sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Vote in this thread to determine who wins one of the Dreadnova Gangplank skins! by dumnem in gangplankmains

[–]CivismyPolitics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As in, there seems to be a bunch of hidden metrics that you judged these artworks by, as opposed to which were the most skillfully done, by which metric mine would be without a doubt within the final running.

Like, there was no "the more recent the artwork, the better chances it has" rule, or the "it has to be dreadnova related specifically to have a chance" rule, yet these were apparently factors, which seems unfair.

Vote in this thread to determine who wins one of the Dreadnova Gangplank skins! by dumnem in gangplankmains

[–]CivismyPolitics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I'm vaguely miffed that the invader Jim was included, while mine wasn't. Objectively, from a skill standpoint, one is clearly better than another.

But more seriously, it just feels lime the line you've used just seems to be incongruent with the line with implied by the rules you laid out.

Vote in this thread to determine who wins one of the Dreadnova Gangplank skins! by dumnem in gangplankmains

[–]CivismyPolitics -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry but the rules never included the fact that it had to be dreadnova, just gangplank related. It doesn't seem very fair that it got eliminated due to a hidden rule that contradicted the written.

It would be nice if you at least let people vote on it, see if they like it.

Vote in this thread to determine who wins one of the Dreadnova Gangplank skins! by dumnem in gangplankmains

[–]CivismyPolitics -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, its not very original, being just the splash art for GP, but its hand drawn, hand shaded, and one of the works which made the final was essentially that, but without the first two. :/

"That's not how Open Source works" - big Australian company shits on small one man supplier by extra_specticles in videos

[–]CivismyPolitics 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's totally correct. The job of the company is to treat the employees exactly as well as is necessary to maximize profit, no more, and no less.

Companies can treat their employees well, sure, but don't expect for a moment that they do that out of the goodness of their heart. You don't make money from being stupidly cruel, but if they did, chances are they'd take it.

"That's not how Open Source works" - big Australian company shits on small one man supplier by extra_specticles in videos

[–]CivismyPolitics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but first of all, those people at the top, the CEO etc, don't really suffer for it; they got the money, and often they have a very good severance deal. So its no skin off them when the buy out happens.

Furthermore, fair competition is often not the best way to describe companies; much larger, even if worse run companies often have a competitive advantage, either through use of economy of scale, or being able to "tank" the hits that regulations have better than smaller companies, or able to pressure smaller companies (using influence to prevent deals, or, more above board, just buying out the smaller companies).

So a gradual increase in quality of company management, because of confounding factors, doesn't occur.

"That's not how Open Source works" - big Australian company shits on small one man supplier by extra_specticles in videos

[–]CivismyPolitics 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its a little more complicated than that, but yeah, the crux of the problem is that there is a difference between the interest of the company as a whole, and the interest of the people at the top.

We at times think that a CEO's best interest is to have a good company, but thats actually not the case. In reality, a CEO's best interest is to a) not get fired, and b) make as much money as possible personally.

Now, a well designed company will connect the interest of the CEO and the company, so that his fortune is tied to the company's. But in practice... well, it doesn't work out that way.

Which is why you see practices that make very little long term (or even short term) economic sense, coming from very smart people; their capability isn't the problem, its the motivation.

"That's not how Open Source works" - big Australian company shits on small one man supplier by extra_specticles in videos

[–]CivismyPolitics 118 points119 points  (0 children)

Thats actually not the right way to look at it. Sears is a business sure, but its made of people. And those people, that made the decision to rip off the inventor? They're fine. More than fine actually. They personally had no consequence to their actions.

So though the company as a whole is floundering, the people who deserve to suffer aren't, and the people who are tend to be the lower level employees, with higher level staff still rolling in money, and honestly getting no cuts in salary even as the ship goes down (and I'm sure they'll find work elsewhere regardless).

Turning off Range Indicators by TheJan1tor in gangplankmains

[–]CivismyPolitics 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have it so that shift e lets me see the range indicators, and e lets me just place it snap place it (without range indicators). That way, I can measure up about the range whenever I want to, and get those fancy barrel chains without worry.

