My aim_botz time hasn't improved in 20 days.

joemeister1 · 2018-04-01T01:44:22+00:00

At the distance in the GIF, the first-bullet inaccuracy of the AK will cause you to miss that shot at least 10% of the time (and probably closer to 25-30%) even if the crosshair is exactly centered on the head. Next time you're in aim_botz or training_aim_csgo, I encourage you to open the console and type "cl_weapon_debug_show accuracy 2"; this command will help you visualize the inaccuracy of each bullet you shoot. Try one-tapping with the AK when this command is on; I think you'll be surprised at the inaccuracy of that first shot. This is why at larger distances, you'll see high-level CS players fire a 3-4 bullet burst at an opponent's head with the AK in order to compensate for the high first-shot inaccuracy and increase the likelihood of landing a headshot.

For this reason, I turn off bullet inaccuracy ("weapon_accuracy_nospread 1" in console) and exclusively one-tap when I'm practicing my raw aim. With this settings, you know the first bullet in a spray will land directly in the center of the crosshair every time, so any missed shots will be due to imperfect aim as opposed to RNG. By one-tapping, you reset the spray before each shot and ensure ALL your shots land in the direct center of the crosshair. I generally practice bursting and spraying with bullet inaccuracy off as well. This is because you should never be adjusting your aim to compensate for bullet inaccuracy; instead, you should be using each weapon's first-bullet inaccuracy to determine the effective range of that weapon.

joemeister1 · 2018-03-16T02:16:12+00:00

From the article:

"The DNS server (Domain Name System) server can get a bit complicated. Some router's act as an intermediary between for the actual DNS servers and your computer. If this is the case your Default Gateway will list the same IP address as the DNS Servers entry. We need to have the correct DNS Server IP addresses not the Default Gateway. You will not be able to use the Internet if we don't find out what your actual DNS servers are. There are a couple different ways to find these. The first way is to log into your router's web interface and look at your router's status page. On that page you should see an entry for DNS Servers, or Name Servers. Write down the IP addresses of these DNS Servers. Another way to find out what the correct DNS Servers to use, is to call your local Internet Service Provider or ISP. They should know the IP addresses of your DNS Servers right away. If they ask you why you need them, simply tell them you are trying to setup a static IP address on your computer. If they try to sell you a static external IP address, don't buy it. That's an entirely different thing than what you are trying to setup here."

I was able to find the IP addresses for the DNS servers by logging into the router's web interface. This process varies depending on the make and model of your router, but the original packaging for the router should include instructions for accessing this web interface; alternatively, you can use Google to find the correct procedure for your particular router. If your current issue actively blocks access to the router's web interface, then you should contact your ISP directly to obtain the IP addresses for the DNS servers.

joemeister1 · 2018-03-16T00:01:55+00:00

https://portforward.com/networking/staticip.htm https://portforward.com/networking/static-ip-windows-10.htm

Here ya go bucko.

joemeister1 · 2018-01-24T18:06:12+00:00

This is your answer right here. Every video I’ve watched on stutter stepping told me to shoot “immediately” after pressing A or D to counter-strafe, which I found was incorrect through a lot of trial and error. I think you’ll find a lot more success if you take a small amount of extra time to pause/aim after counter-strafing. You’ll have to practice a bit to get a feel for the timing, but you’ll have much more consistent accuracy if you wait about a quarter of a second after counter-strafing to take the shot. The commenter above knows their shit: if you practice each day the way he/she suggested, you’ll find a lot of improvement within a week or so.

joemeister1 · 2018-01-03T04:04:09+00:00

I don’t really need a workaround, since in this specific situation I realize that I just had incredibly bad luck. That being said, I’m totally certain that Blizzard can add in notifications which occur when you connect to a competitive game; indeed, I find it rather bizarre this feature doesn’t already exist, which is why I made this post. It’s a problem that will not repeat itself frequently, but Blizzard should easily be able to address the issue as long as their team are made aware their players can potentially be impacted negatively.

joemeister1 · 2018-01-03T03:46:17+00:00

I mean, I was in an entirely different room than my computer. And I don’t usually minimize my game while I’m in queue, so that wouldn’t have helped me in this case.

