Total posts: 3,178
I don't think greyparrot is a mindless ape, that will automatically vote for whoever I vote for.
Then you are pretty much admitting you pulled that reasoning out of ur rear? Cause, to get this straight, GP is not sus for bw'ing because because he idolizes you so that explains why, but him idolizing you actually isnt going to generally cause a bw.
I flipped votes because aporia gave me the information I requested. It's that simple. I already gave a soft claim on my very first post. I think that is sufficient.
This actually does not provide a reason for why, a self proclaimed narcissist, would cede control of a DP, amd bw onto a wagon based upon reasoning you were explicit and clear that you didn't agree with.
This, again, is about as natural as Kanye West trying to act humble. And your responses literally did not address the core issue present with your behavior, that being, there is still no sensible motive behind the flip, and the flip itself is at odds with your natural behavior as a, self-proclaimed" narcissist.
Idc what you soft-claimed. Your behavior here is at odds with your general natural behavior. And when players start acting in a manner that's not natural, not "genuine", thats a clear sign of shenanigans being afoot.
Created:
-->
@Aporia
Not what I said. Being experienced doesn't mean one can't give off a read just like anyone else.
This is being obtuse to the point, which was in the likelihood of behaviors indicative of affiliation being taken. The phrases,
"experienced players are far less llikely to discern their affiliation if pressured then inexperienced players"
and
"Being experienced doesn't mean one CANT behave in a manner indicative of affiliation"
are not mutually exclusive as it appears you think they are. Both points can be true, because one is talking about degree of likelihood, and one is referencing solely whether or not it can happen at all.
That was an intellectually lazy response that didnt address the core issue at play with an opinion that pressuring experienced players is more beneficial than pressuring experienced players.
When that facially doesn't make sense because "formidability" lies in how difficult it is to gauge that "formidable" players affiliation, and acting as if an experienc player is more likely to produce content indicative of affiliation when pressured, as opposed to an inexperienced player, is akin to positing it's more likely someone who has never played baseball before, is gonna play the game better than someone who has played for years.
By all means take that stance if you want to, don't be surprised when it gets pointed out as being poor strategy. Because when I am figuring out a course of action, a gameplan if you will, I'm going to choose to isolate and attack the Pro-Bowl corner, not the rookie who has never played a game before, or even only a small handful of games. Why? Because obviously that pro-bowl corner is going to be worse at pass coverage than the rookie 😂.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
(I'd say we can handle coffin makers+ checking on Ireena + Winery today. Coffin Makers and Ireena should be done by noon at the latest fmpov.)
Created:
-->
@Aporia
Good players are good players and we have to start somewhere. If hes town lets get him in the bloc ASAP. If he seems scummy better to get a good mafioso out of the way.
So if I'm to understand this correctly, you want to pressure experiencedexperien, because experienced players will expose their affiliation more often than inexperienced players, when pressured?
Yeahhhhh, that seems legit...
__________________
I think Wylted would be a good choice to get a claim from first. Normally during RVS flipping votes isn't that sus cause the point is to generate wagons to produce substantive content. But his flip couldn't of been motivated by that, as his vote was already on the largest wagon at the time. It couldn't of been motivated by agreeing with Aporias reasoning either, he explicitly stated he disagreed with it.
I think Grey parrot idolizes me so the parroting isn't suspicious at the moment. Just a fan being a fan
I also think this was particularly odd to say, as his own actions dont align with this read. In his view, because he thinks GP idolizes him, whoever he votes for, GP will likely BW. But that just makes it even stranger that he would jump on a wagon he disagrees with, as opposed to creating a wagon to his preference. Because in his view any wagon he starts would automatically have 2 votes and be the current lead wagon.
In my estimation, having the opportunity to control the direction of initial pressure, and instead ceding it to someone one disagrees with, is not something a towny would do all that often imho, let alone something I see as in line with what Wylted personally would do. Yes, a person who, in a game of mafia, referenced a memoire about himself that has nothing to do with the game, ceded away the opportunity to control the initial direction the game took. That looks about as natural as Kanye West trying to act humble.
