2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • 2

    posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    I think the lurking mostly comes from a place that post quality just has to be up there, even as a town player. I think if it was more relaxed, like on other sites, people would post most, even just one-two liners. Yes, only one post like this a day is going to be obnoxious, but I can struggle to post a day, when I feel like I have to actually type a paragraph.

    The only thing is that's a playerbase issue, and not something a moderator can do about that. But for making a post, I found it easy to just look at the game on my phone, respond to maybe one post at a time, just to put out a little content.

    @Iso: Sorry to hear that man, I'll miss ya.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • 3

    posted a message on Christine Sprankle and Harassment in the MTG Community
    I agree with Blatch, we got rid of the debate forum, why again?

    The long and short of it is that not a single person here is saying either party deserved to get death threats. Anyone sending those is not only out of line, but could potentially get in trouble with the law if they were found out. I don't really see anything that Christine did as wrong. Jeremy is an instigator in a lot of situations, and even his "critique" is more of an actual attack, rather than actual constructive criticism. And this was not a single incident that just happened and got blown out of proportion.

    As far as how to make the community better, really the only thing that can be done is trying to make sure your table, store, or wherever you play just has the basic courtesy to treat people like people, regardless of how they look or dress. Sometimes, comments can be legitimately made out of ignorance, so try not to immediately jump to a conclusion. Just try to explain why it can be taken as unnecessary and rather than make an enemy, make someone understand the perspective, at least.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 2

    posted a message on Debate Forum alums: Where do you debate?
    I don't even participate that much, and I already miss it.

    Thanks mtgs.
    Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
  • 1

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Trump went off today on fake news outlets Buzzfeed and CNN. There are plenty of things that are going to be bad about a Trump presidency, but this campaign that he's running against the garbage in the media is fantastic. Here's the video evidence.
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Trump went off today on fake news outlets Buzzfeed and CNN. There are plenty of things that are going to be bad about a Trump presidency, but this campaign that he's running against the garbage in the media is fantastic. Here's the video evidence.


    Nobody hear will deny Buzzfeed has a strong lbieral biased, but calling that fake news would be like me calling Fox "fake news".
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    I think what's amusing to me is how facebook groups like "Occupy Democrats Logic" or "RedPolitics" are still slamming Clinton right now, and liberals in general. Like, come January 20th, Republicans are going to be in the driver's seat, there isn't much you can blame on liberals right now. It's actually just point blank embarrassing.

    Also, Mitch McConnell really needs to be thrown out on his ass. I don't know what kind of drugs he is on, but the amount of double talk he is on is just ridiculous. Almost like he doesn't know what the internet is, or how ridiculous he looks. I realize he is a Reagan Republican, all the way to the 11th commandment, but still.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Alright, I had an off period and I was bored so I watched it for fun. This mind set does fascinate me after all and there might intriguing ideas.

    1st issue, first 2 minutes: Government always does worse, and the drawing seem to imply corruption in government that would be absent in private hands. Strongly, strongly disagree. I would be terrified to have the courts, police or other government functions in the hands of the private sector. The author is working on a Utopian idea that government is the root of all corruption, and by getting rid of it, the country would be better.

    Right's Enforcement Agency: What happens when you have an issue with the REA that takes your case? Do you go to another REA then for restitution, or what's the game plan? Business makes mistakes all the time, what's the redress since you can't go to the government? What happens if both customers use the same REA?

    Ok, they answered the lesser issue with REA's clashing, but how about the judge. Who gave the judge his right to be a judge? I assume there is no requirement for law, or to practice law for a period, and what happens when no judge can be found because each party has an issue with all the judges? Picking judges doesn't erally happen today, the closest you can do is maybe get a judge to get reclusal, but eh.

    There is also going to be a quality difference in REA. *shrugs* it's true. And no surprise, the ones that have more money will likely have a better REA. Justice? I assume settlements will still be a thing so what happens when a weaker REA goes up against a stronger REA? His example of finding a judge seems to make the assumption that both REAs are about equal in strength, and avoiding conflict seems to be more beneficial because it would end in a likely stalemate or costly victory.

    11 minutes: Blah blah blah, Free Market is perfect. A fine premise for studying Econ in class, but a terrible one to apply to the real world.

    I don't see agencies ever decreasing their prices if they can raise them and maintain their customers. Like, what real world example would ever let you or the host ever believe that? If you have a product at 4.99, and can raise it to 9.99 without losing a single customer, why would you ever not raise the price?

    A lot of things are optimal. It's optimal to not be racist or homophobic and alienate potential customers, but it doesn't mean it happens.

    Rational Ignorance would apply here then: One customer is not going to make a company randomly change their money making strategy. Even in a smaller number. In the above, assume Mcdonalds has 20k customers. Raising the prise to 9.99 makes you have 19,999 customers. Did that one really hurt for moving your price is up?

