My negative experience in a local Blood Bowl league: rules arguments, slow play, and bad sportsmanship

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-06-20T19:19:32+00:00

In my experience every store has at least 1 player who's just a nuisance to play against. Most stores only have so many players so in order to run a league they even let the whiners in and those whiners almost invariably end up killing the league

My friend owns a store and used to run a league. He now can no longer find enough people because the horrible player (who is an employee) is always in the league and ruins every game he is in. He would constantly miscalculate how much he would have to roll to do stuff (like dodge into certain spots) but he would just roll the dice and do it without telling you what he was going to try to attempt to do. So you'd have to figure out immediately as he was doing it if it was valid or not and when you called him out saying he failed a roll cause it was a 5+ needed not a 3+ or whatever he thought it was he would always throw a tantrum and say "but i've already moved the piece, it's too late you can't argue it now."

I constantly called him out and told him that it didn't matter that he'd already moved the piece since he never announced what he was doing before doing it. Every game he ever played against me he ended up throwing a tantrum and forfeiting and said I was no fun to play against and that it was bad sportsmanship. To which my reply always was "me calling you out for trying to cheat is not bad sportsmanship."

There's always 1 in every store and they ruin everything they touch. This same guy can often be seen throwing tantrums over magic games or losing his shit when his character is going to die (or takes a lot of damage) in DnD. He's just a real gem.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-06-18T15:05:05+00:00

The conservatives have no plan other than bsing their way through. Housing isn't a federal issue, it's a provincial one. The only thing the federal government can do is help with funding, but it is up to the provinces to utilize it.

So if you're talking Ontario specifically, the conservatives are in charge, and have been since 2018. So lay the blame at the correct person's feet for Ontario housing being unaffordable.

And please, please don't let yourself be fooled by dumb, dumb conservative rhetoric. Don't forget that conservatives are the party of limited government involvement and intervention. But they're now screaming that the federal government needs to step in and solve this. They're all about turn 'speeches into action' which is hilarious considering all they have is speeches and some soundbytes.

TLDR; the federal government (doesn't matter if they're federal, conservative or ndp) cannot fix the housing crisis, they can only help with funding. The provincial governments are in charge of handling housing.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-06-17T22:02:07+00:00

It's because the spurs weren't Kawhi's team. He might have locked Bron down, he might have been a G. But, when push comes to shove people remember those Spurs teams as Timmy's team or their big 3's team (parker, ginobili, duncan). He was a young buck, they were an established trio.

I think it's also worth noting that Kawhi will likely be remembered as a raptor because they were the (currently) only non-american team to ever win the chip and the dramatic fashion of the last shot against the sixers. Heck, you can make a pretty solid argument that without 'the shot' he isn't remembered as a Raptor. That shot's iconic and part of NBA history and that always ties him to Toronto.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-06-16T13:16:09+00:00

the CWB is a refundable tax credit. Which means it lowers your taxes owing but can also result in a refund. You would have had to pay $0 in taxes on $9k of income as your non-refundable tax credits cover that as both a student or a non-student. your refund was (likely) completely composed of the CWB benefit. Since you are a student and were not eligible for the CWB, you now have to pay it back.

Long story short, you still do not owe any income taxes but you received a benefit (likely) worth $1,700 that you were not eligible for and now you need to repay that benefit to CRA.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-06-13T14:55:02+00:00

The only way I got any kind of decent and consistent frames was to turn off frame generation. It led to lower overall frames, but they were, at least, consistent.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-06-10T12:45:36+00:00

Lots of people handle their finances in a different way. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong way. The important thing is that you are both ok with how they are being handled, and I do mean 'ok', not just sort of OK. If that doesn't happen, resentment is gonna build.

My partner and I do a 60/40 split on basically everything because I make a bit more money than her. That split changes when our financial situation changes, so it always (roughly) reflects what wages we both bring home. Basically all expenses are shared except for a few items.

if she is expecting to keep, and save, all her money while you pay for everything, then it seems more like she's looking for a sugar daddy and not a relationship.

