×
  • Sign In

    • Sign In



    Or sign in with one of these services

  • Sign Up
Jump to content

LAN_Megalodon

Members
  • D
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    354

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by LAN_Megalodon

  1. LAN_Megalodon
    I remember when poketrade was populated around 24/7 with bearable randumbs lol. I think mostly because tgh was dead back then.
  2. LAN_Megalodon
    -1 no
  3. LAN_Megalodon
    Christmas is ideal. Like everyone in college gets like a month off and everyone below that gets a week or two or something. The only issue is people might be traveling, but that's something you'd run into on any holiday.
  4. LAN_Megalodon
    Whatever was done last time worked for a little while, but I'm now having the same problems again. How do I fix?
  5. LAN_Megalodon
    I mean you'd probably still have regular porn by virtue of ISP(s) losing too much money by banning it. 50% of men ages 18 to whatever regularly watch/look at some kind of porn, the number gets greater if you reduce the maximum age. (say ages 18 - 40 instead of 18 - 88 or whatever). Women make up only 13%, but those who do are 113% more likely to look up "hardcore" porn. My point being that generic concepts in general aren't as much at risk, it's really the multiple viewpoints and variety of the internet that's at risk. There's nothing really in the way post-neutrality of ISP(s) going after small, notoriously-disliked groups. That's where the problem is.
  6. LAN_Megalodon
    So for people who don't know the basics of net neutrality, I'll try to explain it. It's been a pretty popular topic, so you might be able to find a better/more clear explanation somewhere else. Bear with me, this is going to be a long one, also keep in mind that this is a bi-partisan issue. ISP(s) = Internet Service Provider(s) (Comcast, Charter, Frontier, etc.) Title II Service = Services for the public good (Public Transport, Libraries, etc.) FCC = Federal Communications Commission (Agency of U.S. Government that regulates communications.) The issue is that there's not enough ISP(s) to provide competition for the service (of providing internet). If net neutrality altogether is abolished, part of what is abolished is ruling that pretty much states ISP(s) cannot charge an unreasonable amount of money, because the internet is a Title II service under the FCC. A Title II service is a service that is essentially regulated out of the public's "need" for it. Title II services are not literal needs like food and water, but near-needs for living in modern-day society, (like public transit, another Title II service). When a service is regulated as Title II, it allows private businesses to fulfill the need of the public by providing that service, but under somewhat hefty regulation. Businesses that provide public (Title II) services aren't allowed to inconvenience the public with prices, or discriminate based on race/class/religion/political affiliation, etc. If there's one private public transport system in your area, as a Title II service, they can't hike the price through the roof and try to gouge you solely because you require that service and they're the only supplier. Unfortunately this is an issue the internet experiences. There's not many ISP(s) within the US (there's not generally many ISPs anywhere in the world, but America is disproportionately affected by this scarcity of supply.) If these companies lobbying for the abandonment of net neutrality get their way, they'll essentially have monopolies over the business of providing people internet. In this hypothetical situation, if there's only one ISP in your area, they can essentially charge whatever they want for the service. Imagine Comcast is the only ISP in your area, they could theoretically charge some obscene amount of money per month. You're stuck because your only options are to either cough up your hard-earned paycheck for what is probably the lowest quality internet service (we'll get into this later) they can provide, or going without internet. The other big benefit (to the public) of a service being Title II, is that Title II services have to provide equal access to everyone, regardless of almost any factor. On the internet, this means regardless of where you live, who you are, what you believe, or whatever, ISP(s) cannot restrict your access to legal sites. This also works for people hosting websites, ISP(s) cannot restrict other people's access to your website for arbitrary reasons, or give it lower "priority" or "visibility" for their own reasons. If the internet is no longer a Title II service, this is all reversed, and basically ISP(s) can restrict your access to websites, and traffic, visibility and priority for your own theoretical website for whatever arbitrary reason they want. Let's imagine the internet is no longer a Title II service, now let's imagine there's a site called "Comcast Eats Crappy Donkey Schlong and are Assholes" that documents all the horrible abuse and service customers receive at the hand of Comcast. What do you think Comcast is going to do in this hypothetical situation? Do you think Comcast will allow the very service it provides to be a pathway of information about how awful it is? You're absolutely insane if you do, Comcast customers would never be able to see this site. This becomes very grim very quickly if you think about how any ISP could apply this method to literally anything on earth. Here's another hypothetical situation: Let's say a politician runs for office, and one of his/her stances is supporting net neutrality. If net neutrality is ever abolished, it will be neigh impossible to ever oppose it in the future, as ISP(s) essentially control the public's access to your information. As stated before, ISP(s) are not going to willingly provide their consumers access to information that makes them look bad. ISP(s), in effect, would control by-and-large the public's access to critical information, including that of politics, and would most certainly manipulate it to keep themselves in power. Sites about how awful a post-neutral internet is? Gone. Politicians opposing these ISP(s)? Unknown about. It's borderline Orwellian control of public knowledge. Finally, what internet providers would really really like to do is split parts of the internet into "packages", almost like cable. Imagine having $20 tacked on for YouTube and other video streaming, $30 for Facebook and other social media services, etc., etc. They could literally charge whatever "premium" they want, for whatever site they want, on top of already literally being able to charge whatever they want for basic internet. The most disgusting part about this whole situation is that ISP(s) are already making a fuck-ton of money hand over fist with Title II regulations in place. They already make soooooo much fucking money, and they're basically saying "We will literally make everyone in America's quality of life worse in order to make more than the obscene amount we're already making". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh and also, if you think this somehow won't affect you, or whatever, as soon as some puritan hits a head position in one of these companies, any and all of your fetish porn is gone. Hell it wouldn't even have to be someone high-ranking in the company in general, it could just be some puritan members of the public threatening them with a boycott, and in order to appease them and keep business, the ISP just blocks everyone's access within the area. A large enough amount of people in a certain area don't like furries? Access to furry sites gone in that area. A large enough amount of people in a certain area don't like Asians? Asian porn gone in that area. A large enough amount of people in a certain area don't like hentai? Hentai sites are inaccessible in that area. People are going to think that I'm just making a funny joke about porn here, but seriously, as funny as it is, it's what could happen. All it takes is enough crazies who just want to ban whatever's not their opinion or preference, and it's gone! So in short, no, it wouldn't be anarchy and chaos, we'd all be ruled under the iron fist of authoritarianism, arguably worse. A awful, sanitized, safe-for-work, clean-fun version of the internet that you have to pay even more money for, and that likely is provided for you at the speed of snail mail.
  7. LAN_Megalodon
    invite me too you're house so i can do silly screem.
    1. Bone

