Also, on the note of points, I think if I were hosting the league, I'd make one change. Pick 6's and Fumble Recovery Touchdowns shouldnt count against the D/ST. Its the offense that allowed the point. However the XP should count as that is the D/ST. Someone brought it up and I really get the point and like it.[/B]
And like I told them, there is no way to change it.
D/ST is, IMHO, Team Defense and Special Teams. Sometimes, your offensive players have to defend their own end zone. I prefer it that way. Also, you'd also have to "not count safeties" in your calculations (and this year, there have been quite a few). Another thing too, say you line up for the Extra Point, this is your kicking team, i.e.: special teams, and they bobble the snap, and the kicker ends up running it in for 2. Well, do you give the 2 points to the kicker? Or do you give the 2 points to the Defense/Special Teams. I won't even get in to the issues of punt returns for TDs by Wide Receivers that tend to play (Sproles, D. Jackson, etc).
No, I think the best way IS to have points allowed count against the D/ST, as any player at any time may be called upon to defend their goal line. It is TEAM DEFENSE, not just that teams defensive players.
Trying to figure out which RB and WRs I should play.
Need to play 1 of 2 RB: Either Sproles or Rodgers.
2 of the following 3 WR: Steve Johnson, Brian Hartline, and Santonio Holmes (just picked up). I have Amendola as well, but just don't think he is gonna be a factor this week.
I played a match (pre-release) against someone who was an obvious meth addict (right down to literally rotted out teeth), and hadn't showered in what smelled like months. Then her boyfriend sat down next to her as we finished our match, and he was the same. The teeth, the halitosis, just the general rotten smell made me want to finish the match quickly (I did and won). Her BF apparently had a bye.
the government is giving out free cell phones now.
so they don't have to pay for that either we have to.
I know numerous people who have tried to get one. They are not just handing them out, you have to fill into a narrow group of people. Not everyone qualifies, even if you are unemployed or underemployed.
But they do have complete control over the choices they make. Sorry, but society does not "owe" someone who is 19, unwed, with a 3 year old and an unemployed significant other a living.
So you would rather they move into a cardboard box out in the park and fade away from existence?
Illogical argument is illogical. When they live beyond their means, it is not my duty, nor yours, nor the governments, to ensure they have cable TV, cellphones and internet.
The root problem I see here is that any given individual has to support a varying number of people with their paycheck. Unfortunately, people don't always have complete control over how many people they have to support. For instance, what of the woman who's husband takes off 3 months after she bears his child? What of the person who is responsible for a sick relative? Basically, people who act as caregivers for others get screwed in any model designed for people who support only themselves, but people who have no dependents make off like bandits in most systems designed for families.
But they do have complete control over the choices they make. Sorry, but society does not "owe" someone who is 19, unwed, with a 3 year old and an unemployed significant other a living.
How is a cell phone a luxury in the west today? Maybe in, like, 1990. But it's 2013. Televisions are easy to get second hand or as stolen goods. The west is overflowing with consumer electronics. They aren't hard to get. How is access to the internet a luxury? It's one of the most far-reaching communication tools in the world.
And anyway, who the **** are you to tell people that they aren't allowed to have something nice? People who live in poverty are people, not input-output machines.
The vast majority of people I have to work with are perfectly fine not working. They get free housing, food stamps, help with utitlities, ad infinitem. I am not saying all, nor am I saying half. I am saying that with the population that I work with, the people who are poor are so well subsidized by governmental programs and charities that they fear losing out if they do work. So they just don't.
Some must have subsidised housing, SNAP or help with paying the heat bill. You greatly overestimate how cushy a life that must have all these things is. If you work with the underprivileged you should at least be aware of the health and job insecurity that poverty causes.
That the wage of the jobs they have access to is so bad that they can't live on it is the reason why the minimum wage should be higher.
And poverty in the U.S. is sometimes at the height of luxury in any other country.
I bet that having your feet nailed to the ground isn't as painful as dipping them in molten metal.
Wow, just wow. I can't imagine a post that is more ignorant than yours.
I have NEVER said, nor has anyone, that they can't have something nice. But society does not owe it to them, nor do they deserve it just because they can inhale and exhale.
A cell phone IS a luxury, a cell phone is NOT a necessity. Yes, it is prevalent. And there is even a federal program that gives free cell phones to people (and the population I work with all have their free phones, but they also have their iphones and androids with the all encompassing data plan).
I work with a "poverty" population. That is my job, it is what I do. I have to do home visits all the time. And they have better housing than I do, 60" TVs, all the movie channels. No, I don't do an "inventory", but it's right there as plain as day.
You say minimum wage should be higher. What do you make an hour? Let's just make that minimum wage (or is that what you make now which is why you believe it should be more). So whatever task/skill, and however much effort you took to get to where you are, well, you make the same as someone who puts fries in a basket and oversalts them afterwards.
Oh yeah, and because economics is a "thing", everything goes up in price as well.
You seem to be one of the people who thinks everyone has the same opportunities. It's a nice lie to live to make you feel better about yourself.
Quick question, do people that make $5 mill/year work 20 times as hard as you? Do you think anyone works 100 times as hard as you?
And you seem to be one of those people who think that a college educated professional should make as much as someone who can watch a 15 minute training video and work a spatula.
Pay is not just about actual work accomplished. People who have invested and made their own business? Yes, they have earned it. A professional athlete (while I think they do make a bit too much, especially on the high end) play a game. But the effort and work they put in, I can guarantee they put in more work/effort than you or I. People also get paid based on what they are responsible for.
Example: People like you complain about CEO salaries. Let's look at one.
HP CEO in a news article makes 16.5 million compensation package (so not all salary). So let's even pretend that it is all salary. Let's knock that person down to say, 100,000, and then spread that wealth, or share that wealth if you prefer, with the other 324,000 employees. Hey, that gives everyone an across the board $50 per year raise, or if you prefer, just over $4/month. That is pre-tax, so that has to be considered.
No, the ignorance of posts like yours is astounding.
Quotes from the initial implementation of the minimum wage in the US included the first political use of the phrase "livable wage" in that the minimum wage once it was fully in place (which came in over a ~8-10 year period) would be a livable wage.
You could say that's not it's CURRENT intent, but "never was" is a conservative meme with no basis in reality. (And in fact it was conservatives of the era that were making the initial arguments I'm relaying!)
Herein lies the problem. First, I worked for over 3 years at minimum wage in the early 90s, while going to school. What makes it a livable wage is one's choices. One of the stories from the $15/hour group is a woman, who was like 19 with an unemployed boyfriend and a child, couldn't support her family. Well, no freaking duh. When I was 19, I had a roommate and no child. But she still had many luxuries, cable tv, cell phone, internet, etc.
So, with that mentality, to "maintain that livable wage," if she had another child, she should get a raise? Or should she get a paycut if her out of work boyfriend finds a job?
Too many people are equating livable wage to a high standard of living (gotta have their HD TVs, cell phones, gaming platforms, credit cards, etc). Americans don't want to go without, for anything. That is not something we should be accounting for. But the $15/hour fast food workers think they should make enough to afford all the luxuries, and that is just not true, nor is it what the Fair Labor Standards act was designed for. You can misinterpret all you want, doesn't make it true.
Like I said, some poor people don't really want to improve their situation. I see no reason to give them free money if they are content where they are.
I argue that among all the people living in poverty only a very few are perfectly content with it and wouldn't care about their job paying better. My source for this is the fact that poverty ****ing sucks to deal with. There has been done enough research on the dangers of poverty that this isn't something I should need to explain.
The vast majority of people I have to work with are perfectly fine not working. They get free housing, food stamps, help with utitlities, ad infinitem. I am not saying all, nor am I saying half. I am saying that with the population that I work with, the people who are poor are so well subsidized by governmental programs and charities that they fear losing out if they do work. So they just don't. Yet they still have big TVs, cable, and they don't have to do anything for it.
Homelessness is something I take seriously, and I do as much as I can for the homeless (volunteer at shelters and food pantries when I can, donate all the time, and even my wife has taken pro-bono work for homeless persons). Homelessness is not the same as poverty.
And poverty in the U.S. is sometimes at the height of luxury in any other country.
Didn't read the previous 19 pages, but I will say this.
Why should unskilled workers make as much or more than skilled workers, or college educated persons?
If you raise minimum wage, then those thare making 2-3 more than minimum wage would (and should) also expect an increase. It is a domino effect that will occur. "Why should I go to college and get an associates' degree when I will make less than someone who watches a 15 minute video on how to flip burgers."
Minimum wage was not, has not, and will never be meant to be a livable wage.
Why a private charity over a goverment which could do it far more effectively over a board spectrum?
No matter who is sitting in the white house or congress, saying the government can do anything effectively is just not true. The government is bloated, slow, and corrupt at all levels.
@OP: You should teach this person how to properly play the game in a competitive fashion. Even though FNM's are not considered competitive, they are in the sense that there are rules enforcement and judges and whatnot which is different than what you find at the kitchen table...
It also sounds like you are trying to plead your friends case on the basis that this person is somewhat ignorant of MTG. That is absolutely your friends fault.
If your friend is missing triggers and other things, perhaps you might be inclined to explain the missed triggers at a time when this is appropriate (after the match) and also to do so when y'all are just playing casually at home. It can be helpful to some people to have things demonstrated and explained.
To build on this, one of the things I have been teaching my godson is that when he moves a card is to re-read the card. Be it tapping it, activating it, targeting it, putting in the battlefield or graveyard. It helped him learn about triggers.
In regards to the OP, we all feel your pain. New to MTG and missing triggers cause losses, and even though FNM is supposed to be about fun and learning, some people only have fun while winning, even at the FNM level. Me personally, if I am playing a new player, I will help to a point. Again, I want that person to enjoy themself and come back again. If all they do is get constantly crushed because no one is helping them, that's not helping the magic community in any shape form or fashion.
At the end of every game, at least for me, if I have played a new player I will mention any missed triggers to my opponent. It's a learning environment. I want that person to learn, and be more competitive. I know many where I play do the same for new players.
That being said, if the player is a vet, even a kid, and they mess up, I don't allow takebacks.
And he's still gonna kick my arse.
D/ST is, IMHO, Team Defense and Special Teams. Sometimes, your offensive players have to defend their own end zone. I prefer it that way. Also, you'd also have to "not count safeties" in your calculations (and this year, there have been quite a few). Another thing too, say you line up for the Extra Point, this is your kicking team, i.e.: special teams, and they bobble the snap, and the kicker ends up running it in for 2. Well, do you give the 2 points to the kicker? Or do you give the 2 points to the Defense/Special Teams. I won't even get in to the issues of punt returns for TDs by Wide Receivers that tend to play (Sproles, D. Jackson, etc).
No, I think the best way IS to have points allowed count against the D/ST, as any player at any time may be called upon to defend their goal line. It is TEAM DEFENSE, not just that teams defensive players.
$0.02.
Need to play 1 of 2 RB: Either Sproles or Rodgers.
2 of the following 3 WR: Steve Johnson, Brian Hartline, and Santonio Holmes (just picked up). I have Amendola as well, but just don't think he is gonna be a factor this week.
My eyes were watering.
Illogical argument is illogical. When they live beyond their means, it is not my duty, nor yours, nor the governments, to ensure they have cable TV, cellphones and internet.
But they do have complete control over the choices they make. Sorry, but society does not "owe" someone who is 19, unwed, with a 3 year old and an unemployed significant other a living.
Wow, just wow. I can't imagine a post that is more ignorant than yours.
I have NEVER said, nor has anyone, that they can't have something nice. But society does not owe it to them, nor do they deserve it just because they can inhale and exhale.
A cell phone IS a luxury, a cell phone is NOT a necessity. Yes, it is prevalent. And there is even a federal program that gives free cell phones to people (and the population I work with all have their free phones, but they also have their iphones and androids with the all encompassing data plan).
I work with a "poverty" population. That is my job, it is what I do. I have to do home visits all the time. And they have better housing than I do, 60" TVs, all the movie channels. No, I don't do an "inventory", but it's right there as plain as day.
You say minimum wage should be higher. What do you make an hour? Let's just make that minimum wage (or is that what you make now which is why you believe it should be more). So whatever task/skill, and however much effort you took to get to where you are, well, you make the same as someone who puts fries in a basket and oversalts them afterwards.
Oh yeah, and because economics is a "thing", everything goes up in price as well.
I do not overestimate. I see and I hear.
And you seem to be one of those people who think that a college educated professional should make as much as someone who can watch a 15 minute training video and work a spatula.
Pay is not just about actual work accomplished. People who have invested and made their own business? Yes, they have earned it. A professional athlete (while I think they do make a bit too much, especially on the high end) play a game. But the effort and work they put in, I can guarantee they put in more work/effort than you or I. People also get paid based on what they are responsible for.
Example: People like you complain about CEO salaries. Let's look at one.
HP CEO in a news article makes 16.5 million compensation package (so not all salary). So let's even pretend that it is all salary. Let's knock that person down to say, 100,000, and then spread that wealth, or share that wealth if you prefer, with the other 324,000 employees. Hey, that gives everyone an across the board $50 per year raise, or if you prefer, just over $4/month. That is pre-tax, so that has to be considered.
No, the ignorance of posts like yours is astounding.
Herein lies the problem. First, I worked for over 3 years at minimum wage in the early 90s, while going to school. What makes it a livable wage is one's choices. One of the stories from the $15/hour group is a woman, who was like 19 with an unemployed boyfriend and a child, couldn't support her family. Well, no freaking duh. When I was 19, I had a roommate and no child. But she still had many luxuries, cable tv, cell phone, internet, etc.
So, with that mentality, to "maintain that livable wage," if she had another child, she should get a raise? Or should she get a paycut if her out of work boyfriend finds a job?
Too many people are equating livable wage to a high standard of living (gotta have their HD TVs, cell phones, gaming platforms, credit cards, etc). Americans don't want to go without, for anything. That is not something we should be accounting for. But the $15/hour fast food workers think they should make enough to afford all the luxuries, and that is just not true, nor is it what the Fair Labor Standards act was designed for. You can misinterpret all you want, doesn't make it true.
The vast majority of people I have to work with are perfectly fine not working. They get free housing, food stamps, help with utitlities, ad infinitem. I am not saying all, nor am I saying half. I am saying that with the population that I work with, the people who are poor are so well subsidized by governmental programs and charities that they fear losing out if they do work. So they just don't. Yet they still have big TVs, cable, and they don't have to do anything for it.
Homelessness is something I take seriously, and I do as much as I can for the homeless (volunteer at shelters and food pantries when I can, donate all the time, and even my wife has taken pro-bono work for homeless persons). Homelessness is not the same as poverty.
And poverty in the U.S. is sometimes at the height of luxury in any other country.
Why should unskilled workers make as much or more than skilled workers, or college educated persons?
If you raise minimum wage, then those thare making 2-3 more than minimum wage would (and should) also expect an increase. It is a domino effect that will occur. "Why should I go to college and get an associates' degree when I will make less than someone who watches a 15 minute video on how to flip burgers."
Minimum wage was not, has not, and will never be meant to be a livable wage.
No matter who is sitting in the white house or congress, saying the government can do anything effectively is just not true. The government is bloated, slow, and corrupt at all levels.
To build on this, one of the things I have been teaching my godson is that when he moves a card is to re-read the card. Be it tapping it, activating it, targeting it, putting in the battlefield or graveyard. It helped him learn about triggers.
In regards to the OP, we all feel your pain. New to MTG and missing triggers cause losses, and even though FNM is supposed to be about fun and learning, some people only have fun while winning, even at the FNM level. Me personally, if I am playing a new player, I will help to a point. Again, I want that person to enjoy themself and come back again. If all they do is get constantly crushed because no one is helping them, that's not helping the magic community in any shape form or fashion.
At the end of every game, at least for me, if I have played a new player I will mention any missed triggers to my opponent. It's a learning environment. I want that person to learn, and be more competitive. I know many where I play do the same for new players.
That being said, if the player is a vet, even a kid, and they mess up, I don't allow takebacks.
R A I S E
R A G E S
R A K E S
R A I S E
R A G E S
R A I S E
SOFT WELT