Ah, alright.
Gaelan
> On Dec 2, 2018, at 6:00 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Pardon me - If you had not submitted that vote, Jacob Arduino's vote would
> have resolved to AGAINST, not PRESENT. Either way your vote evaluates to
> ENDORSE V.J. Rada.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message
Pardon me - If you had not submitted that vote, Jacob Arduino's vote would have
resolved to AGAINST, not PRESENT. Either way your vote evaluates to ENDORSE
V.J. Rada.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, December 3, 2018 1:56 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> You ENDORSEd the
You ENDORSEd the person who would _otherwise_ be the last person to vote FOR,
i.e., who would be the last person to vote FOR in the hypothetical scenario
that you had not submitted that vote. If you had not submitted that vote, Jacob
Arduino's vote endorsing you would have resolved to PRESENT,
Did I really vote FOR 8136? IIRC I ENDORSED the last person to vote FOR, and
someone else did as well (that may have been Jacob, who changed eir vote to
endorse me). Either way, I *think* that’s an inextricable conditional that
resolves to PRESENT.
> On Dec 2, 2018, at 3:51 PM, Timon
4 matches
Mail list logo
