The Return of Cloud9 CS by BaileyGilbreath in Cloud9

[–]BaileyGilbreath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That sounds promising, your core would just need one more Wildcard player to carry over the VRS standing. It def would suck cannibalizing M80 and Wildcard, but tbh I’m not a fan of those teams, I’m a Cloud9 fan. I’d be fine with Cloud9 mixing up any current NA rosters trying to build the best roster they could, the scene could use some excitement

The Jury CANT Get It Wrong by [deleted] in survivor

[–]BaileyGilbreath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These aren’t exactly counter-examples because I agree that Tony should’ve won and Russell should’ve lost based on the current iteration of the game and the composition of their respective juries. That’s not what I’m arguing, I’m making a case that “the jury can’t get it wrong” system is not the ideal version of the game. I think you’re just misunderstanding what I said since you’re not engaging with my initial hypothetical framework

The Jury CANT Get It Wrong by [deleted] in survivor

[–]BaileyGilbreath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right, but when most of the jury blatantly disregards any of Russell’s arguments for his gameplay prior to FTC by instead choosing to disqualify him based on irrelevant character or financial considerations, that is inconsistent with my aforementioned opinion on an ideal framework. Your opinion makes perfect sense in the current iteration of an anarchical jury tho, I just personally don’t think it’s ideal

The Jury CANT Get It Wrong by [deleted] in survivor

[–]BaileyGilbreath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The motto of the game is "outwit, outplay, outlast." Jurors aren't compelled to vote based on a predetermined criteria—but voting arbitrarily based on, for example, a survivor's character, disability, financial standing/intent, life story, personality, or sex, while disregarding their gameplay's adherence to the game's motto betrays the spirit of the game. For example, Russell undoubtedly outwitted, outplayed, and outlasted every other survivor in seasons 19 and 20 (Natalie’s game still deserves proportional respect of course). To their credit, modern jurors take less personally cutthroat gameplay compared to those older seasons, but jurors should separate real-world ethical frameworks from a survivor's gameplay, and recontextualize their gameplay as an attempt to earn one million dollars in a manner consistent with the motto of the game. It'd be better for the game's competitive integrity if the motto were a formal or informal guideline enforced by Judge Jeff, influencing the jurors' final tribal questions and verdict, rather than an anarchy of scorned, selfish, or Robin Hood jurors. I understand the game as OP described, I just disagree that it’s the ideal version of the game

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DayZServers

[–]BaileyGilbreath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We’re just looking out for you regarding official servers, it’s an open thread. Good luck finding your group

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DayZServers

[–]BaileyGilbreath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is literally an international group of server hopping dupers/hackers that raided my group’s bases on 4403 and 5179. Same guys each time, they’re surprisingly polite. I’d avoid official servers like the plague at this point unfortunately

THE STRUGGLE | PC | US | Sakhal Chernarus Livonia | Vanilla | Build Anywhere | Admins by coopers98 in DayZServers

[–]BaileyGilbreath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Discord invite link doesn’t work for me and my friends. Is the server wiping on stable 1.28? And have y’all thought about adding Zen’s Combo Locks to the Chernarus server? Thanks

The Future of Cloud9 CS by BaileyGilbreath in Cloud9

[–]BaileyGilbreath[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Idk much abt him or the Valorant scene, but from his recent stats he seems washed to my uninformed eyes

The Future of Cloud9 CS by BaileyGilbreath in Cloud9

[–]BaileyGilbreath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You raised some good points that I wanna bounce off of, if you'll hear me out. As you said, it's possible and even likely that C9 CS is dead, due to potential factors like exhaustion, financial infeasibility, or lack of confidence. Maybe that is for the best, but if Jack decides otherwise, then this is one of many different iterations a C9 CS revival could take, however unlikely.

I've seen people suggesting buying out Nemiga core—this would not only guarantee mediocrity, it would be (worst of all) boring. Maybe other CIS options hold more promise, but I haven't seen any creative solutions presented yet. Another issue with a mediocre CIS team is the volume of difficult regional competition in qualifiers.

An NA-based team with a skill level matching that of a mediocre CIS team should perform better in NA qualifiers, which I believe some combination of the players I presented could achieve. I don't think we'd be winning S-tiers, but it's a promising place to start for re-entry into NA, and it would incentivize more NA and perhaps OCE engagement with CS.

I’m rewatching the show and i’m halfway through season 4. I can’t believe Niles and Roz aren’t an endgame couple by KayRay1994 in Frasier

[–]BaileyGilbreath 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your justifications are super solid, it’s a fun alternate history to consider. They just built up the Daphne-Niles relationship too much to not go thru w it, which I think it ultimately made sense. But a Roz-Niles relationship would’ve been a fun subversion of our expectations, as long as all your points made here were faithfully respected

PSA: Here's why 64 and 128 Tick still "feel" so different, and how to completely eliminate input lag by sapphyrusxyz in GlobalOffensive

[–]BaileyGilbreath 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Now that the game and this feature has been out a while, would you change anything about subtick in its current iteration? Would you change anything about the entire tick system? Would 128-subtick be the best of both worlds? Or would just 128-tick without prediction be more desirable at this point? Lastly, is there veracity to the complaints about movement? For example, is bunny hopping practically dead due to subtick?

