I can't be arsed to meta-dive everyone and ongoing games rules prohibit me from talking more about tris's playstyle but
That'sthree (vague, general, surface-level) questions in a row, none of which they actually followed up on. Like idk if I'm just used to newbscum in games I'm usually in throwing around questions to make it seem like they're trying to find answers but their questions have no substantive value behind them at all, but their ISO is basically filled with exactly that. If you interrogate someone I'd assume that you actually want to use the information you get out of it, unless you're scum who doesn't need that info.
VOTE: tris
Two of those questions where literally right before you had posted. Of course I haven't followed up on them. For the first one there's been no need to follow up on. Cheeky's answer is a piece of my understanding of her, but there was nothing specific in her answer that I felt the need to say something about.
Also, why are those links to quoting the posts?
In post 148, CheekyTeeky wrote:
Ngl I don't knows what's up with porkens/Tris voting each other for so long.
Just a leftover vote from RVS. I haven't yet found who I want to vote for reals. I'm in the midst of sorting through my thoughts on various players. UNVOTE:
I can't be arsed to meta-dive everyone and ongoing games rules prohibit me from talking more about tris's playstyle but
That'sthree (vague, general, surface-level) questions in a row, none of which they actually followed up on. Like idk if I'm just used to newbscum in games I'm usually in throwing around questions to make it seem like they're trying to find answers but their questions have no substantive value behind them at all, but their ISO is basically filled with exactly that. If you interrogate someone I'd assume that you actually want to use the information you get out of it, unless you're scum who doesn't need that info.
VOTE: tris
I'm finding it odd that this is the impression you're getting from my ISO. It seems to me that the rest of my ISO (well, after RVS) demonstrates more thoughtful stuff.
In post 110, LuckyOtter wrote:Just one thing: Why do you have parachutes in your townlean pile? That doesn't really jibe with 93. Was their response in 95 sufficient?
I liked Parachutes from the start because he kept messing up his posts which is ever so slightly indicative of town to me.
I then felt a bit concerned because he seemed a bit more placid and question-y than I'm used to. His response explained why urap's style might come across as strange to me. I'm fine taking his word for it since I want to townread him anyway.
What do you mean by messing up his posts? Do you mean failing to sign?
In post 137, LuckyOtter wrote:Still trying to figure out where to move it/hoping LG would come back before I did
Why? Is it making you nervous?... Should I just leave it there maybe?...
..
.
VOTE: apthet Thank you for the scumday wishes, really, but I'm also not liking your Gemini vote. You say that Gemini's post was "pretty bad," (why?) but then immediately hedge this by saying it could be a reactive town. Then you pretty well admit you're reaching in 129. This doesn't sit well--shows a lack of conviction.
I'll agree that a certain amount of reaching is necessary early on, but we're moving beyond that point now. It's not a great excuse.
Agree that the Gemini vote was based on weak reasoning and the hedging was scummy, but while I easily see scum making such a post, I can also see it coming from town who is unsure of their own reads and are trying to strike a point. To be fair, I did see Gemini's post as textbook scummy, while having seen many town with such an attitude leaves me unsure on my Gemini read, and I actually think it's more likely from town.
In post 137, LuckyOtter wrote:Still trying to figure out where to move it/hoping LG would come back before I did
Why? Is it making you nervous?... Should I just leave it there maybe?...
..
.
VOTE: apthet Thank you for the scumday wishes, really, but I'm also not liking your Gemini vote. You say that Gemini's post was "pretty bad," (why?) but then immediately hedge this by saying it could be a reactive town. Then you pretty well admit you're reaching in 129. This doesn't sit well--shows a lack of conviction.
I'll agree that a certain amount of reaching is necessary early on, but we're moving beyond that point now. It's not a great excuse.
Agree that the Gemini vote was based on weak reasoning and the hedging was scummy, but while I easily see scum making such a post, I can also see it coming from town who is unsure of their own reads and are trying to strike a point. To be fair, I did see Gemini's post as textbook scummy, while having seen many town with such an attitude leaves me unsure on my Gemini read, and I actually think it's more likely from town.
I can't be arsed to meta-dive everyone and ongoing games rules prohibit me from talking more about tris's playstyle but
That'sthree (vague, general, surface-level) questions in a row, none of which they actually followed up on. Like idk if I'm just used to newbscum in games I'm usually in throwing around questions to make it seem like they're trying to find answers but their questions have no substantive value behind them at all, but their ISO is basically filled with exactly that. If you interrogate someone I'd assume that you actually want to use the information you get out of it, unless you're scum who doesn't need that info.
VOTE: tris
I'm finding it odd that this is the impression you're getting from my ISO. It seems to me that the rest of my ISO (well, after RVS) demonstrates more thoughtful stuff.
Oh, forgot about your earlier post where you address other parts of my ISO.
I felt like they're surface level too. My read is progressing.
In post 162, tris wrote:@CheekyTeeky Could you elaborate on your read on me, particularly how you utilized my meta?
I'm getting pinged now. Why ask this now and not when the read was given or when you previously asked about meta? I'm feeling like you want me to keep defending you as town which Ive done enough of and given reasons for.
In post 137, LuckyOtter wrote:You say that Gemini's post was "pretty bad," (why?) but then immediately hedge this by saying it could be a reactive town. Then you pretty well admit you're reaching in 129. This doesn't sit well--shows a lack of conviction.
I don't like this at all. I'm engaging with Gemini to further explore the read. I'm at the starting line right now. I feel like I'm nowhere near having a conviction.
In post 126, apthet wrote:
I also went back and looked at Gemini's posts because I thought that townreading LuckyOtter and tris and disagreeing with a townread on Porkens on her part was a particularly disagreeable opinion.
In post 158, Chito and Nuko wrote:while I easily see scum making such a post, I can also see it coming from town
In post 158, Chito and Nuko wrote:To be fair, I did see Gemini's post as textbook scummy, while having seen many town with such an attitude leaves me unsure on my Gemini read
@apthet: but why did you think Gemini's 67 was "pretty bad"? And,
are
you actually engaging with Gemini to explore the read? I don't see any engagement. I see:
a. "This post is pretty bad: [quote's post]"
b. "It could also come from town, tho"
c. Votes Gemini
d. No further questions for or interaction with Gemini.
sometimes i want to rest
