Posts made by Ganymede

@Monogram said:

Sarcasm aside, I could see Durant getting so desperate to win, he would join up with Lebron. Well, okay, I see it more happening with Westbrook than Durant. Or 'Mello. Definately 'Mello.

This.

Do you think LeBron wanted to leave Cleveland? Of course not, but he couldn't get anyone to go there because he was an untested star. Then he won his two rings, went back, and convinced Kevin Love to join him.

Do you think Jordan wanted help in Chicago? He might not have needed it for his 6 rings, but he welcomed it, and he was a winner. Shaq? Three rings with Kobe, and then another with Wade. Garnett? Went to Boston, won a ring. Durant is already sharing the spotlight with Russell Westbrook.

Durant's not Allen Iverson or Kobe Bryant He's a smart kid. He'll go where he can win. And he can win on a team with LBJ, Love, and Irving. Easily.

No, it's not. Anthony is a dickbag that couldn't make it work with Karl. Fuck that guy.

I think the Clippers go over the hump this year. I think the Spurs collapse, and the Lakers are non-factor again. I think the Rockets are too shallow, and lack a tested power forward.

I think the Cavs get to the Finals this year, and lose to the Clippers. And then I think KD goes to the Cavs after LBJ and the others restructure their contracts.

@tragedyjones said:

Sexism is bad. But when a bunch of girls are engaged in high schoolish drama, the comparison to Mean Girls, a film about high school girls involved in drama, isn't exactly evil.

There are a million other ways to describe the hand-slapping than to fall back to a meme that's so fucking gay.

(See what I did there?)

That's all very nice, sir, but I didn't say that the Warriors will repeat. I said that the Cavs are not the likely winner of the next Finals. Here's a short list of why: (1) too dependent on LBJ; (2) too shallow; and (3) won't be seasoned.

I'd put my money on the Thunder or the Rockets before the Warriors this year.

I won't put my money on the Heat or the Bulls beating out the Cavs. The Cavs will likely win the East, but that doesn't mean they'll win it all. Anyone coming out of the West has to get through one hell of a crucible.

Dude, there's really no difference between sports and gamer geekery, except for who engages in it.

I engage in both. Because I'm awesome. I can switch to American football, baseball, or hockey, if you want. Not conversant on college sports or soccer/football.

@Arkandel said:

This year if they stay healthy? Well, the Spurs can't be counted out (Timmy is about to hit his peak after all) and KD is back! But I'd still count the Cavs as favorites. Same roster that brought them to the finals, just improved and hungry.

I didn't say that I counted the Cavs out. I said they should never be considered the likely winner of the Finals because they are in the East. This is because they will never be properly tested.

The Warriors are coming back with Curry, Thompson (Klay), Green, Bogut, and Barnes. They still have Iguodala and McAdoo. They won last year; the Cavs did not.

If you want to argue that a fully-healthy Cavs team would beat the Warriors? I'd get into that debate. But the Cavs aren't young, they aren't deep, and they depend too much on their Top 3 for production. Thompson (Tristan) is a joke. J.R. Smith is worthless. And you better hope Mozgov takes over for the aging Varejao.

@Arkandel said:

Any team that puts LeBron in his prime out on the floor is likely to win it all. ANY TEAM.

Say, how did that work out last year when the Warriors won by using an aged Andre Iguodala?

Basketball is a numbers-game. Always. LeBron isn't Marty Brodeur or Tom Brady. He's one of five necessary parts, and if all of them ain't working properly, your machine will fail.

@Arkandel said:

Is it because the Cavs are likely to win it all this year? You bandwagoner.

You're being sarcastic, right?

So long as the Cavs play in the East, they will never be likely to win. This is because they will never be adequately tested.

@tragedyjones said:

My next game will be set in Cleveland.

Why the fuck in the name of everything holy would you do that?

@Arkandel said:

Any chance we can dispense with the mean girls routine?

Any chance we can get you to avoid using sexist conventions?

Needs a command that gives me a nautical-themed Pashmina afghan.

@Lithium said:

Though ME1 is... kind of annoying because I will eventually want to play ME2, and then ME3, and ME3 is great, but I have to stop it before the last 20 minutes every game.

I play it right up until I put Liara back into the Normandy and send her home. Because I pick Liara every goddamn time.

Because Liara.

@Arkandel said:

In fact I brought up a specific scenario where the staff member overseeing a situation is absolutely getting facts.

Then you are a witness, and can make your decision without anyone else's input.

In your example, if you have determined, by personal knowledge, that B used information obtained OOC against A, then B is a cheater. I will put up with shrieking any day over a cheater.

What I said, very clearly, was that staff ought to find in favor of the person who they'd rather deal with on a daily basis. If staff chose B in this situation, it says more about the staff than about the situation.

@Arkandel said:

... what's the point of even listening to facts if we decided cases based on who we like the most?

Only the truly delusional ever think they are listening to facts when people give their side of the story.

You're listening to a story. You -- the person authorized to handle the situation -- determine what is fact and what is not. All issues of credibility flow through you.

I'm cutting to the quick. There's no precedent or law to be followed here. No real reason to ask for evidence beyond "what's your side of the story?" Mediate if you can. Negotiate if you have to. At the end of the day, pick the person you'd rather deal with on a daily basis because, as arbitrary and capricious as that is, it's no less arbitrary and capricious than any other decision you will make to resolve the situation.

Do not inculcate yourself to believe you are doing justice. You are merely making a choice based on what you've been told, or what you've witnessed.

@Arkandel said:

It's not only bad staff who're responsible for this. In fact some of the best people I've met in MU* have done this. Not wanting to take sides is a very, very powerful factor in decision making.

Good staff consider all available facts, but the decision ought to come down to: "who would I want to deal with on a regular basis?"

In fact, if the scope would be narrowed down to this, I'll bet staff would make better decisions. Siding with the inculcating harpy, even if she is correct, is the road to perdition.

@Coin said:

That's all right, I can agree to disagree. Or just disagree! I played a lawyer for YEARS and the amount of times actual lawyering came up were really really slim. I usually used it more as a springboard for behavior and topics of conversation.

I'll bet you were pretty terrible at it too. Everyone is.

Remember how we all bitched and complained about how stupid the Autumn Mantle 1 bonus was relative to every other Mantle 1 bonus? That's applicable here. The Dancer Kith is shit.

So, like, House Rule it, you nobs.

@HelloRaptor

When my partner asked if a friend could bring her child over, I asked her if it was house-broken. When she said that the child's name was "Jane," I told her, politely, that children will be things to me until they self-actualize and make money.

That is the Asian way.

@Insomnia said:

Related animal peeve: Just because dogs do pee inside, people assume they are untrained:

You keep your lovelies at your house, and I won't care if they pee indoors.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said:

It's particularly grating when said friend, who treats her untrained dog like a child she has to take everywhere, is mystified that I don't want it at my house. And that people at restaurants/Target/everywhere might not want it in their business.

I think the same about other people's untrained children.