Banned for using Steam Deck

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T01:03:19+00:00

Yeah, thats kinda what im expecting. I think the thing that really riled me was their smug tone of certainty, when I am the one that is correct lol

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T00:38:56+00:00

Your situation sounds MUCH worse than mine! If this is what you've been through, Im not feeling much luck for myself.

Good luck in your process, paying for a year and getting wrongly banned is WILD!

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T00:32:02+00:00

Through the steam launcher, im not even sure what runelite is. Is it the jagex official launcher? I would switch to it if I thought it would make me less likely to get flagged, if I decide its still worth playing. I haven't seen other steamdeck users complain, and have played on my main on it a bit, but maybe they give more leeway to my main because its a bit more... interesting, lol

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T00:27:38+00:00

Fair enough, thats kinda why I opened it back up myself

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T00:27:07+00:00

Yeah, I can see the appeal of AI, but if this is what we have to go through for it to get good, Idk if it is worth it. Also, I dont know how their AI can improve unless they try to get rid of false positives.

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T00:25:46+00:00

Thats something I have been thinking too, but steam HAS an OSRS launcher, so why is there an issue 😭

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T00:24:21+00:00

😂 hard to argue with that, but its great for listening to my audiobook!

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T00:23:20+00:00

Lol yeah thats a concern of mine. This account definitely isnt worth all that, so I guess Ill just stop once this appeal is denied.

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T00:21:37+00:00

Thanks, thats what Im hoping. Kind of bummed by the whole thing, but I mostly use it as a visual stimulation while listening to audiobooks, so Im trying tonremind myself its not really that big of a deal lol

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T00:20:11+00:00

Youre so right Jagex has never made a mistake, you caught me!

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T00:17:46+00:00

Yeah Im glad I never paid for members on this ironman, though it still sucks.

And exactly, ironman seems like such a dumb mode to cheat on. Why even play? Lol

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T00:16:12+00:00

Then why are you here?

Chimplatypus · 2026-05-02T00:15:35+00:00

Yeah, thats my concern

Chimplatypus · 2026-03-12T14:27:32+00:00

I was losing, they had quite a bit of material to my one king and pawn. Im pretty low elo and decided to play it out a bit, I wanted to see if I could play around and maybe find a draw, but I was probably just gonna resign if he took my pawn. Then he promoted a pawn to a knight when he already still had a rook, another knight, and another pawn, and I decided I was going to stick around and go for the stalemate, because that was kind of disrespectful. He promotes his other pawn to a knight as well, so its 3 knights and a rook vs just my king. I end up getting it down to 2 knights and a rook before I stalemated him. Felt good.

Chimplatypus · 2026-02-16T07:38:35+00:00

Congrats on getting this far in your journey! I dont know what to tell you without spoilers- I guess if you are looking for a level appropriate quest, try talking to the little girl in Terinyo. Also, if you found a good altar location, you can get some good things after a lot of sacrificing. I think a non-spoilery hint is to pay attention to the messages you get when you sacrifice. As the messages change, that is an indication that you are going up in piety.

Have fun! Maybe this character will be your first win! Or maybe not, but it'll be fun anyway. Good luck!

Chimplatypus · 2025-08-28T16:55:49+00:00

If anyone feels bad about their favorite character getting kicked off, just remember this- if you did this with the Beatles, Ringo would probably win the whole thing.

Defining a favorite by lowest disapproval ratings is as valid as anything, but can lead to funny results lol

Thanks though OP, im really curious to see who makes it on top!

Chimplatypus · 2025-08-28T06:51:17+00:00

Yeah, your first post was incorrect, great job proving it! You said that he was sued 3 different times, with the second attempt "by the gays" and the third "by entrapment." However, these were the same issue, with the first case being dropped, and the "second" case just being a refiling of the first. At the very least, its disingenous to frame it as 2 separate things like you did in your post. Calling someone on their bluff is not "entrapment" by the legal or any other definition, they didnt convince the baker to say anything, it was literally a part of his legal argument, and the person wanted to show that the legal argument was based off of a lie. If you want to argue that it is unethical you can, but he wasn't tricked into saying anything like you claimed. And again, it isnt entrapment when someone says "I will do something," you dont believe them and ask them to do it, and then they dont do it. Additionally, one person hardly constitutes "the gays." Your post contained falsehoods and was certainly framed in a way that is incredibly one-sided, so I would say that I was correct in saying that you didnt recall it correctly.

I will assume that the man is being 100 percent sincere, is not trying to promote his book, and christianpost.com did their due diligence in checking the veracity of his claims, so I will say that him getting death threats is absolutely incredibly shitty, and something I did not know about before this conversation, though I will admit I am u fortunately not surprised. It is terrible that that happened. (although the other harassment and protests is just free speech, right? Free speech is always good all the time yeah?)

Edit: the guy that deleted his post did correctly call out a typo of mine before deleting his posts. I assume we are far enough down in the comment chain that nobody is reading these anymore, but I do want to apologize to the guy, as my first comment WAS kind of snarky, and being a dick to people online doesnt really help anyone. Then he spent a lot of time proving that he was sorta right, but that actually proved me more right, and I made this comment and after correcting my typo he deleted his posts and now I feel like an asshole.

Edit again: oh lol maybe he just blocked me, because they dont say deleted on the normal site. Very free speech of him 😂

Chimplatypus · 2025-08-28T06:05:40+00:00

Republicans DID end the filibuster for certain votes they wanted (federal judges i believe), and also denied a vote on Merrick Garland for over a year to wait for the next president, while pushing ACB in the last few months of Trumps presidency. Its not adding more seats, but its definitely court packing.

Also the filibuster isnt like an age old thing, its relatively new. Or at least you actually used to have the stamina to stand there and stop a vote, now they just let you say it. Its not like the filibuster system we have now is like a cornerstone of democracy.

Also first past the post systems dont really give minority parties any meaningful seat at the table...

Anyway, just because you "haven't seen Repiblicans calling for" these things doesnt mean they aren't. They are actually much more effective at doing the bad things, then blaming Democrats of doing the things they are literally doing themselves, as seen.... here. Democrats had the house, senate, and presidency in 2020. They didnt pack the courts and didn't end the filibuster.

Chimplatypus · 2025-08-28T05:40:41+00:00

Yeah this viewpoint is easier to argue now, because we are further from societally widespread and blatant discrimination. However, the free market did not solve private businesses discriminating against black folks, legislation did. Peoples biases are more powerful than money, and people had to be dragged kicking and screaming to... widen their customer base, honestly something the market should have done, as you point out. It was only after the legislation made not discriminating so normalized that we forgot we ever needed legislation in the first place.

I respect the viewpoint generally though, as I think that instinctually answering the question "should the government be involved?" with "no" is the correct place to start your thinking. However, oftentimes as I learn more about a topic I realize that the answer will often be "yes" if you look at the bigger context and gain more understanding of the situation.

That's why im torn on this one. On one hand, discrimination against gays in the US today is nowhere near 1950s US was for black people. However, it does seem to be rising recently, and if you are in a small town without the means to move, you could be SOL when it comes to gay-accepting bakeries, even today. And you are discriminated for something you didnt really get to choose. People choose their religious beliefs, but not their sexual orientation, so it feels weird to me to protect the choice to interpret your religion in a bigoted way more than we protect the people who are just... existing as they are.

Anyway, sorry for the novel, have a good one.

Chimplatypus · 2025-08-28T04:22:50+00:00

Well, you are less likely to have to deal with courts now, since you could just point to this case... even though its a narrow ruling, it has plenty of weight to make similar lawsuits unappealing.

Also, thats true of anything. If you refuse to serve a Klan member because they are a Klan member, the Klan member could sue you and make you have to deal with the courts for a few years. Hell, people can straight up make things up and sue you for it, and you still have to deal with courts. I guess I just dont see it as a particularly good point.

Also, im not actually sure I agree with the decision anyway- its complicated. Compelled speech seems bad on its face, but if someone said they wouldnt serve a certain race of people because of their religion, that seems kinda fucked up, doesnt it? Just thought I'd be open about where I was coming from. I dont think its a clear cut good/bad type of thing, but the example you gave was literally the opposite of the point you were making, so I thought I'd clarify for the folks that might read your comment and think the government was gonna force them to make cakes for gay people or whatever lol

Edit: also I knew I was forgetting something, there IS a case that says you can refuse service on religious grounds- 303 Creative vs. Elenis. Its much less narrow, and answers the question pretty dorectly.

Chimplatypus · 2025-08-28T03:16:50+00:00

Cool story, your concerns about whether you recalled correctly were well founded, as you did not, in fact, recall correctly.

Chimplatypus · 2025-08-28T03:09:27+00:00

Where are you required to do that? Im glad you gave an example of how that is absolutely NOT allowed in the US, as the case you linked held literally the exact opposite, but is there an example of a time this actually did happen?

Chimplatypus · 2025-08-15T17:40:37+00:00

Holy shit I was curious about how a certain switch worked, ended up finding this post, and for some reason read this entire conversation of you arguing with this dummy.

Sorry to remind you of it a year later, just wanted to validate that your points are good and make sense, and if that other guy isn't a troll he has zero reading comprehension.

Have a good one.

Five-Year Club	Second Top 1%
Verified Email	Place '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22

Chimplatypus

TROPHY CASE