Aileron

Look, I'd say that the 16 yr old girl shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. We have fingerprints. We have DNA. We have huge national databases. We should track down the bum who got her pregnant and make him come back and marry her, or atleast pay child support. Shotgun weddings at first glance may not appear to be a good option, but its what's best for the child. I know its diffcult, but there are still plenty of jobs in the country that can support the couple enough to raise a family. I mean, we are talking about first-world countries here. For us in the United States, if we can put a man on the moon, we certainly have the resources and know-how to support a few babies...heck in 20 years those babies would probably give something back to the country anyways, so supporting those babies would actually make us stronger. Thus it comes down to whether or not we want to do the extra work of supporting unwanted children, or if we want to take the easy way out and abort them. If we need social reform, we should do social reform. We shouldn't just sacrifice lives out of unwillingness the commit to solving the tough problems. As for the fetus's rights and current status as a person, their current status is irrelevant. In good old fashioned murder, which we all agree is wrong, the victim isn't denied their present state or their past state. If a 30 yr old man is shot, he was still clearly a person for the past 30 yrs. The only thing that is denied that man is the future 42 years he would have had if he wasn't murdered. It doesn't matter whether or not the fetus is a person or was a person. Murder is dependent upon removing the FUTURE of a person. Since a fetus has as much future of personhood as the 30 yr old man (actually 30 likely years moreso), it would be clearly wrong to kill a fetus. Besides, a good motto in life is to never do anything you would come to regret. If you ask a woman who had an abortion what they thought of their decision ten years after the fact, almost all of them regret it. Most have psychological problems develop, and never really get over their guilt. On the other hand, if you find a mother who considered an abortion but didn't go through with it, and ask her if she regrets her decision NOT to have an abortion ten years later after the child has aready grown up a little, I guarentee no matter what her economic status was that she will pick up some kind of shiv and chase you out of the area for asking such a stupid question. But overall, abortion is a crappy solution to socio-economic problems. Its very similar to idiots who thought the poor should live in ghettos next to swamps so that disease would kill them off. If we have socio-economic problems, we should solve those problems rather than resort to indirectly killing the poor. If a family can't support the child, we should ask ourselves WHY that family can't support a child and solve THAT problem.

I guess I wish you luck then. However the reason we shouldn't give up now is simple: We are almost done. I have no way to back this opinion up, but I'd guess we'd PROBABLY withdraw forces as Iraqi forces are trained to take our place. The reason I think this is because that's what the current policy seems to be. My guess is that by 2007 there would probably be enough Iraqi forces there to make any presence on our part entirely unnecessary, though I haven't seen the numbers, so that's only a guess.

Its not fiscally responsable whether you have the money or not. You don't get rich or stay rich by wasting money. Some of the richest people in the world are still penny-pinchers (not counting celebreties and sports stars). Sometimes rich people do make parties with bigger price tags, but they invite powerfull people to those parties, so in actuallity they are using the parties as a business expense to build new connections. $20,000 can be used to feed an entire third world country for a week...students should learn to count the blessings they have by using them properly.

Wow, I guess this topic is even MORE boring than Ducky's. I guess its just that I can't help but notice...the chanting these people made almost interupted the classes I was taking. I was just wondering if the entire world went crazy, because all I could see and hear at that moment was these protestors.

Centre Daily Times This is the dominant story in my local newspaper, I figure its a little more interesting than Ducky's. (No offense - its just that everyone agrees.) Since Wednesday, a second protest occurred in front of Old Hall. This disturbes me. Harris just threw out an accussation, and a mob is asking Portland to be fired. I don't see why this is a sexuality rights issue...there are no lesbians involved. I definitely have no clue why the Black Caucus is involved. (Except the Black Caucus on campus is a corrupt piece of work...last year somebody allegedly yelled 'n------' out some window, and their suggestion to the University was to give all of the higher officials of the Caucus full scholarships. Maybe they are trying to make easy money off of this issue. I guess there might not be a lot of respect for the Black Caucus on campus, because they try to turn every issue that comes up as an opportunity to make money for themselves. I think that, and not who is coaching basketball, is what causes the "larger problem" on campus.) In my opinion, this is just a matter of one disgruntled student throwing around an accusation, and some mob who fell for it demanding somebody be fired before any proof is given. Portland is en!@#$%^&*led to due process. She is innocent until proven guilty. All we have now is "Harris said so", and her allegation of Portland thinking Harris was a lesbian when she really wasn't sounds pretty shakey to me. I doubt that Harris can read minds...heck if she could read minds her GPA would have been higher. But worst of all the protestors are too impatient to wait for an investigation to even start. If this were a crime, there wouldn't be enough to arrest Portland right now, let alone convict her. If the University fired every staff member immeadiately as they were accussed of something, there would be no staff left to run it, because anybody can accuse anybody else of anything. I just hope the University is smart enough to use due process rather than listen to a mob.

