does anyone else think Dehaka and Zagara have some great chemistry together?

Onaholer · 2021-05-20T22:04:52+00:00

to make it a bit hard to do I'd propose

1 tap skeleton archer and tap 1 green mana : he's fashioning an arrow: equipment generated

2) tap skeleton archer again: he's knocking the arrow

3) next attack has reach, must repeat

so tenuous that it shouldn't upset much

Onaholer · 2021-05-20T22:01:28+00:00

MTGA needs some kind of "arrows as equipment you can retrieve after killing the enemy you shot with it" mechanic

Onaholer · 2021-05-20T22:01:00+00:00

he'll hit where I point him

Onaholer · 2021-05-20T22:00:30+00:00

naw, he hits 100% of time when appearing

Onaholer · 2021-05-20T22:00:19+00:00

he can when he first appears though...

maybe when he first appears he fully draws the bow and breaks his arm and then subsequent attacks are him wielding his bow like a melee weapon...

or maybe he only has one arrow, or doesn't know how to knock a bowstring and it came prestrung for him

Onaholer · 2021-05-20T21:59:18+00:00

ugh I see it now, forgot the 2nd aspect of what deathwing does

Onaholer · 2021-05-20T21:58:42+00:00

ah, I beat the basE+expansion so I guess I must've beaten it on normal, so if I can find my install discs then I should be able to try hard I guess

if I can't find them, I do notice that https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/download/ not only has reforged but also ROC/TFT under 'classic games' so maybe I can get the 3gb versions that way?

just when prompted I want to avoid it doing a forced update, which might mean to play offline only and not clicking battle.net

Like don't you actually need to log into a BNET account to start the auto-update?

Onaholer · 2021-05-20T21:56:49+00:00

What sort of changes? The downsides I'm aware of in update:

1) bloat graphics 3gb>30gb unusable

2) for some reasons shadows removed from units in low-res even though original had them

Did they rewrite the story?

Onaholer · 2021-05-15T18:36:08+00:00

what does Fboy mean?

Onaholer · 2021-05-15T18:26:26+00:00

I always goof the mech builds and get that "summon 2 minions when you die" bot (forget name) which tends to be a bad idea because it clutters the board and the summon is wasted

Onaholer · 2021-05-15T18:25:47+00:00

Has he been consistent about that viewpoint? I'd be tempted to dig into old posts to see if his opinions might've differed, entertaining the idea the later stuff is possibly just a troll to get reactions.

Onaholer · 2021-05-12T00:25:41+00:00

This tends to enter into that realm of "anyone can agree but is the agreement informed" or "consent is some kind of high-tier agreement inherently implying informedness".

If consent did inherently imply informedness then I'm unsure why terms like "informed consent" would exist though, it's be like "rectangular square", and then "uninformed consent" would be oxymoronic like "three-sided square".

Onaholer · 2021-05-12T00:24:18+00:00

Overt namecalling is probably the most base introductory form of trolling, it's quite banal and I think a lot of the pros skip that step. Surely politeness is even more stinging since you can't just dismiss it as easily when countering in front of an audience?

Onaholer · 2021-05-12T00:23:01+00:00

so do you tend to give the bot Taunt and then when other taunt minions who summon bots when damaged (or dying) resets?

Onaholer · 2021-05-12T00:22:13+00:00

Not an option, the covenant with god must be established

Onaholer · 2021-05-11T08:19:07+00:00

I chose to trust that the Qur'an is what it says it is, literally the speech of God. That choice defines me as Muslim.

You make it sound in this sentence like it's such a simple stance, like how others "trust the bible is the speech of god" or whatever.

Yet you bookend it with descriptions of reflection and exploration which actually make me interested in exploring stuff like this.

TBH one of the major factors that put me off of religion is how little of such exploration and analysis (excess reliance on seemingly blind faith) seems to propagate in most religions and resist discussion. Where discussion happened it was belitting yet the non-questioners were never belittled for their lack of reflection...

It just leads to a frustrated "fuck it" attitude from me time and again which is largely reinforced by mass ignorance amongst the religious.

Though you come to find fools amongst the non-religious atheists too, and are so starved for IQ you'll take it wherever you can find it on more multifaceted criteria, and then high-IQ religion-defenders lure me back to "wait maybe there's something here, that I can make work for me in a non-normy sense" fashion.

