In post 7, Fuchs~ wrote:I have a confession to make, I have never seen the thing movie. I just wanted to play an anon game.
Me too TBH. VOTE: Bennings
This? What sticks out to you as Thing-like?
Yeah, that. It's a vibe. The TBH seems self-conscious, the post itself is short and seems to be made for the sake of making it and fitting in, and the vote on a person that hasn't posted yet vibes like he doesn't want to start ruffling feathers yet.
1. I use TBHs a lot in my writing style.
2. I found myself to really relate to that post.
3. I voted that person because they were the first in the VC and I always do my RVS votes on arbitrary factors like that.
I also don't like this, seems overly defensive/survavilistic for page 2
I'm thinking Cooper or Clark are good votes but I want to SEE where this is going
In post 1, petapan wrote:The following is a list of outlawed shenanigans:
Using invisible text, codes, cryptography, etc.
Codes are explicitly forbidden in the rules, don't go attempting to use them. This will be the only time I warn people, further instances will get you booted from the game.
In post 35, Garry~ wrote:1) MacReady is the platonic ideal of a husband.
2) I dislike 28 because I don’t think it says much of anything for calling tbh “interesting”. I don’t get the sense Clark cared much for the question he asked.
VOTE: Clark
I very explicitly did not "call tbh interesting" in that post, not sure how that was your takeaway when I talked about Palmer's case having a basis in the site meta.
In post 7, Fuchs~ wrote:I have a confession to make, I have never seen the thing movie. I just wanted to play an anon game.
Me too TBH. VOTE: Bennings
This? What sticks out to you as Thing-like?
Yeah, that. It's a vibe. The TBH seems self-conscious, the post itself is short and seems to be made for the sake of making it and fitting in, and the vote on a person that hasn't posted yet vibes like he doesn't want to start ruffling feathers yet.
I see. Something I've noticed recently is that people seem to find "tbh" as scummy, with one reason being that it comes off as soft and half-hearted agreement in order to avoid conflict. At least, that's one reason that's stuck out to me.
It's interesting that you see Copper's post as a whole that way, rather than just the "tbh" part.
VOTE: Copper
I'll vote here with you for now.
PE:
In post 26, Copper~ wrote:Abbreviations are something of a mild verbal (textual?) tic for me.
Understandable, I suppose, I have tics of my own. What do you think of Palmer's vote and reason for voting you? Thoughts on mine are welcome as well.
This is what I am referring to.
You're...bolding the part that says that I find Palmer's case having a link to site meta interesting. I specifically find it interesting that the case
I’m going to be frank, the issue is more specific to you calling something interesting than it is the subject itself and I made that apparent, I believe, in my post. What’s interesting about it and more importantly does it have any bearing on alignment? Without including the latter the post rings hollow and disinterested, like you’re going through the motions.
In post 58, Clark~ wrote:Do I really need to say that I think complex reads are townie...?
PE: An E-2 wagon on page 3 is usually a meme. I'm baffled that people could misinterpret my post that badly.
You didn’t communicate any of the first sentence in your post. I also don’t think it was a complex read either, but that’s more subjective. So yes, you do need to make your thoughts apparent.
And again, you’re baffled. But what do you actually think of the people engaging with it. You feel... cautious, I suppose, of saying much about it.
In post 57, MacReady~ wrote:Eh not sure I love Childs' vote either, but like the serious wagon
I do think Gary is somewhat townie
What did You find off about Blair?
Pedit:
@Clark is not like there's not content to talk about
Oh i just realized this was at me
I thought the first few votes on the wagon were fairly organic, Blair's (and Childs') are, for better or for worse, more bandwagon-y and are, in my mind, less inherently likely to be 'pure' - there's more of a chance that irregardless of Clark's alignment, they're just taking advantage of an already existing wagon
In post 57, MacReady~ wrote:Eh not sure I love Childs' vote either, but like the serious wagon
I do think Gary is somewhat townie
What did You find off about Blair?
Pedit:
@Clark is not like there's not content to talk about
Oh i just realized this was at me
I thought the first few votes on the wagon were fairly organic, Blair's (and Childs') are, for better or for worse, more bandwagon-y and are, in my mind, less inherently likely to be 'pure' - there's more of a chance that irregardless of Clark's alignment, they're just taking advantage of an already existing wagon
Mmhm I see, idk why i thought you would say something about the diary which for good measure I think it's nai
I was thinking about going for a Cooper vote but decided to pressure Clark, so far it doesn't seem like he is willing to put something on the table
In post 26, Copper~ wrote:Abbreviations are something of a mild verbal (textual?) tic for me.
Understandable, I suppose, I have tics of my own. What do you think of Palmer's vote and reason for voting you? Thoughts on mine are welcome as well.
In a vacuum I'd call it a shitpush but we were still basically in RVS so I'm not scumreading him for it. Also if that's the hot new scumtell then it's understandable, I wasn't aware of that.
In post 72, Blair~ wrote:I think Clark & Childs could both be scum and Childs might actually have more scum equity atp - would not be opposed to moving votes there instead.
I like MacReady's 69 think this slot is currently town.
