: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=000300020001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-07T06:45:43.169+0000) > > Bullshit that's been proven wrong. > In this thread. > You're not listening. > Fuck, you're not even trying. > It seems like you don't actually give half a fuck about fact. > > Wait, no, that's rather clear at this point. > > Also, you're a fucking moron. > > The company's going to cut employees, but divide up the work that they'd otherwise give to said employees to the other ones. To maintain productivity they'd have to give the other employees hours that equal that of the ones they let go, which subsequently wouldn't save them a fucking dime. > So they'd have to be functionally retarded to take that course of action. > Not to mention it'd drive down productivity by overworking the workers they retain and, this may be an effect of the fact that I should be asleep right now if not for Fire Emblem being goddamn addicting, odds are you'd have to pay the workers you retain overtime pay for the excessive amount of time worked. > > Which means that the companies would be paying more for inferior quality work. Fucking great plan, that one. > > Read the study I linked you. There should be a small box. Click on it. Read. > Stop being an idiot. > > Or, if you so like, look up ***any other fucking study on the subject***. > It doesn't take a lot of looking to find conclusive evidence of just how fucking wrong you are. > At this point your ignorance can only be described as willful. Do you have any idea how a business works? Wait, never mind. Don't answer that because clearly you don't. You speak the same arguments, and still don't understand why yours are flawed while stating the reasons mine are correct. Businesses are out to make a profit. What happens when a business keeps all of its employees, but spends more on paying them? Profits go down. So they either cut wages or cut employees to maintain it. If business is good enough, they can consider expanding WITH PLENTY OF MONEY TO PAY THE MASSIVE UP FRONT COSTS OF GETTING A PROPERTY, BUILDING AND MORE EMPLOYEES. Profits don't just happen overnight. They happen over a long period of time. And again, the majority of a business' gross income is going right back into the company already for the employee payments and anything else they need to remain in business. And again, you're not even considering small businesses that are going to be a lot more tightly budgeted because they don't make as much. Are you trying to drown out small business? Because it sure as hell sounds like it.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=00030002000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2016-06-07T07:12:32.999+0000) > > I've read it. > > Frankly, I'm still not inclined to believe you. > > It mentioned that raising minimum wage should reduce turnover. But it didn't really say how or why it would. > > Each of those fast food chains are losing those employees to other jobs for some reason. Why would raising minimum wage change the most likely reason for those employees to change jobs? > > The job they're moving to will still pay more for one reason or another. Because minimum wage went up, the company would raise their wages in turn to make sure they keep their employees. That turnover will still be there. > > Explain that before trying to move on. Ask yourself why you would leave a shitty job. Or don't, because I just answered that question. When your job is shit, your reason for staying at it doesn't exist. Which leads to high turnover. If the job is somehow less shit. Like, per say, the individual makes enough money to live off said job, they'll be less likely to jump ship. If their job isn't shit, they're not likely to hear about that other job. Because they're not likely to be thinking, hey, this job is shit and I need to get the fuck out of it. Which leaves them at a job which isn't shit, and lowers the turnover rate. Shit job turns into trying your best to find a better one. Non-shit job means not doing so. It's simple.
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=00030002000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-07T05:07:50.099+0000) > > We have in the past without fail. > > Or, more likely, companies would keep jobs where they are, as they have done in the past. > Barring some shitty trade deal like the TPP coming along. We do need to get that shit sorted out. > > The only math I can see in this thread was in response to me and was refuted, by me, in far greater effect than it was originally presented with. > The fact that you'd even try to bring it up is actually pretty fucking laughable. > > But, hey, I'm bored. > And I'll use a fallacy lifeline. > > Don't trust me. > Trust the over six hundred economists who know what the fuck they're talking about. > http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/ > > This shit has been done before. > It's demonstrated that you're wrong. > > It's been studied rather extensively. > And it's demonstrated that you're wrong. > > Fact of the matter is that **you're wrong**. Here's the funny part, I've read the entire text provided (which wasn't much) and I saw nothing to convince me that there was a guaranteed good effect. Simply "could" and "Data has shown little to no negative effect". There are no certainties nor data shown. Maybe the data wouldn't be released, which I could deal with. But to say that I'm proven wrong just because a bunch of economists say "minimum wage increase SHOULD increase jobs" is nothing short of you running out of arguments. I'm also going to remind you, 600 economists doesn't say much. Especially when there's probably a hundred thousand who study the field out of the millions of American citizens. Also, how am I to know immediately that they're the best in their field? Sure, I could look them up. But have you done the same? You've run out of arguments. You didn't even look at the worded math on page 5 from me and you still think I have no idea what I'm talking about. You clearly think we can spend our way out of debt. That's not how debt works. Debt means you're spending more than you're making and you need to change gears so that you're not continually losing money.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=000300020001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-07T05:29:37.622+0000) > > Here's the funny part, I've read the entire text provided (which wasn't much) and I saw nothing to convince me that there was a guaranteed good effect. Simply "could" and "Data has shown little to no negative effect". There are no certainties nor data shown. > > Maybe the data wouldn't be released, which I could deal with. But to say that I'm proven wrong just because a bunch of economists say "minimum wage increase SHOULD increase jobs" is nothing short of you running out of arguments. > > I'm also going to remind you, 600 economists doesn't say much. Especially when there's probably a hundred thousand who study the field out of the millions of American citizens. Also, how am I to know immediately that they're the best in their field? Sure, I could look them up. But have you done the same? > > You've run out of arguments. You didn't even look at the worded math on page 5 from me and you still think I have no idea what I'm talking about. You clearly think we can spend our way out of debt. That's not how debt works. Debt means you're spending more than you're making and you need to change gears so that you're not continually losing money. Yeah, it was a letter, not a study. I'm guessing you haven't taken even two seconds to actually study the subject so I'm just going to use the literal first study I find and go to the conclusion. On account of it being so late that it's technically slightly early. http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Minimum-Wage-Basics-Business-Effects.pdf The conclusion reached. Which is in fact more nuanced than I expected. "The most recent and sophisticated research – as well as the experiences of leading employers like Trader Joe’s, Costco and thousands of small businesses – strongly suggest that higher wages increase incomes for low-wage workers without reducing overall employment or hurting businesses. Not only do employers benefit from the savings they accrue from lower turnover and higher productivity; they also benefit from an increase in demand for the goods and services they offer. As observers from Nick Hanauer to Larry Summers point out, workers are customers – and the better a worker’s ability to participate in the economy as a consumer, the better off will be both individual businesses and the economy as a whole." A factor I hadn't previously considered is productivity. If you've got a worker who's constantly stressed that he or she is literally not going to be able to get through the next month, odds are they're going to do a shittier job, which will hurt profits. God damn your stupidity is forcing me to learn new shit about a subject that I almost couldn't care any less about. Feel free to look for other studies. I'm absolutely confident they're going to sing the same tune.
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=000300020001000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-07T01:40:52.864+0000) > > In a single state. > They moved the jobs elsewhere in the US, as they're spiteful and it's not particularly difficult. Know what'd happen if it was federally mandated in every state? > > Like every time in the past, the corporations would maintain their employees. Because moving shit overseas isn't quite as easy and moving it elsewhere in the country gets them nothing. > > We've done this in the past. > Multiple times. > Done right there is literally no downside. You're assuming we can do it right. On top of this, if people are moving out of state due to an inability to get jobs within their own state due to a raise in minimum wage there, why do you think more jobs will spring up in the state next door if the minimum wage was raised in every continental state? We'd have to start crossing the border to even get a job. I've already illustrated the math on previous pages. You don't want to acknowledge that it's right because "they could make do without the extra employees". You're completely missing the point of the entire argument and that's what makes it pathetic.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=0003000200010000000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-07T04:26:44.373+0000) > > You're assuming we can do it right. We have in the past without fail. > > On top of this, if people are moving out of state due to an inability to get jobs within their own state due to a raise in minimum wage there, why do you think more jobs will spring up in the state next door if the minimum wage was raised in every continental state? We'd have to start crossing the border to even get a job. Or, more likely, companies would keep jobs where they are, as they have done in the past. Barring some shitty trade deal like the TPP coming along. We do need to get that shit sorted out. > > I've already illustrated the math on previous pages. You don't want to acknowledge that it's right because "they could make do without the extra employees". You're completely missing the point of the entire argument and that's what makes it pathetic. The only math I can see in this thread was in response to me and was refuted, by me, in far greater effect than it was originally presented with. The fact that you'd even try to bring it up is actually pretty fucking laughable. But, hey, I'm bored. And I'll use a fallacy lifeline. Don't trust me. Trust the over six hundred economists who know what the fuck they're talking about. http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/ This shit has been done before. It's demonstrated that you're wrong. It's been studied rather extensively. And it's demonstrated that you're wrong. Fact of the matter is that **you're wrong**.