Jeez...so its everyone against me here as usual. The principle shouldn't have cancelled the prom. Its not a matter of whether or not there was a problem, there clearly was. The problem is that cancelling the prom doesn't solve to problem. If it did, it would be a great decision. What's going to happen is that the children who spent $10,000 - $20,000 on cruise or lodge rentals will still rent the cruise or lodge, and those who wisely didn't want to spend that much won't get anything. It takes a little from the haves and a little from the have-nots...but at the end of the day this causes the haves to still have their memorable night on the cruise ship or lodge, and leaves the have-nots with a night of either staying at home or making some crude celebration with their friends. The only real solution to the problems lie along the lines of what Ducky and I said...either make it informal, or refuse to sell tickets to students who spent more than $2,000 to prom night. The problem with making it informal is while it solves the problem in the prom specific case, it does nothing to teach the children fiscal responsability. The problem with my method is that a school really doesn't have that kind of authority to tell people what to do with their own money. Thus comes Ail'ssolution V 2.0: Make admission to prom be paid for by a few hours of volunteer service. While I can't stand for similar policies for graduation (Then it amounts to a very light case of slave labor, because you wouldn't give the students legal option to refuse...teaching them very bad lessons.), I would say that volunteer service would be a good option here.

jeez Tex, you don't remember things very well, do you? *Climbs out from inside one of the reptile tanks mounted on the wall [and thus part of the pet shop - see rule 3]* Wow, who would have thought a quarter inch of gl!@#$%^&* could be so indestructible? *sees Greased wake up from sleepwalking into the pet shop in the nude* *ignores*

Erm...who's next?

Awwww Judas, no style.... *sets up a timer to a ray gun, bucket of acid, block of C4, spikes shooting out of the ground, a falling blade, a flamethrower, and a trapdoor leading to a tank of pirhannas* *grabs Tex's body and puts in one of the ressurection machines* *sets ressurection machine so that Tex gets ressurrected the same moment the time runs out* ~ding~ *Tex gets revived* *Tex gets zapped, melted, blown up, impaled, sliced in half, burnt to a crisp, and eaten by pirhannas* *uses axe to chop sign into small bits.*

As promised, there should be two active RPGs running at the same time. This one is one of the humerous/nonsensical variety. Setting: Fred's Weapons, Science Fiction Machines, and Lovible Pets Shop on Elm Street. CreatiX was thinking about buying a pet turtle, when he was approached by a mob of people who like soccor pub. They soon picked up shivs and started attacking him. However, fellow customers who support complex rushed to his defense. A riot ensued. Police were called, but rather than risk life and limb fighting two dangerous mobs, they decided to just take a donut break. Rules: 1) No attacking people who haven't posted here. (including CreatiX) 2) No roleplaying the actions of other people. 3) The Pet Shop is indestructible 4) No nuking everybody...one target at a time. Notes: 1) If you die, you may use one of the Science Fiction machines to ressurrect yourself. 2) Shiplifting is illegal...but the police are off taking a donut break. *grabs an axe and waits for those who hate complex to enter the Pet Shop*

