In post 380, Branson wrote:1. I believe #70 post is the scummiest post in the entire game so far, minus other posts that came by later... which are also by the same slot (and I will get to those later).
1a. The question to flubber is an empty nothing question.
1b. Too much detail on the Enter quote. I found it bizarre that you felt the need to call that post manipulative and his interactions with Brigitte not SvS after you asked a lot of questions about that one single quote.
1c. Your response to #42 was another empty nothing question.
1d. I really don't like how you felt the need to predate a question to u r a person 2 with stating that you think he's town.
1.a well, sort of. i agree that the question wasn't particularly significant, and that it's answer wasn't that important, but that's not why i asked it - i like to get out of rvs as soon as possible and i believe that the best way to do that is to start pushing anything that looks remotely interesting or that looks like someone has formed some sort of opinion; that way we start to generate discussion. you're right, why tris thoguth flubber's rvs post was scum-indicative really isn't that important or intersting in the broader context of the game, but it's the first post that i felt was more interesting than the typical banal rvs posts, so i used that to start a discussion
1.b. i mean i elaborated why i thought that later, but yes, i think that post was manipulative (and he finally admitted as such like a hundred posts later! that he was trying to get her to join the reck wagon, which is what i picked up on) and the dialogue between them on that page is not svs-indicative. i don't entirely know what your problem with this point is actually
1.c. i didn't (and still don't) know what 'hardcore voting' means; i'm not sure why asking clarification on vocabulary is an empty question
1.d well initially the 'urap' might be town line was going to get it's own section but as i continued reading i realized i wanted to respond to one of his posts so i just lumped all the urap bits into the same section (the '==''s in my wallposts denote sections)
all in all i don't know you're reading this is a scummy post honestly
==
In post 380, Branson wrote:2. It was made pretty obvious pretty fast what Enter was trying to do (and Brigitte even explained it here), and yet you kept pushing the same case even beyond that. Your overall play up to where I have stopped reading is to push on Enter's 31->34 trajectory for as much as you can get away with, and I don't feel like the way you're approaching it is natural since I'm seeing you occasionally make somewhat nuanced stances and points (70, 89 132), yet the other parts of your ISO for this stage in the game is essentially arguing the same points over and over again without applying that same nuance to what everyone else is telling you. It's jarring.
a. how much of the game have you read?
b. yes, because the sequence of 31-34 was atrocious; that's why i kept pushing it. i did *not* intially read those posts the way briggite did, and did not get that vibe from enter's posts until fairly later on. i was particularly bothered that
31 felt manipulative (which nobody else agreed to), and he admitted to it being such later. i didn't feel like his sudden read change on reck was explained by wanting to wagon people; the two things didn't seem much connected to me.
after talking with him for a while, i finally got out of him that:
1. he wanted to wagon random people and initially picked reck for that wagon
2. he wanted to convince other people to join these wagons
3. he went back to read reck's posts after brigitte indicated she didn't find reck's posts ai (which, in turn, prompted the read change between the two posts)
and all of these *together* make sense and explain what was going on there satisfactorily imo. i did not feel like brigitte's eplanation explaned the manipulativeness, which is why i discarded it. it took a while for me to get all of the pieces that i was looking for, and once i got it, i dropped it
In post 380, Branson wrote:3. These three posts are the other biggest source of my scumread outside of #70. Brigitte was clearly talking about the 31->34 shift when she said the consistency wasn't scummy, and I find it a bit hard to believe that it would naturally occur in a town mindset to respond to that with what is essentially "yeah the progression isn't scummy but both parts of it are scummy!" especially when you call it scummy anyways six posts later.
in a vaccuum, i don't find changing reads to be scummy.
i find *indicating taht a lack of ai content on page2 is scummy* to be scummy, because a lack of ai content on page 2 isn't ai, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it is. i also think that modulating that stance after being rebuffed trying to sell it to someone else is scummy
the fact that he changed his read on reck isn't inherently a problem, it's the fact that it came in that context.
