In post 176, Aureal wrote:Still want to hear Pav's response to my questions in 134.
I either did not realize I had left questions unanswered or I thought maybe these were rhetorical, it's hard to say - I was on a magical mystery tour last night. Uh, anyway... I'ma post my answers in bold and save myself trying to fook with the formatting
In post 131, Pavowski wrote:I should clarify that I consider lots of things pressure, one being "lots of votes on me, I need to save myself here" pressure (that would be the e-2 pressure I wasn't a fan of) and another being "let's ask this slot some questions and see what shakes loose", y'know, like you're doing to me
They can co-exist obviously but are not the same thing
E-2 at this early stage really shouldn't feel like pressure, should it? Most everything was still RSV so who would put the last two votes on without discussion?
E-2 always feels like pressure to me, regardless of whether it's likely to go thru or not (and I don't *really* think it was but again, I wanted to err on the side of not ending d1 early). Who would put the last two votes on? I dunno man, The point of removing my vote was to remove the possibility
Pavowski wrote:
At any rate Charles' "absence" from the thread is materially different from Weuler's at this point and conflating the two would be a mistake
Howso? Both have given a RSV and that's it for content, save for Charles promising to be back with more soon.
Charles has engaged with the thread, even in the hand-waving way of "I'll get back to it", which indirectly acknowledges the absence, while Weuler has done no such thing. I kinda feel silly explaining this
Pavowski wrote:Aaaaaand that's it for me tonight, boys and girls
Aureal feels towny to me here
Not gonna crawl into your pocket or anything tho
For one thing I wouldn't fit, for another there's already an axlotl in there and I have intimacy issues
Ahh, trying to get me to back off you, eh?
Nope, stay on, IDGAF. Your questioning of me felt in good faith
Meanwhile this last check-in by Meg feels decidedly meh, which is not great, but I have to assume scum!Meg would be doing more. You still null, funny bunny, find us a scum pls
In post 165, IdleMuse wrote:On the basis that if you ARE town, the scum are sitting back and rubbing their hands, I'm interested if other people could weigh in.
This is quite a drastic pov for a game that's just recently dropped out of RVS
Finally back at a computer so I don't have to post from mobile, which makes quoting hard.
In post 33, IdleMuse wrote:
But overall it seems like a baa'd idea. Your analysis, while long, was quite.. Woolly. I'm not convinced
What makes it a bad idea?
In post 39, Elements wrote:Do you think my joke analysis post is more scum motivated or town motivated or neither or both?
Reading back, my impression of aggression was based on this early on exchange, where you're pressing me over a RVS joke I made in response to your initial joke post. I do understand your point, though, that getting the game started is generally pro-town. By contrast, I felt cactus was more picking up on what I considered legit questions - so maybe 'aggressive' was the wrong word, but I don't know a one-word word for 'putting pressure on in ways that feel constructed rather than flowing naturally from the situation'. I'm going to unvote you because it's picking at splinters really given there is now a few more pages of content.
In post 165, IdleMuse wrote:On the basis that if you ARE town, the scum are sitting back and rubbing their hands, I'm interested if other people could weigh in.
This is quite a drastic pov for a game that's just recently dropped out of RVS
What do you mean by a 'drastic POV' here? is this vocab I don't know, in context?
There aren't any toxic 1v1s clogging up the thread or cyclical conversations leading nowhere.
Those are the sort of things I think scum would just sit back and spectate. Atm I think we're discussing game relevant things that progress the game.
I agree with everything Elements is posting - Papa Zito
It's scummy as fak tho - Gamma Emerald All my completed games
In post 102, Charles510 wrote:Sorry, I just finished Christmas with my family. Going back to read up.
It's not that long a thread, obviously this is a time of year where it's hard to get away sometimes but imo they realistically they've posted twice so far, once (with a few posts in a row) to do some RVS, and then once for this, so like, not a great look?
In post 186, Elements wrote:That that point of view is quite a jump given the gamestate
In post 187, Elements wrote:There aren't any toxic 1v1s clogging up the thread or cyclical conversations leading nowhere.
Those are the sort of things I think scum would just sit back and spectate. Atm I think we're discussing game relevant things that progress the game.