Well, the reason why moderates liked Bush so much was because its a two party system and he was running against John Kerry. If the democrats would smarten up and start nominating moderates half of their election problems would be solved. However, the biggest reason I like Bush is that he presents positive solutions to problems. The democrats seem to be about making republican solutions look bad, and have made themselves critics of government rather than agents of government. The best example of this is an editorial about how slow the government's reaction to Katrina was. The author then asked what FEMA would have done if Al Queda planned an attack as hurricane Katrina was striking. It shows that he only can think about last week's problem. Al Queda's attacks take years of work to organize. They would need pinpoint weather information about 6 months in advance in order to pull off that kind of coordination, and I have yet to see a 7-day forcast that holds up. It would only be practically possible if they could read about the situation a week later, travel back in time and coordinate the attack. Government doesn't have that luxery. They have to worry about next week's problem, and that is VERY hard to do. The point is that Bush tries very hard to solve next week's problem. Sometimes he succeeds, sometimes he doesn't. The democrats on the other had read about a problem after it develops, points their finger at Bush and criticises him for not solving it in advance. While I can't stand for bad decisions, Bush cannot be expected to be a fortune teller. Furthermore, I cannot vote for somebody who only thinks about problems AFTER they occur. Plus, the democrat's political stance is whacko. The thing they USED to stand for was equal rights for minorities and the working man. Now, they stand for giving affirmative action to minorities, and really don't give a !@#$%^&* about the working man. They never were the party for good-old-fashioned rights and values, so the only issue they seem to have a strong stance in is the environment...and even in this issue their desire to listen to radicals rather than practical solutions is deteriorating their stance. Its not that I like Bush that much, I can name a few people who would be better presidents (Conzoliza Rice, Bill Gates, Colon Powell if he ever decided to run, Rudy Gulliani, Donald Trump...). However, his head is in the right place, and since his compe!@#$%^&*ors don't have a clue, I support Bush. (Bill Gates and Donald Trump would be taking a pay cut if they wanted to be president...hence the biggest problem in our political system.) 2008 will be a very interesting year for the democrats. Maybe when Bush is gone, they will lose their opportunity to hate and finally do some introspection. I'll hope but not bet...in all likelihood they will just hate the next person nominated by the repbulicans.

Well, in technicality I did have the money, its just that I really didn't want to commit that percentage of my bank account to one night. You are right, I exaggerated the private/public school difference. High school dances are optional events, so public schools have a right to use them to impose beliefs on students as well.

Its not too far...it just doesn't solve the problem. Those who rented the house and chartered the cruise will still go. The school has a right to be concerned...If I had that much money, I wouldn't consider that. I'd have saved it to ease off on some of the college expenses I have now, or atleast buy something that lasts longer than one night like a nice car or 1337 computer. (1337 computer actually, my car is ugly, but she's reliable and has good gas mileage.) How is this the school's concern? Note that this is a Catholic school and not a public school...schools in the private sector don't have to follow the same rules as public schools. Private schools have something to prove, and have the right to expell students who are making academic mistakes, and blowing off college money on a prom date is a big academic mistake. I will admit I have feelings of bitterness over exactly this subject. I didn't go to my prom because it was too expensive. I didn't have enough money to rent a tux, a limo, or pay for any of the fancy things most high school students accept as the norm. I could have gone in a cheap suit, buying my date some fast food on the way in my ugly/reliable car, but then I'd have been a loser. However, I disagree with the decision because it does not solve the problem. It does help students to realise that its just a high school dance, not some grand moment in their life like their marriage or when their children will be born, but its mostly a clean miss. Maybe a ban to those who spent more than $2,000 dollars on prom-related stuff would be more appropriate.