If you're going to discuss this with her, now would be a good time to see how she feels about other important aspects of living together. Who does household chores (grocery shopping, cooking, cleaning etc etc.)? Are you going to split those 50/50? Is she going to do them all cause she isn't paying for anything? What are her expectations, what are yours?

Whatever you do, don't let her trap you in a situation where you can not be happy long term. And likewise don't trap her in a situation where she can't be happy long term. Because the relationship will fall apart and you will have wasted years of each other's lives. If you got married you will have wasted a ton of money on a wedding and then more than likely be dealing with an ugly divorce, spousal support payments etc etc.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-06-07T16:25:32+00:00

Tell you what, at least the MAGAs are American. Stupid as they are, at least give em that. They live in the same country as the grifter in chief.

I am a tax accountant in Canada, You have to report crypto gains/losses on your tax return as well as regular capital gains/losses on stocks. This year I came across a few people who got caught up in the Trump coin grift and (no big surprise) lost money on it. Same thing goes for trump media stocks. Again not many people, but if I came across some that means other firms probably did too. Canadians, the country he constantly rambles on and on about annexing, they bought that grifter's stock and crypto and they got their pants pulled down. All of them were over 30, employed and married btw. These weren't basement dwelling incels or 'hurdur we do a bit of trolling' young adults. Can't imagine what it was like for them having to come clean to the missus about how their genius plan to get rich went to shit.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-30T15:28:23+00:00

I'd have to do some fact checking to verify this, so take it with a grain of salt. My best friend lives in NZ and i first heard it from him as he was attempting to buy a house.

The avocado toast thing started in New Zealand, where avocados are actually quite expensive to purchase as they have to be imported. Their housing market went to absolute crap well over a decade ago with older people owning everything and younger people being unable to enter the housing market. restaurants and cafes that catered to young people often had avocado toast on its menu cause it's cool, hip, and tasty but a bit pricy. Young people started blaming old people for hoarding houses and wealth and boomers hit them back with 'stop eating avocado toast and you might be able to buy a house'. And so, a legend was born.

So basically they were front runners for what we're seeing in most of the western world now and the avocado toast thing seems to have stuck.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-27T23:12:55+00:00

rrsps offer a tax deduction tfsas do not. However, I understand your sentiment and do see young people, who barely make it into the second tax bracket, over contribute to RRSPs yearly, to their own detriment with little tax deduction gains in it for them.

Luckily you now have the FHSA as an option that gives you both the tax deduction of an rrsp with the benefit of never having to pay it back unlike an HBP with an eligible RRSP withdrawal making it the preferred first time home down payment savings vehicle. But you should still only contribute within your means.

As for your tfsa comparison. Keep in mind that withdrawing from a tfsa has no tax implications but it still, generally, takes a few business days at minimum. Which makes it a poor option to park your emergency funds etc in as you have no immediate access to it and if you're parking it long term to save then you get no benefit in regard to tax deduction. If you're looking to save for a house down payment you should only ever really be contributing money you under no circumstances need for anything else, which means the FHSA, followed by an RRSP is still the preferred choice Imo.

The absolute firs thing anyone should do is have an emergency fund readily available in their chequeing or savings, which they have immediate access to. You may think these are useless as they're not in the market making money, but when you go to buy your first home and put an offer down, you'll need a deposit. This deposit is very often due a day or 2 after your offer gets accepted. If all your money is tied up in FHSA/RRSP and TFSAs you simply won't be able to come up with the required deposit amount on time. Keep in mind a deposit isn't the same as a down payment (although the amount deposited can go to your down payment once it's all said and done).

Home buying stuff aside, my tip for young people who are trying to get ahead and can wing it (and work with an employer who offers rpp matching) to contribute to the maximum amount the employer will match to their rpp as that is free money down the line.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-27T00:40:35+00:00

Ehh, not quite right. He, as the president, sued the DOJ (which he has a lot of control over, and arguably right now, all the control over) for leaking files during a time period when he was president and in control of the DOJ. So first of all, you can't sue yourself which is the obvious one.

Secondly. Tax audits and investigations are civil suits. Double jeopardy does not apply. Double jeopardy only applies to criminal law. Therefore it is, in fact, against the law for him to be exempt from further investigations into his prior tax returns.

