Next up...
JACKOFHEARTS2005:
-Did
this post need the NAI remark? I think it works better without it. On the surface, something declared as 'Not Alignment Indicative' sounds neutral, but to me it reads as 'No Reason To Read Baddie Intent Here.' Does anyone have thoughts on this? I don't know if NAI declarations are thrown out like candy at a Halloween parade these days or if it's just jargon from other cultures that I'm not used to.
-
Jack sets an expectations bar for Michelle after she defers on doing so herself. Once again, WIM is an acronym that's jargony to me. What he's saying here is that Michelle will try if she's civvie and won't try if she's baddie. That makes the term and concept pointless to me because mafia careers don't last very long if someone is that easy to read. All I was looking for was average post volume and temperament. What I got was an opinion on play style.
-In
this post, Jack says that he's least confident about being able to read the players who hadn't posted yet in the game. [mention]Jackofhearts2005[/mention]- what makes you more confident about your ability to read each of Dom, Epignosis, G-Man, Michelle, nutella, Quin, Sloonei, and TonyStarkPrime. Follow-up question: What makes you less confident about being able to read DFaraday, Lady LambdaDelta, Long Con, and sabie12?
-
This post and
this post seem to contradict the one I just commented on. Why?
-Later on in Day 1, you get a bit snippy in demanding reads and justifications that lack
idk,
maybe, and
kinda, but
this post of yours (and the second one in the last comment) is pretty useless by that same criteria. Why the double standard?
-The sin you commit in
this post is providing an unsolicited expectations bar to all players about DFaraday. I don't recall much even being mentioned by that point about the low-or-no-activity dilemma that crops up in games. You could have requested everyone post, and you could have even mentioned DFaraday, but you took it further than that. You castigated him for prior game history. True, it may be a pattern, and I'm sure everyone who is familiar with that pattern had it in the back of their minds. You broke out the Bat Signal and shined it over the rooftops. It was overkill and I see no logical reason for you to go to such lengths.
-And you follow up your DF stumble with a
heaping dose of Wallace Shawn. You have no right to be upset with people challenging you on these two posts, unless...
-The defensiveness that follows isn't pleasant. You try to redefine what you said to and about DF
here.
-You're better than
this. You're either having a bad day or you stepped in it early and are trying to seem too irrational to be guilty.
-I want to come back to
this post after I do an ISO of nutella.
-Curious what you meant by
this.
-
Here you try to explain that you were misinterpreted while also acknowledging that you were being a bit of a jerk. Why did it take so long and require so much flailing in the interim to reach this moment of clarity? Does anyone else believe this post?
-
Another post to come back to after ISO'ing nutella.
-
Oh brother.
-You say there are separate thoughts going on
here. Separate thoughts belong in separate sentences, or those separate thoughts should be structured as two independent clauses separated by a comma before the conjunction 'and.' The only way to interpret that sentence the way you want us to is to break the rules of grammar.
-
Wrong. You can't scare Epi into doing anything, and you shouldn't be trying to preface anyone's alignment like this. When was the last time Day 1 told you anything significant?
