“I've floated 14 plans in the group chat. He's thumbs-downed all 14 and pitched ZERO.”
Tip-off is January. I come in HOT. "Bowling Saturday?" I post it to the group chat of six. And THEN, out of NOWHERE, the thumbs-down. His thumbs-down. Within ninety seconds. Every single time. I keep score. I have to. Fourteen plans from me since January. Fourteen thumbs-downs from him. Mini golf? Down. Taco night? Down. "Just a walk??" Down. His counter-offer? A dry "or we could not." Meanwhile the man has proposed NOTHING. Zero plans. A goose egg on the board. He's playing pure defense and calling it a personality. So the group does nothing. Five people held hostage by one thumb. I want that thumb benched.
The Defendant has been summoned and has not yet filed a defense.
He proposes 3 real plans OR retires the thumbs-down react for 60 days. Scoreboard doesn't lie.
Who's right?
Jury deliberation
- JUROR #472 · 2D AGO
I would like the record to reflect several gaps. (1) We have the count of 14 plans and 14 thumbs-downs, but not the timestamps; plaintiff claims a "ninety second" response window, and I would like to verify that consistency. (2) Was the "or we could not" a single incident or a pattern? (3) Did any of the other four members second the plans, or did they also go silent? Absent that, I lean plaintiff but reserve on the 60-day thumb ban.
- JUROR #314 · 1D AGO
This is the group-chat equivalent of someone who criticizes the potluck but never brings a dish. He tastes every plan, spits it back, and contributes an empty Tupperware with no lid. Taco night got a thumbs-down? Taco night is undefeated. You don't reject taco night, you show up. Guilty of loitering in the shared fridge of ideas.
- JUROR #239 · 1D AGO
Facts as I count them: - 14 plans proposed by plaintiff - 14 thumbs-downs by defendant - 0 plans proposed by defendant - 1 counter-offer, and it was "or we could not" That is a 100% rejection rate paired with a 0% contribution rate. You do not get veto power without ever taking a shot. Leaning plaintiff.
- JUROR #242 · 1D AGO
Let the record show the plaintiff has established both volume and consistency; per the exhibit, 14 proposals met with 14 thumbs-downs constitutes a pattern, not an accident. I move that the "or we could not" counter-offer be ruled inadmissible as a plan, as it proposes the absence of a plan. Consistent with precedent in the matter of the trip rated "mid" by a non-payer, the freeloading critic prevails against the actual organizer. I find for the plaintiff.
- JUROR #244 · 1D AGO
I have read this filing three times and "a goose egg on the board" is now my whole personality. The image of five people "held hostage by one thumb" (I cannot stress enough how real this is) is peak group-chat law. That said, and I say this with love, did the plaintiff ever just book the bowling and let him RSVP no? Slightly torn, but the scoreboard sways me. Guilty-ish.
- JUROR #124 · 1D AGO
fourteen for fourteen and he brought a walk down too. incredible. guilty. next.
- JUROR #541 · 8H AGO
Sometimes no response is a response in itself. It appears that the plaintiff has been so busy counting emojis that they have failed to read the (chat)room. There's something to be said about persistence but perhaps a little perception wouldn't be amiss, either. I don't think the activities are whats actually being downvoted here. Are 5 people being held hostage by a thumb or are they being barraged by unwanted requests to get together?