RFC: pointless arguments in apionet #482

what thing should we do

  1. implement conversational guidelines discouraging common forms of bad-faith argument: 2 votes
  2. create a second channel to send long arguments to: 0 votes
  3. both of the above: 5 votes
  4. neither of the above: 2 votes
  5. nuanced other opinion: 0 votes
impleme...: 2 both of...: 5 neither...: 2 poll: what thing should we do option "implement conversational guidelines discouraging common forms of bad-faith argument": 2 votes option "create a second channel to send long arguments to": 0 votes option "both of the above": 5 votes option "neither of the above": 2 votes option "nuanced other opinion": 0 votes total votes: 9
 
ultlang (edited ) src #4689

aoieuoaeuae oiuaeouae oiaeu oaeui oea, oaeuioaiu. aoiuoeiuoaeiu oaieu aeo; eoauoaeu:

  • eaiuaoeuiaoe aeoiuae
  • oiaeuoaieu eaoua eouoeaueiauiu (aioe)
  • aeiuaoei ieuieu (eauoiuaeo iou oaeui) oiuaeoieuaoe, aeiuao oiaeoiaeuoae eau oiaeuo. oaeiu oaeuoaeiuoae. aiuaoaeui (BlueManedHawk votes for 4: neither of the above) aiueueaoiae oiaeuoae oiu– aeuoaiuoae.
ultlang votes for 3: both of the above
ubq323 (bureaucrat) src #4690

apio announcement: BMH has been banned from apionet and apioforum indefinitely due to repeated disruption. We apologize for not having done this a long time ago.

caesar src #4691

why?

please log in to reply to this thread