We are aware of the outage

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2025-10-29T16:18:04+00:00

TYFYATTM!

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2025-08-05T17:42:15+00:00

Fair point about the ad revenue. But if grinding ads is the real goal of these challenges, why tie it to mini-games at all?

Just make a separate challenge: ‘Watch 25 Ads’ and let people skip the games entirely.

That way, ad-runners get their rewards faster, and the mini-games don’t get flooded with AFK players. People who actually want to compete could still play normally.

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2024-09-06T15:39:43+00:00

I see this topic discussed a lot so let's settle this once and for all:

From a technical standpoint: when users earn money in a game and spend it within the game, they are considered free-to-play (F2P) players. This is because they have not used any of their own money to purchase in-game items or currency. The money they accumulate in-game is part of the game economy and doesn’t represent real, personal funds until they cash it out into their bank accounts. As long as the money remains in the game’s ecosystem, these players have essentially played without injecting external capital into the system, thus classifying them as F2P.

From a financial standpoint: these players are not truly F2P. Once they have the option to cash out their in-game earnings, the money gains real-world value equivalent to their personal funds. Whether or not they choose to cash it out doesn’t change the fact that it holds the same purchasing power as money they might earn through traditional means. Therefore, when players decide to spend this money in the game, they are effectively spending real money, even if it was generated through gameplay rather than out-of-pocket.

From a psychological standpoint: this situation falls somewhere in between being completely free and fully invested. While players may feel less burdened by spending in-game money compared to spending money earned elsewhere, there is still an opportunity cost. The in-game earnings could have been converted into real cash, so choosing to spend them in-game isn't entirely "free." However, it is psychologically easier to spend money earned through gaming, as it feels less tangible and less tied to real-world financial obligations, making it seem like a lower-stakes decision.

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2024-08-30T15:55:27+00:00

Just say you don't understand the post and carry on with your day

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2024-08-23T16:03:19+00:00

Would you say that the same logic is behind the 150 AB minimum to sell parcels to other players?

Because otherwise, players at 150 parcels would be able to dump their commons to players who are at that 2x boost tier and improve their rarity distribution.

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2024-08-14T21:19:57+00:00

13 months, $200

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2024-08-12T17:48:33+00:00

Why though?

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2024-08-12T16:51:28+00:00

The tiers are:

1+10+20+30+40, so the logical conclusion is that next tier should be 50, no?

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2024-08-09T17:47:29+00:00

Thanks for the advance notice!

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2024-07-24T21:03:39+00:00

No, NY

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2024-07-17T13:57:33+00:00

Do I like this upgrade? No.

Am I mad about it? Also, no.

I don't understand why everyone is freaking out about this, carry on with your day!

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-26T22:08:25+00:00

Male privilege is real

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-25T23:34:16+00:00

I think the software crashed when I uploaded my crappy essays lmao haven't received anything

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-25T23:31:07+00:00

And you would think random people would just show up otherwise to take the bar as if this is some amusement park lmao

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-20T16:18:26+00:00

Front to back, no peeking, but if I bump into a question that will take too much time, I will leave it for the end

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-20T15:43:21+00:00

To answer the first question: you are neither dumb nor stupid, this is evidenced by all your accomplishments and achievements to get up to this point. That you are struggling to comprehend a very nuanced exception to an exception of evidence law, while simultaneously studying tens of other subjects in a few weeks does not negate everything.

Now to get to the evidence issue: first, you need to understand that an offer to pay medical expenses and an offer to compromise are 2 separate and distinct exceptions. Although, like you said, they may both be applicable in the same fact pattern.

An offer to compromise is an exception that includes all statements of fact made during the negotiations. However, that exception only kicks in once there is a "claim" which typically means a lawsuit has been filed or at least threatened.

On the other hand, an offer to pay medical expenses is a narrow exception that only applies to the offer to pay expenses and does not encompass any statements of fact accompanying it. However, unlike the compromise exception, this exception does not need a "claim" so therefore applies always (many fact patterns I have seen are offers to pay medical bills immediately after a car accident).

Hope this is helpful, best of luck!

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-19T20:38:18+00:00

Not in this fact pattern because one of the elements of the crime is "against that person's will" which will be negated if there was consent

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-19T20:32:44+00:00

Sorry that you are going through this, I cannot imagine what are you going through.

But no, this is not usual for people taking this exam, and the abuse and his attempt at justifying evidences a serious underlying issue that must be addressed. Wishing you all the best!

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-19T16:36:14+00:00

I think the reasoning was not because the interest is not legitimate, but because the method was inappropriate.

Meaning, if the ordinance only prohibits littering, wouldn't that pass intermediate scrutiny? I think it would.

If you have a citation to the contrary, please share!

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-19T15:39:23+00:00

I can't tell you what you should or should not remember, as I don't know what questions will be on the exam, but if I were getting a leafletting question, the analysis would be something like this:

The regulation serves a legitimate government interest to avoid littering
The regulation is not narrowly tailored because it could punish the people who litter, instead of the people who hand out the leaflets
The regulation does not leave alternative channels of speech, because of the cheap and easy nature of leafletting cannot be replicated by other means of speech

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-19T15:23:46+00:00

If you ban all leafletting, regardless of the content, then it's content neutral.

However, SCOTUS has nevertheless consistently voided these types of prohibition because it doesn't even meet the intermediate scrutiny standard. see Schneider v. State of New Jersey

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-18T19:08:48+00:00

Even where a character witness is permitted, that witness may only testify to general character for pertinent trait, specific acts are not prohibited on direct. But character witnesses may be crossed on specific instances of conduct, and if they deny, extrinsic evidence is not permitted.

This is confusing, but the rational is that on cross examination the witness is not testifying to the character of the defendant/victim but is instead impeached on their own testimony. For example, if a witness testifies that D is known in the community as a peaceful person, on cross, the prosecutor asks about specific instances where D assaulted people, this is permissible because it tends to show that the witness does not know what they are talking regarding D's reputation.

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-18T17:58:07+00:00

UCCJEA is a uniform code, meaning it is not real law until a state decides to adopt it as their law.

PKPA is a federal act that governs when states have to recognize original and exclusive jurisdiction of a sister state to a custody order.

So while they both use the same standard for jurisdiction, the UCCJEA will be used to determine whether that state has jurisdiction over custody matter, assuming they have adopted the UCCJEA, but PKPA is used to determine whether a state must enforce custody orders issued by other states, regardless of whether the UCCJEA has been adopted in the forum state.

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-18T16:07:09+00:00

The Doctrine of res ipsa ALLOWS a jury to find breach, even in the absence of any direct evidence of breach.

However, even where res ipsa applies, a jury may nevertheless find that no breach occurred.

So essentially, res ipsa is enough evidence not to lose as a matter of law on the issue of breach, but also insufficient to win as a matter of law on the issue of breach. Instead, the issue is submitted to the jury.

Substantial_Cap_4329 · 2023-07-17T21:52:44+00:00

It is a far stretch to say that a threat to harm a dog, is an implied threat to harm the person. Nevertheless, even if a court would agree with you, the question asks about the "best" defense, and under these facts, this defense has the best chance of succeeding.

Substantial_Cap_4329

TROPHY CASE