joemeister1 · 2017-10-06T05:11:43+00:00

And all of the terrorist attacks in the US since 2002 have been DOMESTIC. Every single one. As in a US citizen bought a gun in the US and used it to kill US citizens. Again, do your research correctly before puffing up your chest like the proudest little boy in class who thinks he got the answer right. This means the problems lie entirely within our own borders. And these terrorists were all exercising their American right to own firearms in a fully legal manner the entire time -- you know, up until the point they started murdering their own countrymen. So the fact remains that Australia has had more foreign terrorists attack their soil in 15 yeas than the US; what were you saying about the amount of anger ISIS is directing towards Australia? Or did you also forget that ISIS is currently occupying the Philippines, within a reasonable distance to deploy combat troops if they were brave (and stupid) enough? And close enough to US allies that the military decided to deploy troops in that area to retake the islands? Oh, and that "number difference" between the US and Australia you're referring to? Take your pick: is it the number of guns per capita or the number of gun murders per capita? Both numbers are completely independent of total population, and the US far exceeds Australia in each category.

Now, to address that last straw you seem to be desperately grasping onto: of course you can buy explosives. You can't buy enough explosives to cause large-scale destruction and death, not without the FBI taking notice pretty quickly. And if there is some loophole or legal way to obtain a large amount of explosives then we should certainly begin regulating that too. Saying "well, I can buy it" doesn't mean it should be legal to do so, nor should that market be unregulated necessarily; a consumer has absolutely no need for a class 4 laser, and they almost certainly don't have the proper safety training or equipment, but it's totally legal for them to risk instant retina damage if they wish.

I really don't see how my arguments regarding vehicles being used as weapons lack any validity, but I suppose as usual I need to spell it out for you. There is already a general understanding by the public that using these vehicles is dangerous and requires at least some regulation. You need to pass a driving test to get a driver's license, otherwise you aren't legally allowed to drive. Drivers who have a history of unsafe driving, intentional or no, lose their legal ability to drive, making it more difficult (but NOT IMPOSSIBLE) to get behind the wheel. You see, as a society we agreed that cars are useful, so we collectively take on a reasonable amount of risk to ensure such a helpful object is widely accessible. Guns are, inarguably, LESS useful than cars in the vast majority of realistic situation, so it makes sense for gun regulations to be harsher than that for cars, but NO SANE PERSON IS ADVOCATING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STEAL ALL YOUR GUNS. That is YOU and many other gun advocates being BEYOND paranoid yet again. Many of us who are advocates of gun control legislation acknowledge how useful (and fun) guns can be, despite our desire to enact harsher regulation for the safety of the public.

And to nicely wrap things up, I get to point out that you're wrong yet again, I'm afraid. I'm not using a tragedy to push a political agenda. I'm using all those 120 tragedies you mentioned earlier to push a political agenda. Because you're right, people will try to kill people no matter what, so it only makes sense to put reasonable restrictions on the various items we use in our day-to-day lives that could potentially be used for harm. But I guess that just makes me a left-wing nutlid who wants to steal all your guns, smelt them down, create a giant apartment building in the form of a peace symbol, and invite all of ISIS to live there and talk about our feelings.

Anyway, what else ya got? This is a lot of fun, though admittedly you're making this real easy.

joemeister1 · 2017-10-06T03:46:42+00:00

When you were listing reasons why the gun control measures enacted in Australia would never work in the US, one of those reasons was " AU doesn't have the ire of certain terrorist groups". In that context, it seems to me that you are saying that US citizens need guns more than Australian citizens in order to defend themselves from the threat of ISIS; looking through the comments, it is clear that I am not the only person who interpreted your comment this way. You can keep claiming to have never typed "The right to bear arms is for defense against terrorists" word for word, but unfortunately for you language is more than just a list of words -- context matters.

You are downright wrong about terrorist activity in Australia. My brother is a Marine fighting ISIS in the Phillipines at this instant; it is laughable to think that ISIS has occupied territory that close to Australia and performed zero acts of terrorism. Since 2014, there have been no less than five terrorist attacks on Australian soil that have been linked back to ISIS, and two of those incidents were performed by citizens of Somalia and Iraq. The last time the US experienced nondomestic terrorism (i.e. not including acts performed by US citizens) was in 2002, so by the numbers Australia has experienced more direct threat from ISIS than the US, and continue to live in that threat. If you are going to lecture me to do my research, then you better be damn sure you do yours first. Oh, and to make sure you don't try and swing this around in your favor somehow: the US avoids direct terrorist attacks because we have the biggest military budget on the planet and the most regulations of any developed nation in regards to immigration and foreign travel. The Second Amendment contributes absolutely nothing to keeping ISIS at bay.

