GripGambler

Instantly means I agree with it?

Guard to mount sweeps are very basic BJJ and removing them would be silly and unrealistic. Moves such as the kimura/hip bump sweep are taught very early on and are very high percentage even in MMA. Of course you won't see it often in organizations such as the UFC/Price where most people are at a high level and have trained the move themselves many times... They may need rebalancing, but removing a basic move should be out of the question.

--said no non-native ever

I'm glad I could get through to you I'm here all day!

But helicopter game is so fun! Until you get a bad random placement that forces you to crash, lol. Thanks, but Lance crushed me today... 40!! grats to him

All of these statements are based on current human knowledge and technology limits. You know for a fact that those examples are impossibilities given all possible technology, even those undeveloped or unthought of yet by humans? The question was directly to the point. The point being that science is only limited by the technology and knowledge of its users. Science as a field can explain everything that exists or occurs, past, present, and future. Even a god if one were to exist.

Example of something that wasn't observable while it was happening, along with an explanation of why technology could never exist to observe it?

Yes, it can only explain something that is observable. Luckily, everything is observable. My entire point was that just because we do not currently have the tools to properly observe and test everything, does not mean that it is impossible to observe and test. There are events that happened in the past and the future that humans will never be able to explain using science, regardless of how far we advance technology. Does this mean that science as a process cannot explain these events? Nope, it just means that we aren't prepared to use it to do so.

jacky67: If you are honestly interested in learning/debating the subject, I strongly suggest you research the differences between a theory and a scientific theory. If you aren't willing to step out of your comfort zone and learn then debating really is useless.

You claimed that a scientific theory was just a theory, when in fact, the definition of a scientific theory is absolutely not the same as the definition for the word theory. They are two entirely separate concepts with definitions that do not align with each other. The word theory being a part of the phrase "scientific theory" is rather misleading. This is also false. Science absolutely can explain everything. The knowledge that we can express through science currently is greatly held back by human knowledge/culture. Just because humans cannot yet use science to explain something does not mean that it cannot be explained through science. Even manipulations made by a god can be explained through science if the proper evidence was given. Science itself does not dispute a god, there is simply no evidence to suggest one exists at the moment.

False, albeit a common misconception. Science does not attempt to disprove that a "God" created Earth. Science builds evidence to gain a better understanding of what happened/may have happened, regardless of what the actual outcome may be. Disproving God isn't a possibility as one can always argue that evidence was planted/created, and no matter how far back science is able to "prove," one can always argue that a God was around before that time.

That is why you have received every warning point you have, not just the last one. "Let's be honest," my judgement matters when warning points are awarded, not yours. I let a lot of insulting on the forum slide (as long as it isn't personal or so incessant that we receive complaints about it) because people here prefer to speak in insults I guess. I will not, however, tolerate insulting or abusive language/words/tone/etc... to be directed towards anyone on the MMATycoon staff or moderation team. Whether it's myself, Mike, PBR, or anyone else, proportionate and increasing punishment will be given every time I see it. As far as warning notes, if anyone who happens across this thread is curious.. In previous forum versions, when a warning was given, it required you to give a reason for the warning point and gave you the option to send the offending member a PM about the event if you wanted to with a separate note to them. As we have moved to the newer software version, it has changed the old system and converted the old "Note" to a "Note for moderators" and any PM you had it send to the member was converted to "Note for member" and is now kept track in the warning notes, rather than just being treated as a PM. Given the old way of operation, in that it didn't store your "Note for member" as a warning note, the moderation staff often chose to PM the member outside of the warning interface, tell them in the thread where the offense happened, or simply forego mentioning it (when the member did something they obviously knew they would be punished for, whether they admit to or not). So now everyone is aware, when you see notes from before the software update, remember, if there is nothing indicated, all it means is that you were not contacted through the warning interface. It does not mean that you weren't contacted at all, nor does it mean that the moderation staff isn't aware of the warning. Another quick note: "Notes for moderators" are just that, notes for the moderation staff. No member on the forum is entitled to know the contents of this section under any circumstance, so do not attempt to demand to see this. I'm letting the one in this thread stay for context purposes, but in the future do not expect to see it mentioned.