Rioter Comments
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=0003000200010000,timestamp=2016-06-07T01:22:45.326+0000) > > You might have had a point if this hadn't been proven wrong literally every time we've raised the minimum wage. > > And by literally I mean literally. but jobs in seattle literally decreased after they raised minimum wage to $15
> [{quoted}](name=Endogenic,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=00030002000100000000,timestamp=2016-06-07T01:35:51.598+0000) > > but jobs in seattle literally decreased after they raised minimum wage to $15 In a single state. They moved the jobs elsewhere in the US, as they're spiteful and it's not particularly difficult. Know what'd happen if it was federally mandated in every state? Like every time in the past, the corporations would maintain their employees. Because moving shit overseas isn't quite as easy and moving it elsewhere in the country gets them nothing. We've done this in the past. Multiple times. Done right there is literally no downside.
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=00030002,timestamp=2016-06-05T00:48:18.731+0000) > > Because we don't want hard working citizens starving despite working full time? > > I mean, it'd be nice if every job was high end giving you the big bucks, but fact of the matter is that a lot of them aren't quite so cushy and there're going to be people who rely on them to get by. except if you increase the min wage, companies will hire less people and the unemployment rates will go up. What's better, less people with any money, or some people with living wages?
> [{quoted}](name=Ashe Support,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=000300020001,timestamp=2016-06-07T01:19:00.813+0000) > > except if you increase the min wage, companies will hire less people and the unemployment rates will go up. > > What's better, less people with any money, or some people with living wages? You might have had a point if this hadn't been proven wrong literally every time we've raised the minimum wage. And by literally I mean literally.
Rioter Comments
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=Ph5np7PR,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2016-06-06T18:16:44.915+0000) > > Not feasible. > > Why? > Because we don't need a dedicated map to play ARAM. > > Context? > ARAM originally wasn't even a coded game mode. ARAM, in its original state, was a type of custom game with honor rules. > A person would make a custom gamed labeled "ARAM", people would file in, and everyone would get a random champion and just play the game in mid lane. Occasionally you'd get that one asshole, but for the most part it worked well. > If you deleted the official ARAM, people would just go back to doing that. Technically you don't need a dedicated map for all for one, urf, or hexakill. If you took away ARAM, sure people would go back to doing it custom games because they can. If players could do one for all or urf in custom games, they would too. I'm saying make the other game modes either permanent, or available in customs.
> [{quoted}](name=Bunny Bells,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=Ph5np7PR,comment-id=00090000,timestamp=2016-06-06T18:43:34.652+0000) > > Technically you don't need a dedicated map for all for one, urf, or hexakill. If you took away ARAM, sure people would go back to doing it custom games because they can. If players could do one for all or urf in custom games, they would too. > > I'm saying make the other game modes either permanent, or available in customs. Except duplicate champion picks, 80% CDR, and six player teams are all impossible to make in a custom game. Each of the three require coding changes and can't be achieved by ten people making an honor pact to play a game a specific way. With ARAM, you don't need any special code. With all the other game modes, you do. Now, really, I'd love to see toggles for custom games so that we could have AFO Hexakill ARAM matches. I really would. But doing that would require some form of work to achieve. Wherein ARAM is basically a social contract for a game.
: I think ARAM is outdated
Not feasible. Why? Because we don't need a dedicated map to play ARAM. Context? ARAM originally wasn't even a coded game mode. ARAM, in its original state, was a type of custom game with honor rules. A person would make a custom gamed labeled "ARAM", people would file in, and everyone would get a random champion and just play the game in mid lane. Occasionally you'd get that one asshole, but for the most part it worked well. If you deleted the official ARAM, people would just go back to doing that.
: So i'm playing a ranked game with my 4M premade
Then he sends in a ticket asking why the fuck he was banned, Riot takes two seconds to look at the case, and you/yours end up banned instead.
: Give me a movie to watch.
Kill six billion demons. Except read it instead of watch. 'Cause it's a webcomic.
: What are your favorite Champion quotes?
I'm not heartless. I looooove beating!