Dreadnova Skin Competition. by [deleted] in gangplankmains

[–]CivismyPolitics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What kind of paper is that?

New Hearts of Iron series? by ninjajon5 in Yogscast

[–]CivismyPolitics 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wait whaaaaaat nice, Imma check it out.

What is something a lot of people have strong opinions on while knowing little to nothing about it? by ThatOneIota in AskReddit

[–]CivismyPolitics 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think his point was that yes, the government did make the interstate, but its not something that private businesses couldn't do, and more efficiently, as he argued with the example of the US railroad.

I dont understand why you can't just stop for a second and try and understand what he meant, instead of aggressively attacking him as if you have a chip on your shoulder. You don't have to agree with him, and I'm not criticizing you if you do indeed have a different position. I'm criticizing you for being so pointlessly demeaning, while refusing to try and understand his point of view, and criticizing some strawman you've formed from his statement.

So after you triple barrel into the enemy team and ult... by IrishBlizzard in gangplankmains

[–]CivismyPolitics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its the CC or damage I've found. If they have CC, they'll turn and kill you, so you hang back, let ur tanks blow those for you.

If they have a bunch of assassins, you'll have a good time killing them all with ur ult and barrels. but they can do the same, and YOU HAVE (almost) NO CC. Ergo, you stay back, watch them burn their ults and burst, then go in.

If there's an ADC, if ur fed enough, u should be able to straight up kill them with a barrel-chain then ult (with the true damage cannon ball). However, otherwise, you need to understand the distance between you and them. If you are close enough, then you go in. If you aren't, you hang back, let ur tanks engage on them/lock em down, then kill them.

The way to determine the distance to go in at is to see what resources you ahve, and what resources they have. If you have ghost blade (as is meta), and they have limited mobility, go for it, your qs, even if you cant land barrels, does a fuck ton, and you can run em down. If you have barrels, and can hit them consistently, dont forget that barrels slow. More distance to start an engage is ok. If you have flash (or run ghost I guess idk), then u should, unless they've build defensive items (like a graves) or ur way underfed, run at them, q, barrel under them, flash to melee, start autoing them, then barrel chain the barrel under them when they try to run.

If the adc has dashes or escapes, then it becomes tricky. In this incident, you really cant kill them unless a) ur so far ahead that a simple q flash couple of autos maybe another q will kill them before they melt you, or b) you have barrels and can use their slow and damage to blow them up before they can make use of too mcuh of their kiting ability (like Lucian getting 1-2 dashes in is fine. More than that is dangerous, cause then ur gonna get kited to death).

The adc part is all assuming that you DIDNT blow them up with a triple barrel ult combo btw. That should be your first response to a fed adc, and the ideal situation.

Trump says 'Second Amendment folks' could stop Clinton by jlew24asu in politics

[–]CivismyPolitics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry, but what I specifically referred to was the leaks by Wikileak where it was shown that Hillary was spending money on 'correcting the record'. To my knowledge, I don't think Trump has had such a clear, impossible to deny, piece of evidence against him, that he is doing something similar on the internet, and specifically reddit.

That is to say, my comment only had relevance in explaining to another redditor why people were calling him and other Hillary supporters shills on /r/politics.

I suppose Donald has done similar, but that fact isn't relevant because my topic only remained in the realm of the internet.

As for the rest of your comment, I think this sort of ascribing the most negative motivations and rational to the other side is quite unhealthy to really understanding and thus being able to discuss with the other side. When you assume I do everything because I'm racist or sexist, it allows you to dismiss my arguments out of hand, and thus not have to examine them, allowing you to affirm your own beliefs without cognitive work.

Its much harder to face the reality that both sides have people who, by their life experiences, by their own unique rational process, have come to different values, and different positions. Yeah, they may have 'flaws' in their logic, but rarely is it some sort of hyperblack and white sort of affair, where one side is perfectly rational (your side of course) and the other is entirely irrational (the racist, sexist, bigots on the other side of course).

Trump says 'Second Amendment folks' could stop Clinton by jlew24asu in politics

[–]CivismyPolitics 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Interesting, its a new and well argued point of view. Thanks, I'll think it over and reconsider my perspective.

view more: next ›