@ghark there are some different issues with it. One is that you can "stream snipe", which means timing your finding match to the streamer, increasing the chances of getting matched up against him. that in itself isn't necessarily so bad, but it is essentially griefing.

The other is that if you add delay to your stream, you lose fundamental ability to interact with your viewers, which makes the stream much less entertaining for both parties.

A huge part of Starcraft is scouting what your opponent is doing and reacting to that, and being able to see the whole map negates that and gives you an extremely unfair advantage. It's like looking over the shoulder of someone else you're playing against, or looking into the cards of a poker player you're playing against.

I thought they were saying 'barnacle', which would make it much better.

Also: "played poker with a witch" - brilliant.

That's it. He's banned from my poker night sessions. Those who handle cards like that cannot be trusted.

That's one lucky SOB lol lol

This is why I stopped playing poker (not that I ever got serious lol). The randomness of the game annoyed the heck out of me lol

Congratulations! Your video, Poker Dealer Makes Huge Mistake, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 22 Badge!

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@Duckman33 I stand corrected, see rule #99: http://www.wsop.com/2012/2012-WSOP-Rules.pdf
I still say it's kind of a douche move by the dealer to not check though.


Agreed. I saw this when it happened, and if it were me I would have came unglued. Even though it would have been my fault, I still would have been that pissed he didn't even ask first. But I always use a card protector so I shouldn't have this problem. <knocks on wood>

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^chingalera:
Dealer is not responsible for the player not capping their cards-She foiked-up.

I disagree. Capping cards is not a requirement, and several other players haven't capped (especially the low-blind position who is to the left of the guy eating something) when you look @ the 8-10 second mark. Generally speaking, your cards need to be shoved further away than where she had them.
The reach required for the dealer to pick up the cards should have been enough to signal that she wanted to keep the hand. He should have at least checked, seeing as how this is a major tournament.


Robert's Rules of Poker (the rule book for every poker event in history) reads

II. You must protect your own hand at all times. Your cards may be protected with your hands, a chip, or other object placed on top of them. If you fail to protect your hand, you will have no redress if it becomes fouled or the dealer accidentally kills it. http://www.texasholdem-poker.com/roberts_rules_of_poker/irregularities

>> ^chingalera:

Dealer is not responsible for the player not capping their cards-She foiked-up.

I disagree. Capping cards is not a requirement, and several other players haven't capped (especially the low-blind position who is to the left of the guy eating something) when you look @ the 8-10 second mark. Generally speaking, your cards need to be shoved further away than where she had them.


The reach required for the dealer to pick up the cards should have been enough to signal that she wanted to keep the hand. He should have at least checked, seeing as how this is a major tournament.

Your video, Poker Dealer Makes Huge Mistake, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 20 Badge!

>> ^messenger:
I have watched a lot of Hitch videos, and he did sweat and stammer a lot. In this debate, objectively, I think he was drunk of his gourd, the way he rambled off on tangents, and that may mean he "lost" the debate for wasting a good chunk of Craig's question time. A lot of what Hitch said was nonsense, but when he was talking on point, he didn't miss anything. It was Craig who kept missing the point that what atheists are saying is that we accept none of the theistic stories, that weak atheism is a not a strong position or a belief.

OR, if your and Craig's claim is that so-called "atheists" are redefining the word and making it mean something wrong, I still don't see what the problem is. We're telling you what we believe (or don't). There wasn't a label for what we are until it became necessary to have one that identified people with a unique faith system (a lack of one). If we're not using the word according to what you believe the original meaning is, so what. It's just a label. When most modern atheists use it, it's a shorthand for, "There is no religious faith system or description of God that I believe is correct." Note that this doesn't exclude any possibility. It only states that right now, I don't believe it.

If you don't know then you're agnostic. If you do know, then youre an atheist. There is no position inbetween I know and I don't know. It's that simple. That's why Hitchens had to admit "I do not therefore believe that God exists". The attempted redefinition of atheism simply a tactic to avoid any burden of proof.

>> ^messenger:
To your million dollar story, if you actually said those exact words to me, and as per your example, many others were in the habit of making the same promises which had always turned up empty, I would probably lump you in with the others and lose the opportunity, and so be it. If I didn't, I'd spend half my life digging up people's gardens. And yes, looking like an ass in public would be an additional penalty I'd work into the calculations.

Judging my decision as wrong based on the negative outcome is a logical fallacy, just as making a statistically incorrect play in poker, but still winning on a fluke doesn't make the decision correct. So if I make a logical decision -- the same one you made in your life many times before your numinous experiences started -- based on the information I have, it is the logical one.

My point had nothing to do with statistics. The point was how ridiculous it is to spend so much time doing everything you can to rule the claim out except to actually test it directly. Especially considering that there is nothing to lose in testing it, and everything to gain. So no, it isn't logical, and since you can pray in your room, you don't have to embarass yourself doing it.

>> ^messenger:
On another note: how can you assure me that what happened to you will also happen to me? Do you have personal experience that shows that everyone with no faith or numinous experience who tries opening their hearts to Jesus succeeds in being entered by the Holy Spirit? You never had to do so, so how would you know it always works?

What Jesus is interested in, foremost, is sincerity. Ask yourself these questions; if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him? Would you serve Him the rest of your days? Would you place your entire faith and trust in Him alone? If you can answer yes to those questions, and you sincerely want to know if Jesus really is God, then there is no doubt He will answer your prayer. It may not come immediately, but it will come, and it will be undeniable.

I have watched a lot of Hitch videos, and he did sweat and stammer a lot. In this debate, objectively, I think he was drunk of his gourd, the way he rambled off on tangents, and that may mean he "lost" the debate for wasting a good chunk of Craig's question time. A lot of what Hitch said was nonsense, but when he was talking on point, he didn't miss anything. It was Craig who kept missing the point that what atheists are saying is that we accept none of the theistic stories, that weak atheism is a not a strong position or a belief.

OR, if your and Craig's claim is that so-called "atheists" are redefining the word and making it mean something wrong, I still don't see what the problem is. We're telling you what we believe (or don't). There wasn't a label for what we are until it became necessary to have one that identified people with a unique faith system (a lack of one). If we're not using the word according to what you believe the original meaning is, so what. It's just a label. When most modern atheists use it, it's a shorthand for, "There is no religious faith system or description of God that I believe is correct." Note that this doesn't exclude any possibility. It only states that right now, I don't believe it.

To your million dollar story, if you actually said those exact words to me, and as per your example, many others were in the habit of making the same promises which had always turned up empty, I would probably lump you in with the others and lose the opportunity, and so be it. If I didn't, I'd spend half my life digging up people's gardens. And yes, looking like an ass in public would be an additional penalty I'd work into the calculations.

Judging my decision as wrong based on the negative outcome is a logical fallacy, just as making a statistically incorrect play in poker, but still winning on a fluke doesn't make the decision correct. So if I make a logical decision -- the same one you made in your life many times before your numinous experiences started -- based on the information I have, it is the logical one.

On another note: how can you assure me that what happened to you will also happen to me? Do you have personal experience that shows that everyone with no faith or numinous experience who tries opening their hearts to Jesus succeeds in being entered by the Holy Spirit? You never had to do so, so how would you know it always works?>> ^shinyblurry:

I think any objective observer would have to admit that Christopher just completely folded..he was stammering and unsure of himself, a rare thing for him, but there it is on video.

I have to say he's wrong on a number of points.

For one, sports rules are arbitrary. In any competitive game, the only purpose of the rules is to provide an agreed upon environment in which people can compete, in order to make scores easy to tally. For example, imagine basketball with no rules, a player takes a ball from one end of a court to another without dribbling and shoots and makes it. How many points should that be worth? How about using a ladder to make the basket, or any one of the limitless number of other ways a person might come up with on the fly while playing? By having all the competitors agree to a set of rules, regardless of what those rules are, it's possible to referee the game and determine a winner. You can take any game, make arbitrary changes to the rules, and all you've done is create a different game. From chess, to poker, golf, football, curling, or anything else, the only difference is the rule set. Take volleyball, make a few a tweaks, and you have sepak takraw. People might find one rule set more aesthetically pleasing to watch or fun to compete in than another, but that is completely subjective. There are an infinite number of possible rule sets, and if there were infinite people you could find somebody to enjoy each one of them.

Also, it's more than the essential nature of a thing that matters. Nonessential parts can have effects on the essential ones. The golf cart thing is the perfect example. Walking may not be an essential part of the game, but the fatigue it produces has an effect on swinging the club which is an essential part. It's easy to imagine a person unable to walk, but still able to swing a club with force an accuracy. So being disabled does not disadvantage this person on the essential parts of the game. This person spends most of his time on a golf cart, exerting little energy, and shaded from the sun. The other players do a lot of walking, getting tired, sunburned, sweat in their eyes, etc. That could definitely have an effect on the essence of the game.

So the question is then, which is more important: letting golf be defined as having the particular set of rules that it currently has, or being fair by letting the disabled play?
If it makes sense that the court can redefine the rules of golf so that a disabled person can use a cart and it still be called "golf", then surely it makes sense to still call it golf after you change the rules so that everybody can use a cart. And if the court has the power to do the former, it has the power to do the latter. And the court clearly chose the virtue of fairness over the "sanctity" of the rule set. And, since letting only one person use a cart would still be unfair, just to different people, the only sensible course of action is let everybody use one.

Yeah....that would be OK....But I kinda want see some of those moanin bitches that papple was talkin about, that would be gold too...amIright?
>> ^hpqp:
You know what would make this video gold? If he had had a steadicam that keeps the face centered and lets the scenery move around it.

What, are you PRO facial fractures or something!?
>> ^solecist:

>> ^budzos:
edit: the guy in the video is a dipshit. What he's doing is the same thing I'm complaining about, squared. He's putting on a performance instead of just riding the ride. Extra dipshit points for putting everyone behind him at risk of facial fractures.

really? maybe you should chill the fudge out, brosef.

>> ^budzos:
edit: the guy in the video is a dipshit. What he's doing is the same thing I'm complaining about, squared. He's putting on a performance instead of just riding the ride. Extra dipshit points for putting everyone behind him at risk of facial fractures.


really? maybe you should chill the fudge out, brosef.