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=000300020000000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-05T02:20:51.526+0000) > > Generally speaking it's not going to be a forty year old dude. But all the same, my response to such a simpleminded why: > http://killsixbilliondemons.com/comic/wielder-of-names-4-74/ Okay, so your "Why not" is basically on enabling anyone to live on any job they work full time on. So, in translation, why not allow people in their 30's and 40's 20 years from now to keep living as a full time cashier at McDonald's. Explain to me how that logic is wrong based on your explanation.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=0003000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-05T02:37:00.910+0000) > > Okay, so your "Why not" is basically on enabling anyone to live on any job they work full time on. > > So, in translation, why not allow people in their 30's and 40's 20 years from now to keep living as a full time cashier at McDonald's. > > Explain to me how that logic is wrong based on your explanation. Because the motivation for climbing the ladder shouldn't be life or death, it should be amount of luxury. Someone getting by on 15$ an hour isn't likely to be able to afford a whole lot of shit. Y'know, on account of being minimum wage. They're not going to be dumpster diving to get by, but all the same, they're not going to have a computer with four moniters that take up entire walls. Get a better lot in life, you get some luxuries. Like the ability to have a social life. Or get therapy. Or whatever the fuck people spend money on. It's an incentive that works without starving people.
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=0003000200000000,timestamp=2016-06-05T02:02:48.199+0000) > > Shit excuse to justify shitty jobs. > > This only holds true if you apply that logic to every job. > You're hurting the economy by reducing the number of jobs available. The logic is so sound. > > Wouldn't that be 60,000 in profit? > I mean, the "labor" part of the materials and labor section seems like it should account for the employee pay. > > Except that's not how businesses work. > If they could've gotten away with having thirteen employees, they would have, and would've reduced the amount they need to spend on employees to 13000. Fact of the matter is that they still have a quota to meet, which requires them to maintain the amount of workers they have. > As such they'll keep the twenty, and pay them 1500 cents an hour. Because I'm adding an actual unit to your unitlessness. This equates to three hundred dollars an hour in revenue for the workers, which at worst means that the operating costs are 700$/h. > And if we actually use logic, it's 500$/h. > But in the worst case they're still making 300$/h in profit. As opposed to 400$. Oh fucking no the company's definitely going under now, isn't it. > > Actually, no. > They'll just have to either A: > Pay their useless shitlord CEO's a little bit less. Or, B: > Wait to expand a little bit longer. > > In a worst case scenario. > But, funny thing about that, is that there's another factor at play. > > Workers generally don't horde their money. They spend it. They go out and buy more things, meaning other businesses need more workers, who they now have to pay better. > Said workers also go out and buy shit. This eventually comes back to the original company who, due to the fact that the community they're serving can now better afford their services more, ends up getting more business. > Which means their profits go up and, at the same time, they need more workers to successfully meet the new demands placed on them. > > 'Cause, here's the thing. > We've tried the whole raising the minimum wage thing. > People have cried doom every time. Oh, no, it'll cost us jobs, they cry. It'll tank the economy. > And you know what the funny thing is? > > They've been wrong. > Literally. > Every. > Single. > Fucking. > Time. > > 'Cause here's the thing. > Last year, Mc'donalds had a gross income of 15.6 billion dollars. > They're not hurting for money in the fucking least. It'd be a pittance to give their workers a little extra. It wouldn't drive them out of business, it wouldn't make it so that they need to increase costs, it would probably be barely noticeable to the top of the food chain. Explain to me why a 40 year old man should be able to pay off his house, groceries and any other living requirements by working as a cashier at McDonald's 40 hours a week. They're shitty jobs for a reason. They're not meant to be an income you can live off of. Also, the $40,000 mentioned was more akin to paying managers or other employees higher up and qualified to do more than being a cashier, but still working at a local level on top of paying for materials like the TV and various foods. It's still only 40,000 in profit. I'll admit that I stated it a bit awkwardly.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=00030002000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-05T02:15:25.665+0000) > > Explain to me why a 40 year old man should be able to pay off his house, groceries and any other living requirements by working as a cashier at McDonald's 40 hours a week. > > They're shitty jobs for a reason. They're not meant to be an income you can live off of. > > Also, the $40,000 mentioned was more akin to paying managers or other employees higher up and qualified to do more than being a cashier, but still working at a local level on top of paying for materials like the TV and various foods. It's still only 40,000 in profit. I'll admit that I stated it a bit awkwardly. Generally speaking it's not going to be a forty year old dude. But all the same, my response to such a simpleminded why: http://killsixbilliondemons.com/comic/wielder-of-names-4-74/
