Post-human species

[Serafina]

So they have a shitload of ocean and advanced biotechnology (and technology in general)?

Great - build yourself lot's of aquatic farms. Or just go fishing.

Population capacity is not limited by space limitations, but by available resources - primarily food.
If they somehow make it to such an advanced stage, they should be able to grow lot's and lot's of food in the oceans.
Designing several plants that can be farmed in the ocean should be much easier than creating a ludicrous species of flying humanoids.

If you have an australia-sized continent, a modern or futuristic society could easily house several billion people - just build loads of scyscrapers.

If you can ship food from one planet to another, you can also build lot's of orbital habitats and farms.
Compared to settling another planet, this is downright cheap - instead of travelling several lightyears, you only have to travel within your solar system. You can mine all the necessary resources from your local asteroids, and power is constantly provided by the sun.
A space station also guarantees constant gravity equal to your homeplanet (simply by making it spin), requires no less atmospheric isolation that most hostile planets, doesn't carry an alien ecosystem and requires no less radiation shielding than an interstellar spacecraft.

It's quite imaginable why some people would prefer settling other planets - but the primary reason would be the wish to star new, to create your own independent world, far away from your home system. For all other purposes, space stations are just plain better.

[avianmosquito]

I'm using parts of this already.

I've long since decided Canabi was an oceanic world, and faced overpopulation. (I also raised that number to over a billion.)

I've been toying with the whole precursor idea for a while, and decided that the precursors would be responsible for the simini, ferroningen, the andheili (Anod's inhabitants) and kakarian dragons,amongst others. I've no purpose for them to do this, just the "who knows, who cares. Point is, they did." set up, as this was over 2 million years ago.

Also, I don't believe a leftover stargate from 2 million years ago is plausible, and the simini's travel time is plot-critical.

In the duration of time between the Simini finidng the Kokome and the Kokome becoming disgruntled, the Simini have filled out their tech a little and have arrived on a planet which allows them access to space (less gravity? more hard metals?). When the Kokome become disgruntled they seize control of the stargate on one planet and begin raids into other worlds from there. The Simini have to keep there sides open for plot, but the Kokome can keep theirs closed on will. So now the Simini have to build a fleet in orbit of the Kakarian Dargon's world (low grav lets the dragons fly). This would give a little drama as the Kokome have to capture this planet to be truly free of the Simini and it gives a time delay as the Simini warfleet travels between the stars.

But just to warn you, any technology base which allows travel between the stars is probably capable of destroying a planet's environment from space, so the Simini are going to need a good reason to want to retake the Ferroningen world (or wherever the Kokome have based themselves).

The idea now:

I'm still not using stargates, for good reason. I like the stargate-idea, but it just doesn't fit the idea, and one cannot use two mutually-exclusive concepts. This isn't the bible.

The most up to date version of the plot: simini have a single world government, right? Well, let's say they're having internal problems. attempt to colonize inhabited worlds as both to lessen their own overpopulation and to make both allies and enemies, mostly enemies. When they do this, they provide their people with a victim, (their allies) and a villain (their enemies, then set themselves as the hero, as to increase patriotism. Not one of the enemies they fought was ever a threat, of course, but winning quickly meant losing this infinite source of good PR, and nuking the enemy into oblivion was counter-productive.

However, this could only last so long, they knew that. They prepared for what the knew was coming, the plebian masses were going to revolt. They set up plenty of crowd-control measures, and started creating supersoldiers. These were accompanied by slaves, abd were supposed to be for their neverending crusades, but were really to quell riots should they arise.

They were designed for three things: to be powerful, to be durable, and, most of all, to be imposing, hence why they used biotech in many cases where mechanical tech might be more practical, but they armed kokome with specialized firearms, teras with heavy weapons, nosferatu with cqb weapons, and military necros (all 2nd and 3rd grade) with standardized weapons, while simini themselves assisted as squad-level marksmen, vehicle crews, and officers. This way, everyone excelled in their role, and quickly developed better teamwork because of it.

The first simini rebellion was quelled in weeks, the second in only a few days. It appeared to be working, even when their local enemies joined the rebels from time to time, but then something happened, a delicious piece of irony they should of planned for: their own supersoldiers started switching sides, and quickly. It would take 400 years for simini reinforcements to arrive, far longer than they could hold out, especially as more and more of their people jumped ship. It was a lost cause, they fled for home without even calling ahead. This sets the stage for a late-series plot, where they come back with a vengeance.

[Simon_Jester]

So they have a shitload of ocean and advanced biotechnology (and technology in general)?

Great - build yourself lot's of aquatic farms. Or just go fishing.

Population capacity is not limited by space limitations, but by available resources - primarily food.

Food isn't so much the problem as metals in that scenario, I think. Industrial civilization depends on a pretty steady input of raw materials, and you can't recycle indefinitely- the iron that went into the hulls of your fishing trawlers rusts sooner or later. Electrical power may also be a problem if you don't have cheap fusion.

If you can ship food from one planet to another, you can also build lot's of orbital habitats and farms.
Compared to settling another planet, this is downright cheap - instead of travelling several lightyears, you only have to travel within your solar system. You can mine all the necessary resources from your local asteroids, and power is constantly provided by the sun.

The real question to my mind is whether you could make it into space at all if the resource base is that minimal...

The idea now:

I'm still not using stargates, for good reason. I like the stargate-idea, but it just doesn't fit the idea, and one cannot use two mutually-exclusive concepts. This isn't the bible.

Why doesn't the idea of stargates fit the idea? What's missing? This is too large a suggestion to be ignored, I think, because it would solve a lot of noteworthy problems with your concept. So what overriding reason do you have for not using it?