VTL Wylted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
So to the smithy Snerp goes
(get them weapons ordered 👍)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
the leftist consensus
It's not even a leftist consensus, it's a "progressive" consensus thats being browbeat onto everyone else. 80% of americans think political correctness is a problem, a problem thats originating from a group that is roughly 8%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
Priorities are clearly out of whack, and that's enshrined in the letter of the law, which does in fact prohibit saying mean words, but not doing mean things.
I disagree on the "not doing mean things." Harassment and doxxing are disallowed per the letter of the CoC. The issue I've had from the beginning is the sections on "hate speech" are only ever going to be subjective and lead to inconsistent applications. That inconsistency will cause disfavor and anger at the percieved injustice of it.
Not to mention, people overwhelmingly dislike PC/SJW nonsense like "hate speech." This is why leftbook groups are lucky to hit 100+ members, and groups like AnCapistan, which legitimately leaves the rules at "don't doxx people like a fuckstick" are filled with members that numbers well into the thousands. Cause at the end of the day, people generally don't care if a group or site they're a part of has bigots. They'd rather be a part of the site where the soup du jour is memes about school shootings, blackface, or whatever troll topic is the flavor that day, then a place where language is policed.
Cause at the end of the day, the best argument against distasteful and/or hateful ideologies, is to just let them speak. As a bonus it tends to be humurous to boot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Oh, well regardless my companions and I need to pay a visit to the coffin makers, we discovered something troubling there the other day, potential monsters. And I forgot, we need to stop by the smithy, do you know where that is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
We've got a couple places to go hombres. One of them being to the winery to check up on it. But before, we'll be stopping by the coffin makers on our way out of town 👍.
Created:
Posted in:
The functional/practical issue i can see with not holding scientific pursuits above most other subjective realms, is that to hold science as subjective overall would put it akin to what most people consider "subjective" in meaning just a matter of opinion.
Though fundamentally it's true that "objectivity" in observations on an individual level given both the imperfections of the senses and innate biases is out of the realm possibility, a lack of differentiation would overall imho just result in a populace that overwhelmingly agrees "unicorns exist" is of equal veracity to "obiects at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force".
Created:
Posted in:
(what do you guys think? Vampires today, or get to the winery and check out what's going on? I'm just saying, a shortage of alcohol is no bueno, that causes riots no joke 😂😂)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Excellent my friend, thank you for the directions. I can assure you my companions and I will check the winery and make sure your father is safe. Even if not on speaking terms such a development would still be concerning. I am humbled you would trust my companions and I with this task 👍.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Just from an overall performance standpoint the 69' charger still blows the 82' firebird out of the water. 82' firebird was 0-60 in 9.2 seconds stock. The 69' charger was capable of being a 6 second car w/ upper ranges at 7 seconds for the standard R/T. That's a full 2.2 seconds faster from 0-60. Throw a HEMI in that bad boy and you can drop that even further to 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. All souped up, it's a hell of a day and you would be a savant of automobiles if you can get the firebird below the 5 second mark.
Quarter mile the firebird is a 12.5-13.5 second car. You have to fuck up a Charger and be terrible with cars for it to not run under 12 second 1/4 mile without really breaking a sweat. Normally I'm a fan of turbos tbh, but not even the turbo in the 82' firebird helped it accelerate faster than the 69' charger.
Top speed the 69' charger was clocked at 205mph, for the firebird it was at best 160, and you could maybe marginally stretch it further beyond that by tweaking gear ratios.
The only thing the firebird outdoes the Charger on is in the realm of drag coefficient, cause a .33 drag is wtf ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
so the appeal system would have to wait a whi
I realized that from the get go, hence the "once ur in a position to implement a greater amount of moderators."
It autocorrected it to "I'm" though for some reason.
Created:
Posted in:
And what ifost are idiots or biased out of the judge panel?
I noticed that issue right after posting. Having an appeals system adjudicated by a separate set of lead moderators would counter that issue for the most part fmpov.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
different interpretation of the rules and lots of unnecessary communication to coordinate their efforts.
Once you are in a position to I'm a greater amount of moderators, a system of 3 mods selected based upon criteria to be determined, wherein the decision is adjudicated based upon majority decision, similar to circuit courts of appeal, wouldn't be a bad idea fmpov. Then the "lead" moderators could operate as an appeals team?
Just spitballing ideas here 😏
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
In fairness when it comes to volume of reported posts, i consistently hit the report button accidentally on my own posts trying to edit them. I mainly use a phone and have bigger hands... wanna fight about it? 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I have promised plans tomorrow both in the morning and during the festival, you see, the Burgomaster hired me to be the feature act 👍. So depending on travel time it might not be till the day after tomorrow, but sure, where is this Wizards of the Wines located?
(lulz, how clever Wizards of the Coast, how clever indeed 😂)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Wait, one of the stances crucial to Bsh1's discussions regarding moderation policy and behavior was that privacy of users was paramount and was the reason why transparency in bans was not only not necessary, but harmful in extent.
Just to abandon those privacy concerns behind closed doors? It's kind of puzzling that privacy for those perma banned or temp banned who violated CoC was absolutely essential, but anonymity in whistleblowing and reporting potential violations of CoC isn't? Especially when that harm in transparency was based off of it making it too difficult to reintegrate into the site post ban. Yet, it being known who is reporting doesn't present difficulties in interaction? Upon what basis? Magical fairy dust?
So called that this kind of inconsistency and behavior was gonna happen. It's what always happens when you remove transparency 😂. Almost as if people act differently when they can be assured it's unlikely anyone will notice 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
small matter that Shapiro is disgusted by Milo on every possible level.
Well, Crowder and Milo have teamed up before for panels and Q&A's, so there's at least that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
If she says no, screw her, laugh it off and move onto somebody else.I did not read that right
You not reading it right, has resulted in me not reading it right eithe. Thanks for dragging us into the gutter 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Snerp walks up to Urwin and takes a seat.
Lathanders blessings Urwin! You look troubled today. I didn't want to be nosy last night, but I reckon it has something to do with the argument i saw you and your wife were in most of last night with the gentleman at the bar?
Created:
Posted in:
And i know what case ur referring to, Wong Kim Ark v US. Not only was that a godawful decision, but the only US law precedent it was based off of was Chief Justice Marshall in an opinion written in 1812 with "it is obvious that anyone present on U.S. soil is subject to the complete and total jurisdiction of the US" despite that not being plainly obvious as even at the time the British Crown held a standard of perpetual allegiance, wherein anyone allegiant to the Crown was permanently allegiant and could not renounce being subject to it. And maintained their jurisdiction trumped all other jurisdictions. rd also matters because 99% of that majority opinion was pulling precedent from english common law despite the US clearly abandoning the whole "permanent allegiance" in British common law by incorporating renouncement of prior allegiances to the naturalization process as well as provisions for rescinding citizenship if a naturalized or natural citizen swore allegiance to another nation.
This also is important to the use of common law because it clearly illustrates the US broke from English common law regarding citizenship, among numerous other things.
Then to throw a wrench even further into this notion that it's settled law, consider Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in 1812, with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in 1963. Wherein the U.S. signed an international treaty that made it international law. This treaty officialized, among many things, diplomatic immunity, and establishing that citizens of nations present in another nation either legally or illegally are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of that nation. Their native nation can even go so far as demand that person, even if a crime has been committed, be released to the custody of that nations consular, with limited exceptions.
So not only was the notion of presence = complete jurisdiction, iffy at best then and more of a jab at the British Crown(war of 1812 hombre), but now it unequivocally and unquestionably per the treaty, is not the case. This treaty btw, is not "optional" it's a binding treaty, much like the geneva conventions, and subjects the US to consequences that are international in scope if violated or not adhered to.
So the only precedent from US law even used to come to that decision no longer applies in any sense, and never really did to begin with anyways. The aforementioned convention just made practices that were the standard for a long time, official under a binding treaty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
You mean the case that was decided so poorly the DOJ literally apologized for it?
So courts can make incorrect decisions, and overturn previous decisions. Thanks for confirming the "settled law" statement was just an inability to articulate how your interpretation actually makes sense. 👍
Anyhoo, strawberry tarts are objectively sweet.
Yes, and tigers and dogs are the same. We established already sensibility isnt a concern of your thought process and you enjoy being obtuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
as well as various interpretations of the amendment in what is now settled law is wrong, and your new outrage of what you consider superfluous is correct?
It's not settled law though. And since when does a decision being made by the courts, intrinsically mean that interpretation is correct?
It must boggle your mind when SCOTUS overturns previous decisions, like Dred Scot, cause it was decided upon and thus was "settled law", or more recently Korematsu v US 😂.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
subject to the jurisdiction there of' very well might have been a grammatical extension of what is considered US soil, that being consulates, territories, and common wealths.
I figured this was what you were going to say, but this interpretation makes "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "naturalized" superfluous and redundant just as an interpretation of "universal birthright citizenship does", as i outlined directly above.
"consulars, embassies, etc. that you just brought up count as the soil of the nation the embassy belongs to, and that's a standard that precedes the 14th amendment by quite a long while.
Created:
Posted in:
If the intent of the amendment was to confer universal birthright citizenship, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can be removed entirely, and reasonably would not have been included.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside.”
^^the above as a statement confers birthright citizenship, but that's not what the amendment says. So the question becomes what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. Does it mean solely that the born child just be subject to US jurisdiction?
Maybe, but anyone present in the country is subject to the jurisdiction of the US, whether here legally or illegally. It's so obvious to reality and how jurisdiction operates and has operated for centuries, that if the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were that, it would yet again make it superfluous and redundant, because that same sentiment is communicated with "in the US".
So we're still left wondering what "subject to the jursisdiction thereof" means. One need not even look back at the drafters of the 14th amendment explicitly outlining what it means to draw the conclusion it means "subject to the COMPLETE jurisdiction."
Why? Because of the inclusion of naturalization. A part of the process of naturalization is agreeing to make yourself 100% subject to U.S. jursisdiction. When you are naturalized you forfeit consular rights with your native country. Now, if you commit a crime, there is no extradition, there is no speaking to the consular of the native nation as you have made an oath renouncing all allegiances to said native nation. This is why you can get your citizenship revoked naturalized, born, or otherwise if you swear an oath of allegiance to any other nation.
It's almost as if "naturalizaed" was included in the 14th amendment because it confers additional meaning and requirements not present in "born". But nah, obviously the correct interpretation is one that makes whole parts of the 14th amendment superfluous and redundant. That being the incorporation of "naturalized" and "subject to the jursisdiction thereof" to the amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
The language of the amendment is clear and unambiguous.
You are absolutely right that it is. As i outlined, drawing the conclusion that the 14th amendment confers universal birthright citizenship is asinine grammatically as it makes parts of the amendment, specifically, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" superfluous and redundant grammatically, again, it makes the language of the amendment asinine.
You still have to adhere to grammatic sensibility when interpreting things. If an interpretation makes whole parts of a statement or writing superfluous and redundant, that's a pretty clear sign you abandoned grammatic sensibility.
Please do feel free to address the parsing of the amendment i outlined in the OP for why it doesn't actually abandon grammatic sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
You're conflating two things that are different. Citizenship being conferred to children born of citizens, is a wholly different standard than it being conferred to children born of non-citizens but legal permanent residentsb beyondthat, non-citizens present illegally differs even further.
"Its the same cause its by birth" is as asinine as saying a tiger and dog are the same cause they're both mammals. Again, your attempt at conflation is willfully obtuse. Two citizens conferring citizenship to their children by birth is the overwhelming standard across the globe. Citizenship being conferred by non citizen parents, is not even close to being a standard practice, its the overwhelming exception to the rule, because it's shitty policy, because it incentivizes and rewards illegal immigration.
And with illegal immigration, sexual assault, rape, and human trafficking come part and parcel. If you want to draw false equivalences, then let's draw equivalence between incentivizing illegal immigration and sexual assault/rape over 60% rate for women and teens who illegally immigrate from latin america to the US.