    The customers don't chose the court. The REAs do, so the customer has no actual direct say. They could I suppose choose to switch REAs, but again, a lot of people won't be in an optimal position to bargain.

    Obama did the wrong thing versus right thing. In your court case, one REA is still going to lose in a dispute. Not much difference there.

    Why would a customer of an REA ever accept a court case, and would that even be necessary if an accusation is made against a person who doesn't have an REA.

    Like, why link this video and not explain it? It didn't take long, and in the first 5 minutes, his view of the world has a crippling flaw, and makes no many assumptions about why A, B, and C would happen, but doesn't assume that certain other traits would work. In this world, there will be better REAs. There will be corrupt REAs or judges, especially in smaller towns where people living there don't have the option to pick between too many choices (and whether you believe it or not, simply moving will be just as hard there as it is here). So your video actually does your presmise a disservice.

    Ignoring the fact that this world view doesn't even discuss how foreign policy would be approached.

    Edit: One last point that occurred to me, although a variation was pointed out earlier: These REAs have all this motivation to work together for the best of the customer. What is stopping the 3-4 REAs in say Cook County IL from discussing raising prices, because they can? Even if there is a hold out, not hard to just get all the other interested parties to pressure the dissenter.

    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Trigger Happy Havoc Mafia - sign-ups
    Sure, why not.

    /in
    Posted in: Old Sign-ups
  • 1

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Highroller »

    Seems kind of stupid, as I doubt half the people mocking him on social media knew what was going on or where Aleppo is.
    I would expect a presidential candidate to be smarter than half the people on social media.

    Though that expectation has lead to a great deal of disappointment this election.


    I don't disagree, but I for instance never knew anything about it. Apart from most media focusing on a person not standing during the National Anthem, has Aleppo even been under the focus of the election? Like, if we are seeing which potential candidate did the dumbest *****, I don't even know how this makes the radar.

    If you want to hit Johnson hard and show what a crackpot party the Libertarians are, all you have to do is show that clip of Johnson getting booed for supporting drivers licenses: a ridiculous issue that was mainstream enough in the Libertarian Party it made the debates. It would as ridiculous as if the Democratic party had a debate talking point of "should we allow people to shop online." Rolleyes
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on The Mafia Council & Helpdesk Thread
    Do whatever you want then. I still strongly suggest you start with probation. His behavior might have problems, but he is hardly alone in that regard. As a former moderator, I strongly advise skipping a probation period to go straight to blacklisting.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • 1

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from BB »
    No.

    No.


    Then how could the situation be remedied to avoid Trump being able to accuse the judge of being biased? Because that is afterall the end goal, I assume you are after.

    2). You realize that White Supremacist is someone who has "the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races". So since you are clearly pointing out it would be unfair that a black judge could preside over this individual, wouldn't it be true for anyone who didn't happen to be white?


    Yes or no, a Mexican is more likely to take action against racism directed at Mexicans than racism directed at another race... Do you think Mexicans would be protesting as much as they are now if Trumps bigotry was only limited to Muslims? Answer my questions.


    Let me try this again: Unless you can prove to us here that this judge was incapable of giving an unbiased decision, theorizing that because the judge was Mexican affected the outcome (or that Trump has the right to question this based on race, and not look an ********), you can't just come in here and accuse a judge of being unable to do his job. And this isn't a strawman, that is exactly what you are arguing: That the judge's race could be a factor, and Trump is not a racist for accusing a judge of being unable to do his job fairly because of his race.

    No, I am not, and it is rather clear that I'm not saying this. You, on the other hand seem to think a Mexican judge is undeniably impervious from bias when judging a person who is racist against Mexicans. You continue to ignore that Trumps racial politics could potentially influence a judge, particularly one of Mexican decent. I think you need to start being honest instead of creating these straw man arguments. The potential exist, acknowledging this potential or pointing to potential bias is racist to you.


    Of course I do. I assume any judge who hears a case can rule unbiased, as they can recuse themselves if they feel they can't, unless someone points out otherwise. Think about how ridiculous this would be if in a divorce case, a man argued that the judge was biased because the court sided with his ex-wife, and the judge happened to be a woman.


    The entire argument is whether or not Trumps comments were racist, not whether or not the judge is biased. Pointing to someones ethnicity being a factor in their behavior is not necessarily racist, in context of Trump, with his immigration stance, its not out line to question whether or not the judge may be biased. Whether the judge is biased or not, is not really what we are discussing, you've continued to try and perpetrate this goal post shift.


    It is what we are discussing because the only real reason Trump's comments who could be dismissed as not being racist would be if you could justify that the judge was legitimately biased. Let's solve this and strike racism from the dictionary. Would you agree that Trump's comment came from a place of prejudice?
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.