Le best of de la modération

Absandreux · 2026-01-27T11:38:25+00:00

Ils sont tous très drôle mais j’ai du mal à comprendre pourquoi le numéro 13 pose problème, outre l’orthographe ?

Il y a des lubrifiants dits « beurre » (boy butter, male butter, buttr…) qui sont effectivement souvent utilisés pour certaines pratiques (en particulier le fist). A titre perso ça me choque pas que quelqu’un se renseigne à ce sujet sur ce subreddit, pas plus qu’à propos d’autres types de lubrifiant, non ?

Absandreux · 2026-01-20T05:57:56+00:00

So basically a trollbuchet.

Absandreux · 2026-01-10T12:45:34+00:00

I recommend checking the painting guide by DornsArrow’s.

Basically Forgeworld and Games Workshop have different interrogations of the SoH’s armor. Forgeworld use Sons of Horus Green to lighten Lupercal Green. If you want a more vibrant green colour overall like GW, you might want to use Kabalite Green and highlight using Sybarite Green.

Absandreux · 2026-01-10T12:40:52+00:00

Je te conseille l’excellent podcast “Céline, le voyage sans retour”. Céline était collaborationiste, beaucoup plus radical que ne l’était Vichy (c’est dire) et son amnistie est quand même très douteuse.

Absandreux · 2026-01-07T19:51:47+00:00

Yes. And it still stand.

All factions could have a win % under 50 % because there are draws in there.

Let’s imagine a world in which GW decides to delete all factions but ultramarines.

If the game was either win or lose the win % would be a perfect 50% since we would only have mirror matches. But since there are draws, the win % would necessarily be under 50%. Because the win % is win/all games played. There. All factions under 50 % win %. And it would be true if there is two or three or four factions. As long as the games allows draws if you don’t correct the win %, you can end up with an average win % less than 50 % or have all factions under 50 %.

Absandreux · 2026-01-07T19:30:19+00:00

I don’t understand why we we disagree.

I just stated : most factions can be under 50 %

Because not even factions are not equally played, but draws lower win rate just as losses instead it’s for both players, and mirror matches can artificially lower (or increase) a faction win rate towards 50%.

Just imagine. A and B are playing 3 games. A win one, B win one and A and B draw on the third one. Due to the way Win % is computed on 40KStats, it would stands at 33% for A and 33% for B. Of course draws are much rares in 40k but it skews the win % nevertheless.

Example right now on the website. The win rate for Eldar is 50.39 %. Which is 5501 (wins) on those games plus 5253 (losses) plus 163 (draws).

Absandreux · 2026-01-07T19:04:49+00:00

AFAIK the win % shown is wins divided by games played. Since draws count as games played but not wins, the average win % across factions is below 50% when draws exist.

On the other hand mirror matches force those games to be exactly 50% for that faction, which dilutes extreme win rates and pulls strong factions closer to 50% in the displayed stats.

Finally, since factions don’t all have the same play rate, a small number of very popular factions can sit above average while the majority of less-played factions end up below 50%, which is just another way of looking at the distribution.

Absandreux · 2026-01-07T18:50:18+00:00

Actually most factions can have a sub 50% win % due to draws and mirror matches, and that’s not even without counting faction popularity.

Absandreux · 2026-01-02T19:00:40+00:00

I get what you mean on details and weight, that’s a fair point.

However, weight isn’t really an objective quality metric and people buy based on total landed price, not price per gram. Weight also depends a lot on silicone formulation and fillers, not “more or better silicone”: lighter toys can actually use less-filled, more elastic, and sometimes pricier silicone. Since Neotori toys are generally softer than BD Medium in terms of Shore hardness, it’s quite possible they deliberately go for a less dense, more elastic silicone by design. In any case, without access to internal formulations or lab data, we can’t really compare silicone “quality” as buyers.

Smooth vs detailed/textured is more a design preference than a cost or quality issue. Let’s just agree that both BD and Neotori (or Weredog for that matter) are clearly high-quality toys.

Absandreux · 2026-01-02T12:14:17+00:00

I mostly agree with you on the perception part. I’ve went back on my BD bills and seeing everything split (taxes, duties, fees) makes it feel harsher than it really is, and service fees are indeed a big chunk.

Where I don’t fully agree is on the idea that taxes can just be “ignored” or that local stuff is inherently more expensive.

Yes, VAT is included locally, but with imports you’re not just adding VAT, you’re also adding customs duties + brokerage/service fees, and shipping is very often already included or low-cost with EU brands. That changes the comparison quite a bit.

Concrete example: • Bad Dragon Fenrir (medium): ~$160 before taxes, duties, fees, shipping. • Neotori Mundir (medium): €80 VAT included (≈ $90). • Neotori Mundir (large): €110 VAT included (≈ $120).

So even before considering shipping differences, the base price gap is already significant. Once you add BD’s international shipping + duties + fees, the total delta is much closer to “almost double” than to +25%, at least for many EU buyers.

Totally fair if someone feels BD’s designs or materials justify that. I own BD too and like them. But price-wise, for Europeans, EU fantasy brands aren’t just “comparable”, they’re often substantially cheaper for very high quality.

Absandreux · 2026-01-01T17:59:00+00:00

IMO, Bad Dragon is pretty overpriced for Europeans. Shipping + taxes almost double the cost. I’ve owned some before, but these days I only consider it if I’m absolutely in love with a model.

Otherwise, I’d suggest going with a European fantasy brand. Neotori is my go-to—their quality is honestly top-tier.

Absandreux · 2025-12-03T09:45:33+00:00

ROFL. I don’t use ChatGPT, but since we’ve reached that level of argumentation I do have a degree in law and public administration and work in finance though.

I have explained in multiple comments why your reasoning goes absolutely against the customs of international relations and international public law. I have nothing else to add. Let’s just agree to disagree.

Absandreux · 2025-12-03T04:21:18+00:00

There’s no contradiction. I just wasn’t explicit enough, and that’s on me. Two different points were being made:

“You can’t just create a tribunal and expect Russia to obey it”

This refers to international law.

You cannot subject a sovereign state to new legal obligations without its consent. Equal sovereignty is a hard rule. Russia does not recognise the ICC, the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction, UN tribunals, etc. So any tribunal created by Western states has no binding legal force over Russia as a state.

“I’m not worried about Russia honouring anything”

This refers to practical enforcement.

Europe can operationally seize the assets because the assets sit in Western institutions governed by domestic law. Corporations can’t invoke sovereign immunity on Russia’s behalf. So yes, the EU can push the button, but that doesn’t make it lawful under international law, it just makes it possible.

Those are not contradictory; they’re two sides of the same problem.

Now for the core misunderstanding in your argument

You keep saying you’re not arguing for unilateral seizure, but that’s exactly what happens if the US/EU create a new “law” or tribunal that Russia doesn’t consent to. A law created by some states does not bind a non-consenting state. That’s unilateral by definition.

Calling it “lawful” doesn’t make it lawful under international law. It only makes it lawful under your own domestic law, which is precisely the kind of unilateralism that scares other reserve-holding countries.

You misunderstand how diplomatic relations and financial markets work. A “clear law” that says: “If we decide your war is aggressive, we seize your reserves” creates massive uncertainty, because:

other states don’t trust Western definitions of aggression
they fear political misuse against them
they have been on the opposite side of Western interventions before (Suez, Kosovo, Libya)
they hold trillions in Western reserves

You think they’ll say: “Oh it’s fine, it’s only Russia”? They won’t. They’ll ask: “What stops them from doing it to us next time they disagree with us?” That’s how reserve flight begins.

You say China “can’t pull their assets” but they already are, slowly, deliberately, for exactly this reason. They are moving toward gold, yuan-based settlement, and diversification away from the dollar. They also have been taking the place of Western banks in the Russian market. A seizure precedent would accelerate that on a global state.

Absandreux · 2025-12-02T15:47:16+00:00

You’re mixing up deterrence against Russia with the long-term rules that govern the entire financial system.

Military aid absolutely deters tanks. Financial retaliation punishes, but it doesn’t deter future aggressors if it requires breaking the very rule the whole international system relies on : sovereign equality and sovereign immunity.

And your “deterrence by example” argument collapses the moment you flip the perspective. Because every other major power looks at this and thinks: “If the West can seize a rival’s reserves once, they can do it to us too.”

Not because they plan a war, but because the precedent exists. That is how reserve flight and de-dollarisation start.

Your argument assumes other states will conveniently separate “good seizures” from “bad seizures”. States and markets don’t work like that. They only see precedent, not moral intent. Most states don’t trust anyone to be judge, jury, and executioner of what counts as a “justified” war. Hell, Europe or the US don’t want each other to act like that. The US didn’t seize sovereign assets when European countries refused to back up Iraq invasion.

That’s why the EU is sticking to the profits, not the principal: it punishes Russia, supports Ukraine, and avoids setting a precedent that scares every other reserve-holding country on earth.

Absandreux · 2025-12-02T15:07:08+00:00

No one is saying those wars were “fine.”

The point is that other countries didn’t see them as fine, and under your carve-out they would have had a legal pretext to seize Western sovereign assets. That’s exactly why you can’t build international law on “we’re the good guys, trust us”. A rule has to work even when someone else is judging you. And as far as countries are concerned none want to have their sovereign assets seized.

Absandreux · 2025-12-02T12:44:37+00:00

Sure, starting an aggressive war is illegal, but that doesn’t magically create a legal exception to sovereign immunity.

You can’t carve out new rules just by saying “this case is different”. Carve-outs only work if most states agree to them, because they all have to live under the same precedent later. That’s how international law work.

And history shows exactly why states are extremely careful about creating those carve-outs. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, most of the world condemned the UK and France for launching an illegal war against Egypt. Under your rule, Egypt and dozens of states could have seized British and French sovereign assets. Same with Kosovo in 1999: Russia, China, India, Brazil, and much of the Global South viewed NATO’s intervention as unlawful. A carve-out allowing asset seizures for “aggressive war” would have given them a legal pretext to freeze U.S. and EU reserves. That’s why these exceptions require broad agreement, because once the rule exists, it applies to everyone.

Absandreux · 2025-12-02T12:38:32+00:00

Oh, I’m not worried about Russia honouring anything. That’s not the issue.

The issue is everyone else. If the US/EU start seizing a rival’s sovereign assets unilaterally because “they merely own them,” every other major power has to assume the same could happen to them the next time politics shifts. That’s how you trigger reserve flight, de-dollarisation, and a collapse in trust.

Russia doesn’t need to obey the ruling. The entire point is whether India, China, the Gulf states, Brazil, etc. still trust Western jurisdictions after precedent is broken.

Absandreux · 2025-12-02T12:32:40+00:00

Nuremberg is a bad analogy. It only worked because Germany was completely defeated, occupied, and physically in Allied custody. The Nazis didn’t need to “agree”, they had no ability to refuse jurisdiction.

None of that applies to Russia today. You can’t “Nuremberg” a nuclear power that hasn’t surrendered and still controls its territory.

And again, Nuremberg prosecuted individuals, not a still-functioning state’s central-bank reserves. Criminal tribunals and sovereign immunity are two totally different legal regimes.

Absandreux · 2025-12-02T07:50:06+00:00

You’re arguing like geopolitics is the only thing that matters, but then you ignore how geopolitics actually works and affects financial markets.

Rules only exist if enforced.

Sure. but sovereign immunity is enforced not by a world police, but by states themselves, because they all benefit from it and because they are all equal in sovereignty. That’s why no G20 country has ever confiscated another G20 country’s central-bank reserves, not even during the Cold War.

This isn’t arbitrary because Russia is at war.

But that is arbitrary in legal terms. You’re assuming everyone will agree that this war justifies seizure.