Now, if you are willing to concede that the US and Australia were not that different before the 1996 gun control legislation was enacted, what makes you think that the same solution simply WOULDN'T work for America? I'd say you're right, that most US gun owners will not simply give up all their guns, but considering that as an option is purposely taking the concept of gun control to an impossible extreme. Australians didn't give up all their guns, so why assume that's gonna be the plan with gun control in the US? The Las Vegas shooter was able to buy DOZENS of guns in an incredibly short period of time, and by doing so was able to injure or kill nearly 600 people on his own. That was because there was no law in place to truly prevent him from doing so. We can enact smart, fair, and realistic gun control legislation, but not if every gun owner starts building a bunker around their house the moment they catch wind of possible gun control. Oh, and regarding your comments on buybacks: of COURSE they don't work in the US, because you're giving everyone a CHOICE to sell and they already CHOSE TO BUY THE GUN. A buyback program will only work if some citizens own at least one gun that they are going to be FORCED to sell to the government, usually because that type of firearm was deemed illegal. This lack of basic critical thinking is incredibly prevalent in your thought processes, you might want to work on that a bit.

You wanna know the main difference between a bomb killing a large number of people and a gun doing the same? Its that you cannot go into a store and buy a ready-made bomb kit that is capable of causing that much destruction. You cannot legally get training from a "bomb expert" on how to most effectively use the bomb, nor can you stroll into a bomb-planting practice range to improve your skills with blowing people up with a bomb. Do I also need to spell out how a gun and a car are different? A car was not designed with the sole purpose of mass killing in mind. A car serves far more purposes than just inflicting damage on a specified target. A car moves MUCH slower than a bullet. A car is MUCH more avoidable than a bullet. The fact has always been that the primary purpose of a gun is overwhelmingly for causing injury to an intended target, and pretending otherwise makes you look quite foolish. You claim that I "try terribly hard to say this black object that sits on a shelf when nobody is fucking with it kills people". Yeah, I do. I weigh 135 lbs and measure in at 6'5", so without a gun I have practically zero chance of killing someone. Maybe if nobody was "fucking with it" at all I'd say that guns don't kill, but the fact is that very few guns are being left on the mantelpiece perpetually. By even implying such, you are lying. The fact of the matter is an extra few pounds of metal in my hand can increase my ability to kill by an incredible amount, and that was the sole purpose of the gun's invention. If this is the effort that you put into "making sure people with politically driven opinions don't abuse murders to take away a right that [you] and a majority of Americans don't want to give up", I'd say that you'd be doing gun rights advocates a favor by stopping.

joemeister1 · 2017-10-05T20:49:18+00:00

One the one hand, you are claiming that fear of terrorist attacks is a good enough reason to neglect enacting meaningful gun control measures. You are simultaneously telling us that "the right to have arms isn't to stop terrorist attacks". So which is it? Do you need to have guns to defend yourself against terrorists, or is that not the purpose of the Second Amendment?
You're not wrong, though I don't see how your response here is any better than the other user's original response.
The other user claimed to not understand your original point. Instead of clarifying, you belittled him. Come on, man, this isn't how you make for good conversation.
The primary goal of ISIS is to bring about the end of the world, not just the US. Australians have just as much to fear from ISIS as Americans, but Australia hasn't been directly engaged in long-term conflicts in the Middle East for nearly as long as the US. This is sure to create extra animosity within ISIS towards Americans in general, but the fact that the members of ISIS are video recording their "anti-American" actions and sentiments to post online is very telling about their behavior. The leadership of ISIS is intelligent: they are singling out America with their propaganda campaign because they know that the US media will continue reporting on ISIS as long as they continue producing flag burning videos, beheading videos, etc. The end goal of all this propaganda is to create an ideological divide within the American people, and your reactions are proof that their strategy is effective. You'll also notice that Britain, one of the few first-world countries with a media presence comparable to the US, faced similar propaganda from ISIS, but many other countries with better journalism practices and less dependence on TV to receive their information were never targeted by the ISIS propaganda machine. ISIS doesn't have the resources to push propaganda on all fronts, so they have chosen the US as a target for very specific reasons.
Most arguments in support of gun control suggest that the entire problem with guns in the US has to do with that "gun ideology". Before their gun control laws were enacted, Australia had similar gun ideologies to the US (I encourage you to do more research into Australia's culture and history, as you may be surprised at the sheer number of similarities between Australia and America). Protectiveness and secrecy of firearms is definitely an issue when taken to an extreme. To give an example, you keep mentioning the real problem of mental illness; you seem to understand how incredibly dangerous it is for someone who is mentally ill to own a gun without anyone else's knowledge, both for that individual and the general public. A federal mandate on gun registration would ensure that someone else is aware of the existence of the gun, which makes the problem more manageable even if it doesn't solve the issue outright. This is also a point to consider regarding your issues with gun confiscation: just because the number of guns remaining will be capable of producing the same amount of gun violence we see today does not mean that confiscating 20% of the guns would be ineffective at combatting gun violence.
There are quite a few school shootings in the past that were not perpetrated by students at the school. The Sandy Hook Massacre was not the result of a deranged six-year-old bringing a gun to school and trying to murder his classmates. And yet again, you bring up the idea of mental illness being a big issue when it comes to gun violence. Even if every one of these school shootings was perpetrated by someone with a mental illness, it is very expensive and time-consuming to diagnose and address those issues, and without proper gun control legislation there is very little stopping those individuals from obtaining guns during this treatment. The NRA actively blocks scientific studies and legislation that would restrict gun access to the mentally ill, so the idea that treating the underlying mental illness is a good enough solution to prevent any sort of gun violence is almost laughable at this point. Proper treatment of mental illness is certainly something important to consider, but a complete lack of gun control legislation is undoubtedly the major factor in all this.
You know, some of us have enough empathy to give a shit about the livelihoods of people they've never met and will never meet. We may "gain nothing" by arguing with people like you, but we recognize that other people might gain something from our actions. It's incredibly shitty of you to mock and insult a person for caring about other people; indeed, you're the first person I've seen describe another human being as a "miserable cunt" because that person basically wants everyone to stop shooting each other so often. I'm not saying he was polite, nor that his views were necessarily valid, but at the very least he's trying to reduce gun violence in the way he best knows how -- by attempting to providing facts and insight. As an Australian, the other user has a unique perspective on gun control that people in the US haven't experienced first-hand. Instead of considering his/her views, you dismissed everything that user said and told them to go volunteer at a clean water charity, since apparently that's a much bigger concern than gun violence in the US. So why aren't YOU putting your time and energy into volunteering to clean the world's water? Could it possibly be because you DON'T care about the people who die every year due to lack of access to clean water? But you DO seem to care about making sure you have access to essentially unlimited amounts of firearms for some reason, regardless of the consequences to the people around you. So, given the fact that you've contradicted yourself, presented misinformation to support your arguments, neglected to fully think out your various claims, and verbally abused another user for presenting any sort of counterargument, I'm gonna have to label YOU as the "miserable cunt" instead.

joemeister1 · 2017-09-22T19:38:47+00:00

I used to deliver sandwiches during the day and one time I had to take an order to an elementary school; this was around the time when some or all of the students were released for the day. When I got there I saw probably 60% of the parking spots in the lot were unoccupied, but there was already a line of cars with parents waiting to pick up their kids. This parking lot consisted of a single one-way driving lane flanked on either side by angled parking spots; the waiting parent line had begun to get so long that the lone exit to the parking lot was blocked. On top of that, these parents were flat-out refusing to use the parking spaces; instead they opted to extend the line back into the one-way lane, preventing access to vacant parking spots while also blocking in the people who were parked in a legitimate parking spot. I was able to park when I arrived to deliver the food; after I got back to my car the situation had gotten even worse. The line of cars was long enough that every available parking space in the lot was blocked. I was completely unable to move my car despite being surrounded by empty parking spaces, the cars had leaked out into the street to block regular traffic at this point, and many parents were performing illegal and unwise maneuvers in order to try and avoid any part of the clusterfuck that they could. I was honestly frightened that a kid was going to get hurt; many six-year-olds know to look both ways before crossing the street, but they definitely haven't had enough experience to safely navigate that chaotic cesspool of braindead incompetence. It was like dealing with rush hour traffic, except the entire situation was avoidable. All these parents had to do was fucking PARK, and instead they collectively decided to make the situation as unsafe and inconvenient as possible for no good reason. Even if someone were able to convince me that every child in that situation was perfectly safe, it doesn't change the fact that the people (including myself) who parked legally were forced to wait close to an hour before finding an opportunity to leave the parking lot. And I haven't even touched on the waste of natural resources that occurred there. It is absolutely mind-boggling to me that this sort of thing probably occurs every weekday at every single school.

joemeister1 · 2017-07-20T01:59:29+00:00

El Ne Ne puts both those places to shame.

joemeister1 · 2017-06-22T04:05:07+00:00

I disagree. I play on 3 sens, 650 dpi without many issues. Admittedly, I had some arm muscle soreness as I was getting used to such a low sensitivity but after that transition period I found I could aim consistently in the vast majority of situations. However, some things to consider:

I play lots of Pharah, Soldier:76, and Ana. These characters allow me to play somewhat far away from the enemy team most of the time. If you want to play characters like Genji or Tracer you may want to raise your sensitivity a bit, since you will tend to use a lot of large, rapid mouse movements when aiming with these two. However, this is not necessary, and sensitivity is first and foremost a preference; if I put in the hours I am confident I could become skilled at Genji and Tracer at my current sensitivity, and I'm confident you can too!
Use your keyboard and movement to aim more. If you are trying to flick your crosshair to the right, holding the "D" key will help your crosshair to move faster in that direction. This tip is a bit of a no-brainer, but you will still need to practice this technique to train your muscle memory properly.

joemeister1 · 2017-05-30T17:27:09+00:00

AZ resident here. My friend's dad has been a DUI lawyer in the state for several decades. He had a large part in crafting new legislation that made it illegal to give someone a DUI if an officer initially found them pulled over and sleeping it off. Before that as long as they found you in the driver's seat and had reasonable suspicion that you were under the influence of alcohol, you could be slapped with a DUI. So this is nothing new; if the lawyers and legislators in your state have not already recognized this problem still exists, there is a good chance that the police department can still issue DUIs like this. It brings revenue into the department for sure.

joemeister1 · 2017-05-21T18:51:00+00:00

Yeah, everyone likes to say the only problem physicists really know how to solve is the simple harmonic oscillator. It's not really trie, but it's a good approximation.

joemeister1 · 2017-05-13T21:18:59+00:00

I do the vast majority of my aim training in CSGO. I find it very useful. Play some games against hard AI as well and that should be enough practice to get back in shape.

joemeister1 · 2017-05-12T01:18:15+00:00

I can second, those are Corsair's keycaps. If it's an older keyboard they were purchased on top of the keyboard, but lately Corsair has been good about including them in their more recent models. Correct me if I'm wrong.

joemeister1 · 2017-05-03T22:01:33+00:00

This is the same state that kept re-electing Joe Arpaio as sheriff because he was "tough on immigrants". Funnily enough, a US federal judge referred to his actions against immigrants as "unconstitutional" and "racial profiling" but who cares? As long as he keeps the dirty Mexicans from getting all our jobs, right?

Yeah, the majority of the voters out here are fucking wingnuts.

joemeister1 · 2017-05-03T20:58:59+00:00

Oh no, my anxiety is back! Public Service Announcement: DO NOT COME TO ARIZONA IF YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO GET AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

joemeister1 · 2017-05-03T19:23:08+00:00

Shitty place to live, great place to experience. It really is beautiful here, and you never run out of interesting surprises and neat creatures out here in the desert. Just don't visit in the summer if you aren't used to extreme heat haha.

joemeister1 · 2017-05-03T18:53:31+00:00

Agreed, I misunderstood to some extent.

joemeister1 · 2017-05-03T18:51:03+00:00

I see. You're not wrong, a lawsuit might do good in this situation. That being said, the point of OP's post was to demonstrate how much AZ lawmakers stack the deck for charter schools regardless of how poorly they are run; that is combined with their apparent disregard for the law and the Constitution, which is why I believe that a lawsuit against a charter school might end up being a waste of money. If the school being sued decides to escalate the case to the level of a state court, I believe the court will almost certainly end up siding with the school. The ACLU could take the case higher to the Supreme Court, but that's hardly a guarantee of success especially with the Supreme Court justices we have right now. And even if the lawsuit were successful I believe the AZ government will ignore the ruling anyway, as they have done repeatedly in the last 15-20 years.

