Subject: What's given you the idea
Author:
Posted on: 2009-03-21 01:48:00 UTC
that he's the only one allowed to?
-
Death Star by
on 2009-03-20 20:24:00 UTC
Reply
IIRC, the reason the PPC has Sun Crushers is that they retrieved the original from wherever the Maw spits things out and copied the plans. So, if I may ask, did we manage to nab the Death Star prototype, too? They went in at the same time.
-
Whoa by
on 2009-03-21 01:47:00 UTC
Reply
Well, sorry this turned into a shouting match. I thought it was just a simple question. Let's all move on now.
-
It's not you, promise. by
on 2009-03-21 01:54:00 UTC
Reply
We still love you.
-
What, just when it's getting fun? by
on 2009-03-21 01:52:00 UTC
Reply
I enjoy this kind of thing. It's just a discussion about the nature of the PPC and its equipment. Just filter out the Drama and remember to put on flame-resistant clothing.
-
I think it's getting a bit out of hand. (nm) by
on 2009-03-21 01:56:00 UTC
Reply
-
What makes you think that? by
on 2009-03-21 02:50:00 UTC
Reply
[/sergeant sarcasm]
-
With that power... by
on 2009-03-20 21:43:00 UTC
Reply
... we should have a power too great and terrible.
In other words, no, I don't think so.
~Neshomeh -
Bah. Why not? by
on 2009-03-20 23:16:00 UTC
Reply
The Sun Crushers are arguably deadlier and harder to keep track of, and regular Agents have made liberal use of the Planet Shattering Kaboom before.(the Federation ship/portal set-up comes to mind) There's nothing really too great and terrible: the prototype would be much easier to destroy than the Crushers and is much more limited firepower wise.
If they're giving out TARDISs, disguise generators, and portal creators (only the last seems to have a fail-safe), a WMD wouldn't raise too many eyebrows(If Flowers had them, that is). -
Re: Bah. Why not? by
on 2009-03-21 00:44:00 UTC
Reply
The Federation ship and the multiple portals were because we couldn't use a Sun Crusher - they're not for general use. Hence agents, except those in DOGA, don't, as Neshomeh said, have too much awesome power at their fingertips.
-
Excuse me, but what Federation ship/multiple portals thing? by
on 2009-03-21 00:59:00 UTC
Reply
I don't remember anything like that. When was that used in the PPC?
-
DBS mission, so you'll have missed it (nm) by
on 2009-03-21 01:08:00 UTC
Reply
-
Apparently. by
on 2009-03-21 01:12:00 UTC
Reply
Can I have the link? I'm morbidly interested to see just what kind of mission required that much stuff.
-
Re: Apparently. by
on 2009-03-21 01:17:00 UTC
Reply
There was an uncanonical planet, so we dealt with it, that's all. Transported it to the Doranda system during Trinity.
-
Still... by
on 2009-03-21 00:49:00 UTC
Reply
the average Agent has an incredible amount of power at their fingertips in the form of their regular equipment. The Disguise Generator alone is so easily abused, and it appears to have nothing like the console-shutdown trick that the RA does. As for the TARDIS...
-
Re: Still... by
on 2009-03-21 00:53:00 UTC
Reply
Well I don't know about you, but the powers we have are: disguises (never used); portals (used for skipping the boring bits); and latterly Pads's wand, which only works in certain continua that are sufficiently warped. Other than that, it's brainpower and creativity.
-
Re: Still... by
on 2009-03-21 00:55:00 UTC
Reply
Other than the default equipment (until the last mission RA/disguise, now TARDIS/disguise), my Agents just have some canon SW weapons.
I'm just pointing out just how dangerous that default equipment could be if it was abused... -
True, but we all have to fear the Flowers' punishments (nm) by
on 2009-03-21 01:01:00 UTC
Reply
-
Except for the ones who snap/go rogue. by
on 2009-03-21 01:04:00 UTC
Reply
Honestly, I'm surprised there haven't been any FicPsych escapees turned Omnicidal Maniacs...
-
That'd be quite funny. by
on 2009-03-21 01:16:00 UTC
Reply
But then, there's also the Department of Internal Security. They're scary.
-
Aren't they all dead? by
on 2009-03-21 01:22:00 UTC
Reply
I thought we replaced them with the DIA.
