In post 91, Ranger wrote:Sure. If Ika saw the same thing I did, it's basically the contrast between GM's first post and second. In GM's first post, there was a decent vote with a decent reason: could be serious, could be random, good content generator. Yet in the second post GM made, regardless of whether GM's vote was actually serious or not, the tone behind it was clearly less serious, rather than more.MaxwellPuckett wrote:I don't agree with 'waiting for time to pass' if the player being waited on isn't really being pushed to answer, which appears to be the case. Now that goodmorning has weighed in below, would you feel like sharing your feelings on them?
That pinged me as being a bit unnatural. But it's not very strong, whereas my Errantparabola suspicion is.
It's an Open. I rarely take Opens seriously.
In post 93, Vedith wrote:In post 74, goodmorning wrote:You sound far too reasonable to be Town.
Is that a personal trait for Maxwell?
Or do you mean in general?
I meant Maxwell, specifically in post 73.
In post 94, Vedith wrote:In post 92, Ranger wrote:Worthy of note: in addition to Errantparabola, I've got my eye on GM (see above), Brunneis, and Trivium.
I don't think all four are scum, but I think we've got at least two in that group of four.
Talk to me about Trivium - What stuck out for you with him?
Why ask Ranger and not meeeeeee?
p-edit: well, scum can and do reaction test, but parabola has deeply mischaracterised the nature of this test in particular in an attempt to make it seem scummy so he can push makara
which is a thing that scum do, decide who they're pushing and misconstrue evidence after
js