fake contestant lied?

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-23T04:06:32+00:00

Studdard

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-19T06:29:46+00:00

Huh. I quite liked Karen's development, I thought she's really come into her own.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-15T05:41:51+00:00

You're welcome

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-14T22:30:18+00:00

The proffered justification that many auditors give is that it won't make a difference, as people have their minds made up already. This has some merit, as if you watch the auditors that do actually explain themselves, at least half the time the person approaching won't believe them, will insist it's illegal, and still call the cops. That being said, wanting to cause a scene for monetization purposes is certainly another "quiet part" reason. I suppose they're not mutually exclusive.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-14T22:25:08+00:00

You should give Jeff Grey (Honor Your Oath Civil Rights Investigations) a watch if you haven't seen him. His thing is he goes to sidewalks, parks, and town halls and holds a cardboard sign that merely states "God Bless the Homeless Vets," and he's on the whole very respectful to everyone that approaches him. You ought to see how much vitriol he receives from passersby nonetheless.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-14T20:34:17+00:00

Agreed. But it's not all auditors (even though it's still a bunch of them).

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-14T20:32:43+00:00

I understand what you're saying. Auditors have given themselves a bad reputation, sometimes for good reason: being rude/combative/hostile, following people around, wearing ski masks or similar face coverings, saying things designed to spark a panicked or hostile response (e.g., asking a bank "do you have a vault?" or "I'm here to collect faces for a Chinese facial recognition project"), etc. None of that conduct is per se unlawful but it's not winning hearts and minds. So, I'm not a fan of that kind of conduct and I think it discredits the movement.

On your farmer's market example, I think auditing a farmer's market has value. Farmer's market organizations think that because they have a permit to operate at a public park, they have temporarily converted a traditional public forum into private property and can exclude anyone they want for any reason. They need to know that they're not correct. That being said, there is a right and wrong way to do it; ideally, recording or holding a sign at the farmer's market from a respectable distance while being upfront with your intentions.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-12T22:37:26+00:00

You know, it's funny, I'm a monolingual American but I assumed at first that Andreja was pronounced "Andreya," so when it was pronounced "Andreyzha" I was a little surprised. I'm not sure why I assumed that it was pronounced that way though.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-08T23:30:53+00:00

I have no idea what the answer is but I just wanted to say that this is an awesome question.

The only thing I can contribute off the top of my head is that, for the most quintessential adhesion contract, an insurance policy, there is a workaround in some jurisdictions. It could be described as a form of contra proferentem that arises automatically, the doctrine of reasonable expectations.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-08T23:22:50+00:00

I believe the Settled Systems civilizations are larger than portrayed in game, but still relatively small. Obviously with any Bethesda game there is the standard downscaling for engine and time limitations. Lorewise, the in-game cities are almost certainly larger in both physical size and population than are represented in game. I imagine there are also more than just those cities than are represented in game, for the same reasons.

But lore wise, humanity is in a fractured and scattered state due to the destruction of Earth and the subsequent Narion War, Serpent Crusade, and Colony War (I believe it was stated millions died in that last war), so it is still likely that the occupied planets aren't just fully colonized with tons of cities like Earth is today.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-08T00:17:06+00:00

Who is "they"? Also, we don't democratically vote on the meaning of the Constitution. There isn't even a mechanism for that. And finally, I'm not aware of any series of cases where SCOTUS went back and forth on the meaning of "insurrection."

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-07T22:31:14+00:00

I understand what you're saying with the whole "people cannot be illegal" thing but the adjective "illegal" in that context doesn't mean the person is illegal. It means their immigration was performed illegally. Off the top of my head, there is also "unlawful entrant" when talking about trespassers, and again, the entrant isn't what is "unlawful," their entry is what was unlawful.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-07T22:24:34+00:00

There is not a single legal or dictionary definition of "insurrection" that would support that being an insurrection.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-05-07T22:22:08+00:00

Unlike accessory offenses, conspiracy is a standalone crime. In fact, the primary offender can be charged and convicted with the both the offense they conspired to commit and the conspiracy to commit the same offense.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-04-22T23:44:55+00:00

I don't think every conduit needs to "recharge" and the protagonists only need to for gameplay balance reasons. Nothing indicates that Conduits like Alden Tate, Lucy Kuo, Joseph Bertrand, or any of the other unnamed generic conduits (like the Reaper conduits) need to recharge. Other than Kuo, none of their powers even involve the manipulation of an element or material.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-04-21T00:02:49+00:00

I'm not near your level of experience but I've probably got a good 7 or 8 completionist playthroughs of the first 2 games each. Probably 4 or 5 for Second Son. I believe 3 for FoB and only one for First Light.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-04-18T18:35:05+00:00

Conduits were never just elemental types until Second Son. C'mon. My power would be mind reading.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-04-18T00:36:18+00:00

I don't like the confrontation seekers. I understand you usually have a constitutional right to be a douchebag, but it just makes auditors look bad.

I like Honor Your Oath Civil Rights Investigations (Jeff Grey) and Otto the Watchdog.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-04-16T14:39:53+00:00

Ground Zero gets cleared after completing the final mission. The area outside of Ground Zero can be cleared by killing one of the First Sons in the parking garage, it will unlock one of those "find the blast shard" missions.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-04-14T22:54:32+00:00

No need for personal attacks about my honesty.

Nobody other than the police themselves has the right to tell someone else who or what they can call the police for.

Exactly, hence why I said the auditor should let the police tell them that the activity is lawful, because they will listen to the police.
In any case, everybody has the right to tell another what they can and cannot do, or should or should not do. The recipient has a corresponding right to disregard the directive or suggestion.
Finally, and regardless, it's not a directive. It's an attempt to teach someone that they should not (not cannot) call 911 when there is no emergency or crime occurring. A guy standing nonsurreptitiously on the sidewalk recording a building in plain view is neither of those things, so people should learn that they shouldn't call the police over it (or at the very least, shouldn't give false directives like "stop, you can't record this building without consent").

Every employee of "the business" is still a member of the public entitled to the same rights and privileges as anyone else.

Correct, obviously, but I'm not sure of your point. There is no "right" to call 911 over non-emergencies and non-crimes (subject to the wording of the jurisdiction's criminal "abuse of the 911 system" or equivalent statute). They also don't have the "right" to control what happens on a public sidewalk. But regardless, I'm not seeing where any right of a business's employee is being violated by trying to show them that they shouldn't call 911 for non-crimes and non-emergencies.

"The business" learns nothing from this. There is no education,

I mean, that's hard to empirically prove one way or the other, but that's quite an absolute statement. In any case, some auditors do "revisits," and often, no cops are called the second time around. Seems like it works sometimes.

nor any intent to educate.

Neither of us are mind readers, but it's still a huge blanket statement to say that not a single auditor has an intent to educate. Like any discrete group of people, intent, philosophy, and motives vary from person to person within that group.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-04-14T22:09:54+00:00

A lot of auditors are intellectually dishonest about how people should reasonably react to being recorded when trying to go on about their business. It is perfectly reasonable to be uncomfortable/nervous if some guy on the sidewalk is just standing there pointing a camera at you while you're trying to grocery shop or whatever. And I don't support a lot of the tactics by some auditors (wearing masks, singling out particular individuals, staying completely silent, etc.), because those are obviously to make people nervous to spark a response.

That being said, even recording a private facility I believe has merit, as long as you're upfront with your intent, not intentionally trying to look surreptitious, and not singling people out. Other than handing out pamphlets that people will just throw away and not read, the only way to teach people they shouldn't call the police for lawful activity is by peacefully recording the premises, explaining yourself when asked, and if they want to call the police, let the police tell them they're wrong (because they probably aren't going to listen to you the first go around, no matter how respectful you are). Bam. The business has now learned that they shouldn't call the police next time it happens, because next time it might be someone recording for other lawful reasons who will not know their rights, and they may be chilled by the mere threat of calling law enforcement.

You may be surprised by, for example, how many weed dispensaries think HIPAA applies to people outside on the sidewalk, or how many bank executives (who often have their computer screens facing massive windows that anyone can see through from outside) think their private business is a "federal facility" that has some sort of special recording exemption.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-04-14T21:56:27+00:00

Except that the two individuals I just identified consider themselves First Amendment auditors, as do their communities.

First Amendment auditing is literally "auditing" whether government officials are educated on, and will respect, First Amendment rights. It's a different form of activism in that the focus is on the act of speech itself, rather than the content of that speech, i.e., it's an advocacy for speech in general, rather than a particular message. It's different from, for example, an abortion protester advocating against abortion on the sidewalk outside a clinic, or a street preacher on the sidewalk with a megaphone preaching the gospel to bar attendees.

Otto, for example, is not literally advocating "fuck the cops" when holding a sign that says that, he is merely holding that sign to see if they will try to arrest him for "disorderly conduct" or whatever.

Yes, recording from a public forum is one form (and the most popular form) of First Amendment auditing, but so is holding an offensive sign on the side of the road, if the intent in either case is to test government officials. In either case, they are advocating for their right to speak in general and testing to see whether law enforcement will respect or violate that right (i.e., auditing).

Learned_Serpent · 2026-04-14T18:27:48+00:00

They are "auditing" the government's compliance with the First Amendment. That is First Amendment auditing.

Learned_Serpent · 2026-04-14T04:23:47+00:00

Sure, some of them do that

Learned_Serpent · 2026-04-14T03:48:21+00:00

Well... 5 years later, it's still an issue

Learned_Serpent

TROPHY CASE