| public myers-briggs votes | (20/01/31 22:00) tch: ISTJ | | (19/08/14 11:37) Tman: ISTJ |
| (19/02/02 00:33) Taco110: ISTJ |
| (19/01/17 06:36) LadyX: ISTJ |
|
| public function votes | (20/01/31 22:00) tch: ISTJ | | (19/04/08 11:50) tman: ISTJ |
|
| public enneagram votes | (25/07/31 06:34) nicotineseries: 6w5 | | (19/04/08 11:51) tman: 6w5 |
| (19/01/17 06:36) LadyX: cp6w5 |
|
| public instinctual variant votes | (19/04/08 11:51) tman: sp/sx | | (19/01/17 06:36) LadyX: sp/sx |
|
| public tritype® votes | (19/08/14 11:37) Tman: 614 | | (19/01/17 06:37) LadyX: 694 |
|
| public sociotype votes | (19/04/08 11:50) tman: LSI | |
| public psychosophy votes | (19/10/26 01:01) Tman: LFEV | |
You’re right, I should layer the votes instead of averaging them. If someone votes from the hard tritype dropdown, they submit that type while sending “null” values to the rest of the types (e.g. 125 -> submits 1 to 1, 2 and 5, but submits nothing to 3, 4, 6, etc). Because of the averaging system currently in place, sixteen hard 125 votes will be countered by someone voting any non-1 number to 1, 2, or 5 while voting 1 for 9, 4, or 6. I’ll see what I can do about it soon.
There was one tritype vote for 693