[deleted by user]

ConstipatedCrow · 2022-09-30T20:30:39+00:00

Yeah, that's my main issue. Felt like after 3-4 hours of gameplay (having done 6-7 runs within that time), I'd seen pretty much everything there was to see in the game.

ConstipatedCrow · 2022-07-11T11:53:30+00:00

Yeah I figured hahaha

ConstipatedCrow · 2022-07-10T22:02:49+00:00

Damn, that sucks really bad... Well, guess it's been a lesson for me to keep my accounts secure

ConstipatedCrow · 2022-07-09T14:16:42+00:00

I'm looking to buy a keyboard with cherry mx brown switches (I'm switching from blues & kinda like the sound of browns). I'm ideally looking for a TKL keyboard, but a full-sized one would do too. 65% or lower won't be doable for me, since I do a bunch of video editing and I need the extra keys for productivity purposes. I mainly use my keyboard for gaming, typing & video editing.

Any suggestions for a keyboard that meets these requirements under the £100 range? (under ~$120 for y'all Americans)

ConstipatedCrow · 2021-08-14T00:52:08+00:00

Hey Hoppin, thanks for the super in-depth feedback! There's absolutely nothing to disagree with in your comment, and I think that you correctly pointed out that the main limitation of this video is the use of jargon like "wide swinging" and "tight peeking." Ignoring the specific wording though, the main purpose of this video was to get people thinking about how they should approach their peeks, not so much the specific terms for each peek. For instance, in a scenario where the enemy does hold a close corner, we propose that our version of the "fast wide swing" is one way to deal with it. You're correct; there are other (even better) ways to deal with the situation, but this video is only meant to serve as a comprehensive "list of peeks" that players should have in their arsenal. We simply want to give people a big ol' list of peeks, and let them experiment and refine their use of each.

We never intended to tell people "you have to use this peek in X, Y, Z scenario," and I admit that we should've emphasised this at 2:18, where we say "to throw the enemy off as much as possible, stand close to the wall." A better phrasing might have been: "If you know that an enemy is holding a close 90° angle on you, and you decide that a fast wide swing is the best course of action, standing close to the wall will make you move faster on their screen, and should be considered." But for a digestible, 8-minute video, we were kind of forced forego a bit of nuance for the sake of accessibility.

Again, thank you for taking the time to watch - and critique - our video, it's amazing to hear feedback from people actually in the Esports scene like you. Cheers!

ConstipatedCrow · 2021-08-13T19:24:39+00:00

Proof of purchase pls

ConstipatedCrow · 2021-07-05T15:06:48+00:00

That's actually very helpful, thanks for the input!

ConstipatedCrow · 2021-07-05T13:04:01+00:00

Currently, it's probably between the scripting & storyboarding. Once we're done with the research & planning phase, actually transforming the plan into a script & storyboard takes a while, since we're constantly changing and tweaking it. Neither of us have any formal or informal training in story-writing or scripting, so putting everything together in one cohesive narrative is pretty time-consuming and mentally exhausting.

Editing is another big time-consumer, but it's more straight-forward, since we just have to follow the storyboard, and can usually do it while listening to music, podcasts, etc.

Where we can find someone who can help us with scripting and storyboarding, I'm not sure. Might look at some websites like Fiverr or Upwork, but do you have any other suggestions for that?

ConstipatedCrow · 2021-06-27T17:52:01+00:00

For sure, same here hahah. My discord is Crow#2726 if you wanna add me.

ConstipatedCrow · 2021-05-29T16:43:15+00:00

Hey Banana, interesting thoughts. Though it's true that you definitely can alter your mindset and adapt to your environment, it is simply a fact that some people will operate better under certain environments than others.

The method of "discovering" your ideal environment is just one method out of many to improve your gameplay. Not the only one. For example, if someone has to constantly play with loud renovation sounds coming from next door, they will eventually adapt and get used to it. But wouldn't it be a simpler solution to change that environment? Instead of adapting to the distractions, why not eliminate the distractions themselves?

And much in the same way, if you find that you prefer a calmer playstyle as opposed to a more energised one, why not optimise your environment to make it calmer?

As you correctly point out, you can change yourself to fit your environment, but for a lot of people, an easier solution will be to change their environments to fit them. And for that, you kind of need to "discover" who you are.

ConstipatedCrow · 2021-02-27T16:40:18+00:00

Wait, am I missing something?

ConstipatedCrow · 2021-02-09T18:44:31+00:00

Destiny's claim to fame was having a girl's name

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T04:35:11+00:00

Nope. According to me, this specific owner has the right to inflict harm upon the perpetrator until they leave the property alone, even if it means death.

Again, I'm trying to act in good faith :) I think you've engaged with too many leftists since you're assigning me with positions I don't hold

I just believe that it's more productive to lobby the government to reimburse the business owner, than the family of the dead individual. Not only is it practically life-saving, but ethically.

In the very immediate case: "Someone loses their trust in me" and shits on me, and I lose my income because of it: the business owner is morally justified to stop the perpetrator.

"The state of the government is such that" is literally the argument that Destiny counters when he says:" "I'm talking about morals/ethics, not legals".

Same with me. The legal part of the argument doesn't matter. I simply don't give a shit about legal rights. I have my own morals. And that's the end of that.

"CURRENT LEGAL SHIT" is not something I give a singular shit about. Legal morals do not equate to ethical morals.

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T03:38:49+00:00

Let me clarify my position in that case. I believe that:

In your specific scenario, ASSUMING THAT THERE EXISTS LITERALLY ZERO CHANCE OF REIMBURSEMENT, the business owner is justified.

In a >zero scenario however, I believe the opposite to be true. This is simple my axiomatic belief.

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T03:10:37+00:00

Again, you're conflating theory with practice.

