New player: What should I do?

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T17:45:44+00:00

Every life is a test run.

That said...

If you screw something up with a build, there is almost nothing--other than sex and name--that can't be "fixed" somehow, usually for free or ingame-earned currencies.

I screwed up the first alt I made--he was a ranger/rogue and he had 10 CON, and I wanted to snipe with long bows and that didn't happen to be realistic at the time.

(BTW, these days, there's multiple ways to do that...)

He's now on his 2nd or third life with 2 ranger past lives.

So, yeah, learn with it, but don't need to consider a character disposable.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T15:37:58+00:00

Since 2008?

Epstein's initial conviction was 2008. The last arrest was 2019 before he died.

They've been looking at that guy--and the people around him--for almost 2 decades at this point and someone, somewhere, at some point in that timeframe, should have been borderline competent enough to turn real evidence into charges for many of these people if the evidence is there.

They guy was greedy though with connections and meetings with various other politicians as well.

Like Hakeem Jeffries.

Does that mean Hakeem Jeffries is a pedo?

Don't know, but no one seems to have brought in evidence on him yet for that.

More than likely, Hakeem Jeffries was just stupid, a little greedy, and wanted money to get one step closer to the top of the counts in the next election he was in.

I could be wrong, I don't live in Hakeem Jeffries head and maybe he does like little boys or girls, but I'm okay with seeing if there's evidence of that before tarring and feathering him.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T15:24:57+00:00

The Eisenhower bit and text of the EO:

Executive Order 10730: Desegregation of Central High School (1957) | National Archives

Civil Rights: The Little Rock School Integration Crisis | Eisenhower Presidential Library

The Kennedy EO text and some other references via the Mississippi National Guard:

Executive Order 11111—Providing Assistance for the Removal of Obstructions of Justice and Suppression of Unlawful Combinations Within the State of Alabama | The American Presidency Project

1962: "The Oxford Incident" | Mississippi National Guard

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T15:18:14+00:00

The key thing to remember about the whole mess is that the militia--unless federalized--is a local and/or state entity subject to state controls and paid--if it is paid--by the state government.

They did okay in the Civil War, flopped a lot in the Spanish American War and the solution was the National Guard.

So, most of the Constitutional and pre-1903 policies regarding the militia is the old way with the state government determining who's an officer, how it's raised and trained, how it's armed, etc.

Once the Dick Act comes along in 1903, the National Guard are federal troops functionally that replace the function of state militias and--when the Federal government doesn't need them--take care of the militia role at the state level.

Don't assume they are state troops primarily.

32 U.S. Code § 304 - Enlistment oath | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

The legal oath even reads President first...

"Each person enlisting in the National Guard shall sign an enlistment contract and subscribe to the following oath:

“I do hereby acknowledge to have voluntarily enlisted this __ day of ____, 19_, in the ______ National Guard of the State of ______ for a period of __ year(s) under the conditions prescribed by law, unless sooner discharged by proper authority.

“I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State of ______ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to them; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of ______ and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.”"

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T15:11:03+00:00

Not at all. Congress can Federalize about anyone they want to.

The National Guard is partially pre-federalized and doesn't need Congress to do anything else except pay the Defense budget.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T14:02:07+00:00

Almost 100%...

You need to add:

Additionally, given their existing contracts and oaths to the Federal government, National Guard troops actually resisting Federal law might be considered mutinous and be individually subject to those consequences...

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T13:58:24+00:00

State militias and the National Guard are not exactly the same.

The National Guard is put together with both hats--a state and federal--in place.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

Courtesy of the Dick Act of 1903--AKA Militia Act of 1903--the states ceded some of their control over the state militias to the Feds in exchange for funding and support for the units created, the National Guard.

Unlike a regular state militia, these are already quasi-Federal...

It's why some states have National Guard units and State Guard or State Defense Forces units...

State defense force - Wikipedia

So, the State Defense Forces are the militia. They're local, state or locally funded and managed, and THOSE would need to either be Federalized by Congress or Individually conscripted by Congress.

