Went back through & this is where I'm at:
Inf
Dat
!Sci
Shydra
BB Bridgers
Peng
!Maf
Imp
Scipio
Isis
Ben
Aaron
[line][/line]
I think Dat's just done a generally good job of giving the game momentum, but mostly I like that there's a concerted effort to keep things concrete. Posts like 68, 168-into-332 & 474 imo do a good job of cutting back at some of the more abstract reads in the thread (w/o necessarily challenging them) and distilling them into something materially useful: v little "PJ makes me feel x", much more "PJ did y which makes me feel x" which is just an overall more productive attitude imo.
I've decided I like Shy here. Partly just feeling comfortable sheeping the Notsci read on the slot (
this writeup spells out a lot of the stuff I wanted clarity on earlier re: the meta read, and I'm p satisfied with head consistency + keeping up with the thread as indicators here). Beyond that, though, I like the high posting volume--not really AI in&of itself, but the contents of stuff like 166, 347 & 468 feels extremely generative to me, just doing a very good job of eliciting content which can become AI down the road which, like, I'm into it.
Isis wagon makes sense to me, biggest thing that stood out for me was that 175 was overemoted. At a glance, though, imo Ben's grosser--really don't love their reaction to the wagon on them in
401. Feels extremely loaded to call it a dogpile in the same post that you're asking for reasoning on the votes. The whole "I can't say that scum is on this wagon" feels pretty weak here, too, bc all of it just kind of comes back to the fact that you're not actually
attempting
to make sense of the votes. No attempt from ben to answer their own question, but plenty of effort invested in (preemptively?) painting the wagon as groundless. Similar vibes from 162--if you want more from Isis, ask for more from Isis.
Biggest beef with Aaron is that I feel like they're posting to appear like they're contributing while also being as inoffensive as possible--a lot of talking without saying anything at all. Gave thoughts on some of their earlier content in my last post, but even beyond that it's all very noncommital--like that guy in your grad seminar who didn't do the reading but still opens his mouth because he wants to be perceived as having something to offer. I'm thinking about things like
367 (which is mostly just him making an observation that others have a read on ben while claiming to have no opinion of their own, despite having literally just interacted with ben in his previous post. Follow up is p lackluster, too--post a votecount, make no attempt at analysis) or
446's whole ~what could it mean~ schtick. Like... so much of their ISO is commenting on the amount of townreads being given out & expressing hesitation there, but then doing very little to actually move the game out of that state.
