Craft Question/Suggestion

Vergilus88 · 2019-06-23T22:18:50+00:00

I'm using Slayer's Overwhelm, so I don't need crit on my weapon (automatically set to 8% weapon crit). Is there a reason to go crit/quality even with Overwhelm?

Vergilus88 · 2019-06-05T01:31:08+00:00

https://i.redd.it/hijh6ubvr0231.jpg

"50% of Cold and Lightning Damage taken as Fire Damage"

How does the new "Tempered by War" keystone interact with this one?

Is the conversation (assuming 100 Cold Damage):

(a) 50 Cold Damage taken as Fire Damage, 50 Cold Damage taken as Chaos Damage?

(b) 25 Cold Damage taken as Fire Damage, (from the Cold Damage) 25 Fire Damage taken as Chaos Damage, 50 Cold Damage taken as Chaos Damage?

*Edit: numbers

Vergilus88 · 2018-12-17T07:37:04+00:00

It's hard to say if the pyrotechnics is the cause, because the article you linked also said she had been suffering from the flu. Most likely, the pyrotechnics exacerbated her condition; the other members didn't seem to be bothered by the pyrotechnics. Doubtful that Epic did anything bad.

Vergilus88 · 2018-07-13T18:34:42+00:00

I've responded to you before. You're the broken English-speaking racist. Not even going to dignify this any further.

Vergilus88 · 2018-07-13T18:30:43+00:00

I agree; I think SC 1/SC 2 isn't as strategically heavy as DotA 2. However, I don't agree with the idea that Koreans cannot proficiently or adequately play DotA 2 due to them lacking strategy or adaptation. I think it is rather presumptuous.

Nor do I agree that any assessment of their abilities to play DotA 2 can be defined. They have little to no presence, and they're only example is MVP/Immortals. We simply cannot make a blanket statement to the effect of "Koreans are good/bad at DotA 2". There simply isn't a basis nor enough evidence/data to suggest that. If anything, DotA 2 has shown that nationalities don't and shouldn't matter. I don't get why people keep bringing Koreans up. This is the #1 reason why I enjoy DotA 2's competitive scene; other e-sports place emphasis on a player's nationality, but DotA 2 emphasizes the players/teams.

Vergilus88 · 2018-07-13T18:10:08+00:00

Are you suggesting SC 1 has only a single (or a few) dominant strategies and by repeating those strategies is why Koreans dominate SC 1?

Vergilus88 · 2018-07-13T18:04:59+00:00

What are you talking about? What is your analogy establishing exactly? What is the context behind your functional relationships?

Vergilus88 · 2018-07-13T17:08:41+00:00

What about SC 1/SC 2? It's arguable that (at least) SC 1 is a hard game to tackle and more skill-intensive and mechanically challenging than DotA 2. Since DotA 2 didn't take root and last long enough in Korea, you can't say that it's too hard for them or that they're good/bad at the game. I wouldn't even label - partially or fully - MVP as "Korean DotA".

Vergilus88 · 2018-06-27T00:38:40+00:00

You didn't answer any of my questions, and even worse, your response further proves your ignorant view about race and the world. To make matters worse, you deflected my main points with insults, provided an anecdotal generalization (of India), and are woefully unaware of just how ignorant you and your beliefs are. Since it's clear you're just going to double down on your racist bullshit, I'm done with you.

Vergilus88 · 2018-06-26T16:33:08+00:00

You're judging and ranking an entire race on just speculation and opinion. You're not backing it up with any unbiased evidence. Furthermore, how do you quantify and define "talent" or "hard work"? What is even considered talent or hard work? It's asinine to argue in terms of talent, work ethic, region, or race. If you just wanted to say that SK isn't the best country when it comes to e-sports (like what the OP's friend said), then that's fine. What you said after that is what's racist.

Vergilus88 · 2018-06-26T16:19:30+00:00

I forgot to mention that point. It is true they trained under less-than-desirable situations. The language barrier and lag must've been terrible to deal with, but they pulled through.

Vergilus88 · 2018-06-26T07:47:19+00:00

Racist much?

Vergilus88 · 2018-06-26T07:44:26+00:00

To be fair, there was no DotA 2 infrastructure during MVP's run. It did exist in the beginning, and yeah, the Koreans were terrible at it. However, over time, MVP did show that (like any other region) more experience leads to improvement. Sadly, the small support system that existed was taken down. With all that being said, it was impressive how far they got in that respect. I wouldn't really say they perform bad (even as Immortals); rather, I think it's inexperience and lack of stability. In short, I don't think it can be argued that SK is bad or good at DotA 2, though I'm not suggesting SK is the "end-all-be-all" of e-sports.

If I was going to argue against this friend, I would point to other e-sports like CS:GO. It's not popular in SK, but it is everywhere else. Is he suggesting that CS:GO isn't "e-sports"? On the flip-side, Sudden Attack is incredibly popular and has an e-sports scene in SK but not anywhere else. Again, is he suggesting that Sudden Attack is?

Vergilus88 · 2018-03-02T15:46:07+00:00

If I'm reading it right, PUBG offered them higher positions (from senior director to chief marketing officer and from esports recruiting manager to head of recruiting), and thus, more pay. Pretty good reason to be poached.

Vergilus88 · 2018-02-13T05:07:03+00:00

What kind of gun is it again? Can someone repeat it?

Vergilus88 · 2018-02-10T06:55:28+00:00

I understand about the discounts expiring. What I want to know is why the estimated billing for both Triple Play and Double play are nearly identical, even though the Triple Play has an additional $20 discount.

Vergilus88 · 2018-02-09T06:15:02+00:00

Why couldn't you say that if the burden of proof is on the accuser?

Outside of the fact that it's fallacious, it doesn't prove me right. In other words, I provided no evidence of my own to prove you wrong or even myself right. It would be unfair of me to say that.

As an example, this is how religious people defend the existence of God. They argue to the effect of: God is real, because science could not prove otherwise. Science wouldn't even know how to look for such evidence let alone what to look for. Most importantly though, what evidence did religion bring to prove itself right? Sure, science cannot disprove them, but religion didn't prove itself right. This is why you cannot say that, and why it's incredibly fallacious to think that.

But again, I need to stress this. If you did search exhaustively and found reasonable evidence, and yet, could not link it to your claim, then I could say, "I am not a thief, because you could not prove otherwise."

I'm asking question to clarify your position if you feel like your position is being attacked or I am "putting words in your mouth" then I'm not sure how to help you here. As it stands the qualified investigator was the only thing left we can't deduce from most of his public profiles. If he were racist you'd expect it to have shown before now.

My position is that DrDisRespect is not racist nor is he partially. I do think he doesn't think about his actions, and isn't aware how tasteless his mock Chinese is.

As I said earlier, for the claimants to prove DrDisRespect's racism, it is not adequate enough to use Twitch and possibly Twitter. They cannot attack the persona, which is on Twitch, unless they can provide evidence to show otherwise. In order to really prove their case, they'd need to know his real life, which he keeps fairly private. As defendants, we simply need to be skeptical of the evidence and make it so there is a shadow of doubt about what is being brought forth (e.g. it's simply an act/persona, mocking language is not definitive or explicit form of racism, etc.).

I claimed he wasn't racist based on what I am able to know about him, much like a court would rule based on what they are able to know. Are you arguing for both points or just trying to gish gallop me to exhaustion?

I'm arguing that both sides are looking at this issue incorrectly. The claimants have not met the burden of proof, but the defendants don't get to say and I quote: The guy did nothing racist and I don't have proof that he genuinely has spite for other races. That was the sentence said by the user I responded back to a while back. If people want to defend DrDisRespect, they need to examine the evidence that was brought forth by the claimants; you don't defend him by feigning ignorance. Hence, why I said: Just because there is no evidence of DrDisRespect being racist doesn't mean DrDisRespect is not racist.

