Jump to content

vla1ne

vla1ne

Member Since 19 Feb 2013
Offline Last Active Today, 09:36 AM
***--

#6994083 The Rumour Come out; Does Akaba Reiji is gay

Posted by vla1ne on 26 March 2017 - 11:14 PM

You both need to be drawn and quartered, then shot


*shot*

 
 it's already over.

 

 but the real question remains; who is reiji's fashion adviser? Those shoes? With those pants? Genius! And that scarf? With those glasses? Fabulous!/s




#6992999 Me when someone says they like Dragon Maid

Posted by vla1ne on 23 March 2017 - 10:25 PM

BE ASHAMED

NEVER

kobayashi-san-chi-no-maid-dragon-08-mar-




#6992796 Monster Rebone

Posted by vla1ne on 23 March 2017 - 01:19 PM

s-l300.jpg

If your opponent Special Summoned a monster this turn: Activate this card by targeting 1 monster in your opponent's Graveyard; Special Summon it to your side of the field in Defense Position. When this card leaves the field, banish that monster. When that monster leaves the field, destroy this card.

 

aside from being completely adorable, this card has some pretty fun implications, it's basically a chainable autonomous action unit, that banishes your opponent's monster if it's removed from the field post resolution, and has some hilarious interactions with cards like emeral, dd crow, and zoodiac combo. in addition to that, with only 2 ratpier in the meta, and many meta decks still currently running zoo, you could feasibly side, if not run this, in a ton of decks atm and gain massive benefit from doing so. and that's to say nothing of what paleozoics can do with this card.

 

so discuss, is it a worth a test run? on paper it's not too powerful, but in game, i think it'd be worth the spot.




#6992251 Sexism in the Yugioh Community

Posted by vla1ne on 22 March 2017 - 03:26 AM

Nah, it isn't disgusting, it's just not the whole image.

 

Yeah, it's totally up to females if they want to participate, but it's certainly not made appealing by males in the sphere. It might be a vocal minority, but it's... A real issue, honestly. In all forms of competitive games.

 

I don't speak for Yugioh's scene, cause it isn't something I keep up with. I imagine that females who want to do it, CAN do it, but... That nasty vocal minority, if it is a minority, doesn't make it easy. Abuse and harassment is a legitimate issue for females who want to do this kinda stuff. There are a lot of those types of guys who will claim that females shouldn't be playing these games and give them s*** for it.

 

I see it a lot in Overwatch, personally. You get harassed just for having a high pitched voice, then you get called female as if it was a slur. They treat females as subpar... Creatures on Overwatch. And lord help you if a streamer runs into a girl player on his stream, Chat just gets outright creepy after that.

 

It's probably a lot worse in Overwatch admittedly, because the nature of the game as online gives the players a lot more anonymity, but it wouldn't surprise me to see this kind of abuse at a local level moreso than a higher one, and you have to start on the lower levels to get to the higher ones usually.

 

I dunno, it's 1 AM and I just started rambling, my thoughts are a little scattered. I certainly don't agree with Polaris that the issue doesn't exist (And if that wasn't what he was saying in the last thread, I completely misunderstood) but it is possible for females to get through. It's just... Not appealing, cause a lot of the time, they clearly aren't wanted.

 

in the non-competitive scene, it's a nonissue, for reasons explained in the last thread, in the competitive scene, it's still a nonissue. anything that can get you arrested normally still applies, and there's plenty more still that can get you kicked out of an event. along these, stalking is one of them. the risk for other things, is no greater than at an other event.

 

that nasty minority exists for everybody in the scene in some form or another. there's always somebody that you will not like, and if they fit the bill for getting kicked out, then just have them kicked out. anything less, and there's generally a wall of white knights waiting in the wings to protect any woman who may need as much. which isn't even an insult to them, it's simply a fact. countless more dudes will come to a woman's defense over a discomfort at a tournament, than will come to the aid of a guy who just got robbed at the same tourney. lack of comfort might be discouraging, but that's not something that needs to be fixed, there already exist far more assistance avenues in the scene for females than males.

 

 

the internet is the cesspool of the world, it's the chalkboard with which people release profanity and other manner of disruptive and rude thoughts. a vent for human negativity. i don't play or watch overwatch, but from what i've seen, overwatch has multiple females revered by players in game, (tracer, the russian chick, black widow, the angel, the gundam pilot, ect.) it's less a problem of men hating women, or pushing them out, than it is trolls being trolls in typical troll fashion. the fact that trolls exist, does not exactly mean the scene itself is hazardous to women. trolls go after the weakest link, and with all the "sexism" buzz, there's no doubt as to what would get the biggest response were i to decide trolling was m new occupation.