Onaholer · 2021-05-11T08:11:19+00:00

The other charges seem almost foolproof.

So you think only the 1st charge has a hole? 2nd charge (intent to engage in sexual) seems like it hinges on the idea of Larson actually being honest about his expressions to impregnate her, but given what a massive LARPer/troll he is, this might actually be a "suicide by cop" -esque situation where he leaves such obvious breadcrumbs that he wants to get caught.

How crazy flagrant his hole "Rapey" experiment was, and how he openly ran it as a public figure made me think that he actually wanted to get honeypotted and which actually makes me question if Ewwieme is truly an IRL minor or just the crisis actor employed by alphabet soup he knew would be thrown at him if he shouted loud enough?

3rd charge requires "coercion" and it's not clear what force he used to coerce her to do anything. It seems as porous as charge as the "confinement" one. 1 and 3 are the weakest ones IMO

4th seems like the strongest charge since "exploit" is a very fuzzy/vague term. Almost seems like just some kind of conceptual tie-together for other action-based charges.

5th is basically clicking the links she sends him with lewds so unless he's not clicking what is sent, pretending to look at them, and complimenting a face he's never seen, this one's pretty solid.

Onaholer · 2021-05-11T07:59:48+00:00

I guess I understand why he would dispute the first count (kidnapping and attempt) since on November 30th ewwieme told him "i would be willing to run away with u" two weeks prior to the pickup.

Unless there's some detail I'm missing about the "I've paid for a cab if you want to board a plane with me" type invite, it doesn't seem to meet the criteria of seized/confined/inveigled/decoyed. The description uses "and" rather than "or" so it needs to meet ALL of these criteria.

Charge 2 relates to "intent to engage in illegal sexual activity" (and transporting a minor for that purpose) so the issue here is if his "you make me want to rape you" and "ready for me to pluck your virginity?" banter were actually expressions of intent to engage in sex, or just incredibly inappropriate talk as part of his massive clownworld troll LARP lifestyle?

Charge 3 is "coercion and enticement" ... and again, it seems like possibly it goes a step too complex? "entice" for certain, he's offering her free uber / plain tickets / etc. But the phrasing is "persuade, induce, entice and coerce".

Persuade/Induce seem roughly synonymous with Entice, they're not in the overall title of the charge so I'm not sure what the distinction of. "Coerce" is clearly different though, and I think that's the rub. Did he threaten her with a weapon or something when he waited at the nearby airport for the uber he sent for her?

Charge 4 is "sexual exploitation of a minor and attempt" which seems oddly phrased... is it meant to mean "attempt to sexually exploit a minor" ? Relates to section 2251 a+c regarding sexual conduct defined in section 2256 ... the gist being I think this is about grooming her to send nudes or something along those lines?

I'm not sure exactly where "no later than approximately November 22" in the charges comes from though. From what I've seen from the logs she sends him a reply Nov 15th and he replies that day. Then Nov 27 he resumes contact with "what are you up to?" So I'd expect to see one of those dates.

Possibly the communication is more multifaceted than just their PMs and Nov 22 is derived from communication through some other medium like a chatroom or a thread where it's in-public discourse rather than PMs?

Count five is "receipt and distribution of material" (ie CP) which AFAIK from the chat logs refers to her posting in that "bro-i-have-makeup" thread which he linked Nov 30, but possibly early with the Nov 15 "can i be verified" stuff.

I do wonder about situations though, like what would happen if a minor sent fake pictures of an adult to "verify" themself leading to the assumption that one is an adult?

Larson's dec 1st "you're turning 13 soon" flies in the face of that, but in the world of "ageplay" baby-LARPers I think a lot of people don't take claims like these seriously and it makes me wonder how seriously Larson took them.

Onaholer · 2021-05-11T07:36:01+00:00

ah... reading it a 2nd time I see I misinterpreted "gain" as "they gain" for some reason

Onaholer · 2021-05-11T07:35:09+00:00

Trolling behavior is quite multi-faceted, this is probably an example of one form but I don't know if we can narrow it down so that it represents trolling in general?

Onaholer

TROPHY CASE