On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Ã?rjan Johansen wrote:
Ã?rjan.
You're doing this just to vex me right?
*MWAHAHAHA*
No, actually it was the result of a desperate attempt not to change (much)
how I read email. I'm a duct tape kind of person...
Ever since I
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Ãrjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > I change my vote on 8031 to:
> > If there are 4 or more valid unconditional FOR ballots cast on 8031 at
> > the end of the voting period, FOR. Otherwise AGAINST.
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Gaelan
Text encoding issues, most likely.
Gaelan
> On Mar 29, 2018, at 6:20 AM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> What happened to your name? Ørjan Johansen?
>
> On 3/28/2018 7:38 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I change my vote on 8031 to:
>>> If
What happened to your name? Ørjan Johansen?
On 3/28/2018 7:38 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I change my vote on 8031 to:
If there are 4 or more valid unconditional FOR ballots cast on 8031 at
the end of the voting period, FOR. Otherwise AGAINST.
On Tue,
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I change my vote on 8031 to:
If there are 4 or more valid unconditional FOR ballots cast on 8031 at
the end of the voting period, FOR. Otherwise AGAINST.
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
I vote conditionally:
If G¢s vote evaluates to FOR,
PRESENT doesn't evaluate to FOR, so no.
My idea is that if 4 people are interested enough in the subgame (actively
voting FOR rather than a meh 'PRESENT'), they should be allowed to play it,
even if there's some votes against it. If my conditional is a decider this
essentially it makes it
Does that conditional vote include PRESENT votes?
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 9:46 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> ---
> > 8031* [1] 2.0 Nomicbots
7 matches
Mail list logo