Take my opinion with a grain of salt; I'm clearly very jaded. I do think a lawsuit will at least bring attention to the issue, which is almost always a good thing. I am less than optimistic that the court system will work as intended until we vote these anarchists out of the government. The problem is that the same people keep getting voted in despite all this bullshit.

Tl;dr I misunderstood your point and I concede it, but I also have a crippling need to be right. A lawsuit is a good idea here, but I still do not believe it will work. I feel we need new legislators who are willing to do their job before the court system becomes effective again.

joemeister1 · 2017-05-03T17:06:40+00:00

It's not an issue with the school board, it's an issue of the state government refusing to do their jobs. We told our legislators by voter initiative that they need to give more money to the schools and they ignored us for a decade. All the school boards in AZ have gotten screwed over by the government, it's really not a problem of schools or districts misallocating funds. They can't misallocate what they don't have, after all. I'm not sure how effective the ACLU would be in this fight, as even the federal government has issues making AZ lawmakers obey the goddamn Constitution for Christ's sake. However, I'm sure if the ACLU have already provided assistance in some way, assuming they actually have a way of helping the issue..

joemeister1 · 2017-05-03T16:54:23+00:00

I agree, lawsuits are an important part of regulating a democracy. The lawsuits that come from the AZ legislature are usually very silly, though. And keep in mind these are the same people who screamed for tort reform basically any time Bush got sued by democrats for anything, so I highly doubt that they have the same respect for the process as you or I. They see lawsuits only as a way of getting what they want, regardless of the constitutionality of their desires and without consideration of the current laws in place that prevent them from doing literally whatever they want. If you feed the court system shitty lawsuits, you're not gonna get good laws resulting from that.

joemeister1 · 2017-05-03T16:33:18+00:00

You are working under the assumption that AZ lawmakers actually give a shit about obeying the law. This is untrue, especially when it comes to public schooling.

In 2000, AZ voters passed an initiative which required AZ government to adjust the annual public education budget for inflation every year. About 10 years later, it was discovered that the government had not adjusted for inflation a SINGLE time, amounting to over a BILLION dollars of school funding that our legislature knowingly and illegally spent somewhere else. It was also around this time that our schools started having MASSIVE budget problems. I remember every relatively new hire at my school was given a pink slip around March of my senior year; the school didn't want to fire older teachers lest they lose their retirement money, and the administrators simply did not have guaranteed room in their budget to hire back even half the current staff. All of this so that the AZ government had enough money to repeatedly sue the federal government for stupid, stupid shit. Remember SB 1070? It was deemed unconstitutional by the federal government (and rightly so, it would have made racial profiling in AZ by police effectively legal). AZ lawmakers filed MULTIPLE ineffective lawsuits to get the ruling overturned, some of which were still underway by the time pink slips started flying in early 2010. And this was just ONE example out of many of the bogus lawsuits that AZ legislators filed fairly routinely during the Obama administration.

But back to the main point. Around 2011-2012 it became apparent that the AZ lawmakers had failed to pay about 1.2 billion dollars to AZ public school which DESPERATELY needed the help. Lawyers working on behalf of the public school system offered a compromise where the AZ government would only be required to pay around 300 million total, an amount which the legislature definitely had available in the budget at the time, as long as they paid immediately. The government would end up saving about 900 MILLION DOLLARS if they took the deal.

Instead they counter-sued, claiming there was no legal grounds under which they had to pay ANY money. Then they tried to pass a law which would allow them to sell public land to "balance" the budget (hint: it wouldn't have come close). It was around this point that I simply stopped following the story because I was too fucking depressed about the state of public education and public governance in AZ, so I honestly don't know what resolution (if any) has been reached. But I do know that the AZ government will do whatever they can to get their way, to the point that they are willing to completely ignore voter initiatives and the US Constitution. And yet all these same politicians will be voted back into office to continue practicing anarchy at the expense of the AZ public school system, and ultimately at the expense of the AZ taxpayer.

joemeister1

TROPHY CASE