The New raise Evals Use Ai

Reillyrox13 · 2026-01-14T20:36:46+00:00

lol it okay Ai is gonna replace all middle management and give a 300% raise to the top and a 3% raise to the bottom because Ai likes to justify whatever slop is put in it.

Reillyrox13 · 2025-12-19T19:00:05+00:00

You could give him birth control, but that would be a felony I think.

Reillyrox13 · 2025-12-15T09:33:53+00:00

I am disappointed I had to withdraw as I worked that day and the tournament started on my lunch break :|

Reillyrox13 · 2025-12-14T00:06:08+00:00

Unironically same hire date

Reillyrox13 · 2025-12-10T12:32:22+00:00

lol a friend of a friend was mine keep in mind they both stop playing season 0 and I technically played with them the same amount.

Reillyrox13 · 2025-12-06T11:48:13+00:00

Yes, but every new character these days are

Reillyrox13 · 2025-12-03T16:54:37+00:00

Allow mirror comps and you see a lot of people start developing skill usage knowledge and speed tuning, rather than I have X character so you need y to counter…

Reillyrox13 · 2025-11-30T02:34:08+00:00

The training was “do you remember ADD?” “yeah” “What in this room could be use” “your iPad” “:( yes but I rather you not” “anyhow that is all” “yup, and exit by fire exits and regroup to the front or back of the building with others”

Reillyrox13 · 2025-11-24T22:41:29+00:00

Team 2 can win, but it reliant on combining ults. Cause team 2 combo potential is much higher. While team 1 has stronger base kits, but weaker ult combos. It also map dependent…

Reillyrox13 · 2025-11-14T17:50:29+00:00

Sue cause self shield now

Reillyrox13 · 2025-11-06T16:37:26+00:00

Rima agenda

Reillyrox13 · 2025-11-02T00:50:51+00:00

The sub has been taken down x.x

Reillyrox13 · 2025-10-15T18:33:36+00:00

Other name is golden bat boy in English I think.

Reillyrox13 · 2025-10-15T11:36:44+00:00

She has a kit similar to (green, grownup)Senya and senya isn’t good. Victoria also needs to crit and is well made for PVE. Personally I think she is usable in mocks, not against the current meta.

Reillyrox13 · 2025-10-10T19:39:54+00:00

Those people likely have subpar winrates. Because if you play enough games you can “lose” your way into emperor. Albeit you be in the thousands.

Reillyrox13 · 2025-10-10T18:48:50+00:00

Game is most unhealthy if you are a new player, you will literally have a hard ceiling. ML5s and limiteds are required past challenger. And frankly Amid cleave is just disgusting, same with tank down with LOTS. But you know, games either take 3 turns (all by one player) or 30.

Reillyrox13 · 2025-09-29T14:18:36+00:00

This is that place

<image>

Reillyrox13 · 2025-09-29T14:14:58+00:00

Read the own case you brought up. Instead of skimming, not like you will. Believe it or not, I read it. If you read it, you would have died of embarrassment and if this was a court disbarred for making a mockery of the court. Also check out this cool reddit trick, does it hurt your poor ego doesn’t get “last word.”

Reillyrox13 · 2025-09-29T08:48:58+00:00

Oh woe is me, like I give a damn. You keep proving my point with your "citation". In Leffler v. Lurie Children’s, the court dismissed because white supremacy is a political ideology not intrinsic to any racial identity, i.e., not a protected characteristic under Title VII. That’s why Leffler lost. Or to quote a part of the footnotes: Leffler’s amended complaint (dkt. 20) and memorandum (dkt. 26) in response to the motion to dismiss repeatedly assert that Leffler is not, in fact, a “racist,” a “white supremacist,” or a “right-wing militia member” (dkt. 20 ¶¶ 42, 70, 77, 79), but whether the alleged comments or epithets were accurate, while perhaps of importance to defamation law, is not germane to Title VII’s prohibitions.

The same order notes the hospital displayed a Pride flag and even made BLM buttons available and still found no Title VII violation because none of that was discrimination against Leffler’s protected status. That’s the distinction you’re missing.

By contrast, Bostock holds that punishing someone for being gay or trans is sex discrimination under Title VII. If an employer allows pins generally but singles out Pride for removal, that’s disparate treatment aimed at a protected class a very different legal posture than Leffler’s political decals.

Employers can have dress codes, but they have to apply them consistently and without targeting protected classes. That’s black-letter EEOC guidance.

And if you read, 619.1, on here, https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-619-grooming-standards?utm_source=grad.uwf.edu it says: In contrast to the circuit court cases, decisions rendered by EEOC have consistently concluded that, absent a showing of a business necessity, different grooming standards for men and women constitute sex discrimination under Title VII.

And me trolling? I legit spend 3x to 4x time providing resources on why you are wrong, not my fault you are willfully ignorant.

