kabLe

What a short sighted view. You take one very particular part of something and use that to say "SEE THEY ARE NAZIS!!!" Hitler believed Germans were the "master race" and EVERYONE who was not German and even MANY germans were subjected to his tyranny and genocide. He didn't ONLY kill jews. Part of nazism, by definition is anyone who is "anti-communism". Do I need to go further or do you see where I'm going with this? Just to humor you I'll add, anti-Semitism is also part of nazism by definition, but if hating communism doesn't make you a nazi, why should hating jewish people make you one? Maybe, just maybe, they're dicks? I'm not in total disagreement with you in Ukraine, I'm sure there are people who consider themselves nazis, and you are right, that is very bad, but if you think for even a second, Putin is on a grand mission to purge Ukraine of nazism, I need your dealers number. People are anti-semitic and all I'm saying is you should learn to articulate yourself better when you're getting ready to label someone a Nazi, maybe they're just a shitty person who hates jewish people. That sucks. They are not nazis. That's an insult to all your ancestors who were literally being hunted down and purged from the world by a group of people who had very specific beliefs. It's also irresponsible and dangerous to say things like that with no real basis because crazy people like you eat that shit up and think they are being rational.

Well if the only basis for calling someone a nazi is they want Jews dead based on your paragraph I’d say Palestinians fit the bill big chief

It wasn’t a bait, it was ironic because I was also replaced relax big chief

so does that make Palestinians nazis?

Thank you. @Wawayou’re honestly as bad as the people you claim to hate

Can you explain the basis for this accusation? Where are you getting the information that Ukraine and Russia has nazis? Can you also explain how the comparison is appropriate to this situation versus what Hitler did?

That’s why you got replaced

It’s just the beta release don’t worry

Aight I’ll start playing on the servers again he got me boys

yall just needa 4 for 4 holy fuck

@Bondairy honestly, i'd have more respect for this post if you had been anywhere near the top. Sorry to tell you but if your rank is at risk for inactivity then you are no where near close enough to the top where you can have this amount of vitriol. You've neither put the time nor effort in. None of us just played games with people to get promotions. @Cautionhas permed me at least 8 times since I signed up on this website, and I still made it to IA/LSM. I've never even been in the same server as any of the BD's that promoted me except for like 1 or 2. And I knew them for like 7 or 8 years before my promotions were even brought. You don't start a job and then go tell the CEO how to run the business. You definitely don't get fired and come back and try to give advice.(thats for me and @delirium let us work our magic) If you have such grand ideas, go fucking start your own community. Kinda sad that you put more effort into this rant then you ever have into furthering the community. /thread

The fuck else you need kid you blew it we all know it. Why you the only one pretending you did something eh?

@Cautionaight chief time to let me back on board and do gods work.

/thread @Daft Do what all of us that saw an issue with something did. Put a lid on the troll, play payday 2 with Caution, and climb back up the ranks, get burnt out, take lid of trolling, get demoted, become hated by everyone who asked you for advice.

I would have been permed years ago if this was the mentality which the majority of people would probably agree, is a good thing. The only thing that's kept me around is playing the technicality game and that's the only thing keeping most people around that annoys everyone.

The system that you say is so bad, is the system that built the foundation for the community. When we had very low player base and just started out, people were not annoying on the servers, and when they were admins and the player base bullied them out. The quality of the player base on the servers was better so when new people joined they came back. Now if you've never seen SG before and you join JB, other than being neurotic, there is no reason for a relaxed, sensible, cool, person to come back. We will never find a common ground because half the community thinks it should be a safe space for everyone and the other half wants a fun environment. You can't have one without getting rid of the other. Also, can you explain why it WOULDN'T work? Logically, if you let admins ban annoying people, you're getting rid of people who are hindering the server and making the sever a more enjoyable place. From the post above, when lynxie joins a server, you lose out on player base because his presence is clearly annoying to people. I just want to be clear here, what your saying is that it is not okay to ban one annoying person to make the server better for all and in turn better SG, unless he is directly breaking a rule. He doesn't break any rules but from what I've gathered, whether he joins a server and just does what he normally does, or joins a server spinbotting, the result would be the same, except one let's you ban him once and for all. So yes, ban them. Ban them like we did during prime SG. I mean what do you have to lose that you're not already currently losing?

cause enabling them has worked wonders

@deliriumsup qt

inherent superiority of a particular race How does using their "life experiences as a black/asian/hispanic/white" to interpret the foundation of American law being a major qualification checkbox over merit in your field of occupation not constitute as racism? You are just saying that "In this situation, you cannot relate because you're white, so we need someone who's black that can properly relate and interpret the situation" Correct me if I'm wrong. The way I'm interpreting the whole argument is their process will look like this: Is said candidate black and female and what are their merits in their occupation? If yes for 1 and 2, put to top of pile, check back on third later. If no for 1 and 2, put to bottom of pile, check back if we can't make a compelling case for priority 1. What I'm saying is that the question should be: What are said candidates merits in their occupation? What someone's childhood and early adult years are like should be irrelevant to interpreting the law since that changes over time. The law is the law. Freedom of speech should be interpreted now the same way it was when it was written. If freedom of speech was reinterpreted to suit todays political/social climate I think it's fair to agree that we would live in a much different society. Which is why I don't think someone's experiences in life should be part of the deciding factor of the potential trajectory of the future of the country. Can you elaborate on what your interpretation is?

I haven't read all the responses yet but I do want to address this. The supreme court is not here to make a decision on the morality of ANYTHING. They are there to uphold the Constitution AS WRITTEN. They are not here to interpret the Constitution based on their experiences in life and render a decision. The morality of the mask mandate from my point of view is, it's a good idea to force people to wear masks in public areas so we can save as many people as possible. That's a very good morale stance to take on the mask mandates. Its not Constitutionally legal, as the document is currently written. Regardless of how good the intentions are or how moral it is. Diversity does not matter. Being a judge is arguably the job that requires the most OBJECTIVITY. If you are bringing your past experiences and feelings into account when rendering a judgement you are not a good judge. The Supreme Court sets precedents. Bringing your feelings into setting a precedent for 300 million people is, in my opinion, a very bad thing. @Phoenix_ I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you view it as non-discriminatory because the perception is the black female demographic is being oppressed at the moment so if we get a black female then they aren't being as oppressed? I think that's your view, I'm not quiet sure. Racism is not whites hating blacks or blacks hating whites. Racism is not, white people are gaining resources at the detriment of black people. Racism is, I don't like you because your white. Racism is also, I like you because your black. If you are determining anything, and taking race into account, that, at least in my view and how I'm interpreting the official definition, is racism. This is not directed at anyone specific: Webster Dictionaries Definition of Racism - by this definition how is selecting a judge and using skin color as a metric not racist? You are almost fully saying that because she is a black female, she will have knowledge that is superior to others and therefore will make a better judgement? And if you aren't saying that, can someone explain to me how being a black female supreme court judge who is supposed to be objective and impartial is any different from a white, asian, or hispanic supreme court judge who is supposed to be objective and impartial. I'm almost positive if you walked into the interview and said "I plan on using my past experiences in life to help me render judgement in cases" you would not get the job as a judge at any court black, white, asian, or hispanic. What if she never gets a case where she needs to draw on those experiences? What case would you say is acceptable to draw on your personal feelings and experiences as a SCOTUS judge to render a fair judgement. Let's use the most recent Supreme Court case as an example. When it comes to the mask mandate case, can anyone here tell me how being a black female would change the fact that it was against the Constitution? @Kieran Personally, I don't think the color of your skin is what affects your life. I think it's the culture around it. Why did Ben Carson graduate from college but Nas couldn't get in? Both are black. Both are rich. Both have something that is studied by college students. And how come, the rich black people, historically will tell you that getting out of a mostly black environment was the best thing they ever did? If you want to talk about shielded I don't think you've looked at what people who are just coming out of the hood are saying about the hood. Or people currently in the projects. Hell, have you ever stepped foot in a project? It's not just black people. Just like the suburbs is not just white people. Your skin color has very little to do with how you grow up and experience life. The culture around you is the reason. Most schools that have majority black kids can barely graduate their students. Is that the white man bringing them down? It's a culture thing. Black people in general, don't appreciate education as much as asian or white households. And if you can't admit that, you've been shielded from that reality or you just aren't mature enough to make that admission. For anyone who wants to discredit him because he speaks his mind and it doesn't make sense to you. Maybe follow his lead a bit, he seems to be doing something right. TL;DR - Taking race into account is inherently racist. Good or bad. Fair doesn't mean right.

Honestly, I'm kinda in total agreeance with Daft on it's the people not the managers. At some point, you can say they aren't doing enough, too much, etc.. but this problem is something that has been brewing since before most of the people currently playing the servers. JB has ALWAYS been annoying, as far as I'm personally concerned, since it became a CSGO server. I took a 4-5 year break and when I came back I heard the exact same sentiments that chased alot of older people away, the player base got young, kids got annoying, but the rules stopped people from telling those kids they were annoying because of changing times and political correctness etc etc.. And now you have dead servers because nobody wants to play with the cunty kids and CS isn't as "IN" as it used to be. I really think the community as a whole should move away from thinking about what can revive a CSGO server and start thinking about the new games we can get into or how to restructure SG in a way that can branch out to multiple games while still having an active "community" feel to it. I also don't think its outlandish to say the player base killed itself. I think it's more outlandish to pretend they died of natural causes to protect one's own ego.

Relax kid, we know what your capable of

I see what your thought process is. But even if they were willing to turn on sv_cheats, people tend to use the simplest strategy. You can't throw a fake if they see through walls so that takes that strategy off the board. You can't lurk around since all you would really accomplish is killing players who are unaware or not paying attention. It would basically become people staring at each other through the wall and brute forcing their way in. Someone sitting in a corner that you can see? Well, your options are to pop flash and hope they don't turn, though someone seeing you through walls can probably anticipate the flash coming, molly them out of said corner into your xhair which then just then forces them out of their spot and they would have to peek you, and the last and most likely "strategy", pre-aim their head and run out and hope your reflexes and strafe mechanics are better than theirs. Basically, it wouldn't be as deep as you think it is. Information is everything in a scrim and freely having it turns it into CoD with extra steps. Good idea though, definitely an out of box idea that I have not seen before.

your ability to post memes far out weighs your ability to come up with events for ze

no it hasnt