-
Depends what timeframe you're writing in by
on 2009-03-21 01:24:00 UTC
Reply
The PPC is built on plotholes, after all. ANYTHING is possible. :D
-
Was, thankfully. by
on 2009-03-21 01:20:00 UTC
Reply
If they'd had a little more imagination/less interference...
Can you say battle droid army with Out of Canon weapons? -
A Permission Giver said no. That should be enough for you. by
on 2009-03-20 23:58:00 UTC
Reply
Besides, unlike the Sun Crusher, it'd be impractical.
-
Excuse me, but PGs do not have Ultimate Authority. by
on 2009-03-21 00:48:00 UTC
Reply
Their only absolute power is allowing or denying newcomers permission to write their own missions. They are not the Flowers. Nesh wasn't saying "no, you're not allowed to do that; she was saying "no, no PPCer uses a Death Star and it'd be wise to keep it that way."
That said, PGs also know what they're talking about, so if they say it's a bad idea, it usually is. -
Except hS, according to pretty much the whole Board. :P by
on 2009-03-21 00:58:00 UTC
Reply
Seriously though, that's what I was getting at. It'd still be completely impractical to actually use, and honestly anything the Death Star could do our Sun Crushers do better, and it'd be too powerful anyway. There's a reason we only have four Sun Crushers, and only licensed DOGA agents get them.
-
Not I ! by
on 2009-03-21 01:05:00 UTC
Reply
For I, Ugolino, defy the gods and Rage Against the Heavens!
*is smote by lightning* -
Honestly, the horde of suckups really annoys me. by
on 2009-03-21 01:08:00 UTC
Reply
I was just joking about how many of them there are. They're like, 90% of the board, to the point where it's practically his story and not Jay's or Acacia's anymore.
-
Um, can I point something out? by
on 2009-03-21 01:21:00 UTC
Reply
hS has given an awful lot of time and consideration to the PPC. He's been here a very long time. Whether or not you personally like him is beside the point. His story is well crafted and fits with the tenets of the PPC as laid down by Jay and Acacia.
And calling the rest of the Board 'suckups' for acknowledging his hard work and his long-term presence as an oldbie and moderator/PG is, if you'll excuse me, rather silly, given as you point out, those people who admire him and his work are in the majority. Calling anyone a suckup is rude, also, and we're not at home to rudeness.
Please play nice, KG. Shouting people down for continuing debates? Starting doom and gloom threads? We're here for fun.
I acknowledge that you probably think that others are shouting YOU down for continuing debates, but the difference is in how you're going about it. You're being rude and abrupt. Please, try and have some fun. Relax. Not everyone is out to get you.
I'm not a PG or any kind of authority figure, so if anyone wants to take issue with this, please feel free. But I think I speak for a fair number of us when I ask you to please take a chill pill and try and have some fun with the rest of us, rather than taking everything so seriously. -
Ah, we all love hS. by
on 2009-03-21 01:15:00 UTC
Reply
For many reasons, not the least of which is that he's extremely reasonable. If ever he would be UNreasonable, we'd argue. But he hasn't been.
Besides, how can we be suckups if there's nothing to suck up FOR? The only thing left for most of us to 'acquire' that we don't already have is PG permission, and frankly, I don't want it. -
Actually, as good a guy as he is, I find him a bit overrated by
on 2009-03-21 01:20:00 UTC
Reply
No offense intended, I just don't think his writing is the Holy Grail of PPCing people make it out to be. Also, even if there's nothing to suck up for, people still suck up to him. Something's instantly gold if his name is as much as vaguely attached to it, and honestly I get the feeling that if pretty much any other PPCer suggested anything for the overall "plot" (if there is one), they'd be shouted down for not being him. But that could just be a vibe I get. I just don't like when people suck up to other people, especially when one person is elevated to be some kind of supreme ruler when everyone's input is supposedly of the same value. The only people who "own" the PPC are Jay and Acacia, wherever they are now, and even hS had to ask really nicely to be allowed to write in their setting. :P
-
Mmkay. by
on 2009-03-21 12:28:00 UTC
Reply
Since I'm married to him, and have in fact been a PPCer for longer than he has, I can say this without being a -- hm -- suckup.
