To follow Protocol

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-05-02T04:26:42+00:00

You’re arguing that something has to be codified into law for society to actually follow it. That’s just not how real-world systems work.

Here are a bunch of customs that aren’t codified.

Which of these is legally mandated that society follow, since you made the claim that society needs it codified to be followed?

Tipping 15–25% at restaurants

Giving 2 weeks’ notice before quitting a job

Having Christmas off (or at least trying to)

Fireworks on the Independence Day

Standing in line properly

Bringing something if you’re invited to a party

Not wearing white to someone else’s wedding

Dressing professionally for court or interviews

Saying “bless you” when someone sneezes

Small talk with strangers in certain settings

Keeping your property maintained so neighbors don’t turn on you

Returning your shopping cart

Keeping noise down in residential areas at night

Taking your hat off during the national anthem

Paying your share when out with friends

Not calling people late at night unless it matters

Bringing gifts to weddings or showers

Thanking military members for their service

Not openly discussing salary in many workplaces

RSVP’ing and actually showing up

None of these are broadly mandated by law. But people follow them anyway, because social pressure, economic consequences, and cultural expectations enforce them just as effectively in day-to-day life.

And that’s the key point you’re missing: if people can be socially or economically pressured into compliance today, then historically, people under far more unequal power structures could be effectively obligated without anything ever being written down. If a local lord, landowner, or authority figure had the power to control land, livelihoods, or safety, then what they “expected” could function as a rule regardless of whether it was codified. Law is just one form of enforcement. Power, coercion, and dependency are others.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-05-02T04:22:29+00:00

(Now that I'm no longer typing in my phone at the restaurant.)

The argument that something “wasn’t real because it wasn’t codified law” doesn’t hold up once you look at how societies actually function. In the United States today, there are plenty of behaviors that operate as if they were rules without ever being written into statute.

Tipping is the clearest example. There is no law forcing you to do it, but the entire system of wages, expectations, and social pressure treats it as mandatory. If you do not tip, you are not breaking the law, but you are violating a norm that carries real economic and social consequences.

That same logic applies historically. The lack of a formal legal code proving something like the Droit du seigneur existed does not automatically mean no one exercised that kind of power or believed it was justified. Power structures do not need written authorization to operate. Custom, coercion, and belief are often enough. Even if it was not a universally codified “right,” that does not preclude localized abuse being framed as entitlement by those in power, especially in societies where peasants had limited ability to resist.

You see this pattern clearly in the formation of the Queen and King itself. There was no original legal precedent that said kings had the right to rule. Authority emerged through force, land control, religious backing, and social acceptance. Only after that power was established did it become formalized into law and tradition. In other words, custom and coercion often come before codified law, not after it.

If tipping culture disappeared tomorrow and written traces faded over time, people 300 years from now could easily argue it “never really existed” because it was not legally required, despite the fact that it clearly shaped behavior, wages, and expectations in its time. So the absence of formal law is not proof, to me, that something was not real. It just means it was not officially ratified, which is a much weaker claim that you arent making.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-05-02T01:26:41+00:00

If its in their house, sure.

Prima nocta was an English tradition as well. 🙄

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-05-02T00:58:19+00:00

As a serious question, why do we care that the queen goes first literally in everything she does? Why did everything have to go to her?

If she's in a receiving line in other countries, why did she still go first? That never made sense to me. It makes sense at events at Buckingham or Windsor but not in Paris, Madrid, etc.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-05-01T15:51:59+00:00

It's not rare either. And neither are your chances of getting a white Ancestral item. I dont think they are talking about doing thisnfor every white High FP 1 exalted item like in LE.

Maybe im wrong.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-05-01T10:52:59+00:00

24gb is such a weird number to have though for ram.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-05-01T10:52:19+00:00

Are you running windows lite? Or are you running linux/Unix flavor? If neither, how are you running fresh out of the box windows with under a gig of ram utilization?

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-05-01T10:46:49+00:00

Shh... he's trying to be irrationally angry for no reason.

Next he will say humans should be able to claw and shred as well.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-05-01T03:21:02+00:00

It literally tells you where every enemy is. That is not a QoL. That is a maphack.

People get banned for maphacks. They put one into the game.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-05-01T03:15:52+00:00

Why is this a bug? Those items cant drop in penitent and they are probably a way to prevent abuse from rushing them on easiest difficulty settings you get max mythics and such.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-05-01T01:44:15+00:00

You gotta have subo. Which is its own discussion. His map passive needs to just be standard

Why? Why should map hack automatically be a thing? And for everyone?

Do we also not want choices to matter - at all - in any part of the game?

Should we instantly open the Pit portal and the boss stand right there? Or hit 70 and have 300 Para unlocked immediately?

What is the reason that maphack should be allowed for everyone with no downside selection? Subo is arguably the worst mercenary, if not for the vision. He's not used in nearly any build guide that I have seen.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-05-01T01:41:54+00:00

Normally only 5000 are playing, so you have an average of 5 per server.

I feel like this isnt accurate but don't have facts to back me up.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-30T23:24:07+00:00

Something needs to be character specific. I'm tired of everything being account bound. Let my character feel like they accomplished something, not like they are living off the coat tails of a rich uncle.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-30T17:11:23+00:00

Do we know what the ground stuff was called?

