Decided later I would just bus myself out of my own free will by tunneling and using flawed reasoning 
Anyway, letās not go too off-topic right now, even though not much will be happening d1.
Sure, what do you think of Chaos_Coffee? All he had ever done was post once and disappeared.
Iāve been recently trying to not read too far into activity as I donāt think that alone should be a read, but itās definitely odd as I would think heād stick around for more than one post?
The only reason why Iām discussing this right now is because of a time gap between now and his last post.
Oh, he posted four times? Still not a lot but I agree here that their wording is a bit awkward.
Those posts were five hours ago, so itās possible he had just posted and then went to sleep, or something.
They said they were new so that could be the reasoning for their slightly off tone, or it could be scum trying to find their footing. I canāt read too deep into four posts.
Probably not going to be active that much for Day 1.
Will try and give my thoughts still though.
Fair enough.
I suggest, as others have, that we focus on those who have posted a fair amount, and consider the slankers day 2.
This seems like the best plan of action to me, as I canāt even attempt to read someone who isnāt here.
The problem with that is how many people actually posted a fair amount. You would be reading like 2-5 people this day.
Ah. However, there is more than one person doing the reading.
So just assign people to certain targets. Easy!
1 Like
Thatās more of a problem of low/noposters than it is with the statement itself I think.
I was replying to ATās statement that weād only be reading around 5 people today if we focus on the active ones. The plan to only read active people isnāt bad itself, itās just the fact that barely anyone has posted that makes it bad.
Then we focus on the active posters until the low/noposters start posting, then we focus on them.
Yes, thatās exactly what I was getting at. But thank you for wording it more clearly.
1 Like