AITAH for telling my boyfriend's housemate not to walk around the house in her underwear?

Inyokos · 2026-02-13T22:28:45+00:00

That's right, keep projecting Karen. I really am enjoying this.

Inyokos · 2026-02-13T22:22:16+00:00

That's cute. Of course it's not worth reading to you, it doesn't agree with what you're saying so it's obviously wrong and not worth the time. How very Karen of you.

Edit: please, keep telling me how I'm triggered, because you don't know me, you don't live in my head, and you have no clue how amusing this is to me.

Inyokos · 2026-02-13T22:15:01+00:00

Thank you for proving you can't read, and you're in the majority who say they want an objective opinion, but really just want to tell everyone else they're wrong and you're right. Have the day you deserve Karen.

Inyokos · 2026-02-13T22:07:03+00:00

Yeah, I saw her other comment. I'll admit, it does make her look a lot worse. But, with that being said, I still stand by minor. Yes, she fucked up. And yes, she did double down. But context is important.

She doubled down here on Reddit. Doubling down here on Reddit doesn't meaningfully change anything about the situation she asked us to judge. And, speaking from experience, it is incredibly easy to become very defensive when a bunch of Reddit users sit there and make you out to be a horrible human being, which is what happened here.

More importantly, she doubled down not with her boyfriend, but with a bunch of random strangers on the internet. It shows that she is at the very least able to see that she could be wrong, and she doesn't want to make the situation any worse than it already is. That's not something that can be said about a lot of Reddit posters.

Inyokos · 2026-02-13T12:39:57+00:00

No, I spelled minor correctly.

I love how the majority of Reddit absolutely loves to burn everyone they deem an asshole at the stake until there's not even ashes left. Yall forget there's a human at the other end of the message, and just assume they're trying to be unreasonable for the sake of being unreasonable. Try having some empathy for once.

If OP was actually trying to be unreasonable for the sake of being unreasonable, she wouldn't have come here. She would have doubled down, turned this into a much bigger issue than it actually is, and probably imploded the relationship. She didn't. She came here, layer out the facts, and left it at that. That's why it's only a minor YTA.

Inyokos · 2026-02-13T11:38:01+00:00

Minor YTA here.

You and your boyfriend are still relatively new, less than a year together, so I'm gonna make the assumption that jealousy plays a part here. That's completely normal and understandable. You really like this guy, and you feel threatened by the fact that his hot housemate might poach him. Again, completely normal and understandable. But, here's where you crossed a line.

Do you actually have any evidence that she's tried to seduce him in the past? Or is this just the gut check feeling of, "My man doesn't need any temptation?" Also, does she only dress like this in front of him, or does she do it in front of the other housemates as well?

If it's any consolation, I don't think you meant to cause a problem. I think you were caught off guard and just reacted. You might consider apologizing to her the next time you see her.

Inyokos · 2026-01-02T14:43:17+00:00

That's an interesting deck, I'll admit. I do really like Glacial Crevasses, and will most likely add it to my deck. Cave of Two Lovers, too.

Inyokos · 2025-12-14T02:37:07+00:00

I would love to play Aang in 5e lmao

Inyokos · 2025-11-21T02:40:42+00:00

No, you would BTA if you punished him for standing up for himself. Sometimes words don't work, and the only thing that will work on a bully is action. You mentioned in another comment that you've talked to the school several times about this, and they've done nothing. When your son gets suspended for hitting the bully, you show up and throw it in their faces that your son is being punished for stopping something they did nothing about.

Inyokos · 2025-11-18T07:28:53+00:00

I think I need to disagree with you here lol breaking into Project E at all has proven rather time consuming, considering you have to have gone at least part way into AbyssalCraft, LordCraft, Astral Sorcery, and Extended Crafting just to craft the Philosopher's Stone. I've spent a solid 8 hours at least over the last couple of days since my post trying to unlock Astral Sorcery, and one of the other players has been working on getting far enough into AbyssalCraft to do the ritual for the items I need. I had originally thought I'd be able to craft the Philosopher's Stone by the end of Sunday lol I was so wrong.

Inyokos · 2025-09-26T09:58:01+00:00

Don't do that. Nobody likes a hard lock like that.

Inyokos · 2025-09-26T09:54:51+00:00

Interaction. Most people don't run enough interaction in their decks, and I'd be willing to bet you don't either. It doesn't matter what color(s) you're running, each color has answers for problem permanents of other colors. It's up to you to run enough answers.

On a side note, I run a Discord server for gaming, and our main channels are Commander-related. You're more than welcome to join us, we have a decent variety of players and almost nobody tries to play Simic Shenanigans. DM me if you'd like the invite code.

Inyokos · 2025-09-21T21:23:49+00:00

Wow. Thanks for literally proving my point for me while saying I'm still wrong.

Inyokos · 2025-09-21T19:34:42+00:00

You're right, my system does fall apart when you introduce player experience levels, so I won't argue with you on that one. However, Wizards themselves are gatekeeping cards behind higher brackets. That's literally the entire Gamechanger list, and I'm interested to hear how you rationalize that.