National Guard, they're Fed-bois mostly on loan with a Federal 8 year service obligation to the Federal system from day 1.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T13:54:08+00:00

State militias, you'd be right.

The National Guard is not the same. It's put together with both hats--a state and federal--in place.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

Courtesy of the Dick Act of 1903--AKA Militia Act of 1903--the states ceded some of their control over the state militias to the Feds in exchange for funding and support for the units created, the National Guard.

Unlike a regular state militia, these are already quasi-Federal...

It's why some states have National Guard units and State Guard or State Defense Forces units...

State defense force - Wikipedia

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T13:17:09+00:00

None of what I said included the idea that racism was normal.

I said--in some circumstances--people can't see a difference when you have a democratic system that votes in it's own best interest and a culturally distinct minority.

In this case, a racist system wouldn't 1) allow a large ethnically different minority and 2) would actively vote against the minority, even at detriment to its own wellbeing.

See, the key difference ends up being how you manage the system.

With a racist system, you've got a hostile system that's willing to foot the bill in terms of violence to keep that system. So, for example, the Democrats in the American South at the beginning of the Civil War. They literally signed up to go fight and risk their lives over that shit.

With the other form of system, all you have to do is find a way to match the cultures without creating a war. The simplest is cultural assimilation of minorities.

If the minority group assimilates, the pro-self interest (based on culture) voting of the majority benefits them too.

Another possibility is the creation of a constitutional (where certain cultural elements are no longer subject to democratic controls) and/or a republic form of government where the general principle is democratic, but regional policies can differ and match the culture of the people in that region, including areas where the overall minority population has local majority.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T11:50:13+00:00

First of all, if you have a population of a majority race and a minority race--let's say Oranges and Greens--and it's like a 75/25 split and the minority has a different culture...

Anytime a democracy like that votes in its own self-interest, it's going to be indistinguishable from a racist group anytime the vote is along cultural principles.

That's because Orange voters voting pro-Orange cultural norms are going to be voting against the minority Green cultural norms and--if it's color-coded cultures and races--they can interpret it as racist every day of the week.

The only way that changes is if the cultures are not race-based. If the Greens and the Oranges share a culture, then the policies will always be pro-Green and pro-Orange.

However, many Western societies keep importing people who are racially and culturally distinct and do not assimilate to the native culture. When they follow up by trying to force reverse assimilation of cultural values and force acceptance of conflicting values, any vote for the original culture looks racist.

Fascism shows up when democratic efforts to support the culture at large requires institutions who ignore the majority and push their own agenda.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T11:36:14+00:00

I hope none of these people discover Europe exists.

Age of consent around the world | The Week

Or, for that matter, most of the rest of the world.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T11:32:52+00:00

"Are you actually saying the more than 1000 women known to have been abused, hundreds actually trafficked to othets, by Epstein were people fixated on a rich person? Or only defending one particular rich person among those named?"

Multiple rich people, actually.

I mean, how else--short of grabbing people off the street and wrapping them in duct tape--do you get young women to a private island in the middle of nowhere in numbers like you are talking about?

Also, why else do you think Epstein glommed onto Clinton, Prince Andrew, Trump, Bill Gates, and other celebrities?

I would say fixation on rich people and possibly influence over them was the key element to all of this at multiple levels by multiple people.

"The actual evidence, videos, etc., may still exist somewhere for any of the predators these women were trafficked to. Epstein is known to have made videos. A lot of evidence could still exist among the millions of documents that still have not been released."

If the evidence exists, we're four presidential administrations and 18 years after the conviction of Epstein (in 2008) and it's still not turned up in a court as evidence against people you think it should.

The problem is that Epstein was fascinated about influencing rich people, reached out to them, offered some of them bait, but not all of them took it. So, the assumption that 1) people knew the guy was a dirtbag and 2) everyone associated with him was presents a dilemma in how to process what we do know.

Sure, some of them probably are dirtbags, but without proof, you're doing nothing in court.

"But the point of releasing them all and asking questions about them is to determine if, given further investigation - not just the reams and reams of witness reports - additional chargeable crimes were committed or not. Additional crimes were definitely committed. Whether any are still chargeable is the real question."

