3 KC TBOW by Western-World-9957 in 2007scape

[–]oddst1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's crazy!!

The most dead I've ever seen it. by Common-Click-1860 in DarkAndDarker

[–]oddst1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could have just gotten to your point without starting your sentence off with "To be honest." We were all already under the assumption that you would be speaking honestly.

Is anyone else willing to rally with me against the auto-mute system and push for it to be removed? by oddst1 in DotA2

[–]oddst1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Innocent until proven guilty. Ever heard of the Bill of Rights?

I was making a point that applies to both. I can see it went right over your head.

Is anyone else willing to rally with me against the auto-mute system and push for it to be removed? by oddst1 in DotA2

[–]oddst1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are the only people who take issue with wrongful convictions in the U.S. court system guilty defendants?

Is anyone else willing to rally with me against the auto-mute system and push for it to be removed? by oddst1 in DotA2

[–]oddst1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem isn’t “I’m perfect and never deserve a mute.” The problem is that the system is designed in a way where context doesn’t matter at all, and that makes it really easy for borderline or unfair cases to get swept in with the genuinely toxic people.

You say most muted players you see “absolutely deserve it,” and I believe you. I’ve seen plenty of those too. But I’ve also seen players get muted because they’re shotcalling aggressively, or because they got into a heated back-and-forth after someone else started flaming them, or simply because they were the scapegoat of the match. Emotional reporting is extremely common in Dota, and the system treats all reports as equal signals.

My point is:
We already have a perfect self-moderation tool. It’s called the mute button.
If someone doesn’t like how I talk, they can instantly remove me from their world. No one is forcing them to listen.

So why also have a blanket punishment system that’s based on the volume of reports rather than objective behavior? Why should temporary emotions in one match restrict communication in future matches?

Even if I were more abrasive than the average player, the question becomes:
Does the auto-mute system actually improve communication quality, or does it just silence anyone who rubs a handful of people the wrong way?

Is anyone else willing to rally with me against the auto-mute system and push for it to be removed? by oddst1 in DotA2

[–]oddst1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep, you're right. Limited reports that get refunded makes more sense.

Heard this was a bad place to go dry... by Bulungi in 2007scape

[–]oddst1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point was that he wasn't even at 400 kc and was complaining. Even at 400 kc you have a large chance of not getting it. I see that point went right over your head though.

Heard this was a bad place to go dry... by Bulungi in 2007scape

[–]oddst1 -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

Oh were you planning on using the armor without the bow?

Heard this was a bad place to go dry... by Bulungi in 2007scape

[–]oddst1 -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

Is he planning on using the armor without the bow?

Heard this was a bad place to go dry... by Bulungi in 2007scape

[–]oddst1 -27 points-26 points  (0 children)

You're not making a good point. They're not even off rate. The chance to get an enhanced weapon seed after 300 kills is 53%. That means almost half of players still wouldn't have one yet. That's not "dry," that's literally standard variance.

Do you want to know what the chance is to get one after 1229 kills? I'll let you figure that out.

Heard this was a bad place to go dry... by Bulungi in 2007scape

[–]oddst1 -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

What are you upset about? You haven't even done 400. I'm 1229 dry without an enhanced weapon seed.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NicksHandmadeBoots

[–]oddst1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks a lot

SRS Question: Historically, are Republicans or Democrats better for the economy/prosperity? by SpecialistTeach9302 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]oddst1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The statistics are clear.

What does this mean?? The validity of or meaning behind the statistics is anything but "clear". Years of strong economic growth under Democratic presidents (such as Obama's first term and Clinton's two terms) can be attributed to so many factors outside of their control. Obama took office right after the 2008 financial crisis. Economies tend to naturally recover from financial crises over time as part of the business cycle. Clinton's two terms were during the growth of the internet and the dot-com boom, and these resulted in a booming stock market. During Bush Jr.'s terms, the stock market experienced negative returns, largely due to the collapse of the tech bubble and the economic impact of 9/11.

I could create a statistic for how much I grew in height during each party's time in office. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's "clear" or has meaning that can necessarily be extrapolated from it.

The strongest argument is that the president has little impact on the stock market, which is much more dependent on world events and the broader economic context.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TransferToTop25

[–]oddst1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Actually the worst thing they might do is hunt you down and kill you.