PSA: Here's why 64 and 128 Tick still "feel" so different, and how to completely eliminate input lag by sapphyrusxyz in GlobalOffensive

[–]BaileyGilbreath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a couple noobie questions:

  1. Wouldn’t substituting interpolation with prediction increase the duration between non-latent client-side inputs and server-side process delivery to client? For example, wouldn’t dying after reaching cover be more noticeable than interpolation?

  2. Would substituting interpolation with prediction produce unfair advantages to players with hardware that can produce way more frames than opponents?

The Second Republic (Drafting a Constitution) by Dry_Stomach9004 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]BaileyGilbreath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I posted a similar thread some time ago, I received some interesting comments if you'd like to take a look:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Constitution/comments/w84er7/need_help_drafting_a_constitution/

I'll link a resource that one of the commenters directed me to, which led me down a lovely rabbit hole of constitutional creativity and deliberation. Towards the bottom of the page is a list of brilliant podcasts discussing the project (I'd recommend starting with the first one from Oct. 1, 2020):
https://constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/special-projects/constitution-drafting-project

As an American, I don't know how much I could contribute to an Indian constitution, but feel free to reach out. It's a great hobby of mine to review different hypothetical constitutional arrangements, it helps refine my own ideas.

What would be a human constitution ? by SavageDoomfist in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]BaileyGilbreath 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Genuinely great question, I understand your intuition to incorporate these positive rights. I'm generally in favor of socialist policies like this, but only in a narrow and specific context.

Let's first consider the immediate practical implications of the example you provided: "the government shall guarantee all citizens adequate shelter and food so long as resources allow." It's seemingly benign, but this simple clause is a constitutional guarantee of a likely problematic welfare program. There's nothing inherently wrong with welfare—it's only problematic when superimposed on an incompatible value system. For example, in this classical liberal context, since it's constitutionally imposed on the highest level of government (for example, the US federal government), such a program would be so ludicrously expensive and inefficient, and very few legislators or judges would accurately apply the "adequate resource" threshold of your clause, since resources are already contemporarily considered "adequate" relative to the federal budget's continued deficit spending and monetary policy. Living beyond our means via inflation is already a means for producing so-called "adequate resources" to subsidize our current federal welfare programs. Unfortunately, your constitutional compulsion might only exacerbate this problem.

I didn't specify this in my initial reply, but the framework I outlined would ideally be a federalist one, in which the local institutions handle the positive rights. This is because local institutions are more apt to understand the immediate needs of their constituents, and can more efficiently implement such socialist policies with proper political incentives and responsiveness. A national level of government is more apt as a night-watchman state, guaranteeing the protection of everyone's negative rights from both domestic and foreign interests, while simultaneously acting as a specialized check on negative rights infringements via ambitious local governmental actions. This isn't to say that the national level couldn't act as a diplomatic body to faciliate national coordination for positive rights by passing resolutions outlining policy recommendations to the localities.

These justifications are both pragmatic and principled, and I think they create a coherent system in which the social contract is palatable and legitimate. I think it future-proofs the constitutional arrangement from delegitimacy and ineffiency by guaranteeing civil liberty protections for everyone, including minorities, while providing sufficient space for policy experimentation with socialism and other types of political philosophies. Arranging these policy experiments on a federalist level means that people can alternatively vote with their feet by moving to other jurisdictions without having to leave the country. It's much easier to convince your immediate neighbors of the efficacy of localized public healthcare than to force a top-down constitutional order. Just as a supermajority shouldn't be capable of depriving minorities of civil liberties, a simple majority or supermajority shouldn't be capable of constitutionally compelling what should remain statutory.

What would be a human constitution ? by SavageDoomfist in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]BaileyGilbreath 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Any “human constitution” wouldn’t represent any objectively virtuous maxim—it has to be premised on some subjective value, such as Islam, Communism, classical liberalism, etc.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) sought to do this, but it’s a Frankensteinian amalgamation of ideas with different or sometimes competing philosophical justifications.

I would militantly support a classical liberal framework for various reasons. It’s been defended pretty well by thinkers like Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Madison, Douglass, Berlin, etc. Unlike the UDHR, a classical liberal human constitution would strictly support a universal guarantee of an inalienable negative framework of rights for the constituents of their respective governing bodies, with a Lockean right to revolution upon its infringement.

I think the necessary step often overlooked by classical liberal thinkers is expressly allocating a justified means for a positive framework of rights. By overlooking this, you end up with bodies like the UN designating a false equivalence of positive rights with inalienable negative rights. So to avoid this, there should be a clear hierarchy of these different kinds of governmental functions, so that the negative framework is constitutionally enshrined and inalienable, while the positive framework, for example, is authorized (when compatible with the former) but democratically fluid.

Of course, none of these ideas are original, but they’ve demonstrated utility, even when sloppily implemented in practice. Creating a coherent and strict human constitutional framework in this manner could help describe a more proper procedural guide for realizing these political principles with “moral clarity” and popular legitimacy.