In post 746, KayJayQueue wrote:
but if you’re comparing how I’m being responded to vs others, I think I have more reason to be defensive.
oh right and if am i right in thinking 'being responded to' being said in a general tense means i'm also taking shit for how your argument with black went i can only ask that you don't do that. there's nothing i can do if you're getting mad at me for factors i can't control.
In post 746, KayJayQueue wrote:
So what’s the difference here when Jackson engages you and responds to your issues with him and when I did in post 604? Why is his reasoning on being emotional immediately backed off of yet mine wasn’t? Why did you thank him for engaging with you but continued to needle me over my responses? It’s feeling very disproportionate and I’m pretty confused by it, especially if what he said didn’t change your mind.
If you’re still wondering why I was defensive, I’d suggest looking at the way you engaged me vs the way you just engaged Jackson and how we responded to that engagement. I feel like I’m being villainized for responding defensively but if you’re comparing how I’m being responded to vs others, I think I have more reason to be defensive.
do you really see no difference in tone? the post you're linking isn't nearly as bad as it got but it is the start of you treating it like a personal injustice that i was questioning your gameplay. i haven't had that from jackson in this past conversation, if you insist on drawing the comparison, thus it's easier for me to discuss the point with them without it turning into pulling teeth.
it's also easier to accept emotion as an explanation for one post in isolation than for one post cited as part of a pattern of behaviour, so that's a big difference for me.
i assume by needle you mean continued to ask questions to which i can only say they're different conversations about different game content to which i got different answers. of course the amount of further questions that occur to me reading them is going to vary.
i'm not villainising you. i'm scumreading you. i think it's important to be clear that i consider the mafia to be my opponents in this game, not my personal enemies. nobody is a bad person for playing the game as scum. if we can't agree on that then i don't know how to play with you.
My point is try to compare your response to me vs your response Jackson. The tone is different and so the fact that my tone “got worse” is directly correlated to the tone I received.
i guess i can only ask you to point out which posts of mine have caused this feeling and why. i would like not to make the game unfun for you and i'm sorry if i am. please show me the problem.
I think a better use of our time is to agree to start fresh from here. We’ll be getting two new players replacing in soon and I think it’s better for everyone if we stop rehashing the stuff that got everyone so heated.
I’d like to take a step forward from all of the previous drama.
I’m not asking you to change your opinion on my alignment or anything, just that we try to move forward. I feel like I’ve commented on all the previous posts of mine that I need to and that my answers won’t change.
In post 753, KayJayQueue wrote:
I think a better use of our time is to agree to start fresh from here. We’ll be getting two new players replacing in soon and I think it’s better for everyone if we stop rehashing the stuff that got everyone so heated.
I’d like to take a step forward from all of the previous drama.
I’m not asking you to change your opinion on my alignment or anything, just that we try to move forward. I feel like I’ve commented on all the previous posts of mine that I need to and that my answers won’t change.
ok, well, i don't agree to draw a hard line to never bring up any posts before this point. but i do generally agree we'd all benefit from a refresh and change of tone so i'm with you there.
In post 753, KayJayQueue wrote:
I think a better use of our time is to agree to start fresh from here. We’ll be getting two new players replacing in soon and I think it’s better for everyone if we stop rehashing the stuff that got everyone so heated.
I’d like to take a step forward from all of the previous drama.
I’m not asking you to change your opinion on my alignment or anything, just that we try to move forward. I feel like I’ve commented on all the previous posts of mine that I need to and that my answers won’t change.
ok, well, i don't agree to draw a hard line to never bring up any posts before this point. but i do generally agree we'd all benefit from a refresh and change of tone so i'm with you there.
You can bring them up down the line if need be, I’m just saying at the moment I think we can move past it.
jake - I don't really understand the logic behind actions, at the moment it's getting better, but still too weird to be a town in my mind
Like, too much doesn't make sense
[...]
I think, coming from a newbie, this take is totally reasonable and expected. My playstyle is definitely a deviation from the norm, and reading it as such is not AI imo.
My main problem is that I don't know the playstyle to recognize if you are town or not in it
And it doesn't make sense to me because I don't understand what you tried to get, kinda
"holy hell" is a memetic response originating in the Anarchy Chess subreddit, as part of a larger reply chain. It has since moved on from this original domain and is now a commonly used response to various different comment threads.
What may interest you here in particular is that it is a response to Ming, presumably humourously, declaring me as locktown for saying "amongus", another memetic response. It's application here is to continue the humourous line of comments made with no real goal in mind.
Essentially, I was attempting to be humourous in response to Ming's humour.
In post 763, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
"holy hell" is a memetic response originating in the Anarchy Chess subreddit, as part of a larger reply chain. It has since moved on from this original domain and is now a commonly used response to various different comment threads.
What may interest you here in particular is that it is a response to Ming, presumably humourously, declaring me as locktown for saying "amongus", another memetic response. It's application here is to continue the humourous line of comments made with no real goal in mind.
Essentially, I was attempting to be humourous in response to Ming's humour.