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=00030002,timestamp=2016-06-05T00:48:18.731+0000) > > Because we don't want hard working citizens starving despite working full time? > > I mean, it'd be nice if every job was high end giving you the big bucks, but fact of the matter is that a lot of them aren't quite so cushy and there're going to be people who rely on them to get by. Some jobs are intended as supplemental income. Not living wages. If you're trying to live off the wages from being a cashier at McDonald's, you're hurting the economy by reducing the number of jobs available. Say a business makes 100,000, and has to budget 20,000 for wages, 40,000 for materials and labor, and 40,000 would be profit. This business has 20 employees and minimum wage is 1,000. Now, if the minimum wage was raised to 1,500, the company now has to pay all of those employees additional money and that would cut into their profits. So to keep costs down, they cut employees down to 13 to remain within budget at 19,500. They may potentially go to 21000 wage budget and have 14 employees, but either way they're losing 1/3 of their employees to make sure they can pay minimum wage.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=000300020000,timestamp=2016-06-05T01:35:54.820+0000) > > Some jobs are intended as supplemental income. Not living wages. Shit excuse to justify shitty jobs. > > If you're trying to live off the wages from being a cashier at McDonald's, you're hurting the economy by reducing the number of jobs available. This only holds true if you apply that logic to every job. You're hurting the economy by reducing the number of jobs available. The logic is so sound. > > Say a business makes 100,000, and has to budget 20,000 for wages, 40,000 for materials and labor, and 40,000 would be profit. This business has 20 employees and minimum wage is 1,000. Wouldn't that be 60,000 in profit? I mean, the "labor" part of the materials and labor section seems like it should account for the employee pay. > > Now, if the minimum wage was raised to 1,500, the company now has to pay all of those employees additional money and that would cut into their profits. So to keep costs down, they cut employees down to 13 to remain within budget at 19,500. They may potentially go to 21000 wage budget and have 14 employees, but either way they're losing 1/3 of their employees to make sure they can pay minimum wage. Except that's not how businesses work. If they could've gotten away with having thirteen employees, they would have, and would've reduced the amount they need to spend on employees to 13000. Fact of the matter is that they still have a quota to meet, which requires them to maintain the amount of workers they have. As such they'll keep the twenty, and pay them 1500 cents an hour. Because I'm adding an actual unit to your unitlessness. This equates to three hundred dollars an hour in revenue for the workers, which at worst means that the operating costs are 700$/h. And if we actually use logic, it's 500$/h. But in the worst case they're still making 300$/h in profit. As opposed to 400$. Oh fucking no the company's definitely going under now, isn't it. Actually, no. They'll just have to either A: Pay their useless shitlord CEO's a little bit less. Or, B: Wait to expand a little bit longer. In a worst case scenario. But, funny thing about that, is that there's another factor at play. Workers generally don't horde their money. They spend it. They go out and buy more things, meaning other businesses need more workers, who they now have to pay better. Said workers also go out and buy shit. This eventually comes back to the original company who, due to the fact that the community they're serving can now better afford their services more, ends up getting more business. Which means their profits go up and, at the same time, they need more workers to successfully meet the new demands placed on them. 'Cause, here's the thing. We've tried the whole raising the minimum wage thing. People have cried doom every time. Oh, no, it'll cost us jobs, they cry. It'll tank the economy. And you know what the funny thing is? They've been wrong. Literally. Every. Single. Fucking. Time. 'Cause here's the thing. Last year, Mc'donalds had a gross income of 15.6 billion dollars. They're not hurting for money in the fucking least. It'd be a pittance to give their workers a little extra. It wouldn't drive them out of business, it wouldn't make it so that they need to increase costs, it would probably be barely noticeable to the top of the food chain.
: Explain to me why part time entry-level jobs (such as in fast food) should be a wage you can live off of?
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JAJquikI,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2016-06-05T00:27:43.573+0000) > > Explain to me why entry-level jobs (such as in fast food) should be a wage you can live off of? Because we don't want hard working citizens starving despite working full time? I mean, it'd be nice if every job was high end giving you the big bucks, but fact of the matter is that a lot of them aren't quite so cushy and there're going to be people who rely on them to get by.
: God is voting for Hillary
Goddamn Morgan. Ya coulda backed the Bern.
Rioter Comments
: if light has mass then why do we call things with low mass light
> [{quoted}](name=Summoners Drift,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=UAnK2lEE,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2016-06-04T10:40:37.127+0000) > > if light has mass then why do we call things with low mass light Because horrifying scenes of violence are usually uncovered in the dark. Thus making darkness "heavy". And its opposite.... The opposite.
