diamond_ace

What is fantrax, I might do this

Mostly my point is that what you guys are picturing as "wedding" isn't what we're doing - a lot of the details aren't finalized yet, I mean it's been 5 days, but whatever we do is going to be far from traditional, so most of the stuff for standard weddings (not all, just most) will be pretty irrelevant to us.

and absolutely not the cake

She's not doing it, she's planning on her coworkers doing it

Lolno shes a chef

Money or no, she wants real flowers. Also, I appreciate all the advice from so many people but we're having a really unweddingy wedding so a lot of this I'm expecting won't apply

I have 2 friends that are both pro photographers

Watching the FF10 videos now. You guys do some good shit. Seriously considering watching some of the ones for games I'm not even remotely interested in, because you'll make them interesting anyway

Yep, just got a thing in the mail about the debt a few days ago actually. I'm making a good bit more in my current job than I have in any of my prior jobs, so I'm actually a little better on that end than I would have been at other points. I'm putting in a good bit for retirement (also a bit older than you so I'm kind of expected to) but we're also pretty frequently traveling so it balances out.

It was clearly a shorthand, jokey version of the arguments. There was obviously a lot more to it The fact that he's willing to play semantics makes it easy to play semantics back at him, as someone with a lot stronger skill in that area. There might be 3 or so posts he made in this thread that didn't have at least some form of logical fallacy, and even those were putting words in other people's mouths (or into their hands, since it's a forum). We're taking a while for that - the wedding itself won't be until fall of 2021. There's a reason as to why, but it's a topic best not discussed here.

To be fair, for any defensive award, our arguments basically boiled down to: me: shot blocks are a thing you: shot blocks are not a thing Also, yes I did, super happy

1m to go to Ottawa and sack all the goalies

Ottawa offers 1m. 3rd line and some PP/PK, and a contending team.

Personally, I don't feel any need to limit it, but one year is better than none. Most active guys will be up by then anyway, although guys like Kiaskov would get the shit end of it.

What happens if they do this? Then they do this. So be it. It doesn't break the league to let people enjoy things.

No, he's stevo. Doesn't change the fact that I have 5 other d, none of which are inactive. Old member or new, he'd be in the same boat as the rest, except for Gate and Jokinen who have TPE from the end of last season. Good teams have a lot of actives, bad teams don't and can therefore give more playing time. I know, I was on the opposite side of it last season.

Ottawa offers 1m. At this time I can only start off with 3rd pair and some PP/PK time, as I have a bunch of new draftees on defense. With activity though, comes the opportunity to move up. We should be a better team this year than Vegas though, so it's all in what you'd rather get out of it.

Also, I've never said every opinion is right. I've actually stated the exact opposite - opinions, by their nature, can't actually be right (or wrong). As for your "black people are less intelligent" thing, that's not an opinion, it's a statement of value, as it's something that can be tested by quantifiable measures. One can test to determine the truth or fallacy of that statement, therefore it can't be an opinion. It is patently false, of course. On average, races aren't more or less intelligent than each other.

The basis of democracy is actually that each person has a vote. Having tools and information is not actually a requirement - some might say the USA has ended up in its current predicament solely because a bunch of people lacked tools and information and voted for a fucking reality star (and others might say that people lacked tools and information in order to vote the opposite way, just to be fair about it), but when tools and information aren't a requirement for something as important as an election in real life then they sure as hell aren't a requirement for an award vote in a sim league. No one ever said this was a democracy, but no, having tools and information is not a requirement in a democracy. Additionally, you posit your argument as "didn't vote for me" = "lacked tools and information" when in reality it is "didn't vote for me" = "voted based on different criteria than I did, considers the award in a different way" - different criteria aren't wrong, they're simply different criteria. You've yet to make one single salient point as to why everyone must judge the award based on your criteria and yours alone.

No one will convince you of this for 2 reasons: 1. You are the points guy. If you were the goalie, you'd be so strongly convinced that you wouldn't hear arguments in favor of the points guy. 2. They don't fucking have to.

First off, the flat earth argument is a non sequitur. It is simply unrelated to the topic at hand and any conclusion drawn from it has no bearing on this issue. (For what it's worth, the world is obviously round, but again, not relevant). Now, back on topic: No, the structure of this vote does not require people to judge the validity of opinions. It especially does not require people to pass one particular member's shit test, when that member is positioning the argument as "IF vote for me THEN right; IF vote for anyone else THEN wrong" No one has to be judged. That's not how this vote works. That's not how this vote has ever worked. If in the future, it did become a vote that required judging, the judgment committee would not be comprised of a single member, it would be a group of members (as in, other people's criteria besides your own would still matter). At no point will this league ever create an award where the criteria for voting is "does boubabi like your argument" because they know better than to do that.

Funny - you see the argument when it's anyone but yourself. Who are you to judge?

Bolded the part I did because it highlights the point. People aren't sharing their votes (not that they're required to) because you're positioning yourself as judge, jury, and executioner as to whether an argument is "valid" - it's impossible to create an argument against your player if you're the arbiter of whether the argument is valid. Someone could come out here with a fucking 95 Theses proving, definitively, that player X deserves their vote according to the criteria that they consider valuable to the discussion and the award. You'd write the whole thing off because the argument isn't "boubabi made player X" so there's no point in even humoring you in the first place.

I don't need to, nor do they. My entire point has been that votes don't need to be defended, they are the views of the individual. To defend them would be to undermine my entire point.

You don't have to "deal with" any voters, you need to deal with your own need to fit everyone into a box. Different people vote differently, just as different people do a lot of things differently. That's how society works. If you want an army of clones of yourself, that's your problem, not everyone else's. Clearly you're not fine with that, or this wouldn't be an issue.