Cool topic bro. Stop making them now.

The ref should NEVER stand the fighters up from mount. Too dominant of a position for intervention, IRL or in game.

I agree with this too. I have had this happen twice, once which I believe caused me to lose the fight.. I understand fighters being plain dumb sometimes, but the standup slider should only affect certain positions... maybe make them checkboxes or something.

Instead of having some set value for everyday of the week, how about have it based on some org metric? maybe give orgs over a certain rank an incentive to have events on the weekend, while lower ranked orgs have an incentive to have them in the middle of the week. It could also be based on the rating outcome of the event and just rely on the org owners to predict the rating for the bonus.. so say, if event X event happens on Sunday-Thursday and makes over Y rating, it gets no boost, however if X event happens on Friday-Saturday and makes over Y rating, it does receive a boost. Otherwise, if the event doesn't make the rating #, it will see the same numbers no matter what day of the week. This gives an incentive for the big orgs to do their large shows on the weekend, but spreads out the rest of the shows.

Round 2: 1:00

Nyan "Nyan" Nyan ... deal with it. http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd386/MeJoho/Nyan%20Cat%20Hikakin%20Beatbox%20gif/Nyan_Cat_Hikakin_Beatbox_gif.gif http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx296/rockierok/LoLz/poptart1red1.gif http://i1147.photobucket.com/albums/o554/JotaEx/nyan.gif http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac119/sasamipic/tumblr_lr80w8uEzS1qg69h9o1_500.gif http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m554/patamonpower/Chenit/nyan-cat-vs-black-rebbeca_o_GIFSoupcom.gif http://i1093.photobucket.com/albums/i437/shaunyboi14/Nyan.gif

Every time I read this thread title... http://www.legionxxiv.org/riddick29.jpg

In as always I vote for 25.. 18 is nice if you want to keep them going after the event is over... but I think it detracts from the competition, which is what they are being made for anyways. Especially since there won't be much training, if any at all. 25 gives you a lot more creative license and lets you build a much more well rounded fighter, and will probably leave more in the hands of the sliders, whereas 18 year old matchups seem to be very style based wins.

-77 is more like a CB Dolloway

When you have a complaint that needs a moderator to address, or you have an issue with a specific post, the proper procedure should be: [_] Make a topic demanding moderator attention [X] Using the "Report" post button on said post [X] PMing a member of the moderation staff We can't read every post. If you see something that needs our attention and we haven't run across it yet, please use the tools you have at your disposal to help direct us to the problem.

School is way more important, good luck! I'd use the 200k for booze... do I win?

If he doesn't think he's lying (delusional, convinced himself a lie is the truth, maybe an intelligent sociopath) then the lie detector test probably won't catch anything. Not only that, but his reports are way too wild to take only his word as evidence. People who have their opinions swayed on a topic by words alone should reconsider their logic.

The cause and effect of their court admissibility is not proof of their current success rate. Courts often do things based on past precedences and it remains that way until it is challenged in court (read: until an organization comes up with the large financial backing to fight it in court for years, with something to gain out of it).. Plenty of laws, as we all know I'm sure, are politically motivated (criminalizing hemp) or other reasons to preserve a process (such as having evidence that is proof of a crime, but it being thrown out because it was illegally obtained)... don't assume that just because it isn't currently admissible in court that it delivers incorrect results. Note that the polygraph was deemed generally inadmissible in the early 1920's (Frye v the United States). Consider that this was ~60 years before DNA testing came about. Quick edit: Also, note that admissibility isn't a one size fits all. It is not as simple as saying that courts will not admit a polygraph under any circumstance, because that simply isn't true. Read this source if you're interested in the matter. While it may not be the most unbiased source, they do cite pretty much every claim necessary. http://www.mattepolygraph.com/legal_admissibility.html