: Look man photons are weird and we all can't follow Neil DeGrasse Tyson on twitter
> [{quoted}](name=Social Justice 1,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=UAnK2lEE,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2016-06-04T10:37:07.211+0000) > > Look man photons are weird and we all can't follow Neil DeGrasse Tyson on twitter .... Huh. So apparently NdGT has a twitter. This shouldn't surprise me.
Rioter Comments
Jamaree (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Burger and Fries,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=KwZwj6AV,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2016-06-04T01:51:04.045+0000) > > It's still a bit ridiculous though, haha. Quite. On that note, I want to know if Litten's final evo will be Fire/Dark or Fire/Rock.
> [{quoted}](name=Jamaree,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=KwZwj6AV,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-04T01:52:27.568+0000) > > Quite. On that note, I want to know if Litten's final evo will be Fire/Dark or Fire/Rock. Wasn't it going to be fire/ground?
: What Kind Of Champion Is Taliyah?
She's an anti-mobility mage who likes to move alot.
QUAGSlRE (NA)
: name a pokemon better than quagsire
Damn it feels good to be a gangster. http://orig13.deviantart.net/886a/f/2014/165/7/c/ralts_by_dburch01-d7mc93a.png
Rioter Comments
: Riot now even abuses frogs
Was about to say that frogs don't have teeth, but damn. Frogs apparently have teeth.
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=KVVenE5E,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2016-06-01T17:26:18.352+0000) > > Implying that you can't build FFX characters any way you want? > > I had Yuna slapping bitches for 99999 damage with quick hit. Mostly because her ultimate weapon was easy as fawk to get and gave you 1mp cost. > Which made Passado wreck the living fuck out of things, lemme tell you. > > Like, are you implying that there isn't reason to use all your characters in FFX? Because there is, especially against bosses and stronger normal enemies. Against an Ochu Wakka ceases to be "that guy who kills flying things" and turns into "That guy who delays its next debilitating attack", and Auron ceases to be "That guy who kills armored enemies" whilst becoming "Your primary damage dealer". > And how good, pray tell, is the Odyssey's story? Because FFX's was fucking godly and rather original in and of itself. I explained about the plot already, final fantasy X didn't have an original plot, are you high?, maybe you didn't play many games at the time. Final fantasy 7 beats X in almost every way, why are defending X?. and yes, X has many build options, but the battle system is lacking and most people didn't have Expert grid new game back in the day.
> [{quoted}](name=Legendary Albert,realm=EUNE,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=KVVenE5E,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2016-06-01T18:27:09.817+0000) > > I explained about the plot already, final fantasy X didn't have an original plot, are you high?, maybe you didn't play many games at the time. Final fantasy 7 beats X in almost every way, why are defending X?. and yes, X has many build options, but the battle system is lacking and most people didn't have Expert grid new game back in the day. Yeah, you said something about immortality. That's not exactly new or revolutionary. Nor is it descriptive. FFX's plot, however, doesn't really have a parallel that I've ever seen. Not saying that Odyssey does, but by your description there's nothing particularly revolutionary. FFVII's only claim to fame is that it was the first 3D one. FFX has a better battle system, actual character building, a reason to use the entire cast instead of three completely interchangeable gits, a villain that's actually worth shit unlike the king of bad storytelling Sephiroth, and all the like. Even if you don't consider it the best in the numbered series...... For, y'know, whatever fucking reason...... It's definitely top tier.
Rioter Comments
: every time I start playing Final fantasy X I remember there's a better game called Lost odyssey.
Implying that you can't build FFX characters any way you want? I had Yuna slapping bitches for 99999 damage with quick hit. Mostly because her ultimate weapon was easy as fawk to get and gave you 1mp cost. Which made Passado wreck the living fuck out of things, lemme tell you. Like, are you implying that there isn't reason to use all your characters in FFX? Because there is, especially against bosses and stronger normal enemies. Against an Ochu Wakka ceases to be "that guy who kills flying things" and turns into "That guy who delays its next debilitating attack", and Auron ceases to be "That guy who kills armored enemies" whilst becoming "Your primary damage dealer". And how good, pray tell, is the Odyssey's story? Because FFX's was fucking godly and rather original in and of itself.
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=IqFKnqja,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2016-06-01T02:23:17.863+0000) > > Expulsion isn't an attempt to reform. It's a school admitting that you can't be reformed and telling you to fuck off. did riot claim it was trying to reform the people it booted?
> [{quoted}](name=CerealBoxOfDoom,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=IqFKnqja,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2016-06-01T14:35:29.571+0000) > > did riot claim it was trying to reform the people it booted? Not the ones it permabans.
ADC Bard (NA)
: Riot should read this manga
Expulsion isn't an attempt to reform. It's a school admitting that you can't be reformed and telling you to fuck off.
spombjop (EUNE)
: Why is Jinx titless
Because the breast is where women store their sanity.
: Waifu Thread of The Day (Non-Human Waifus Only)
I think this counts. http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/souleater/images/0/06/Tsubaki_Render.png/revision/latest?cb=20141102211010
SkyfaIl (NA)
: Humans eat more cereal than cereal
> [{quoted}](name=SkyfaIl,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=uAAxeInO,comment-id=,timestamp=2016-05-31T19:52:14.715+0000) > > These are actual humans {{champion:12}} https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/95/74/02/957402e943773a9484808fbdffd46721.jpg
: Rewatching old champion spotlights is both hysterical and depressing.
: Let's be honest about Daenerys Targaryen
Uh.... No. You do realize she's a queen, right? Of the blood of the past kings of Westeros. It's not strange in the least that she has loyal followers or that she commands respect amongst large groups of people. Anyone who was in her position, provided they weren't whiny little bitches who mouth off to warlords, would do much the same. If you look at it, though, she's not a Mary Sue in the least. Her competence is average at best and, outside of playing a specific role that the narrative kind of needs, really isn't anything special. She has dragons and is of royal blood. Yeah. Impressive. Outside of that she's an inexperienced, naive, and oftentimes foolish child who's simply trying her best to be what the world expects her to be. Nobody in ASoIaF would fit the mary sue bill. Or gary stu. Not even the descendent of a long line of inbreeding twats who was enough of an asshole to first buy a slave army of eunuchs and then use said army to backstab the motherfuckers who gave 'em to her.
: Dogs are better than Cats in every way - let the flame war begin!!
Really, they're just different. Cats are assassins. Dogs are bruisers.
Trap Nap (NA)
: whats ur OW level
: How do you guys feel about tabletop games?
I like the idea of them. Which kinda sucks because I dislike people.
: being a girl is so much better than being a guy, it's almost not fair (just look at wonder woman)
Except, quite literally, men can get away with wearing less. Just because men don't generally dress like Zangief doesn't mean they can't. I mean, unless they're women. Women can't quite dress like Zangief.
: Where Does GD Fall on the Political Compass?
I didn't think it was possible to be authoritarian left.
Rioter Comments
: Instead of voting Trump
Dude, her wall only lasts like five seconds on the rift, and there's actual heat on the Mexican border. That shit'll melt real quick.
: Taliyah's combos
Use your E every four seconds. Move around using your Q a bunch. If an enemy gets heify W them into your E. Don't see any need for combos in that biz.
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=832nGOLd,comment-id=000a,timestamp=2016-05-23T00:51:53.408+0000) > > > Y'know, until we get Instant Runoff Voting. Then there could be more than two and voting for a third wouldn't be an utterly moronic thing to do. Canada actually NEEDS this. The only reason Harper won was because the votes got split. The majority of Canada actually DIDN'T want him to be our leader. It's actually the same reason the NDP didn't stand a chance this election. Everyone voted "not Harper" and the candidate with the best chance of success of having "not Harper" was Trudeau. If we had instant runoff voting, more people may have voted for the NDP, since they could have marked Trudeau as "#2" and Harper as "no"
> [{quoted}](name=That Evelynn,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=832nGOLd,comment-id=000a0000,timestamp=2016-05-23T02:42:23.502+0000) > > Canada actually NEEDS this. The only reason Harper won was because the votes got split. The majority of Canada actually DIDN'T want him to be our leader. > > It's actually the same reason the NDP didn't stand a chance this election. Everyone voted "not Harper" and the candidate with the best chance of success of having "not Harper" was Trudeau. If we had instant runoff voting, more people may have voted for the NDP, since they could have marked Trudeau as "#2" and Harper as "no" Everywhere needs instant runoff voting. It's a thing so obvious that I can't even comprehend why it wasn't originally done that way. ...... Actually, I can, because that probably would've been impossible with voice votes and a ridiculous pain in the ass with paper. But by damn it's 2016 now, we have computers and shit. IRV should not be a difficult thing to implement.
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=0MuxZ6dV,comment-id=000a0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-05-23T00:40:48.140+0000) > > Generally speaking, when people use the tu quoque fallacy, they don't make it a question. > > Also, this post is easy setup for someone to correctly use a term that's basically never correctly used. Y'know, in conjunction with my last two. > Bonus points to whoever takes advantage of that correctly. i sometimes wonder why i go on a website with all 16 year olds like you.
