In post 66, JamesTheNames wrote:
Why're you so desperate to leave the RVS stage? We haven't even had all players post yet.
My reason for dressing up an RVS vote in the amount of verbiage I did was to make sure there was at least something substantial to discuss. I thought between that, and "hi im new; hah your name suks vote: random" the former would at least give us all something to bite at from page 2, maybe draw out something to work with. I believe it has. As soon as it has, the RVS stage is done, right? We have something serious to discuss.
In post 66, JamesTheNames wrote:Secondly, hypocrisy. You made a claim or a suggestion about the scum team, the serious-ness of it is irrelevant. I did the same. Thus 36 I find hypocritical.
You said the same in #38, and I addressed it in #42. I'm not following. I made a claim or suggestion about the scum team. So did you. I said I like that approach, and would like to encourage more of it. You somehow thought that stance was hypocritical. Perhaps I am misunderstand the meaning of the word, but hypocritical to me is engaging in behaviour you criticize others for.
I'll give you benefit of the doubt, I personally think
"as you can see, I am a fan of getting right to the heart of it, and your page 2 solve is just sort of thing I like to see"
is pretty clear I wasn't leveling any sort of criticism and instead praising it, but I'll assume you took something in my tone as somehow sarcastic and I was in fact trying to direct some sort of veiled shade towards you.
In post 42, Val89 wrote:
I should clarify, "your page 2 solve is just sort of thing I like to see" was a serious statement. I like the fact you came out with a solve straight off the bat - and I was attempting to encourage more of it.
I can't, however, think for the life of me why you would read that and STILL believe I am somehow being disingenuous. In fact, only one scenario makes sense - you are scum, and so hypersensitive to any sort of shade whatsoever that you read it where it isn't there - and in fact, continue to do so when pointed out explicitly that it isn't.
I think anyone reading my ISO can see I've taken a consistent approach here. I make a rando solve, you make one, I say 'good on you, lets have more of that, and maybe have some more discussion about it'. I'm failing to see the hypocrisy.
But in any case, lets compare and contrast your approach here with Town!James in the only completed game I have to look at, namely #2064. For context, you replaced into the game into a slot D1, and having read the thread you quickly posted
this list of reads, with justification for each.
Some of the stuff said here is very interesting -
In post 177, JamesTheNames wrote:my personal opinion is post length isn't indicative but can be a nod in a direction with enough context.
I happen to agree. I'll let others read how you opened your town game and compare it to this one, and see if that's context enough for them. It is for me.
In post 177, JamesTheNames wrote:
It appears he is actually bothered by certain people's post quality and relavance, annoyance at lack of content being created, I'm not very experienced but this just feels towny to me
I mean, its pretty clear that Town!James thinks that talking openly and honestly about your reads and votes, early and often, is pro-town behaviour and based almost all of his initial reads off some variation of that exact justification. You go ahead and, as town, make sure you include your own justification without prompting, from the open.
And then this game, we get this:
Yeah, I've seen enough now to convince myself I'm not falling in to OMGUS trap.
VOTE: JamesTheNames
