Forums Discussion v2 - GO TO PAGE 109 FOR SOMETHING NEAT
4,995 replies, posted
Anime mods were a mistake.
[QUOTE=yellowoboe;52424539]Anime mods were a mistake.[/QUOTE]
*teleports behind u*
Know that I'm merely letting you live
Don't try it. I'm used to burning garbage.
if you haven't shitposted at least once, you're not human
[QUOTE=yellowoboe;52424574]Don't try it. I'm used to burning garbage.[/QUOTE]
Don't think its wise to burn yourself.
Forums Discussion v2 - Free Roastings From the Mods
[QUOTE=Reagy;52424659]Don't think its wise to burn yourself.[/QUOTE]
Sorry. I like the pain.
Its impossible to boostar anymore, correct?
[QUOTE=YOMIURA;52424812]Its impossible to boostar anymore, correct?[/QUOTE]
yes, thanks to issues concerning taxes.
these roastings fucking suck
so i know the title change thing was mentioned, is a one time deal or do we get the ability to change our title whenever we want
[img]http://i.imgur.com/u8gZgEI.png[/img]
Hezzy undelete it for a second, I need to read those posts
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;52425029]so i know the title change thing was mentioned, is a one time deal or do we get the ability to change our title whenever we want[/QUOTE]
if you paid for a title you can change it iirc
If I paid for someone else's title can I change theirs? Also, when are we getting the feature to change someone else's avatar?
[QUOTE=aurum481;52425132][img]http://i.imgur.com/u8gZgEI.png[/img]
Hezzy undelete it for a second, I need to read those posts[/QUOTE]
HMU on steam
[QUOTE=Arc Nova;52424827]these roastings fucking suck[/QUOTE]
hey congrats on getting mod
Where's Ehmmett
[QUOTE=Ehmmett;52425595]what do you mean im right here guys[/QUOTE]
I'm calling fake, I can't feel loathing in this post
[QUOTE=bloboo;52425786]is it possible to bank ban time? Like if a user requests to be banned for a month for no reason, comes back after the ban, can he post 1 month of bans worth of shitposts with impunity?[/QUOTE]
We already have compound interest on bans, don't want mods getting ideas with ban time loans
[QUOTE=icemaz;52425363]hey congrats on getting mod[/QUOTE]
wow
[QUOTE=Arc Nova;52425891]wow[/QUOTE]
after all these years
--
[QUOTE=Ehmmett;52425595]what do you mean im right here guys[/QUOTE]
How did he...
I feel like that was the equivalent to puppetplaying a dead body.
[QUOTE=pentium;52426704]How did he...
I feel like that was the equivalent to puppetplaying a dead body.[/QUOTE]
Weekend at Ehmmet's coming this Fall to a silver screen near you!
Is there a beach at the refugee camp
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Winner!!!" - Bradyns))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;52426861]Is there a beach at the refugee camp[/QUOTE]
[highlight]Congratulations, you're the 2,502nd poster![/highlight]
You are the winner of an all expenses paid 7 day trip to the Refugee Camp.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;52426907][highlight]Congratulations, you're the 2,502nd poster![/highlight]
You are the winner of an all expenses paid 7 day trip to the Refugee Camp.[/QUOTE]
:bullshit:
[QUOTE=Bradyns;52426907][highlight]Congratulations, you're the 2,502nd poster![/highlight]
You are the winner of an all expenses paid 7 day trip to the Refugee Camp.[/QUOTE]
Monty Hall, he only wanted to see what was behind Door Number 2.
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52427109]5 days late should of yelled when it was actually new[/QUOTE]
So are you saying that it is actually a shit article from a moderator's standpoint?
I'm not chastising you for it being too late to ban, I just want to know for future precedence since every now and then a shit article gets posted in Sensationalist Headlines but I'm too cautious to report it.
Also a thing I want to soapbox about is that just because a news organization has a mediabiasfactcheck rating of "least biased" with "high" factual reporting doesn't mean the news article is 100% perfect. "high" factual reporting isn't even the highest rating you can get. For example, that news article with the misleading title + contrent [URL="https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news/"]meets the criteria[/URL] for a polidicks article but obviously it wasn't a good article.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52427097][URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1569397[/URL] okay so this thread kinda eh.
Not only is the thread title and the article itself heavily editorialized to the extent that it heavily contradicts the study itself,
[URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1569397&p=52407825&viewfull=1#post52407825[/URL]
But the whole thing is a steaming sack of shit because the study is fundamentally flawed in its methodology that is to say it excludes 40% of Seattle's workforce. Problem being that most people (FPers are no different) don't actually read articles or examine the studies themselves, so threads like these can be used to spread misinformation or affirm unfounded beliefs. First few posts are pretty damning evidence.
So uh should threads like these have their titles updated or something?[/QUOTE]
Minimum wage studies pretty much always work with intentionally limited industries you know that rite?
Like the big card-krueger study that has pretty much set the economics world in flames for the last couple of decades regarding minimum wage only targeted restaurant workers. What location things are compared too also isn't atypical, it's a big problem a lot of these studies have to sort out.
It's not exactly a steaming sack of shit, steaming sacks of shit are those who misuse these studies. Pretty much every minimum wage debate on the internet consists of one side taking the studies that supports their thesis and ignoring the rest. Otherwise I just copied the least sensationalist article I could find at the same (most were fucking cancer,) and I reused their title as usual.
Hell I pretty carefully mentioned "ambiguous" in my blurb in the OP. Because we won't be able to speak with confidence on the Seattle $15 minimum until the economists have kicked the ball back and forth for awhile.
I might also even go as far to say that, on a colloquial level, people consider hours cut and benefits lost to count as lost jobs. Because when I see conservatives try to say the minimum wage costs jobs, and they go into their analysis/explanation, they usually lump those in. But w/e.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.