From truth or dare, to daring to go before a judge on the size of campaign signs, some interesting developments in the Shreveport Mayor's race.

Republican Bryan Wooley had nothing to say when asked about the latest jab at his double-campaign signs. A local attorney says the signs are in violation because of their/its size. But instead of retreat on the complaint, Wooley seems to have doubled down, with more of those "signses" popping up around town.

I'm sure Wooley is aware of the ordinance. Otherwise he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of splitting them down the middle and tying them together to try to get around the ordinance. Is/are the size of the sign(s) in violation? He's willing to leave it up to a judge. But Wooley appears to at least be violating the spirit of the ordinance.

I'm thinking Wooley has some baseball in him. His sign tactics remind me of the pitcher who gets by with a balk move that catches runners, until the other side complains enough and he gets called on it. We'll see what an umpire in court says.

Perhaps the bigger question is: does this matter to voters?

Meantime, Wooley was one of the three candidates out of eight who took the dare at Monday's mayoral forum. The surprise to me there is why only three? Each candidate was dared to ask another candidate a question, or else name who they'd vote for besides themselves.

And so we saw which candidates have some feistiness: Wooley, Roy Burrell, and Hersy Jones. Each of them challenged Mayor Cedric Glover with pointed questions. I can understand why Glover told "the truth," and said he'd vote for David Cox. Cox is the chief threat to keep Wooley out of a runoff. And the incumbent Glover wants to appear to be king of the mountain -- no need for him to come down and ask a surly question of any of his challengers.

Interesting that Wooley chose Glover to attack instead of Cox. And that Cox took the easy road of "endorsing" two lesser known conservatives.

Does any of this tell you the measure of the candidates?