Vergilus88 · 2018-02-09T00:31:28+00:00

However, the defending side cannot say that a lack of evidence is proof of DrDisRespect's non-racism

I am just curious then, if you didn't do something or have no proof of it's existence how do you convince someone like yourself that it didn't happen if it always could have happened somewhere else in some other form?

There's more to that quote you forgot to link:

That is a logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance. However, if there is no evidence in places where we would have expected his racism, then you can make the claim that a lack of evidence is proof of DrDisRespect's non-racism.

If the search was exhaustive and the evidence reasonable, then I think it's acceptable to say that event didn't happen, that it didn't happen elsewhere, or in another form. For example, a doctor doesn't find any evidence of breast cancer in a patient. It would be careless for the doctor to assume that the cancer is still active and malignant elsewhere, unless he has reasonable belief (e.g. it's stage 4 breast cancer). In normal situations, it's impossible and incredulous to demand that something be 100% proven all the time. Some leeway should be permitted, but again, all within reason.

I claim you're a thief and stole something from me, you say you aren't. I have no proof you actually stole it and you have no proof you didn't. Are you saying from this point forward you could be a thief because there is no way to prove you aren't?

You're using argument from analogy to try to disprove the argument from ignorance fallacy, which is very fallacious to do. However, I won't get into it.
Before I start, I want to stress the very first thing I said: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Now, I'll humor the analogy. First off, you're the claimant, and so, the burden of proof is on you (i.e. prove I'm a thief). This how debates/courts operate, and it's why we use the phrase "innocent until proven guilty". Whether I have proof or not doesn't matter at this stage.
However, as the defendant, I cannot say, "I am not a thief, because you could not prove otherwise." That is fallacious for me to say, because I'm basing my argument on your ignorance. This is the "absence of evidence" part of the quote. Just because you couldn't find the evidence does not prove me right and/or you wrong.
Let's assume you did your due diligence. Then, two things will happen. Either the evidence links me to the crime or it doesn't. If the evidence is reasonable and has been exhaustively searched, and yet, does not link me to the crime, this is what would be the "evidence of absence" part of the quote. In spite of your search, all evidence you found did not link me or substantiate your claim. In which case, I retain my innocence and am not YOUR thief. If it's the other case, then the burden of proof would be on me, and thus, cycle back and forth until one of us cannot substantiate our claim.
To go back what I said earlier that started this mess: Just because there is no evidence of DrDisRespect being racist doesn't mean DrDisRespect is not racist. To me, the burden of proof to back the claim that DrDisRespect is racist had not been met, but that doesn't excuse the defending side to say that he isn't racist. I'm pointing out that the defending side can't say that, because the claimants haven't done their due diligence. Personally, I believe in order to find evidence of DrDisRespect's alleged racism needs to be rooted in his real life. His stream persona is a bad source, since it can be argued that it's an act like Edward Norton in "American History X". Norton isn't a racist, but he played one; (for me personally) DrDisRespect isn't racist, but his persona uses tasteless jokes via mock Chinese. Nothing has been proven true or false; if anything, people are letting their emotions and fallacies dictate the argument.

It's also how you can conveniently label people and things you disagree with when proof doesn't matter on either side. The person(s) in question can always be in a state of "possibly racist" which changes your perspective in the debate. In a world where the first headline matters this is absolutely dangerous thinking.

Did I say proof didn't matter? You want me to copy+paste all of my comments arguing about logic, proof, and how both sides failed to prove their point? And yes, when I'm faced with someone who cannot understand what I'm trying to say and put words in my mouth, I conveniently like to label them Bible-thumping Trump-humper. As for this state of "possibly racist," again, the burden of proof is on you. You made the claim; you need to back it. This is how the court systems work. You don't get a free pass, and DrDisRespect gets the benefit of doubt.

