There's a group chat every person with a functioning social life has. The one where screenshots go to be judged. The one where you post a thread of six unanswered messages and wait for the council to convene. The verdict has always mattered more than you'd admit. And it is almost always unanimous.
This is that council, formalised. Below is a structured guide to the most common texting scenarios you will encounter when vetting a new match — annotated with the group chat consensus, so you don't have to ask.
The Cases
Case File 01 — The One-Word Respondent
You: "How was your weekend?"
Them: "Good"
You: "Do anything fun?"
Them: "Yeah"
You: "Nice! I went to that gallery opening in Shoreditch, it was—"
Them: "Cool"
Archive. The one-word respondent is not playing hard to get — they are simply not playing. Effort is a language and this person is functionally illiterate in it. The correct move is not to send a more interesting message. The correct move is to send no message and see what happens. Spoiler: nothing happens.
Verdict: Archive after 48 hours of sustained disinterest. Non-negotiable.
Case File 02 — The Enthusiastic Opener, Vanishing Act Closer
Days 1–3: Daily messages, voice notes, reaction to every Story. Day 4: Total silence. Day 8: "Hey! Sorry I've been so busy, how are you?" Day 9: Back to nothing.
This is a classic breadcrumb loop. The inconsistency is not accidental — it is a structural feature of how this person operates. The busy excuse is factually possible and emotionally irrelevant. The information is: this is their pattern. The question is whether you'd like to spend the next three months chasing the version of them that showed up in Days 1–3. The group says: no.
Verdict: Warm reply, no re-investment. Let them prove consistency over a week before resuming emotional engagement.
Case File 03 — The Perpetual Planner Who Never Plans
"We should definitely hang out sometime!" (day 4) / "Let's get drinks this week!" (day 9) / "I really want to see you" (day 14) / [no specific plan, date, time, or location has ever been proposed by either party, but especially not by them]
Vague enthusiasm without logistical follow-through is not interest. It is the management of interest — yours specifically, kept warm as a contingency. If someone wants to see you, they will suggest a specific day and a specific place. The absence of this is information. You can test the theory: stop initiating plans and observe.
Verdict: One direct proposal from your side. "I'm free Thursday evening, want to grab a drink?" If they deflect: close the tab.
Case File 04 — The Exception
Texts are short, but always reply within a reasonable timeframe. The few things they say are specific, observant, and occasionally very funny. They don't perform enthusiasm, but they're consistent.
Some people are genuinely bad at texting and excellent in person. Not everyone narrates their day through a messaging app. Quality of response matters more than volume. The key distinction: are they dry, or are they considered? The considered person shows up. Give them a chance to show up.
Verdict: Meet them. The app is a preview, not the show.
The Universal Rule
Every group chat, in every city, with every configuration of friends, eventually arrives at the same conclusion: reciprocity is the only metric that matters. Does the conversation feel like something you're building together, or something you're carrying alone? That question — asked honestly, without the distortion of attraction or hope — will tell you everything you need to know.
The group chat is not just a support structure. It is a mirror. When you screenshot a thread and post it for review, you already know what they're going to say. You just needed someone else to say it first. Consider this your permission.