> [{quoted}](name=Viralimpulse,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=0MuxZ6dV,comment-id=000a00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-05-23T01:52:26.519+0000) > > i sometimes wonder why i go on a website with all 16 year olds like you. Yeah, it must be difficult dealing with people who've actually managed to pass middle school.
Shorty (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=3KIEA6Vw,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-05-23T01:06:08.327+0000) > > Yeah, Ori's stuff can miss too. > > And Taliyah's winrate could easily be due to the fact that people don't understand how to properly use the worked ground mechanic. An ability that hampers your potential damage output in the future isn't something that people have exactly dealt with before and they're not likely to be quick on the uptake. A friend in challenger swears by Taliyah being good, but people can't play her right yet. I feel like she does need a few buffs. Going from a .4 minimum damage on her Q to a .5 as well as on her W. Maybe make her traps faster like they did with Jhin. That's what I'd change tho.
> [{quoted}](name=Shorty,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=3KIEA6Vw,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-05-23T01:08:37.778+0000) > > A friend in challenger swears by Taliyah being good, but people can't play her right yet. > > I feel like she does need a few buffs. Going from a .4 minimum damage on her Q to a .5 as well as on her W. Maybe make her traps faster like they did with Jhin. That's what I'd change tho. He might be right. I 'unno. Honestly I feel like it's too early to say, and with the abnormality of her Q I think it'd be hasty to bring any changes in so quickly.
Shorty (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=3KIEA6Vw,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2016-05-23T00:58:23.643+0000) > > Taliyah has > 1.2 > .4 > .8 > > And the 1.2 one is one a four second cooldown. > > If you're not sitting constantly in the same spot... And consistently landing your shit.... > It's one of the highest damage abilities in the game. That's the max damage considered if they walk into every single trap and your ground isn't worked, and you proc every single hit. Ori has a confirmed .5 .7 and .7 on much lower cooldowns too mind you. They fit similar roles but there is a reason Taliyah has the lowest win rate of any champion ever in the game.
> [{quoted}](name=Shorty,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=3KIEA6Vw,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2016-05-23T00:59:34.713+0000) > > That's the max damage considered if they walk into every single trap and your ground isn't worked, and you proc every single hit. Ori has a confirmed .5 .7 and .7 on much lower cooldowns too mind you. > > They fit similar roles but there is a reason Taliyah has the lowest win rate of any champion ever in the game. Yeah, Ori's stuff can miss too. And Taliyah's winrate could easily be due to the fact that people don't understand how to properly use the worked ground mechanic. An ability that hampers your potential damage output in the future isn't something that people have exactly dealt with before and they're not likely to be quick on the uptake.
Shorty (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Holy Malevolence,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=3KIEA6Vw,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2016-05-23T00:45:10.428+0000) > > Innate that basically only in lane? > > I get the feeling that Taliyah's major problem is that people are trying to overrely on her Q, instead of just trying to keep the wave clear and using her map mobility to cause trouble elsewhere. Her weakness is that she's weak when staying too long in one place. > So you should avoid staying too long in one place. Another champion with pretty much only 3 damaging abilities is Orianna. I mean she does damage with her shield but it's hard to land and negligible. Taliyah has .4 on her ability power ratios, and Ori has .5 on one and .7 on the other two. Orianna has almost twice as much punch for her items.
> [{quoted}](name=Shorty,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=3KIEA6Vw,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2016-05-23T00:53:32.265+0000) > > Another champion with pretty much only 3 damaging abilities is Orianna. I mean she does damage with her shield but it's hard to land and negligible. Taliyah has .4 on her ability power ratios, and Ori has .5 on one and .7 on the other two. Orianna has almost twice as much punch for her items. Taliyah has 1.2 .4 .8 And the 1.2 one is one a four second cooldown. If you're not sitting constantly in the same spot... And consistently landing your shit.... It's one of the highest damage abilities in the game.
NotSid (NA)
: Why does America have a 2 party system?
Because with the way our voting system works, a third party is likely to simply divide votes and make the unified party more likely to win with less of the populous behind them. Having more than two parties is a delicate balance that might fall apart with the faintest wind. Y'know, until we get Instant Runoff Voting. Then there could be more than two and voting for a third wouldn't be an utterly moronic thing to do.
Show more

Holy Malevolence

Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion