The judge stated I was to serve my entire sentence completely alone, and in a cell made out of playing cards.
He called it, "Solitaire confinement"
We run a 12 team Dynasty League through sleeper. We have player contracts and salary cap and have a very fun active league. There are several trades throughout the years that include both draft picks and player performance stipulations involved in trades. (i.e. if player finishes top 12 the 2nd rounder turns into a 1st round pick.)
This past season there was a trade between the co-commissioners involving Henry Ruggs. This was obviously prior to his accident. The trade was Ruggs and Hockenson for Justin Jefferson and a Future Pick based upon Ruggs performance with an injury clause. If Ruggs was injured and finished outside of the top 40 WR the pick would be a first. If Ruggs was healthy he'd obviously be inside the top 40 it would be a second rounder. Two weeks later the wreck happens and we are trying to figure out if the injury clause should count in the trade. The owner who traded for Ruggs is arguing that he was outside the top 40 and he should get a first. The owner who traded Ruggs away says it wasnt because of an injury which is why we set up the clause and that he shouldnt have to give up a first rounder because Ruggs was an idiot and made a terrible decision that cost him his future in the league. What should we do? What pick fo you think should be traded and how would you go about making your decision. Thanks in advance for any and all feedback.
UPDATE: After looking through the comments I need to clarify the conditions of the trade. The stipulation was if Ruggs finished outside of the top 40 without injury It would be a first round pick swapped. However if the reason Ruggs finished outside of the top 40 was because of an injury than it would be a second round pick. This makes things a little more complicated. The owner trading Ruggs wanted the inury stipulation because he didnt want to give a First if it wasnt based on Ruggs performance but an injury that kept him off the field.
FINAL UPDATE:
Thanks everyone for their feedback. This was my first post on here and am blown away with how many people took time to comment and give feedback. We are all good friends and no one was angry about it. I think it comes down to spirit of the clause verses letter of the clause. The guy who traded for Jefferson is going to give up the first since the clause specifically said if Ruggs was outside of the top 40 due to injury. It’s a learning lesson and we have for sure learned to make sure any trade stipulations are clearly written down as thoroug
... keep reading on reddit ➡Progressives have been campaigning for free college and student loan forgiveness by citing European countries and saying that a more educated population would benefit the country and pay for itself in the long run.
However, we can safely assume that paying for someone who fails most/all of their classes is not a wise investment. Likewise, not all majors are created equal. Some will land better jobs/contribute more to society than others.
As such, in order to make sure money isn't wasted, should free college/student loan forgiveness come with stipulations such as a minimum GPA and/or only apply to certain majors?
What match stipulation would you happily never see happen again?
There has been a few weird ones over the years!
The one with the dogs outside the cage with the boss man was pretty bad!
So with Cody we saw the 10 lashes. With Jericho we had the 5 labors. What hell would you think MJF puts Punk through for a PPV match?
What certifications and alike are needed to become a climbing arborist?
https://preview.redd.it/qoh5hzb5zxd81.png?width=650&format=png&auto=webp&s=8e520825802e66ce7858e9c2e0d30dbf18978bcd
I am an avid romance book/film fan. An extremely common trope involves the protagonist having to jump through hoops to acquire her grandmothers property, all under the watchful eyes of a typically handsome lawyer. For example, someone will inherit their grandmothers estate, but only after completing the family’s 12 Christmas traditions. I’m curious, is this legal in real life? Would this be upheld, or would the property just be handed over without the odd activities?
I swear every time I check my bets when live they say "cash out unavailable." At first I thought it was only because my bets were losing, but even when they are winning it is still unavailable.
Can I cash out a bet when it is live? If so, when does that become possible?
I'm being asked to sign a contract where my boss asks that I don't share my wage with other employees. I was under the impression asking that of an employee is illegal but I can't find anything online stating that for BC. Only thing I found was for Ontario.
Please let me know if this isn't the correct place to post. My husband and I are in the process of buying a house in Texas (we moved from NY last year). Everything is going smoothly so far but there is a stipulation at the end of the lender's contract that states they will do routine credit checks on us throughout the term of the loan and any major financed purchases must be reported to the lender as it could affect the terms of the loan. I have never heard of such a thing (I have experience with several mortgages). My husband and I more than qualify for this loan (excellent credit, finances are fine). Is this something that we can ask to be changed? Is it a Texas thing? We want to shop around with other lenders if this is something specific to this particular company. Tia.
Edit. Thanks for the replies folks. Appreciate it.
We met on Tinder mid last year. The relationship has been great, he’s extremely loving and respectful for the most part. There are times when he accidentally hurts my feelings (and I do his) but we generally communicate very well.
We both sport a pretty high sex drive and openness with sexuality as a concept. I don’t personally think strict monogamy (down to policing thought) is realistic. It’s fun checking out girls together and I really appreciate how honest we are about our attraction to other people.
From the get go (our relationship began very casually, i.e. just sex) I was excited for the potential of a threesome. I’ve only slept with one girl and it was now 4+ years ago. We found a girl in another city prior to committing to each other who has a committed partner and an open relationship. She has a desire to sleep with her friends so we’ve taken a couple of road trips to hang out with her (and visit some family members in the same city), not trying to rush her or anything. I feel really comfortable with her and she’s honestly extremely attractive to me.
My partner informed me today that he has recently gotten back on bumble. We’re about six months in and have moved in together (I know, kinda quick, he needed a place to stay and we were already spending every night together). I don’t know if it’s just because the context under which he’s looking is different (I think I cared less when it wasn’t a committed relationship), or my recent medical trouble (ruptured ovarian cyst) that has prevented me from having sex except once the last two weeks. I’m feeling a bit insecure and uncomfortable. On the phone tonight I asked if it’s ok if he could try to find someone who’s in an open relationship, like the first girl we found.
He seemed a bit taken aback and asked why. I told him it would just make me feel more comfortable. He said it would be difficult to find someone and I ended up feeling a bit dismissed. I made a horribly insecure joke about supplementing sex while I’m having medical issues and he seemed… briefly interested before he realized I wasn’t actually wanting him to do something. The conversation ended a bit tensely shortly after that.
I… kinda feel like crying. But I feel like I kind of asked for this by suggesting it in the first place. I think this reaction might be indicative of more than a few issues on my end. I know I need to talk to him when I see him next but I would just like some outside opinion about whether or not I’m overrea
... keep reading on reddit ➡Okay so my boyfriend doesnt want to make a reddit so I'm asking questions for us. Anyway, my boyfriend has a broken tailbone and he has seizures from time to time as well as schizophrenia. I feel that he would qualify for SSDI and I believe Alaska residents get back pay from age 18 if im not mistaken.
That kind of back pay is a lot and I heard we can't be over $3000 in a savings account if we get married. What are we supposed to do with that? Also, how much income can I make when we are married and is it illegal if I stash cash away in a safe for something big and bad happening? I don't know how any of this works.
ETA: please stop telling me he will or won't qualify. I didn't disclose EVERYTHING for a reason and obviously that can't be determined unless he applies. I'm asking what affects it IF he does qualify. Don't comment unless you're answering the questions I'm actually asking. Use your reading comprehension skills.
Edit 2: based on everything it sounds like this wouldn't be the best option. It was something someone suggested to look into because let's face it, I have anxiety and I worry about him and I was just trying to be helpful and make sure I looked into it before dismissing it. I'm probably just gonna have to learn to live with it and understand everything's gonna be okay but not having a safety net is not a good thing and if this would hurt us more than help us if he qualifies, well, not a good idea.
What should the Tag title match stipulation be
Micron Case Patents are the 314, 035, 608!
Netlist is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,489,314 (“the ’314 Patent”), 9,824,035 (“the ’035 Patent), and 10,268,608 (“the ’608 Patent”) (together, “the Asserted Patents”) (attached as Exhibits 1-3). Netlist has identified the Asserted Patents, among other Netlist patents, as potentially essential to various DDR4 memory module standards promulgated by the Joint Electron Device Engineering Counsel, or “JEDEC,” the standard-
setting body for the microelectronics industry—and has provided RAND Licensing Assurances pursuant to JEDEC’s Patent Policy.
Link to the Stipulation Document
More or so wondering, I saw a post on here where someone mentioned this is possible but unless it's for medical expenses or the allowable list, the penalties have got to be thick.
The message in the title has been displayed since early/mid december.
I can't get anyone on the phone or someone to help me via email.
Can anyone elaborate one what I should be expecting from here?
https://preview.redd.it/sad6vptvkab81.png?width=708&format=png&auto=webp&s=336ef1559c3f1f1fbcbf563c7f2b858082984262
Wondering everyone’s thoughts on some things if the NBA did ever choose to expand like
How many players can each team keep?
What cities do you think would be most likely to get a team?
If this happened next season, what players could you see not getting kept by their teams and possibly becoming the face of the new franchise?
Would the league require the expansion teams to draft players above a certain salary floor or would they let go with all young pieces and try to develop?
Or anything else you guys want to throw in about possible expansion
This is just fantasy booking that's all for fun. I want to check out some of your dream matches, with stipulations and outcomes if needed, that you want to see this upcoming PPV. Here's mine:
Buy-In: Hook vs Daniel Garcia
TWO-FALL TRIPLE THREAT MATCH: Dante Martin vs Ricky Starks [FTW Championship] vs Cody Rhodes [TNT Championship] - DANTE MARTIN WINS FTW CHAMPIONSHIP, RICKY STARKS WINS TNT CHAMPIONSHIP
ESCALERA DE LA MUERTE: Proud & Powerful vs Lucha Bros [AEW Tag Team Championship] - PROUD & POWERFUL WINS
BELT VS BELT MATCH: The Briscoes [ROH Tag Team Championship] vs FTR [AAA Tag Team Championship] - FTR WINS
LAST WOMAN STANDING MATCH: Thunder Rosa vs Britt Baker [AEW Women's Championship] - THUNDER ROSA WINS
CM Punk vs MJF - MJF WINS
TWO OUT OF THREE FALLS MATCH: Bryan Danielson vs Hangman Page [AEW Championship] - HANGMAN PAGE WINS
LIGHTS OUT MATCH (If Jericho loses, he will have to officially break up the Inner Circle): Eddie Kingston vs Chris Jericho - EDDIE KINGSTON WINS
Weapons
- Wood weapons only. Level 1 no ascending. No enchants
- No sub weapons whatsoever
Supporters
- UR in main slot only, absolutely no invincibility
- Sub supporters can only have 1 SR.
- Enchants allowed but keep it under 5. If they're past 5 beforehand try and use something else.
Skills
- 3 skills only.
Missions
- Event Hard 5
- Event bonus stages
- Hard time attack
- Tower
Unfortunately there is nothing to be done about skill training, costume bonuses, awakening skills, and, passive hp bonus from supporter formations. These cannot be disabled as of now. A very unfortunate situation for testing and also challenging.
For missions if you've previously completed and can't do them again, take it to the event or some other place.
This is a fun challenge that all levels can participate in. Can you clear the fastest with essentially two broken arms? Are you as good as you say you are and want to prove it against all odds? Take the challenge and prove us wrong. This just doesn't apply to this event, it can be applied to whatever new content comes out.
