Jump to content

JPMorgan

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

95 Excellent

1 Follower

About JPMorgan

  • Rank
    Casual Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Leader Name
    JP Morgan
  • Nation Name
    JPMorgan Chase
  • Nation ID
    42915
  • Alliance Name
    The Federal Reserve

Recent Profile Visitors

540 profile views
  1. Because it was so recently made, not many people will be there. Hang out for a while and let people trickle in and it become more active -- also participating yourself even when its not so active will be helpful
  2. It is a great thing to hold people accountable. But if all it takes to convict someone is accusing them: then I accuse you of harassing me. Onto the list you go! When you accuse someone of something in real life, they must be convicted before punished -- i.e. have evidence provided that they committed the crime.
  3. OP is not *just* expressing an opinion, OP is setting a call to action: (1) "Alliances and individuals signing this pledge to remove hateful and intolerant elements from their alliances, discord servers, and communities." (2) "we will however publish a list of individuals proven to have conducted themselves in a grotesque manner". For the list of individuals to be "proven to have conducted themselves in a grotesque manner", proof must be provided. What we're asking for is what OP explicitly stated would be had. Us demanding proof are just following the old concept: "Innocent until proven guilty" Setting up individuals in our community to be ostracized without proof is a terrible thing. You're establishing a kangaroo court.
  4. So if someone claimed a crime you wouldn't believe them? Or am I misunderstanding you? Someone who claims a crime may or may not be believed, but no conviction can be made until proof is provided.
  5. If you wish to start putting people on a list to be branded and ostracized without citing examples of their wrongdoing, you are setting a dangerous precedent.
  6. Well me ow. Who shoved a lead pipe up your ass. How about asking a woman who made the claim. It's legit that easy. Don't be lazy then !@#$ to everyone else. !@#$ I was only making explicitly clear what I, and others, have been requesting for a while now, since any evidence has yet to crop up. You would think that people suggesting such a serious claim and advertising that offenders could be put on public display and ostracized would be willing to provide evidence if their claim is so damning -- really, I'd say it's imperative they do considering the consequences to be faced if put on that "list" of individuals. Even onto that, it should not at all be on the community to hunt out the evidence from the few who are on about this, but rather the burden of proof is already on the people making this claim of rampant sexism in the community -- and likewise they should have already shown the evidence.
  7. Finally a man with a brain. Thank you Thalmor No, nothing in this article is an example of what you're talking about. We want examples of the sexism you're condemning, not quotes of Queen M and Becca griping about it or quotes from Dubayoo and Shifty in response to the allegations. This means: screenshots of Dubayoo's, Sketchy's, and/or anyone else's sexist comments -- the more the better considering you all think it's so rampant.
  8. I'm sure it is, and I've already read it; but nothing in there is actually an example of what they're talking about.
  9. This ^ You all need to cite examples if you want more of the community on board.
  10. Take heed from Hope's post ^ I am certainly among the people who fit the category of being put on an offensive list (definitely said some triggering things and have done so thousands of times), even further I might be among those "right-wing" players Hope referenced above, and you know what? Hope and I get along great. I really don't care that he is gay, and I like talking to Hope on Discord. Putting what Hope said above and my post together, hopefully you see you may be jumping the gun on this -- as well as noting the likes/dislikes on the posts thus far. Additionally, you're just causing more division among the community if anything. On another note: the Federal Reserve does not care and will accept anyone of any creed. We're a safe space for both offensive humor and safe/corny humor. We wish to see everyone's dankest memes https://discord.gg/B5PS9mB
  11. I don't think you see what I'm saying. Firstly, I was complaining about the "fifth trade" because I was watching the steel market intently and started watching it way before that trade was made and saw what was happening. You will always be undercut no matter what. Let's take this to the extremes to illustrate what I'm saying: If a trade was made for 1,000,000,000,000 tons of steel at $900ppu, the market will forever be at, or below (emphasis on below), $900ppu until all 1 trillion tons are sold because who would offer anything higher? However, no one else will be making that money but you, so you're still going to be undercut. It doesnt matter what you sell at, someone will be more desperate for money or just not care and undercut you. The demand for steel will not go away, so there will always be buys. If selling at a lower volume, the buys will come in faster than the number of sell offers being created -- inherently making the price climb. Let's create a scenario and apply high and low volumes to it: 10 trades @ 5,000 tons each on some resource are listed, one of which is a new undercut by $5. Over some period 20,000 tons get bought and 2 new undercuts come in. What will happen? Low volume trading: High volume trading: The two new undercuts yet put on in our hypothetical will be undercutting two distinct prices. To reiterate: If selling at a lower volume, the buys will come in faster than the number of sell offers being created -- inherently making the price climb. If I bought, I'd be helping the other sellers because now the lowest trade is gone (which would have happened faster if it was a lower volume), and I wouldn't be doing myself any favors unless I traded in a very specific way: tl;dr Putting it all together: If at all I was to sell any large amount of resources or buy those up and sell them at low volumes like you said, I should only do so over the course of several days waiting for each trade to be bought completely before putting up the next bit. If you want to help sellers, sell small, if you want to help the buyers, sell large.
  12. The badly done trading has been brought up before. Massive undercuts are annoying, but those aren't the only things that bring down the market. When you trade at large volumes you essentially create a price ceiling that will be perpetually undercut by any amount. Had Placentica here (not a jab at Placentica) traded at a smaller volume (the original trade was at 34,000 tons) the buys would have ate their way up the trades to a higher price before the new undercuts came and landed the price back to about where it was in the first place: $1,960. (1) Trading at low volumes maintains higher prices. (2) Not massively undercutting maintains higher prices. (3) Trading at low volumes helps lessen the problem of massive undercuts. Kind of had this joke a while, made this a few days ago:
  13. JPMorgan

    TrumpCare

    I know it's not a big deal. Debts are problem as a ratio to GDP. We crossed 100% not that long ago and at the rate we're going it can, and likely will be, a problem within our lifetimes. Adding something like single-payer will only exacerbate the speed at which we reach the problem -- I didn't say it was a problem, it's an impending one. And the second part of your response only aids my point. I was saying to reduce spending. Just did some math: 19 years from now we'll be at the same ratio Greece was for its collapse in 2008, but because the deficit is growing as well, it will actually be sooner. But, accounting for GDP growth too, maybe a little over 20 years?
  14. JPMorgan

    TrumpCare

    We're about to pass $20,000,000,000,000 in debt. Instead of providing over 300,000,000 individuals with healthcare, we reduce the $668,000,000,000 deficit; otherwise, there might not be this government around in a century for you to want to provide single-payer anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.