last stand, skirmish, underground and DZ are still dead/less active in Asia server

On Xbox LS/Skirmish are pretty much dead, too (but there have been marginally successful attempts at holding weekly events), but UG and DZ remain somewhat active. If I stand in the TOC for 5-10 minutes I'll receive several invites and can form a squad for UG ops easily; the DZ is mostly groups/players coordinating rabbit games or 1v1 / 2v2 action with some (usually solo) PvE farmers in the mix.

About the survival cache, how many GE credits does it give?

170 each.

it takes 35~50mins for 1 run which gives 1500GE credits, if i could get 6 survival cache and if they could give more than what i get from solo legendary, i'd do survival instead.

LOL no. 1020 from six Survival caches, but you'd get eight (two more for the completed session, assuming you make 15k for master), so 1360, but also you get two other caches that have to fit somewhere, so ten inventory slots for 1360 GE credits.

The draw is that those GE credits are stored in the Survival caches, so players use them to boost GE credits/hr rates to hit the GE scoreboard. You can hold up to 120 Survival caches in your inventory, plus eight more in your expansion stash (or up to 100 LS/Skirmish caches, which contain 85 GE credits each -- but you have to make it through a bunch of rounds of those), so during a regular mission (legendary or challenging) in between fights (e.g. waiting for "Negative Ramos" on the rooftop at Lexington), players spam open the caches.

Still, Survival caches are an excellent source for classified items (if you're still grinding them out), and the mode kicks ass.

anyone starting survival should not get used to [GE modifiers]

Meh. They make the mode easier, and that encourages newer players. For experienced players, that first run after the GE ends can be a little rough, but no biggie. Since we only have a week at a time with the modifier, there's not all that much time to 'get used to' the modifier.

survival is not that hard of a mode

LOL it is the most difficult mode in the game. Jist because I find it easy does not mean it is easy -- it took lots and lots of runs and some keen memorization to get to this point.

bots are not ur problem in Pve survival

Then you aren't fighting them.

its the rat type of players, they dont shoot shit

Eh, if they don't kill things I'll make fun of them, but all of us skip combat at some point, and it's dumb to fight everything at the beginning. I usually skip combat (where possible) until I'm looting purple items, and then if I'm in the mood I'll hit LZ landmarks. Once I hit the DZ all I do is take landmarks.

Players who don't take landmarks in the DZ are rats, for sure.

they overloot for no reason

Until I'm all purple, I loot everything. Once I'm all purple, I usually stop collecting crafting mats, but I'll still collect purple drops in case I can improve my equipment. If I find a reason to dislike another player in my session, I might also try to deny them access to gear/mats/DivTech.

go for higher scores ( theres not even a leaderboard for survival)

There's a personal best, unless you cheesed it to over 40k with the flare gun glitch (which no one should use -- you want a legit high score). Anything over 50k and I automatically assume you glitched to get it. Anything over 40k and I am skeptical unless I've played with you before (and I have played with basically everyone on Xbox).

steal all div tech

Heh. If I'm in a mood, I'll take all the DivTech -- and I do mean all of it. If I do so, expect to find it all converted to X45s strewn about an extraction site. I don't actually use DivTech in Survival except to craft a flare gun, and in my standard runs I get all my DivTech from named elites (i.e. landmark bosses in the DZ).

But nobody -- nobody -- can keep me from getting DivTech if I want it. If you find it all missing, that's because you're slow or you don't know where it is. Both of those issues can be corrected.

spawn additional hunters

I treat every extraction as an invitation to kill somebody else's hunter(s). I rarely drop on players with no intention of fighting, and when I do, that player did something to deserve it.

hide behind sniper players

Sniping hunters is cowardly. I only use MMRs if I have no other options, and because I know the map so well, the only reasons I wouldn't have other options are a) I'm playing with mates, and b) we have some mini-game going that forces me to go quicker than normal or denies me use of various items.

So outside of those, I never use MMRs.

with their useless turrets

Turrets are not useless. The only problems with them are:

1. Placement

   Heavies will stomp them, so learn where to place them. Once you learn this, you'll have turrets with excellent fields of fire harassing and suppressing enemies in every engagement.

2. Susceptibility to being hacked

   Hunters and FW agents (read: the asshole at Office Hideout) can hack them, so be alert and destroy them if that happens.

That's it otherwise they are a force multiplier, an escape valve, and a distraction all rolled into one.

