Formatting mixed up a bit before so here we go.
I agree. Wasn't a fan of the overly casual tone Dann had in his first few posts.
In post 55, gobbledygook wrote: In post 50, Auro wrote:How does the answer to "Why White Flag?" give any useful information? The reasons would have been established prior, and there's no picking games after role assignments anyway.
Well it speaks to the type of person you are generally which is what I want to explore. It is helpful for me to know what type of people I am dealing with since I haven’t played with many of you.
Do you think it is a bad idea to try and introduce discussion into the game?
Not a fan of this. The first part feels like the 'make up a technically flawless answer that perfectly explains why I asked a question when I absolutely wasn't thinking about that logic when I asked it' that I used to catch myself doing as scum a while back. It feels semi-over engineered/too prepared for someone asking.
Second point is oddly hostile. Not really a question since it's rhetorical and nobody is ever really going to say 'yes I wanted to stop us introducing discussion into the game.'
In post 57, Auro wrote:
It's perfectly fine to introduce a discussion point, but why not just explain that at the beginning?
What have you learnt from the responses?
Woah, ease up on the reins there buddy. I don't like this. Why are you chasing Dann up on this so fast? He was clearly going to address this, or if he didn't then it'd be much more useful to ask 'hey Dann why didn't you follow up on this'. What do you get from asking him before he's posted again, because it looks like posturing from you - asking townish questions - to me at the moment.
Hopkirk 'Hopper' Hopkirk
There's no reaching. I've become enlightened.
But it is helpful to see what people pick and choose to respond to. Like do people ask legitimate questions are do they ask empty questions like Cephrir’s wood question