hS has spent nearly six years with the PPC. He has been an active poster the entire time. He's written hundreds of pages of PPC stories, written over forty characters, written and acted in the Playscriptes/Radio Plays, organised multiple Gatherings, created two PPC websites, crossed the Atlantic three times to meet up with people he knew from the Board, and seen the Board through almost every one of its major crises. He has respect on the Board because he's put more time into the PPC than anyone else has, ever. He's earned that respect. When you've put as many hundreds of hours into the PPC as he has, you'll have the same respect. Until then, kindly stop projecting your insecurities onto my husband. Thank you. -
I've apologised already, can we drop it? (nm) by
on 2009-03-21 17:11:00 UTC
Reply
-
Just to clarify. by
on 2009-03-22 10:12:00 UTC
Reply
I don't have a problem with hS, never have. I respect what he's done, I like a lot of what he's done even if I think it's a bit overhyped (I never could get into Crashing Down, but that's just me, and it's been for no lack of trying), the only thing I possibly have a "problem" with is how some people act towards him, which he's already said makes him uncomfortable. I don't think he doesn't deserve respect, I just also don't think he's a deity and disagree with those who believe so, one of many reasons I'm no longer welcome on the Board if my hunch is right. :P (Yes, that is a joke) But that's the last I'll say on the matter, especially since I've "clarified" this point about five times already and it's honestly not going to make me any less despised for what I've said. The problem was never with hS, was never meant to be such, it's just with how some, but not all, people act around him. That said, we can finally drop this useless topic.
-
yes, he did, and he got said permission by
on 2009-03-21 01:38:00 UTC
Reply
which means that his writing is as valid as anyone else's. It's hardly his fault if we all like it, is it?
Look, put it this way. Your PPC writing, and anyone's, for that matter, is considered canon once it's published. It's considered to Have Happened in the world of the PPC. And so does his. It's just he's tended to add to the greater mythos etc etc rather than just do missions. -
I was just trying to say that even he doesn't own it. by
on 2009-03-21 01:46:00 UTC
Reply
I wasn't saying he didn't have the right to add to things, heck, I'VE been trying to flesh out parts of the "greater mythos" and the like, too. Kind of following in his footsteps except that I feel like he's the only one "allowed" to write like that. I'm not saying that it's his fault or people aren't allowed to like it. Heck, my only opinion on the matter is that while I like him as a person and enjoy some of his work, I think a lot of his writing is overhyped.
-
What's given you the idea by
on 2009-03-21 01:48:00 UTC
Reply
that he's the only one allowed to?
-
It is just your "vibe". by
on 2009-03-21 01:29:00 UTC
Reply
No respectable, constitution-following PPCer would ever shout down another for merely suggesting plot changes.
-
I really hope so, heh. by
on 2009-03-21 01:45:00 UTC
Reply
Otherwise I'm screwed. ;) But seriously, I've thought so, it's just a feeling I get sometimes, that's made me uncomfortable. I was never trying to insult anyone.
-
So you really didn't mean it? by
on 2009-03-21 01:55:00 UTC
Reply
When you called us all suck-ups~?
-
I never called you ALL suckups. by
on 2009-03-21 02:12:00 UTC
Reply
Just that there were people who did seem to just suck up to him. But I've probably made enough people hate my guts by now, so I'll just stop.
-
You called 90% of us suckups. by
on 2009-03-21 02:17:00 UTC
Reply
I don't see how that's much better.
Choose your words better; this is a posting board, not an IM chat. -
Albeit one where, regrettably, I can't edit posts. (nm) by
on 2009-03-21 03:03:00 UTC
Reply
-
Thank you for that. by
on 2009-03-21 01:53:00 UTC
Reply
We've had truly nasty people before, you see, and being such a close-knit group, we tend to get very defensive of each other.
-
For what? by
on 2009-03-21 19:19:00 UTC
Reply
Not trying to insult anyone? It seemed kind of obvious from the beginning, to me. I've admitted I've had a wrong impression of Boarders' interactions and stuff. It's just that while I like the guy, I disagree with the impression some people seem to have of him. Not that he's not worthy of respect, but you know what I mean. Then again, no matter what I say y'all will hate my guts for it, now, so let's just drop it now please.
-
Consider it dropped. :) (nm) by
on 2009-03-21 23:56:00 UTC
Reply
-
Re: Actually, as good a guy as he is, I find him a bit overrated by
on 2009-03-21 01:27:00 UTC
Reply
Like I said, we're all sheep.
1. To the best of my knowledge, hS has never claimed to own the PPC.
2. It is possible, however unlikely, that others might find hS's work the "Holy Grail of PPCing" and like his plots. You're both entitled to your opinion. If they feel like "sucking up", why not? It's not like there's an official leader to hand out perks for it. -
anyone else hear ice cracking? by
on 2009-03-21 01:25:00 UTC
Reply
As my mother used to say, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. We're not here to bitch about the way some members treat other members.