(I do admit that when I'm trying to get another player killed, I'll place my turret behind them in the hopes that a hunter hacks it.)

in my personal opinion GE doesnt make survival easy

They make Survival easier, and that's just an objective fact. The worst one is the one we just had, but even its explosions can damage nearby NPCs, making it helpful.

Good luck in there!

Don't be a dick. You didn't say anywhere that you bought the game to play the mode again. What you did say was that you're getting back into it, that you've only done six runs and seen two players (who died), that you didn't even remember that there are two modes (even though each of the six times you played you had to pick between those two modes), that you care about the score but apparently only once a week or something, and that you don't like PvE because you used to play PvP.

So you're kind of all over the place and you don't seem to know shit about the mode, but you do you.

Heh. Thanks! There are bumps, but I'd like to think we're making a difference.

...Report what? The suspected use of a an AI chatbot?

Yes.

So, what's the rubric for the removal of such reported content?

1. Check an AI-detector (e.g. GPTZero or ZeroGPT)
2. If it is over 90% confident that an AI wrote it, remove it
3. If the user complains via modmail, consider reinstatement

We lean toward reinstatement precisely because we are aware that it is worse to remove false positives than to allow a few false negatives. That said, we also have users who user AI to write their complaints to the mods.

It's a problem that not only doesn't have a clear solution, but it feels like any solution will ultimately fail assuming AI continues to improve until it so accurately mimics human-authored posts or comments that nobody can tell the difference at all.

It would be nice if the various AIs would provide a way to definitively identify that they had generated a given piece of text, but the reality is that even that could pretty easily be thwarted.

More than this, all I can say is that I was worried that perhaps my own comments or posts might come back as potentially having been written by AI (which I have never used other than to have Alexa play music or tell me how many tablespoons are in a cup), but when I tested my own old comments and posts on several AI-detectors, they all came back as 100% human.

Confidence is a matter of statistical analysis that I’m sure the mods aren’t going to do.

The AI-detectors presumably apply the analysis under the hood.

this rule is dumb/a blank check for mods to delete any comment they don’t like.

That is false. We don't like lots of comments that we allow anyway. Comments or posts which bear the hallmarks of AI, or which are reported as possibly AI, are subjected to an AI-detector (or more than one), and removed when the confidence is extremely high (I've only seen ones removed that are over 96%). If the user appeals via modmail, we'll discuss it, reanalyze, and reconsider. I've seen posts that were at 98% confidence that they were written by an AI reinstated (not by me, and I would not have reinstated the post in question), and I've seen one user write messages to the mods that were themselves 100% AI according to multiple AI-detectors.

I'm glad we agree that mods are free to delete comments and ban people because of "vibes".

I feel like you have an agenda here, but hopefully I've shed some light on the current process.

Blocking other users is a feature of reddit, and is not something we can control.

It is true that it can be wielded inappropriately, and on my view blocking is almost never justified (I think it takes bona fide harassment to warrant blocking, and that is handled by admins anyway). The worst part of blocking is that it prevents you from seeing or participating in the posts the blocker might submit, even if you otherwise didn't interact with the blocker at all.

One could say that I have recommended that users block other users here, but that's inaccurate. I inform users who inquire as to how they can stop seeing responses from another user, and I provide that information, but I do not recommend it.

Anyway, nothing we can do about it, but I personally discourage it except for harassment cases.

Eh, okay, but this just tells me that you don't actually like Survival.

It's cool. It's not for everybody.

/u/cbpredditor and /u/Logical_fallacy10: knock it off.

Be civil or find another place to hold your discussions.

Okay but also who cares about the score? It's about extracting (with Survival caches) or accruing a cumulative weekly score of 20k (which shouldn't take more than 2-3 successful runs, and which can easily -- on my view -- be accomplished in a single run), and otherwise it's just about enjoying the mode.

Running in PvE affords the opportunity to pick people up (or get picked up) and to make friends. It's much more fun than being the only player in s bleak PvP session.

Try PvE and you'll see more players.

it usually takes 3~5 mins

Game Finder takes a maximum of six minutes to start a session. It will tale less time for players who join the queue after the first player; if you get in faster, someone queued ahead of you and is presumably still in your session when you spawn.

did GE bring back alot of ppls to do survival?

Yes. Survival (and the whole game, really) is more populated during GEs. The GE base modifier always makes Survival easier (and some make it incredibly easy), so it's a great time to bang out commendations. Some players also use Survival to collect Survival caches during the GEs to cheese the GE leaderboard (because Survival caches during GEs contain GE credits).

