• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About Trojan404

  • Rank
    Head of Promotions, Vacations and Reinstatements
  • Birthday 06/17/1995

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cincinnati, OH
  • Interests
    Gaming, Cooking, Programming, Anime
  • Battlenet

Recent Profile Visitors

1,053 profile views
  1. @SleepySheepy Definitely a tougher season. Not sure what changed about it, but I'm frequently playing HL games with HGC Pros so they're either not playing HL enough (which doesn't make sense to me) or they're stuck trying to grind up as well. To further elaborate on how hard it's been. I got Master and got up to almost 1,000 points, then lost it a day later. I'm back to 1 game off my Master promo.
  2. Pending

    @K1tT3n I'll talk it over with Leadership and get back to you.
  3. Hero League Master. Only rank above it is Grand Master which is the Top 200 players in the region. Master is about Top 2%.
  4. I mean, I got carried by Battery on my promo, but still.
  5. Took a lot of Christmas colors, but I finally got it.
  6. Didn't they buff it to 10 before his rework tho?
  7. He originally got 10 meat from getting a hero kill. If he died (and didn't have Abattoir), he lost 10 meat. He was buffed to get 25 meat on hero kill, but now he needs 250 meat to be max instead of 150.
  8. This has pretty much always been the case. His buff didn't change that. All his buff did is made him scale better and be a better team player. Prior to the buff, if he traded he netted 0 meat. Post-buff, he nets 15 meat if he trades.
  9. @Booyah Garrosh meta for a week. Apparently no one understands his kit yet. Just like Diablo, you don't walk up to him unless you want to be thrown. Just like Kerrigan, just sidestep or backstep the pull. Why is this so hard to figure out?
  10. @Roughknite @Nebulon The chatbox permissions should now be working properly.
  11. What you'll notice in that case is that Colorado has a state law that prevents discrimination in any form. In their instance, they did break the law. However, I encourage people to realize that this may not be the law within their region as well as the fact that this contradicts US economics and the ability to have the choice as to what work you do. This still doesn't mean that Masterpiece Cakeshop is right. Regardless of whether they broke a law or not, they still are a business that is determined by the public purchasing their service. If you disagree with a business' practices, create a petition and start a boycott. It's amazing what this can do. Remember the Nestle Formula Boycott back in the 1970s? That cost the company millions and they broke no laws. All they did was commit extreme moral wrong-doings.
  12. Quite the opposite. I think they should be allowed to. There is no law that states a company can't say they will not, in this instance, bake a cake for a gay wedding. In fact, you could argue that the US actually acknowledges this exact situation and calls it legal based on the fact that it is perfectly reasonable within Free Market economics. If I don't want to use a certain service, it's my right to not to. If I don't want to sell my own services to a certain individual or group of individuals, it's also within my right to not to. My point with my previous post is that you can't make arguments at a state level using religion or a religious bias. Nor can you make arguments at a religious level using state laws as a basis for the argument. Laws can change, but individuals cannot be lawfully punished if they break no laws. Now, situations like these are legal, but it doesn't mean they are morally right. Personally, I'm just all facts so the law is the law. Looking forward, I'd be on the side against making this a law because it's completely counter-intuitive to the concept of our economic market. I'd have to do a bit of research to check, but I'm fairly certain that congress CANNOT make it illegal to refuse service even over equality issues because that impedes on the refuser's rights. What can be done, though, is individuals can make the situation known and the organization could financially suffer as a result of their refusal of service. This in turn would cause them to rethink their stance, have to expand their business to maintain the needed revenue, or close business altogether.
  13. Should Sub-Saharan religions be allowed to practice Female Genital Mutilation if they came to the US? Should Hindus be allowed to do their annual "Baby Tossing" if they came to the US? Should remote religions in India and Africa be allowed to make human sacrifices if they came to the US? These are all religious customs that happen today in the world. It's for this reason that centuries ago we came up with the concept of "Separation of Church and State". What may be legal in your religion or right in your religion is not always right in your nation state. Not sure who said this, but I know it or something like it has been said before: "Religion exists within the boundaries of the church. Once you step outside of those walls, you must abide by the laws of the land you live on."
  14. In a Free Market economy, people are entitled to refuse service for any reason they want. Go almost anywhere in Florida and you'll see a sign that says, "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service." Due I sue them because they won't let me come off the beach and straight into their store? No. Now while this is a very small case explanation of the concept, it still stands on the premise of Free Market economics. As for refusing service to a LGBQT event, the same thing stands. People have a right to refuse the service if they want to. And just like in Florida with clothing, those being refused service have a right to ask why. They just may not like the answer. Having said all of this, though, there are a lot of people beginning to draw comparison to LGBQT to African Americans and branding these basic actions as hate crimes. I've seen some pretty stupid cases, none in particular memorable but stuff like calling it a hate crime to tell someone to leave their store. While I can see the resemblance to hate crimes, I personally feel it's two completely different sets of circumstances. LGBQTs not being able to buy a cake is not a hate crime. Hate crimes require there to be an actionable law broken (felony or misdemeanor) with the added prejudicial motivation.
  15. Sinatra.