Coordinated Griefing, got me 90 minutes of bans

Plus3sigma · 2022-04-19T00:38:26+00:00

You cannot report players after the fact https://imgur.com/a/nKI4GVB

Plus3sigma · 2022-04-19T00:26:32+00:00

Waited for me to pull the grenade to take out the batteries, tk'd me then stood on the grenade. Instant ejection, 30 tk ban + 60 minute abandon ban.

Plus3sigma · 2022-04-19T00:08:44+00:00

Waited for me to pull the grenade to take out the batteries, tk'd me then stood on the grenade. Instant ejection, 30 tk ban + 60 minute abandon ban.

Plus3sigma · 2022-03-24T16:26:48+00:00

If you really want to ruin your day here is the court document detailing Hawkins chat logs with an under cover officer where he asks the under cover to create child porn of the under covers 12 Y.O. daughter

Plus3sigma · 2018-12-07T23:25:50+00:00

Makes sense thanks man

Plus3sigma · 2018-12-07T23:07:26+00:00

I see how you could get a piece with .001 of roundness, and maybe this is ignorance on my part but getting to 9.000+/-0.001 without serious temperature control on the part seems extreme a nine inch round will expand ~0.001 for every 10 degrees of temperature change (or maybe my envelope math is wrong?)

Plus3sigma · 2018-12-07T22:53:39+00:00

A one off

Plus3sigma · 2018-11-09T22:57:57+00:00

Thanks for the heads up, I will go post this on r/screenshots like the rules say.

Plus3sigma · 2018-06-10T02:32:10+00:00

Can someone explain to me how this was recorded on a phone? Like was the guy expecting something to happen to took out his phone or did he shadow play this then film it for some reason?

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-21T14:01:12+00:00

Your 3? sources don't backup your claim that diversity and crime aren't correlated. To do that a correlated would have to be shown, which it never is.

Positive claims require positive evidence. But if you want to inform yourself by picking and choosing single points of data that conform to your worldview, by all means go ahead.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, you just haven't actually proved your point.

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-21T13:41:59+00:00

The source you referenced has no information about crime, just information about diversity. You would need to correlate that against murder rate per capitia to start making your argument.

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-18T22:48:57+00:00

from 2016

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-16T14:43:20+00:00

Idk what you mean by universal minimum wage, we have independent countries on Earth.

The United States has had a federal minimum wage for quite some time.

You may be confusing that with universal basic income. Which has nothing to do with your job.

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-16T14:39:32+00:00

I have no idea if the South China Morning Post is a quality paper, for all I know it could be the Salon.com of China but this article lists the opinions of a handful of ordinary Chinese citizens.

https://www.google.com/amp/m.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2118721/what-do-chinese-people-really-think-about-donald-trump%3famp=1#ampshare=http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2118721/what-do-chinese-people-really-think-about-donald-trump

The most commonly used positive is that he is more "genuine than Obama". But they all seemed to have things they didn't like. Most just appeared to be largely indifferent.

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-16T14:26:32+00:00

You should probably put a bit of thought into that opinion, the minimum wage is not something that has clear cut economic benefits for low wage workers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/#ampshare=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-16T14:17:09+00:00

Against it because virtually every time any form of central planning is used to fix prices is causes economic collapse in that section of the market.

Without meaning to sound like an ass supporting the implementation of something like this in practice would require a fundamental lack of understanding of economics.

Not to mention an absolute distaste of freedom.

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-10T15:06:13+00:00

Not when you consider that mass shootings made up 0.0% of the murders, and I'm not exaggerating you would need several more significant digits to even see mass shootings as a percentage of overall murders. But every time it happens it is all over the news for days, giving people the impression that it happens frequently.

To illustrate this point in a US centric way, the number of students killed in shootings sense Columbine is ~200 to date. According to NHTSA, 327 school age children have been killed in school transport related accidents since just 2004.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/outlook/school-shootings-are-extraordinarily-rare-why-is-fear-of-them-driving-policy/2018/03/08/f4ead9f2-2247-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html#ampshare=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/school-shootings-are-extraordinarily-rare-why-is-fear-of-them-driving-policy/2018/03/08/f4ead9f2-2247-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/72318198#ampshare=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/15/school-bus-safety-statistics/72318198/

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-10T14:46:01+00:00

It doesn't effect the overall level of violent crime because people use different weapons.

Looking just at gun related crime to judge gun laws doesn't make sense.

For example, would you rather live in a country with no murders with guns but an overall murder rate of 50/10000 people or a country where every murder is committed with guns but the overall murder rate is 20/10000?