-
Seconded (nm) by
on 2009-03-21 01:32:00 UTC
Reply
-
Say something Nice? by
on 2009-03-21 01:31:00 UTC
Reply
Nah.
Why not express your views? That's why we're here, isn't it? -
*gasp!* by
on 2009-03-21 01:33:00 UTC
Reply
It's... it's possible that someone's views aren't NICE?
*faints* -
I tried expressing views. tended to result in groundings (nm) by
on 2009-03-21 01:33:00 UTC
Reply
-
Which is what the internet is for. by
on 2009-03-21 01:36:00 UTC
Reply
We have no power over you. Hence, expressing your views to the Internet will result in no immediate real life consequences. (Provided the appropriate precautions are taken.)
-
Re: Which is what the internet is for. by
on 2009-03-21 01:40:00 UTC
Reply
Electronic condoms, that sort of thing? Or am I getting my metaphors crossed?
And I never said I listened to that particular piece of parental advice. Always much preferred "If you can't be good, be careful". Had so much more scope. -
Need Bleeprin. by
on 2009-03-21 01:43:00 UTC
Reply
No. No. No.
Ok, got that image out of my mind.
But isn't citing it implying that you agree with it? I also prefer the second one. -
Re: Need Bleeprin. by
on 2009-03-21 01:46:00 UTC
Reply
No, I have just enough residual teenager left in me to automatically disagree with anything my parents say when the mood suits me. It's a throwback to the teenage rebellion, I think.
-
Well, why not? by
on 2009-03-21 01:12:00 UTC
Reply
Someone has to do it, and he's written enough to qualify for the role. Besides, it still fits with TOS, doesn't it?
By the way, I think the line's being smudged -
The PPC is supposedly a collaboration, now. by
on 2009-03-21 01:15:00 UTC
Reply
As opposed to just one person's pet project, even TOS was written by two people. As long as things don't actively contradict TOS, it's supposedly a setting pretty much everyone's allowed to write for. Don't know what line you're referring to, though.
-
Exactly by
on 2009-03-21 01:19:00 UTC
Reply
And hS has contributed a lot of stuff that we all like. He's put in a lot of effort, and that's worthy of respect. I don't suck up to him - I barely know him - but I'm in awe of the amount of high-quality work he's produced. I barely have time to write one mission every few months. That's worth respect.
-
Sigh. by
on 2009-03-21 01:18:00 UTC
Reply
It is. But we're all sheep, and we'll follow a leader if one emerges. If you don't like it...write your own fics. That's more or less what goes on, in any event. If it is one person's "pet project", it's because enough people like the idea.
Crossing the line? The line between a fun debate and a mud-slinging contest? -
Baaa. ;) (nm) by
on 2009-03-21 01:20:00 UTC
Reply
-
Of course it's a Bad Idea to use a Death Star. by
on 2009-03-21 00:50:00 UTC
Reply
I completely agree with that. I'm just arguing that there really isn't much of a reason not to IU.
-
*shrugs* Not my area of expertise. But of course... by
on 2009-03-21 00:59:00 UTC
Reply
Debate in all forms is welcome, until it gets to the point of mudslinging, when the PGs - and Board at large - have every right to tell people to stop. So argue as much as you like. :)
-
There is, actually. by
on 2009-03-21 00:56:00 UTC
Reply
For one, the sheer number of people it'd require would be impractical, unlike the Sun Crusher which only needs one pilot. Also, we'd have nowhere to put it and it'd take too long to make.
-
Rebuttal by
on 2009-03-21 01:00:00 UTC
Reply
- That might be considered an advantage- less likely to have a single loony go and give canon planets the Carida treatment.
2. If they have one, why'd they need to make it again?
3. I was under the impression that, by its very nature, PPC HQ has an infinite amount of space.
- That might be considered an advantage- less likely to have a single loony go and give canon planets the Carida treatment.
-
Re: Rebuttal by
on 2009-03-21 01:03:00 UTC
Reply
- There's no way that's an advantage. It'd take at least thousands of Agents to crew it, and that's thousands of Agents not doing missions instead of embarking on this stupid project of yours.
