It's a legally valid use, the vote is by rules invalid unless beet specifically says he'll accept it, I'd like a chance to defend myself, and I don't think any townies expected or wanted an avalanche vote. I am giving the players and the mod an excuse to bypass this, the original voter himself has said I deserve time and unvoted. This would arguably represent a rules change... quoting the v3.2 rules:

"As with voting, where format or spelling is not correct, clear intent may be sufficient, but is at the Mod's discretion."

I have challenged the validity of the vote based on a clear formatting error. It doesn't require that the mod allow votes if he feels intent is clear, it says that the mod, if he feels the intent is clear, can allow it. We've regularly ruled votes invalid for skipping unvotes or messing up the bold, and we've regularly allowed shortenings or misspelling of names, so those, while not in the rules, have the power of precedent, there's no precedent on that colon, and one has to be careful with that anyway, it is far easier to have someone recast a vote than to set a precedent where someone who said "If we all vote John we'll lose" and counting that as "Vote John" and "Vote: John"