 

 

polaris never said the issue does not exist. that is what one of those arguing with him stated, in incorrect fashion. his statement was more long the lines that the women in yugioh have to overcome the wall on their own, instead of asking for men to do it for them. (not meaning that they can't ask for aid, but that they should not expect the problem to be solved entirely by others). for reference: "C) The rules of the game are equal for everyone. Lack of female initiative and success is inevitably on those females who haven't tried and haven't succeeded. Those who are playing can keep up the good fight, and if they are as good or better than their male opponents they have every opportunity to prove it that their male counterparts do," he's not saing sexism doesn't exist, but that it in no way changes the rules or the objectives of the game.

 

 

now for a minor rant



#6990775 Sexism in the Yugioh Community

Posted by vla1ne on 20 March 2017 - 12:57 AM

to start with, as cimo says, you cant argue with feelings, which is why i'll be disregarding much of the feeling bits. i can't tell you how to feel, and i really don't care either. that said, if you have a deck, then sit in front of me, and let's duel. it's that simple. if you're a good duelist, then your gender will only matter for the first turn, if even that.

 

I didn't say there was no sexism in the Yu-Gi-Oh community, but those who exaggerate sexism as a general attitude prohibitive to their success or ability to even show up are making irrational excuses. 

 

 

To be the best and reap the glory.

 

Anyone with the inclination and ability to do so can prove it. Very few women even try to, and that's the only reason they aren't the ones dominating events. Hostility, condescension and lasciviousness weren't prohibitive to Cindie Uddstrom, and won't be prohibitive to the eventual female who does have the will and the skill to win a major Yu-Gi-Oh event. 

this is basically my opinion in a nutshell on the topic.

 

but for another side of that nut; if you want to play recreational, and the current scene in your area doesn't suit you, then gather people like you, and make your own scene, it's not that hard. the people at my local card shop suck, there's no getting around it, they rule shark, price gouge, and some (i.e. not all) are generally a******s who rip off even children to get what they want. so, me and a few friends, decided to play yugioh at a local library instead, we made our own space, that suited what we wanted from the game, that was 7 years ago, today, our library is essentially acknowledged as a second "shop", with 8-10 core visitors any given weekend (less atm, but it's winter atm, and mother nature hates us), and multiple others who visit from time to time. cycling through all types, both new and old players. it's even got it's own tournaments now (prizes and all, provided directly from TCGplayer) and even players from the main shop coming by to have a few matches and/or trades from people who simply can't be bothered to drop by that hellhole called the original shop, on a regular basis. we even teach younger and returning players the new rules of the game, bringing them up to speed and giving them assistance building decks and getting extra stuff (like sleeves and boxes). we hated the way our local card shot was, so instead of complaining, and expecting the peoplethere to change, we did our own thing, carved our own spot in a different area, and as of now, are home to one of the best places to play yugioh in my city (imo), long story short, if you want a space that's just for you (in relation to yugioh) make one. it's hella hard, contradictory to the second line, but if you've done it, in regards to anything, then you understand the contradiction. and it takes a while, but it's the best way to make sure what you want is what you get.

 

 

 

onto my second point. if you want to top an event, bring your best deck and listen only to your ambition.

"C) The rules of the game are equal for everyone. Lack of female initiative and success is inevitably on those females who haven't tried and haven't succeeded. "

is rather accurate to describe why women aren't topping. rarely do they play the game on a competitive level, and the few who do, according to you guys, are easily discouraged, that's not a male problem, that's a lack of ambition. there aren't too many women at my local shop or at my library, less than 8 total from what i've seen, but the ones who *do* go are as thick skinned as the rest of us, and aren't afraid to put anybody in their place if somebody steps out of bounds, and those are the kinds of women i want in yugioh, people who know that the group they're entering is already established, and can respect as much while establishing their own place in the fold. not the ones who want "men" to fix everything. yes, there is a barrier, but it's not hard to cross if you stop telling others to bridge it for you. and if you don't like what's on the other side, then why not make your own side, with people you enjoy being around,

 

 

minor nitpicks in the video aside from the main point above



#6984373 Transgender

Posted by vla1ne on 23 February 2017 - 11:41 PM

Yeh well that's the west coast for you

 

"In some U.S. states, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime," as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries. (So held the Virginia Supreme Court in 1992. Wackwitz v. Roy, 418 S.E.2d 861 (Va. 1992))"

 

It's not as strictly enforced as I was lead to believe though

 

 

Interesting legal idea, if you passed a law that the legal guardian or next of kin of a suicide victim would be prosecuted, would that make people think twice...eitherway we're a bit off topic here

https://forum.yugioh...thought-prompt/

 

made it its own thread, because suicide's always interesting to discuss. /topic derailment




#6984325 AI and Robot Rights

Posted by vla1ne on 23 February 2017 - 10:03 PM

Human rights are in short enough supply for humans. I don't see why robots should be given complex minds capable of emotion - and if they are then we shouldn't prioritize their man-made needs over those of downtrodden people whose needs for basic human rights are unavoidable. 

which is why we don't build computers that are able to suffer. but if they ever do come about, it would be the most humane thing to give them the same rights as a sentient human being

 

i do agree though, we shouldn't even be focused on making such robots until we can handle humanity's already present issues.




#6983924 "If God Exists...x shouldn't happen" argument

Posted by vla1ne on 22 February 2017 - 10:15 PM

There is evil in the world because God gave us free will.
 
The idea of Heaven and Hell was created in order to influence man's decisions, but not force them to do anything. Human's can still do whatever they want, but there are consequences.
 
By interfering in our affairs after all the s*** he put his son through, it would be a detriment to what Jesus died for. Jesus died to show the world that there are consequences to every action and that God can give those who live righteous lives a paradise after death. Still Jesus was fairly the last time that God ever really interfered in human affairs to such a degree, as his death was meant to show the humans the truth and have them work things out from there.
 
God understands the horrors of this world, but he cannot intervene because it would destroy the concept of free will on earth. These are problems that we bring upon ourselves and God can only provide solace in the afterlife.
 
Now I would not dare to presume to know what God is thinking. God train of thought is beyond our comprehension as mere humans, but, given the texts of the Bible, I can surmise this as one of the main reasons.

here's the thing, most of us never asked for, or wanted, said choices. we just want to be left alone. i don't need a sky daddy, nor do i need a figure to worship. i help others of my own will, no god needed, and i want to keep it that way, before and after death. as speedroid said, if he wanted to talk to me, he knows what it would take to make me believe in him, and what it would take for me to worship him, the fact that neither of those criteria has been met, implies he does not care one iota for me, and i'm fine with that. so long as he remains consistent, and keeps himself, and his pet devil, far out of my life.
 
you do not destroy free will by revealing yourself, in fact, the concepts of heaven and hell, were created BY him, so there is even less reason for him to not step in and say hello should he desire it.  heaven and hell would never be detriments to free will. if god was to literally force people to act in a certain manner, that would be the only criteria for removal of free will. god or no god, my actions will not change. the only thing that would change, would be the amount, and variety, of religion-based crimes.

 


Or maybe you're one of God's mistakes.
so we're at least in agreement that your god's not perfect?



#6983246 poseidon wave

Posted by vla1ne on 20 February 2017 - 09:33 PM

but then you just activated a load of traps and didn't get any summons off them. That's the kind of thing that makes you lose a game

True that vanity might halt my summons, but on average, i usually only spam the summons when i'm using a ton of draw cards in the same chain (reckless, accumulated, GGHousekeeping, ect). building both field and hand resources.

 

As for Poseidon wave, my personal thoughts are that if a 4K burn is enough to kill my opponent, and i have enough cards to pull it off, then the risk is definitely worth the reward.




#6982289 poseidon wave

Posted by vla1ne on 18 February 2017 - 09:33 AM

67157_200w.jpg

When an opponent's monster declares an attack: Target the attacking monster; negate the attack, and if you do, inflict 800 damage to your opponent for each face-up Fish, Sea Serpent, or Aqua-Type monster you control.

 

well, getting away from links for a bit, this card has some rather fun uses in paleozoics, for those who are building something different than the frog variant, with more traps, chaining your paleozoics to this baby can rack up damage insanely fast, each resolution being capable of up to 4K damage. and even short of that cap, hitting 2400 is no real chore, so you can get your burn's worth rather easily, while rescuing on of your paleos. it is a battle trap, so it has all the standard inherent flaws, but in paleozoics, i believe it can pay for itself.

 

so discuss, as you wish, is it a decent tech, does it already see play? am i bad for even thinking such a card was ever good? would you try it in your own builds? ect.




#6982199 Transgender

Posted by vla1ne on 18 February 2017 - 01:08 AM

Now you're arguing something different entirely. I don't disagree with the idea that children shouldn't be treated for gender dysphoria from a young age. I don't think it's 'normal.' I think it's a genetic "defect" on the level of ADHD and Asperger's. The proper treatment for those is some combination of accommodation of their limitations, medication, and therapy to help guide them through any auxiliary issues that come with their issues.
 
But you said that there's no difference between wanting to be called male instead of female and bird instead of human. Which is wrong. I showed you that.
 
I also find it f***ing ridiculous that the lot of you backpedal to "Hey, I just don't want kids to go through this s***, man" immediately after you're proven wrong on it being no different from any other kind of psychosis or delusion.
 
You moderate your argument the moment your more extreme viewpoints are proven wrong and pretend that was your argument all along.
 
Stop that. I'm not stupid. I know the point you're arguing and suddenly changing it the moment you're backed into a corner won't work on me.
 
Leave it to a self-proclaimed conservative to lack respect and empathy for the problems of your fellow men and women.

no, i am not. both biologically, and physically, i have classified it as the same thing, a mistake in the body. as i said in that post, my core argument has not changed. we agree on that point i see, so there's nothing there to discuss.
 
here's where you made your mistake, i said they are the same because i consider them both disorders. and while the causes may be different, they are no less defects. you can see where this comes from in my first and last paragraphs of your -snipped- quote.
 
no, i called it a delusion from the start, and have been very consistent. the only reason i added the child bit is because i was providing my thoughts on the subject in alternate ways., i don't see you pointing out my mention of cancer in the same manner, even though both are relevant to the topic at hand.
 
no, i moderate my argument according to the evidence. and in this case, my core argument remains the same, the example i used was simply shifted for accuracy. i still see it as a mental and physical error, i simply changed the example to be more accurate. a birdman and a man with a third arm are both defects, i see no reason to act as if this is a leap, when both are used in appropriate areas.
 
then tell me, what am i arguing? my argument at the start was biological in nature, and my argument at the end, is biological in nature, again, penis=man vagina=woman, and if you've got both, congrats, your're a trans. this has not changed. the only new aspect is the mental one, and even then, what about my argument is not perfectly aligned there?
 

you know i'm liberal right? but yeah, in a discussion like this, empathy is a irrelevant. my questions aren't about feelings, apart from misfires creating false ones, or mutations creating dual genitals, leading to insecurity, but in both cases, again, my logic is sound, so what exactly are you claiming here?
that's my bad, thought that was addressed to me
 
 

Your words verbatim were trans does not really exist, it's a mental condition, nothing you said before or after that indicates anything of you were trying to say in this post.

 
 
yes it does. again, did you miss the part where i likened the trans to both cancer and a third arm? for something that i'm apparently claiming doesn't exist, i sure do place it into real life quite a bit. you may be mistaking a claim that it doesn't exist, to me separating the mental and physical aspects.




#6982170 Transgender

Posted by vla1ne on 18 February 2017 - 12:18 AM

You can't ignore one facet of biology yet claim that another facet is definitive proof of your argument.

 

XX=female and XY=male completely ignores all other research that has been done on the subject. The differences are actual biology. They're not brain chemicals misfiring. They're not people lying to themselves.

 

https://phys.org/new...nder-woman.html

http://www.nature.co...defined-1.16943

http://www.biologica...1087-1/abstract

https://academic.oup.../jcem.85.5.6564

 

I've posted this multiple times but people don't f***ing read it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

 

These are actual biological functions that cause you to perceive yourself as the opposite gender and there's no getting around this fact. There are no biological functions that cause you to perceive yourself as a bird, a tomato, or anything else that isn't human. These biological functions happen no matter what a person tells themselves.

read through all before responding, i replied as i went, article by article, and my argument, while the same at the core, narrows down as i read through the articles. the short of it being that my mind remains unchanged, but the long of it being the rest of this reply.

 

 

https://phys.org/new...nder-woman.html

this is not an argument, it's essentially saying that because men can be feminine, and women can be masculine, and genders can have different roles in society, that a man can be a woman, and vice versa, that tells me nothing. your link, at least this one, is essentially, "i think, therefore i am" and that does not work, because by those same criteria, shamans, and other fold of the past, who believed they were animals reincarnated, and various other supersticions, would fall right in line with your article. if you self-identify as a bird, then again, what makes you not a bird, if you self identify as a woman, then what makes you not a woman, the list goes on. as far as this article goes, it is not clearing, but muddying the definition. as for the "gender panic" it's because if a definition cannot be specific, then what is the use for said definition? as it stands, again, biology is a solid definition. a person believing they are one thing, does not make them that thing. no matter how they may feel.

 

http://www.nature.co...defined-1.16943

people are indeed made up of different genes, correct, but this again, does nothing for me. you can be ambiguous at birth, but once more, unless your body remains completely ambiguous forever (the two most prominently defining features of men and women being breasts and genitals), then at the end of the day, exactly what are they claiming makes them a woman, if not biological function? on top of that, the article itself is listing off mistakes that lead to changing development, not normal biological effects, but misfires. meaning that it is again, comparable to misfiring in the brain, leading to the birdman point above. further, just because you can carry the cells of our parent or child within you, does not transform your gender, it simply means you can harbor it. the entire article, while indeed interesting, is simply listing off studies in misfires within the human genome. similar to cancer, these misfires are not optimal human functions, but mistakes in the body's code, and while (i'd assume) they're mostly harmless, they don't exactly change the fact that they are not intended function, but biological accidents. the third gender is not as much a gender, as it is a mistake. the human body is extremely complex, and mistakes do not quite a gender make. same as if you grew a third arm. for the final section though, i agree, let those born with both, decide for themselves. i hold that it is still a genetic misfire, but grant that if you possess both, then you are indeed trans. on another note though, if the parents approved, or asked for, that surgery on MC, but turned around and sued, then they're dicks, if they didn't, and the doctors did anyways, then i retract that sentence.

 

if a person does not possess the bodily functions, or organs of a woman, including periods, ovaries, and the ability to give birth (those who cannot give birth are exceptions to the rule, and do not invalidate the claim) then what makes them a woman? i agree that those who possess the (at least partially) functioning genitals and/or organs of both are indeed qualified to be called trans, but that doesn't change the facts, the gender, has long since been determined by the genitals, because the genitals, are the main part of the human body, that are truly different by gender. bone structure, body build, and other things, have no comparative effect to the process of birthing another human being, yes, you can have both male and female genes, but how exactly does that make you a male, unless said male genes actually manifest in a definitive manner? and thus, those with said organs, are quite simply, that gender, because in the case of gender, function over form is the simplest, and most effective definition (in other words, the tools define you).  even assuming that all men and women have some share of male and female genes, we are left with the exact same problem as we started with. if we all can be transgender just from having a few alternate chromosomes, then, what does that do for any gender? in that case, anybody here is likely trans, and everybody here can claim they are, and nothing short of a blood test can prove them otherwise. if your argument is to abolish genders altogether, that would make sense, but to add a third to the pool based solely on the fact that we all have a couple misfires to the opposite sex, doesn't do anything for me.

 

 

 

http://www.biologica...1087-1/abstract

so essentially, they're isolating the potential causes of transsexualism? that's fine, but isolation does not equal normality (normality here being defined as common functions of the human body compared to widespread mental/physical mutations, and genetic misfires). under that same lens, you can isolate cancer, and use similar studies as your above source. your link does not change or defend the argument, it merely tries to point out the cause, for example, i raise you genetic mutations:https://ghr.nlm.nih....rs/genemutation and http://www.cancer.ne...enetics-cancer, both of which are perfectly natural, and can have both adverse, and beneficial effects on the body, but only one of which is being made to seem like it's more than the simple glitch in the complex program that it is. again, people are people, but this doesn't change much in relation to my question. that question being what makes a man who believes he's a bird, any different than a man who believes he's a woman. both are misfires of a kind, but only one is encouraged, while the other is slowly backed away from.... actually, it does shift the question a bit though, to the question of; what makes a second set of genitals, any different than a man with a third arm?

 

https://academic.oup.../jcem.85.5.6564

your final link again pushes the misfire(well, at this point, it's more misactivation) strain of the argument. the brain has a lower or higher number of neurons, and thus changes your mental state, making you feel/believe that you are one gender, when you are, by common standard, the opposite (solely tackling the mental side of things for this one) this again tells me that there is little difference between a man who thinks he's a child, and a man who thinks he's a woman. their brain has missed a mark, or didn't develop normally, and thus either a manchild or a trans was born. again, trans, even after reading your links, is closer for me, to a genetic accident, than an actual established gender. it's the body and/or mind, failing to develop one side definitively, leading to a person who is mentally trapped, because their body screwed the pooch. under developing one side, and over developing another, creating a dichotomy, in which one believes they are the opposite of what they are. the two strands being A) a genetic mess-up, where the mind misses the proper cell count to match the body, so that the person in question believes that they are the opposite of what they are, or/and B) the body developing an extra set of genitals, which, to me, is no different than my third arm example, both being  incorrect mutations.

 

your links don't do much more than tell me that your body and/or mind messed up, and you are now stuck with the result.

And that is what i mean when i say that your evidence does not do all that much for me. to me, it's simply another way the body can mess up. it's less harmful overall than cancer, and often better structured than the mistake of a third arm, or twins joined at the hip, or somebody missing, or in possession of some other limb/ mental condition at birth, but it is in the exact same category as those nonetheless, the body and mind (physical and mentally) of a trans have simply messed up. the human body is not perfect, and thus, there are times where your body and mind misalign. it is, in effect, less a third gender, than it is the original two being wired incorrectly, and the effects being centered more around the genitalia and neurons, than.the arms and legs. it should be treated as the patient wishes, but said patient should be allowed (if not made to) to grow into full adulthood, before making such a decision, and it should be neither glorified, nor shoved under the rug. if a kid wants to learn about, or exhibits symptoms, then ease them into it, and explain to them why they should wait should they want to undergo any form of surgery, but other than that, there's little more to say about it.




#6976507 Treaty on Uniform Nomenclature

Posted by vla1ne on 30 January 2017 - 11:36 PM

among my favorite random cards in casual Paleozoics. it's pretty easy to mill the right stuff, since there's already a foolish burial of traps monster built into the deck, and you can even adjust the output of destruction, since you can bring another Paleozoic (with the same name) out before resolution.




#6974963 Public Relations Moderator to be Announced

Posted by vla1ne on 27 January 2017 - 09:24 PM

well, in light of pol and denver stepping down from the power position, i swap those with tenta and hina. tenta having already been explained, and hina being rather similar in type to pol so far as being well balanced. from what i've seen. she's definitely whimsical, and blacks 'claim of hard to approach is not completely without grounds, considering hina's among the more confusing members on this site, (short responses more often than not, rather concise wording, and oftentimes so diect that the point can fly over the heads of the people she's discussing topics with) but i think she'd be a rather good balance to the mod seats. not completely sure where her positions lie as far as forum decorum go, but they seem similar to pols whenever i glimpse them. she doesn't type much, and that does need working on, but i think aside from that, she'd be among the more fun contestants.

for those wondering, yes, i watch most people in debates, just to find out how they work. it's fun guessing what kind of people the people who participate in debates are.

but where pol is concerned, would it actually be possible to give him the position, but not the powers? like an exclusive group, not junior mod, closer to an official title than a mod position?

 

also, what happened to winter? i heard nothing about him deserving a ban as of late.




#6974815 Public Relations Moderator to be Announced

Posted by vla1ne on 27 January 2017 - 12:13 PM

ara? who said i wasn't in the runnings? 

 

all jokes aside, most of what's required of a mod has already been mentioned, so i suppose there's no need to follow up there. but were i to throw in a vote, my tops out of the ones listed are fusion, crab and birdie.

from what i know of fusion, he's literally evilfusion without the supermod powers. dude's been fair and balanced since i started here, and even when i disagreed with the dude, he's been pretty civil about said disagreements. those are qualities that i find admirable in any person, especially one who's aiming to be a moderator. that doesn't mean he'd be as fair while packing mod power, but that can be said of anybody really.

As for crab, those of you who've been in debates should already know, he's rather passionate, but very tempered, and i think he could bring that into the mods team as well. i don't know too many people that hate him, so that's another plus in his book. lastly, recently, crab's put in a lot of work attempting to get discussion going to improve the quality of the threads, he's made more than a few discussion relating to improvement of the sections and similar topics, which is something that both indicates transparency, and an openness to dialogue. a strong candidate imo.

birdies apparently got the most praise, and after reading the responses, i was simply swayed to his side. i don't know mch about birdie, we apparently reside in different sections. but he's gotten support from literally all sides, so i see no reason to say too much against him.

 

 

as for somebody who has not been nominated, i'd have to put tentacruel's hat into the ring. similar to fusion and crab, he's been both impartial, and rather open to dialoge and change. remaining neutral in polarizing issues (despite his own views) and pointing out when we take things too far in debates, he's shown himself to be a good person all around, and even if he can't really win at this point, he deserves a mention for the spot.