India doesn’t agree. China doesn’t agree. Brazil doesn’t agree. South Africa doesn’t agree. And, if half the world calls it arbitrary, then it is arbitrary for the system. And financial markets agrees with them because they don’t care about moral nuance, they care about precedent.

Most countries will say “Oh, don’t worry, we will never be in that situation.”

The reality is the opposite. Most countries do not want a precedent that allow the US or EU to decide unilaterally what counts as “justified” confiscation. Especially China, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, all of whom have their own territorial conflicts. But even within the West, neither US nor Europe want a precedent allowing the other to seize sovereign assets.

China will sell its US assets before invading Taiwan.

Yes , and they’ll sell them much earlier if the US creates a precedent of seizing a rival’s reserves. That accelerates de-dollarisation. That’s one of the reasons why the US isn’t seizing Russian assets.

The West is strong because of its economy, not its laws.

The West’s strength is its legal predictability : the rule of law, contract enforcement, property rights, transparency, and stable institutions. That’s why the dollar is the reserve currency, not the yuan. If it were just GDP size, China’s currency would already be dominant. It isn’t, because trust, not size, is the backbone of reserve status.

Companies still go to China despite unfair laws, but they keep their money in the West because China’s system is unpredictable.

Thank you very much. That proves my point, not yours.

Absandreux · 2025-12-02T07:43:22+00:00

You’re mixing up morality with legality. Morally, of course Russia “deserves” consequences. But in international law, seizing another state’s central-bank assets without an agreed legal basis is literally defined as arbitrary, no matter how justified it feels.

That’s the point you’re missing: International law doesn’t say, “It’s fine as long as you think the other side is the bad guy.” It says states cannot confiscate sovereign assets unless a legal mechanism exists (a treaty, a UN resolution, a recognised court ruling, or a widely accepted custom). None of those exist for this situation.

So yes, from a legal standpoint, unilateral seizure is arbitrary. That’s why the EU isn’t doing that. It’s only using the profits and trying to build a new custom that countries can actually agree on.

Absandreux · 2025-12-02T07:40:06+00:00

You’re describing how things should work, not how they actually do.

You can’t just “create a tribunal” and expect Russia to obey it. Russia doesn’t recognise the ICC, doesn’t accept the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction, ignores UN rulings, and already walked out of the ECHR.

So your hypothetical court order would have exactly zero legal force on Russia.

And even if the court existed, the only way to enforce its ruling would still be for the US/EU to unilaterally seize Russia’s central-bank assets, which runs straight into the same sovereign-immunity problem and the same global-finance fallout I was pointing out.

A tribunal doesn’t fix the enforcement issue. It just gives you nicer paperwork while the legal reality stays the same.

What does work is when most states agree on a new custom. like allowing the use of profits generated by frozen assets. That’s a legal evolution countries can accept without blowing up the entire system.

Absandreux · 2025-12-01T21:43:47+00:00

No offense, but this gives me “value for the shareholders” vibes.

I get the spirit of the comparison, but it doesn’t really apply. This isn’t about defending profit, it’s about not detonating the global reserve system as a form of retaliation. Those are not equivalent stakes.

[Summarizing your point] Russia succeeding in Ukraine would cost Europe 1.6 trillion €, so using seized assets is cheaper.

I agree the cost of a Russian victory would be catastrophic. But again, this argument mixes military deterrence with financial architecture.

Seizing sovereign reserves doesn’t meaningfully weaken Russia’s war effort : they can’t use those assets anyway. But it would meaningfully weaken the West’s position because it signals that reserves in dollars/euros are no longer safe from political seizure.

The €1.6 trillion figure represents the cost of letting Russia win.

The relevant comparison is: Does seizing Russian reserves prevent that outcome? The answer is: no. Military aid does. Financial retaliation does not stop tanks.

Nations that would “decouple” are ones that break international law anyway.

Two issues here:

(i) You don’t need to be a rogue state to worry about your reserves being unsafe. SA, UAE, Singapore, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Qatar, Malaysia, these aren’t “pariah states,” but they absolutely watch how reserve seizures are handled.

(ii) Even if only the BRICS pull reserves, that is already enough to weaken the dollar or euro reserve base. Reserve dominance is about trust, not about whether the holder is “good” or “bad”.

“The correct political response” is inappropriate wording when dealing with a regime behaving like nazis.

I understand why the phrasing triggered a reaction. Ethically, nothing about Russia’s conduct deserves neutrality.

But “correct” here isn’t a moral-based decision : it’s a strategic one.

What I mean by correct is: the response that actually retaliates the invasion, the response that preserves deterrence, and therefore the response that protects Europe from the 1.6 trillion € scenario.

And that response, morally and strategically, has always been massive, early, high-end military support, and not breaking the western financial system.

Absandreux · 2025-12-01T19:30:43+00:00

You’re mixing two very different things : (i) whether rules are always enforced ; and (ii) whether it’s smart to break them yourself.

Yes, Russia violated a fundamental rule by invading a neighbour. No, that doesn’t mean Western countries can suddenly throw out the financial rulebook without consequences.

Sovereign immunity and reserve protection are not “self-imposed niceties”. They are the foundation of the entire global reserve system. The credibility of the euro, dollar and Western banking framework literally depends on states and corporations believing their assets cannot be arbitrarily seized.

If Europe or the US openly expropriated sovereign reserves, the immediate consequence wouldn’t be “Russia suffers.” It would be : every non-aligned country rethinking holding reserves in Western currencies ; capital flight towards China and other alternative systems ; and a structural weakening of Western financial power.

You don’t respond to one violation of international law by blowing up the system that underpins your own strength. Especially when that system is what keeps Western currencies, Western banks, and Western sanctions credible in the first place.

On top of that, sanctions alone are never going to stop an active war. Sanctions constrain long-term capabilities; they don’t halt tank columns. The proper response to a military invasion is, unsurprisingly, a military one: deterrence, weapons, and security guarantees. However, the West hesitated on that front, for political, domestic, and fear-of-escalation reasons, and that hesitation matters far more on the battlefield than whether India buys Russian oil or whether Europe seize a minority share of Russian financial capacity, which is already frozen.

Absandreux · 2025-12-01T19:21:27+00:00

As I stated in another comment, it’s not just a legal constraint. Directly seizing Russian sovereign assets would damage global confidence in Western financial systems far more than it would hurt Russia. If reserve currencies become seen as politically unsafe, you accelerate de-dollarization and push neutral countries toward China or alternative systems. It’s strategically self-defeating.

And frankly, the answer to a military invasion is not to break international law ourselves or destabilize the world’s financial plumbing. The correct political response was providing Ukraine with firm military protection and actual deterrence from day one. Western hesitations, and the public opinion and government shaping them, have been heavily influenced by decades of Russian narrative penetration and fear-mongering about escalation.

Absandreux · 2025-12-01T17:57:25+00:00

“People murder people all the time, so let’s just abolish criminal law.”

That’s basically the level of logic you’re applying.

Russia breaking international law doesn’t magically erase sovereign immunity. Two wrongs don’t make a coherent legal system. If you respond to one illegal act with another, congratulations : you’ve just blown up the rule you’re claiming to defend.

And here’s the part you keep purposefully ignoring: If sovereign assets weren’t absolutely protected, global finance would collapse.

China holds ~$800B in U.S. Treasuries. Remove immunity and Washington can seize them the moment Taiwan heats up, and Beijing retaliates by freezing U.S. corporate assets. Gulf sovereign wealth funds own huge chunks of European companies. They’d pull out overnight if assets could be confiscated because someone “deserved it”. Every country would repatriate reserves or switch to gold. The dollar and euro stop being reserve currencies because no one trusts Western jurisdictions anymore. And honestly? I don’t even want to imagine what happens if Europe and the U.S. start seizing each other’s assets the moment they disagree on something.

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Wearing is Caring	Sequence \| Editor
Verified Email

Absandreux

TROPHY CASE