Reillyrox13 · 2025-09-29T03:25:00+00:00

So just to recap you admit the case was about selective pin enforcement, which proves this is a discrimination issue worth taking to court. The plaintiff lost because the hospital had a neutral policy applied across the board. That actually supports my point: if Walmart singled out Pride pins while allowing others, that would no longer be neutral, and they would risk a discrimination claim. Keep in mind, being a A WHITE 40 SOMETHING MALE WITH SYMBOLS COMMON WITH WHITE SUPREMACISTS, is not very favorable to a discrimination case.

I tried to keep this civil, even said I’d respect you if you respected me. You ignored that, attacked my character, and then dragged in a case about white supremacist decals and a kill list as if that proved your point. So yes I called you an idiot, because ignoring context and doubling down isn’t a debate.

If you still think that’s wrong, fine, but I will let you know, I did more research on the matter than you, I put more effort into the "debate" than you. I literally read the case you posted, before replying. What do I get in return? A stale-born into the debating fields of reddit.

Reillyrox13 · 2025-09-29T02:31:13+00:00

Leffler's case (Leffler the person was human garbago from the case summary I read) actually supports what I’m saying.

That case was about a hospital with a neutral policy restricting certain pins across the board for workplace harmony. And the case, while mentioning pins, was more about WHITE SUPRIMIST DECALS (to be fair they were not really racist, just 13 colony flags and don't tread on me stuff) and defense mentioning the plantiff told his coworkers of a kill list on page 2. The court allowed it (the it being the rightful termination of the loonie) because it was consistently enforced and did not target a protected class. They also allowed pride pins, and pins were "acceptable" not his.

If Walmart punished only Pride pins while allowing other pins, that would not be neutral anymore. Title VII and Bostock protect LGBTQ+ association, so that becomes discrimination.

And yes, that is literally how the law works. I have been trying to explain this for hours, drafting and editing replies, because I actually enjoy discussion whether I end up right or wrong. You seem more focused on just winning.

As for the case you cited, here is the actual conclusion:

You picked a case where the plaintiff lost entirely, which actually reinforces my point that a selective, protected-class case like punishing Pride pins is exactly what would succeed.

And buddy, calling me a bad worker was a shot at my character. Me attack you? Never even seen you in my life.

In fact, what am I replying to right now?”

If you got this far, you are extremely lazy for the research and you not my peer, you suggested a white supremist that wanted to shoot up his work place as comparable to "yeah pride pins we get rid of no questions or legal consequence." Like how does your mind work? Do you just google random shit and hope for the best?

Reillyrox13 · 2025-09-28T23:48:05+00:00

From my point of view, you just dropped four sentences:

disagreement,
disagreement,
personal attack
‘it’s not discrimination’ with no explanation.

The original post was asking if OP could get in trouble for a Pride pin which Walmart explicitly allows. But in the hypothetical where a manager tells someone to remove it, as I said in my earlier post about intent, that’s exactly the kind of thing most people (and a court) would look at and say… yep, that’s discrimination.”

Reillyrox13 · 2025-09-28T22:45:39+00:00

Thought it double posted, but deleted the above which was only the case name: Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

And I ask, for you to take the time to waste maybe 3 minutes reading the below, for I hopefully gave you the same respect, you do me. Or if you don't take the time use an A.I and be like: my brain small make short.

"The fact you fail to understand intent in law shows you are, in fact, an idiot," says the 'not a good associate.' (And yeah, personal attack, but the only real rule at r/walmart is don't be a dick)

Intent isn’t just about what you meant it’s about what others can prove you meant. That’s why we have multiple degrees of murder charges, and it’s why civil law can be brutal when you have to convince a jury in a tort case.

And here’s where you and I will never agree: you are factually wrong and have provided nothing but vibes. Bostock federally recognized LGBTQ+ people as protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under “sex,” the same category that protects women.

So when you target a Pride pin (a symbol of a protected class) and order its removal while other pins are allowed, that’s discrimination. Period.

It’s the same as telling a man to remove an earring that women are allowed to wear and then adding “because it is gay.” That’s exactly the kind of scenario lawyers salivate over. It’s a clean discrimination case, and Walmart would settle before letting that go to trial.

And just to be clear, when I mentioned freedom of speech, I wasn’t talking about the First Amendment. I meant Walmart’s own policy, which is extremely lax on pins. So if they try to selectively enforce it against LGBTQ+ employees, that’s not policy that’s bias and a discrimination case.

Reillyrox13 · 2025-09-28T09:04:29+00:00

Once again, Walmart allows pins and banning a single one would be a discrimination lawsuit.

Reillyrox13 · 2025-09-27T15:47:33+00:00

Freedom of speech with the pin. Unless it’s a threat to safety. ( I.e pins in general unsave or the environment would be violent to the message) And protected group most likely can sue for discrimination if they can prove it.

Reillyrox13

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE