With such overwhelming support for a run-off poll, here it is.

Where shall we settle our second city?

Options:
Site #2 (lighter red)
Site #7 (purple)
Abstain

The map (thanks to Trucking Pete)
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/DG6_BC2900_request1.jpg
Poll will be open for 2 days, or until next TC(which I think comes first :crazyeye: ).

EDIT: Here's the discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113854)

In the previous poll, Ill still stand with site #7 :).

Honestly, vote 7, since cluttering the heartlands of Fanashire with settlers and worker factories is not the best way to go about securing high quality cities. We wasted one river city already with Camelot, let us not do the same mistake twice.
Site 7. can be used for multiple reasons, and we need that strategic flexibility

I thought #7 was the first city we decided on, so I chose #2. :undecide:

CT, feel free to change your vote.

But CT, #2 is best for the next city!

@ Provolution: Rivers?!? Who cares about rivers when we have the whole ocean at our disposal! :D

I like 7. It's on the coast (we're seafaring, remember?), it gives us the cow right away and the gold as soon as we expand (whenever that is). And it keeps Ghandi from taking the spot from instead of us.

My concern is more for the eastern cow. The Dutch are expanding in its direction.

I’m happy to see the two finalist locations are cow-rich. We Fanatannians are notorious beefeaters, so we will be happy settling in either spot. I continue to support #2, the red square. We can settle that more quickly, and it has better access to food. We should be able to squeeze more settlers out of that location than we can from square #7. I do think #7 is a priority to settle, though; probably our third city.

2 is too close to the capital, so 7 gets my vote.

My concern is more for the eastern cow. The Dutch are expanding in its direction.

...and with a 3 wheat and floodplain start too. :eek:

I thought #7 was the first city we decided on, so I chose #2. :undecide:
I thought so to, I thought in the last poll that there would not be a run-off poll since #7 has clearly taken lead. Traditionaly, I would only see a run-off poll if two or more options have tied the highest. Certanly, I did not see a tie in the last poll :hmm:.

I thought so to, I thought in the last poll that there would not be a run-off poll since #7 has clearly taken lead. Traditionaly, I would only see a run-off poll if two or more options have tied the highest. Certanly, I did not see a tie in the last poll :hmm:.

Neither option in the prior poll got even close to a majority. I think they both had a little less than 40% of the vote. A run off was called for to clearly determine the WOTP in this case.

7 is better. that way the cities are not all crowded

I would say 3/4 majority would suffice to be WOTP.

I would say 3/4 majority would suffice to be WOTP.

Let's make it easier. I'll tell everyone what the WOTP is. :D

I would say 3/4 majority would suffice to be WOTP.
most things would stalemate... WOTP is plurality unless stated otherwise...

WOTP is such an abused term, so if I meet another DG televangelist abusing the term, NUKE HIM. I get seasick when I read the word "WOTP". Woptiwopti, wobblywobbly floppety floppety WOTP WOTP blah blah

Not sure why the presence or absence of a runoff should get anyone riled up. I guess maybe if the front runner from the 1st poll gets smashed in the runoff it could be trouble, but in this case the same option is leading, just by a higher margin. :hammer:

Fun to get riled up, the DG can be very cold and boring.