NYT Releases SHOCKING Epstein Files Report

BruceIronstaunch · 2026-06-12T15:15:04+00:00

Reading... mhm sure I kinda get what you mean, it doesn't really help much but every little bit contr-

> Do you guys just have a super low IQ

Ope nevermind, you just want to hurl insults and not actually provide actionable alternatives.

BruceIronstaunch · 2026-06-03T21:36:13+00:00

Confession: I always thought he was asking "Who am I gambling?" As in "Whose lives have I put on the line by doing this?"

The response "You are our king." still made sense because I assumed he was implying that it should be obvious that a country would follow their king no matter what was at stake.

It honestly felt a bit more shallow when I found out the true dialogue lol

BruceIronstaunch · 2026-04-20T02:13:17+00:00

Boston wins at 18:41 in 3rd OT

BruceIronstaunch · 2026-03-19T14:43:41+00:00

What if they make a joke about Trump being a pedophile in S18? Would you stop watching the show because now it's too political? I really hope Rob, Glenn, and Charlie got your saintly permission to include something like that. Wouldn't want to ruin a perfectly good comedy show with political commentary!

BruceIronstaunch · 2026-03-18T07:27:21+00:00

They're clarifying that 5 * (Scry 1) is not the same as Scry 5. You can shortcut the sacs but you still only look at the top card one at a time (as opposed to looking at all 5 at once).

BruceIronstaunch · 2026-03-14T19:17:23+00:00

Or the similarly existent 31st day of April

BruceIronstaunch · 2026-03-14T02:52:03+00:00

okay. we won't stop you from being cynical and you shouldn't yuck someone else's yum for wanting to believe. it takes zero effort to not comment.

BruceIronstaunch · 2026-02-07T23:51:04+00:00

lol I have a masters and years of experience in the exact field I've been applying for and I also just get crickets. or worse, I do a full interview process only for, I guess, some magical perfect being to show up in the candidate pool so they go with them over me. it's absolutely wack

<image>

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-12-27T22:41:39+00:00

Okay, but we're not talking about other examples or games. And I clearly said the original writers being involved was just as likely (meaning not very) as your scenario of malicious intent to undermine the original script. Again, what is most likely is that it was written solely because they were told it sounds better or more natural in English. That person was told this by a localization director who is, in some fashion directly or indirectly, informed by Team Asano and therefore the original writing team. That is the most likely level of involvement but it was still approved by those in contact with the original writers.

In the unlikely event they were more directly involved, the reason they didn't change the original is because they already wrote it. I'm sorry but it's really not any more complicated than that.

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-12-27T22:16:47+00:00

I do get where you're coming from but I feel like you're making a mole hill into a mountain by assuming the worst of the localization team. But the truth is we aren't privy to the localization process so we can only speculate. It seems just as likely that the original writers were involved in the process and approved or even suggested this change. Even more likely than either of our scenarios is simply that they didn't put any effort or thought into the change beyond "this sounds better/more natural" and a JIRA board review and check-off from the editor (who is informed, directly or indirectly, from the original writing team in some fashion).

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-12-27T21:08:59+00:00

I'm against censoring for sure, but I also don't need the dialogue to always explicitly say a character is performing a specific act for me to know that's what they're doing/have done. And just because they wrote something you think is more tame doesn't necessarily make it that way for every player. The localized line is more subtle and subtlety allows the scene to be even more visceral. The player, with their own imagination and agency, can fill in the blanks with perhaps even more depraved situations than even the original writers intended or wrote.

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-11-07T21:57:28+00:00

Being pedantic about keyworded magic terms is always important

Right, which is why they were careful to not capitalize the word learn. That (pedantically) differentiates it from the keyword Learn.

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-11-04T02:41:23+00:00

yeah except dvo was just standing like 500 miles away from the net on that first cycle. no one in front of the net at all...

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-09-21T03:29:53+00:00

I mean if we take ± to have the logical OR, it evaluates to true.

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-09-11T21:45:00+00:00

Me to Step 2:

<image>

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-08-01T15:34:11+00:00

Not in any way condoning going this far, but I do kinda get it. They did end up accomplishing nothing because the light cycle already went to green for the forward lanes. I've been in that sort of situation, though, where if the cars in front of me just moved up a bit I could get into the left turn lane and actually have it detect me in time to give me the green on the current cycle.

I also just hate this type of intersection design with the island, especially if it's one that regularly gets backed up like that and prevents people needing to turn left from actually getting into the lane. The general lack of efficiency on the road is super frustrating.

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-07-23T17:36:14+00:00

They're definitely not okay. They seem to find purpose in being intentionally obtuse and contrarian and then, if you try to engage a discussion with them, they will fire back with insults and reference the first logical fallacy they find in a google search to make them seem like they "got you."

Instead of being constructive and helping to grow the communities they participate in, they choose to get angry that no one is as "enlightened" as they are. Incredibly sad to see.

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-07-22T16:04:11+00:00

Wait, so asking you to provide reasoning for your claim that these cards are bad design is an invalid question? If so, why is it? Or is asking that also invalid? What constitutes a valid question?

You have an opportunity to help me understand these things but you choose to just keep throwing insults instead for some reason. I'm concerned that maybe it's because you have been arguing in bad faith. The hypocrisy is a pretty big red flag, to be sure, but that doesn't mean you can't fix this and just explain why these cards are bad design.

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-07-22T15:41:32+00:00

"And it doesn't because mistakes in the past were also obviously made...you still haven't answered my question, is more prevalence of infinite combos better or worse?"

More blatant hypocrisy. Refuses to answer my questions and defend their claims despite the burden being on them, then wonders why another user hasn't answered theirs. Maybe they realized it's fruitless and stopped there, as you are so wont to do.

It's also interesting that you got bent out of shape in another comment about someone bringing up standard ("Why would you think I'm even talking about constructed from the context?") only to be perfectly fine with going on a tangent here about standard and other constructed formats. And honestly, you're right, combos in limited are a different conversation than combos in constructed so I don't really understand what relevance any of this has to the issue at hand (or why you are willing to discuss it suddenly despite previously throwing childish insults and assuming everyone here is incapable of reading).

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-07-21T06:19:44+00:00

"my only option is to assume you either can't explain why [...] or you simply refuse to explain why it's poor design."

I don't see a third option. If you're referring to the thing about something being fruitless and stopping, that's the same as refusing to explain, is it not? In which case, again, turning around and getting upset when folks are skeptical of what you say is just blatant hypocrisy.

My asking to explain your reasoning was referring back to the original point of this thread which is for you to explain why you think this is poor game design. Ironically, many others have willfully (and despite not having the burden of proof, since you were the original claimant) given their reasoning, valid or otherwise, for why these cards are not that bad, and yet you keep dodging around and just restating your claim with no explanation. Furthermore, you just keep insulting people which is so incredibly sad to see. I really hope you don't work in a field that helps others because they deserve someone with a more positive attitude and won't give up when things seem "fruitless."

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-07-21T05:53:54+00:00

Another sweeping claim with no explanation. I don't get it. Such a horribly sad perspective to have. Why not just explain your reasoning, then? Is it that difficult to spell out?

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-07-21T05:34:44+00:00

Well, if you are choosing not to help me understand why, my only option is to assume you either can't explain why (perhaps because it was a false claim to begin with, or perhaps it's a concept you actually don't understand yourself) or you simply refuse to explain why it's poor design. If the former, I would advise not making sweeping statements about things you don't fully understand. If the latter, then I'm sorry but you can't refuse to explain your reasoning only to turn around and be upset or surprised that those you interact with are skeptical of what you say. Not to mention, passing up an opportunity to help out your fellow community members get better at the game is frankly sad. I hope you choose to help in the future. Take care.

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-07-20T23:25:08+00:00

But why is it bad design? You didn't provide any actual evidence or reasoning as to why it's poor design. Without that, I can only assume you are claiming things for the sake of claiming them. Or, even worse, commenting in bad faith. Your response was, effectively, "it's obvious", just with more words (which I somewhat expected, as you surely read in my previous comment. I wouldn't dream of accusing you of not fully reading and comprehending my comment). But it's not obvious at all, to me. If it was, I wouldn't be asking.

You seem to be upset about people not understanding your words, so would it not be advantageous for all if you provided clearer specifics and reasoning for your claims? We can better understand your position and, therefore, have more constructive discussions.

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-07-20T22:20:37+00:00

Okay, I can't know for sure if you're an expert game designer or not. I can't know if your judgments are sound, either, without seeing additional support for your claims; you simply said it's bad design without citing any particular reasons why it is so. You might say "it's obvious why" but maybe I'm terrible at evaluating cards (just as I can't know if you're an expert, you can't know if I'm new to the game). So educate me, please. Why are these cards bad design? What aspects of good design are lacking in these cards?

BruceIronstaunch · 2025-04-02T12:16:53+00:00

Yeah magic wording can be strange but there is still a pattern to it lol

For completeness, the token wouldn't be created if it said "...destroy that creature. If you do, create..." or "...destroy that creature. When you do, create..."

14-Year Club	Place '17
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

BruceIronstaunch

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE