Open 819 | The Mindmeld Theory | Postgame

[Datisi]

i'm p sure that if my read on you was 'null' you'd be unsatisfied as well, no?

?
"null" is boring but understandable. why did you even say this...?

[skitter30]

like "null" is a category that exist and that i'm pretty sure you've heard of? so i don't get why you're saying that "if you don't think i should be townreading you here then what's the problem with me scumreading you" as if those are the only two ways you can read a post and as if laws of the universe say that you *have* to have one of those reads on someone

?
what are you trying to say with this

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

I would sure hate to be eaten by a tiger

good thing im town af

[Ich Troje]

I would sure hate to be eaten by a tiger

good thing im town af

Who else is town to you at this point?

[Datisi]

like "null" is a category that exist and that i'm pretty sure you've heard of? so i don't get why you're saying that "if you don't think i should be townreading you here then what's the problem with me scumreading you" as if those are the only two ways you can read a post and as if laws of the universe say that you *have* to have one of those reads on someone

?
what are you trying to say with this

i'm trying to say that in 397 you're going: if "i don't think you ought to be townreading me" then "you don't see how you being suspicious of me is a problem". you're basically implying that, because i said that i don't think there are good (objective) reasons to townread me right now, that i couldn't find scumreads on myself a problem.

i don't think that's right, because i find both of those to be true right now. i can agree that i'm not being objectively townie, but i can still call out scumreads on myself if i find them wrong. but you're going "if i shouldn't townread you, why is me scumreading you a problem", i feel like that's ignoring that fact that you can be null on someone, like it feels like you're saying you have to be one or the other. does that make more sense?

[skitter30]

ok sure i can understand your objection in the first paragraph. i disagree that the natural conclusion is that i ought to be null-reading you, which is what you seem to be implying you expect of me here instead

i think we're going around in circles tho, we don't really have to quibble semantics
i still find your read on me unsatisfactory, and you believe i may or may not be making up reasons to scumread you basically is where we're at i think

[Umlaut]

I'm getting towny feelings about Datisi mostly because I like his reasoning process, but trying to discount those feelings because I don't think that's actually a good reason to townread someone, but they're still there

[Datisi]

i don't think you "ought" to be nullreading me, i just think you cannot be calling me out for finding scumreads on myself problematic on the grounds of "well you said you weren't being townie"

like if you had a super strong scumread on me but if was backed by reasons i found satisfactory, i wouldn't have a problem with you here

i agree we're arguing semantics but the problem is that my suspicion on you is very semantics-based ._.

[Umlaut]

ok sure i can understand your objection in the first paragraph. i disagree that the natural conclusion is that i ought to be null-reading you, which is what you seem to be implying you expect of me here instead

i think we're going around in circles tho, we don't really have to quibble semantics
i still find your read on me unsatisfactory, and you believe i may or may not be making up reasons to scumread you basically is where we're at i think

Hmm.

[Datisi]

hmm?

[Umlaut]

I may have noticed something but I don't want to say what just yet because of reasons.

[Datisi]

oh cool i love reasons. let me know when you can.

[skitter30]

i don't think you "ought" to be nullreading me, i just think you cannot be calling me out for finding scumreads on myself problematic on the grounds of

"well you said you weren't being townie"

like if you had a super strong scumread on me but if was backed by reasons i found satisfactory, i wouldn't have a problem with you here

i agree we're arguing semantics but the problem is that my suspicion on you is very semantics-based ._.

dats do u really want to continue quibbling semantics because from my pov you're twisting a lot of things that i said in this first paragraph and if you want me to break it down i can but i feel like we're going around in circles

also i tried to sort of articulate how exactly i take issue with the bolded above but it starts to become a very confusing he said she said sort of situation and i'm not sure how to make it clearer and i'm not sure quibbling about it is going to do anything either

[skitter30]

so like i can try to break it down and explain ti but i don't know how well i will be able to and i'm not sure doing so will accomplish anything either

[Vulture]

This game is going to have a stupid team like Skitter/Pooky and that's why Pooky's in high spirits and also why he's just hanging out trying to mentor us with his sage experience prior rather than doing anything and then we're all going to go o: post-game like we couldn't have seen it coming.

I trust S_S/Umlaut/Datisi (?). The last I am not that strong about but in the over-arching Datisi v Skitter back and forth I find Skitter to be... agenda-feeling.

Scum is probably laughing at me in the PT.

[skitter30]

This game is going to have a stupid team like Skitter/Pooky

that would be fun

[Vulture]

Perhaps some of that is that, it feels opportunistic to back down from the "argument" here that they're having (from Skitter's side) when there is a bit of questioning on her now. I think in an ideal world though I should play safe and say we don't let either of Skitter/Datisi pair because it feels like the sort of fight where it's T/S but I'm not sure enough on my townread to go "yes pair please."

[Datisi]

re 412: i mean from my pov your 397 sounds like that so like idk anymore

[skitter30]

Perhaps some of that is that, it feels opportunistic to back down from the "argument" here that they're having (from Skitter's side) when there is a bit of questioning on her now. I think in an ideal world though I should play safe and say we don't let either of Skitter/Datisi pair because it feels like the sort of fight where it's T/S but I'm not sure enough on my townread to go "yes pair please."

i just don't see the point

[Vulture]

Perhaps some of that is that, it feels opportunistic to back down from the "argument" here that they're having (from Skitter's side) when there is a bit of questioning on her now. I think in an ideal world though I should play safe and say we don't let either of Skitter/Datisi pair because it feels like the sort of fight where it's T/S but I'm not sure enough on my townread to go "yes pair please."

i just don't see the point

Of what point? There's two in there.

[skitter30]

"well you said you weren't being townie"

like unless you think i ought to be townreading you here i'm not sure how me being suspicious of you is a problem

these are not at all the same thing ?

[Datisi]

"you said you weren't being townie enough for me to townread, so why are you having a problem with my scumread on you"

is that not what 397 essentially says

[skitter30]

Of what point? There's two in there.

the semantics is kinda getting very mired and confusing and i'm not sure what the point is of arguing it since:
- this isn't helping me read dats better (if anything it's making me more suspicious of him)
- this does not appear to be helping dats read me better
- i'm p sure nobody else wants to read this

[Vulture]

...you have a point, I didn't really want to read 17 pages worth of it, but it is useful for sorting you two.

How is it not helping you read him better if you're erring towards an alignment-read on him?

[Vulture]

As in, what I get from that is (and take it with a grain of salt given my light SR on you): "This is not helping me move towards a townread which I know to be correct on him." Sort of deal.

I'm aware that's not in good faith but my mind jumps to it.