Okay, point taken. It would progress the game if other people were in involved too, which was all I was asking. Of the three other people to post since then, only Meg had a comment on it, neither Aureal nor Pavowski did, which are data points.
In post 130, Aureal wrote:It's been just over 8 hours since he said he'd been with family for Christmas and was about to get into things. Seems like we could give him a little time to do that, no? Either he follows through with that, or he continues to hide away in which case, in your opinion, it'd be useless to pressure, wouldn't it? How much time do you think it should take him to say more?
In post 131, Pavowski wrote:I should clarify that I consider lots of things pressure, one being "lots of votes on me, I need to save myself here" pressure (that would be the e-2 pressure I wasn't a fan of) and another being "let's ask this slot some questions and see what shakes loose", y'know, like you're doing to me
They can co-exist obviously but are not the same thing
E-2 at this early stage really shouldn't feel like pressure, should it? Most everything was still RSV so who would put the last two votes on without discussion?
Pavowski wrote:
At any rate Charles' "absence" from the thread is materially different from Weuler's at this point and conflating the two would be a mistake
Howso? Both have given a RSV and that's it for content, save for Charles promising to be back with more soon.
Pavowski wrote:Aaaaaand that's it for me tonight, boys and girls
Aureal feels towny to me here
Not gonna crawl into your pocket or anything tho
For one thing I wouldn't fit, for another there's already an axlotl in there and I have intimacy issues
Ahh, trying to get me to back off you, eh?
Specifically the early bit of the last quote felt like reasonably good-faith arguments to me at the time I posted those reads. And I agree with her that E-2 isn't really 'pressure' on day1.
In post 181, Pavowski wrote:Charles has engaged with the thread, even in the hand-waving way of "I'll get back to it", which indirectly acknowledges the absence, while Weuler has done no such thing. I kinda feel silly explaining this
I really don't get this point. Charles has posted nothing of value in the thread, Weuler has. Even though I don't like Weuler's points particularly (focus on Aureal felt kind out of nowhere in #140), you can't claim that they haven't engaged with the thread, that's simply not true.
In post 181, Pavowski wrote:Charles has engaged with the thread, even in the hand-waving way of "I'll get back to it", which indirectly acknowledges the absence, while Weuler has done no such thing. I kinda feel silly explaining this
I really don't get this point. Charles has posted nothing of value in the thread, Weuler has. Even though I don't like Weuler's points particularly (focus on Aureal felt kind out of nowhere in #140), you can't claim that they haven't engaged with the thread, that's simply not true.
Weuler has posted in the thread again NOW -- when I wrote the post you got twisted up about, Weuler had exactly one post to their name. C'mon now.
In post 189, IdleMuse wrote:Of the three other people to post since then, only Meg had a comment on it, neither Aureal nor Pavowski did, which are data points.
Now I'm confused. You wrote the text I quoted in #181, Weuler hasn't posted since then. I get that since the original post #132 they hadn't, but, the situation as it stands is different. What's your thoughts on Weuler and Charles right now?
In post 189, IdleMuse wrote:Of the three other people to post since then, only Meg had a comment on it, neither Aureal nor Pavowski did, which are data points.
In post 195, IdleMuse wrote:Now I'm confused. You wrote the text I quoted in #181, Weuler hasn't posted since then. I get that since the original post #132 they hadn't, but, the situation as it stands is different. What's your thoughts on Weuler and Charles right now?
Both need to do more, at this point. Weuler's standing is slightly better than before, but not by a lot. Charles obviously has yet to check back in since saying they would over 24 hours ago. You could make an argument for both of them to be lurkscum at this point but the odds are we're not that lucky.
In post 189, IdleMuse wrote:Of the three other people to post since then, only Meg had a comment on it, neither Aureal nor Pavowski did, which are data points.
Comment on what exactly?
Post #164/5
Most of 164 is directed at Elements I don't have a lot to comment on. I think you may be fixating on Elements a little bit, here (though overreacting and jumping to wild conclusions is kinda what d1 is for). I do agree that the "elaboration" gag was a little overly cheeky and unhelpful, but again, does scum!Elements do that to bait you? I'd lean toward "no", it feels more like a cheeky axlotl being a cheeky axlotl not too worried about how it'll be perceived.
Nope, stay on, IDGAF. Your questioning of me felt in good faith