This was posted 2 years 1 month ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

[VIC] LAN Gaming Tournament Tickets $11.75 Console/AFK, $15.35 BYO PC (Was $15/$20) @ The Big LAN

610
[VIC] LAN Gaming Tournament Tickets $11.75 Console/AFK, $15.35 BYO PC (Was $15/$20) @ The Big LAN
Go to Deal
AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 28/03/2022 - 13:15 trybooking.com (1686 clicks)
Last edited 28/03/2022 - 13:21 by 1 other user
OZBARGAIN

Hey Guys,

The Big LAN is back in Mitcham, Victoria and we're ready for our biggest event yet. We've got tournaments for some of your favourites games and over $20,000 in prizes from our sponsors! We're also supporting Wildlife Victoria with a portion of each ticket as well as a raffle.

We think The Big LAN represents great value for money as every ticket includes entry to all our tournaments, lunch and dinner, a show bag, as well as exclusive discounts from some of our sponsors.

We've also added some new activities like our Logitech Racing Zone, a board games area, the Console Corner, and more!

Date: April 23rd, 2022
Location: Mitcham Baptist Church (8-12 Simla St, Mitcham)
Time: 10AM - 10PM
Cost: $15 - Console/AFK | $20 - BYO PC
This event is 18+ only and is a drug and alcohol free event. All attendees will be require to show a vaccination certificate on entry.

Entertainment LAN Party Video Game

Related Stores

TryBooking.com
TryBooking.com
Marketplace
THE BIG LAN
THE BIG LAN

closed Comments

  • Dannyism on 28/03/2022 - 13:27
    +21

    I was gunna trash talk this, but if it includes lunch and dinner it seems like a fun day and a bargain.

    • Anthrox on 28/03/2022 - 14:24
      +2

      years ago there used to be LANs at a SA footy club and they would delivery pub food to your PC. you can take breaks and go have a few drinks at the bar

  • ChickenDinner123 on 28/03/2022 - 13:29
    +1

    Seems like a good price for nostalgia.

    Wish LAN parties would make a cum back.

    • xoom on 28/03/2022 - 13:50
      +9

      would make a cum back

      Giggity

    • TsunamiInTheHouse on 29/03/2022 - 20:58

      They were out of fashion around 2010.
      By that point most people had reasonable internet.
      The last one i attented would have been monsterlan in like 2007

  • TheCandyMan2020 on 28/03/2022 - 13:39

    I would enjoy going to a LAN party - Mitcham is about 1400km away though, a little too far

    • ChadHominem on 28/03/2022 - 15:13
      +9

      Use Hamachi

      • buckster on 29/03/2022 - 07:09
        +1

        Now there's a blast from the past

  • Bruceflix on 28/03/2022 - 13:41
    +8

    It feels like we just went back in time 20 years or so. What I don't understand though is that its 18+ yet finishes at 10pm and is alcohol free.

    • ChickenDinner123 on 28/03/2022 - 13:46
      +6

      Probably because it is being hosted in a church. Liquor laws and all that.

      • RDY4ME on 28/03/2022 - 14:17
        +10

        Everyone gets one sip

      • cydia9k on 28/03/2022 - 21:49

        Streetgeek was hosted in a church and was alcohol-free, all-ages and ran for 36 hrs straight

    • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 28/03/2022 - 13:47
      +16

      The alcohol rule is a venue requirement, unfortunately.
      And we have to have the place set back up for the church to be able to run their morning services on Sunday so we don't have a lot of wiggle room on the timing.

      • TheCandyMan2020 on 28/03/2022 - 13:49
        +18

        TBH the no alcohol rule is probably a good thing.

        I don't know how many blowups occur at these things, but if alcohol is flowing the risk is so much higher.

        • typhoonadventure on 28/03/2022 - 14:20
          +2

          We used to run Impact lan back in the day in SA which was run by our baptist church here, a lot of us were veterans of other lan parties and when we were all under age / didn't know liquor licensing laws, you always had people bringing alcohol to events like valhalla.

          When you are underage or a thug you think it's awesome, when you've got people getting into a punchup or you have a raid and the organizers get done for alcohol on site it's a whole different story.

          When a lot of us got to the age of hosting the lan's with it being backed by the church (baptists don't use this as a recruitment tool like the others do) they're all about providing a safe environment and want people to respect the place, so not only do they do everything above board they ask that you treat the place with respect, and unfortunately having to outright ban things like that has become common place, as we learned early on, just because people bring alcohol to the park, beach or a lan party that's not on private property it doesn't make it legal.

          We didn't know and grew up and learned you couldn't, and then realized a lot of others didn't know or didn't care, so something you'd think is common sense unfortunately has to be made upfront and clear as well as enforced.

          • mskeggs on 28/03/2022 - 16:42
            -1

            @typhoonadventure: Understandable for an indoor event, but there aren't restrictions on adults bringing alcohol to places like beaches or parks.

            I'd have been carried away from many a picnic if it was against the law to have a tinnie.

            There are a few dry places, where alcohol consumption is banned specifically, but this needs to be signposted and is in a limited area.

            • belongsinforums on 28/03/2022 - 20:52

              @mskeggs: Wow i always thought that public intoxication was illegal. You learn something every day

              • mskeggs on 28/03/2022 - 20:57
                -1

                @belongsinforums: In the USA there are rules against public drinking, which causes confusion, and in Australia if you are causing trouble you can be hassled.
                But having a beer or two is fine, enjoy it!

                • belongsinforums on 28/03/2022 - 21:00

                  @mskeggs: I thought drug laws were also state laws, and public drinking is just accepted to be nigh impossible to police

                  • typhoonadventure on 28/03/2022 - 23:36

                    @belongsinforums: You'd be shocked, depends if security are in place to deal with it and if they care, as well as if the police are targetting it and if they care.

                    2/3 of police will just get you to tip it out and will only give you trouble if you argue with them, they don't wanna deal with the hassle, and as stated its everywhere. The other third know whats going on and have other things to do / don't care.

                    In SA this is where the term "stealth bag" came from, for quite a while despite the strict laws, you could get away with putting any alcohol container in a brown paper bag and so long as you weren't bothering anyone, or you didn't have a branded bag on it from a liquor store, you just weren't on the radar.

                    Since the 2000's it's become more of a big deal, hell here there were even gaps in our legal system which would allow underagers to drink (they're all gone now).

                • typhoonadventure on 28/03/2022 - 23:33
                  +1

                  @mskeggs: Not correct depending upon state. SA it's a big nope and other states are like it. Just comes down to who's enforcing it at the time.

            • typhoonadventure on 28/03/2022 - 23:32

              @mskeggs: Correct me if i'm wrong but in my state (SA) and i'm sure it was in other states, alcohol consumption is only permitted at a licensed premisis or private property.

              This is where a lot of misconceptions come from with dry zones, dry zones just enact special regulatory powers.

              A lot of the time people assume what the laws are, as well as lack of enforcement of them, your comment about the park i've heard many times where a lot of police here in SA can't be bothered or don't even know the liquor license laws or are told not to enforce them unless they're "targetting" it.

              Perfect example being the park down the road from me, last week it had a huge public cinema event where security was hired for covid controls, they were given orders to tell anyone off for having alcohol there, when there are functions there like the foodie thing or fringe venues, they got liquor licenses and designated drinking areas with security.

              This weekend a bunch of private gatherings were on in the park, the police came and told them to put the alcohol away and people complied, later during the evening a bunch of people there were consuming alcohol and tried the police's patience and were done.

              If memory serves from our alcohol training on this front in SA, if you are caught anywhere in public with an open container you are considered to be drinking public and can be done for it, it's up to the discretion of the officer whether they advise you to dispose of it (note that skulling it normally makes them escallate things). Dry zones here generally result in an on the spot fine or the charge sticking a lot easier AND getting the fine on top of it.

              NSW if memory serves has the more relaxed laws but they have another heap of stuff going on.