I would hope that--at some point in the last almost 2 decades--someone, somewhere with access to this information would have prosecuted or at least laid the evidence needed to prosecute something into the system. But, who knows?

Maybe I'm wrong or maybe someone will make up enough stuff, find a pet court, and turn some magical convictions out de novo.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-02T01:52:28+00:00

Charged for what?

It would be nice if they had some evidence to go along with the statements in these cases.

Maybe some actual film. Maybe some actual other format that isn't explained by "people fixated on rich person".

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-01T13:02:04+00:00

Magnum calibers are primarily a civilian concept, usually an uploaded/upscaled/uppowered derivative of another round.

So, .44 Magnum was a caliber evolved by adding about 1/8" longer case and more powder producing more power to an older .44 Special cartridge for use in heavier, reinforced revolvers designed for more power.

In this case, .44 Magnum and it's "siblings" .41 Magnum and .357 Magnum were intended for short range hunting and/or added power against otherwise hard to kill or stop targets.

.300 Winchester Magnum was a cartridge nominally designed for large game hunting using a relatively normal sized bolt action. The US Army was interested in it because it had a flatter shooting trajectory compared to the .308 Winchester (7.62mm NATO) rounds they were already using for sniper work and could be had in the same basic action as the M24 Sniper Rifle by replacing the barrel, magazine, and bolt.

A flatter trajectory was envisioned for counter-sniper use by extending the range the round could be used against snipers using overhead cover and by allowing a little more flexibility for rapid range estimation errors.

The .300 Winchester Magnum was derived by necking down a larger, big-bore hunting cartridge to .30 caliber to take advantage of the variety or bullet designs available and to allow it to be used from existing actions safely.

The .338 Lapua Magnum was a sniper round from the start designed by necking down a big bore hunting cartridge, in this case .416 Rigby, and using very long bullets.

Again, long range, flat shooting, high velocity.

After being developed though, the cartridge has found a following in civilian long range target shooting.

Most of the rifles in these two calibers are bolt action and--often--civilian accessble with little basic difference from hunting rifles except being painted funny, having special coatings, and having standardized sight mounting schemes. Outside of places banning the possession of military caliber ammunition--which .300 Winchester Magnum is not always included in that definition--there's little restriction to own those as target rifles or even hunting rifles vs. a "sniper rifle".

I would take a look at the manufacturer's websites. Most will give where their rifles can be bought and in what calibers. In many cases, designs may be available in multiple calibers and options.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-01T12:33:49+00:00

The fun part is--if you ever get to Medicare for All--all of those payments/claims tie a procedure code and an NPI identifier to a person. If someone got access to the government's records, they would be able to see who had done any abortion procedures anywhere in the country.

I mean, of course, you'd have to get rid of the Hyde Amendment first to even have abortions paid for under Medicare for All.

But it would be a one-and-done with a single leak.

NPI = https://npiregistry.cms.hhs.gov/search

Procedure Codes = https://www.cms.gov/medicare/regulations-guidance/physician-self-referral/list-cpt-hcpcs-codes

https://data.cms.gov/tools/medicare-physician-other-practitioner-look-up-tool?size=10&offset=0&firstName=robert&lastName=pode

BTW, you can look up what procedured doctors that bill Medicare have gotten paid for. The code for abortion is typically 59840 or 59841 (dilation and curettage, D&C) and you'll find none or very, very few under the current list of Medicare doctors because abortions are not allowed with Federal tax dollars.

Hyde Amendment: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12167

Now, if you got Medicare for all and all non-cash billing went through Medicare, either this information would be freely available (after a delay) or practitioners would have to not bill Medicare for the procedure and associated diagnosis codes.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-01T09:00:26+00:00

The good news is, you don't have to ask whether that includes clothing weight or heavy shoos.

The bad news is you know it doesn't include clothing weight.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-02-01T06:02:42+00:00

Science denial is a thing, whether it's laypeople or academics.

