This is a throwaway account, but I am genuinely concerned about the direction of the United States, and how it will affect the rest of the world too. For all of our lives, America was about freedom and democracy. It may not have been perfect, but we at least had tons of freedom. We have the freedom to be friends with whoever we like, to enjoy whichever entertainment we'd like, for which news we could get, and to use whichever websites we want to (including this one). I also believe in peace, and that people can get along no matter what race, ethnicity, nationality, or their sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, etc, and I believe in going forwards. Unfortunately it looks like we are heavily going backwards, especially with Donald Trump (who has been charged SEVERAL TIMES, and is on trial) as a presumptive nominee. I think we all need to learn that we shouldn't take democracy for granted, but now we live in a time where we are so dangerously close to fascism, where everyone (especially marginalized groups) will face oppression. as Trump is trying to be a dictator (With even more authoritarian rhetoric than ever before. He even said he wanted to be a dictator "only on day one", but history tells us that they last far longer than just a day.) and unfortunately I think he's going to succeed, especially after SCOTUS gives him full immunity and renders him above the law. The worst part about all this is that so many Americans are sleepwalking into it, and some even embracing it. I am heavily believing now that no matter who legitimately wins the election, Trump is going to be in office, and our freedoms will go away (being EXACTLY what the Founders, the real ones and not the MAGA versions, didn't want.). Back in the late 2010s, it would have been considered a partisan hyperbolic statement by Democrats , but after 01/06/21, and the further radicalization of the GOP (to the point it's mostly just the Trump party), plus the extreme polarization, its safe to say that our democracy is unlikely to survive the 2024 election, and here's why a dictatorship is very likely (or inevitable).

1. Apathetic Voters and Protest votes. If you look at almost all of the polls, Biden and Trump are either tied, or Trump is in the lead by a small margin. In case you haven't noticed, Biden doesn't really have much of a loyal fanbase, meanwhile, Trump has a literal cult who will follow him NO MATTER WHAT. Biden's approval rating has sunken over the years, partially due to inflation (Even though things have been getting better recently), and of course the support of Israel (despite Trump probably being even worse when its this), he signed the bill that will likely Ban TikTok (Even though Trump called for that first, then flip flopped, even though he doesn't care about tiktok) and there is yet another issue than can never be fixed, HIS AGE (though Trump really isn't much younger.) As a result, he has lost the young vote, and many people would either vote for a 3rd party candidate or for Trump as a protest vote, or vote for Trump due his time in office being more "peaceful" and having better "economy" (Even though Trump sides with PUTIN in invading Ukraine, and the fact that the covid recession started under Trump, and lets not forget the George Floyd protests and Trump trying to stop even the PEACEFUL ones, he even threatened to use the MILITARY to do it.) Either that, or they'd refuse to vote for anyone thinking that all the options suck or that Trump will for sure lose so them voting is unnecessary. But, that's one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election and Trump won (only by the electoral vote), and why we are all in this mess in the first place.
2. Voter suppression: Even if there were a lot of people who would actually want Biden to win, Ever since the 2020 election, republican lawmakers across states have passed several voter suppression laws to make it harder for those who are most likely to vote against Trump or other republican candidates. More people would also be disenfranchised. Even worse than that, is that some of it could even be done by force, such as Maga people guarding the polls, and even Poll workers not working fairly either.
3. Overturning an election could happen. Even if Biden won the election legitimately, there is still a chance that the election could be overturned, and not only that, there's a HIGHER CHANCE of it being successful than in 2020. In fact people are already planning the election denial just in case Biden wins, which will ensure that it will be more likely to be a success, so it's very likely that even if Biden legitimately wins, Trump will be in office.
4. January 6 could happen again. Even if the election doesn't get overturned, there is another way Trump could get in office, BY FORCE! When January 6 happened, it was very violent and scary, but it didn't prevent Biden from getting in office. However, things are likely to be different in 2025, and as such January 6 may be more likely to be successful than last time. They may use some tactics that are UNTHINKABLE, and of course, Trump could power grab and be in office, and thus become a dictator.

Now I know a lot of people would say that "dude relax, we survived a Trump term before, and we will survive the next one, it won't be as bad." Yeah, people said it "won't be that bad" in 2016, but even with the guardrails, checks and balances, and Trump's inexperience, that term resulted in several preventable covid deaths, a supermajority far right supreme court that overturned several things including abortion (which Trump TAKES CREDIT FOR) and of course, the January 6 attack (which he still PRAISES and will pardon all the attackers when in office). Those guardrails won't even exist anymore next time, as now Trump will pick only loyalists in his cabinet, many of the moderate Republicans are leaving, and now Trump knows well what he's doing, and let's not forget about Project 2025 (And Republicans are ALREADY implementing some of it). People also said similar things about Hitler back in the 1930s as well, such as saying that it was "hyperbolic", laughing at him, or even saying that he "wouldn't be that bad", but we all know how that ended up. Yet ANOTHER world war and genocide towards targeted groups (such as Jews, the disabled, and LGBT).
One of the worst things about this is that many people are sleepwalking into it, or don't even care. The mass media isn't covering enough of this, but instead "Biden is old" or stuff like that, which isn't helping one bit (especially when owned by billionaires), and what's even worse is that many of these people won't even realize the danger that's coming until it's way too late. Even worse than that is that many people (Especially MAGA) are saying they'd prefer a dictatorship (though maybe not outright, though the fact that they support Putin is telling), and are saying that it's what America needs, and they (wrongly) believe that they will benefit from it. Not only that, a survey has revealed that Gen Z is actually leaning towards dictatorship as well. and not only that, Corporate America is starting to embrace the upcoming dictatorship. They believe they will benefit from it (they won't), being one of the reasons why the mass media won't report this enough. And not only that, it seems like NOTHING can stop him, not even a criminal trial (instead of opening the eyes of Maga, they will see him as being persecuted, meaning there is absolutely NOTHING that could open their eyes, they will never see him as someone who ONLY cares about himself, but as a savior, and i'm frightened by that.).
All of this will result in Trump winning the election (Which will be even more likely once he gets full immunity), and of course our democracy falling apart, the only belief system allowed being (their version of) Christianity, Ukraine being taken over by Putin, and a possible Civil War II (or even worse, WWIII, and a possible nuclear apocalypse). Even worse than that, Putin could take over the US and betray Trump as well (and we will be totally fucked), but if not then Trump may try to take over the world. History tells is that usually the only way to get rid of a dictator is by violence, and we don't want to get to that point, but unfortunately, it looks like its inevitable. Soon we may have to say goodbye to our rights and freedoms, and we will accept that we may lose some of our friends along the way, we may no longer be able to do whatever activities we enjoyed doing, as well as living in fear for a very long time. They also say that a loss of hope for our democracy could contribute to it, and admittedly, it's very hard to feel hopeful right now considering all of the factors, but there is still a little bit of hope. We can prepare for this, and make it so this is less likely,

1. Everyone should vote: Everyone who is allowed to vote should vote. The two party system sucks, and I'm not the biggest Biden fan, but I'm voting for him anyway, because he's the lesser of the two evils, especially when the only other major choice is trying to overthrow the government. I think a vote for a 3rd party candidate or someone else who isn't on the ballot is a vote for trump, please let's not repeat 2016.
2. Fight Voter suppression by supporting some non profit pro democracy groups, especially non partisan ones.
3. Fighting against the overturning, again by supporting the same organizations.
4. The people at the Capitol should be prepared for what will happen the next attack.

However, there is still only a slim chance that all of this will happen, but the best we can do right now is enjoy the time we have right now. We should enjoy the time we can enjoy the media we want, go to the places we want, be friends with who we want, and spend time with our family members (Especially if they are in the LGBT community or other marginalized communities, because the time we have with them may be numbered), and of course live our lives to the fullest, by doing the things that we take for granted (As long as it doesn't hurt anyone). And soon, it's very likely to go away, and it's a very hard lesson, that in order to keep freedom, we have to work hard to protect it. If all the preparation that us and some government officials can do fails, then what should we do. Accept what will happen to us or flee to another country and live in exile, don't say that you weren't warned. We don't want this to happen, we want to live in a country without always living in fear. So please try to help us. Especially if you actually care about your rights and freedom, or that of your friends and family (especially those who are in marginalized groups)

tl;wr: I’m looking for an office job that consists of performing same-day tasks (possibly via kanban board) rather than leading overall strategy.
Hi Reddit, I’m currently exploring the media job market but also want to be open to expanding my search. I’m in NYC so the world is pretty much my oyster.
After years of bartending I finally got the opportunity to transition careers into Programmatic media for a major agency - as in, forecasting audiences, optimizing pacing, and conversing with current and potential media partners to expand reach. I’ve found much disdain for this due to memory issues (below).
Luckily, I’ve also got insights into AdOps where the tasks are more technical, such as building the campaigns in platforms, creating floodlight tags for websites, and troubleshooting why something like video creatives are having troubles serving.
You develop the strategy, I put it together.
My biggest hurdle is that I’ve got memory issues due to ADHD (diagnosed at 34, six months ago — this was very eye opening) in that my long-term memory is basically nonexistent and any form of organization is subject to being the flavor of the week. I’m being hyperbolic, but effectively, I’m much more inclined to follow a set process and be a liaison for the computer rather than driving strategic directions.
I’m actively interviewing for AdOps roles and I think I’ll find enjoyment in it, but I’m curious to see if anyone has any other suggestions. Thanks!

Following on from the BBC article posted recently “explaining” the 115 charges laid at Man City’s feet, I decided to look properly at what the charges are, given that the article barely went further than rehashing that Man City cheated over and over again without any attempt at critical analysis.

What are the breaches?

There are 5 main areas that the breaches fall into:

• Accuracy of financial information
• Manager and player remuneration
• Compliance with UEFA regulations
• Compliance with PSR
• Cooperation with the investigation

The actual text of the Premier League’s statement can be seen here: https://www.premierleague.com/news/3045970

Where did the breaches come from?

The original source of the allegations were leaked emails from Portuguese hacker Rui Pinto. Rui Pinto was handed a 4 year suspended sentence last year for attempted extortion, illegal access to data and breach of correspondence with relation to the leaks, which were posted via his Football Leaks website in 2015. Emails from Manchester City were not the only things leaked - players like Messi and Neymar were also caught up in some leaks related to their salaries. In total there were millions of documents.
These leaked emails surfaced via Der Spiegel in 2018 as part of an expose feature which they ran, and spanned 4 articles at the time. You can read the first here: https://www.spiegel.de/international/manchester-city-exposed-bending-the-rules-to-the-tune-of-millions-a-1236346.html
On the back of these leaks UEFA, after launching an investigation in March 2019, charged Manchester City with breaches of their regulations which led, in 2020, to the club being banned from European football for 2 seasons alongside a 30m euro fine.
Alongside that UEFA investigation, the Premier League also opened an investigation. It took until 2023 for them to present their charges - the statement linked above. The case is ongoing.

What about those UEFA breaches?

The club denied any wrongdoing and appealed to CAS, the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Upon hearing the case CAS found no evidence to support UEFA’s conclusions with regards to the allegations. As a result the club’s ban from European football was overturned with immediate effect. CAS sided with UEFA on their non-cooperation charges and stated that the club could have done more to provide UEFA with documents when requested. CAS therefore issued a 10m Euro fine.
You can read the verdict here: https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf
This was the second time that the club had a run-in with UEFA. They first had a disagreement over potential breaches in 2014 related to the club spending more than the allowed amount in the previous season - the club contested that this was the result of UEFA not allowing deductibles for existing contracts started before FFP was introduced. There were no charges laid at City for this - the club entered a settlement with UEFA and a subsequent monitoring period with specific break even requirements and squad restrictions. That period ended in 2017 with UEFA declaring that the club had complied with all of the agreements within the settlement.

Didn’t City get away with it because everything was time barred?

The CAS verdict did find that the first 2 years of alleged breaches related to the club’s financial statements (the bits referred to as inflated sponsorships) were time barred (a process whereby the time permitted to bring forward the issue has passed and it is no longer possible to pursue the case - 5 years in UEFA’s rules), and so could not be considered. The rest of the years questioned were considered, and ultimately no evidence was found of financial irregularities.

Onto the 115

The Premier League statement lists 5 key areas of breaches, outlined earlier, which I will dive into more now. In total, the number of rules that the Premier League have accused Manchester City of breaching is 130. That is broken down into:

• Accuracy of financial information: 50 rules (2009/10 to 2017/18)
• Manager and player remuneration: 20 rules (2009/10 to 2015/16)
• Compliance with UEFA regulations: 5 rules (2013/14 to 2017/18)
• PSR compliance: 25 rules (2015/16 to 2017/18)
• Non-cooperation: 30 rules (2018/19 to 2022/23)

No matter how I try to recalculate it, I never get 115. I'm unsure of the exact place that the 115 number came from, and it certainly doesn't match the numbers when broken down in the BBC article.
I have broken down the list of breaches and cross referenced them with the Premier League’s handbooks for each season from 2009/10 through to 2022/23. With all five areas of breaches I have provided the text of the rule that the League included in their statement, plus a summarised version that tries to give a less legalese or technical reading. The tables are presented for reference and I won’t go into the specifics of them.

Accuracy of financial information

The Premier League stated:

In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs.

Below is the list of breaches taken from the league’s statement, grouped and translated into easier language.

Rules	Season	Text	Summarised
B13, B15, B16	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	In all matters and transactions relating to the League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith	Act honestly and fairly towards other clubs and the league itself
C78, E3	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	Each Club shall by 1st March in each Season submit to the Secretary a copy of its annual accounts in respect of its most recent financial year or if the Club considers it appropriate or the Secretary so requests the Group Accounts of the Group of which it is a member (in either case such accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements) together with a copy of the directors’ report for that year and a copy of the auditors’ report on those accounts	Clubs must submit their latest audited financial statements, along with directors' and auditors' reports, to the league by March 1st each year.
C79, E4	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	The accounts referred to in previous rule shall: 1. include separate disclosure within the balance sheet or notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of the total sums payable and receivable in respect of Compensation Fees, Contingent Sums and Loan Fees; 2. include a breakdown within the profit and loss account or the notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of revenue in appropriate categories such as gate receipts, sponsorship and advertising, broadcasting rights, commercial income and other income.	Clubs must include detailed and specific disclosures in their financial statements about various types of payments and revenues. These details must be clearly audited and reported
C86, E11	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	By 31st March in each Season, each Club shall submit to the Secretary in respect of itself (or if the Club considers it appropriate or the Secretary so requests in respect of the Group of which it is a member) future financial information (“Future Financial Information”) comprising projected profit and loss accounts, cash flow, balance sheets and relevant explanatory notes commencing from its accounting reference date or, if it has submitted interim accounts pursuant to Rule E.6, from the date to which those interim accounts were prepared and expiring on the next accounting reference date after the end of the following Season. The projected profit and loss accounts, cash flow and balance sheets shall be prepared at a maximum of quarterly intervals	Each club needs to provide the league with projected (or expected) financial statements for the future. These projections include profit and loss statements, cash flow details, and balance sheets.
C87, E12	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	The Future Financial Information shall: 1. be prepared in accordance with the accounting principles adopted in the preparation of the Club’s annual accounts (except where the accounting principles and policies are to be changed in the subsequent annual accounts, in which case the new accounting principles and polices should be followed); 2. be approved in writing by the board of directors of the company to which they relate; 3. to include in the explanatory notes thereto principal assumptions and risks; and 4. include for comparison profit and loss accounts for the period covered by the annual accounts and interim accounts submitted pursuant to Rules E.3 and E.6, a forecast for the current financial year and a balance sheet as at the date of the interim accounts submitted pursuant to Rule E.6.	Clubs must:1. Use the same accounting principles as in their last annual report, unless planning changes for the upcoming year. 2. Get these forecasts approved in writing by the club's board of directors. 3. Include notes that explain the main assumptions and risks involved. 4. Add comparative profit and loss accounts and a balance sheet from their most recent financial reports for clear reference.
E49, E50, E51	13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	Each Club shall notify the League forthwith of any circumstances which may materially and adversely affect any of the information or representations submitted to the League pursuant to this Section E, and on consideration of those circumstances the Board may, if it considers it appropriate, amend any decision or determination that it made based on such information or representations.	Clubs must immediately inform the league if there are any changes that could significantly impact the accuracy of the financial or other information they have previously submitted

Effectively the Premier League are stating that, for the period of 2009 until 2018, the club have not been filing accurate financial statements. This relates directly to the leaked emails that are presented to show members of staff discussing payment amounts and sources of monies that are paid to the club for sponsorship, namely for the two main sponsors, Etihad and Etisalat, that are referenced in the UEFA trial. As can be seen from the rules above, some of them are more obviously related than others. There has been some criticism of the Premier League for going for such a wide number of charges, as they have not focused on one area.
With regards to this section of breaches, the club claims that the leaked emails are not evidence of wrongdoing, and are not admissible as evidence. CAS found in favour of UEFA’s assertion that the emails were in fact admissible in their case, so the club is unlikely to be able to contest this point further. This section will essentially boil down to whether the leaked emails show enough evidence of wrongdoing, and whether any further context that has been provided by the club (something that was mentioned in the CAS trial as being helpful towards Man City’s case) is sufficient to prove guilt. It is likely that only 1 or 2 of these 50 rules above are actually key. Others, like B13, B15, and B16 which relate to clubs acting in good faith, would not be enough to charge a club without being bundled in with something else.