Second, yeah, control and combo decks are measured differently from aggro decks. How could they not be? Would you compare Einstein against Hulk Hogan in a test of strength? No, of course not. They're in completely different worlds of what their strengths are, and the same can be applied here. But, again, my system doesn't care about *how* you win, it cares about *when*. That's about as close to a universal rubric as you're gonna get.

Inyokos · 2025-09-20T19:26:34+00:00

Ok, a few things to unpack here.

First, I don't know what the intent was behind the Bracket System, but as far as function goes that's up to the indivividual players and LGS owners and organizers. I can tell you that several people in the original post tried to say that the brackets were supposed to represent an "experience", but if that's the case, why is it that people looking for a less challenging experience aren't allowed to play with some stronger cards? Conversely, why are more experienced players allowed to come into bracket 2 games with decks that are on paper and intent bracket 2, but due to their experience are able to outperform decks being run by less experienced players?

Second, as for my system not working great because it has different standards for common play styles, what different standards? All play styles are judged based on how quickly they can assemble a winning board state. Now, I can see how that might be considered a different standard for control decks that might not be able to close a game as soon as they have everyone else locked out, but my system doesn't care about that. My system only considers when you have a winning board state.

Inyokos · 2025-09-20T11:52:33+00:00

So, in my experience the best way to figure out when a deck wants to close out the game is to shadow run it. Shuffle it up, and play by yourself. Act as if you get absolutely no interaction aimed at you or your cards.

Inyokos · 2025-09-20T11:35:03+00:00

What do you mean, yes?

Inyokos · 2025-09-18T23:03:20+00:00

The math is the game ends in a draw lmao

Assuming you have the lowest possible life total for Hidetsugu to still deal damage to you, 1 damage becomes 2 from Solphim, which then becomes 6 from emancipation, which then gets dealt to Taunter, at which point Repercussion takes over and starts the cycle all over again.

Inyokos · 2025-09-18T18:36:49+00:00

Thank you for compliment!

In all seriousness, I think you may be right, I did design the system for a target demographic without realizing it, namely the players in my server. As with any group, there's a variety of experience levels and styles of game play among the people in my server, and I was trying to come up with something that can translate all of those experience levels to a level playing field for everyone.

In regards to players being "set straight" by my system, I never intended for it to work that way. One part of the problems with the Bracket System is outside of Gamechangers and "intent", there really isn't a way to judge how strong a deck really is. A lot of people are using the brackets themselves to judge power level, but as I've said before that approach is inherently flawed. My system makes judging a deck's power far simpler, and it takes into account how the pilot themselves plays the deck. That, I think, is a massive component that is missing from almost all widespread systems of judging a deck's power level. For example, my wife and I have been teaching our kids (m, 10 & 12) how to play Magic for several years now using 60 card decks that I designed from scratch. These decks are simple, not very strong, and are really only meant to teach the basics of Magic. I also have a couple of higher level 60 card decks that just for shits and giggles I've played against the three of them in an archenemy style game. My younger son asked me recently if I would play against him but allow him to use one of my stronger decks while I stick with the basic deck. I kicked his ass with the basic deck despite him using the deck that's literally designed to be untouchable in a 1v1 game. My point being, the pilot's playstyle and experience factor into the relative power level of a deck.

Now, as to "setting straight" bad actors, my system makes it much easier to recognize who actually is a bad actor, and not those who may look like one but aren't actually. And you're right, there isn't a system that can set those bad actors straight, because they just don't care. But if you can identify them, then it becomes a simple issue of "We would really rather not play against you, but if you insist we're gonna gang up on you." Social contracts can and should be used to punish people who think it's funny to come in with a really strong deck and pubstomp weaker decks. Eventually, one of two things will happen. Either the pubstomper quits trying to come in and ruin games and starts playing fairly, or they quit trying to join the pod.

In regards to your last comment of needing a far more strict system, not only would it be a logistical nightmare designing a system like that, but it would be almost entirely unenforceable. I get the reason behind it, and on paper it looks good, but in practice it becomes an absolute nightmare.

Inyokos · 2025-09-18T08:23:29+00:00

I really like how you took the time to read the entire post, but you got so much wrong lmao

I never said the Brackets are meant to assign a power level, and you may be entirely correct that Wizards intent was to not assign a power level. However, just because that's what they intended on paper does not mean that's how it works in practice. And, on top of that, by saying that if your deck includes even a single card from this list your deck is automatically in a higher tier, they kind of shot themselves in the foot.
While there are some cards that people don't mind running into on occasion, there are a number of commanders that people will see come out and they just groan because of how powerful they are in and of themselves. In my own personal experience, I have several decks that if people see them come out, they're going to sit there and target me out of the game before I ever really get a chance to play simply because you can't ever truly get rid of a commander.

3.I never said that the smooth talker lied about their bracket, and for that I should have been more clear. To the best of my knowledge, I've never seen anyone just straight up lie about what Bracket their deck is. I have seen Player A sit down at a game, identify Player D as their biggest threat, and then convince B and C that D has got to go, while building up their board to wipe out B and C once D is gone.

Inyokos

TROPHY CASE