              • belongsinforums on 29/03/2022 - 00:34

                @typhoonadventure: this is more consistent with what i thought to be the case (qld). sure, go to a public park and you'll find people having bbqs with alcohol, but i guess most people drove there with their kids so they won't be drinking too much.
                i foresee the legal limit for driving eventually becoming 0 like in other countries because of the sheer amount of car accidents involving alcohol

              • mskeggs on 29/03/2022 - 07:41

                @typhoonadventure: You are mistaken.
                There is no law against consuming alcohol in public, except is certain circumstances (a dry area, while driving etc.).
                Reference: https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+conten…

                • typhoonadventure on 29/03/2022 - 10:30
                  +1

                  @mskeggs: Incorrect, referencing wrong part of the law.

                  If memory serves its section 131, we also have public orders in place that interact with them, again unsure on other states.

                  It's confusing as hell, I did the compliance on this one for state government for temporary licensing and they found they already had the powers they wanted except for being able to issue on the spot fines. Then you get in the whole mess with council declared areas.

                  • mskeggs on 30/03/2022 - 09:59

                    @typhoonadventure: Sorry, we’re talking about different things.
                    If you want to provide alcohol at an event, yes, you need to be licensed.
                    I was just pointing out there is no general restriction on people drinking alcohol in public places - which there is in the USA, for example.
                    If you are putting on Opera in the Park and somebody brings along a bottle of wine in their picnic, it is not in violation of the law.
                    I don’t see any law in SA that says having an open container in a park or at the beach is illegal, though there are specific bans in specific areas (e.g. popular beaches at new year or in a car, on the road).

    • TheCandyMan2020 on 28/03/2022 - 13:47
      +3

      It starts at 10am. If you are there from the start, that's a fair day.

      Just keep the Rockstar energy drinks flowing. It would be handy to have a commode so I didn't have to stop play to relieve myself.

    • knugs on 28/03/2022 - 13:49

      Not part of the event or an organiser but my guess is so that everyone is on the same level of maturity (swearing, etc) and can feel fairly competitive when you’re matched against someone similar age, than potentially stomping a kid in a game because of the skill difference. Not sure of the real reason though, just a guess!

      • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 28/03/2022 - 13:56
        +2

        This is a big part of it. From going to other LANs I know that a lot of people don't want to have to worry about kid's/teens being there.
        We don't want to have to limit games people play, or enforce language rules, etc. so it's just easier to have it as an adults only event.

        • typhoonadventure on 28/03/2022 - 14:24

          Thanks to the silly laws that got put in SA, we had to zone all of our tournaments as social club private functions.

          I dont know how it is in the rest of the country, back in the day we didn't have to worry about this, there were likely laws but poorly enforced.

          Now any public access event where MA15+ or R18+ content displayed has to be restricted with heavy fines and possible convictions for R18+ content.

          Now that we have a gamer social group and a club location (most of us are veterans from the impact lan days) to get around this we have to zone all of our events as a private function that members of the public can come to, apply for temporary membership and be granted on the spot and have the membership until the private function is over.

          We also have to have guardian permission, all volunteers have to have working with kids clearances which is both fair enough, it's just the above requirement for us to say have a snes playing classic ultimate mortal kombat 3, or us playing call of duty now requires us to do the "private function" method.

          Welcome to how annoying laws can be.

      • kapone on 28/03/2022 - 13:59

        Every LAN I went to back in the 90s was far from kid friendly. Half the people swearing their heads off playing CS1.5, the other half openly swapping pr0n via eDonkey

        • xoom on 28/03/2022 - 14:00
          +2

          openly swapping pr0n

          You mean to tell me. People come here to play games? 😂

        • knugs on 28/03/2022 - 14:00
          +2

          Make sense, you don’t want to risk upsetting some kid whose dad is the CEO of Playstation

        • TsunamiInTheHouse on 29/03/2022 - 14:31

          dc++ surely

  • winhhh on 28/03/2022 - 14:25

    Where's Valorant

    • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 28/03/2022 - 14:27

      We haven't seen a lot of demand for Valorant at previous events. If enough people come along and are keen to play then we run it, and next time it gets a bigger prize.

    • PainToad on 28/03/2022 - 14:47
      +19

      Where's Valorant

      In the trash where all CS clones belong.

  • Wonderfool on 28/03/2022 - 14:28
    -1

    I must ask, what is the purpose of these lan tournaments? How big are they?

    I understand if it's fighting game tournament, there's a scope and core community in mind. I also understand if it's hosted by an internet cafe, like counter strike tournaments of the old days. But never heard of a general lan tournament.

    • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 28/03/2022 - 14:30
      +8

      The purpose is just to have fun, play games, win some prizes, and hang out with others.

      Our previous events have ranged from 100-120 people.

    • belongsinforums on 28/03/2022 - 20:53
      +1

      0 ping

    • cydia9k on 28/03/2022 - 21:50

      Warez

  • gottacatchemall on 28/03/2022 - 14:31

    What's the food and games situation?

    • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 28/03/2022 - 14:35
      +2

      We provide lunch and dinner (BBQ and Pizza) at no extra cost. We also have drinks and snacks available for purchase throughout the event.

      The list of games and schedule of tournaments can be found on our website (https://thebiglan.com)

    • xoom on 28/03/2022 - 14:37
      +2

      If overseas travel requires it. No reason local venues cant have it either.

      • 1st-Amendment on 28/03/2022 - 15:24
        -5

        If overseas travel requires it. No reason local venues cant have it either.

        Lol that is some screwed up logic right there.
        The question you should be asking yourself is what does this extra layer of bureaucracy actually achieve?
        Feel free to post you findings here.

        • xoom on 28/03/2022 - 15:30
          +2

          Dont get me wrong. Im all for hoping the pandemic is over just like the next guy but clearly it is not the case. How do i know covid is still around. A former colleague got it just last week. From buying a car privately of all things. Guessing the person he bought it from had covid and he contracted it.

          And before anyone asks. Yes he is vaccinated.

          • 1st-Amendment on 28/03/2022 - 17:09

            @xoom: So even though you know that vaccine does not stop the spread, you still think mandatory vaccine checks are achieving anything?

            • xoom on 28/03/2022 - 17:12
              +2

              @1st-Amendment: You know the vaccine is not just to prevent the spread of covid right? It helps to lessen the effect of the virus on the individual. But im guessing you already knew that.

              • buckster on 29/03/2022 - 07:14

                @xoom: Don't assume anything! There's a 99.99999% chance 1st-Amendment believes the vaccine spreads the virus and implants microchips.

                • 1st-Amendment on 29/03/2022 - 09:11

                  @buckster:

                  Don't assume anything! There's a 99.99999% chance 1st-Amendment believes…

                  Ironic that you said not to assume anything then immediately assumed something…
                  Next level special needs right there…

              • 1st-Amendment on 29/03/2022 - 09:10

                @xoom:

                You know the vaccine is not just to prevent the spread of covid right? It helps to lessen the effect of the virus on the individual.

                Right, so now we have that out of the way, tell us how you think a mandatory vaccine check at a LAN party achieves anything?

                Vaccinated or not vaccinated what difference does the check make?

                • xoom on 29/03/2022 - 09:22
                  +1

                  @1st-Amendment: First. Organisers of these events are mandated to check for vaccination status. So thats a compliance issue. Fines can and have been imposed for those that breached it.

                  Second. You agree that vaccines lessen the effect of the virus if you still get it? Thats a welfare issue that the organisers are looking into. They dont want anyone attending coming down with covid. And if they did. Being vaccinated will likely lessen the effects of it.

                  But if you want to organise a LAN where you dont check for vaccination status. You do you.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 29/03/2022 - 09:28

                    @xoom:

                    First. Organisers of these events are mandated to check for vaccination status. So thats a compliance issue. Fines can and have been imposed for those that breached it.

                    Yeah we get that. The are rules, but what actual difference do the rules make? You seem to be dancing around this question.

                    They dont want anyone attending coming down with covid.

                    But we've already established the the vaccine makes no difference to that. Think a little harder…

                    • xoom on 29/03/2022 - 09:33
                      -1

                      @1st-Amendment: The vaccine makes no difference? Didnt you just agree that it lessens the effect of the those that still got the virus?

                      Were you expecting the magic bullet that you get vaccinated you are 100% covid safe? That dont exist. And will likely never will.

                      I guess those scientist should pack their bags and give up because they failed huh?! Because clearly you know better.

                    • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 29/03/2022 - 09:50
                      -1

                      @1st-Amendment: While the vaccine may not completely nullify the chance of spread, it does reduce it. By simple virtue of the fact that it reduces infectious period and lessens symptoms (like coughing and sneezing that are key forms of transmission) it already makes a big difference.

                      But ultimately, we have to follow the rules. We want to be running LANs for years to come and, regardless of people's opinions on the vaccine issue, we aren't going to risk a potential fine that would shut down our events for good, or risk damaging the relationship we have with our venue or our sponsors.

                      We welcome people of all viewpoints to the event, but we just ask that they are vaccinated. We will just be checking vaccine certificates, we won't be asking whether you agree on their effectiveness or not.

                      • 1st-Amendment on 29/03/2022 - 10:23

                        @Jabob:

                        it already makes a big difference.

                        It doesn't actually. I already shared a scientific paper from The Lancet that supports this.

                        But ultimately, we have to follow the rules.

                        I get that. My question is whether anyone believes that these rules make a real, tangible and verifiable difference, but I've never heard a good answer.

                        • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 29/03/2022 - 10:41
                          -1

                          @1st-Amendment: It does make a difference. If you are infectious for a shorter period of time then you are naturally going to infest others less. The article you shared is correct in pointing out that the peak viral loads are more or less the same between vaccinated and unvaccinated. But it fails to take into account the length of the infection period.

                          It should also be noted that what you linked was an article written by someone sharing their interpretation of the results of other studies, it wasn't in and of itself, a study. There are many articles on sites like The Lancet and others that contend both sides of the argument. Producing a single article doesn't prove that you're objectively correct.

                          • 1st-Amendment on 29/03/2022 - 11:05

                            @Jabob:

                            Producing a single article doesn't prove that you're objectively correct.

                            Yet you produce zero articles but still claim to be correct? Too funny…

                            • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 29/03/2022 - 11:08
                              -1

                              @1st-Amendment: Tell me honestly. If I produced an article similar to yours, just someone's interpretation of a range of studies, that affirmed my position rather than yours. Would it change your opinion?

                              • 1st-Amendment on 29/03/2022 - 15:04
                                +1

                                @Jabob:

                                Tell me honestly. If I produced an article similar to yours, just someone's interpretation of a range of studies,

                                It's not 'just someone's interpretation'. It's an example of the latest scientific position on the matter based on all available data.
                                I can provide similar summaries from CDC, WHO, NJEM, Australian Health Dept etc that all express a similar view.

                                that affirmed my position rather than yours. Would it change your opinion?

                                It's not 'my' position, I am merely communicating what the data says. ie The available data says the vaccine does not affect the spread of Covid in any significant way.

                                If you have data then present it, so far you offer nothing…

              • Viospeed on 29/03/2022 - 14:31
                +1

                @xoom: To what extent? How long does it last? How many boosters are you willing to take? What about the surge in cardiac problems?

                • xoom on 29/03/2022 - 14:40

                  @Viospeed: If the experts say that we will need this yearly. Sure. Why not. Doubt covid is going away anytime soon. Think free flu vaccines they offer yearly every flu season. This could replace it.

                  With regards to cardiac problems. Have they released a definitive study that proves or disproves this? Im sceptical with these findings usually unless independent studies are done.

                  As for the vaccines themselves. It will take years to truly understand the full effect it has done. But understand in the short amount of time the experts had to make these vaccines. It seem to have done something positive. The rate of spread has slowed significantly. Country borders are slowly opening.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 29/03/2022 - 15:13

                    @xoom:

                    The rate of spread has slowed significantly.

                    Wrong. The infection rate increased the fastest when the most people were vaccinated.
                    There is no correlation I've seen between infection and vaccination rates. If you have something please share.

                    Country borders are slowly opening.

                    Because governments are realising that the charade is up. Infection for most people is a non-issue and a better use of resources is to target the tiny minority of high risk groups rather then the entire population. Opening up is more about avoiding economic and political suicide than any perceived health crisis.

                    • xoom on 29/03/2022 - 15:22
                      -1

                      @1st-Amendment:

                      The infection rate increased the fastest when the most people were vaccinated.

                      Lolwut?! So the more we had vaccinated the numbers of infected went higher? Definitely did not see any news source reporting on that. Because that should be news worthy. They seem to all report covid cases on the decrease since the mass vaccination. Must be the 5G signal brainwashing all these journalists.

                      Because governments are realising that the charade is up. Infection for most people is a non-issue

                      We had more deaths from covid prior to the vaccination drive worldwide. We also had more severe cases prior to the mass vaccination. And yet you still say covid is non issue? And vaccination is just a waste of resources?

                      • 1st-Amendment on 29/03/2022 - 20:03
                        +1

                        @xoom:

                        Lolwut?!

                        I know actual data is probably foreign to you, but there you go…

                        So the more we had vaccinated the numbers of infected went higher?

                        Yes. Correlation is not causation but the peak case numbers have been since Dec when vaccination rates have been at their highest.

                        Definitely did not see any news source reporting on that.

                        So what does that tell you about the media?

                        Must be the 5G signal brainwashing all these journalists.

                        Or maybe the media don't have your best interests at heart? Here I saved you typing 3 words so you can see for yourself:
                        https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+rates+australia

                        And yet you still say covid is non issue? And vaccination is just a waste of resources?

                        No. I never said that at all. What a bizarre conclusion to make…

      • Viospeed on 28/03/2022 - 18:31
        +1

        Whats wrong with a negative RAT test on the day?

        • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 28/03/2022 - 19:20
          +1

          Unfortunately that doesn't meet the criteria set out by the state government and the venue.

    • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 28/03/2022 - 14:56
      +4

      My understanding of the current rules is that, as an indoor event with less than 30,000 attendees, we are still required to check vaccine certificates.

      • 1st-Amendment on 28/03/2022 - 15:25
        -8

        My understanding of the current rules is that, as an indoor event with less than 30,000 attendees, we are still required to check vaccine certificates.

        Open a window and call it an outdoor event. This is what pubs seem to do for their pokie rooms

        • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 28/03/2022 - 15:26
          +11

          We'll be following the rules set out by the government and the venue. If they say vaccines are required then that's what we're going by.

          • 1st-Amendment on 29/03/2022 - 15:15

            @Jabob:

            We'll be following the rules set out by the government and the venue

            The Nuremberg Defence…

            • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 29/03/2022 - 15:18

              @1st-Amendment: You think we shouldn't follow the government directives?

              • 1st-Amendment on 29/03/2022 - 20:05
                -1

                @Jabob:

                You think we shouldn't follow the government directives?

                You do what you got to do. Some people simply follow orders, others do what they think is right…

                • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 29/03/2022 - 20:40
                  +1

                  @1st-Amendment: So, just to be clear. For a not-for-profit event, that is raising money for charity, what you 'think is right' would be to ignore the public health orders and risk getting a fine that would take all the money going to charity away and basically prevent these events from ever happening again in the future?

                  • 1st-Amendment on 30/03/2022 - 09:49

                    @Jabob:

                    what you 'think is right' would be to ignore the public health orders and risk getting a fine

                    As I said you do what you got to do. My whole point in this thread was to ask what you are achieving with vaccine checks, and it looks like the answer is simply "compliance".
                    So we all now accept that the mandatory checks actually achieve nothing other than compliance to some arbitrary rule?
                    And once you're past that hurdle, the next step to ask why are you doing something that costs money if there is absolutely no benefit? (it is actually negative benefit since some people are negatively impacted by this).

                    basically prevent these events from ever happening again in the future?

                    Or another scenario is, if enough people push back on such ludicrous measures that have no demonstrable benefit to anyone, they are less likely to be imposed again in future. Change is never achieved through compliance.

                    • xoom on 30/03/2022 - 10:02

                      @1st-Amendment: Yeah. You are not going to affect change preaching in a bargain hunting website. You really want to make a change. Run for public office. Maybe then you might make a difference.

                      Asking people essentially to flaunt the rules because "its the right thing to do" as you say. Will only lead to businesses getting financially punished for it.

                      I dont know if you seen these videos of people getting kicked out of establishments for not wearing a mask because they deem it as their right. Well its also the right of private institutions to refuse entry to these people.

                      Again. You want to run a LAN where you dont want to do a vaccine cert check. By all means you do that. But insisting on other people who just want to go about their business to flaunt the rules because 'you' dont agree with the policy is not for you to dictate.

                      • 1st-Amendment on 30/03/2022 - 10:07

                        @xoom:

                        You are not going to affect change preaching in a bargain hunting website

                        Yet here you are lol…

                        • xoom on 30/03/2022 - 10:16

                          @1st-Amendment: Its evidently clear there is no changing your point of view. We are just stating to you why what you want to happen won't happen. And why that is.

                          The ball is now in your court if you still want to bang on about affecting change by hassling a business thats just wants to do just that. Do business in a way that the law does not punish them financially specifically.

                          • 1st-Amendment on 30/03/2022 - 14:28

                            @xoom:

                            Its evidently clear there is no changing your point of view

                            Why would I change my mind if we all agree?

                            You have provided no reason for these rules other than because they exist, you will follow them. You can't explain why they exist or what benefit they provide so it looks like we agree that there are no good reasons for them.

                            • xoom on 30/03/2022 - 16:44
                              +1

                              @1st-Amendment: Well we clearly dont agree. You want a business not to do vaccine cert checks. And we already told you why they cant. And partly why they will check vaccine certs anyway.

                              We offered for you to run a LAN of your own that does not offer vaccine cert checks.

                              How many more times does anyone have to hammer that point that.

                              1. It is mandatory as a business. And financial punishment is handed to those that dont comply. That alone is reason enough for most people or businesses.

                              2. This mandate was not done by gov local or state for the giggles. It has been consulted with experts in the medical and health care fields. But clearly you know better that these experts.

                              Lastly, Dont get me wrong. My immune is stronger the the average person. I cant even remember the last time i had the flu. Its been that long and yet after seeing the effects covid had on certain people. Some ending up dying. Others severely sick that they had to be put in icu. I just had to get vaccinated. Do i think the vaccine is going to make me 100% covid safe. No. Because there is no such thing. The experts said that themselves. I tend to trust those people because they clearly know more than i do.

                              All i know is wharever measures that have been implemented from limits on social gathering, social distancing, wearing of masks and getting vaccinated. It all played a part in lowering the over all global cases of covid. Ok sure we may never fully get rid of it but we never got rid of the flu and thats been around far longer than covid.

                              TL;DR

                              Whether you agree with the organiser of this LAN doing vaccine cert check or not. Its their business. You are not signing their checks or paying their bills.

                              • 1st-Amendment on 31/03/2022 - 17:49

                                @xoom:

                                Well we clearly dont agree.

                                You agree that the mandatory check achieves nothing other than compliance. And you seem to agree with all the science that the vaccine does not inhibit the spread.
                                But it seems that you feel the need to continue the fight you can't win to prove something to yourself because your ego is bigger than your brain. Good luck with that…

                                • xoom on 31/03/2022 - 18:03

                                  @1st-Amendment: Mandatory checks will prevent those unvaccinated from going to places that not only put themseves at risk and possibly others from getting covid. Yes i know you can still get covid even if you are vaccinated. Doesnt we shouldnt at least try.

                                  The science from what i have seen has lowered the over all global cases since we had the vaccination drive. This taking into account from when covid started till now.

                                  You are the one pushing your agenda of no vaccine checks because in your opinion it does nothing. You are the one needing more luck with that because whether you agree or not whatever reason a business gives why they are doing vaccination checks. You will not accept.

                                  • 1st-Amendment on 01/04/2022 - 07:31

                                    @xoom:

                                    Mandatory checks will prevent those unvaccinated from going to places that not only put themseves at risk and possibly others from getting covid.

                                    Lol How exactly? I posted the actual science on this, transmission rates are the same whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, Do you follow the science or just make up stuff in your head and believe that?

                                    • xoom on 01/04/2022 - 08:14

                                      @1st-Amendment: So you know a venue does vaccine checks. And will not allow unvaccinated people in. A sensible person would go. Ok. I won't go there then because I will be refused entry if I am unvaccinated. A karen or kevin on the other hand will insist on their rights. To them. I say good luck to that.

                                      Whether you agree or not with whatever reason any business puts up for having vaccine checks. It is what it is. You will just have to accept that. Hassling or harrassing these businesses won't get you far either.

                                      Lets say it was not mandated by law that venues do vaccine checks. And say a handful of businesses still insist that any of their patrons entering their premises must show proof of vaccination. For its 'their opinion' that they are doing it for the health and safety of their staff and also their customer.

                                      For sure you and others will hassle these businesses and use the excuse that its not mandated therefore the business is not allowed to restrict anyone entering their premises.

                                      TL;DR

                                      My opinion is based on what is mandated. Whoever did the mandate likely consulted the experts who I am sure know far more than I will likely ever know of this virus.

                                      • 1st-Amendment on 02/04/2022 - 08:18

                                        @xoom:

                                        My opinion is based on what is mandated

                                        We know. You've made it clear that you are unable to think for yourself. If 'the experts' said the world was flat you'd agree. If 'the experts' mandated that you send Jews to the gas chamber you'd do it.
                                        You have a brain, one day you should learn how to use it…

                                        • xoom on 02/04/2022 - 09:31

                                          @1st-Amendment: Now you're clutching at straws and drawing the long bow.

                                          Did i not say in my opinion the experts that mandated the vaccine check was doing it for the health and safety of everyone. And i agree with that. Because using my brain i could see the measures these groups of people suggested was helping lower the cases of covid.

                                          Now why would i support the extermination of groups people to persecute them? Mandated or not.

                                          Its very clear you are just thinking you are fighting the good fight and this is where again i say. You are preaching to the wrong forum/venue/audience. You are not going to affect change here. Perhaps writing to your local member that represents your area would be a better option for you. Or maybe you already have and they ignored you.

                                          • 1st-Amendment on 02/04/2022 - 11:46

                                            @xoom:

                                            Now you're clutching at straws and drawing the long bow.

                                            I quoted you. I guess that brain of yours is never going to get used after all lol…

                                            • xoom on 02/04/2022 - 13:59

                                              @1st-Amendment: Its very clear theres is no winning with you. A business tells you they choose to follow a mandate because they fear the finacial repercussion and you don't like that. They tell you they are also doing it for the health and safety of their staff and patrons. You don't like that excuse either. An invidual says they think the vaccine check in their opinion based on stats they have seen as reported by multiple sources is the right thing to do. And you belittle them by telling them they are not using their brain. When they just told you. They looked at the stats that was reported and they formulated their opinion. You clearly have a differing opinion and we respect that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

                                              You were told perhaps you are in the wrong place preaching your opinion as it will likely not change anything instead you go on a personal attack. You will surely win people over with that attitude.

                                              Peace out.

                                              • 1st-Amendment on 03/04/2022 - 12:38

                                                @xoom:

                                                They looked at the stats that was reported and they formulated their opinion. You clearly have a differing opinion and we respect that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
                                                Sure but when it comes to what is true or not, science trumps opinion. This is where you are going so catastrophically wrong.

                                                And you belittle them by telling them they are not using their brain.

                                                No I belittle YOU only, because you have demonstrated time and time again that you are unable to think for yourself. "My opinion is based on what is mandated." Lol…

  • Charlie Sierra on 28/03/2022 - 14:37
    +5

    Will someone be taped to the ceiling this time?

    Please?

    • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 28/03/2022 - 14:38
      +4

      It's a very high ceiling…but look we'll see what we can do :P

      • xoom on 28/03/2022 - 14:39
        +2

        Bonus points if they are still there when the church people arrive for their sunday service.

    • xoom on 28/03/2022 - 14:38

      Im willing to supply the tape if you can be it.

  • Arigato on 28/03/2022 - 14:38

    Why no alcohol AND 18+?

    • AssociatedJabob @ THE BIG LAN on 28/03/2022 - 14:39
      +6

      This is a venue requirement.

    • xoom on 28/03/2022 - 14:40

      It is a church after all. Something about not getting responsible service of alcohol license for the venue

      • Arigato on 28/03/2022 - 14:40

        I have no problem with alcohol free events, but it would he nice if I could bring my young cousins that are 12-16

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join