I’m fairly sure any competent person can make 2p2 profitable on a 6 fig deal. Granted it is a pretty wild assumption to assume those guys are competent.
I think a lot of you guys appear somewhat uninformed as to how much money is made in the “gaming” industry.
Do you call her mom even though she is 15 years younger than you?
Just figured it was worth spelling out: It is thoroughly surreal that myself and others have been chided and derided and threatened with bannings for talking about people’s personal details as recent as a few weeks ago.
Is DS a horrible pos? Sure, why not. Most people are. I envy your charmed life if you’re just figuring that out.
OK, but are the personal details in question that are being weaponized alleged sexual abuse, or at they going on a cruise, or having a fancy dinner, or having a career that is acceptable or even lauded in polite society that one is now disenchanted with?
I can’t even imagine how much you would lol at this post if you didn’t write it.
Dude, you can’t even fucking form a coherent sentence any more.
Go on, perma for me for not acquiescing to your “request” to not post in this subforum. It makes you less of a total moron not.
Good luck, wookie, you will need it.
Before anything, I’ll say that I’m grateful you added that last part after the last comma. You at least respect me that much.
But to answer: It doesn’t matter. How could it? This is precisely the reason we don’t establish vague, broad, and fairly asinine rules: to avoid a thing like this. It’s fine to say “these personal details are ok but those are out of bounds” as opposed to “don’t talk about personal details” because it’s something you easily did right here, in the post I’m replying to. We can adjust for things like context, whether it’s used to insult, etc. We can do whatever; it’s not that hard to make a rule more nuanced.
There are some very uncharitable assumptions I can make about why would specifically want a hardline yet vague rule, but I don’t really want to fight about this if you don’t want to. A charitable assumption would be that it’s just easier to make a vague rule and kick the can, hoping the rule will never be stress-tested.
I’m lolling right now, it’s hilarious.
But which part were you referring to?
Again, I think that precisely and exhaustively specifying everything that is bad and everything that is not bad is a fool’s errand, and that mods, whoever they may be, should be trusted to use their judgment, and even granted the benefit of the doubt when there is some disagreement. That is the only workable way of doing things when the meaning and intent of written word is so flexible, and even weaponizable by those who would act in bad faith.
I can dig that, but what I mean to point out is that there’s a huge gulf between “exhaustive detail” and “the broadest, most vague thing imaginable”.
You guys are fine wordsmiths.
Well, if you are dissatisfied with the status quo, there is an established process to create and/or clarify rules. Have at it. You’re welcome to convince the community that greater granularity is necessary.
This is all disingenuous nonsense anyway. I didn’t warn you because you referenced Jman’s legal work in a vacuum. I warned you because you went out of your way to repeatedly imply that he was a deliberately racist child-imprisoner. And of course you know this.
Lol stop lying.
Nah, I’m totally sincere. In fact, that’s precisely why you’re reacting the way you are.
Do you want to take each word one by one or how do you want to do this? Even MrWookie acknowledged I raised a point, he just disagreed with it, and he presented that disagreement in a manner consistent with his current beliefs. I don’t know what you’re doing.
Lol.
I’m not going to bat for David Fucking Sklansky though. Idgaf, ban him. If you think that’s what I was doing then this is probably above your paygrade.
Granularity is what makes a rule a rule. Otherwise, the word you’re looking for is “whim”.
Which, is fine I guess. You at least have been mostly forthright that these are your beliefs, and I’m sure you can see how others might find that suboptimal even if you disagree.
I get that you think this is some kind of logically-inconsistent dunk, but DS went out of his way to destroy someone’s life and then defended his actions, on this forum, as recently as a few months ago. Should I see him as someone who is looking to “change and grow in really positive ways?”
It’s not a dunk attempt, it’s just bringing up a point in a discussion. The fact that I’m replying right now should show that.
But, and I am sorry, considering you just lied about me, intentionally or unintentionally, I actually don’t trust that you’re relaying an accurate version of events concerning DS defending himself and not showing remorse and not looking to change and grow in really positive ways. I’d have to see it for myself and make an assessment.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, you’re probably right based on what I know of DS not even related to that email, but, you know. That’s why you shouldn’t lie. It just creates a bunch of busywork.
I mean I guess this is one of those situations where our experience of an event was so different that we both think the other party was lying. From my perspective, I warned you because your repeated allusions to disproportionately putting black teens in jail was exactly what I described above - and I know I wasn’t the only one with that read. If your intent was different, fine. But my my perception is also that you have a taste for insulting people in plausibly-vague and convoluted ways so that you can afterward blame the aggrieved for supposedly misunderstanding you.
Look, I’ll apologize upfront because I actually do feel like I’m trolling now, based on the fact that I don’t really care.
Note though, this is different than not being sincere. I’m 110% sincere. Of course banning DS is ridiculous based on the “rules” we have, and based on the fact that all this has been public knowledge, even posted on this forum before. And we’ll never know the whole story because Brandi, God rest her soul, can’t share it, although I’m on record as being on her side before (toxic ass 2p2 called her a con-woman for getting staked in games above her level by using her charm and charisma, and I’m like, men who do that are a dime-a-dozen you deplorable fucks) and after she passed so I couldn’t see that changing.
But, it’s still ridiculous. The difference is I’m fine with admitting to being ridiculous and banning him. People have the right to be occasionally ridiculous, and the problem only occurs when people want to be occasionally ridiculous whilst being seen as never being ridiculous. MrWookie comes really close to squaring this circle with his mod-discretion takes but doesn’t quite get there. It’s fine to just say, we’re gonna occasionally govern by whims, and occasionally those whims will be ridiculous.
“Why are we banning DS?”
“Because fuck him, that’s why.”
“Tough but fair.”
Sorry, that wasn’t a direct reply to the post you just made. I hate lollygagging whilst typing something and then seeing a post pop up in the interim.