@JoINrbs@tommartell@NissenSteffen@HuntChristopher@B_ankai7 @MrChecklistcard I'm aware that it "feels" like IDW, but the distinction between determining a winner and determining to continue playing is clear, and 14.3 doesn't apply here.
It was a tough call and obviously the situation escalated making it even worse, and I feel bad for everyone involved.
@JoINrbs@tommartell@NissenSteffen@HuntChristopher@B_ankai7 @MrChecklistcard An important part of judge training is recognizing a bias towards first matching an infraction, and then trying to fit the situation to meet the guidelines and ignoring and/or justifying the elements that don't match, when they should spend more time collecting information.
@JoINrbs@tommartell@NissenSteffen@HuntChristopher@B_ankai7 @MrChecklistcard It's not IDW - it was just messy turn overlap that only made sense because they both knew that there was nothing Nicole could play on his turn.
If it was IDW then it doesn't change when it happens - you'd still give same penalty even if she said it during her upkeep.
@JoINrbs@tommartell@NissenSteffen@HuntChristopher@B_ankai7 @MrChecklistcard Both players's are clear the intent was Nicole can't respond to anything Stanley does on his turn, she'd proceed to her draw while he finishes his turn. It's not unusual for player's turns to overlap like this - a player starts his turn while player is still fetching a land.
@day9tv@bmkibler Scavenger's Reign was excellent. One of those shows I wish I could experience again for the first time.
Kiddo and I both enjoyed Blue Eye Samurai a lot. It's on Netflix.
@JoINrbs@HotCross_ Climate policy was explicitly in the party platform in 1996, and Clinton campaigned on signing the Kyoto Protocol while targeting Republicans who had "neglected the global environment". The environment was Gore's signature issue.
Saying they added it after 2000 is not accurate
@JoINrbs@JoshGoldsmith@TheVilageIdiot3 Ultimately there are 150 million voters and dozens of important issues, so effectively we are all choosing the lesser of two evils because no perfect candidate exists. Your choice is to maximize positive impact, or you can leave the decision up to others to choose for you. 5/5
@JoINrbs@JoshGoldsmith@TheVilageIdiot3 As an aside - attempts to push Dems on climate ignore how Republican administrations, like GWB's and Trump's, undo any environmental progress, negating previous advancements like the Kyoto and Paris. It's a real-world example of these negative outcomes. 4/5
@JoINrbs@JoshGoldsmith@TheVilageIdiot3 The smart move for those wanting to "maximize positive impact" is to channel those resources into winning more elections, not defending Biden as nominee or combating voter apathy like in 2016. 4/4
@JoINrbs@JoshGoldsmith@TheVilageIdiot3 Realistically, the next president will be either GOP or Dem, with Biden as the Dem choice. Any other scenario is so unlikely, considering it a waste of time/money/energy - if the goal is to win then it's irrational to play to the .0000001% out. 3/4
@JoINrbs@JoshGoldsmith@TheVilageIdiot3 It's not about supporting "one person" if the goal is to implement policies that tangibly improve lives. Achieving strategic control across government branches is vital for enacting lasting change. 4/4
@JoINrbs@JoshGoldsmith@TheVilageIdiot3 The presidential election's impact stretches well beyond a mere four-year term. Consider Trump's appointment of three Supreme Court justices, who are going to be on the bench for 20+ years. 3/4