Stop playing PvP and you'll find more players. There are lots of Xbox players in Survival. Most sessions have at least 2-3 others, and often I see 7-10+ on weekends or evenings (American primetime).

Replying to others' comments or posts is how reddit works. If you don't want responses from people you have two options:

1. Don't comment or post

2. Block the offending user(s)

If a user is following you around the subreddit and harassing you in that way, report the activity and we'll look at it. If this happens across more than one subreddit, report the user to reddit admins as harassment and they'll handle it. If the user is just replying to you and not otherwise breaking any rules, however, you only have the two options above.

That's the minimum amount of flair. What would you say about someone who only does the minimum?

OP in this post has been subjected to a temporary ban, resulting in the comments here locked. OP did not seem interested in engaging in debate, which is not in keeping with the sub's purpose.

We apologize for the fault in the removals. Those who were responsible for the removing have been removed.

Also I couldn't help but notice that you and /u/0neDayCloserToDeath are lacking flair.

No one was removed, I just wanted to mix jokes; the jokes are okay but obviously someone hasn't seen that amazing film enough times, and the top-level comment wasn't in opposition to the OP, which is why that comment is still missing. Of course, I wouldn't say I'm missing it, Bob.

I just recognized the box logic for the western 2×2. That gets a mine for the 4, which gets a mine for the 5 to its SW and a safe cell for that same 4, and lots of things follow from that.

You contributed to some incivility ("truly unhinged behavior"), and you kept things headed down that path even after you clearly knew the conversation should have been over. Next time report, don't engage.

When I see two users going at it like this, I like to let both know to cut it out. Your transgression was the more minor, yes, but I don't really care about that -- I just want you to each behave better, and I expect that you will.

/u/OkPersonality6513 and /u/powerdarkus37

I may have given you each too much slack here. If you must continue, pick it up elsewhere but this time keep it civil, and avoid the wholesale anti-Islam slander, OkPersonality.

Right. 'Gear score' was added in later updates after launch, and their effect was to increase our levels by increasing our gear. Rather than saying 'level 31,' they said 'World Tier 2,' and assigned the item a fixed gear score. Still later updates changed from a fixed gear score to a gear score range, but they all did the same thing.

In today's game, we focus on item level, and we want all of our items to be ilvl34 (with two potential exceptions). Gear mods, weapon mods, and performance mods all directly indicate their ilvl in the description of the item or its blueprint, as either 'item level' or as 'power level.' Gear and weapons indicate their ilvl by their gear score. Since we want ilvl34 items for basically everything, for gear and weapons this means any item with a gear score of 256+.

The two exceptions are for an ilvl32 AR and for a blue (often lower level, e.g. level 29) pistol. You can ignore those exceptions for the time being, but if you want to know about them, here's the skinny: lower ilvl weapons have lower mainstat requirements to unlock their talents, and at end-game your mainstats are usually forced or at least encouraged to have certain benchmark values. Those values tend to take certain weapon talents off the table, because you cannot unlock those talents while also meeting the benchmark values for your build(s). One such build is a pure skill build, which doesn't really rely on weapons as weapons, but instead uses them as a 'stat stick.' If you hold your weapon when you use your skills, your skills gain the benefit of certain key weapon talents, so you can craft a lower ilvl weapon (making it easier to unlock the talents) and just hold it.

The same is true of the lower level pistol except in its case it's done specifically for one talent (Coolheaded) to farm back skills (esp. one's ult), but I don't think people really do that so much as they equip the pistol because it's the minmax way; most players don't bother using their pistols basically ever.

So to recap:

• Focus on ilvl (power level or item level for all mods, gear score 256+ for gear and weapons)
• WT5 drops are all ilvl34, so place yourself into WT5 and have fun

Also, you don't need to buy all the things on that list. Even the 'recommended buy' items are for specific builds, and mods in particular are the finishing strokes on a minmaxed build. If you don't yet have the pieces for the build, you don't need to focus too much on the mods. No matter what those lists say, you should never purchase any HE gear or non-classified gearset pieces; those can all be crafted if you really need them, and by the way you really don't need them. As with the exceptions for weapons above, there is an exception for gear, but it's specific to one backpack, and even then it's ilvl34, and it's just better to craft it.

Also, though they mean well, /u/zkee_'s advice is a little off:

Make the transition to WT5. . .

You are already eligible for WT5, so unless you haven't switched to it, you're probably already in it.

. . .and the vendors should follow suit.

Vendor stock is unaffected by your selected WT. They always sell items at the ilvl that corresponds to the highest tier you have unlocked. Yours should always sell ilvl34 items, at least assuming you've accessed WT5 (I don't know if it automatically adjusts when you unlock the tier, or if you have to choose the tier first).

To verify your WT, go to the map and use the 'change tier' control (Y on Xbox). If you do so while solo and in the Terminal or BoO, it should basically immediately switch.

Do it gradually though, not from WT1 --> 5 in one go or you'll be slaughtered

False. Go as quickly as possible to WT5. There is no reason whatsoever to languish in the lower tiers. Even when they were still adding them we all sought to reach the higher tier as quickly as possible. The only exception was for DZ bracketing way back when, because in the original 256+ DZ bracket you'd get slaughtered by players who had cheesed incursions before they patched things, making it harder to legitimately acquire that loot.

At any rate, there is no reason to wade through the tiers. Advance as quickly as you can to WT5, and then put together a starter build so you can commence farming for proper end-game builds.

It's not even possible apparently. . .

Sort of. You need only equip items to reach a gear score over 256 to gain access to WT5 (and thus all tiers at once), and if you saved your Shield rewards (those high level end-game items you got way back at level 5 when you liberated the BoO), you might basically already be there. It takes almost no time to skip to WT5, and that's precisely what every player should do.

Back to OP:

Buy blueprints and items as you desire (there is no shortage of cash in this game, but you will have to farm to replenish it because of the limits on especially PxC), but the only end-game items you can directly purchase as an item are HE weapons and the three types of mods. End-game gear can be purchased indirectly as a lottery (classified cache from the Special Equipment vendor) or as a much friendlier lottery (classified GE cache), else it only comes from drops.

What you want at end-game are classified gear and mostly exotic weapons with a few key HE weapons (read: LWM4) in the mix. As mentioned there are exceptions but they are very very few.

Here are the best ways to get end-game items, and here are text-based descriptions of some excellent builds (some of which serve as starter builds) to help get you there (there are other links to builds in the first link above, but those may or may not still work).

Sure, for a non-issue that gets asked about once every five years...

You access that room from inside the mission. Start 'Police Academy,' clear the parking garage, use the elevator, and clear the first room on the ground floor. The room can be accessed there.

Despite what /u/Iconhouse2022 and /u/ciaoman say, you cannot shoot locks open in TD1; you need lock picks, which are a random drop off enemies. That box will contain a blue item, and it can only be opened once. If you are past the point where blue items are useful or desireable, there's no need to open the door other than to be a completionist (which is fine).

I agree that usage gives words meaning.

That is not at all what I said.

The common usage of mind entails thinking.

Philosophical debates do not hinge on "common usage" of technical terms.

I can agree that my argument does not apply if God is a non-thinking sort of mind.

Excellent. I accept your concession.

I also agree that bachelors can be married if a bachelor is a married sort of bachelor.

Ah. Sarcasm. Much clever.

I have never heard a priest of pastor explain that God is incapable of thinking on a Sunday morning. . .

That's because he's resting on Sundays. He used to rest on Saturdays, but he switched weekend days somewhere between 1-33 CE. (/s; I can do it, too.)

I imagine there are all sorts of things you haven't heard a priest or pastor explain, but that doesn't make those things suddenly contentious. Take issue with it all you want, but your ignorance as to the content of millions of sermons or homililes given every week is hardly my problem.

Calling God a mind is painting a picture based on normal usage of the word "mind" that the priest or pastor is not actually willing to defend.

Your insistence on layperson definitions is unhelpful. I'm just pointing out that your argument is only successful against a small group, if that. There are pretty easy objections which render it invalid. Use that information as you will.

So if you don't think it's evil to set people on fire because you like the smell, then you don't think it would be evil for me to set a school on fire because I like the way children smell when their flesh melts off their bones.

I should have banned you for this statement alone. I won't now, because I'm too close to it, but I should have, as you didn't even stop there:

You don't think it's evil for a person's own hedonistic gluttonous sensory desires to be more important to them than the well-being of other members of their community.

That's disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for having such horrific moral standards.

You don't even think it's sinful to set people on fire in order to serve your own gluttonous sensory desires.

This is a lie.

You think we should do violent things a bunch of enraged misogynists from thousands of years ago made up, instead of - y'know - growing up a little bit.

Please stop lying about me. You're literally just lying right now. You have no way of knowing if that's true, but you're asserting it to be true anyway. There's a word for that, and it's called "lying."

