agreed discord fucking blows. However, the OP says you only need a discord account.
Are you required to use that piece of shit or can you just create an account and use Mumble for your team in the tournaments? I would hate to be forced into using a program that I don't want to use in order to play.

Fuck, even a dead team got ranked above us. TBH, I've been feeling 23rd lately =(

Thanks a lot Hedge

Average age of that flank is currently 35

Tulk is an old friend of mine, can't say enough good things. Lots of experience, level headed, mature and not content with just playing to play the game, he wants to improve all the time. You would be hard pressed to find a better pickup for a team intent on building and growing together.

luc, nobody played this game way before you since you started in season 2. You're fucking old too, welcome to the club.

I don't get it. I'm sorry that I am dumb and can't figure it out. I do remember that match and ppl complained about a lot of different things. Can someone connect the dots for me how we are this match? Brian help, I want to understand why we are so bad!

says Published on Oct 28, 2016

Would love to have been in the room to listen to that last one.

I don't see why that is really a factor. In 150 years, you will have the same breakdown of the facts as you have right now. If you are saying that emotional attachments and personal reasons cloud judgement then that person should not truly be involved in the discussion IMO.

In mostly every case, you have a human being that did both "good" and "bad" things in their life. Some great individuals do "exceptionally good" and "exceptionally bad" acts in their life. Why would any logical debate / argument or discussion completely ignore anything "good" just because of the exceptionally bad?

I'm not saying it evens out, I am saying that in order to objectively look and dissect a topic, you must take into account everything from both sides. Stalin was a tyrant and many believe he was worse than Hitler. I think that is true only because Germany lost against Russia and Stalin had more time after the war to do more evil than Hitler since he was dead.

IMO , the question to ask and more to the OP's class assignment is:
Does being an evil man, like Stalin, automatically make you a bad leader or not the greatest leader?

Even if I didn't know the exact context of this situation, the same type of stuff can be clipped from just about any video you stream on a nightly basis. Its kinda like the boy who cried wolf, there is no way to know which to take seriously cause its so constant. I was watching you late Sunday night in a pug and your team was losing. The whole thing degenerated into a constant "what are these people doing?" or "that's so dumb". The worst part is that nobody was throwing in that pug, they just were not invite players so mistakes were being made. On the flip side, you say the same stuff when the good players are throwing in pugs so its always happening for 1 reason or another.

I'm not trying to argue or talk shit. ppl think its fun / popular to say negative things to you but thats not me and I guess I'm sorry for bring it up in the Stream Highlights Thread. I personally don't have any problem with you and enjoy watching the gameplay you provide on your stream. I just feel you would benefit from going with the flow in any game you play outside a match environment.

Just as a side-note for thought, if other ppl ruin your pug experience by "throwing" or simply not being good, you can likewise ruin other peoples pug experiences by being condescending and/or overly demanding in that "fun" pug. You can also make it annoying for your viewing audience.

I've never been to college but I have studied military history on my own for the better part of 15 years as my hobby. I read every single night and have learned a lot. I find it difficult to believe the only agenda or guideline for this debate is 1 sentence? "Stalin, the greatest Russian leader of all time?" Maybe I am wrong and the teacher wants ppl to be creative but are there no other instructions or clarification?

The reason I ask is because the question is in such a general statement. There are many ways to measure "greatest" and without some form of reference it might make the task more difficult. Greatest Military Leader? Economic and Domestic leader?, etc.

That said, I would think that there has to be a clear case for Stalin being in the discussion, if not the clear choice. Perhaps the main accomplishment you can set your research/debate around could be that he did lead the country from the brink of defeat to a world super power. Naturally there is a lot more involved in that statement but saying he wasn't a great leader for killing 60 million people is not really focusing on the entire argument.

Great leaders can come in many forms and dispositions, being labeled as an "evil man" does not automatically make someone a "bad leader". They all sanction acts that one would consider "evil" to further their own goals and ambitions but the ability to lead a country (good or bad) is the main question.
----For example, how many Roman Emperors are hailed as great leaders? Under each of their rule, untold numbers of slaves were killed throughout the empire for any reason their owners wished. Those deaths were "legal" for the time but do those deaths make the Emperor a bad leader? It is a complex argument/debate and probably why your teacher is making you do it.

edit: waiting for Marxist dissertation on this subject :)

Nope, he gave specific instructions, no comms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mklnXM3LIXo#t=00m37s

Here's the reason why I think you are wrong:

current CSGO winnings for the losing team:
rain - 384K
Karrigan - 527K
niko - 380K
Guardian - 499K
Olof - 607K

From what I can find Brady is at 197 Million for his whole career.

If Brady losses the superbowl, he basically only misses out on a bonus. Winning teams gets 107K per player, Losing team gets 51K. So Brady losses 56K and that's like 0.03% of his total earnings as a professional. (so Brady would likely care less about that money)

Losing that major, Rain and Niko lost 18% of their entire professional earnings, Guardian, Karrigan and Olof lost around 13%. There is a D Lineman on the patriots, Eric Lee, who made 263K this season. You think the 56K bonus means anything to him? 21% of his pro earnings in 1 game. If you think all that is peanuts then I dunno what to say.

You can't tell me missing out on 70K has nothing to do with these kids lives when its 13-18% of your income as a pro.
In the moment, losing the match/title is the worst thing ever and foremost on their minds, that is natural for any losing person/team. There are plenty of cases where winning the title is better than the money, I just don't think its universal for every player.

To just say its all about winning, I just can't accept that at a professional level until you reach truly incredible money levels. Until then, winning and getting paid go hand in hand IMO.

First off, comparing this to ppl like Jordan or Brady is irrelevant. and yes, when they became professional, it was about the money and getting paid. They have contracts.

Secondly, I never said anything about the money being more important than winning the major. If you can spot that, point it out to me, cause other wise its about reading comprehension on your part.

I specifically said winning and getting paid are both factors in playing professionally. I never said anything about one being more important.

I disagree to a point. Sure winning the major is a very huge thing but playing professionally is about making money and getting paid as well. You can't just discount the prize money or else why have prizes at all?

Looks like 100K each for first place and 30K each for 2nd place finish.
Pretty big difference in prize money, I'd be holding my head in my hands too if I finished 2nd.