      Bone

      Ha ha, he do funny scream
    2. yesstergi

      yesstergi

      your*
    3. hongkongatron

      hongkongatron

      https://www.mediafire.com/file/fra4x14492ntn3p/killsound.wav
  8. LAN_Megalodon
    That solved it, thanks.
  9. LAN_Megalodon
    I recently changed my name in minecraft from LAN_Megalodon to lan_megalodon because I think the capitals looked obnoxious. I had transferred the mayor-ship of the town from grape so that he could transfer them back to me afterwards, but it appears that for whatever reason, when he tried to transfer them back to me (while my name was is in lower case), it changed the mayor back to LAN_Megalodon (with capitals). Now I appear to have lost all permissions of my town despite being at least a resident of it, I cannot tp to outposts, (it tells me "town spawn travel is forbidden") and I cannot claim any new land (it tells me I do not have enough permissions to do so, but I have enough townblocks and money). I'd prefer to not lose the massive amount of progress I've made on my town, and I'd hate to see it revert by leaving it, as now that there is no account with "LAN_Megalodon" in caps, there's probably no way to transfer the mayorship anymore. Idk, maybe there's a problem here I'm not seeing, but if anyone has a fix it would be much appreciated. Maybe an external way to make me mayor again or something? Otherwise I have to wait 30 days to change my name back with the capital letters, and I'm not even sure if that will work, (I'd also really prefer my name in lowercase).
  10. LAN_Megalodon
    I'd say that he was actually intentionally trying to go after a member, but the hitler jokes and whatnot hints at him just making edgy jokes for the lulz. Probably not really worthy of any great punishment. +1 Warning or day ban.
  11. LAN_Megalodon
    Can't, college starts soon lol. Unfortunately you might want to wait until a holiday break again
  12. LAN_Megalodon
    I'm not saying you should, I just think it's odd that people are scratching their heads wondering why people are reacting with hostility to a post that was incredibly hostile.
  13. LAN_Megalodon
    Jackie's whole fucking post was passive aggressive.
  14. LAN_Megalodon
    This guy got hyper-upset about my soldier loadout. Like upset at me, as a person, for what cosmetics I used as a specific class in a video game, and proceeded to be hyper-toxic until he got fed up and left. I don't know, maybe he was just off that day or whatever, but I feel like members that are immediately hostile based on the way someone's character in a videogame looks, (this wasn't a situation where he got irritated that I used the reserve shooter or anything, he was just legitimately upset about the cosmetics I was wearing, actually legitimately angry,) aren't people who should be representing xG. I've also heard numerous horror stories about Zach's searches for a sexy ERP partner. -1
  15. LAN_Megalodon
    "SJW Pussies" Yeah, just walk into your local mcdonalds and start loudly calling people "n*gga", those guys are fucking sjw libtards if they decide they don't want their private enterprise touching that word with a 20-foot pole. On an unrelated note, you're not exactly in good standing with this community considering your past abuse and constant vote-spam, it wouldn't surprise me if this post was a poe, with jackie just deliberately trying to get a reaction out of anyone. Truly, there are no words with which I can respectfully explain how stupid this thread and argument are. Use the word on your own time, Xenogamers deciding that the word being an issue too touchy to warrant using is completely reasonable.
  16. LAN_Megalodon
    Ok, thanks for the clarification.
  17. LAN_Megalodon