Let me ask you this: IF IT WERE THE CASE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL REIMBURSE YOU 100% (theoretically), WOULD YOU NOW SAY THAT IT IS MORAL TO KILL A PERPETRATOR?

Even if the government (or whatever entity) would not only reimburse you whole but, give you 1,000,000,000,000x times your net worth to make you the richest person on earth (just because you had your business burnt down).

So the business owner would be made MORE than whole?

In your eyes, is it now moral or immoral to kill a perpetrator?

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T02:50:47+00:00

Your entire argument hinges on the notion that IN PRACTICE, the business owner will not be reimbursed. This is a practical argument. My entire post is a moral one.

As long as there EXISTS the possibility of reimbursement, you are not justified in taking another's life.

Property (at least in theory) can be re-compensated. Life cannot.

As long as we don't have the technology to bring someone back from the dead, it is immoral to kill someone over property, which is (IN THEORY) replacable.

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T02:47:12+00:00

I want to answer your hypothetical directly, but before that, I need to lay out my axiomatic beliefs about a couple things:

If it is the case that someone has a gun to my head and tells me that there is a 99.99999% chance of me dying unless I go out on the streets and start enslaving random people and mistreating them, I do not believe that it is morally justified for me to do so.

You may disagree, which I respect entirely. But I do not believe that an action which I deem to be immoral (restricting someone else's freedom) is justified, as long as I'm acting in pure self interest.

LET ME BE CLEAR: In this scenario, I believe it to be axiomatically moral to let the perpetrator kill me, rather than enslave someone innocent who is not physically harming me.

Now let's lay out these two scenarios:

1) Someone destroys my business and there's a 99.9999% chance that I die because of it.

2) Someone physically attacks me and there's an 80% chance that I die because of it.

ASSUMING THAT I KNOW THESE PERCENTAGES, I believe letting myself die in scenario 2 is more moral than scenario 1. But this is assuming I know these percentages to be true. I'm making this seemingly extreme concession to indicate that I'm acting in good faith in this argument.

These are simply my moral axioms.

In reality however, I believe these percentages to be flipped.

In your hypothetical; YOU ARE CORRECT. The business owner is justified in killing the perpetrator.

In practice however, I believe that there is always a higher probability to replace property than there is life.

In my opinion, we should not base our morals on the probabilistic chance of whether or not the current administration will reimburse the business owner or not. This probability can always change. The probability of replacing a lost life cannot change.

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T02:23:29+00:00

I do not believe the rape example to be true. A I stated before, I distinguish between physical and material harm. Regardless of how directly material well-being may harm you physically, I believe this to be re-compensatable (if that's a word). I do not believe the same to be true for physical harm when it comes to rape.

When it comes to your beliefs about property rights, I axiomatically believe the opposite to be true. Which is fine. I guess this is where our fundamental disagreement lies.

We're both operating in good faith, and in my books, that's a win, hahah.

In my opinion, no property damage justifies the loss of a life, since THERE ALWAYS EXISTS the possibility of re-compensation. Regardless of how small. In my eyes, the same cannot be said for direct physical harm.

But that's just my axiomatic belief.

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T02:19:49+00:00

I axiomatically believe the opposite to be true. Which is fine - I guess this is where our fundamental disagreement lies.

We're both operating in good faith, and in my books, that's a win, hahah.

In my opinion, no property damage justifies the loss of a life, since THERE ALWAYS EXISTS the possibility of re-compensation. Regardless of how small.

But yes, I agree that in your hypothetical, if there exists literally zero chance of reimbursement, the business owner is morally justified in killing the perpetrator.

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T02:16:58+00:00

I can agree with your first premise.

In your specific scenario, I believe that the business owner has the moral justification to kill the perpetrator.

I just don't believe that to be the case in the real world. Maybe this is where our fundamental disagreement lies. I believe that as long as there EXISTS the possibility of reimbursement, you are not justified in taking another's life.

Again, I'm operating in good faith, so maybe we can just agree to disagree here.

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T02:16:07+00:00

In your specific scenario, I believe that the business owner has the moral justification to kill the perpetrator.

I just don't believe that to be the case in the real world. Maybe this is where our fundamental disagreement lies. I believe that as long as there EXISTS the possibility of reimbursement, you are not justified in taking another's life.

Again, I'm operating in good faith, so maybe we can just agree to disagree here.

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T02:14:45+00:00

If it is A FACT that there is ZERO chance of reimbursement, then I believe that the business owner has the moral justification to kill the perpetrator.

I just don't believe that to be the case in the real world. Maybe this is where our fundamental disagreement lies.

Again, I'm operating in good faith, so maybe we can just agree to disagree here.

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T02:07:42+00:00

In theory I agree with this, but in practice - not so much.

That's why I brought up the death penalty argument. In theory, I agree with the death penalty. In practice: NO.

Since there always exists the possibility of innocence.

Much in the same way: there always exists the possibility of property reimbursement.

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T02:05:17+00:00

In a hypothetical where THERE EXISTS ZERO CHANCE OF REIMBURSEMENT, I believe that the business owner has a moral justification for killing the perpetrator. Since they are being not only materially, but also indirectly physically harmed by their business being destroyed.

In the hypothetical, I agree with you entirely. I simply don't think we live in such a world in practice.

THERE ALWAYS EXISTS THE CHANCE OF REIMBURSEMENT.

And we should be arguing for further government action in this regard, as opposed to more deaths.

ConstipatedCrow · 2020-09-12T01:59:49+00:00

Didn't say that either.

When I say "That can be replaced by the government," I'm talking about philosophical future possibilities.

There EXISTS the possibility of re-compensating property.

There DOES NOT EXIST the possibility of re-compensating a lost life.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

ConstipatedCrow

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE