On December 28 2014 10:21 Alaric wrote: I'm around but I'm tired and I haven't trained much (I mean I know a few basic combos on paper but nowhere close to execute even half of a single one).
See, I don't see how Rogue is good in arena if it's that bad to have to burn HP through weapons, esp. if you have to rely on "picking up a finisher" as they don't have dedicated minions for it (even ironbark counts as a finisher for druid).
Varek's summation of the oddness of season 2 was amazing.
Lol. I completely skipped S2 after I finished S1 and hear everybody say how shitty it was, so most of that episode in particular was a little new to me. Only got back into Korra after seeing how epic the Book 3 trailer was.
And pretty cool that people here now talk/play fighting games and not just HS(which I don't mind)/DoTA, but sadly its SG/sometimes Smash
Noone plays KoF (not even me, I press buttons in KoF, but I wouldn't say I "play" it yet ).
I think the same thing, but somehow, Rogue I feel like is one of my higher win % classes in Arenas.
And I main KoF13 nowadays (play/enjoy it a lot more than SF4), although I literally haven't touched anything else once I got my hands on Xrd.
Edit: Also I swear to god Unstable Portal for me in this game is like Katarina in LoL.
My opponent portals in a Tirion or a T3 Boulderfist, and I get an Impmaster or Mistress of Pain (although to be fair, I had Knife Juggler+Impmaster going, and it basically won me a game).
Enemy team Kat melts my teams face off, getting resets all day, while my Kat just goes in, doesn't pop Hourglass, and gets plastered.
damnit! it was my roommates turn to buy beer. so before he left for christmas he stocked the mini fridge. the fucker bought mikes hard lemonade.. god damnit. now i gotta go pick up some beer before the football starts later
Note jury nullification only exists in common law countries, Britain, US, parts of Canada, Australia, and India.
Magistrates can't override a juries ruling unless it isn't a court of record (aka it's a show trial in order to make people think they've been judged). Magistrates (or whatever they may be called in your country) can override a jury's ruling, which of course means they don't really get any say at all, and it's just a show trial.
Also the reason why you have to have every juror agree is because otherwise what you have is effectively similar to slavery, my opinion matters, and yours doesn't, so technically you don't really get a say (also see what that means about democracy).
Can someone please explain jury duty to me, it sounds really weird you just get told you will be one of the people who will decide whether someone is or isn't guilty just completely randomly? Can you refuse? Who came up with this idea? Why? Or do I just not understand what is going on?
On December 28 2014 19:12 Scip wrote: Can someone please explain jury duty to me, it sounds really weird you just get told you will be one of the people who will decide whether someone is or isn't guilty just completely randomly? Can you refuse? Who came up with this idea? Why? Or do I just not understand what is going on?
every US citizen over the age of 18 can potentially be chosen to interview for a position on a jury. the lawyers talk with you to make sure you are impartial to the trial, aka you aren't a racist if its a case where race could be involved, things like that or you are an violent anarchist or a felon or have gang connections or something that could impede the trial. if you are chosen you get secluded for the duration of the trial, business have to honor your time off to do the jury duty, you cannot lose your job for doing jury duty, and the government pays you for your time. you go up to the courtroom and listen to all the evidence and speeches, and then go decide whether you think the man is guilty or not ect. you cannot refuse to show up, but you can get out of jury duty if you have small children at home who you have to take care of or other extenuating circumstances. you technically can lie to get out of jury duty, but its also illegal.
juries have been around since ancient Greece. but the system used in the US is derivative of the British empire's from when we were a colony. As such precautions were taken and changes were made from the very start of our country to make juries less nepotistic and more "fair", rather than a political figure determining who would be in the jury like it used to be.
The point is to make sure you are determined guilty by reasonable people like yourself, rather than through the motivations of a political agenda, or an emotional reaction, or just revenge.
The count of monte cristo is an example of the systems that existed outside of jury-driven courts. i don't know if you've read the book or watched the film.
Its an alternative to arbitration that had been the main legal system in societies not using a jury.
surely you can see the flaw in a system that relies on a sole individual in order to determine the fate of an accused man.
both systems have merits and detraction. a jury simply adds redundancy to the alternatives. you must convince multiple people who have no connection, rather than a single individual of your innocence or in the US systems case, the prosecutors must convince multiple people of a persons guilt.
On December 28 2014 19:50 Dandel Ion wrote: juries are a pretty retarded concept
Why? What qualifies a judge or whoever the fuck to decide what is right or wrong over a group of normal people ? Both parties are presented with the evidence and arguments for/against.
On December 28 2014 19:50 Dandel Ion wrote: juries are a pretty retarded concept
Why? What qualifies a judge or whoever the fuck to decide what is right or wrong over a group of normal people ? Both parties are presented with the evidence and arguments for/against.
I'd say juries were a pretty good concept.
Experience. Formal training in the law. Review able to enact change(ie lose your job/judgeship) ensures due diligence etc etc.
Nulification is basically the only reason juries exist
On December 28 2014 19:50 Dandel Ion wrote: juries are a pretty retarded concept
Why? What qualifies a judge or whoever the fuck to decide what is right or wrong over a group of normal people ? Both parties are presented with the evidence and arguments for/against.
I'd say juries were a pretty good concept.
Experience. Formal training in the law. Review able to enact change(ie lose your job/judgeship) ensures due diligence etc etc.
Nulification is basically the only reason juries exist
I was going to answer and then i got into a debate with myself over how bullshit the entire "legal" system is, so instead of a giant wall of text i'll save you the pain lol.
EPT
).
