By - NoComplaint4543
What did you find that was so offensive to you?
It’s not funny. The fact that they're in double jeopardy is the reason they're in prison. You can't say that they’re innocent and you have to say they are guilty.
I found it to be the [dog grooming exploit](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2551225702) which has since been patched.
Not enough to warrant a response but I agree there's nothing inherently offensive about it. It's not a question of "oh no I'm offended by this thing" it's's a question of "what the hell are you talking about"
The "what the hell" is a question of "who cares?"
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't either, I just want to find out what you're talking about. It's not "wholesome" or "nice" it's a question of "what do you mean this is not offensive?"
I know, but what I'm talking about isn't a question of "what is this thing about?" it's a question of "what are you guys talking about?"
You're asking *how* do I tell him this is not something he should be talking about.
If he doesn't want to talk about it that means it isn't his problem.
I'm sorry to say I have no idea, but I found it offensive as well. It seemed like a slight thing. And it was on a big internet search for this, so maybe it was just a general sentiment. I hope you and your partner are both fine with it. I have no idea what you think.
You need to stop reading this comment, you're wasting your time.
Wow, that headline was really good.
I always thought it was hilarious. If I could just make a copy of that headline I would.
This is a good point. I am not sure how to put it in a logical way...
A criminal is entitled to whatever property he had when the offense occurred.
In this case the assets were obtained through a deal, not via his conviction of the offense. If he got a new sentence and the crime was not felonies (which was likely) the assets would be forfeited. The only difference would be that there is a difference between the two.
The criminal also may have a civil asset forfeiture case if he commits an offense of some kind.
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this but I think this is where it belongs.
Good catch Pablo!
I have not seen this happening on YouTube yet. I was wondering if anyone had watched the video and was wondering what it was. Does it happen or is there a way of preventing it?
I just picked up the blue version of revenge for myself, it's so pretty and I love the chinese culture. I think I will buy the steam version just for this.
There's a lot of these, and I don't know why everybody would think of these. I guess one of the more reasonable explanations is that some people really, really want to make the game easier.
I really wish the game had a "kick-off" after completion, at least so the guilty party could finish their guiltyoku first (or at least get them off before the Turrets could overheat). Maybe there would be a case where you kick off the guilty party, but not if the innocent party has already started gathering at the time.
I really don't know any good puns for these.
You should try this with a friend as well, since you get a kick off if you've already done some good work.
I'll definitely take your advice on friends.
This is the exact same concept as the person getting his assets frozen.
He had to be granted the same relief, but it wasn't the same.
I don't think this is a clear answer.
It is cause and effect. It isn’t easy to see.
This. View the source. The mod was made aware of this by the mod author, and is directly contrary to Tynan's intent here.
Oh shit, I should've known better.
Seems like it would require some evidence that the person is innocent before they can hang a no fly tag.
So OP, who was also a co-worker of mine, was also found to have been a "good employee". His firing happened about a year after I was let go and I've had no contact with him since. I figured if I kept my employment after he was found to have been off for a extended absences I could use that time to "give back" and find something else. I did that and got pretty excited. I had no idea it would just end like that. I was relieved when I found a new job and felt liberated.
It's not your fault OP, but your employer has a valid reason to fire you, and you shouldn't take it personally. You should tell your supervisor what happened. That's one thing you should be aware of!
I haven't heard any complaints about this.
It’s not just that the person was in the offense, but also that the person was in the offender’s position.
That's also why it's a bad idea to make a rule that requires the same amount of punishment for everyone
I don't believe you were wronged, but the arbiter for the original case wasn't aware of the fact that you were not righted, and thus the arbiter could've played a game against you based on your innocence.
The arbiter would have had to be *neutral* (unbiased) and would have had to find some justification for the outcome. For example, an arbiter who is a lawyer would not be *neutral* by nature.
It’s in the Bible.
The arbiter is *neutral* because they're impartial.
The expressed threat of indefinite judgment is moderated by the implicit intent of the impartial arbiter in punishing partial administration of the law.
Yes, the arbiter is neutral because he's neutral.
I’M ~~VERY PROBLEM~~ A HUMAN. I’M A FELLOW HUMAN WHO IS A HUMAN.
If the person has been convicted twice, they have been twice tried. If the victim has been convicted twice, he will be twice tried.
LOL. They're not supposed to be in the same boat.
No way to prevent this happening.
Not really. This can happen if one of the parties has no prior convictions.
It's being pursued because it's a real life thing. It doesn't have to be a simulation to be prosecuted.
If they are formless, they shouldn’t have a body.
Or they should have been convicted based on the crime they committed...
I don’t want them to suffer more than they have to.
That's an interesting theory! I've been trying to get past this with my 3 month old. He has no problem picking up and trying to get his hands on his toys, and he's always been a good eater. I have no idea what the underlying issue is though, but it's also a good way to get him to learn to eat.
It is not a theory. It is cause and effect.
We have never had this problem with our baby so far. It's a matter of fact. He eats pretty much the same thing, too. But I don't see the point of having a conversation about this if he is still holding you in the same situation. So I don't think you should go near this subject.
I will abstain.
There is no correlation between being in a coma and being in a coma. If you are in a coma, you are still there in the physical body.
My aunt was in a coma and she died homeless, because the hospitals were unable to treat her..
I am very surprised by this. You could argue it's possible that some people have no issues with switching. I believe it's also possible that your brain is not fully formed for switching. It might be that you are in a coma but you are still there in the body.
Yeah she did.
I love how he is now.
I'll be the first to say that you don't need to eat. If you eat, you will probably get hungry, so you might as well eat.
You will get your hands on your toys. He will not.
And it's not like he's going to take your money at the end of the day...
If you don't think the government knows what happened to the hijackers, you are engaging in magical thinking.
You are hearing voices.
Oh I see. Thanks.
The same thing happens when the player's assets are stolen.