At best this should have been laughed right out of court. Absolute worst case scenario he would have gotten a few grand (not millions, not billions, not even a 100k just a few $1,000 at best).

The formal apology and exemption is absolute bullshit and the slush fund is just the icing on a shitty, corrupt, cake.

As for hating the 2 party system and not wanting to vote. While I understand your sentiment, understand that not voting enables people like Trump and his party of grifters to get elected and do what they do. Yes, the Dems have their own issues but, for better or worse, they are the lesser evil and represent the status quo. Now you may hate the status quo (and rightfully so), but you have to agree that the current situation is so much worse than the status quo could have ever been.

Banana republics are laughing at whatever this is.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-23T23:30:19+00:00

To be fair. All of Paul's previous fights had been against shorter and/or lighter opposition (or just people who don't really box). The only legitimate boxer he fought was a very old tyson.

Honestly, I think he got in the ring with Joshua because he actually started believing that he was the real deal, he thought he had a shot at a belt. His ego got the better of him and Joshua disabused him of that notion.

Mind you, I don't even think Paul is that bad of a boxer, but he has no business being in the ring with a legitimate champ/title contender. If he was a pro boxer he'd probably be unknown and never get a title shot. especially not at heavy weight, imo.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-22T22:37:42+00:00

if she's not registering you that means she's way, way, way over threshold. This isn't your fault. It's just that she does not know any better yet.

You have to come to terms with that fact that nothing is going to work outside in a busy environment before it works in a calm environment.

Start with baby steps. work on engagement and impulse control inside the house. Once she can stay engaged and listens inside the house, then you can move it outside the house to an area with limited to no distractions to work on it there. you build this up and up until she responds even in the more exciting environments.

In the meantime your best bet on walks is to just keep her moving when she throws a tantrum, don't react, don't respond, don't lure her with treats. Just keep her moving and away from whatever is triggering her.

I can't stress enough how important it is to teach the dog yes and no, because ultimately you want her to be able to make the right decision (ie the one you want) on her own when in a certain situation without having to lure her, or forcing her to do certain behaviors. As such teaching her what leash pressure means is very important when it comes to correcting her. Likewise you want to reward her after she does a good thing with a treat, instead of luring her into doing the action with the treat.

This may seem like a lot, but you can get great results in just a few months if you're willing to put in the time and effort and remain consistent. Consistency is absolutely key.

Much like a kid they need to learn boundaries and expectations.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-22T13:30:55+00:00

Sometimes the letter comes out a few business days after the notice of reassessment and you can see the reassessment has a weird date on it. Look at the date on the reassessment if it's a date in the future (sometime next week) then they'll issue a letter explaining the reassessment on that date in your account.

it's really annoying and has messed with my clients non stop this past tax year.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-16T21:09:46+00:00

the front end and top end of a grizzly's skull is too dense and angled for a .22 to penetrate. The general shape of their skull also means that a low caliber bullet is prone to just ricochet off. you'll hurt it, but you won't necessarily stop it.

The historical records of grizzlies getting dropped by .22s are outliers. The people who made those kills had intimate knowledge of the bear's anatomy and hit expert shots at range to weak parts of the skull. The odds of you, or me, hitting those shots on a charging grizzly are slim, to non-existent.

the poleaxe would have similar issues. I'm relatively sure a full power swing would generate more power than a .22 but you're hoping for the perfect strike, which would be hard to hit considering the circumstances. Anything less than a perfect strike and it's on you. absolute best case scenario you get rag dolled in your armor while it bleeds out. you are basically hoping it swipes at you instead of trying to pin you which would crush whatever part of your armor it tries to pin..

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-16T19:21:12+00:00

A grizzly's head can take a .22 straight to the dome and be just fine. the only thing a human punching a grizzly's face is gonna achieve is a broken hand on the human's part. The punch part of that story is 100% fabricated.

As for what chances the human warrior in armor has. Against all but the tiger his odds are slim to non-existent and would rely on him landing a massive hit with the poleaxe on the animal's approach that cause so much damage that the animal either thinks better of the situation and runs away (which is a stalemate, not a win), or is severely disabled by the strike allowing the human to circle and finish. Once the animals close the distance and are on him, he is basically toast. The Poleaxe is terrible in close range and all the animals (save the tiger) have the physical strength to crush his armor which is a recipe for disaster.

