i would've made it clear if i was townlocking ari >.>In post 1808, skitter30 wrote:second bit: dats is townlocking ari, i'm not sure it's going the other way around as well
mmm, what's the actual idea? because i think you're asking two different questions hereIn post 1855, skitter30 wrote:@irrel for tomorrow: i'm particularly interested in you responding to the aboveIn post 1815, skitter30 wrote:right - i didn't read anybody this way except for like fire ... to me this implies that scum are in the people who were exceedingly likely to get in, like: ari, dats, yourself (i.e. vs the people unlikely to get in)
std was unlikely to get in for a while, and so was mena, so i think it's more damning for those 3 people
Also i suppose ari and dats while we're at it
fire is a player that at one point became seemingly "desparate", yes, but i think the same can be applied to mala and her sudden burst in posting at one point that i thought was very odd. obviously neither of these is actually like, indicative of much, since the coalition did ultimately fail, but maybe it's indicative of partners... i'll go check that after breakfast
{ari, dats, irrel, skitter} (i'm adding you there because i feel like it applies) were exceedingly likely to get in, nobody there didn't seem to be much desperation from anyone else, therefore there's scum in that group? i guess i disagree with the premise of people not being really desperate since i think both fire and mala fit that criteria at least at some points... mena was absent for a bit, so not like he could've gotten depserate anyway, and he voted in a coalition that was not his first choice when he got back; and std did not seem thrilled about being out...
like let me know if i'm misunderstanding your point, but i feel like "there wasn't much desperation about the coalition, therefore there's scum in the more narrow consensus" is not correct?