Manager and Player Remuneration

This section is broken down further into 2 key areas: manager remuneration, and player remuneration.
The Premier League statement:

In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager

And;

In respect of each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players

Grouped and summarised below:

Rules	Season	Text	Summarised
Q7, P7	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13	No Club shall employ any person as a Manager unless and until: 1 the terms of the Manager’s employment have been evidenced in a written contract of employment between the Club and the Manager 2 the Manager’s contract of employment has been registered with the Secretary.	Clubs must not hire a manager unless the manager's employment terms are clearly stated in a written contract, and this contract is officially registered with the league's Secretary.
Q8, P8	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13	Contracts of employment between a Club and a Manager shall: 1 include the standard clauses set out in Appendix 8; 2 clearly set out the circumstances in which the contract of employment may be determined by either party.	Employment contracts between a club and a manager must include mandatory standard clauses and specify the conditions under which either party can terminate the contract. Appendix 8 outlines that the manager must follow the rules of relevant football organisations, obey reasonable instructions related to commercial agreements, and resolve any disputes through arbitration or mediation.
K12, T12, T13	10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16	Full details of a Player’s remuneration including all benefits to which he is entitled whether in cash or in kind shall be set out in his contract.	A player's contract must clearly list all the payment and benefits they receive
K20, T29, T18, T20	10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16	Particulars of any Image Contract Payment in respect of the Player shall be set out in the contract with his Club	Any payments related to a player’s image rights must be clearly detailed in their contract with the club

The first two key rules relate to manager remuneration, and this is specific to the contract of Roberto Mancini. Mancini was the club’s manager from 2009 until 2013, and the allegations center around leaked emails that suggest he was paid £1.75 million annually as a consultancy fee for UAE based club Al Jazira on top of his £1.45 million salary at City.
For his part, Mancini has stated “I have paid my taxes, it's all above board. So I don't think anyone will be in touch” when asked about the case.
The second two rules are player remuneration and relate to Yaya Toure. The League alleges, again based on the leaked emails, that the club did not disclose all payments to the player, and that payments were made via his agent, Dimitri Seluk, during his contract with the club.
Seluk has stated “I know what has been said about Yaya's contract with City - and what I can tell you is that absolutely everything was done very cleanly, very honestly and with full transparency. Nothing was done under the table.”
Toure was at the club from 2010 until 2018. He originally signed a five year deal, before signing a new contract in 2013 taking him up to 2017. He signed his final 1 year deal in 2017. These allegations relate to his first 6 seasons.

Compliance with UEFA regulations

This section simply relates to the wording of the Premier League rules which state that clubs competing in European competitions must comply with UEFA’s rules in addition to the Premier League’s.
The league states:

In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations

Once again I’ve presented them grouped and summarised below:

Rules	Season	Text	Summarised
B14.6, B15.6	13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	Membership of the League shall constitute an agreement between the League and Clubs and between each Club to be bound by and comply with: - the statutes and regulations of UEFA	Each club agrees to follow the rules and regulations set by UEFA.

This rule breach seemingly relates to the period of time that was not ruled as time barred within UEFA’s case, and is not related to the original settlement between the club and UEFA, but does include the 3 years of the settlement agreement up until UEFA declared City to be compliant. Presumably the Premier League have included these to link to UEFA’s allegations of financial discrepancies related to the Etihad deal. It is unclear how much this could stick, given that CAS ruled that there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
It feels amiss of the Premier League to charge the club with breaches of a rule that had already been thrown out by CAS, so I can only assume that they feel that the club have either breached other rules related to financial fair play, which doesn’t seem to be the case, or they are using the non-cooperation fine handed out by CAS to bring these charges forward.

Compliance with PSR

The Premier League have also charged Man City with breaching profit and sustainability rules. These are the rules that Everton and Nottingham Forest have been docked points for recently and relate to the annual accounts clubs must file to prove their compliance.
The league states:

In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability

I’ve laid these out below, grouped again, and summarised. It should be noted in the below that any reference to T, T-1 and T-2 refers to the current season, previous and 2 seasons before.

Rules	Season	Text	Summarised
E52	15/16	Rules E.53 to E.59 shall apply with effect from Season 2015/16.	The following rules will apply
E53	15/16 16/17 17/18	Each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to the Board: 1. copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to the Board) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditors’ report(s) on those accounts; 2. its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall: 2.1. be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and 2.2. be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and 3. if Rule E.56 applies to the Club, the calculation of its aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 in Form 4A	By March 1st each season, each club must submit to the League's Board: Their financial accounts for the previous two years, along with reports from directors and auditors. A forecast of their profit and loss and balance sheet for the current year, ensuring it is up-to-date and accurately reflects expected financial performance. If required, a detailed calculation of their earnings before tax for the current and previous two years
E54	15/16 16/17 17/18	The Board shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Board shall restate it to Fair Market Value.	The Board will check if earnings before tax reported in a club's annual accounts from transactions with related parties are valued fairly according to market standards. If they aren't, the Board will adjust these values to reflect the fair market value.
E55	15/16 16/17 17/18	The Board shall not exercise its power set out in Rule E.54 without first having given the Club reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to: 1. whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or 2. what constitutes its Fair Market Value.	Before the Board can adjust any values in a club's financial statements, they must give the club a chance to present their case regarding whether adjustments are necessary and what the fair market value should be.
E56	15/16 16/17 17/18	If the aggregation of a Club’s Earnings Before Tax for T-1 and T-2 results in a loss, any consideration from Related Party Transactions having been adjusted (if appropriate) pursuant to Rule E.54, then the Club must submit to the Board the calculation of its Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for each of T, T-1 and T-2.	If a club's combined earnings before tax for the past two years show a loss, after adjusting any related party transaction values as necessary, the club must then provide the Board with a detailed calculation of its adjusted earnings before tax for each of the three years
E57	15/16 16/17 17/18	If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of up to £15m, then the Board shall determine whether the Club will, until the end of T+1, be able to pay its liabilities described in Rule E.14.7.1 and fulfil the obligations set out in Rules E.14.7.2 and E.14.7.3.	If a club's adjusted earnings before tax for the current year and the previous two years total a loss of up to £15 million, the Board will assess whether the club can pay its debts and meet its obligations through the end of the next season as specified in other rules.
E58	15/16 16/17 17/18	If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of in excess of £15m then the following shall apply: 1. the Club shall provide, by 31 March in the relevant Season, Future Financial Information to cover the period commencing from its last accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the Act) until the end of T+2 and a calculation of estimated aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax until the end of T+2 based on that Future Financial Information; 2. the Club shall provide such evidence of Secure Funding as the Board considers sufficient; and 3. if the Club is unable to provide evidence of Secure Funding as set out in Rule E.58.2, the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15.	If a club's total adjusted earnings before tax for the current year and the previous two years show a loss greater than £15 million, then the club must: Submit future financial plans and estimated earnings up to two years beyond the current season by March 31st. Provide proof of secure funding as the Board requires. If the club can't show they have secure funding, the Board may take action as outlined in another rule.
E59	15/16 16/17 17/18	If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in losses of in excess of £105m: 1. the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15; and 2. the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly the Board shall refer the breach to a Commission constituted pursuant to Section W of these Rules.	If a club's total adjusted earnings before tax for the current year and the previous two years show a loss greater than £105 million, then: The Board may use its authority as outlined in Rule E.15. The club will be considered as having broken the rules, and the Board will report this violation to a special Commission as per Section W of the rules.
E60	15/16 16/17 17/18	The sum set out in Rule E.59 shall be reduced by £22m for each Season covered by T-1 and T-2 in which the Club was in membership of The Football League.	If a club was a member of The Football League in the previous two seasons (T-1 and T-2), the amount mentioned in Rule E.59 will be decreased by £22 million for each of those seasons

A lot of this is not specific to anything the club will have breached, and is again a criticism that has been levelled at the Premier League for not being focused enough on charging the club and instead trying to go for as much as possible. Eg rule E52 in the 2015/16 season isn’t really something that would be up for debate, and rule E60, which refers to seasons spent outside the Premier League for adjusting the £105m 3 season PSR limit.
I don’t believe that the club has breached a lot of these rules specifically, and that the Premier League has just grouped PSR as a category together to hit the club with multiple charges. It is likely that the key rule in this section is E54, which discusses related party income and fair market value. This is an important one for City, as the leaked emails have been presented to show the club receiving money from sponsors with funds that have come directly from ADUG, Abu Dhabi United Group, owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan and with an 81% stake in the CFG (City Football Group) that comprises the club.
City have always argued that these sponsorships are not related parties, something that has been previously accepted by both the Premier League and UEFA in separate agreements related to PSR and FFP under their rules. It is likely that the key here is whether the emails imply that they should in fact be counted as related parties, and therefore whether they represent fair market value.
For the other rules in this section, it is unlikely that anything of substance will be proven or even sought.

Cooperation with the investigation

In addition to the above 4 sections, which all covered rule breaches related to the hacked emails, the Premier League charged the club with non-cooperation with their investigation. This does not relate to the breaches themselves, and so you will notice that the seasons are all after the Der Spiegel investigation.
The charges are:

In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith

Grouped and summarised:

Rules	Season	Text	Summarised
B16, B15	18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23	In all matters and transactions relating to the League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith.	Act honestly and fairly towards other clubs and the league itself
B19, B18	18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23	Without prejudice to the League’s powers of inquiry under Rule W.1, each Club shall comply promptly and in full with any request for information made by the League (including, for the avoidance of doubt, any such request made pursuant to a demand from a statutory or regulatory authority).	Clubs must quickly and fully respond to any information requests from the League, even if these are prompted by a government or regulatory body's demands
W1	18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23	The Board shall have power to inquire into any suspected or alleged breach of these Rules and for that purpose may require: 1. any Manager, Match Official, Official or Player to appear before it; and 2. any such person or any Club to produce documents.	The Board has the authority to investigate any suspected or confirmed rule violations. For this, they can: Require managers, match officials, other officials, or players to appear before them. Ask these individuals or any club to provide relevant documents.
W2	18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23	Any Manager, Match Official, Official or Player who fails to appear before or to produce documents to the Board when required to do so under Rule W.1 shall be in breach of these Rules.	Anybody who does not comply with Rule W.1 is in breach
W12, W15	18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23	It shall be no answer to a request from the Board to disclose documents or information pursuant to Rule W.1 that such documents or information requested are confidential. All Clubs and Persons subject to these Rules must ensure that any other obligations of confidentiality assumed are made expressly subject to the League’s right of inquiry under these Rules. No Club or Person shall be under an obligation to disclose any documents rendered confidential by either the order of a court of competent jurisdiction or by statute or statutory instrument.	The Board can request documents or information even if they are confidential. However, clubs and individuals are not required to disclose anything that is legally confidential due to a court order or by law. Clubs and individuals should ensure any confidentiality agreements acknowledge the League's right to inquire.
W13, W16	18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23	All persons who are requested to assist pursuant to Rule W.1 shall provide full, complete and prompt assistance to the Board in its exercise of its power of Inquiry	Anyone asked to help must fully, quickly, and completely help the Board with its investigations.

Three of these are your meat and potatoes non-cooperation charges, which the Premier League will have charged City with for not providing documents when requested. A couple relate specifically to individuals within a club, but otherwise these breaches will be the most likely to stick, similar to how they did at CAS.
Man City have maintained that they do not need to cooperate with the investigation which they state as being based on illegally obtained material and have stated that they do not trust the investigation.
Rules B15, B16 make another appearance relating to acting with the utmost good faith.

When will this hearing take place?

We don’t really know. The panel has been chosen and are presumably deliberating, but as with cases of this size and with so many documents, they take time.
League CEO Richard Masters has recently stated that the case will “Resolve itself soon”, which is badly worded and has led to speculation that the club and league are seeking a way out of the case following the charges being thrown out. This is unlikely, as it would be in the interest of both to end proceedings as quickly as possible.
There have been criticisms towards the Premier League regarding the secrecy around these hearings - it is actually within the Premier League’s rules that these occur in private:
Rules W70 and X25 state: The proceedings of an arbitration convened under this Section (W/X) shall be confidential and shall be conducted in private.

Aren’t Man City just stalling?

Not really, no. The club have been charged with non-cooperation by the Premier League for their initial investigation, but there is nothing the club can do to further postpone the hearing taking place. The time required is simply because of the magnitude and seriousness of the allegations put forward by the league.
The original BBC article alleged that City were “dragging their feet” - but this is not something that stops the league handing out charges, and isn’t something that will change the timeline of the independent panel’s investigation.

Punishments

So let's say that City is found guilty - what are the likely punishments to be? The answer is complicated, as it completely depends on what charges are ultimately determined to be warranted. Talk of points deductions amounting to the thousands are pure hyperbole. The specific breaches agreed by the independent panel will influence the size of any punishment.
Given the seriousness of the allegations - essentially fraud across multiple years involving the club, sponsors, auditors and governing bodies - there must be a high bar of proof. With such a high bar also comes a high punishment if the club is deemed to be guilty. It is entirely possible that a proportionate punishment to such deceit would be expulsion from the league. This would however be the least of the club’s worries, as it brings into question the legality of the breaches with regards to individuals, HMRC and other organisations from which payments may or may not have been withheld or deliberately reported incorrectly.
Some of the above charges do not risk carrying any sort of point based punishment. The non-cooperation charges, for example, would be a monetary fine. It is also very unlikely that the league would seek to remove past titles. The scope and burden of proof that specific breaches directly correlated to titles would be too complicated.
Expulsion from the Premier League would require the club to apply to join another league, the EFL the most likely candidate. It would be at the discretion of the EFL whether they accepted the club into their league structure. Given the size of the club and the need to replace the 20th team in the Premier League, it would be likely that they would agree to include the club in their league system as a space would open up in the Championship.

Can the club appeal a decision?

Yes, there are avenues for appeal. That appeal will not go through CAS, as correctly reported, but would go to another panel. Sections W through to Z of the Premier League rulebook detail different types of appeals and tribunals for varying reasons. Section W is the section specifically referred to in the PSR rules (within section E of the Premier League handbook).

There is no Time Bar though in the Premier League

Well, kind of. There is no time bar specifically mentioned in the rules. The Premier League handbook, which you can read at https://www.premierleague.com/about/publications,does state (Rule A7) that “these Rules shall be governed by and shall be construed in accordance with English law. Strictly without prejudice to the arbitration and other dispute resolution provisions of these Rules, disputes relating to these Rules shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.”.
Essentially this means that any rules follow English Law, which itself does state a time bar for cases. This is typically 6 years for most cases, with some differences based on specific situations.
In the case of fraud this can vary, and may be the avenue that the Premier League tries to go down (which itself makes the evidence required to prove the case more stringent). For fraud cases, English Law states:

Time bar of 6 years from the date cause of action accrued
Or, if the cause of action is deliberately concealed, 6 years from when the fraud is, or with reasonable diligence would have been, discovered.
Should this be the route the Premier League has chosen then there will have to be a discussion to determine what period of time the charges can be applied to.

