I said what I said. There's a reason I mentioned how many pages we're in or what is currently being talked about with no in depth analysis to back it up.
Rather than forcibly making up anything, even something weak, I'd rather see more concrete discussion driven by interactions and opinions on interactions vs making something up.
If anything it is detrimental to some town to make something up and try to push it *just because*. You're not going to solve the game off of it D1.
Also, what is this DW?
Like, what is going on here? Because YOU made it a point to purposefully push for something -- anything -- for the sake of discussion. No matter how small. Isett brought up a discussion point. NAI or not, it's a discussion point that gives you something to talk about as has been seen already with some people chiming in.
Seanzie's whole "vibe" thing to start it off is already a nonstarter for actual solving wrt to Isett. The bulk of Seanzie's post going into more "concrete" stuff is another matter entirely since, by Seanzie's words, Isett's whole discussion setup is NAI -- something that while scum can do town can also do (especially if you're looking to talk about anything D1 which hey, you were). So it is questionable to me that Seanzie would start with a bad vibe followed by a "concrete" observation of a NAI point regarding Isett's NAI action. Strictly speaking, you're going to get opinions on people both good and bad, and on a topic that is NAI in the first point, well what else would you expect? But overall it's discussion that it generates which is what you wanted.
So already both you and Seanzie are coming off weird to me.
You for the complete 180 simply because Seanzie had a "vibe" that gets "concretely" rooted in a NAI point, and Seanzie for pushing said vibe on a NAI point.
Like, is that what you, in particular DW, were looking for when it came to *anything* that someone felt? Even something as flimsy as a vibe like Seanzie talked about?
Because all I see from Seanzie is entirely speculation with no concrete founding in it due to the entire focus being rooted in something that is, as Seanzie contended, is NAI in the first place.