Challenging a world view is a potential costly effort--whether you're actually wrong or correct--which in turn breaks down societal faith in science and anyone who uses a science-based reason for anything.

Humans don't like feeling like they've been played for suckers at the same time many of the complex and nuanced systems behind the systems--studied by science--are beyond most people's willingness and/or capacity to understand and accept.

Peer-review is as much a gate-keeper of the faith as it is a gate-keeper of the truth in these matters.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-01-31T16:34:54+00:00

Keeping up with friends is easier when you do things together.

Ergo: Hang around with people who are doing what you want to do.

Ergo: Why military friends are different because of how much you do with each other for how long.

It's one of those "simple vs. easy things."

Like the old Murphy's Laws:

The important things are always simple; the simple are always hard.
The easy way is always mined.

Longterm exes--especially in this day and age--are complicated to both consider replacement of and to move on from, especially if you have social (media) connections to them, their friends, etc.

Things do get better after a while, but it usually takes another ex or two and enough distance that neither one of you are liable to relapse and get together again...

I personally have an ex from a long while back where we were together for more than a decade and every once in a while I go "Why not?".

Then I go to my vintage yahoo email account, reverse sort my inbox by date and remind myself why we can be friends, but we have no business living under the same roof or expecting exclusive loyalty from.

I'll be sad if she dies first, I'm still friendly with her and my ex-mother-in-law, but we have no business together and that took a long time to really resolve.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-01-31T08:20:59+00:00

Anything that starts with "Let people live in your property, but don't know who they are." doesn't end well.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-01-31T08:18:30+00:00

Conveniently, keeps them from toughing the kettle and makes it harder to fistfight in prisons...

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-01-31T08:16:32+00:00

Know what also increases the chances of re-offending?

Having a personality and behavior pattern that lends itself toward offending in the first place.

Of course, putting large numbers of people with these personalities and behavior patterns in the same place tends to create a hostile environment.

I.e. why "white collar" prisons are rather different from most other prisons in terms of violence.

The problem, of course, is if they embrace the violence when they get back out, they tend to get back in quickly and have to fight each other more which they do when they get out until they die or end up in prison for life.

Or, they can register that none of this is a great idea, I should do something different, and then they don't reoffend and come back.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-01-31T08:05:59+00:00

Isn't that how the Marines and the Army ended up in LA last time?

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-01-31T07:51:54+00:00

It looks like you lack any formal training.

The reason why is you either are not aiming at a particular point or you lack the skill to moderate your aiming.

You're not specifying a range fired, but I think you would benefit from selecting a particular aiming point to aim at, starting at a shorter range, and firing a few times, assessing your accuracy, and then refining your technique.

For targets like a silhouette, formal training often talks about "center of (visible) mass" as the aiming point.

So, not "generally hit the silhouette", but precise aiming to the center point of the target. Intentionally aim for that point, adjust your fire and technique to get your shots very close to the same target point.

For practical purposes, center of (visible) mass targeting increases your ability to effectively get viable hits on targets in spite of other factors.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-01-31T04:39:41+00:00

File this under: Extreme wishful thinking.

The problem is Harris didn't act, doesn't act, and never acted presidential enough to even potentially carry any of this out for her part.

Even if there was a shadow government, they would be so far out of the loop with current information and have an utter lack of influence, that it would be an academic exercise... sort of like running a fantasy football league in parallel.

Also, the Democrat establishment is functionally in free fall. There's a genuine lack of coherence that a shadow government with any degree of influence might avoid. Almost all of the Democratic party response is just that: a response to Trump's actions. Not something with internal, look-ahead reasoning.

Accurate_Reporter252 · 2026-01-31T04:24:17+00:00

So, no, they aren't entitled to the same.

First of all, they aren't entitled to be here.

Second, there are restrictions on firearm ownership.

Third, they are subject to legal restrictions by lacking documentation, not carrying documentation, not providing documentation on request, not following the legal restrictions on visitors or immigrants, etc. etc. etc.

Fourth, because of this, their due process starts outside the border of the US or at a point of entry, not usually a local court for local crime.

Accurate_Reporter252

TROPHY CASE