What about the length of grass?

There was never a charge about the length of grass. Such narrative about what the charges were came from initial analysis by people using incorrect versions of the Premier League handbook (as the rules change from year to year slightly, and those rules shift in their assignment. This is is why I have grouped them as such in the above tables). All charges relate to financial issues and non-cooperation in the league's subsequent investigation.

What about the Cease and Desist?

Rumours began last week that the club had issued cease and desist letters to individuals and organisations within the public domain related to the charges. As of yet there has been no evidence that anybody has received such a letter (although you’d question why they would publicise receiving one in the first place). It should be made clear that any cease and desist that may have been received by anybody would not prevent them from discussing the charges with which the league have brought on City. Any cease and desist letter is a demand that the recipient stops any activity considered to be unlawful - eg. in the case of this case it would be accusations levelled at the club that are not true. Examples would be the club being called cheats because they’ve done specific things that have not been proven to be true like a false statement or libel.

Can’t we just dock points now like Everton and Nottingham Forest?

Not really, no. Cases of this magnitude take time to deliberate and cross examine. There is no quick way of dealing with such a large case. The Everton and Nottingham Forest cases, by comparison, are simple breaches that can be quantified by simply looking at the submitted accounts, which for both clubs show losses that are above the agreed amount in Rule E53 of the Premier League handbook (and Rule E54 in Nottingham Forest’s case due to their recent promotion that reduced their allowable losses).
Neither club claimed to have not breached these rules, but merely tried to argue the case that their losses were due to mitigating circumstances, which the Premier League did not agree with.
Anybody questioning why analysis of so many historical charges takes longer than clear individual breaches shown on a balance sheet needs to consider whether they want a case to be resolved quickly, or whether they want it to be resolved properly, as the two are mutually exclusive.

Who wins?

Ultimately nobody wins. Reputational damage is guaranteed for either Manchester City or the Premier League depending on the outcome. It can also be argued that enough reputational damage has already been dealt to both organisations. This is often why a settlement is seen as a preferred option, as there is no long drawn out saga. The club have remained steadfast and stubborn insisting that there is no grounds for the charges and that they are innocent on all accounts. The league have been criticised for their handling of the matter and for other PSR breaches recently and don’t seem to be keen to back down in this case either.
There was also the accusation that the league had rushed through presenting the charges in order to disrupt the introduction of an independent regulator by the Government and to prove that it can govern itself. That has largely failed as the IFR (Independent football regulator) looks likely to be going ahead.
The best case scenario for the club is being cleared of all charges - unlikely due to the presence of those non-cooperation charges - a win for the club, but there will be large question marks over the Premier League’s handling, the time taken, the accuracy of the verdict and the secrecy involved. The club will also have suffered reputational damage up to this point, particularly from sections of the football fraternity who have already made their mind up.
The best case scenario for the league is trickier - it doesn’t want to be seen to be a light touch, but conversely it doesn’t want to be triggering the sort of chaos that points deductions and league expulsions might have on one of its most successful clubs of the last decade. In some ways, the league has already lost.

Closing Thoughts

There will be details that I have glossed over for brevity - there is a lot more information in some of the linked documents plus the Premier League handbooks that provides a lot more important context.
I hope the above proves useful to anybody interested in the finer details of the situation, but appreciate that it is probably beyond the scope of the kind of person who posts 115 memes and gets agitated by the lack of discussion around the charges.
There may be inaccuracies. If you spot anything then please let me know and I will make a quick amendment.
TL;DR
Shits complicated Bro

TL;DR: are you interested in personal growth and would you like to be my friend?
A few years ago, I was going through a divorce, pounding the alcohol, and had no real male friends. My health, my finances, and my self-esteem were all a mess. In my search for a community, I landed on a “men’s circle” that met weekly in a church. The thing I remember most about the first meeting I attended was gathering in a tight circle at the end (think: group hug) and going around saying what we were thankful for in ourselves and in one other person.
The pandemic blew the circle apart, and I found myself bouncing through a variety of therapies: CBT, DBT, CPT, etc. That all helped give me some inner tools, but nothing felt as strong as having other men I could connect with on a deeper level.
Fast-forward to late last year, and someone from the men’s group called me, saying they were meeting again. They now meet in the Westville area of New Haven every Wednesday. They are part of a global organization called The Mankind Project. Since reconnecting with them, I’ve gone to their weekend ‘New Warrior Initiation Adventure’ and been active in weekly meetings. With no hyperbole intended—my life has radically changed for the better!!
I’d love to see more men experience what I’ve experienced. I would also love to meet new, quality male friends. In other words, I want to invite you to join our circle of men.
We meet weekly on Wednesday, with the third Wednesday of the month being open to new men. So, the next “open circle” is on Wed, May 15. The meeting runs from 7 p.m. until between 9-9:30 p.m. If you’re interested, drop me a message and I’ll give you my email and cell number. We can chat via text or phone, and I’d be happy to answer any questions.
This is a free group. No sales, solicitations, or business networking. The entire point is to grow together as men.
You can Google about The Mankind Project. I can also tell you that a lot of the philosophies are based around Jung’s archetypes and more modern books, such as ‘A Circle of Men’ and ‘King, Warrior, Magician, Lover’.
The meetings follow a set format: we start by checking in with our emotions (how rare for men, right?), then check in with accountability to ourselves and others, then we do ‘the work’ of any issues in our lives, and then we end with blessing ourselves and others.
The meeting is open to all men, with no discrimination to race, religion, sexual preference, or birth assignments. This is a safe, non-discriminating, non-judging space. This is a place to love and grow together. You are welcome here.
Again, if you’re interested in joining the open circle on Wed, May 15, or if you have questions, please message me. I’d be happy to share my contact info and continue the conversation. And, hopefully, find a new friend in you.

I’m 6 months sugar-free and I’ve undergone a transformational experience. I’m sharing mine in hopes that it can help someone else.
I’m 32 and since age 5 I’ve always been sickly with a plugged up nose and many food sensitivities. Constant blowing, sneezing, snotting everywhere. Loads and loads of tissues. My mom was woke before it was trendy to eat healthfully; she knew about the dangers of sugar and processed foods and was strict on not having these in the house, but her efforts were sabotaged by my father who wanted us to have a “normal childhood” and would hide Lucky Charms in his car for us to eat after my she had left for work. Despite her best intentions and unwavering boundaries, my mom could not stop sugar from finding me. At school, friends’ houses, etc., sugar was everywhere and I became addicted like the majority of us. I knew of the importance of vegetables and whole foods and prioritized those, but man if there were cookies around I would eat the whole bag. I cannot self-moderate my sugar intake.
Besides the debilitating congestion, I’ve had various ailments develop in the last 10 years or so:
-red, itchy, flaky scalp (this turned out to be omega-3 deficiency, went away with fish oil supplementation) and dandruff (which is still present).
-belly fat: Historically my BMI has been at the upper end of the “normal” range: ~23.5-25. 5’6”, 145-155 lbs. From playing basketball, track and field, and being generally active I always had nice arms and legs but since puberty I’ve had a belly resembling the end of first trimester pregnancy. In the last few years I started looking heavier despite eating healthier, and could not drop the weight.
-When i was 28 I developed a lesion on my chest that kept growing bigger and bigger. Steroid creams made it go away, but it always returned intermittently.
-feeling exhausted and drained most hours of the day
-needing to eat every few hours and feeling constant hunger
-irritable, bitchy moods
-periodontitis, receding gumline
-persistently stinky underarms
The turning point came when I found a wonderful naturopath and I was at a point in my life where i was tired of being sick and tired and willing to make serious changes. For my allergic rhinitis we tested for IgG antibodies and the following foods came up: milk, cane sugar, tomatoes, corn, and some others, so she suggested I avoid those. In following this elimination diet, I had thought my previous diet was healthy but I didn’t realized how far I had drifted over time, and just how much sugar I was consuming.
The first three weeks were THE WORST. Constant cravings, yearning for sugar around the clock. Salivating when I saw my friend eat an ice cream sandwich. Wanting to give up, but moreso wanting to give the diet an honest chance b/c I knew if I continued eating like I had been, nothing would changed. I gorged on honey butter toast and apples to feed the craving. It took two weeks to notice any difference in my health, but then I noticed I wasn’t as congested and I could actually breathe through my nose for hours at a time. After three painstaking weeks of starting the diet, I started to notice the sugar cravings becoming weaker and more bearable.
2 months in, this is what I wrote in my journal:
-66% reduction in nasal congestion, snot, sneezing
-better face skin, less pink and inflamed
-better poops, less soiling
-Wetter sex and higher sex drive
-A lot less severity and frequency of the hangry
-lost 5-7 lbs
-cleaner feeling teeth
-brighter, happier mood
As I was able to breath normally more regularly and not sick all the time, I noticed honey, dried fruit, and coconut sugar all triggered my sneezing and congestion. Around the 3 month mark I decided to cut all sugars out besides fresh/frozen fruit. I still have cravings, and I don’t know if they will every fully disappear, but it’s fine if they don’t b/c they are MUCH weaker and easier to ignore. 3 months in my blood glucose tested at 80, I’ve never seen it that low, I usually have 87-95 levels.
I stumbled upon Dr. Robert Lustig’s work on Youtube, read his book Metabolical, and now I’m on Fat Chance. Studying his work has been life-changing for me… Sugar IS poison- this is not a hyperbole. I suspect I had insulin resistance which interfered with my leptin signaling which is why I felt hungry all the time, despite eating every few hours. After cutting sugar, there were several weeks where I felt full and satiated despite only consuming 1000 calories or less each day. The excess belly weight melted off (without exercise), likely due to my leptin signaling being restored. When I reached 140 lbs my hunger returned and I began to consume a normal amount of calories again. (TLDR for Dr. Lustig’s explanation: When you eat a lot of sugar, you develop insulin resistance, which causes leptin resistance (the hormone that tells your brain you’re full, you don’t need to eat, you have enough energy and the body can go into "burning” mode). If you’re brain can’t see your leptin, it doesn’t know you're fat and thinks you are starving and need to go into “energy storage" mode.)
85% of my diet now is meats (pasture-raised), fish, vegetables, nuts and seeds, sheep yogurt, avocados, avocado oil, ghee. I don’t count calories. I eat until I am full. I consume fats, saturated fats and proteins without abandon. I am mindful of my carbs, including starch. Sugar is a hard no with few exceptions, e.g. coconut aminos b/c it adds a ton of flavor to dishes and I don’t binge on it. Society loves to preach “everything in moderation” but the truth is most of us suck at moderation. For me personally, it’s easier to have clearly-defined rules and not have to endure decision fatigue deciding if you can afford to eat this or that b/c I always find some way to justify it and there goes another pint of Ben and Jerry’s. For the first time in my adult life, I feel good about my stomach and can see my ab lines forming. I weigh 137 lbs, less than what I weighed in the 8th grade.
My tips on what worked for me to beat this nasty addiction:
Motivation: Keep a food journal. Can be what you ate that day, your motivations for quitting, improvement in symptoms, successes, failures, your measurements, weight. Don’t feel obligated to write in it, only when you notice something worth documenting. When I have moments of weakness, I read my entries to remember I’ve been here before and I know how things will turn out if I eat sugar.
Strategy: Rather than an all-or-nothing approach, cut out different classes of sugars one at a time: e.g. all cane sugar, then coconut sugar, then honey and maple syrup. Tailor this to whatever your specific sugar-reduction goals are.
Mindset: Get the idea out of your mind that if you accidentally ate something with sugar or if you caved and intentionally ate sugar that your whole diet is ruined so you might as well throw in the towel. That is a sneaky mind trick to get you to return to your old ways. Falling off the horse does not cancel out all the prior wins you’ve achieved. As soon as you become mindful and/or have reestablished control of the craving, begin again.
For all of you with doubts if this is worth it. It unequivocally, absolutely was for me. I’m never going back. I’m not willing to be a slave to my cravings and not have energy and be a mouth-breather. Sugar may be derived from natural sources, but the end product is not natural; it is a highly concentrated and purified product that is dangerous independent of its calories- it wreaks havoc on our hormones that control weight, hunger and satiety.
IF YOU CAN GET THROUGH THE FIRST FEW WEEKS YOU WILL BEAT THIS.

The Short Version can be found here.

Part 1 here. Part 2 here.

The Beekeeper. Bzzt:

Ah, I'm so fucked. 💀

Challenges...

This part is going to be an interesting challenge. I would say I’m walking a tightrope here, but that metaphor implies that there’s some slim chance where one can write a section like this and not get banned, um, again (and again?). The original plan was something a bit more comprehensive, where alongside another matter, I would make the case that there have been a number of pro-Palestine users that have correctly addressed misinformation on this sub, where they do a decent job of breaking circlejerks, adding some sordid nuance to threads that otherwise would have devolved into the ones laid out in Part 1 and Part 2. These users will, inevitably, have an “interaction” with 4THOT at some point; they will subsequently be banned on justifications that I obviously believe are nonsensical, where said justifications are also exhibited by 4THOT, whether in that exchange itself or in other threads; and these users are not interested in returning to the sub.
I abandoned this plan for a long litany of reasons; there’s two in particular I’ll highlight here: (1) I don't believe I can achieve the effects I desire; and (2) I'm keen to avoid any accusations of this section being some “hit-piece” or “hate-post.”
I do not intend to present arguments against any other aspect of moderation that I might find to be problematic; I do not intend to make comments on character. I am simply razor-focused on one aspect of moderation here, and one aspect of the unbanning process.

...and Goals

This part will attempt to try and have my other goal — which is shared by many other users in this sub — come into fruition: I believe users should be able to participate in this sub without needing to take into consideration what 4THOT’s personal views are on a matter.
The only things a user should be cognizant of is what are Reddit's site wide rules, including those specific to this sub; what are the subreddit rules; and what are Destiny's desires in terms of what comments and submissions are allowed here. I also believe subreddit rule 6 (rule 5 on new reddit) needs to be amended to remove the arbitrariness.
If a user comes away with a different interpretation of events than 4THOT does, and said user doesn't exhibit any other behaviour in their comment or submission that violates those stated parameters, then that user ought not to be banned.
If 4THOT’s personal opinion is something that we need to be mindful of — and Destiny approves of this notion, agreeing that opinions 4THOT alone finds to be beyond the pale warrants an immediate ban — then, unironically, that stipulation should be added to the subreddit rules.
Furthermore, as mentioned in the TL;DR, I am requesting clarification on if there’s any procedure by which you can get unbanned when 4THOT sets a condition on the unban — and whether or not he should be setting conditions on the ban. 4THOT has mentioned that "Ninou has orders to not unban certain [regards.]"
As it stands, it’s not clear if Destiny approves of this behaviour. I say this because I have not seen him comment on this aspect of moderation when it comes to the subreddit. If he already disapproves of this behaviour, then I would request that this sentiment be conveyed to 4THOT, which should hopefully reduce the likelihood this reoccurs in the future.
I'm asking that Destiny clarify here because then it's something that can be clipped, and moderators here can use that clip when, well, moderating.
One final point before I critique the bans. There’s a noticeable difference between this section on 4THOT, and his um, passionate challenge to Kelly Jean: she’s easy to avoid. Just close the stream mate! Whereas 4THOT has control over who can participate in this subreddit, Kelly Jean can't dictate who can and can't appear on stream. Mashallah. 🙏 Thus, I feel this submission has justification.

