannings that they HAVE to keep it going themselves, even having to beg at times to get people to play.
They'd bring up the bannings being necessary and brought on by the posters themselves. Our defense would be that we aren't condemning the bannings themselves, as they have to do their job, but the falling star of Hype Survivor. They chose to ban these people and Hype has lagged as a result of it to the point where we can only have them once or twice a year to keep interest. The crime of the bannings caused that. Not the crimes that caused the bannings.
Anything else? What are your guys' thoughts?