Unlike you [. . .], I don't revel in death.

And all of that is present after you had edited your comment.

The warning was because you were both guilty, but your transgressions were far more egregious. I'm not trying to threaten you for my own amusement; your behavior is disruptive, and disruptiveness is not welcome. Correct it and we can have fascinating discussions, but if you continue on your present course, you'll be subjected to those punishments.

I'm sorry, but I've never seen that happen.

Good. I don't expect many Christians would be as emphatic when the specifics of the language involved are pointed out. I've had similar experiences myself; before I was blacklisted by both Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, when they'd visit I'd ask them about Exodus 21 and why Yahweh was apparently pro-slavery, and at least one of them flatly denied those passages existed even after I quoted them with chapter and verse. I made them look up the passage on the spot, and they clammed up, and after they left, they never returned (someone else might have been sent, but again, eventually blacklisted).

I have pointed out to people that Romans 1 says atheist are incapable of love or understanding and worthy of death, and they have maintained that it was true. . .

Eh? That's the opposite of what you just said, but also I wonder if you're now ignoring nuance. Christians often say that everyone is deserving of damnation ("All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god"), and in general when one says something like that, they mean it to apply to everyone, not just [insert group here]. In terms of Romans 1 (not 'the Message' 'translation,' but bona fide translations), I expect that most Christians apply that nuanced view, and say that Paul was ranting, and that the ills he says will befall heathens et al. are equally applicable to Christians, especially Christians who willfully continue to sin, and especially especially those who willfully continue to sin in the ways about which he was ranting.

So I suspect there is nuance that you are either removing as you discuss it now, or that you are pretending does not exist.

. . .and they don't get their comments removed for violating the rules.

Have you reported the comments in question?

Sure, my bad. It says "emataiothesan [more Romanized Greek]. . ."

Thank you for showing that you are not serious.

Earlier this morning a Christian told me that killing people is morally permissible because everyone has sinned and therefore everyone deserves to die.

I don't believe that's an accurate depiction.

Their comment was not removed.

Did you report it? If you link it I'll look at it and give you my take on it.

every single translation of Romans 1 is unbelievably insulting. It says the atheist and gay people are incapable of love, incapable of understanding, sexual deviants, wicked, depraved, arrogant, envious, deceitful, murderous, boastful, without mercy, and deserving of death.

So make a post about that and see what happens. Painting all Christians as "necessarily" endorsing those views of atheists and gays is against the rules, but arguing that the bible says things which are deeply offensive is perfectly acceptable.

That's not an interpretation, it's just what the book says.

No, it's you trying to take up all the air in the room, disrupting anything approaching quality debate. Your view -- the view that Christians in virtue of being Christians affirm some offensive things -- is anathema to civil discourse.

I'm not making things up.

Then provide receipts. You're being coy again.

How come it's okay for you to accuse me of lying when I'm not even lying. . .

I'm not accusing you of lying. I'm saying that what you have been doing is not debating. You are browbeating, or attempting to browbeat. Your record of infractions and attendant punishment shows that quite clearly, as does your comment history.

. . .but it's not okay for an atheist to accuse a Christian of lying when the Christian pretends to be able to read the atheists mind?

It's not okay for anyone to call another user a liar, or dishonest, etc. I understand it's a struggle. I've done it myself and had my own comments removed as a result, and I did it in response to a mod, and I did it because that mod had done the same to me and others in the past. It's really hard to avoid calling someone a liar or dishonest when they keep misconstruing things, misrepresenting your position, denying things they've already said, etc., but you'll just have to grit and bear it.

I'm not even going to tell you how I'd go about handling that sort of thing, because thus far all you've shown is contempt when provided with good-faith feedback. Your comments or posts that say 'this isn't a violation of rule X because' blah blah blah are an unclever attempt at rules-lawyering and somehow winning points against the cruel mods.

Just obey the rules, argue steadfastly but in good faith, and treat your friends and foes alike with respect. Don't paint everybody with a broad brush, don't say all X think or believe Y when you know that Y is offensive and you know that most X would deny that they think or believe Y.

Now your [sic] strawmanning me. I never said any of that. You're literally just putting words in my mouth.

That's not a strawman. That's effectively your view as applied to a different set of passages. It says it in the bible, a Christian believes the bible is 100% true, so a Christian thinks it's 100% true that we could enslave Canadians if we went to war with Canada and took some POWs.