The Bullet: A Forlorn Attempt for Consistency

The second ban is infinitely more interesting, but I’ll briefly address the first 30-day ban. I am not here to relitigate this discourse. The post in question that led to the infraction was removed, but it's still available if you’re a moderator, and I won't be reposting it here. The gist of the post was a question on whether or not we should be banning people for misinformation, referencing a user who received a 90-day ban from 4THOT for posting a misquote from a mainstream Israeli news outlet, during a live translation of a speech Netanyahu was giving. I’m pretty sure 4THOT knows who i24News are, so I couldn't quite follow his thought process here.
Moreover, if you’ve gone through the examples above, then you can easily imagine my bafflement here as well, particularly because a couple days earlier a Twitter clip was posted of an individual clearly misspeaking.
The user who submitted this post was only banned for 10 days — despite doubling down on this not being a misspeak — and I was bemused by the inconsistency being applied here. Being completely consistent in terms of my own principles, I mentioned in my post that I don’t think either of them should be banned, but if this is the standard that is going to be maintained, then it would only be reasonable that some level of leniency is given if you happen to inadvertently post misinformation from a reputable news outlet.
Regarding the Netanyahu misquote, I am in full agreement with 4THOT that it is a misquote, but it is regrettable that, well, some chose to challenge him on this front, arguing that the corrected quote is functionally the same, or worse. Take note of how civil his interlocutor here is up until the point 4THOT used an insult; unwisely, his interlocutor chose to match tone. I’m only mentioning this because, despite the insults 4THOT might use against me, I have no interest in engaging in a similar style of rhetoric as I don't find it to be conducive to a productive conversation, and I’m hoping I don't have to deal with a level of vitriol here that users are sometimes not allowed to match — not that I have any interest in doing so. There’s a couple tame jokes in this post, but hopefully I don’t get a response like this:

Thank fucking God that guy died because he'd absolutely kill himself by biting off his own tongue to choke on his own blood if he ever read the obese shithead redditors backseating one of the most extreme acts of political protest any human being can ever do.
HE INTENDED TO DIE NIGHTMARISHLY YOU IDIOT THAT WAS THE POINT

Frisco, you got cooked mate 😭.

A Guardian Angel?

Now, after I was banned, another user made a post about the ban upon myself, which generated a fair amount of interest, you fucking drama frogs. Here, I simply wish to make four remarks:

• I'm sure you can see how different in tone, rhetoric, and substance OP’s post is compared to my original post (for those of you that remember reading it), and compared to this post. There are a number of insults that are frequently used against 4THOT which I don’t use as I’m looking for good-faith engagement from him. That being said, I appreciate the fact that OP wasn’t looking for a meaningful, productive exchange with 4THOT here, and thus they didn’t feel the need to temper their rhetoric.
• In the pinned comment, 4THOT uses a fair amount of hyperbole. The original post was very benign, and didn’t come anywhere close to conveying a sentiment that “this Reddit is ruined” or “4THOT is literally the IDF.” I don’t see how you can come away with this reading considering how mild the post was.
• Once more, I am not here to relitigate this, but I would have loved to address some of the criticism levelled against myself in the comments under OP’s post; I certainly wasn’t going to re-open those conversations a month later. That being said, I appreciate users like Wannabe_Sadboi for making the arguments that I, more or less, would have made had I had the opportunity to immediately respond. Just to quote one of their comments: “People shouldn’t be banned for being partisan, they should be banned only for breaking rules, and Splemndid didn’t break any rules.” But, apparently, there are rules being broken here, and it is not clear what these rules are, and whether or not Destiny approves of them.
• If the original post was problematic because it was too indirect, then hopefully this post which is significantly more direct — but kept well under the threshold of something that could be constituted as a “hate-post” — should not be a problem.

Chilling Effect. Brrr 🥶

When I was hit with the 30 day ban, I sent a direct appeal hoping the length of the ban would at least be reduced, which didn't receive a response, and neither did sending an unban request via the unban request form. No biggie. At least with a temporary ban I know when to expect to be unbanned.
After the 30 day ban, I decided to give up doing two things: (1) making attempts to get other users unbanned when I felt the justifications were not cogent or fair; and (2) participating in I-P threads that 4THOT himself had already made comments within — in particular, those where he was actively arguing with other users on the subreddit. This is a bad chilling effect; even if I see a comment they have made where they’ve made a false claim, or I disagree with their analysis or moral claims, I’m choosing not to engage because I'd rather not go through yet another cycle of bans. I value shitposting in the subreddit more than having arguments with 4THOT.
Moreover, I’m also not interested in getting caught in the crossfire when, upon finishing his Reddit debate, he bans his interlocutor from the subreddit, and also those who have made similar comments to the one his interlocutor has espoused elsewhere in the thread. He does not always do this, and I would literally never make the claim that he just “ban everyone that disagrees with [him]”. I won’t call this hyperbole as I’m sure someone has levelled this incorrect accusation against him. 4THOT is capable — and has demonstrated on myriad occasions — of being able to have dispassionate disagreements. The issue is that I’m not interested in rolling the dice here with another ban.
Thus, I decided to avoid 4THOT entirely while participating in the sub as normal, making the usual shitposts. (Y’all are welcome for the template, btw. I went frame by frame, looking for the shot of Destiny at his most euphoric.) Alas, woe is me, I made a fatal error: I can’t avoid 4THOT if I choose to comment in a thread first. Browsing new, the bane of my existence, Hobbitfollower you dastardly devil.

The Nuke: A Muddled Statement and Different Interpretations

In the trenches of new, I came across a submission which posted this version of a Jerusalem Post article. If you've read The Six Points, then you can see what I'm attempting to do in my comment, that was apparently egregious enough to warrant banning me “until Israel/Palestine is over.” Before I go over this, I’m going to once again link the comment I made on this subreddit defending Israel from the accusation that they have been siding with ISIS for years.

Consistency

I apply the exact same methodology when dispelling conspiracy theories on Israel as I do for the UN official whose comments are the subject of the post. I’m digging up the relevant primary sources; I’m searching for archived versions of articles posted on inactive websites; I’m reading multiple articles from different Israeli outlets reporting on the same speech; and I’m reading the entire transcript of the nearly hour-long speech by the head of the Israeli Military Intelligence at the time, Herzi Halevi, just so I can make an informed comment here. At no point am I ever concerned that I could be banned for this comment. I can freely talk about anti-Israel propaganda, and I know no moderator is going to bat an eye at that.
I recently watched a Hasan video because dgg taught me the art of hate-watching, and now I hate-watch dgg while they hate-watch Hasan. Early on in the video, an article headline by the Intercept is shown: “Leaked Cables Show White House Opposes Palestinian Statehood.” Ken Klippenstein appears in the byline, which immediately sets off a red flag for me because I’ve found reporting by him in the past to be absolutely dreadful, including the time when he used to work for the Grayzone, where he gave Seymour Hersh a softball interview, and allowed him to spread risible conspiracy theories. The Intercept article shown in Hasan’s video doesn't provide the cables they are reporting on, but they are available on Ken’s substack. Without going on a tangent, unsurprisingly, the Intercept’s piece on these cables misrepresents them (IMO).
Similarly, when I had a discussion with a tankie on another subreddit on whether or not the 2010 Australian Labor Party leadership spill was “a US-backed coup”, I once again seeked out all the relevant and many Wikileaks cables, read them all, and made my own assessment.

Dolls

Enough examples! You get the idea! I have a consistent principle that I am applying here. Upon opening up the JP article OP submitted, I see Danielle Greyman-Kennard in the byline. This is a person who previously wrote an article claiming that a dead Palestinian baby was a doll (which is not the first or last time this has happened in general; Pallywood amirite?). When it was brought to her attention that this is a body going through rigor mortis, she doubled-down in a patronising tweet.
Eventually, someone at the JP realized the fuck-up, and the article was retracted. There are a number of journalists and writers for Israeli outlets that seek to publish or tweet out any information that casts pro-Palestine organisations or individuals in a bad light — and that’s fine. If you’re pro-Palestine, and you’re saying or doing some dumb shit, that’s on you, not the individual that wants to report on it. However, there are biases at play here, where one must be cognizant of how these biases can filter down into how information is presented.

Direct Appeal

The following is the direct appeal I sent when I was banned which will serve as a clarification on the comment:
What up, I initially disagreed with your assessment, but upon re-reading it, now I'm unsure what our disagreement is, and what you think I was trying to address in my comment. Hopefully, the following will serve as clarification.
When I opened up the submission, I read the headline, I read the article, I watched the clip contained within, and then I sought out any additional footage from the interview that was readily available. The safe assumption I make when it comes to article submissions on reddit is that folk are generally not going to read the article, and will likely only comment based on the headline. If the headline is poor, I might present information in the comments in order to ensure that the criticism is well-directed. The headline of the Jerusalem Post article is:

UN Special Rapporteur 'unaware' of rocket attacks on Israel

If you asked the average person what they thought this headline meant, they would think the UNSR thought there had been no rocket attacks launched against Israel ever or since the start of the war. As evidence that some came away with this conclusion, you can read [redacted link] here posted on [redacted subreddit] (emphasis mine):

This can't be real right? This is a fake article right? Or a satire piece? Because if they've lived their entire lives unaware of the rocket attacks, then they have no right having anything to do with the global politics or whatever it is the UN does. That's just insane.

In other words, this individual is in disbelief, and they're astonished that Reem Alsalem, the UNSR, is completely unaware of any rocket/missile attacks that have been fired against Israel ever. Here I hope we can acknowledge two things: (1) Alsalem does believe there have been missile attacks against Israel at various points in time; and (2) most pro-Hamas sycophants aren't going to deny these missile attacks have taken place -- they want these attacks to take place. Alternatively, they might seek to diminish the destructive capability of these attacks, or assert that it is Israel's fault these attacks are occurring. It's pretty rare to come across someone claiming they've never happened, period.
My comment was made to highlight that she was really caught up in the frequency of the attacks and how she was possibly misinterpreting the question. Reem Alsalem has a wide litany of dumb beliefs that you can criticize her on; in this case, I thought the criticism would be better directed for being unaware of the frequency of attacks. The JP itself does include a line that would have better served as a headline:

[UN Special Rapporteur] unaware of the frequent rocket attacks made by Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel.

As mentioned, I was trying to ensure that commenters didn't make comments like the one I linked. Re-reading my own comment, it could have been phrased better to make sure that those who read it understood my intentions.

Further comments

The rest of the direct appeal consisted of me clearing up any misconceptions that I might be pro-Hamas, providing various links of comments that demonstrate what my beliefs are. This my attempt to "pass the litmus test" as I don't believe I'm being engaged on the merits of my argument.
Once again, as I’ve hopefully established by now, we know there can be a widespread reluctance here to sometimes read past the headline and open the article, and even the article itself might not have sufficient context to truly parse what is being said. At the time, the only additional footage available from the interview was the five minute, heavily edited clip compilation available on the interviewer’s Twitter. It is just… irritating to watch. Partly because, as I said, I have to suffer through listening to Alsalem’s asinine beliefs, but also because it’s so chopped up that I can't quite tell what’s been cut out, what statements are directly following from which questions, and so on.
Other users also had interpretations of their own to give, taking note of the fact that there may be an edit after she says "but". I actually don’t think there was anything additional said, and it’s just awkwardly edited. However, unlike with Herzi Halevi’s speech, I and everyone else watching these clips are working with scraps here, and the segment that aired on Hazinor, Channel 13 is exactly the same. There is ambiguity here; an amorphous, nebulous, incoherent jumble of statements where one can make a range of interpretations — but one of those interpretations was not permissible on the subreddit. My own of course.
I’m still baffled as to what 4THOT’s contention here is. He comments:

!cleanse nvm you're an idiot. She says she has seen "attacks" but does not specify from where or whom or when. When he specifically asks if she's seen rocket attacks that have been reported from the north from Hezbollah and South from Hamas without "every single day" and is asked about rocket attacks from those areas says she hasn't seen it.

I presume the position he holds here is that Alsalem is being sly: when she says that she has seen attacks, she is actually referring to Israeli attacks, not Hamas or Hezbollah. For further clarity, I would have asked 4THOT:

• Do you think Alsalem holds the position that Hamas or Hezbollah have never fired rockets against Israel?
• If no, do you think Alsalem holds the position that Hamas or Hezbollah have never fired rockets against Israel since the initial barrage of rocket attacks on Oct. 7th?

In his first reply to my comment, he armed me and said I was his “strongest soldier.” 😳 Must have noticed these guns 💪😎. It seems like he originally agreed with me, and I don't know what impact, if any, this had on the ultimate decision.
I remember staring at this section of the unban request form thinking, "Err, I don't know." Like you all, when I've been banned by Destiny in the past, I know what to write here. He doesn't like snark; if you're being a condescending prick, get that ass banned. I have a general understanding of what sort of comments Destiny hates in this subreddit, and thus I know how to participate in the subreddit without being on the receiving end of a ban.
Taking the recommendation of another user, I cobbled together something for the unban form, and figured I'd just try again in a month. Alas, both the form and my last exchange with 4THOT was unsuccessful, and I would not have even attempted to send an unban request form to Ninou had I known that she had "orders to not unban" certain users. While I can understand that there may be certain users whose offenses are so egregious that a ban conditional on a lengthy period of time having been passed first is warranted, I don't believe I fall in this camp.
It's often stated by both Destiny and other moderators that the "process to get unbanned is pretty easy." Conditional bans tarnish the smoothness of this process, where good-faith unban requests are rejected due to the condition set, and I don't believe this should be the case.
If Destiny could offer further clarity here, that would be appreciated by both myself and others who have had this conditional ban placed upon them.

The Litmus Test:

Scroll up all the way to the top of Part 1, and what do you notice I've done in the preamble? I’m keen to avoid guilt by association; I believe Destiny just calls this being “webbed.” In the TL;DR I specifically mention the "pro-Israel crowd"; I know what this will invoke in the minds of people reading this, the associations people will draw to other people who have made criticism against the pro-Israel crowd. Thus, I feel the need to ensure that I dissociate myself from those people. That’s why you see the statement about Hasbara and brigading; it’s me raising a giant flag screeching, “Hey, I’m not like the others, this post is different!”
Let me give a couple examples here (suffer through some more examples…you must suffer…).

Example I - An Odd Title and an Audacious Inquiry

In this submission, OP posts a Twitter video with the submission title: “Reuters video shows militants armed with assault rifles atop aid convoy trucks and shooting at palstinians [sic] approaching the trucks.” Now, no one mentioned this in the comments, so to add some clarification here: this is not Reuters reporting, this is a clip from a Reuters live stream showing a view from a tent camp in Rafah. (Specific timestamp here.) Anyone watching this stream can clip whatever noteworthy event they see and add their own statements on what has transpired. As far as I can tell, that seems to be what the original clip here from N12 news has done, and it was also posted on their website, with no additional details.
This individual (henceforth called Doc) asked some fair questions. They made mistakes, of course, such as watching the clip on mute (you silly goose); but I would agree that “shooting at palstinians [sic]” invokes an image of, well, Palestinians being riddled with bullets, and instead we get what seems to be shots fired into the air. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that the title reflect this distinction. What’s unfortunate here is that merely attempting to get an accurate summary is enough for OP to assume the worst about them, and thus we get the rebuke: “Keep dicksucking the terrorists stealing the aid.” I’ve seen Doc’s comments before, when they say they’re an “Israel stan”, they are. But for OP, they immediately engaged in “the web”, guilt by association, etc., and that was enough to result in this petty infighting. I thought leftists were the only ones that did that?

Example II - No Steelmans Allowed

In the second example, it’s me that’s on the receiving end of the purity test. Personally, as someone who is not a leftist (see what I’ve done there?), I do think a considerable number of y’all miss the mark when it comes to criticising leftists, and I attempt to steelman their positions as I find that to be more conducive for better discourse. Feel free to disagree with the steelman, the point is that merely providing that steelman is enough for OP to assume that these are my own positions — despite clearly stating multiple times that I’m not pro-Palestine, that I support Operation Prosperity Guardian, etc. Once again I bring up that I have defended Israel from silly conspiracy theories when they mentioned “your tribe”, as that’s my attempt to pass the litmus test, demonstrating my impartiality here.

Example III - ???

I'm not sure if 4THOT engaged in a similar type of purity testing both for the initial comment I was banned for, and also in my last exchange with them on another subreddit. The exchange was pretty bizarre: I asked if they checked Reddit DMs; they replied that they do, and “our agreement stands.” In their next reply, they mentioned that they confused me with another person, and said that, “Yes, once I/P is over I will let your people go.” That phrase “your people”, is quite similar to how the OP in the previous example said “your tribe” and “your side.” This seems to be the guilt by association I spoke on: I’m being lumped in with a group whose views generally don’t align with my own. That’s why part 1 begins with an introduction on myself. I need to pass the litmus test first before I can get good engagement — and it’s unfortunate that I feel compelled to do that.

Engage in good-faith

The conclusion here is a simple one: don't assume what positions your interlocutor holds merely because they're skeptical about that framing of certain stories, or because they attempt to provide a steelman for the opposing side.

Finito for Real

What I’m looking for here is clarity. UN officials will continue to say and do stupid things; that applies to pro-Palestine people, that applies to leftists. But every now and then, upon seeing one of these submissions, I might think, “Eh, this is pretty stupid, but I think it’s stupid for slightly different reasons to everyone else.” Can I express those opinions here? Must I add a preamble to every comment so that people don’t assume the worst? Do I need to be thinking, “Hmm, I wonder what 4THOT thinks about this story?”

Free me OOOO 🐟

Thanks to everyone that offered feedback. :)
Edit: o7
Responding via edits is silly. Standard hyperbolic response, as I mentioned below. But I gotta address two things just so y'all aware that I can offer a rebuttal if need be. 4THOT says:

Here's the full interview with the UN Rapporteur on Violence against Women claiming she isn't aware of the rocket attacks - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bar-shemur-8b1bb23b_the-un-rapporteur-on-violence-against-women-activity-7171212859895459841-gq6B

I don't know why he's attempting to "find" the "full interview". The linkedin video he has given here is literally the exact same video I gave in my comment. Click the hyperlink saying "the lengthier clip." They're both posted by the interviewer, Bar Shem-Ur. Mate, did you even read my original comment? If you scroll down this page (part 3), you can see I say "the segment that aired on Hazinor, Channel 13 is exactly the same." I searched for where the footage originally aired and found no additional material. 4THOT, mate, the "clip-chimp" is this 30s clip the Jerusalem Post originally posted. When I say "lengthier" clip, I am talking about the 5min segment that you had to "find" despite the fact that I already found it.

nvm this dipshit didn't find the actual interview, this is a cut from twitter

Once again, the video from Twitter I provided is the exact same video as the linkedin one. There is no entire, unedited full interview anywhere without the tiktok rapid cuts. There might be more footage out there, who knows, I've literally never claimed to have found the "full" interview. I called it a clip compilation because I don't know if more footage exits. Another baffling response. Anyways, I'll leave the rest, this is not the way to have a back-and-forth. Toodles! XD
Edit 2: Just to clarify what I was attempting to do in my comment, 4THOT still has not directly answered this question from part 3, the main post:

Do you think Alsalem holds the position that Hamas or Hezbollah have never fired rockets against Israel?

I honestly don't remember the last time I saw someone claim that Hamas has never fired rockets against Israel; this would be an astronomically fringe position. If you read the headline of the JP alone, and maybe even the article, you can still come away with the conclusion that Alsalem believes that Hamas has never fired rockets against Israel. I gave evidence of the fact that some people came away with this conclusion in the redacted comment:

Because if they've lived their entire lives unaware of the rocket attacks,

I don't believe that to be true; Alsalem has not lived her entire life unaware of the rocket attacks. We need more evidence to establish that then this interview.
Notice how I have actually quoted 4THOT verbatim down below? But for some reason, I need to provide a "direct link" to it, even though you can see it if you just scroll down the page? Baffling, like I said. "Isn't that interesting?" You're quoted verbatim mate! What do you think is "interesting" here?
4THOT you are killing me:

Here's the actual thread where you were banned.

I've literally linked the thread I was banned twice. A third time as well if you want to include the moment where I linked someone else's comment in that thread.
I never said the headline is "incorrect" these are the actual words I used in my direct appeal:

If the headline is poor, I might present information in the comments in order to ensure that the criticism is well-directed.

I believe that the headline could lead to a misinterpretation. I was later proven to be correct. I provided evidence of that misinterpretation in the direct appeal. And 4THOT refuses to engage with any of it. Again, these edits reply are so silly. I have no idea why he's so reluctant to have an actual exchange. Finito once more. I gotta go get some cheese balls...

Lesson Plan: Exploring Hyperbole
Objective:
Students will understand the concept of hyperbole, recognize its use in literature and everyday language, and demonstrate their ability to create and identify hyperbolic expressions.
Materials:

1. Whiteboard and markers
   
2. Handouts with examples of hyperbole
   
3. Texts or excerpts from literature containing hyperbole
   
4. Paper and writing utensils for students
   

Introduction (15 minutes):

1. Begin with a discussion on exaggeration. Ask students if they've ever heard someone exaggerate or if they've done it themselves. Write down their responses on the board.
   
2. Define hyperbole as a form of exaggeration used for emphasis or effect. Provide examples, both humorous and serious, to illustrate the concept.
   

Activity 1: Identifying Hyperbole (20 minutes):

1. Distribute handouts with examples of hyperbole. Ask students to underline or highlight the hyperbolic expressions.
   
2. Discuss the examples as a class. What makes these statements hyperbolic? How does hyperbole impact the meaning of the statement?
   

Activity 2: Hyperbole in Literature (20 minutes):

1. Provide students with excerpts from literature that contain hyperbole. Discuss how authors use hyperbole to create vivid images or convey strong emotions.
   
2. Have students identify and discuss the purpose of hyperbole in the given literary excerpts. Encourage them to explore how hyperbole contributes to the overall tone and meaning of the text.
   

Activity 3: Creating Hyperbole (25 minutes):

1. In small groups, ask students to brainstorm situations where hyperbole might be used effectively. Have each group create a list of hyperbolic expressions related to their chosen situation.
   
2. Each group presents their list to the class, explaining why they chose specific hyperboles and how they contribute to exaggeration.
   

Closure (10 minutes):

1. Review key points about hyperbole: its definition, examples, and how it's used in literature and everyday language.
   
2. Assign a short homework task where students find examples of hyperbole in their reading or daily life and come prepared to share them in the next class.
   

Assessment:
Evaluate students based on their participation in discussions, ability to identify hyperbole, and the creativity and effectiveness of their hyperbolic expressions during the group activity.

Getting my first Trinket Pack from Mythpunk Olfactive is maybe the most excited I've ever been about a perfume order. I love the Old Internet aesthetic of the website, the perfumer's musings, the thoughtful notes on gender expression. I've also been really enjoying learning about perfume from the perfumer, Ashe's, involvement on this sub. My brain is curious, but my wallet is empty, so perfume classes haven't been an option for me. It rules to see her flitting in and out of the sub explaining how she composed accords in her scents or why certain aroma chemicals might be making a particular scent come across as musty. The social media aspect of running a business seems wretched and grueling to me; her kindness, warmth, and desire to inform are really admirable in our cynical, capitalist deathscape.
And in addition to that, I also smelled the perfumes, and they are so cool! My reviews are going to be on the ramblier side, because these brought to mind a lot of memories and senses of place, senses of ideas. But imo, you can't actually tell someone what something smells like, because we all smell things differently. That's why we rely so much on simile and storytelling. I mean, it's why we read reviews even though we all have lists of notes.
Mossmallow Puff
pillowy marshmallows cradled in the trees of a cloud forest: curtains of rain, blankets of mist, crushed clary sage, gnarled trees draped with lichens, feathery ferns, and dewdrop mosses, moon-kissed amber resins
This was the first one I tried, sleepy after a long shift at work. Creamy marshmallow hits me first and then settles into a fascinating, dusty atmospheric. It doesn't smell as foresty green as I expected based on the notes and other reviewers saying things like that it reminds them of eating marshmallows while sitting deep in the woods. The image that comes to mind for me is a mossy cave. The clary sage, mosses, and woody notes don't feel wet and lush to me, more like plant life growing along stone walls. The marshmallow acts as a glue for these notes but is also...unsettling. It's a sort of sweetness that doesn't belong in this setting. It reminds me a bit of Solstice Scents' Parlor Trick as well as Hexennacht's Pearanormal Activity, which have "bone musk" and "spectral musk" notes respectively. The marshmallow is warm and sweet but has this underlying unearthliness to it that feels spooky to me. I think about fairy tales in which people travel to Hell. I think about the experience of exploring a cave and what I would do if I suddenly smelled muskysweet marshmallows when I was quite a ways in. It would mean I wasn't alone with the moss and rocks and bats. I think about this video and show it to my boyfriend, and neither of us sleep well.
I try this perfume on in the morning on a day off a few days later. It still smells like spooky marshmallow moss cave to me. To be clear, this is not a bad thing. It feels like a scent for cool weather, for rain or snow. I imagine myself in a big, green sweater, sipping coffee and working on a story, smelling like this, and it makes me happy. It's simultaneously comforting and a little creepy. I worked out while wearing it, and I think it helped preserve my sense of self when I might otherwise have felt silly. It gives me a strange feeling like my child self is observing me to determine if I'm a satisfactory grownup. Maybe the unsettling feeling from the marshmallow is also from that child's hopeful spying. The kid likes the perfume at least.
Strangeling
iris, peppermint mate, vanilla, green ivy, ink-stained fingers, notebook paper, white moss, shimmering woods
The first time I tried this, it was only for a short time in the morning before I ended up showering to go out unexpectedly. It is extremely calming and reminds me of feeling resolute on a blue/purple day, the sort where you can't really understand why everyone is complaining about the sun not being out, because it seems nicer to you that way. It smells minty, papery, and fleetingly sweet in a way I can't quite put my finger on. And most importantly, it smells astonishingly like a lost artifact from my childhood: a sleepy time lotion from Wal-Mart that my mother used to purchase for me that I loved very much and which I have not been able to identify in adulthood.
I tried the perfume again more properly last night. It is truly beautiful. It reminds me of writing my dreams down in spiral bound notebooks with the windows open in my childhood home in the middle of nowhere. It makes me think of spring but lacks the mugginess I associate with it. The "perfumer's musings" mention that this scent is based on childhood experiences, which I believe were in a dry climate, and I enjoy feeling the ways in which our sense memories overlap and don't. I note a little pang within myself. The scent--gorgeous, inky notebook paper, wafting earthy irises, peppermint tea, a general woodsiness--is physiologically relaxing to me but makes me feel a little helpless for how much it brings me back to a certain point in my childhood. My boyfriend says it smells like a generic cologne to him, which I find extremely odd. He tends to like greens and atmospherics but in this batch has liked the spicy, fruity scents. Which is fine but strange. What is also strange is that I start picking up a scent beneath all the other notes that smells, to me, exactly like rubber cement. Ever since I had COVID this year, I have occasional bouts of parosmia with certain smells, so I ask my boyfriend to smell again to see if I'm smelling something wrong. He takes a *big* whiff, and his face turns red, and he grabs his head. I asked him what's wrong, and he says he can't really explain it. He says the scent triggered a sensation in his nose that was very unpleasant but hard to describe and goes on to say, "It's like my nose went, 'VVVVVVVVVVVVV!!!" Is that helpful?" I say it isn't really but that I'll write it down. I ask if he'd like me to take the perfume off, since his sense of smell is very sensitive, and he says no, just that he can't snarf it up close like he just had. I wear it for the rest of the night. I really do find it very beautiful but can't quite get my nose to stop smelling whatever it's interpreting as rubber cement. It calms down a bit for me after I walk around in the rain with it on and come back, but it's still there if I sniff more closely. I *think* I remember Ashe mentioning that this particular batch of Strangeling is a bit more powdery than usual due to needing to use a different distributor for a particular material? If that's the case, I'd like to try a different formulation of this at some point, because I like it so much, it's just got something in it that I'm smelling kind of wrong. And if not, I'll leave it for a while and see if my nose decides to behave.
Bubblegum Puff
a whimsical, floral bubblegum note has been created by combining banana, pineapple, and orange with ylang ylang fractions, rose de mai, orange blossom, lightly spiced vanilla, pink amber, and berry-like musks
This is so unlike anything I'm usually interested in, but something about the description really drew me in. I am generally disinterested in gourmands, particularly those with bakery notes, but I've been realizing that my overall taste in perfume is fairly broad; it's a lot about execution. Something about the idea of resinous bubblegum just sounds so fun and also weird. And, with no hyperbole whatsoever: holy shit. Holy shit!!!!
The first thing I wrote down just smelling Bubblegum Puff on a shred of paper was, "Bubblegum Puff is a motorcycle lesbian smoking outside on the porch. She smiles at you in a way that's like, 'I can tell you're looking at me, and I like that.' Gay romance at nighttime perfume." I stand by this. I decided to wear this on a lunch date with my girlfriend and sort of regretted it just because it is fucking nuclear strength, and we were just grabbing lunch down town during her work break. Like, I sprayed this once for both arms and once for my neck and chest, and I walked around a lot in the hot sun, and I still smelled like it all day. I normally like little quiet perfumes, but this smells so good that I'm just going to be more careful in the future. I will note, though, that this fully concealed the gross smell of sunscreen that I need to be slathered in to exist whatsoever outside from May to October. I don't think it has patchouli in it, but it reminds me of a fruitchouli in the way that it's fruity and spicy/smoky. Resinous really is a good way to describe it. I've seen it described as a "grown up" bubblegum, but that doesn't quite sit right with me, because it's so playful that I don't really want to call it grown up. It's a complex perfume interpretation of bubblegum that is crazy fun.
This perfume is interesting for me, gender-wise. I am non-binary; certain femme-feeling fragrances hit really strange for me, and it's hard to explain why some do and some don't. Smelling like a flower garden? Awesome, love that. Smelling like a fancy lady wearing a silk robe burning incense in her parlor? No! It makes me feel weird! Why am I suddenly wearing a bodice? This perfume is undeniably leans femme, but it smells like the kind of femininity that is comfortable to me. It accommodates my taste for the unconventional and also gives me an outlet to try something that's normally a bit out of my comfort zone in terms of expression. And oh yeah, what does it smell like? I'd say a raucous house party where everyone is drinking sweet, fruity mixed drinks. Your crush gets extremely close to your face to talk to you, because it's the only way to hear anything over all the voices and music. Your heart is beating really fast, and people are bouncing balloons back and forth over your head. It smells like that. (Also, my boyfriend wanted to wear my shirt to bed after I wore it.) 🩷🫧

For this week's review, I will be going back to the very first Dhar Mann video I ever watched! Sometime last year, my school (I have since graduated) made national headlines for controversy over trans athletes. I fell asleep one night while watching news stories about it. I woke up in the middle of the night, and my phone was still auto-playing YouTube videos. This is the video I woke up to. I was like 90% asleep, so I couldn't tell if it was an actual news story or documentary or what. Turns out, this video has nothing to do with trans people. I clicked on the channel name after and the rest is history.
I haven't watched this video since then. I obviously didn't know the cast, tropes, or clichés of Dhar Mann at the time, so I thought it would be fun to go back to this!
Our story begins outside of (presumably) Bookside Highschool. We have our lead, Kate (Callie Walker) alongside her boyfriend and female bestie. Tbh I don't even recognize the actors for the friend or boyfriend. Straight out of the gate, we get an exposition dump from the obligatory best friend.
Already, I would like to digress for a moment. Dhar Mann is not a good writer. Not even factoring the many flaws with his messages and predictable plots, the dialogue is always so contrived. Show don't tell, Dhar Dhar. If your banter is thinly veiled exposition, go back to the drawing board. You shouldn't have to write dialogue such as "hey what's up, cousin?" in order to establish character dynamics.
Anyway, best friend is bummed because Kate is giving up cheerleading to try out for the football team. Kate has been playing football since she was 5, and now it's her time to shine! They're seniors in highschool and Kate won't get this chance again! Boyfriend objects to Kate trying out. At first I was about to rip into this guy, but come to think of it... yeah idk how I'd feel about my partner playing on the same football team as me. Like for me the gender aspect isn't a factor, but having your partner play on the same team... I can see why that would be weird. So I'll spare boyfriend... for now.
Boyfriend (I'm sorry, nicknames aren't jumping out to me this time) and Kate approach the coach. The coach is an asshole to Kate but lets her tryout anyway. Montage of her out-performing every male athlete ensues.
The next day at school, Kate and her friend check the board to see who made the football and cheerleading teams. Friend made the cheer team, but Kate didn't make the football team. Already, this video loses me. Why did the coach even have Kate tryout if he was just going to cut her? Was it just to placate her? She very clearly outperformed everyone, so the coach cutting her just makes him look sus. Is anybody in 2024 really this astonished at the idea of a girl trying out for a sport's team where no female-only alternatives exist? This discrimination case seems extra ironic considering that the coach (played by Melvin Ward) is a black man. What if some asshole didn't want him playing on a team?
Boyfriend and his way cooler best friend, Ben, arrive in time to comfort Kate on not making the team. Boyfriend seems sweet and supportive at first, but his true feelings start to show with little bits of dialogue he says. There is also an arguable continuity error. Boyfriend tells Kate "there's always next year, right?" even though they established that this is their senior year. Maybe it's supposed to imply that the boyfriend is feigning compassion or is just a bit dumb, but given the quality of Dhar's storytelling, I'm considering it a continuity error. Kate and her friend walk off, leaving Ben and Donny (Kate's boyfriend) to mourn over the tragedy that just took place.
Based on the music change, this is where we're supposed to see the true colors of Donny.... but what he said isn't that bad tbh. He said "It's too bad, but she's a big girl, she'll move on from this. At least we made the team, right?" Calling your girlfriend a "big girl" is a bit weird, but other than that, the sentiment isn't too awful.
We're treated to a few minutes of a football game with Kate cheering from the sidelines (in the crowd, not as a cheerleader). Their team sucks, Donny is bad, and they even get booed! This is almost Dhar Mann karmic retribution, because the quarterback gets injured too!
We fluctuate once again back to school, and there are flyers for a... quarterback tryout? Why? Wouldn't they just have somebody else on the team be the interim quarterback? Ben encourages Kate to tryout, but this time Donny actively objects. Later that day, Kate is helping her friend with her cheer moves, and they refer to the coach by a different name than he had earlier. Friend gets this silly idea to have Kate pretend to be a guy to tryout and make the team. This is where the video goes off the rails...
Kate agrees, taking on the info of friend's out-of-state cousin and enrolling as a transfer student. Meanwhile, Kate pretends to be sick. Before I even get into how bad the makeover is, let's discuss the many flaws with this plan:

1. "Kyle" would need academic transcripts. Good luck bullshitting those.
2. Given that the tryouts are yearly, is Kate going to be sick FOR THE WHOLE DAMN SCHOOL YEAR????
3. This is identity theft, and is a legit fucking crime.
4. There is ZERO indication that this actual person named Kyle is aware of this plan. What a good cousin you are...
5. Is Kate basically doing double school work the entire year? Who is to say that Kyle is even in the same classes as her? They could have very different schedules!
6. Kate is white and her friend is black. So unless there's some adoption or something going on, friend's cousin is not going to be white.

There are more issues I could discuss with this plan, but let's move on.
We get to the moral of the video, and.... it's not applicable. Friend says "If you set your mind to something, you can do anything. This is your chance to show that even a girl can kick their butts!" But that's the thing: This isn't an issue of her being non-committal. She has ALREADY demonstrated to be better than the male players, and they realize that. This is a matter of discrimination, which is mostly out of her control.
Second montage, and this time Kate gets a makeover. I didn't realize Dhar was already doing double montages. As you'd expect, it's not remotely convincing. It's on the same level of obvious as Katherine Norland in that recent video with Neela Jolene. It's completely unrealistic that nobody would recognize Kate, but I'm going to suspend my disbelief for the sake of continuing this review.
sigh once again, we fluctuate back to the field. This video seriously lacks set variety. "Kyle" outperforms the guys once again, and we continue that weird subplot about Donny's true colors slowly being revealed. Ben is actually concerned about Kate being sick, but Donny is all nah she's fine bro.
Flip flop back to school. Kyle is sitting with friend. I was about to comment how Kate is blowing her cover by sitting with her best friend anyway, but I guess it makes sense since Kyle is friend's cousin and he's new. But again, I emphasize, how would anybody even believe they are cousins? Come to think of it, schools in Dhar Mann only have like 12 people, so this would get sussed out even faster than it normally would at a huge state school. Kyle laments to friend that Donny is an asshole and saw a whole new side of him while on the field. Dhar Mann coincidence occurs, because Donny comes in and bumps into Kyle. He even goes supervillain and brags about how Kate isn't there, so he can do what he wants! Ben helps Kyle up, and goes on about how awesome of a person Kate is. It's pretty obvious where this is going.
We finally get a breath of fresh air with a new set change! Kate is outside of her house, changing out of her Kyle costume. Uh oh, Donny is here! They have an awkward run in, and Donny shows what a buffoon he is. He literally narcs on himself, telling his girlfriend that he's only checking in FOR THE FIRST TIME IN WEEKS because Ben told him to. Negative rizz, my guy.
Donny isn't the only stupid one though, because Kate makes the bad decision of breaking up with him right there. On an a super impromptu meeting. Not a good time. But that's not even the worst part! Kate cites her friend telling her how Donny has been treating "some new kid named Kyle" and uggggghhhh Kate you fuuuuucked uuuuup! Talk about blowing your cover, the LAST thing you want to do is mention your alter ego, even in passing. Not to mention, you're citing hearsay about some complete stranger you've never heard of before! She even missed the chance to play the whole cousin angle! She could've very easily have said "my friend says you've been an asshole to her cousin, and I don't appreciate that one bit. She's my best friend so picking on her cousin is like picking on family!" or some shit like that. Anything would have been better!
Donny tries to gaslight Kate into thinking she's just being sensitive, but at least she's smart enough to not fall for it. Donny asks for his hoodie back... what? What hoodie? This wasn't a plot point... Chekov items happen all the time in Dhar Mann but this is the opposite. There was ZERO mention or significance of any hoodie in this video whatsoever. It's just another example of abysmal Dhar Mann writing. He introduced this hoodie as a random excuse for Kate to temporarily leave so Donny can find Kate's backpack with the Kyle costume in it.
We cut to the team preparing for the big game in the locker room. Donny arrives late, with a big shit-eating grin on his face. He predictably exposes Kate right before the big game, and he comes damn close to unironically saying "There is an imposter among us". Kate comes clean, and the coach benches her. For some reason Donny becomes QB... even though he never was to begin with.
Coach is all "Just wait until the school finds out you lied to play on the team!" ummm dumbass, that's hands down the LEAST problematic thing of this whole scheme. Not even going to mention the identity theft or faulty physicals/paperwork/transcripts or anything like that???
Donny sucks, and the team is getting rekt. There's a bit of dialogue I find amusing. The coach says "unless Tom Brady shows up, we can't do much else." I'm from New England, so hyperbolic praise for Brady isn't unusual in the slighest, but this is in Cali... it's just weird to hear other parts of the country praise him considering anytime I ever travel anywhere I hear nothing but disdain for him.
Anyway, Ben finally convinces the coach to let Kate play, as herself. This video really came out in the wrong decade. I have a hard time believing there would be much pushback over a girl playing.
They win with Kate's help. The coach promises not to narc her out to the school on the condition that she plays for them again ne- ... really? Again?! The same continuity error has happened twice in this video?! And again, this scandal would be something way beyond the hands of the coach. He has no say.
We cut to next year, and..... I'm at a loss for words. This is now the THIRD TIME we've run into the continuity error over them still being at the school despite seniors and hammering that point home many many many times. I am astonished that the same continuity error was made less than 20 seconds later. Anyway, some freshman are there to tryout, and thank Kate for breaking the glass ceiling. They repeat the inapplicable moral of the video, and we see that Ben and Kate have become a couple.
Outro:
I saw this video in Dhar's Extended cut playlist. There is no extended cut. I watched this video twice looking for changes. Needless to say, this video was much more enjoyable when my brain was 90% shut off in the middle of the night. I'm honestly surprised that this was the video that introduced me to Dhar Mann. The first half is boring, the second half goes way off the fucking rails. It's not even enjoyably bad, just tedious.
I'll be posting a review every Wednesday! If you have any suggestions for what to review next, please comment below. My only exceptions are that I will not review videos about race or autism. See you in the next one!

THIS POST ISN'T JUST ABOUT THE ERUPTOR BUT I CAN'T CHANGE THE TITLE BECAUSE REDDIT. I have more things i've said.
I'm not being hyperbolic here. it feels terrible to use, its identity of being an explosive shrapnel weapon was taken away and now its a different flavor of explosive crossbow, which are both flavors of borderline useless and unfun weapons to use. Any other number of things could've been done to fix the friendly fire issue but this is not it chief. I've personally never died or killed players with it accidently.. just don't shoot it into players or yourself 5head.
The weapon was already terribly clunky and annoying to use, with the sluggish aim and long-ass reload between shots but the shrapnel, decent group clear potential and still good single target damage made it still fun to use. That's no longer the case now, its terrible at all of the above. The warbond has nothing of actual value now. None of the weapons are fun or good. There can be a case made for the grenade pistol's utility but that's 1 item in an entire warbond full of other useless items.. Give the thing its shrapnel and AOE size back as it was at launch without the forwards explosive pull and the weapon would've been fine. It wasn't even that great of a weapon, just unique and fun. If you really wanted to nerf something, nerf the animation cancel reloading, Leave the weapon's mechanics alone.
On a slightly different note but still relevant, why do the devs keep actively try to make the game less fun to play by making so many weapons less fun to use? The slugger was not "overpowered" the marksman rifle's were unfun and uninteresting. at this point i just want the slugger to be back how it was at launch, the halved magazine and all. Was still more fun than it is now. Breaker and railgun too given the current state of the game, The opinions of them "overperforming" won't be there anymore.

Background: I have a 3 year old cat, and a new puppy who was a foster fail (I've had him 2 months, officially adopted him 2 weeks ago). I'm a Biologist and my life is literally animals, professionally and personally. My boyfriend never grew up with animals, does not understand them and absolutely HATES fur and all the "negatives" that come with them.
He has a 2 year old autistic daughter who I love. I've never dated someone with a kid but I've done everything I can to be helpful, understanding, to compromise and be supportive through all the issues that come with that. Before you come at me, no I am not equating having an autistic child to having 2 animals but there is a level of responsibility and compromise that comes with both.
The first fight we got in was because I started to realize he never comes to my house, I ONLY go to his. When confronted he eventually told me it's because of the hair, the pets touching him and "the smell" (SIDENOTE: I am not a disgusting person by any means, I can be messy and let things fall to the wayside and get cluttered but I clean the litter everyday, I vaccume, wash my floors, change my sheets, ETC). He has mentioned he has OCD, and at first I thought of it as a hyperbolic self-diagnosis but the last 4 months we've been dating I'm realizing it's actually getting worse.
Because of my pets I have to shower and change my clothes everytime I come to his house. He will NOT leave me alone unless I do this, even I'd I showered that day. Because of my pets if I want to cook us dinner I have to bring all the ingredients to HIS house because he doesn't want to spend anytime whatsoever in my home. He's slept over 2x, each time he left between 4-6 in the morning and complains for the following days about how many times he's had to wash his clothes to get the smell and fur off.
This actually extends beyond animals; restaurants need to be his choice, activities need to be his choice, plans, gatherings, etc. I am a flexible person, and at first it was fine and I was trying to understand his situation and personality but now it feels controlling and at times manipulative. He's not officially diagnosed with OCD and it's starting to feel unsustainable long term.
AITAH??

I (31 F) have known Melissa (23 f) for about a year and a half now. I met her about a week or two before my 30th birthday at a bar. She seemed really nice and my party was sort of a come one come all kind of deal so I invited her, not really expecting someone I JUST met to show up. Well, she did, with a hand painted gift. At the time, it did seem odd, but sweet so I said thank you. Now I’m realizing just how strange that very personal gift from basically a stranger really was.
Over the past year, this young lady has been really trying hard to be my “bestie”; inviting herself to my house, cooking me meals I didn’t ask for, really personal stuff for someone I barely know. I am a relatively private person as well, I really don’t like having people in my house. Then the few times I entertained her, feeling guilty that I was blowing off this apparently very kind and giving person, she would just trauma dump on me. I mean, seriously the most insane stories. It started out being believable; she told me she obtained a back injury from her last job. Terrible, I say my gosh I’m sorry. Then she says she’s been assaulted, again I empathize and give her a shoulder. Then she’s seen a friend die, very violently. Again, I believe her and say my gosh that is just terrible, I’m so sorry. And from there the stories start to really escalate.
All in total, we’ve got a full blown body count. ALL of her old friends have died by s*icide. I’m not hyperbolizing. She says she has NO MORE FRIENDS LEFT because they are all dead. She has been SA’d must be 15 times now with how many stories she’s told me. How is that even possible?? Not that this has ever stopped someone from being attacked, but she is 6 feet tall and over 300 pounds, and is always talking about how “strong” she is. How is someone so big and strong being CONSTANTLY assaulted?? She claims all of these attacks have happened in just the last couple of years in college.
She also has claimed to have a debilitating chronic illness; her spine is literally fusing together and she will be completely wheelchair bound in just a few years. This girl has NEVER visibly displayed any signs of this apparently debilitating disability, not that disability has to be visible to be real, but what she is claiming is happening to her would certainly be A LITTLE visible? No cane. No pain meds. No limp, nothing. She wears a back brace from Walgreens. If any of this were happening, I would certainly have been told, she can’t help but trauma dump on me and tell me EVERY painful detail of her life, INCLUDING her apparently very active sex life. I have told her I don’t feel comfortable talking about sex and she won’t stop.
She has been apparently recently diagnosed with a tumor that is “growing hair and teeth” and she has YET ANOTHER SA story that RECENTLY happened. She has also called me claiming she “couldn’t trust herself with her meds” and had me come get them, which turned into “I don’t want to be alone!!” And invited herself to my house where, once there, no more tears. She is perfectly happy as a clam, sitting on my couch keeping myself and my fiance up at all hours talking our ears off about more nonsense, uncomfortably personal stories about her sex life, when we have to be up for work in the morning. The bag of pills? Over the counter allergy meds and ibuprofen. She has never asked for them back, go figure.
She has also recently “made an attempt” which she made sure to tell everyone at work about, which she made visible with a phony bandage on her wrist, and when she finally gave up the act, there was no injury where the makeshift home bandage was. No scab, no scar, nothing. And frankly, the things I am telling you all here isn’t even scratching the surface of all the insane stuff she’s told me, just the most glaring examples.
She is very possibly a pathological liar. Things escalated as I pulled back from her, and I think she is escalating the stories for attention. There is definitely something else going on with her but I’m not a psychologist. I feel like I want to contact her parents and let them know what’s going on, But on the other hand, maybe I should just block her on everything and let it go? I’m not sure what to do but she CLEARLY needs help.
So, WIBTA if I report this behavior to her parents?

I just listened to a bit of episode 6 of the AE Podcast, and while I suspect Dan was coming from a good place, his comments about Judaism, divides within it, and the Chabad community were so, so incredibly incorrect.
While I always knew people are confused by Judaism, listening to the total confusion in the podcast made me realize just how little people understand about it. I wanted to jump on here and give a brief overview/correction as to the foundation of Judaism and the makeup of a the Jewish communities for those who are interested in knowing a bit of background/an overview.
I realize that with us Jews being a minority, most people haven’t met a Jew, or at least felt close enough to one to ask them questions. If anyone reading this / in general has any questions, feel free to ask in the comments below or inbox me, and I’ll try my best to answer.
There are 3 sets of teachings the form the basis of Judaism.
The first two are said to have been handed down to Jews at Har Sinai.
1.) The Torah (commonly referred to by other religions as the “Old Testament), which is meant to be a the guidebook God handed down Jews how to live lives in the physical world, in the form of stories (this is both the 10 commandments as well as the oral Torah which was then later transcribed into the five Books of Moses); and
2.) The Kabbalah, which is Jewish mysticism. This is information about the non physical/spiritual world. Think teachings about the relationship of souls to God, the spiritual world, how to interact with the spiritual world, why God created the universe, how it functions, etc.
Both the Torah and the Kabbalah are at the core of Judaism and are separate distinct sets of teachings.
One “belief” is that the Torah and Kabbalah was shared in the brains / consciousness of the Jews all at one, like a download of CDs into their brains. Think shared hallucination. Suddenly everyone just knew the five Books of Moses and the Kabbalah.
A part of that understanding became the understanding that we are meant to live in the physical world and not worry about the spiritual. Kabbalah, while central to Judaism and as important as the Torah, was not recorded in the same way the Torah was (it wasn’t meant to be shared with everyone, so the recording of it was not treated the same). The Kabbalah tranditionally was handed down orally and through symbols (ie the tree of live). Only some select Jews/scholars/learners were taught about Kabbalah and practices it. These days, you can learn theoretically about Kabbalah, but that is different from practicing Kabbalah (which from my understanding involves very specific meditation techniques, breath work, etc. and a lot of practice with these kaballistic rabbis / teachers who have learned the tradition).
3.) The third foundation of Judaism is the Talmud. The Talmud is a recording of prominent conversations between rabbis discussing the Torah and trying to interpret the stories to figure out what God was trying to tell the Jews about morality. These books just records their views, and don’t outline which view is correct, and which view isn’t. Some discussions had more rabbis in agreement on how the interpretation vs other discussions. There are some prominent rabbis who took strict approaches to the text, and others that took less strict approaches.
In general, religious Jews study the Torah and the Talmud (again, Kabbalah is reserved only for some people and isn’t meant to be the focus of Jewish life generally) and they decide how to interpret these laws. Smaller groups or sects in Judaism form around different interpretations. For the most part, Jews don’t consider any one group to be right vs wrong. Groups who practice / follow certain interpretations tend to group or cluster together, go to the same synagogues (generally, you’d go to one with a Rabbi whose interpretations are aligned with your own).
In this way, Judaism is thought to be an ideological spectrum, with each person falling somewhere on the spectrum.
Generally, there are 3 main movements in Judaism that make up the right, centre, and left of the ideological spectrum.
(Edit to add: this is just three of the more prominent movements placed on an ideological spectrum to show the spectrum - it is not a hard and fast rule, not every Jew had to even identify as being on the spectrum, this is just a general overview as I understand / learned it, and I welcome any further context / info anyone wants to add).
1.) On the right side of the spectrum, you have Orthodox Jews. They follow a strict interpretation of Jewish laws and believe these laws are obligatory. The orthodox movement is divided into two subgroups:
1a.) Heredi Jews - These are groups/people who adhere to the strictest interpretation of Judaism and fall on the rightest end of the ideological spectrum. This group can then be further divided into different Hasidic communities/schools of thought. For example:

• You have groups like Netureu Karta. They are the Heredi Jews who are vehemently anti Zionist and the ones you see at the anti Israel rallies. The reason they are anti Israel is because they believe Jews are strictly forbidden from returning to Israel until such time as the Messiah comes, at which point Jews will all return there and reestablish the state. They think it’s a huge sin that Jews have returned and established a secular state in Israel, and want it to be peacefully disbanded.
  
• Another example would be the Satmar community in Williamsburg, which is the community the Netflix show Unorthodox is based on. They mostly keep to themselves and don’t engage with the secular world because they don’t want to risk breaking these strict laws.
  
• You also have groups like Chabad-Lubavitch (which is the group specifically referred to in the podcast). While still ultra orthodox / Hasidic, they believe in engaging with non-religious Jews and non-Jews. They are the ultra Orthodox Jews that non Jews (and secular Jews) are more likely to have seen around and to have engaged with because they don’t cut themselves off from the outside world. In fact, they try to actively engage with non religious people (Jews and non-Jews). An example of this is the “Chabad houses” around the world and on different campuses. A Chabad house is just a Chabad Rabbi that opens his house/a center to non-religious Jews and often non-Jews. They’ll host free Shabbat dinners for Jews (and their friends), seders, Purim, etc. I’ve been to many and have brought many non-Jewish friends along who the Chabad Rabbis have welcomed into their homes with open arms (albeit not literally, since they’re shomer negiah).
  

1.b.) Modern Orthodox - They still follow the strict interpretations of the Torah/Talmud, but try to apply it more to the modern world in a way that allows them to be a full member of society at large, even if that means they risking some level of observance. They may wear Kippas and hats instead of black hats / the fur ones. They may have normal hair cuts and facial hair (ie no payot). They may pray daily, but not so much so that they can’t hold a standard 9-5 job. They’re more likely to have secular jobs engaging with non-Jews and people of the opposite sex. Ben Shapiro would be an example of a modern Orthodox Jew.
2.) On the left side of the ideological spectrum you have Reform Judaism. These are generally Jews who refer to themselves as ethnically Jewish, but not religiously Jewish. They are more likely to follow traditions for cultural rather than religious reasons. An example here would be someone who is atheist or agnostic, but still considers themselves Jewish, may still do Shabbat dinners, still identifies with Judaism, etc.
Edit to add: as pointed out in comments, you can still believe in God and be a reform Jew. It just is the more liberal end of the spectrum where laws and interpretations aren’t binding and there is much less emphasis on any right way to practice.
3.) In the middle of the spectrum you have Conservative / Masorti Jews. These Jews are those that fall somewhere between Orthodox and Reform. There is a wide range of levels of observance here. Generally, conservative Jews believe practicing Judaism is obligatory, but might “bend the rules”, modernize, or adopt a more egalitarian approach to teachings. For example, they may take a more gender neutral approach to practices (ie girls can have bat mitzah’s and can read from the Torah). They may drive to synagogue on Shabbat but nowhere else. This basically covers a range of people who aren’t orthodox, but still identify with Judaism as a religion and believe in God and have some level or practice based on that religious identity.
Taking it full circle, Judaism by relying heavily on Talmud and Rabbinic teachings, teaches Jews to ask questions and never gives “one answer” but rather in response to a question, shows several rabbis engaging the question honestly based on their own interpretations of the Torah. This allows for a lot of fluidity in practice, with Jews taking a very individual approach to how they practice their religion (if they are practicing).
A thing to note - for the most part (with some limited exception) Jews believe everyone (orthodox Jew, reform Jew, non-Jew) goes to the same place after we die. You don’t have to be Jewish, or believe in God, to go to “heaven” or as sometimes referred to in the rabbinic tradition, yeshiva shel mallah (translates to “the school on high”). That’s why Judaism isn’t a proselytizing religion, and why even within Judaism you won’t see (for the most part) Orthodox Jews trying to persuade other Jews to become more orthodox.
Another side note - in general, just from a social perspective, while most ultra Orthodox Jews just keep to themselves, as a whole they are more likely to attract people who may not be 1000% mentally there. You then have people who isolate themselves from the world, and you’ll have some idiotic stories.
My understanding about the New York Chabad tunnel incident is that a small group of young Jewish men started digging tunnels from the synagogue to an abandoned building. My understanding is the second the leaders of the shul found out about it (rumors started spreading in the community that the boys were working on this) they tried to have the tunnels immediately sealed. When the boys protested by refusing to leave, I believe the leaders/rabbis called the cops. The leaders and Rabbis of the shul have all condemned it (they say almost the entire community is vehemently against what they did, with a minority claiming they shouldn’t be ostracized believing were just trying to use vacant buildings, but that’s a wild take IMO).
Edit: used Hasidic to refer to ultra orthodox in original post, instead of Heredim, now corrected.

Lesson Plan: Exploring Hyperbole
Objective:
Students will understand the concept of hyperbole, recognize its use in literature and everyday language, and demonstrate their ability to create and identify hyperbolic expressions.
Materials:

1. Whiteboard and markers
   
2. Handouts with examples of hyperbole
   
3. Texts or excerpts from literature containing hyperbole
   
4. Paper and writing utensils for students
   

Introduction (15 minutes):

1. Begin with a discussion on exaggeration. Ask students if they've ever heard someone exaggerate or if they've done it themselves. Write down their responses on the board.
   
2. Define hyperbole as a form of exaggeration used for emphasis or effect. Provide examples, both humorous and serious, to illustrate the concept.
   

Activity 1: Identifying Hyperbole (20 minutes):

1. Distribute handouts with examples of hyperbole. Ask students to underline or highlight the hyperbolic expressions.
   
2. Discuss the examples as a class. What makes these statements hyperbolic? How does hyperbole impact the meaning of the statement?
   

Activity 2: Hyperbole in Literature (20 minutes):

1. Provide students with excerpts from literature that contain hyperbole. Discuss how authors use hyperbole to create vivid images or convey strong emotions.
   
2. Have students identify and discuss the purpose of hyperbole in the given literary excerpts. Encourage them to explore how hyperbole contributes to the overall tone and meaning of the text.
   

Activity 3: Creating Hyperbole (25 minutes):

1. In small groups, ask students to brainstorm situations where hyperbole might be used effectively. Have each group create a list of hyperbolic expressions related to their chosen situation.
   
2. Each group presents their list to the class, explaining why they chose specific hyperboles and how they contribute to exaggeration.
   

Closure (10 minutes):

1. Review key points about hyperbole: its definition, examples, and how it's used in literature and everyday language.
   
2. Assign a short homework task where students find examples of hyperbole in their reading or daily life and come prepared to share them in the next class.
   

Assessment:
Evaluate students based on their participation in discussions, ability to identify hyperbole, and the creativity and effectiveness of their hyperbolic expressions during the group activity.

hello! i am a first year teacher currently teaching 6th ELA at a title I school. many of my students are reading at or below a 4th grade level. this quarter was poetry and figurative language, and i have done so many things to try and get these kids to even somewhat remember the definition of the vocab words, let alone actually apply their knowledge. i have done interactive notes (TWICE!!), poetry writing with figurative language, review blookets, figurative language worksheets (made for 5th), i have looked at figurative language in encanto song lyrics to try and make it more relevant to them, matching activities, and so on.
these kids are NOT getting it. i am lucky if they remember what a simile is. today we took a quiz they were allowed to use notes on and so many kids scored below a 15/20 (what my school considers to be mastery). this is my fourth week of teaching this and i am at my wits end. any suggestions on activities or alternative methods that i can use to try and get this in their heads? i don’t even need them to be experts, i just want them to remember the definition of like 4 of the words.
as a heads up, we are focusing on simile, metaphor, alliteration, onomatopoeia, idiom, personification, irony, and hyperbole.

Been OBSESSED with Mimikyu and its plush is the one thing I need in life (hyperbole for the joke). Mainly just the title. is there a general pattern to restocks or is it completely random? So far my experience with Pokemon Center hasn't been the greatest since they actively withhold information from you like when or if things will be restocked.
Thank you all!

With all the recent conversation about Guardian, it's interesting to me how controversial everything about it seems to be. Some people think the class only need minor adjustments, others think it should be burned to the ground and reworked from scratch. Some think Taunt is useless, others think it's the best thing mankind ever created. Jest-y hyperboles aside, I started trying to figure out why such radically different experiences, and I think I arrived at something. Maybe.
What is a Tank?
Defining the word "tank" or similar terms such as "defender" has always been hard. There's been plenty of discussion over the years, memes, and even a Tank Alignment Chart for a reason. You can generally get people to agree that a tank needs to be sturdy and have a way to make people actually want to attack them, but get past that and things get really blurry.
Does a true tank need to be able to endure the entire opposing force beating on them continuously? Well that certainly sounds cool as hell but almost impossible to make work in a TTRPG scenario. Do they need to be able to tank single target bosses? Minions? Both? How directly do their abilities need to work in terms of making people want to hit you? These are all questions you'll get wildly different answers for.
But there are some interesting patterns to look at.
Narrative vs Mechanical Reality

You are the shield, the steel wall that holds back the tide of deadly force exhibited by enemies great and small.

When you open the Guardian class, this is the first sentence you see. If you look at everything else, from Irabeth's art to the feat names and ability descriptions, they all seem to paint about the same picture: you are the toughest, bravest bastard around. That means you'll be in the frontlines, smacking people's heads and taunting the scariest enemies so they keep focusing you, right? Right, Anakin?
Well... no. Right now, that doesn't seem to be a good way to play a Guardian. Being in the frontline means you can't Intercept for your squishies, and taunting a boss monster is almost suicide. Hampering Sweeps, as broken as it is, is currently the main way to make that playstyle viable, but the rest of Guardian's kit doesn't lend itself to that at all.
If you play as a mid-liner who stays very close or even adjacent to your squshies, and only use Taunt on enemies that are either too weak to be a threat to you but could be one to your allies, or that are positioned in a way that they can't attack you properly, everything starts clicking better. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it as good as a Champion? I don't think so either. But at least it's functional. If you see your Guardian as a tactician, a sort of defensive analogue to the Commander who will play dirty or even cowardly when needed to win, it's a decent class.
The issue is: a lot of people, myself included, don't want to play this class like that. It's very far from the fantasy we're looking for.
The weapon proficiency/specialization weirdness ultimately comes down to a similar issue. The idea of a martial with bad weapon progression that uses Strikes as a last resort is definitely not unworkable, but how much does it really fit a "heavily armored warrior" class? At which point do you start asking yourself why the class is even a martial and not some kind of pure skill monkey/tank or a dedicated Grappler?
A New (Combat) Challenger
The 4e Fighter, later renamed Weaponmaster due to Essentials shenanigans, was a very controversial class on release. No, not because of people calling it overpowered. Wrong game. It was controversial because 4e made the Fighter an explicit Defender, with martial damage-dealing roles going to the Rogue, Ranger and later on the Barbarian instead. Anyone who actually played 4e for long knows that the Fighter dealt a shit ton of damage anyway, but I digress. This is just a fun piece of history not too related to the main point.
Fighter's main thing was a feature called Combat Challenge, which was basically two features in one. I'll be paraphrasing because I don't want the Pinkertons at my doorstep:
The first part of Combat Challenge was a passive. Whenever you attacked someone, regardless of hitting or missing, they were Marked for one round. That means they have a -2 on all attacks that don't include you as the target or one of the targets. Every Defender had a Mark ability, but Fighter's was unique in being tied to your attacks instead of an ability you had to activate.
The second part was a reactive power. As an Immediate Interrupt (in PF2 terms, that would be a Reaction that is resolved before the triggering action), you can smack someone who tries to Shift (Step) away from you or ignore your Mark and still attack an ally anyway.
Both abilities are extremely simple, but just by reading them you know exactly what you're supposed to be doing as this class. You go to whoever seems the most threatening to your party, your smack their ass, and you don't let them attack your friends properly. If they try anyway, you punish them for it. Though there was also some nuance. For example: with the way Fighter's Mark worked, it completely flipped the usual script for targeting. In almost every turn-based RPG, you want to focus all your attacks on one target to kill them as fast as possible. If Fighter had a multi-attack power, though, there was a big incentive to spread out the attacks as that was one of the only ways of Marking multiple people.
They also had another feature called Combat Superiority, which made your Attacks of Opportunity gain a bonus to hit and stop enemy movement if they do hit. That one is less relevant for us, but it rounded out their kit nicely.
Challenging Lessons
I'll preface this by saying that I don't think 4e Fighter is a perfect class, or that Guardian should be a copy of it. That said, there are some places where I believe the former succeeds and the latter not as much.
First of all, Weaponmaster did the Tough-Ass Protective Warrior fantasy like no other. Everything about their mechanics incentivized you to be as much on people's faces as possible. While other Defenders like Swordmage and Paladin would sometimes prefer staying a bit back and using their allies as bait, playing cowardly was (almost) never a good option for Fighter.
Second, your Mark was tied to your attacks, which gave you a great reason to be "the martial defender". Attacking enemies was never a selfish act, because by doing so you were also helping your team.
And lastly, their kit was extremely cohesive and intuitive. Combat Challenge's active abiltiy fed into its passive, and Combat Superiority was there in case they try to ignore both by running away. You were a walking catch-22 for enemies, which I think the PF2 Champion also achieves really well, but Guardian not so much. Their abilities feel like a set of mostly unrelated tools, and there are some situations that don't seem very well covered by any of them (like protecting a melee ally against a boss enemy).
Conclusion
Again, the point of this post is not that we should turn Guardian into a hyper-aggressive tank and ditch what it's trying to do right now entirely, but I feel like it's not exactly resonating with what myself and many others would expect from the fantasy. The fact that so many seem to not even get it and end up "playing it the wrong way" says a lot.
I think the tactical protector who taunts from far away and wiggles themselves into putting enemies in bad positions is a valid fantasy, but I'd also like to see more incentive to do the frontliner thingy in the core chassis instead of a single busted feat. I'd like the mechanics to tie into each other to serve a gameplan better, and more intuitively. I'd like the Guardian to be better at using weapons, and then be given utility-based incentives to attack enemies, just like the Commander has, so it feels more like a martial class.

​
https://preview.redd.it/i6mz2gt3drxc1.png?width=217&format=png&auto=webp&s=edc2ba4243ccea5945842242cb5d417d1e47bec7
https://preview.redd.it/nghg2t4wcrxc1.png?width=668&format=png&auto=webp&s=bed36cb9641d82fc97546e30fbbf346ed8f2d09d
But here are some highlights (wall of text, spoilers, exchethra):
Karlach Origin run, already knew I was going to side with the Emperor and romance Wyll. After the tutorial, I remembered hearing about Karlach having a unique first camp night if you rest right there on the beach, so I checked it out. Highly recommend if you haven't seen it, absolutely adorable, worth rushing through the tutorial on a new save just to see it. What I didn't realize was, if you long rest before waking her up, Shart will move on to the grove. No problem, up the hill to grab Magic Man, stab a mindflayer without talking to it, collect the Leech, and start thinking about how I'm going to respec everyone on the way to Frog Princess. Karlach is the cutest Rogue ("Halfling essence~"), so she ended up an Open Hand Thief. Despite being a compulsive multiclasser, I went pure Sword Bard on Astarion and boy do I not regret it, god damn Bard is such a good class, but I spent a long time trying to figure out what Gale should be before just settling back into the classic overpowered Evocation Wizard magic missile build.
Anyway, grab Lae'zel, feeling the "You're clearly no friend to Tieflings" option, especially because I know Wyll is gonna be our fourth, decide to begrudgingly work together. OPEN THE BLOODY GATE, and on to the Grove, sneak up to the bugbear assassin for the also unique, also adorable "Karlach gets a soul coin" scene, take two steps past Aaron to trigger the Wyll cutscene, alright, see you back at camp, another two steps and we get the Shart scene. Now I, the player, intensely dislike Shadowheart, but I'm trying to follow what I know Karlach approves of for my choices, so I suggest she join the party, even though I know she's just gonna sit in camp. "Get rid of the Gith and I'll consider it." Boy she puts some "hard R" stank on that word, so I decided that, having just clocked a shithead unconscious for calling Zevlor "hellspawn," I am getting sick and tired of all the got dang racists around here. Tell Shart to take a hike. Hit up Dammon to get the engine quest going, back to camp to recruit Wyll. Now we've got Mama K's Harem of Boys She's Not Allowed to Touch, quick trip to the crypt to grab Grandpa Jergal, and we're off on an adventure in Act 1.
I was overconfident at the goblin camp, wasn't able to get Gut in a single turn before she called for backup, and only Astarion managed to escape into her room to get back to camp. Too broke to have Bone Man just res everyone there, so it was some very tense "sneak in and use a scroll, then escape to the chapel." Later, having aggroed the entire front room, we snuck through the upper level, and managed to get caught by a single patroller in the exact right spot to aggro literally the entire camp at once. He turns around right before I was in backstab range, which pulls the front room and Ragzlin's room, which after another turn pulls Minty. Two got out, but by then we had enough cash to just resurrect at camp. Interestingly, Minthara ended up on the upper beams above Ragzlin's room, and her AI didn't walk her back to her usual spot, so it was very easy to take her out later, with Wyll sneaking up behind, eldritch blasting her allll the way down to the spiders, where Karlach was waiting for a sneak attack while she was prone.
Waukeen's rest went hilariously sideways: I usually split up and have someone go save what's his nuts dowry ring man through the side entrance, so you don't have the big fiery blowout. Astarion broke the door with ranged, and Gale stood the best chance of passing an investigation check. Meanwhile, because it's relevant to him, Wyll and Karlach went in through the main door for Florrick. Breakable stuff is always weak to force damage, so I just had Wyll eldritch blast it from a distance, but I wasn't paying attention to the auto-pathing on the attack, and he managed to line up the blast so that it hit one of the Flaming Fists, who then aggroed and killed he and Karlach. Gale and Astarion remained blameless, so I had them go talk to Florrick for the Spellsparkler before bringing the moron twins back to life.
Went for some classics in the Underdark: grab Shovel before dealing with the Beholder (because she can destroy all the petrified Drow without triggering the cutscene, making the fight much much easier), then some predictive barrelmancy to take out the Bulette, then have Glut do the spore servant thing and have it jump specifically on Gekh from up near Lenore's dog's grave (no zombies, much easier fight, also you have a Bulette, the fight is just going to be easy period). My last few runs I've tried to challenge myself by taking out all of the Duergar at Grymforge (except the archeology bros) before freeing Nere, but this time I played it safe and sided with Brithvar. By this point I had Gale using the Spellsparkler, but rather than dual wield, Astarion was using Phalar Aluve (which he continued using all the way to the end, more on that later), so I had Gale park up top on the catwalk above Nere, blasting him with electrified, shriek-empowered magic missiles. That legendary is total bullshit, but it worked out, just had to res Gale after the fight. I've done plenty of Lone Wolf runs through at least act 1, so Grym wasn't really a thing, all you need to solo the fight is minor illusion and a bow, bonus points if you can add Hunger of Hadar on top.
Killed Kagha with some in-fight barrelmancy (RIP Silver, sorry bro), but I noticed Halsin mentions her at the reunion party, like, bruh she dead. And again, having dealt with her solo a few times, I've gotten pretty good at taking Ethel out before she can run down to the basement. That Legendary Action is rowdy as hell, best to just blast her down as soon as she reveals. Since Lae'zel wasn't actually in the party, I felt no need to bother with the zaith'isk at the creche, we were really just there for the Blood of Lathander and a big exp bump. Astarion went in through the back in disguise, got some neat toys from the curly haired merchant cutie, then we went back in through the front to wander around. Another buggy oddity: I was aiming for maximum shenanigans on this run, so we actually convinced Esther that the owlbear egg was a Githyanki egg, but later on in act 3, the draconic sorcerer Duergar guy just said "the task was too much for her." I was under the impression there was some sort of wacky chaos, but maybe I messed it up by doing the Iron Throne and freeing Omeluum before visiting the Society? Anyway, pickpocketed the the key and headed to the Inquisitor, but decided to initiate combat in the doorway, which means no one locks you in. Told Vlaakith "maybe I'll free the one inside the prism" then just...walked back out, door's open, a hologram can't stop me.
Cleared out the entire creche for exp and loot (except the hatchery, like the archaeology bros, I don't have it in me to kill the varsh, he's chill), and then intentionally did not use the Dawnmaster's Crest when stealing the Blood, because I assumed that would be Lae'zel's last straw and she would bail on us, alleviating any guilt trips about Orpheus head-chomping later. (Also RIP varsh, can't kill you in person, but I can drop a building on you, I guess)
Act 2 was pretty uneventful. Blockade some doors to create choke points before talking to Isobel, split up the party and position them around where you and her will be standing after the cutscene, it's pretty easy to beat the shit out of Marcus first turn and keep the winged horrors off Last Light's #1 Moon Fan. Pro-tip: if your party leader is in range for the conversation with the Thorm mini-bosses, it will always jump back to them for the conversations, so we ended up actually fighting Garingothe (which I'd never done before, she looks crazy without the Smough armor), but I sent Astarion off on a solo mission to fake drinking and talk Thisobald to death, then finally I really wanted to get that "Kill Malus before he performs surgery on you" achievement, because talking him to death doesn't count, which I usually do, so we had to do the fight for realsies, but by this point we were high enough level for the Spike Growth and Hunger of Hadar wombo combo (Sword Bard still gets Magical Secrets? Bard OP, plz no nerf), so we just parked it at the back entrance and let them walk themselves to death while taking ranged sneak attack and magic missile potshots. The only real regret I would've savescummed in a normal run was, somehow Rolan managed to die between getting in range and actually aggroing the shadows. I thought that whole thing was scripted, but I saw subtitles of him shouting, immediately jumped into turn-based, but he was already dead. Got to see his "speak with the dead" stuff, which is neat, but sad, but oh well, Honour Mode bruh, sorry.
Cleared out Moonrise one room at a time before the Gauntlet, unlock Balthazar's panic room with Knock and open it while invisible to let the Justiciars do the heavy lifting. Dropped another Hunger of Hadar into the middle at the beginning of the fight to make sure I pulled aggro from both sides to get exp from all of them, then let the party camp out in the kitchen with the doors locked. Actually decided to fight Yurgir, but when you're genuinely doing every possible encounter and making sure you get as much experience as possible, you're pretty overleveled by this point, so the fight wasn't even a challenge, Yurgir lost half of his health with the opening salvo and got knocked prone, so he never even got a chance to scatter Orthon bombs. Then go back and fight the rat horde, so Astarion doesn't get mad at you, but you still get to put down the last filthy Shar worshipper. Freeing the Nightsong is still kinda awkward when Shart isn't even in the party, she just skips straight ahead to "I'm ready to get out of here," but I've gotten used to it, as Shadowheart has not made it to the Gauntlet since my first playthrough. Go slap J Jonah Jameson, do everything there is to do in the colony, botch an attempt at being sneaky in the Myrkul fight, but pull it off without much issue anyway, and we're on to the Gate.
Already level 11 at this point, which means I really don't need to bother with anything I don't deem necessary, based on wanting to check all the boxes for this specific party. I opted to try out the Orin exploit (avoid encounters with her to make sure she'll be there for the dying Stone Lord Thug, then switch to non-lethal, knock "him" unconscious so she then becomes an unconscious Orin, steal her lobster clothes, and get Jaheira, now a level 11 Druid, to hit her with as many Contagion variants as spell slots allow). Did all the usual stuff at the circus, but I decided I wanted my money back from the genie after getting the trident. Sent the boys outside and Karlach tried to pickpocket the cash back. I'm amazed how many times you can fail before he actually aggroes, but someone else would have to return all of Dribbles' body parts, as Karlach will not be welcomed back inside... triple dash and fly can get you out of just about any bad situation.
Tried to get crafty and found an interesting bug with Ravengard: we snuck around the side to get past the Rivington guards, then stealth feather-falled down from the bridge to Wyrm's Rock, go around the back, then had Karlach chug an invis, triple dashing, Illithid fly up and over the entire thing in turn-based to not only skip the coronation, but never even get noticed by the Steel Watch. Mizora will be waiting and tell you to go see daddy. Ignored her and went to the lower city, hitting up the Iron Throne first. Ravengard isn't there, but then when you go back to Wyrm's Rock, Mizora will still be there, and Wyll's dialog will be the same as if you fought Gortash at the ceremony and accidentally killed Papa Flaming Fist, triggering Mizora to offer the resurrection option, instead of "I'll tell you where he is."
Anyway, went to the Foundry and hit another weird bug. Second floor in, I missed a motivator, and the Gondians died in the fight. Push through with Toobin, get to the bottom and did the most intense barrelmancy on the big Watcher, using the stolen barrel and vial of Runepowder from Grymforge. Where it gets buggy is: We saved Toobin's daughter ahead of time, but in the scene with Wulbren, he says he's the only Gondian left "just let me mourn my daughter in peace." I thought, oh fuck, did that one motivator somehow kill them all everywhere? Fwoops, Honour Mode, sorry bud. Get through the scene, Barcus is now the leader of the Ironhands, and Toobin says "I think it's time Obelia and I left the city, once this is all over." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Off to kill Gortash, group chugged an invis, by this point the entire party is huffing Astral Tadpoles, so in turn-based, we fly through the ceremony room past the Banites and upstairs. Wyll, once again, fucks things up with his auto-pathing, while I was trying to do a little...well, not barrelmancy, but laying out a pile of bombs to at least take a chunk of G-Money's health at the start. He walked right into someone's sight line, and we're off to the races. Take out the protective curtains, and I think, "you know I've never actually used Otto's Irresistible Dance, does it even work on someone with Legendary Resistance? Holy shit, 100% success rate?"
Gortash just stood there, dancing, while we blasted down his guards, and Karlach dumped so much god damn damage on him with psychic ki-empowered topples, that he never even got a chance to go Super Saiyan. Mama K ended him with a single decisive unarmed stunning strike bitch-slap. Extremely satisfying.
Go get Minsc, just because it's Karlach, she would go out of her way to save and assemble the heroes of legend, even if they're just gonna sit in camp, then it's off to slap Orin's grand/dad. I hadn't done Gortash before Orin before, so I wanted to see how that goes when you present his hand to the Tribunal, follow Sarevok to the kiddie pool of blood, resist the urge to kill Valeria because fuck that shitey little elephant, google what the Bhaal merchant has, decide nah, Karlach could never betray the memory of Gorion's Ward and the gang (especially not for some pretty meh armor, though we did get the dialog option to say we're unholy assassins later), time to die Sarevok...oh shit now there are a fuck ton of extra enemies in this fight. Hmmmm, I wonder...Astarion chugs a haste potion, activates Phalar Aluve, then casts Spirit Guardians, and flies around the room. Took out, no hyperbole, 2/3 of the ghosts in a single character's turn, and still had all these effects active when all four party members ganged up on Sarevok to blast him down in two rounds. The final blows were two thunder-infused, Potent Robe boosted Vicious Mockeries. Astarion literally insulted the villain of the first game to death. Bard is overpowered as shit.
Having earned it with his stellar performance, it's time for Astarion's thing. A little clever prep work before Cazador, and Astarion can sit at the top of the stairs, maintaining his Spike Growth concentration well outside of the cutscene trigger, Wyll drops Hunger of Hadar on top, Karlach and Gale just throwing a barrage of magic missiles and throwables or radiant infused arrows. I had three people ready with Sunbeam, and we only ended up using one. Astarion does the noble thing and turns the Mosquito into a fucking puddle with a knife, holy shit I hadn't seen that version of the scene before, I'm so proud of him and bah gawd Neil just did a incredible acting. Give him all the awards.
I'm absolutely not gonna fuck with the House of Hope, since Lae'zel wasn't even at the creche we never got any of the Voss stuff (which means he also doesn't show up to attack you in the Upper City), so we just didn't even talk to Raphael. However, since Ulder gives you the quest, Ansur is part of Wyll's quest line and the final step before choosing the Blade of Avernus route, which I need for Mama K's happy ending. Super unnecessary risk, and a hell of a fight, but Astarion, once again the god damn champion, earned me the Crash Landing achievement with the final blow.
Invisible Karlach once again triple-dash-flew past the entry ambush at the temple of Bhaal and rushed down to the waypoint to regroup the team. Orin was basically nothing. With three different contagion effects, she went down hilariously fast, and then it's the dawn of the final day. Took the sewer route rather than the courtyard fight, hadn't done it before, much easier, much faster, highly recommend. More triple-dash-flight got Karlach to the spinal cord in two rounds, and then it's final battle time.
I summoned literally every ally on the wheel, and god damn did it take every single one. Fun fact: once Empy opens the portal, any summoned allies fall back on their default allegiances meaning: the Strange Ox turns hostile (nearly killed Astarion before he had a chance to go in the portal) and Aylin damaged Mizora with her moonbeam shield effect while chasing after the acid slime. But it didn't matter, we were finally sliding into home. Gale dropped a Globe of Invulnerability on a platform, everyone huddled together, and Karlach spent the final turns of combat in this Honour Mode run throwing Uncle Felogyr's fireworks at a big angry brain. It's a celebration!
https://preview.redd.it/eb61388zcrxc1.png?width=482&format=png&auto=webp&s=fd4a64faf8c183359b992d139b071be883470e52