I guess that means you support rape and sexual assault if we're gonna start being obtuse
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Snerp heads downstairs upon waking up to get some breakfast and chat with the tavern owners while everyone gets ready.(if they're present that is)
Created:
Posted in:
(did kinder even officially submit copying that spell? I don't recall so, just stated the intention to once we got the gold for it.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(the festival isnt till tomorrow night. I'm gonna pay a visit to Ireena today, cause it's been a couple days.if I get the run around on seeing her, that's where lux copying invisibility to his spell book comes into play, cause then i'll sneak in. If it comes to that I'll be disguised and if caught, I'll just jump out a window. Even if it's a few stories up, I got feather fall 👍.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
(roger that, so detect good and evil wouldn't detect a lycanthrope because it's still considered a huamanoid. Wait, so lycanthropes are susceptible to hold person 😮!!)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
(remove curse wouldn't be that bad of an idea. Lycanthropes can be cured with the spell unless they were born lycanthropes, then only a wish spell does it.
But, if Rictavio has a lycanthrope in his wagon it would've shown up to detect good and evil UNLESS it was a weretiger, which are neutral.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Spell Slots: 4|32|2
(32 level 2 spell slots... ok lux, how many people did you have to sacrifice to get that? 😂 /jk)
Created:
Posted in:
For his light activity before sleeping Snerp will ponder the question:
What if, in the end, we're actually the monsters... and the heroes come to slay us? .jpg
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I think 10 members saw the video and now it will fizzle out and the 20 quality debates and 30 quality reaction threads it would have sparked will never come to fruition.
I too like counting my chickens before they hatch 😉😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
This site is going down hill,
Hey now, being that there hasnt really been a whole effton of new members, dont you think its kinda hard to go downhill when its not begun really climbing yet?
Is something troubling you beside the thread deletion? 😐
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Simmer down with Godwins law, it's not that bad, it's just typical namby pamby leftbook stuff. Gonna say them threats we're not a good idea though. You just couldn't help urself could you? 😂😂😂
Created:
Posted in:
This is precisely why the "hate speech" section is garb. Because it says, now we don't want it to just mean anything, then lays out parameters that make it so it can mean anything. And this will keep popping up as an issue, until its removed.
_________________
On another note
that blackface is extraordinarilyoffensive,
A personal attack is not "anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable.”
Have to wonder what being offensive has anything to do with it. Almost as if it actually is a metric being used.....
hrmmmmm...
this inconsistency is offensive to the sensibilities, somebody please ban it!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I think we can all agree
no, actually, we can't, that's the whole point of debating, because we dont all agree ya dingus 😂.
Created:
Posted in:
"Name a better duo than Batman and Robin they said"... "It doesn't get any better than that they said"
OH YEAH, well prepare to have your minds blown by Ben Shapiro hosting "Bonus Meme" on PewdiePie's Meme Review
Do your part, subscribe and get Pewds, the greatest youtuber of them all, to 69 million subs before T-Series!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
(he's using the "NPC wojack" meme actually.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
Yes, it was conferred by birth from both of my parents who are both citizens of the US and only citizens of the US, one being a retired Chief Petty Officer of the USCG.
I really hope ur not trying to conflate being born on US soil from parents who are here illegally with being born on US soil from parents who are both US citizens, cause that would be pretty dimwitted and not in the least bit clever 👍.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@drafterman
(we drink of course)
With Rictavio leaving Snerp jumps onto the table, now playing at full volume and stomping his foot in rhythm
Sing along if you know the words!
___________________
Bring me a drink
So that i dont think
and start to sink
Cause she's on my mind.
Bring me two drinks
and make them both wines
cause the last went down fine
and shes still on my mind.
Bring me three drinks
and make them all liquor
cause the last went down quicker
and she's still on my mind
Bring me four drinks
and make them all doubles
cause my goal is to stumble
so she's not on my mind
Just bring me a barrel
just bring me a keg
and don't make me beg
cause she's still on my mind
(Repeat from the beginning 2x)
Created: