Thanks for the advice @Teek

No Problem...and guys, don't hate me if things didn't go your way, I'm just a man being forced to choose. I personally would take most of you from reading those expose and scores, even ones I criticized.

Props to you all for the effort and time in this.

In @BP Pride vs @~SHINIGAMI~, BP Pride used 3 comments to post his expo whereas the rules state that the voters must limit themselves to one comment. All his comments were successive and they do not violate the reasons why I included that rule in the first place. I was under the impression that there was a character limit to the comment box (I swear it seems like there used to be) but I just realize that that is no longer the case...so all 3 of his comments could have went into one comment. I didn't want people posting novels of an expo trying to win this thing. Conciseness is a virtue as well. I was also trying to avoid scenarios where voter A votes, then voter B votes and includes something that voter A didn't, then voter A wants to come back and include what voter B included in a second comment. Since BP Pride's comments were successive, it shows that that clearly wasn't his motives in expo'ing with 3 comments. Therefore, even though his action violates the rules, since they don't violate the reasons why those rules exist in the first place, I'm going to make a judgement call here and allow his vote to remain qualified.

That's right.. Ya'll better recognize.. (Thanks NOBLE :) )

Is it cause he's black? @NOBLE tell the truth lol

Lol.......

S'not true, at all. NOBLE has no reason to do anything in my favor because I'm black..

@Ill Phenom vs @MadVerbs
Battle: SWISHER vs Exiled Samurai
MadVerbs Voted: SWISHER: 3 / Exiled Samurai: 4
Ill Phenom Voted: SWISHER: 3 / Exiled Samurai: 5
MadVerbs kept it short and sweet. He pointed out flaws in the verses and what he felt needed to be improved. He also didn't specify who he was referring to with each comment by name...making statements like "One seemed to have a better idea..." and "Overall one had more..."' I'm assuming he did this so that his expo doesn't sway.
Ill Phenom broke his expo into two parts, each specifically directed at each of the battlers. I felt like he went into more detail outlining problem areas and what the battlers could do to improve them. I feel that most of the time, this is the approach that would actually benefit a battler more when you address them directly...because it could actually go over their head if you're saying "one this" and "one that" while talking about both of them. Truthfully speaking, I've been guilty of it too, and I felt both gave an adequate explanation of their votes, but when comparing the two, I think Ill Phenom's approach is preferrable. Vote: Ill Phenom.

Dropped my vote .

I didnt see the part about one comment till after I voted.. Smh it was a short second comment tho..