Alright, if you haven't read the rules by now, they are here: 17th Parallel Bar Rules If you signed up in the signup topic, plz don't spend any of your first post describing your character, except if you are Tex and need to sign up again. Any late entries who wish to sign up (or sign up again) should do so here in your first post. If you sign up late, you are allowed to know some things that has been revealed by somebody else earlier in the topic, but don't push it. As for the setting: The Bar on the "17th Parallel" is a small place with bad lighting and excellent drinks. Playing soft music in the background (23rd Century contemporary), with decor to match, this is the excellent place to rest while ships are refitted/refuelled/repaired, and the first place anyone goes for information of a slightly less-than-legal nature. Many shady deals have occurred here and its reputation is beginning to stretch even to systems as far away as Antares. The owner of the bar is known to the patrons as "Manus Celer Dei", both to those who, without his intervention would have died in one of the many scuffles that occur at times, and those who know of his previous occupation as an Alliance Soldier-citizen, and the reputation he earned in several engagements against the Ithkul. He prefers however, to keep his past closed to all but his trusted compatriots, many of whom were also former members of the Alliance defence force. Current Events: The number one issue on everyone's mind is a wave of piracy occurring throughout various systems in the Alliance. These pirates are not exceptionally brutal or inhumane, they only thing unusual about the recent attacks is that the pirates are more coordinated than usual, seem to have more resources than what they usually have, and the pirates have had a great ability to avoid the patrols of military and security forces. Certain aspects of the economy have been devastated. Food, Fuel, and Ore shipping is perhaps the worst affected and most important industry hurt. The cybernetics industry, one critical for production of Alliance military forces, has also been hurt...Cybertech is projecting losses for the first time in decades, and their compe!@#$%^&*or Implanx Inc. can rarely get their products on the shelves and is considering filing bankruptcy. Manus Celer Dei, among other concerned citizens, have posted bounties on any pirates captured or killed...1000 credits for grunts, 5000 credits for officers, 10000 credits for captains. However, local bounty hunters have had only limited success tracking the pirates. The elections for the Kanatis system are underway. President Cal Ross, age 75, is the in!@#$%^&*bent president. He is running on a platform of improving intelligence agencies to combat piracy. His opponant, Senator Fredorick Harris, age 82, is running on a platform of arming civilian vessels that claim anchorage in the Kanatis system. While the Kanatis Presidency doesn't entirely run Kanatis itself, let alone the entire alliance, many of the governments of other systems respect Kanatis' positions as the model to follow. Dr. Blake is also running in this election, but he's a third party candidate in a traditionally two party system, and has no real chance of winning. The Terran League, Ithkul Imperium, and Kanatis Alliance have just finished talks over the Oricanetes Treaty, signed in said system. The aggrement promises that should the Ithkuls or Terrans ever attack one of the six systems in the Alliance, the other power would ally with the Alliance. Though this does little other than formalize the state of affairs that has been going on, this promises a new age of true peace between the three powers. There is much political pressure on Exis to commit to a similar agreement, but so far they have not made any real response. There is a rush to get the new mental implant, the CTMI 5600. It promises to not only be ten times faster and have more memory than current implants, but also has the unique ability to stop and reverse aging. However, the prototype product has yet to be approved by any of the system governments, or the Terran, Ithkul, and Exis governments. Not only that, but the recent acts of piracy have been preventing many models from being produced. Still, because of the urgent need involving the elderly, pre-market verions can be purchased by anyone over the age of 70 Earth-Years.

Whatever you want...though I'd highly recommend not sticking around in 17th Parallel Bar if you are a pirate...if you haven't noticed Manus put a bounty on every pirate's head. Wow Manus, I didn't think I was that creepy/origional of a villain..thanks.

*Abuses newly gotten RPG mod-powers to raise flamingstarch from the dead* *grabs an AK-47 machingune* *kills flamingstarch with AK-47*

Not in techinicality...Its not a superpower for an elephant to lift a large amount of weight. Elephants are big animals, so they are physically strong. If a certain animal wasn't big and strong, it wouldn't be an elephant. Thus, it wouldn't really be a superpower for a deity to smite things, because the ability to smite things is part of the definition of deity. Then again if I want to be technical "Beings with powers beyond all mortal imagination" applies to nothing we will see here...If somebody came up with the idea of the character's powers, its atleast within the realm of one mortal's imagination. I guess the best way to say it is: No beings with superpowers built in. This as all technical jargon and definitions...point being: Tex, choose a mortal character. Erm, you caught me...I haven't read all of the histories in detail yet...I'll do that over the weekend. From the sounds of it though, I'm talking about the Kanatis System's elections. I should have mentioned that Blake is a Kanatis citizen and does not live on Tau Ceti. Its likely I will never actually go into the bar, but rather manipulate things from far away.

oh, one more note on the setting of the RPG. Its election season. President Cal Ross, 75 in the in!@#$%^&*bent president, running on a platform of improving intelligence agencies to combat piracy. His opponant, Senator Fredorick Harris, 82, is running on a platform of arming civilian vessels. Dr. Blake is also running in this election, but he's a third party candidate in a traditionally two party system. jeez...I've given away the plot already, haven't I? New Forum limitation on characters: No deities or figures of religious nature. No all-powerfull beings with powers beyond mortal imagination either. This rule takes effect on 8:15 PM forum time.

Astro...I'll quote Aileron's First Law of Online Communication: Any discussion of politics or religion will ALWAYS evolve into an arguement. Religion is a VERY sensative topic. I swear its sometimes easier to piss somebody off by talking about religion than it is to piss somebody off by punching him in the face. Those of you who thought my previous comments were pompous and judgemental are wrong. I've made a few mistakes because I've been under stress lately (midterms), but generally I'm just arguing as hard as I always do. The problem is that because religion is such a sensative topic, a person's core beliefs are involved, so it hurts a lot more on the defensive end. This makes it seem like somebody is slamming down on you. i88gerbils...I am pushing an opinion with logical support...the same as I do in secular arguements about Iraq. I'm not trying to be objective, I'm trying to push my viewpoint. SeVeR, there IS a way people can determine what is universally right. Philosophy. Granted, the field is mostly wannabe-scientists who are high on themselves, but philosophers do come up with long logical arguements based on observations from real life. Your cases of "instict" were actually logic, albeit some were subconcious logic. Instinct is by definition something you are born with. You run up a tree or to a building because you know such places are shelters. You acquired that knowledge by running subconcious simulations of the situation. Your Subspace "instict" is infact subconcious logic because it takes training before you can accomplish that...noobs who enter subspace for the first time don't come with a built-in knowledge of fire conservation. People aren't born with the knowledge that food and water are in stores. Safety in numbers is an instinct, I'll give you that... The only discrepency between the two of us is the definition of the word "instict"...I guess we should stop both arguing over semantics. I guess though maybe I shouldn't have considered you to be the same as Ducky. While you did make subjectivist statements, you also half-believe in the Survivalist Moral Theory...in which whatever causes the maximum amount of survival is right. The only flaw in this theory comes in the form of a joke: Under survivalist morality, the Texan is as right as the Englishman and the Frenchman. Morality isn't determined by voting. It isn't vetoed because you disagree. There is a universal truth out there. If Astro happened to hit it, he's right no matter how many people disagree with him. If you disagree with him, you have to prove that its not the universal truth. You have to take a situation that is clearly wrong, but the theory claims is right. For example, the flaw here is that if you suppose there is a masochist who likes to be stabbed. Astro's theory then says that he should run around town and stab everyone he sees. Actually SeVeR, poor people are charitable too...Nigeria offerred an aide package to the US for hurricane Katrina. Your point still stands though...poorer people don't give to charity as much. That is because the concept of giving to charity doesn't apply to everybody...it only applies to those who have something to give, otherwise it really wouldn't make any sense. You are misenterpreting our perceptions of right and wrong slightly. The code of not killing does not include self-defense or the execution of dangerous criminals, and thus doesn't interfere with survival. The idea of giving to the poor only applies to those who have excess to give. The man in the cage is slightly more complicated...some actions are in between wrong and right. Letting the man out of the cage is right, but admittingly dangerous. Leaving him in the cage if taking him out is reasonably dangerous is nuetral. Wrong would be not doing ANYTHING. If there was some bread on a table accrossed from the man, it would not be dangerous to toss the man the bread and walk away. If you walked out of the room, and there was a group of professionals looking for a man trapped in a cage, it wouldn't be dangerous for you to tell them where he is. Only if you didn't help the man in these cases would it be wrong. Analogies are usually simplified...I should have explicitly stated that letting the man out of the cage would not be dangerous. There is a part of the universal truth you correctly identified: it is almost never wrong to ensure your own survival...sometimes it may be righteous to sacrifice yourself for some higher cause...but just trying to live is usually acceptible. BTW, what rules am I violating? I only proposed that there be no discussion of religion. First off, that was only a proposal. Secondly, that proposal was defeated. Third, even if it was a rule, Astro would be the violator. Fourth, Ducky started the arguement. (Unless you have no sense of humor and consider that "!@#$%^&* in a handbasket" joke an insult...in which case I apologize.) If you think I'm being disrespectfull, I'm not. If I didn't know better, I would think that you are being disrespectfull to me. After all, you made a lot of false statements about my beliefs too. However, in actuality neither of us is. What's going on though is that we are talking about our core beliefs, and a lot of emotion is involved. I hate religious discussions.

Let me also remind everyone to check the stickies. There are some additions to the rules. One of them is that there will be plot NPCs this time, played by a dummy account. However, I've only come up with one and a half by now, the rest will be added on as it goes along. The half of an NPC I speak of is Manus...he's still running the bar. If Manus doesn't sign on he will be an NPC, if he does he can play as a PC. For each of them, I am including a "What you don't know section". You character won't know these things at the start of the RPG, and this information is not common knowledge. They are included here so that you might choose your starting faction with atleast some clue as to whats going on. The full plot NPC I speak of is Thallina Darkstar... What you know: All you know about her is that she is a mysterious young woman who will wander into the bar at about the 10th post. Those of you from the Terran League might recognize her from somewhere, but can't quite remember. What you don't know: Darkstar is an Terran spy who has uncovered part of a plot to take over the galaxy and is on the run. There will be another group of non-plot NPCs that will pop in later...men in black trenchcoats What you know: Extremely mysterious. These men are dressed in identical clothing entirely black and wearing trench coats and sungl!@#$%^&*es...even indoors. They each are armed with identical disrupter pistols. They never speak, carry no identification whatsoever, and no interrogation technique, even the use of devices that can scan memories, reveals anything about them or who commands them. What you don't know: They are after somebody. Another non-plot NPC group: Space Pirates What you know: Piracy has reached high levels in the past few months in Alliance territory. They have been targeting virtually any unprotected target, but the industries hit hardest are ore shipping, food shipping, and cybernetics. Pirates are rarely seen on any spacestation or settlement (except a handfull of unscrupulous independent worlds). They usually travel in fleets of one or two light destroyers or corvettes with an array of fighters. They generally preffer Weasels and Sharks for their stealth and mobility, and their capital ships are also designed to be fast and stealthy. While their encounters with military forces usually end in disaster for the pirates, recently they have done a very good job of evading any patrols by the slower heavier military vessels. What you don't know: They are not pirates, they are privateers working for the Kingdom of Exis. It is also not luck or good planning that allows them to evade Alliance patrols...they have inside information. And finally...my character: Dr. Jack "Aileron" Blake is one of the best researchers of cybernetic implants alive, as well as the CEO of Cybertech, a corporation that produces cybernetic implants. Since about % of the Kanatis population, and the entirety of the military, have some sort of cybernetic enhancement it is a pretty lucrative industry. He got the nickname while in a resistence cell during the Ithkull invasion of Saggatus III. The Ithkull forces set up a fighter base on the planet, which they were planning to use to make deeper cuts into Alliance territory. A group of local citizens, as well as some military personelle who were smuggled in, formed an un-named resistence cell of which Blake was a Luetenant. With space !@#$%^&*aults out of the question, the cell made numerous attempts to storm the base by land, which ended in disaster. Finally, Lt. Blake came up with a plan to build atmospheric fighters and attack from the air. He got the nickname during a technical briefing on how to construct the fighters. The base was not prepared for such an assault, and the base, as well as a fleet of empty fighters, was captured. Within a week, Ithkull's grasp on the entire colony fell apart. Because of this, Jack Blake was a rewarded with scholorships to educate himself at the finest ins!@#$%^&*utions of learning the Alliance had to offer. He received his doctorate in cybernetics in 2712, and founded Cybertech in 2715. His latest invention...the CTMI 5600, is a mental implant that is ten times more productive than any of the current implants on the market. However, the best feature about this implant is a device called the genetic mechanic. It can identify and repair flaws in the subject's DNA, and thus prevents and can even reverse aging. It hasn't reached the market yet, awaiting final approval from government inspection, though pre-market versions have been sold to elderly, including most of the Kanatis congress. What you don't know: Dr. Blake is evil and is trying to take over the galaxy. If I'm still allive by the end of the thread, everybody loses 30 RP points (except those who turn to the dark side and try to help me take over the galaxy). BTW, to those who want to be dumb!@#$%^&*es and kill me in about the second post - you have to proof I'm up to something before going after me.

Post the characters you want to use for 17th Parallel Bar IV here.

Alright, the plan is to have a 17th Parallel Bar topic up next week. Here is the rules and settings, copied from one of the previous bars: There will be three changes in how the new one will be run: First off, I will have plot related NPCs come in and out of the forum...I will create a dummy account...probably 17thRPGforumNPC...to define what they do, just so as to make things a little more interesting. Secondly, you will be allowed to include the actions of another in your post PROVIDED your post is describing ship to ship combat and you do it in the following way: You and the person(s) you are combating have to meet in Subspace and replicate the encounter. For example, suppose you and another person in the RPG are both flying in deep space, end up running into each other and fighting ship to ship. An option you can have is for the two of you to get together in some subarena in the zone, and slug the encounter out. If instead you were both on opposite sides of a large scale fighter battle, recreate the encounter in pub. If the encounter is two on one, the three of you get together and have a 2 on 1 duel. After the encounter, the person posting may post a description of the replicated duel that occurred in the zone, including the other pilot's actions. Now ofcourse you don't HAVE to do this, you can role-play ship-to-ship combat if you choose to...I'm just giving you another option. However, if you DO choose this option, it is required that you have the permission of all parties concerned before the encounter. To this end I highly recommend that you NOT use customized fighters, but that is still your choice. Finally, everybody will have something called RP points. These aren't stats, and affect nothing in any way. They are a lot like the points on Who's Line is it Anyway...they do nothing and mean nothing, or do they? You may decide for yourself if you wish to keep track of them or if you don't...but if you do I will keep track of faulty accounting practices. RP points are rewarded to those who perform certain actions. Everybody starts the topic with 0 and gets them added on (or subtracted) every time they make a post with the following properties. +1 - The post is in sentance/paragraph structure. +1 - The post contains any interaction with another character or plot-related NPC. +1 - The post contains some dialog. +2 - Your character verbally insults another character or plot NPC. +2 - Your character does a minor act of heroism. +2 - Your character does a minor act of villany. +2 - Your character tells a joke, or just says something funny in dialog. +2 - Your character steals something that belongs to another character or plot NPC. +2 - The post contains a humerous situation about the bar being indestructible. +3 - The post contains a humerous situation, not involving the indestructible bar. +3 - Your post contains any combat encounter. +3 - Your character runs away from non-plot NPCs that would have a clear combat advantage. +3 - Any problem your character solves by non-violent means. +3 - Your character uses stealth rather than combat to get past NPCs. (This does NOT mean you tip toe down the hallway or "hide in the shadows"...a disguise, crawling through the ventillation ducts, or hiding in the back of a supply truck is more what I have in mind here. BTW, "hiding in the shadows" will be considered a superpower in most cases...the setting is the 28th century, guards are going to have flashlights.) +4 - Your character defeats a plot-related NPC. +4 - Your character advances the plot. (If it hasn't fallen apart yet.) +4 - Your character gets revenge on another character or plot-NPC. +4 - Your character gets in a perfect position to get revenge, but changes mind and shows mercy at the last second. +5 - Your character tricks or betrays another character or plot NPC, or you change factions. +5 - Your character performs a major act of heroism. +5 - Your character performs a major act of villainy, other than betraying somebody. +5 - miscellanious smart thinking award (you can't add this yourself, I'll edit and add this one if you do something clever) -2 - I catch some bad accounting. -5 - You use information from OOC comments or in-game events your character did not witness. -10 - I have to edit your post. -10 - The post amounts to a random list of actions designed to engineer a good RP result. (You won't get the bonuses either) +10 - Awarded whenever the thread ends...given to all the good guys and gals, if by this time the character Dr. Blake is defeated, and the galaxy is safe. -30 - If at the end of the thread the characater Dr. Blake is still alive and free and has succeeded in taking over the galaxy, all those who didn't join up with me will get this penalty. (The reason for the discrepency is that I'm figuring 3:1 odds.) All of these are !@#$%^&*ulative over a post, but each only counts once. If your post contains only two lines of dialog cracking two jokes, you get +1 for dialog and +2 for jokes, for a total of +3. Again, keeping track of them is entirely your choice.

I know, the !@#$%^&*le is scary, but I just wanted to announce that the poll in main was finalised, and the RPG forum is still up. My personal thanks to everyone who comes here and voted for it, and double thanks to those who may not come here themselves but voted to keep it anyways. In case you didn't notice or are reading this topic a month from today, I've just been elected the new moderator. My "State of the Union" address: The goal I have is to try to have atleast two RPGs running and active at all times. One crazy moronic topic for light-hearted humor, and one 17th Parallel Bar for serious role-playing. For the 17th Parallel Bar, I will try to emphasis quan!@#$%^&*y over quality a little, rather than spend months coming up with a perfect role-playing world, I will try to patch something in-perfect but good in a few weeks. Usually the radical actions of a few nutso roleplayers ruin a perfect plot anyway. Also, everyone here is encouraged to start their own topics.

Oh, you two (Ducky and SeVeR) are subjectivists. That explains a lot, though I probably should have figured as such. Ducky, I didn't attack anyone under false !@#$%^&*umption, I attacked under full observation - indulgence sometimes leads to consequences, and Satanism is about self-indulgence at virtually every opportunity...its a valid point. One note on Christianity that you seem to be approaching: There is no commandment that says "Though shalt not kill"...that is slightly mistranslated. A more accurate translation is "Though shalt not murder". Self defense and executions are allowed. SeVeR, you can't have a survival instinct because humans don't survive on instinct. We survive on intellect to survive and our instincts kill us. As an animal, the human body does not really compaire with other animals. Virtually all of them our size are stronger, faster, and have better senses. Supposing you ended up in a fight with a lion, which weight wise is a pretty fair fight. If you let your "survival instinct" take over, you would either fight, and lose because the lion is much stronger than you are, or flee, and have it quickly catch up to you because its top speed is twice yours. The only way you would survive is by observing your surroundings calmly and finding some sort of weapon you can use, or finding some cleaver cir!@#$%^&*stance to outsmart the lion. Instinct is a strange built in drug that gives the illusion of power, but really prevents you from focusing you energies effectively. I've seen proof of this myself. When one is hunting and spots a deer, there is great instinct that swells up inside you. If you listen to the instinct and let it take over - your hands shake and you miss your shot. The only way to get the deer is to silence your instincts and let your higher self calmy squeeze the trigger. When fighting hand to hand with somebody, you get a great rush of instinct. If you listen to it, you will attack your opponant with a rush of powerfull blows, but he will probably just dodge them and take you down with one good smack because you let down your defenses. The only way to defeat the opponant is to let your higher self patiently look for an opening in his defense and exploit it. And everyone here knows the consequences of letting your instinct take over while playing Subspace...you deplete your energy meter into a volley of shots that miss, and your opponant takes you down with a few precision shots. Instinct, maybe. Survival instict, no. About the man in the cage SeVeR, you proved my point...I was observing that the Satanist opinion is to leave him in the box. Since that is indeed your opinion, my statement was correct, and you really shouldn't be arguing over it, because you agree with me on this point. Alright, now on to the main event. Is there a such thing as right and wrong? SeVeR your last post is a classical logical fallicy. First off I will define some terms: Subjectivism - the moral belief that right and wrong is dependent upon the point of view of the person doing the action. Observational Subjectivism - The fact that peoples' point of view of morality is dependent on their point of view. Actual Subjectivism - Morality itself, not people's views of morality, is dependent on each person's point of view. As I pointed out before, Ducky and SeVeR are subjectivists...they believe whether their decisions are right and wrong is dependent on their point of view, and whether or not other people's decisions are right and wrong is dependent on the other person's point of view. This isn't an insult or criticism in itself, just merely an observation. I can prove this by Ducky's opinion of Hitler and SeVeR's opinion of why criminals are punished. Both signature opinions of a subjectivist...it wouldn't be as such if they had any different opinion. Your logical fallicy SeVeR was that you proved observational subjectivism (duh. the definition proves itself) and act like you proved actual subjectivism. They are two different things. The former proves itself, but means nothing. The latter would mean a lot, if it were possible to prove. However, it can't be proven because its an incorrect theory. It just doesn't coincide with real systems. Suppose the two of us see an animal, a rodent with a bushy tail and is climbing a tree. I say it is a duck and you say that its a cow, but that doesn't imply that the animal is some sort of wierd crossbread. If I say that 2 + 2 = 39 and you say 2 + 2 = 57, that does not mean that 2 + 2 equals both 39 and 57. Actual subjectivism leads to laughably wrong conclusions when applied to reality, so if we want a moralistic theory applicable to the real world (not to mention correct), this can't be it. It does have SOME validity in reality on really similar systems. If I said that a certain block was greenish blue in color and you said it was blueish green, we would indeed both be right and the color of the block would indeed be ambiguous. Thus, actual subjectivism could work provided its not its own independent theory. However, the fact that its not independent implies that there is another different theorey that is correct. This gives the implication that there is indeed a universal constant of "right" and a universal constant of "wrong". However, I won't go on to make claims as to what universal right and wrong is at this point...I'll let the notion that subjectivism doesn't work settle in before I move any further.

Yes, we are anti-divorce. It creates pain and suffering, and we like to add a little pressure on couples to work things out. To help this every parish offers a marriage counselling service, and we do have options to divorce if it really can't work out. You pay taxes...is government evil? To the point that we should drop all government and live in anarchy? So what if the Church isn't democratic...it doesn't have to worry about changing, so it doesn't need a democracy. Alright, what SHOULD the Church do about the dictators then? Our current method is to try to persuade them and use political power to change their ways. The only other options are to use military force on them, which people like you would criticise for being a crusade (and you would be right), or threaten them, which isn't going to work unless military force is an acceptible option. Jeez, for an organization that stood against Operation Iraqi Freedom you seem to be going pretty hard on their international policy. Its good to be anti-bull!@#$%^&*...I happen to be anti-bull!@#$%^&* myself...but you should atleast walk into a church and listen to a priest (not some idiot on a street corner) before you dismiss him as a bull!@#$%^&*er. Dismissal before listening is bigotry. But you got it backwards, its really the Catholic Church's tactfullness that gets us in trouble. Whereas a politician usually shifts around and changes the subject, the Church gets in trouble by taking a stand, which some people may not like.