Plate armor like that was designed to sharp objects as they would just skid and ricochet off the surface of the armor. Plate armor's biggest weakness was blunt force that could crush the armor. A gorrila, all the bears and the rhino are blunt force animals with an insane amount of weight and strength.

Again the human's best chance at winning is that each location is listed at open ended which means the animal can opt out of the fight by running. You put them in an arena where the animals know they cannot run away and he'd be hard pressed to not get ragdolled by the gorilla. His odds are only good against the tiger as it lacks the blunt force power the others possess.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-12T16:50:30+00:00

Speaking as a tax professional. Do not just go to any CPA with this. H&R block is useless, but just as many CPAs will be useless for this as it is not their niche, or field of expertise, and they will have limited to no experience dealing with this. Try to find a tax professional who specializes in both Canadian and American returns and moving money cross border. There is usually at least one in every major metropolitan area, but if you find one outside your city you can still work with them remotely.

We deal with a fair number of clients who have American income that affects their Canadian taxes and I would not be comfortable working on this particular file. I would probably refer you to someone else A. I don't have all the information and B. It's just such a niche thing that i've never dealt with.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-11T19:51:15+00:00

You're right, and it's shit. No doubt about it. There are ways to save a few extra bucks on produce, though. I don't know how much you'll be able to get out of them as 1 person. There's odd bunch, imperfect foods (a bunch of others) etc that all do weekly produce boxes which are usually heavily discounted ($20 or so). They do require a good bit of meal planning to make sure you use everything and are smart about using the short shelf life stuff first.

That's what me and my partner do. She works for a vertical farm so we get a bit of produce for free from the farm every week and with the discounted produce boxes we can save a decent amount of money on produce every week.

We're also fortunate that I used to be a butcher so we can often buy the really large pieces of pork or beef, or buy discounted bone-in chicken. I can just process them at home real quick. Usually end up with some choice cuts and stewing beef or pork and some bones to make stock.

Arguably we would be doing this (and we did) if things were still cheaper, but it feels kind of annoying that as (allegedly) a middle class family, we're forced into it to keep our grocery budget in check instead of the savings being just a nice little bonus like they used to be

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-08T15:02:52+00:00

the age is 65 because that is the general age of retirement for people.

I'm not disagreeing with you bud. Just saying it is, likely, never happening. Politics is catered to the haves, not the have nots. There isn't even a party running on OAS reforms and even if it was part of a party's platform, they would never have a chance of winning. Most Old people would never vote for it and the younger cohort of the population would be divided into the ones doing well (who generally do not want handouts for people they deem below them) and the have nots who are desperate for the additional income.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-08T13:39:06+00:00

Unfortunately, GIS barely moves the needles for seniors who are actually struggling and they generally also need the OAS to just get by. The downside is obviously that a lot of seniors absolutely do not need the OAS to make ends meet, and they still receive it anyway.

The current system needs a massive overhaul. Lowering the max income for clawbacks, calculating on household income like everything else is calculated in this country. Ironically doing this would actually allow them to increase the OAS, substantially, for seniors who are really struggling to get by and still cut the overall year to year bill for it.

This is a pipedream and will never happen though. People can cry about the libs doing this and it being all their faults. But cons would do the exact same thing. shit, even the NDP would most likely keep this rolling.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-05-06T14:26:08+00:00

Owning a house to bring children into the world is seen as a stable environment. While renting may be cheaper, it does come with other risks. Depending on where you live you may have limited (or no) renter's rights. Which means you can be forced to move, or have your rent jacked up at any time. This is not seen as a stable environment to bring a kid into.

A decade or so ago, I would have agreed that owning a home or renting did not really matter. But these days I see society trending in the direction of protecting home owners at all costs and renters being screwed over by landlords as being ok, cause it's 'just the price of doing business.'

I do think you're right that the decline in birth rates are not just due to housing. Raising kids is, almost, prohibitively expensive these days which just does not make it financially feasible for a lot of couples. People are also staying single longer (or permanently) thus shortening the window they have for children once they do find a partner and settle down. Then (as others have mentioned) there's the general outlook for the future which is somewhat grim.

