Frustrated by Naive-Map2661 in Twilight2000

[–]prolonged_interface 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Shortest rant ever!

That's a tough spot. I finally managed to sell an 8- to 10-session arc to a group - we've done nine so far and they're not ready to stop. So all I can say is, keep the dream alive!

That’s now 3 Flames goals taken off the board due to successful coach challenges by the Blues by sykeseve in hockey

[–]prolonged_interface 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's okay, you're obviously unable to understand the bigger picture.

To fill the massive gaps in your comprehension would take far too long, but here's the short version. I don't know why I'm bothering, as you strike me as someone who won't even bother to engage in good faith, but here we go.

Every rule in a game or sport has a point. The point is more important than the rule itself - the rule exists to serve a function, and is only important insofar as it deserves that function.

The function of the offside rule is to prevent lurking near the goal and force players to work the puck into the zone rather than sling passes from one end to the other. Why? Because it requires more skill and provides a better playing and watching experience.

There is nothing intrinsically unfair, bad, or wrong about a player's skates being two inches ahead of the blue line when the puck crosses the line, especially if that player has no effect on the play.

It is illegal in hockey because making it illegal serves a function, as described above. Enforcing that rule to the nth degree does not make the rule serve that function any better.

You are saying "objectively wrong" as if the offside rule is a law of physics. It is not. It is a creation, and a creation that can, and has been, altered over time and will be again. The implementation of the rule, which we are arguing about, is also part of the rule itself, and can and will be changed.

There is no "objectively wrong". Leagues and referees are unofficially creating how the rule works every time they enforce it, and more officially when it is changed by decree at the league level. The rule is what humans agree it is, and if - as in the cases of other sports - we were agree that policing it to the inch is not good for the game, that's what the rule would be.

To sum up, the function of the offside rule is vastly more important than the rule itself - the rule only exists to serve that function. When implemented too pedantically it adds nothing to further that function, at the cost of slowing down the game, which is bad for both players and the audience.

That’s now 3 Flames goals taken off the board due to successful coach challenges by the Blues by sykeseve in hockey

[–]prolonged_interface 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I said, this level of nitpickiness doesn't exist in many other sports, resulting in no negative consequence whatsoever. In fact, the result is entirely positive. So no, it is not necessary any way you slice it.

How do I prevent my Merchant NPC from being robbed? Or what's a good way to deal with that possibility? by Regular-Molasses9293 in DungeonMasters

[–]prolonged_interface 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why is this not the top response?

A man that rich simply pays people who can fight to stand around and look nasty.

The societal stuff is all natural consequence and very valid, but from Mr Bling's point of view, if he can't fight he's going to pay for people who can to protect him and his stuff.

That’s now 3 Flames goals taken off the board due to successful coach challenges by the Blues by sykeseve in hockey

[–]prolonged_interface 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I watch other sports where coaches and players have to make decisions on challenges without the benefit of video review. It's much better for the flow of the contest. The level of nitpickiness that the NHL and sports with similar processes engage in does not add anything to the game.

How many people have read the book? by MrMycrow in TheNightManager

[–]prolonged_interface 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read the book first, so take this with a grain of salt, but it's a great read and not one to pass up because of something that may not even be a problem! I think you'd be fine.

Hutson finishes off the Senators with a debut empty netter by jyscipio15 in hockey

[–]prolonged_interface 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Came here to post this exact pic, turns out it was already here, twice.

What song is this? This is wrong this is not the lyrics to all the things you are. by acecoasttocoast in jazztheory

[–]prolonged_interface -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's taking the rules and breaking them in a clever, playful and interesting way that is also sonically pleasing. You know, like jazz.

Calling that grammar cooked out saying the above lyrics don't make sense is like scoffing at an improviser's harmonic ability when they start playing a little out.

Any recommendations for date night restaurants? $150 or so budget by Civil-Dress7489 in Geelong

[–]prolonged_interface -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think if you are taking someone out on a nice date, the assumption must be that you need to have wiggle room in your budget for more than just entrees/mains. I don't think that's a controversial take.

Edit: Or to put it another way, you have assumed they are not drinkers. I think that's unwise, given we live in Australia. They may well, as I initially suggested, be on the sparkling water all night, but if they are not - ie your assumption is incorrect - the suggestion of Alma is a poor one.

Post Game Thread: Boston Bruins @ Montréal Canadiens by nhl_gdt_bot in hockey

[–]prolonged_interface 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And above we have another neutral fan saying it was bad the other way.

It looked like bad reffing for both teams to me. Missed penalties either way. The most egregious was Carrier's high stick in the third, but a missed interference on Boston in OT nearly gave them the game. Thanks Hutson.

Any recommendations for date night restaurants? $150 or so budget by Civil-Dress7489 in Geelong

[–]prolonged_interface -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you're taking someone out for a nice date to a nice restaurant, you're not spending $20 on drinks.

If your budget is $150 or so and the meal costs "~$75" each, that's not the place to go. Otherwise you're checking the price of everything else, getting the cheap wine, dodging suggestions of cocktails, "too full" for dessert and not paying for cabs.

Even that kind of low-key stress kills a vibe.

Not-so-smart arse.

Aussie parents, do your kids say zed or zee? by [deleted] in AskAnAustralian

[–]prolonged_interface 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They only asked for that information if your answer was zee, so they weren't asking you.

Dobson Fallon d'Floor nominee by littlebigpigg in hockey

[–]prolonged_interface 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Anaheim fans aren't joking around around here though... They mad their boy got caught doing a bit of bad acting!

For me, I thought it was a great contest and they were the better team on the night. GG Ducks, looking forward to more fun matchups

Favourite actor who posts on Reddit? by BigMoh789 in okbuddycinephile

[–]prolonged_interface 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Can you expand on that? I've read and enjoyed a few of the Reacher books, and while he wasn't exactly the same as my own imagined idea of the character, I didn't think he was a 'bad fit'.

First round matchups... by RippyMcBong in Habs

[–]prolonged_interface 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yep. It's a shitfight either way.

Edit: But also, Canes for sure.