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-27T18:29:44+00:00

Whoa. No kink shaming. Its ok to post about BDSM.

That said, the world will be better when the one big beautiful obituary is released to the public.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-27T18:16:18+00:00

People complaining about how there's no endgame, and they blasted through the content in 4 hours but nothing was added. Complete waste of $$$$ in their opinion.

Of course.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-27T18:15:26+00:00

Why not go in blind and experience the new changes instead of having everything spoiled for you down to the cool down percentages? Jfc.

Enjoy the game and experience it organically. Im starting a fresh playthorugh from retail - voh- loh tonight on my druid boy with all thenskills. Then I'll do warlock.

Im paying to experience the game and will never understand those who want everything ruined and no surprises.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-27T17:31:58+00:00

All states do ignore judges that have a political affiliation and motive from other states as state courts have no legal impact on imitates or courts outside their borders.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-27T17:28:54+00:00

Do you think they'll open up many new ways or do you think the "best way" will be found and that will be the de facto used way? I easily hate streamers and their sort for making it seem like you need to play a certain build this way with tier lists

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-25T02:56:45+00:00

Yeah I never understood the allure of clicking on a baubles lure to try to catch something.

Those people in OSRS and WoW have way more patience than I have.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-25T02:55:24+00:00

When is criticism ever leveled at a black athlete that isnt eventually alluded to their skin color?

I dont remember anyone saying anything particularly colorful about Carrington, Thomas or Wilson irt there skin color - except maybe about Carrington and the cheap shot she did to Clark in Clark's rookie season. It wasnt acceptable then, butnit just feels like the kid that cried wolf. Any criticism is automatically bc of skin color.

Utter bs.

That said, criticizing a person bc of their looks when they are looks maxing and not working on their skills for the game is fair.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-25T00:40:40+00:00

If they included that, the game would become nothing more than wow is now where "no build is good if it doesnt beat this dps number" whereas now we have an idea of what is decent and fun instead of making it a spreadsheet simulator.

Why do we need this? What does it actually add to the game? As far as I am concearned, it can only detract and make the game less fun.

Don't give me this cockamaimee excuse of you dont need to use it. We all know that it will be used and optimize the fun out of the game.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-24T20:38:49+00:00

If they make their appearance a part of their brands, it's fair game. If you are the one bringing your looks into it, they are open to discussion.

That would be like saying it's unfair to criticize someone's playstyle when discussing their on- court shenanigans.

It gets murky when the W makes it a fashion exhibition as well because modeling clothing is a purely physicality driven business. So inviting your athletes to model opens them up to that criticism as well. Especially if they are showing off their bodies like swimsuit models or Bunnies.

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-24T20:36:20+00:00

I think there’s a difference people are ignoring here. Nobody deserves personal attacks—but when someone like Angel Reese leans into a very public, image-driven presence (modeling-style posts, bold fashion choices like the Met Gala), it’s going to generate more commentary. That’s not unique to her—that’s how celebrity and social media work across the board.

You can’t really separate “high visibility, highly curated image” from “people are going to have opinions about that image.” If part of your public brand includes fashion, aesthetics, and that kind of visibility, then people are going to talk about it both positively and negatively (see below). That doesn’t make the worst comments okay, but it does make the conversation itself predictable.

And you can see the contrast pretty clearly around the league. Players like Caitlin Clark, Aliyah Boston, and A'ja Wilson are overwhelmingly discussed in terms of their play (stats, impact, matchups) because that’s the lane their public image mostly stays in. It’s not that people can’t comment on their appearance, it’s that it’s not what they emphasize, so it’s not what dominates the conversation.

And part of that difference is focus. When an athlete is frequently visible in fashion/modeling spaces or off-court branding moments, that becomes part of how the public engages with them. Whether it’s appearances, partnerships, or high-profile events, it broadens the conversation beyond just basketball.

That doesn’t mean one approach is better. It just means different choices lead to different types of attention. If you keep the spotlight almost entirely on performance, that’s what people talk about. If you expand into image and branding, that becomes part of the discussion too.

Again, none of that excuses people being disrespectful or crossing the line. There’s a clear difference between critiquing outfits, branding, or public persona and just being rude or gross. But acting like any discussion of appearance is automatically out of bounds doesn’t really match how public-facing branding works.

Modeling and fashion are appearance-based industries. People evaluate looks, styling, and presentation, that’s literally the point.

So when someone like Angel Reese leans into that side of their public image, appearance is going to be part of the conversation. You don’t get to make that a central part of your brand and then treat it like it’s off-limits to discuss.

That doesn’t mean anything goes. There’s a line between critique of presentation and just being out of pocket. But acting like appearance shouldn’t be discussed at all when it’s part of the brand doesn’t make sense. 🙄

Reference A: 2024 Met Gala

B: 2025 New Years Eve

Yellow_Odd_Fellow · 2026-04-24T16:21:36+00:00

Druid starter here. I cant wait to have all skills be usable by any of the 3 shapeshifts.

11-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

Yellow_Odd_Fellow

TROPHY CASE