>>2216189>"J" won with a single double-vote, oddly enough. >>2215907>"I" had 3 positive ones (>>2215905 (You) (You) >>2215951) and 2 negative ones (>>2215976), leaving it at one.>No one else had anything to say about hair-color. A vote about leaving her hair as it is should have been given, in hindsight.There were four effective votes in favour of I (
>>2215905 (You)
>>2215910 >>2215951) and two effective votes against (
>>2215976), which should have left it tied with J (
>>2215907). I'm not sure how your tiebreaking rule that the first to reach the winning vote count would rule here, because option I reached 2 before J did, and then *surpassed* 2 but then got bumped back down to it, but I think option I had the upper hand there.
Further, the double -I that left I and J tying was from SorrySleeping, who said something to the effect of not wanting *any* hair color changes, so they may have only voted for -I because they didn't notice J's votes. If you're not sure how to break the above tie, you could ask them whether they wanted just -I or -I and -J.
The part's already written, but I don't mind swapping out a few lines when compiling if you decide that the vote went a different way.
>>2216189>You keep track of what option won. Would it make it easier if i outright stated so at the beginning of each part?>This time was A+C+D; your exact vote.That would be handy, yeah. Most of the time I can just infer from what comes next when compiling but sometimes it's harder. Plus, this means any oddities like this hair colour thing can be noticed more easily.
>>2216192C sounds quite interesting.
