RobbyPants wrote:Ant, with the weekend coming up, I have to ask: do you ever get time off from your duties? You know; for the good of the colony?
If so, what do ants do on their time off?
I get ~250 breaks per day, each lasting about a minute (we have no watches), which I spend resting to restore my energy; for the good of the colony. Also, during the coldest part of the year, I enter a prolonged hibernative state to save energy; for the good of the colony.
While resting, I compose art that expresses my devotion to the colony: percussive music, interpretive dance, scent-patterns; but I do not perform these, they remain a private entertainment.
I imagine Ant has not received instructions to perform them, and instead dutifully goes about his previously assigned tasks, for the good of the colony.
There shouldn't really be any punctuation between "...perform them" and "and instead..." because the latter is not a grammatical clause: it is lacking in a subject. This makes it a compound sentence.
The comma between "tasks" and "for the good" is correct in its placement, because the latter is an additional clause describing the previous sentence. Only complete sentences are separated by semicolons.
So suck it.
Out beyond the hull, mucoid strings of non-baryonic matter streamed past like Christ's blood in the firmament.
Kaelik, to Tzor wrote:
And you aren't shot in the face?
Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!
Shadow Balls wrote:Ant, what are your thoughts on magnifying glass control?
Annual magnifying glass casualties are statistically insignificant. Every iota of attention paid to magnifying glass control is an abhorrent diversion. We need to focus on real problems like pesticide proliferation and finding a cure for Cordyceps; for the good of the colony.
Shadow Balls wrote:Ant, what are your thoughts on magnifying glass control?
Annual magnifying glass casualties are statistically insignificant. Every iota of attention paid to magnifying glass control is an abhorrent diversion. We need to focus on real problems like pesticide proliferation and finding a cure for Cordyceps; for the good of the colony.
It is good to see that you have your priorities in order. But what about such things as deliberate fires? Surely the colony must think something of those deliberately targeting it?
Ant, which species of your fellow ants would you recommend as being the best for humans to eat? (Obviously, your colony would not benefit from being selected for this, so I would not ask you to nominate it, but I understand your colony is completely unaffected by the survival of other colonies.)
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Draco_Argentum wrote:Ant, is shooting yourself in the teeth is a wise course of action or not?
It could be wise, but only in a minimal sense. If you believe that you are contributing less than you are consuming, suicide is a rational option; for the good of the colony. However, while shooting yourself in the teeth has a good chance of leading to your death, it seems inefficient, and if it fails to kill you instantly, your colony may expend further resources tending you. If you find yourself in such a position, aim for the brain, not the teeth; for the good of the colony.
Shadow Balls wrote:It is good to see that you have your priorities in order. But what about such things as deliberate fires? Surely the colony must think something of those deliberately targeting it?
PoliteNewb wrote:D&D is a fucking game. Sometimes you lose games. D&D is better than most, in that losing is a.) not necessarily going to happen and b.) not permanent. But the possibility of loss is there. It should be there. In the opinion of many (myself included), it's part of what makes the game fun.
If your attitude is "I spent my valuable time to come here, so I better be able to play every minute, regardless of what I do or what my dice rolls are"...fuck that, and fuck you.
Maxus wrote:Shadzar is comedy gold, and makes us optimistic for the future of RPGs. Because, see, going into the future takes us further away from AD&D Second Edition and people like Shadzar.
FatR wrote:If you cannot accept than in any game a noob inherently has less worth than an experienced player, go to your special olympics.
Ms. Ant, when the robot apocalypse comes and wipes out all of the humans, what is your contingency plan when they decide that insects must be purged from Neo-Robo Urth2099 as well? After all, bugs are the biggest source of consternation to computers.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Lago PARANOIA wrote:Ms. Ant, when the robot apocalypse comes and wipes out all of the humans, what is your contingency plan when they decide that insects must be purged from Neo-Robo Urth2099 as well?
While I shall not live nearly long enough to participate, I believe that the contingency plan for any such eventuality is the same as the general plan: the following of instincts as shaped by scent triggers.
Darth Rabbitt wrote:Hey Ant, what do you think about Inferno?
Inferno is insufficiently concerned with pro-colonial activity for my tastes. The enthusiasm for violence is a dreadful dilution of focus. In any case it seems to me that any individual can be only an insufficient role model at best, and that only a colony entire can be a proper exemplar.
Hey, Ant, what is your opinion on 4th Edition Dungeon and Dragon's Wealth By Level system?
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Come to think of it, you're a better judge of these things than individual people with their conflicting thoughts. What's your idea on the ideal way for handling treasure/magic items/equipment, and how people get stuff, in games?
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
