16
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Again, the problem is inconsistency. Either you censor it all or you censor nothing.
It's always fascinating to find someone who can talk so much but say so little. This thread is about consistency of rule enforcement, not some 6d commentary on the state of free speech in our society, nor is it about who has more points on the victim scale. We've already stated multiple times that we don't personally care about insults directed towards narmin, but are instead confused as to why rules are being inconsistently enforced in regards to discriminatory language.
Yeah I got on native a few days when crpg was dead planning to gk tdm and saw 30 ppl on battle so I went there. The very first rounds had Tsb Ruth, Manry and a few others repeatedly spwn killing. They killed me and a bunch of others then started saying I was tk in spawn and they ban polled me and I was kicked for no fkn reason.
Lowered shield difficulty, cool, everyone can bring a shield and with proper use deflect most of the ranged.
Lowered shield weights, no good to anyone tbh, just because you want to move 1 2 meters a minute faster, now shields get stunned in half of the melee hits.
The problem begun when archers relied on STR builds. Sorry, archers were forced to rely* on STR builds. It was meant to make archers slower, because of epic kiting cancer, but it did more harm than it did good. Now archers can bring in the most broken weapons ( i am looking at you spathovaklion and 1h barmace) with huge amounts of PS into the field and become near invincible. This wasnt a problem few years ago, but in time everyone became good in melee and most optimal builds became ranged builds. Why go pure 2h or 4d polearm while you can inflict the same damage in melee as an archer or crossbowman? Giving more 0 slot melee options for ranged players was a part of this mistake too. In general everything should be able to counter everything approach we suffered through the years was wrong and should change asap.
Another problem is that melee isn't fun to play. Before someone arrives and says "I play melee in NA1 everyday I have fun speak for yourself" lol, %99 of melee fights end either with someone getting ganked or one of the players get bored of swinging and blocking and starts spamming, which you'll most likely fail if you arent using one of the broken hitbox weapons like long maul spamitar barmace etc.
Melee is dumbed down to the point that it has no flavor or anything you can add to your playstyle. Quickest solution to this is removal of the turnrate nerfs.
Another thing that keeps certain people away from playing is that some weapons are extremely powerful compared with other options. I.e I want to play shielder and wanna do it with a knightly arming sword. But every other shielder plays with scimitars, barmaces, spathovaklions. I will be outcompeted everytime against them unless I truely tryhard and there isnt much reason to play shielder if I am not willing to switch to the said meta weapons or their variants.
Edit: one more thing to add, is that players having huge IF builds especially since after a point you receive HP instead of skill points makes many fights go unconcluded for so long and ending up with someone getting ganked. A part of melee not being fun.
I wrote this on phone it may be weird to read
Even if she's lying, I'd be surprised if there was some big conspiracy around this.
It sounds like her angle is that she wants to punish him personally, rather than any statement on his suitability for the role itself. Bleh.
What did she risk? A group of people saying that either they can't positively confirm her story (without claiming she's wrong) or that it actually doesnt impact his ability his suitability for this role decades later?
Because of the vague nature of her claim, she literally cannot be proven wrong. She doesnt risk her career in any shape or form, she can never be found culpable for anything. Compare that to the position Kavanaugh is in, will his life in the US be the same after this?
I may be ignorant on this detail, but has she said what she actually wants out of this?
From the events described I dont know how it would be possible for either side to prove or disprove the allegations, it would only ever come back to her word against his. And she's a woman and he's a man therefore our progressive society is instantly certain that she's right and he's wrong. It's just funny that it's possible to have even a token investigation say "he's good" without also saying "she's full of shit", surely those are the same thing - unless you're willing to admit that we simply dont know for sure and never will so why bother?
It's not like this is a new thing, but the possibility of any woman at any time claiming anything they want with zero risk, to attempt to ruin a man's life is pretty hilarious. "Sexual assault ruins lives", sure, I'm also sure that convincing a good % of the nation that someone's guilty of sexual assault also has a pretty impact but noone likes to talk about that so much. The burden of proof is instantly on the man, and the woman risks nothing.
Leaving this here, not related but fun.