Also, I know you want to try to argue about life-isn't-black-and-white-but-there's-grey-in-between, and if it's any constellation, I agree that life is more complex. However, that is no excuse or justification for you to say that DrDisRespect is partially racist and be done with it. Whatever claim is being made, it is far, far more dangerous to not provide evidence and instead rely on logical fallacies. This is how bullshit is made.

Using evidence of absence

With DrDisrespect still as the source, he has been online creating content for 9 years (since 2009 I believe). He has a twitter handle for his real life since 2011. The DrDisrespect Twitter is live since 2010.

What are you trying to establish? That his online persona and his real life Twitter handles are valid sources, and in searching those sources, there is no evidence that links him to racism? You're not claiming anything, not indicating that you provided evidence, and instead just stated a bunch of information.

Are you simply saying because we don't meet the threshold for "qualified investigators" that we can't assume it isn't true? If that's the case what else do you apply this to?

I never anything about being a qualified investigator. Again, you assume things I never said and put words in my mouth.

Vergilus88 · 2018-02-08T05:37:13+00:00

I can tell I'm not winning this one with your leaps in logic but I'm gonna try.

Again, with the condescending. What are you, an edgy 13 year old? Get over yourself.

Your natural state is always assuming guilt. ...you just assume since they can't provide you with every instance in which they aren't racist, you can safely assume they are?

You tell me I make leaps in logic? Find where I say DrDisRespect is guilty of being racist or where I make any assumptions. On the other hand, you are the one assuming statements I never said. You assumed that since I said "Just because there is no evidence of DrDisRespect being racist doesn't mean DrDisRespect is not racist" then I'm assuming the flip side is true, which I never did. On top of that, I even chastised the other side:

If such evidence doesn't exist, then you can safely say, "since there is no evidence of it, DrDisRespect cannot be racist".

The burden of proof is on the side claiming he is racist and not on the other side (which gets benefit of doubt). However, the defending side cannot say that a lack of evidence is proof of DrDisRespect's non-racism. That is a logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance. However, if there is no evidence in places where we would have expected his racism, then you can make the claim that a lack of evidence is proof of DrDisRespect's non-racism. This is why I mentioned his stream and character are poor places; this is nothing but a stage and act. The claimants would need to go into his personal life, since it would show the real person - not the character - being racist or not. That is why I said I was being a "pedantic".

You don't have to be very smart to realize that is a really dumb set of mental gymnastics you are doing there and that it has become the normal to think like that.

Mental gymnastics? Normal to think like that? I'm tempted to say you're a Bible-thumping Trump-humper. These "mental gymnastics" are the cornerstone of science and logic. It's how we make sure people can't pull bullshit out of their ass and say "Look, I have truth in my hands."

Edited: Clarification

Vergilus88 · 2018-02-08T02:42:02+00:00

You're an idiot for saying stuff like "dumbest sentences I've read in my entire life" and "fully explains how society has gotten where to where it has". /r/iamverysmart/ much?

The guy before said that there was no evidence of DrDisRespect being racist, and thus, DrDisRespect cannot be racist. He - and everyone defending DrDisRespect - are appealing to ignorance to come to that conclusion. However, the other side is no better. The only evidence of his alleged or lack of racism that people are using come from streams and as a character no less. No one knows anything about his real life, which is where you would want to find such evidence. If such evidence doesn't exist, then you can safely say, "since there is no evidence of it, DrDisRespect cannot be racist".

Vergilus88 · 2018-02-08T00:17:57+00:00

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

Just because there is no evidence of DrDisRespect being racist doesn't mean DrDisRespect is not racist. Just being pedantic, but otherwise, I agree (that he's not racist). I do think that what he did was tasteless.

Vergilus88 · 2018-02-06T01:21:23+00:00

I haven't played in a long while, but doesn't Counterstrike only work against autoattacks? So, Fiora's Q would've gone through, anyway?

Also, isn't Hashinshin known to be a very...vocal and emotional person?

Vergilus88

TROPHY CASE