Of course you didn't say it. I didn't quote you as having said it. I am taking your absurd view to its absurd conclusions. This might be funny but for the fact that you are the one unironically claiming that Christians routinely say these things (but without citations to date), and you can't see why Christians might get upset about your actual strawman.

This is why it's frustrating.

I don't even know why you're frustrated, but I'm frustrated at the fact that you continue to siphon away my time. I'd rather actually participate in the sub, or at least read the interesting things others have to say, rather than dealing with your crocodile tears for the umpteenth time.

Christians are allowed to take the big brush and paint a big wide stroke over all atheists.

Nope.

You can call me a liar.

I have done no such thing.

Christians can call all atheist liars.

If you see this, report it. If you have any evidence of this, provide it.

But if somebody ever calls a Christian a liar it's a problem.

If anyone calls anyone else a liar, that's a problem. Stop being a problem.

(I know, I said we're done here, but you just keep pushing. If you want to push again, knock yourself out, but I believe I've made everything quite clear this time. You are more interested in browbeating and in disruptive behavior than in civil discourse, and until that attitude changes you are going to have problems here.)

You didn't answer my question.

I did, and you acknowledged it:

In the simplest example, where that's all the paper says, then sure, we can safely assume that a person who affirms the paper's statement as true believes that all X must die.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I'd really rather you answer my question.

See above. I await your apology.

I think that the phrases "follow the rules" and "obey the rules" are interchangeable.

In common parlance, sure. In technical settings, not so much. The distinction is subtle, and I accept the charge of pedantry, but you asked for it. (And that distinction is not meaningless; a person who follows a rule agrees with the rule and happily obeys, whereas a person who obeys a rule but does not follow it disagrees with the rule but obeys out of a fear of reprisal or other undesirable consequence.)

A Christian would be allowed to say "Romans 1, in particular the Message translation, is 100% true."

Maybe. Note first that this is already a departure from your 'piece of paper' trope. In the case of 'The Message' 'translation' (TIL that's a 'translation') of -- and possibly in the case of the entirety of -- Romans 1, if a Christian said it is 100% true and then had that portion pointed out to them, and then said that was true, they would likely be guilty of a rules violation (and I would treat it as such). There may be other translations which are likewise edgy and which as a result generate problematic passages, and those would have to similarly be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

But also you know full well that a) many Christians are, for better or for worse, unfamiliar with many of the passages of the bible (especially the problematic ones), and b) few Christians would actually step forward and say that 'Romans 1, in particular the Message translation, is 100% true.' And again if they did you should quote the offending passage and report their comment and we'd look into it.

Jesus and the Bible both taught a message which was necessarily in violation of Rule 2.

Maybe. Argue for it if you believe that, but don't insist that all Christians "necessarily" violate Rule 2 in virtue of the fact that they are Christians (or that they affirm the bible).

Theists are allowed to advocate for the most violent and bigoted positions in forums like this. . .

They are not. If you see any user advocating for violent or bigoted positions, report it.

[A modern paraphrased version of] The Bible says that atheists are all slimy, stupid, cruel, and cold-blooded.

FTFY.

Christians advocate for the Bible in its entirety all the time, and I fail to see how that wouldn't be a violation of Rule 2.

This is misleading. Christians advocate for the bible in its entirety, true, but they do not in so doing advocate for your pet interpretation of various problematic passages. If they were to do so, that might be a violation of Rule 2. Unless or until they do, you're worried about a bogeyman.

I've seen PLENTY of people say that it's okay [to rape prisoners of war].

No you haven't. Put up or kindly shut up. If you've seen that, report it, and we'll handle it. Again, you're (intentionally?) conflating the nuanced view that it was acceptable under the Torah and while Yahweh was directly in control of the Hebrews to take POWs as slaves, up to and including as concubines, due to some sort of cultural anachronism and divine edict, but that it is not at all acceptable at present (nor has it been for centuries), with your pet stick-man who says it was always okay and why aren't we invading Canada to get some POWs for ourselves.

I am sympathetic with your view that the nuanced version is still problematic, but again you're getting all kinds of riled up over nothing. If someone endorses rape, murder, bigotry, etc., report it. That's it.

I do engage in debate, all the time.

Not exactly. Your comments are overly hostile and you have a habit of name-calling. You've had at least 60 removals (it's hard to count them because the system double-counts some; it says 133 and I'm being generous in my accounting), and you've been banned five times, which is apparently the only reason you have a six-month period of no removals.

We're done here. Do better.