2. Irrelevant.
3. Logically, it can't, no structure can. Technically, the only thing holding HQ together is the portal network.
- There's no way that's an advantage. It'd take at least thousands of Agents to crew it, and that's thousands of Agents not doing missions instead of embarking on this stupid project of yours.
-
Re: Rebuttal by
on 2009-03-21 01:08:00 UTC
Reply
We have all the multiverse at our disposal. Man it with slaves. Or the Borg, once they're done with the nukes.
-
Unethical and not allowed. by
on 2009-03-21 01:13:00 UTC
Reply
And the point is, it just shouldn't be done.
-
Re: Unethical and not allowed. by
on 2009-03-21 01:15:00 UTC
Reply
Says who?
Anyway, slaves don't have to be unethical. We could get 'em from Ephebe. -
Re: Unethical and not allowed. by
on 2009-03-21 01:16:00 UTC
Reply
Slavery is unethical, and we're not allowed to use canons to do our dirty work.
-
Yes, well, a lot of the things the Flowers do to Agents by
on 2009-03-21 01:28:00 UTC
Reply
are unethical too. Working practices etc for a start.
This. Is. All. Done. FOr. The. Laughs. If a slave-run Death Star could conceivably be done in a comic manner then it could conceivably be used. We're here to write entertaining stories, after all. -
You can be entertaining without being stupid about it. by
on 2009-03-21 01:32:00 UTC
Reply
As I've said, I might be too realistic in mind, but still. You can be entertaining without just being over the top absurd, and I try to stick to that. Part of that being trying to rationalise PPC operations so they're at least believeable, I admit.
-
If that's really what you think, KG... by
on 2009-03-21 01:35:00 UTC
Reply
...then maybe the PPC isn't the place for you. Don't take this the wrong way - sheep, sucking up, whatever - but if you're not enjoying our particular brand of silliness, then you'll never have fun here. We're not going to change for you.
-
Hm... by
on 2009-03-21 01:41:00 UTC
Reply
to clarify:
Feel free to express your views but keep in mind that that applies to everyone else. -
I am having fun, most of the time. by
on 2009-03-21 01:38:00 UTC
Reply
I wasn't trying to insult anyone, I was just jokingly saying that I've probably pissed off the whole Board badly enough that I should shut up, heh. I myself am a bit more realistic of mind, but that just means I try to rationalise the more ridiculous things.
-
Rationalisation can be fun by
on 2009-03-21 01:49:00 UTC
Reply
Some of my best fanfic ideas come from trying to find logic in a magical world.
That said, just be aware that a lot of what you've been saying can and seeming has offended people. Not badly, but it'd be wise to use some more tact for a little while. Just to be on the safe side. -
Yes, but ... by
on 2009-03-21 01:33:00 UTC
Reply
... it's probably not the best or most tactful idea to try and hold everyone else to your standards of a) entertaining or b) rational.
-
Haven't been intentionally doing so. by
on 2009-03-21 01:40:00 UTC
Reply
I got annoyed, yeah, but that's mostly the fact that I found the Death Star idea just too stupid. Then again, y'all probably think the exact same of all of my ideas. :P
-
Not all of them. I like the vending machine one, remember? by
on 2009-03-21 01:43:00 UTC
Reply
Just ... don't get annoyed? It's not for any of us to label anyone else's ideas annoying. Or to call them stupid, or suck ups, especially not to their face. Dude, please at least stop and think about whether or not what you're saying is *rude*. hS still reads the Board - how do you think he's going to feel? And Chliever, whose idea you've just called stupid?
-
While we're at it, let's not kill Sues, either. by
on 2009-03-21 01:27:00 UTC
Reply
It's unfair - after all, they're only mindless creations of their Authors. Why should they suffer just because Canon is being threatened.
Oh! *gasp* That means we have to shut down the Bad Slash Department, too! If we breakup slash couples, we're being homophobic!
Calm down, okay? The PPC is about fun, and silliness, not high-handed morals. Nothing here is real -
I am calm. by
on 2009-03-21 01:41:00 UTC
Reply
Just saying I was pretty sure we weren't allowed to use canons for that stuff. Was said somewhere.
-
Now I want to write a Tau-style AU for the PPC by
on 2009-03-21 01:34:00 UTC
Reply
As in the PPC takes the Tau approach instead of the Imperium approach (capture/rehabilitate instead of kill kill kill). Yawn...what would be the fun in that?
-
Re: Unethical and not allowed. by
on 2009-03-21 01:20:00 UTC
Reply
Really? Bugger. Guess I was elsewhere when they were handing out the morals then.
