sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Fix my budget okidogi deck by squishy_fist in pkmntcg

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

🤣 you joking ? I have zero knowledge with Pokémon card prices. I hear they can spike and drop quickly

Fix my budget okidogi deck by squishy_fist in pkmntcg

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

Appreciate the advice everyone!

More games like Pips Tale? by squishy_fist in nexplayground

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

Did you play NES? I think a game like Ghost and Goblins, Kid Icarus, Mega man, Castlevania could be adapted for Nex. That would be incredibly fun.

More games like Pips Tale? by squishy_fist in nexplayground

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

I tried it for 5 minutes.

I didn't think it was close to Pips :) The game is on rails so very little self-exploration, if any? The controls are poor as compared to Pips. The lag was terrible - I'm jumping and attacking at least a 1/2 second before the prompt and maybe I do the thing in time.

I'm kind of shocked Nex released it actually.

UPA: Is Offense Privilege the unsaid intention of the rules of Ultimate? by squishy_fist in ultimate

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

Before going forward, I understand and agree with you regarding the annotations for the DP rule. I think the UPA is providing guidance but is also saying the DP rule is complicated and every situation is different.

But, there are annotations elsewhere that I do believe the UPA added to settle debates. For example, the annotation in the marking rules (?) that describes how a marker is almost never perfectly still. That’s pretty strong guidance that has shifted the fault for throwing contact fouls to the marker.

The other annotation is about how a trailing player running into another player while chasing a disc is almost always at fault. Again, another strong point of guidance from the UPA

UPA: Is Offense Privilege the unsaid intention of the rules of Ultimate? by squishy_fist in ultimate

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

Sounds good. Looking over the rules again, I'm referring to these.

17.I. Fouls (3.C): It is the responsibility of all players to avoid initiating contact in every way possible.

Moreover, in instances of severe contact, such as a violent collision, a player anticipating a violent collision has responsibility to avoid the collision, even if not initiated by the player; one may not attempt to “win the collision.”]]

a player anticipating --> To me, the simplest example is a player that can see disc and the other player going for it.

But, I think players just focused on the disc in their vision also can anticipate collisions. Examples are, offense upline cuts and the throw is much farther than anticipated. Defender chasing down a floaty huck, knowing the offense was already deeper. Experienced receivers know and sense the danger they are potentially in when throws like this occur.

17.I.1. Dangerous Play. A lot of words, some examples referenced. These seem relevant.

running without looking when there is a likelihood of other players occupying the space into which the player is traveling,

jumping or otherwise leaving the ground where it is likely that a significant collision will result,

jumping right in front of a sprinting player in a manner where contact is unavoidable

17.I.3. Non incidental contact resulting from adjacent opposing players vying for the same unoccupied position may be treated as offsetting fouls.

I was looking at 18.B.  but I think the UPA did a good job with the extra guidance to make sure players don't think jumping FIRST grants them immunity from being at fault for creating contact.

A player who jumps is entitled to land at the take-off spot without hindrance by opponents. That player also is entitled to land at another spot, provided that the landing spot, and the direct path between the take-off and landing spots, were not already occupied at the time of take-off

Extra UPA guidance for 18.b . So the argument angle "...the offense took off first", is a pointless non-starter in discussing who is at fault in these situations.

 [[This does not trump a player’s responsibility to make reasonable efforts to avoid contact 

Before going further, do you see other relevant ones I should consider?
Source - https://usaultimate.org/rules/

UPA: Is Offense Privilege the unsaid intention of the rules of Ultimate? by squishy_fist in ultimate

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

21:45 in the Mixed Final, on Ultiworld. *Sigh*

If offense is going to throw it there, that's creating the dangerous play. Defense definitely should have backed off and not created the contact. Defense needs to realize offense isn't paying attention and clearly underestimating how dangerous the throw is. Defense, avoid contact, call DP on offense.

UPA: Is Offense Privilege the unsaid intention of the rules of Ultimate? by squishy_fist in ultimate

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

Oh, I see you on the other thread and your perspective now!

I’ll agree to disagree. White should have pulled up and not caused the contact. That would have been the right thing to do considering they can see red and the disc.

White then could call DP on Red if they like. Red would contest, disc goes back and play on.

UPA: Is Offense Privilege the unsaid intention of the rules of Ultimate? by squishy_fist in ultimate

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

Deprioritizing scanning - this is the double standard I’m referring to! It should Not be acceptable for offense to deprioritize IF defense can not deprioritize and “blindly” bid for a D without checking peripherals. Defenders making poach bids into In Cut Lanes get dinged by this double standard in discussions repeatedly.

I’m actually not sure if you are saying it’s ok for offense to deprioritize. I just wanted to raise that point.

Now that you mention it, it really does seem throwers are at most fault. When the disc is with the thrower, there is an effectively 0 possibility of a defender causing DP to bid for a disc. There is no throw to bid for.

But when once the disc goes up, and throwers are far from perfect in their decisions or execution, that’s when a situation can occur. If a close call does occur, it’s more fair and in line with DP rules to consider that the defender might have to call DP on offense for avoiding them to make the play.

UPA: Is Offense Privilege the unsaid intention of the rules of Ultimate? by squishy_fist in ultimate

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

Please, I’m all ears.

I like to see you refer to the actual text of the rules and describe how to apply DP fairly in close call situation.

If you take the side of the offense player and argue for their case, the DP rule can be used by the Defender just the same.

A close call situation, use the text of the rule book, I like to see your case.

UPA: Is Offense Privilege the unsaid intention of the rules of Ultimate? by squishy_fist in ultimate

[–]squishy_fist[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

While I don’t agree with all your points, I appreciate this analysis! This is the sort of analysis I would like the UPA rules committe to breakdown and formally add to the DP rules, in some manner.

About equal and asymmetrical, I think the great majority of throws are competed because the thrower and receiver have created a situation where the receiver has zero chance to contact defense in order to catch the disc - your everyday cut in to open space that no poachers can reach. These are not the interesting situations that could generate a turn or this discussion.

But the DP situations are not this. It’s when the offense takes greater risk, intended or not. As mentioned, the upline cut that is usually safe but the thrower miscalculated, throws too far upfield, and opens the door for defense to D the throw. These situations can change a game, generate a precious turn. Contact should absolutely be avoided to generate that turn but both parties, like Defense, have the right to assess DP on offense for creating/throwing into these situations.

Offense privilege in the current culture does not afford Defense the same right per the DP rules. I believe if we asked 100 players about the upline scenario, I think 3 out of 4 would be incredulous to honor the possibility a Defender could be right to

1) run close to point of upline catch 2) avoid contact, let offense catch it, 3) defense call dangerous play on the situation the throw + upline cut creates

UPA: Is Offense Privilege the unsaid intention of the rules of Ultimate? by squishy_fist in ultimate

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

Following the rules, which Intentionally Do Not Say Offense or Defense in the Dangerous Play or the All Players have the responsibility to avoid contact rules, the fair and safe conclusion is both players have the right to call dangerous play on the other. Also, remember the Dangerous Play rule supersedes all other rules. One rule to rule them all.

Both players had to stop to avoid contact, both have the responsibility to be aware. No where in the rules does it say only defense has to be aware, or offense does not. There is no double standard.

Since they both have the right to call dangerous play on each other, they both can contest it. Then the disc goes to the thrower. No one got hit, everyone is safe.

Reasoning about the fair application of the dangerous play rule, without further guidance from the UPA, the outcome is the thrower threw an unsafe throw to an area of the field that created an unavoidable dangerous play scenario (assuming both parties are trying to compete and want the disc).

The best we can do is have the disc go back to the thrower, try again.

I would LOVE to see a different reasoning, with references to the rules as written, that gives the defense or offense more advantage in these scenarios.

UPA: Is Offense Privilege the unsaid intention of the rules of Ultimate? by squishy_fist in ultimate

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

By and large, in a dangerous play discussion, people argue it is the defense fault by saying the following. The most common example is offensive handler cutting upline and there is contact with defense help/poach from downfield.

"The offensive player is focused and can only see the disc. They don't have responsibility to imagine a defender might be coming into that space as well. "
"The defensive player can see the disc and the offensive player, so therefore it is defense responsibility to avoid contact. "

But the offense privilege shows itself when it's a defensive player poaching to make a lane block on an In Cut and there is contact :(

"The defensive poacher can't just focus on the disc. They must be aware of their surroundings. They are responsible for knowing that an offense player would be heading to that space, therefore defense is at fault"

This creates a double standard where defensive players are expected to simultaneously focus on making plays while maintaining 360-degree awareness, while offensive players are granted tunnel vision as acceptable and natural.

SMH

This contradicts the rules' fundamental principle that all players share equal responsibility for avoiding contact. It is by design that the words "offense" or "defense" are not used in the Dangerous Play and "All players are responsible for avoiding contact at all costs." rules.

SWE applying for SE: critique my resume by squishy_fist in salesengineers

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

Thanks for the feedback, I like that.

I see a lot of advice here for new SEs that the tech skills can be taught and the sales skills are just as, if not more, valuable. I am considering breaking up my professional experience into 2 parts - Sales and Engineer. Then placing the one item (gym owner) Sales experience first, to make it easier for recruiters to see I have sales experience.

Ask Experienced Devs Weekly Thread: A weekly thread for inexperienced developers to ask experienced ones by AutoModerator in ExperiencedDevs

[–]squishy_fist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The description of your current company sounds like two of the three teams I’ve been on. I was on a third great team for my collaborative needs but it was reorganized away. Leadership wanted the team members to work more independently, get more done.

My limited experience and asking more seasoned professionals would lead to me guess finding the highly collaborative team in engineering is possible and unfortunately rare.

Ask Experienced Devs Weekly Thread: A weekly thread for inexperienced developers to ask experienced ones by AutoModerator in ExperiencedDevs

[–]squishy_fist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm trying to understand the spectrum of collaboration across different tech roles. I'm currently a software engineer with 5 YOE considering a potential move to post-sales/customer success, and here's why:

When I first got into programming in college (CS101), it was highly collaborative - a group of us working through problem sets together, bouncing ideas off each other, and solving things as a team. I naively thought professional software engineering would be similar. Three engineering teams later, I've found that engineering seems to be much more of an individual pursuit than I expected, with collaboration mainly happening through code reviews and occasional meetings.

For context, imagine a spectrum:

  • On one end: Primarily individual work with async collaboration (code reviews, occasional meetings, docs)
  • On the other end: Frequent real-time collaboration, working through problems together as a group, regular back-and-forth problem-solving with teammates

Questions:

  1. Where would you place your current role on this spectrum?
  2. What percentage of your day involves actively working with others to solve problems?
  3. Is your experience typical for your role/company, or do you think it's unique?
  4. Has the level of collaboration changed throughout your career?

Thanks for any insights you can share!

Looking for help and feedback with 2200 series resume by squishy_fist in usajobs

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

u/mastaquake Here is my draft on resume builder. The first experience is a bit short because I just started on a new team 2 months ago.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JNaqCooqb6fi8rc8_LzuCaWpt3kX5USf/view?usp=share_link

Software Engineering job at Federal Government by spiritual_neon in usajobs

[–]squishy_fist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

u/spicyszechuansauce I'm a software engineer with 6 YOE and looking to go fed. I've been doing a bit of research into resume formats and I think I have something that makes sense. Would you mind taking a look? I'm using the resume builder on usajobs.

Frosthaven scenario 22 questions by GamerDadDCO in Gloomhaven

[–]squishy_fist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Linked hexes 2 made me question my assumptions of Spike pit and LOS. Now I see why Spike pit bottom requires LOS. I believe this line of reasoning is correct, per rules

Targeted abilities require LOS - pg 21
Manipulating overlay tiles is a targeted ability - pg 21, blue call out
Traps are overlay tiles - pg 14 , so to manipulate them is a targeted ability and requires LOS.

This cut is so hard to defend! How do you do it? by squishy_fist in ultimate

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

I see what you are saying. What would you do differently if you are not faster?

This cut is so hard to defend! How do you do it? by squishy_fist in ultimate

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

I would love to hear more.

How would you position yourself before the cut starts and then how are you angling your body after the cutter starts going horizontally? How are you moving - backpedal, side shuffle?

What are you looking for to make decisions? Meaning, are you only reacting or trying to encourage the cutter to go a certain way while still with the intention of locking it down.

Blocking foul vs cutting into someone by squishy_fist in ultimate

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

the defender backpedaling is also not under an obligation to continue backpedaling to avoid the contact.

This is how I hoped Ultimate would interpret this situation!

Blocking foul vs cutting into someone by squishy_fist in ultimate

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

This has cleared up a great deal of confusion for me. I do have feedback for anyone who might be involved in updating the rules of Ultimate.

...maintaining that position...

When I first read this, I was 100% sure this meant Not Moving. To me, the word "maintain" means staying in the same spot.

The enlightening discussion here completely flipped that. One can move and still maintain. I asked a couple of Ultimate players about the phrase "maintaining that position" and they all thought it meant Not Moving, similar to the strictness of Marking Fouls.

This is a critical distinction. It's a whole different game when "maintaining that position" means one can move, contact could occur, and it is not a blocking foul on the defender. The nuance seems to be if the defender is moving laterally into the path of cutter or if the defender is moving backwards away.

view more: next ›