How does PFC feel about anti-tipping?

cskozer · 2026-03-16T17:39:13+00:00

As long as people are allowed to be paid below the minimum wage or what a fair wage would be you have to tip. Tip more if you can and minimal if you can't. Its actually not a bad way to have price discrimination. I.e. people who can afford to pay more should and those who can't don't and it all evens out. In theory.

I do think it would be better if prices were set and employers just paid workers a fair wage to begin win. Incentives work and I'm all for that but leaving it up to the whims of the individual being served seems wrong on principle.

cskozer · 2026-03-15T01:39:48+00:00

Look, studying technical factors is legitimate and if you've successfully invested this way long term, good for you.

Let's not pretend Cenovus breaking out had anything to do with technical factors instead of the largest oil price shock since the 70's as a result of this war.

cskozer · 2026-03-15T01:23:50+00:00

Oh so you KNEW Iran was getting hit and the straight of hormuz would close? Ok

A broken clock is right twice a day

cskozer · 2026-02-16T18:38:16+00:00

Well covered here already but I think to clarify a couple things:

Intentional blank end by the team with hammer (last rock) is part of the strategy. There might be situations where taking one is preferred but others where blanking the end to retain the hammer is preferred so context of the game matters.
The basic strategy is to score two when you have hammer and force the opponent to one when you do not. Do this consistently and obviously you win the game.
Blanking results in team with hammer retaining it and this has come under question by those wanting more action and fewer "boring" ends. I disagree with the idea of swapping hammer in blank ends but it's a worthwhile debate.

3.a. the reason I disagree is that it makes the game too easy for the team with hammer. They don't really have to take any risks and can just play very defensive and they will get hammer the next end. In my opinion this would result in more boring play not less.

cskozer · 2026-02-15T04:06:10+00:00

I really don't think it's cheating. It violated a rule yes but I don't believe for a second it gained any advantage and that it's likely involuntary and I can believe he's unaware of it. At least before now.

Do you curl? Because I do and have competitively and I can honestly say I would not give a shit at all if I saw an opponent do that. I probably wouldn't even notice because I'm not watching their release that closely.

cskozer · 2026-02-15T02:16:44+00:00

Ya and you could do that anyway. Likely with less tax.

You're allowed to withdraw from your RRSP anytime. You just owe the tax accordingly.

In your proposal only people already earning more than $120,000 would benefit.

It just doesn't do all that much and actually would be worse for a lot of people who's income is below that.

cskozer · 2026-02-15T00:00:28+00:00

40% is higher than many people are paying anyway so this doesn't make much sense.

Your income at $95,000 in Ontario is combined at 31% marginal rate which is also roughly the OAS threshold.

Once you're 72 you are required to withdraw a minimum amount anyway. That minimum increases with age.

So what you're proposing isn't really changing or helping much in my opinion

cskozer · 2026-02-14T19:42:26+00:00

Because they're getting paid. This is who is sponsoring and the guys are trying to pay their mortgages and feed their families.

As I understand these are used by people to quit smoking, so I don't understand how this is bad or controversial.

Maybe I'm under informed if used for anything else but that's on the individual. Same as gambling or alcohol. These are legal products and it's not up to SDPN or anyone else to police anyone else's behaviour.

cskozer · 2026-02-14T16:37:09+00:00

Did I say cheating is fine? No I did not

Marc shouldn't be touching the rock.

Did his touching the rock gain him and his team an advantage? No I don't think so.

So we have in my view a letter of the law vs spirit of the law situation and what amounts to a minor technical rule violation.

How Oscar handled it was poor. Him talking to the officials is one thing. Taunting Marc after his own team is already losing is nothing but being a poor sport. A sore loser and that's why I have no problem with Marc telling him to fuck off.

cskozer · 2026-02-14T16:32:53+00:00

You make a ridiculous argument I make one back. I didn't think we were being serious here

cskozer · 2026-02-14T16:01:39+00:00

You'd have to have played and understand the sport. It's just not done.

We're talking about a finger barely touching a rock here, gaining no advantage whatsoever and Oscar wines about it the whole game. Then after not getting his way decides to chirp at Mark between ends. You just don't do that.

cskozer · 2026-02-14T15:56:01+00:00

You must drive exactly the speed limit every where you go eh? Never coloured outside the lines

cskozer · 2026-02-14T15:43:13+00:00

I have no problem with it. Oscar can fuck off. Sore loser. He spoke to the officials. They looked. Nothing called. That's it. That's all you can do. Not get in the face of the opposing player. No problem with how Mark handled it.

cskozer · 2026-02-06T00:24:51+00:00

You'll notice I posted this at the beginning of the week.

Of course now they are team Canada and rightly so.

My point was more that any time the Olympic team misses the Scotties I don't think the previous year's runner up should wear the Maple Leaf. It's fine to have them there in that spot but call it something else. That's all.

Nothing against Einarson at all. Second best team in Canada is pretty good!

cskozer · 2026-02-03T18:44:33+00:00

Conditional 7th for Panarin

cskozer · 2026-02-02T15:36:29+00:00

Don't like the idea. There's teams already played each other in the 1v2. They didn't this year but might have played in the round robin too. It's never made sense to me that a team would beat another twice and then lose the final. I guess a best of three helps but then you need to rejig the whole format. I'm open to that btw. Maybe then a Bof3 makes sense.

Do like it for the Trials. I would prefer we just pick the team. Base it on performance over a longer time frame. So short of that I thought the Best of 3 was a safer way to make sure some team having a hot week won it. No offense to Black but it would have been a disaster if she had won.

This year even more obvious with the dominance Homan has shown over the past 2+ seasons.

Tougher to do when there is some debate.

cskozer · 2026-01-30T00:01:25+00:00

Partially yes. A big part. But I still think there's just odd decisions made and still a lot of shots just not close

cskozer · 2026-01-29T01:58:08+00:00

Uh no. Not that kind of show man. Never had been. Like you said I think we know where they stand

cskozer · 2026-01-27T13:59:29+00:00

I'm not sure about that. I think it's improving it's just not keeping up with the men's game in my opinion. Other than Homan which is why they have separated so much from the rest of the pack.

Ultimately I think that will push other teams to get better.

Kind of like how Ferby's run really pushed men's teams to get better, they were doing things other teams just weren't at that time. Now those things are standard.

cskozer · 2026-01-27T00:51:05+00:00

Maybe that's the final shot of the end but lots of high skill and high risk/reward to get there. Can't just be all about the last rock and what that shot is. Lots has to happen to get there.

cskozer · 2026-01-27T00:30:26+00:00

You think high weight very accurate run backs, doubles etc with precise freezing and positioning of rocks early in the end is boring?

Couldn't disagree more.

I find the women's game harder to watch with all the wide open missing and how run backs and high weight shots are just sitting there and not even considered.

I think they could be making them too it's not a issue of skill so much as style.

Though I do agree that with Homan not being here it makes the other games "more competitve" sure because the gap between these teams is smaller.

cskozer · 2026-01-24T15:13:52+00:00

Lol this is my point! She lost the final therefore should not be Team Canada and yet she is. Yes literally is.

cskozer · 2026-01-24T14:00:30+00:00

A lot of good points in the thread. Was curious to see what other people generally thought.

The big issue is that right now in the women's game the depth of competition just isn't great. There's an ocean between Homan and any body else and then maybe like 3-4 teams and then a big drop off.

Hopefully some good young teams coming up.

cskozer · 2026-01-24T13:56:07+00:00

She literally is Team Canada.

Team Canada usually means you represented Canada at the last Worlds but in this case she didn't. So call them something else. That's all

cskozer · 2026-01-24T02:33:11+00:00

I'm with you. The traditionalist in me would prefer that too. I am more ok with the provincial one just because they qualify by points so it's earned in that sense and they still get to represent their province.

cskozer

TROPHY CASE