-
Do either of us seem to be serious to you? (nm) by
on 2009-03-21 01:19:00 UTC
Reply
-
you mean you're not? by
on 2009-03-21 01:27:00 UTC
Reply
I'll cancel your half of the order for small Filipino children to cook our tea, wash our dishes and run our baths then, shall I?
-
Send them roasted please. by
on 2009-03-21 01:29:00 UTC
Reply
With a light sprinkling of salt. If you have any puppies, I'd appreciate them too. I need to kick and shoot something.
-
side order of dolphin with that? by
on 2009-03-21 01:32:00 UTC
Reply
I tell you what, I'll even nick some sweeties from the toddler down the road in lieu of after dinner mints.
-
No, baby seal. by
on 2009-03-21 01:35:00 UTC
Reply
Got any armour with Spikes of Villainy?
-
who needs armour when you have an impenetrable fortress? by
on 2009-03-21 01:44:00 UTC
Reply
Constructed with bricks made of rainforest, with the blood of the innocent as cement. And fully staffed by minions to act as living armour.
Spikes can probably be arranged though. -
What, with a Kill Sat control centre and generic technicians by
on 2009-03-21 01:47:00 UTC
Reply
in the middle of a volcano that has a fake water metal cover and a rocket launch pad? What could go wrong?
Bah, just destroy the multiverse with the help of Hactar. Easy enough... -
Hactar? (nm) by
on 2009-03-21 01:50:00 UTC
Reply
-
Hitchhikers Verse by
on 2009-03-21 01:53:00 UTC
Reply
Think HAL meets GLADOS meets Davros, turned up to the power of Ten and given a Marvin-style case of depression.
-
ah by
on 2009-03-21 01:57:00 UTC
Reply
But getting someone in to help is cheating. And it takes the fun out of evil scheming dictatorship.
-
Not if you turn on them afterwards. (nm) by
on 2009-03-21 01:59:00 UTC
Reply
-
That's true by
on 2009-03-21 02:02:00 UTC
Reply
And would give opportunity to train up the raptors before releasing them in the newly-reinstated penal colony of Australia.
*plots*
Now, when to bring in the army of dreadnoughts, I wonder? -
Which ones? by
on 2009-03-21 02:06:00 UTC
Reply
Star Wars, Warhammer 40k, or Real Life?
-
Re: Which ones? by
on 2009-03-21 02:09:00 UTC
Reply
Not real life, they're boring.
I've liked dreadnoughts since I was tiny, but my memory of them's hazy. Which ones were around 20 years ago? -
Don't forget to boil them first! by
on 2009-03-21 01:31:00 UTC
Reply
Dogs can have rabis, and we've enough rabid agents already.
This is a warning from your friendly PPC Health Services Division. We do not exist. Do not complain to us about the food. -
Or, on a serious, theoretical note... by
on 2009-03-21 01:10:00 UTC
Reply
Droids would do perfectly- they've been used for such purposes in several canons.
-
It's just fanwank, I should really relax by
on 2009-03-21 01:07:00 UTC
Reply
- Wow. See above; also, it isn't my project. I'm just making an argument for fun.
2. How?
3. Since when was PPC HQ logical? As you said, irrelevant.
- Wow. See above; also, it isn't my project. I'm just making an argument for fun.
-
Re: It's just fanwank, I should really relax by
on 2009-03-21 01:10:00 UTC
Reply
- And to annoy people, apparently, heh. The point is, nobody likes the Death Star idea, so it should be dropped already.
2. The Sun Crusher having one pilot doesn't have anything to do with more than one being built.
3. Everything has to have some internal logic to even be possible. The PPC is a comedy, but that doesn't have to mean it's totally stupid.
- And to annoy people, apparently, heh. The point is, nobody likes the Death Star idea, so it should be dropped already.
-
I'm doing this for fun. by
on 2009-03-21 01:14:00 UTC
Reply
If you don't like arguing about random things, don't.
Sun Crushers take out star systems. Death Stars are slightly more precise.
How is the infinite space idea illogical? The PPC more or less has chunks from every ficverse, making for a lot of space. -
I'm fully aware of that, thank you very much. by
on 2009-03-21 00:02:00 UTC
Reply
I'm just making an argument for the other side.
Considering how size is usually irrelevant in the situations where they would be used and that the modifications would be more or less the same for both, it's hardly impractical.