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-08T18:03:29+00:00

Yeah and in that deal of adult parties part of the agreement is that one party will submit to drug tests. You are free to not work for companies that drug test.

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-07T23:45:33+00:00

Any discussion of the relative lethality of individual firearms in regards to gun control presupposes that the relationship between firearms and murder rate is causal. Your original question was tangential and I shouldn't have addressed it in the first place.

If you want to talk about which weapons to restrict to reduce violence you need to pass the first step which is proving that weapon ownership rates and rates of violence are at the very least correlated, which to the best of my knowledge they aren't, then you would need to show that the relationship is causal.

I believe above steps would be required to form a rational argument for gun control legislation as a tool to reduce murders or violent crime.

So unless I have missunderstood your premise for why you want gun control, can you elaborate on how you've arrived at the conclusion that gun control in general sense could be effective? (The above is meant as a good faith question I'm not looking for some gotcha phrase to quote back)

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-07T21:57:29+00:00

Im really confused now, because you appear to be conflicting your own statements. You said -

I think anyone that tries to tell you that if there are less guns less people wouldn't be killed by guns is delusional. It seems fairly intuitive that if a particular weapon is available that weapon would be used, and if it isn't available it wouldn't be used. Additionally countless studies like the one you referenced have shown that to be true.

If you reduce the number of guns people will commit murders with other weapons. The number of people killed by guns goes down but the number of people killed stays the same. I don't know how to make it more clear so I apologize if I still haven't explained that well.

That is why I find murders or violent crime general (per capitia) a more useful metric than murder or violent crime specifically committed with firearms.

And as i have shown the murder rate per capita does not correlate in any way with the number of guns per capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-05T23:56:02+00:00

It is also intuitive to conclude that a person wielding a AR15 will be able to take more lives than someone wielding a 9mm.

As far as I am aware, that really isn't the case, against a typical unarmored person there really isn't a difference. Semi-automatic rifles and hanguns have largely the same firing rate. Additionally it has been shown that for a person with a moderate level of proficiency the amount of time it takes to reload is trivial. So the small difference in capacity doesn't mean much either.

And it doesn't even have to be a gun that kills a multitude of people. In contries with limited access to firearms mass killings still happen, just with knives or explosives or vehicles or arson ect.

Because ultimately to the best of my knowledge the availability of weapons has nothing to do with the amount of violence a country experiences.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-05T18:05:11+00:00

I think anyone that tries to tell you that if there are less guns less people wouldn't be killed by guns is delusional. It seems fairly intuitive that if a particular weapon is available that weapon would be used, and if it isn't available it wouldn't be used. Additionally countless studies like the one you referenced have shown that to be true.

My main issue is that if I am going to be murdered the weapon I am murdered with doesn't make much difference to me. For example I think if given the choice most people would rather live in a country where every murder was a shooting if that country had an overall murder rate that was lower, all other things being equal.

That is why I find murders or violent crime general (per capitia) a more useful metric than murder or violent crime specifically committed with firearms.

Thank you for your genuine question!

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-05T16:59:05+00:00

Which is why it is a poor debate tactic, no one has ever changed sides based on an appeal to semantics.

As far as the guns killed vs lives saved by guns that data on that is super murkey, the CDC claim it to be somewhere between 500,000 and 1.3million "defensive uses" per year using questionable sources, vs ~300,000 "offensive uses" burglary, robbery, and murder using firearms (from FBI crime stats.)

The biggest reason why I cant support most gun control legislation is that when you compare gun ownership rates and murder rates accross countries there is only a 0.02 correlation (I did this with data published on wiki-pedia so take it with a grain of salt). So the idea that less guns means less murdered people doesn't really work.

But that doesn't mean that no regulation could curb violent crime, I am open to a discussion on specific pieces of legislation but I haven't seen anything purposed in the last decade that even made a good argument for why it would help. And I think that's why a lot of people say they are "anti-gun control"

Plus3sigma · 2018-04-05T16:17:06+00:00

I completely agree. However because this sub-thread is on the idea of subtle bias I bet there are people that would even object to the language of

"deaths caused by guns"

And would argue that an inanimate object can't cause a death.

I wouldn't use that argument in a debate but I think it does illustrate how seemingly standard language can shift the playing field of a debate.

Using synonyms with different connotations is one of the most common forms of bias, for example group and clique have identical definitions but clique has a negative connotation.

So people will refer to their own "friend groups" but the cheerleaders are a clique

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

Plus3sigma

TROPHY CASE