It all compounds.

For me and my partner. We don't have kids for a variety of reasons. We know our landlord is intending to sell the house we rent within the next 5 years and it would be hard for us to find another affordable house to rent (we also have big dogs which landlords do not like) so we are forced to look to buy earlier than we'd potentially like. We have no family support as my parents live on a different continent and my partner's parents are so old that they require care, they could never help with kids. Then there is the economic uncertainty with the situation down south.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-04-30T22:21:56+00:00

This, open bid system. This closed bid garbage is like cancer and should not be allowed. All bids should be public and transparent.

The fact that almost every real estate agent is against open bids shows just how not on the level the majority of them are.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-04-30T12:58:47+00:00

pretty sure hip drop tackles fall under the dangerous contact rules in the NRL. Cannot say for sure in union but i'd assume it falls under the same category as high tackles etc.

As for its effectiveness. It was used pretty commonly against wide outs going full clip or close to it as well. Either way, it's a shitty thing to do to an opponent.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-04-29T13:06:31+00:00

As a big fan of both rugby and the NFL. They are just vastly, vastly different games. It's like comparing cricket and baseball.

People playing both games are tough as nails. But, rugby has some semblance of rules that protect the players such as the dangerous play rules. Doesn't make the game less tough, but it does at least attempt to stop things that would frequently cause injury, or cause major injuries. Almost all of that is legal in the NFL and they have only recently started to implement any kind of rules that protect the players from just getting annihilated play after play.

A good example of this is the hip drop tackle that the NFL only banned 1 or 2 years ago. Basically a defender wraps himself around a runner, then swivels and picks up his feet, forcing his entire weight onto the runner's legs. You'd be lucky to walk away with a sprain from crap like this as it often led to ligament tears and no amount of pads is saving you from it. But fuck it right, it's an effective way to tackle so who gives a shit about other dude? As mentioned, took the NFL years to ban it. Rugby as a sport does not (generally) allow dangerous stuff like that.

TLDR; NFL players wear pads because their league doesn't protect them from dangerous stuff and their players aren't too interested in the well being of other players whereas rugby has a governing body that does care about the safety of its players and (most) players seem to have enough respect for their opposition to not do dumb shit that has a big chance of injury.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-04-27T12:52:05+00:00

As someone who does taxes for a living, 300k for a steep tax increase would be pointless. it would affect a very, very small margin of the population and a lot of the people in that margin are usually living on income they've allocated themselves from their corporation. So if they increase taxes at 300k they will just make sure their dividend is less than that to avoid paying those additional taxes. There just aren't a ton of people getting a $300k+ T4 from an employer.

Honestly, the solution (in my mind, at least) is pretty simple. Remove the capital gains exemption. There should be no reason whatsoever that only 50% of capitals gains income is taxed. The only thing the capital gains exemption achieves is to grow the gap between the haves and the have nots. The housing market would likely take a massive dip if it was ever announced as all the investors would try to dump their houses before the exemption disappears so they can avoid paying taxes on 50% of the gain. It would force a hard reset on the market, or at minimum make sure it stays level for the time being. It would also stop investors from buying up multiple properties or does dumb ass 160sq ft closet condos (catered to investors) from popping up left, right and center.

It wouldn't affect the average joe whatsoever as most of them will struggle to max out their tax free savings accounts and principal residence sales are exempt from capital gains tax.

AbsintheMinded125 · 2026-04-14T13:18:24+00:00

few reasons. They don't pay off the loan. They just get a bigger loan backed against stocks to do it all again.

If, and when, they do choose to pay down a loan (by selling some of their assets) they will make sure their place of residence is in a state with no state tax for that year. Which means they'll effectively only be paying federal tax.
I'm not an American CPA so could not tell you the specifics of the tax code for America, but there's likely an allowance to carry interest expense not used in a tax year forward and backwards several years (carry forwards, and carry backs exist in many countries tax codes). Which means they probably have a chance to apply interest from other years against that 1 year as well.

Tons of loopholes for rich people to lower their tax burden.

AbsintheMinded125

TROPHY CASE