    Can we have all the logs pl0x? I think it might be helpful. Beyond which, I think it's hardly fit to call either individual's actions toxicity thus far. They literally just called each other names and then grape made a sarcastic remark. I think toxicity is more along the lines of actually going for the throat, and it would be untruthful to say worse hasn't gone by without issue. Also on an unrelated note, I don't blame Amy for not knowing about spawners, but it would be nice if the DL actually came to examine your possible problems with the towny plug-in before just immediately throwing in the towel. Spawners don't seem to work in claimed areas, idk if that's the problem tundah was having, (there's no way I'd no unless I at least looked at his problem, that's the point).There's a skeleton spawner near me that would never spawn anything when I had the area claimed around it, so I just claimed an area next to it instead, and it seemed to solve the problem. The real issue I see is the creative mode thing. Nobody else has the ability to just warp in a billion stone bricks and glass to build a giant impenetrable wall around their own town, why is Amy special? I also highly detest the idea that it's excusable for being a "community project", as if it was, you wouldn't feel the need to build a giant impenetrable wall around it, to make it your own town exclusively, or to subtly include your distaste for other towns within it. I've heard that you've asked people to leave after they found ways to make it in, and even had gone as far as assuming that they set their spawn to be within the walls of your abode before you had even made it private. There's nothing wrong with wanting a private town or whatever, but I think that immediately disqualifies it from being a "community project". Another allegation is that the wall was built with the express purpose of concealing use of creative from nearby neighbors, which I can't confirm, but the stunning amount of bookcases within the library only make me suspicious, as does your seemingly incredible need to keep others "out".
  18. LAN_Megalodon
    "Next time I will pretend to be a pirate" rofl
  19. LAN_Megalodon
    Sell it for like the dollar it's worth and buy something craftable if you really want to craft that badly. Alternatively you could get even more craftable weapons if someone overpays for it in a direct trade. My point is just that something being uncraftable isn't really an issue. The item is worth around a dollar, and you can trade it. The only realy issue I see, once again, is people flooding the inventory with items barely worth anything that take up more inventory space than they're worth, (crates, cases, even scrap weapons to an extent).
  20. LAN_Megalodon
    I don't feel like reading 3+ pages of arguments, but even marketplace.tf has problems with people just dumping a ton of their trash-tier items on them, as they don't have enough space. If we could implement some kind of restriction on items below 30 cents or so, you might have better results and less headaches.
  21. LAN_Megalodon
    my name jeff
    1. SnowyMinion

      SnowyMinion

      my name gif
  22. LAN_Megalodon
    Hey, as I explained before, I'm all for leaving the thing be, It's just that if we that if everyone else reaches the consensus that we have to change it for whatever reason... ...you know what I think we should replace it with
  23. LAN_Megalodon
    Haven't player much with Logic so I can't really give my opinion. On a completely different note, "gateway drug" theories are irrelevant as the argument is circular. Being exposed to harder drugs isn't a direct side effect of the gateway drug in question, merely the result of the drug being labeled "gateway". In this way the issue is with the law and not the "gateway" drug. Put another way, if weed is illegal, it is poor reasoning to keep it illegal solely because in its current illegal state pursuing the purchase of it may expose one to the purchase of other more dangerous illegal drugs. The same hypothetical negative effect would be seen if hamburger "users" were forced to buy their patties in back allies and street corners. (There are legitimate negative effects to use of marijuana, as just by its own nature it leads to temporarily impaired rational thought and awareness of surroundings, while possible more permanent risks may be, inhaling carcinogens and contracting bronchitis.) I really don't give a crap about anyone's opinion on weed though, it's almost completely irrelevant, just want to address a logical fallacy.
  24. LAN_Megalodon
    replace it with this because this is a quality meme all with me say "aye"
  25. LAN_Megalodon
    Also he's not 16, he's 15, three years younger than I. I don't know if lying about this disqualifies him in any way.