However, this could only last so long, they knew that. They prepared for what the knew was coming, the plebian masses were going to revolt. They set up plenty of crowd-control measures, and started creating supersoldiers. These were accompanied by slaves, abd were supposed to be for their neverending crusades, but were really to quell riots should they arise.

Hmm. Well, supersoldiers as dissident-clubbers might work. Dunno.

[Junghalli]

Food isn't so much the problem as metals in that scenario, I think. Industrial civilization depends on a pretty steady input of raw materials, and you can't recycle indefinitely- the iron that went into the hulls of your fishing trawlers rusts sooner or later. Electrical power may also be a problem if you don't have cheap fusion.

Mine under the ocean. Or asteroids. They would both make more sense than flying to another star system to get iron in an STL universe.

I think the most sensible reasons for an interstellar invasion in an STL universe would be either:

1) Space White Man's Burden. They want to give civilization to the primitives.

2) They want to eliminate any possible threats to them in the future from those species, but they're not ruthless enough to want to just kill them, so they decide to assimilate them into their state instead.

You could also possibly also throw in "we have to conquer something to reassert our potency before our enemies after our embarassing defeat in <insert Vietnam equivalent here>," or something along those lines.

[avianmosquito]

It's quite imaginable why some people would prefer settling other planets - but the primary reason would be the wish to star new, to create your own independent world, far away from your home system. For all other purposes, space stations are just plain better.

How about this for motive: their world goverment is having internal problems, and their people (military included) just want to get the hell out of dodge before the bullets start flying. That way they aren't caught in the (likely nuclear) cross-fire.

As for their motive for seemingly pointless warfare: they need to prevent the dissidence from following them, right? What better ways than finding the people new friends and enemies to keep their attention, this way they can better control them. (Very similar to what the US government is doing in the war personal freed... sorry, "drugs" and the so-called war on terror.)

As for why bio-warriors, it's for psycholocical effect. I covered this fairly thoroughly a few minutes ago.

Never the less, they only postponed the inevitable rebellion, and only withstood it briefly before their own colonial militaries started turning against them.

[Simon_Jester]

Mine under the ocean. Or asteroids. They would both make more sense than flying to another star system to get iron in an STL universe.

Obviously yes. My point is about limits on carrying capacity, not about whether interstellar colonization is a smart move. On Earth, carrying capacity is determined by food supply. On an ocean world... who knows?

[avianmosquito]

Lord Relvenous, I am not a cruel man. Some ideas need to be put out of our misery before anyone considers them.

I wouldn't of considered it anyway.

If the Simini live on a planet with roughly the overall land mass of Australia, their population is sharply limited even if they can catch enough fish to feed billions.

More likely shrimp on their planet, but point taken.

Invade how? Do you mean "colonize?" Or do you mean "military conquest of the target?"

I mean "military conquest of the target to smooth colonization," and it's been changed into a war for show. (Keep the plebes preoccupied.)

Also, for a planet to face overpopulation at ~134 million...

Changed to 1.07 billion.

The catch is that even with these factors, overpopulation alone does not explain invading other planets, because if I have the technology to build an STL sleeper ship, I have the technology to build orbital habitats that can solve my population problem at a much lower energy cost. What's more plausible is that there was a "lebensraum" movement on the Simini homeworld that wanted to control planets with larger available landmass.

How about political issues and the possibility of civil war? That should convince some simini to get the hell out of dodge.

Conflicts between nomads and settled people are common, because nomads aren't equally happy to live everywhere. Both sides want the most fertile available land. The nomads say "we want to forage/hunt/graze our herds in this valley" and the settled people say "we want to farm this valley." That can easily lead to violence.

There was only one form of kakarian dragon at the time, the ryugami. They live off of fish they catch, and their diety status amongst the sea-mammals, which allowed them large offerings of what essentially amounts to alien shrimp in exchange for protecting the villages from large predators. Their response was "Fine, we'll go fish somewhere else."

Unfortunately, often the ryugami wouldn't come back, and the zolaisn village was without its guardian. This didn't sit very well with them, and they made this very clear. (Language barriers are nothing an atlatl can't handle.)

.The reason this is such a good idea is that it destroys all questions of the form "if the Simini have starships, they should be able to do X." That's the point: they don't. Nor can they move heavy equipment through the gates, except in pieces and slowly. So suddenly the idea of carpet-bombing their enemies with nukes becomes a bit less practical.

Their home planet rapidly becoming a warzone works just as well.

Again, one wonders about your definition of "thermal weapons." If you mean "like having boiling water poured on you," I can imagine a living creature that would shrug that off pretty well if they had a thick coat of scales and a layer of heat-resistant tissue underneath the scales. If you mean "like napalm," nothing made out of meat can survive that, because the stuff is burning at temperatures well over what it takes to ignite organic matter.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Serafina. Go to the VA. Find the vietnam vets, they'll set
you straight. Napalm maims, it doesn't kill. You cannot maim a reptile because they regenerate. Do the math.

Ballistas and catapults aren't enough firepower to be all that effective as bombardment weapons against an enemy with helicopter-mounted machine guns. I don't care how fast your crew can set up and knock down a trebuchet, it just doesn't pack that kind of punch. You'd be better off just sneaking into the settlement and stabbing your enemies in the neck or something.

Or hitting grounded aircraft, their favourite target, then collapsing the weapon, picking it up, and running back into the tunnel, where only infantry may follow.

...It would be really, really difficult, if not impossible, to build mechanical artillery that could penetrate a vehicle armored to resist even small arms fire.

I've seen a smaller bolt than that go over half a kilometre and punch through a car. Also, simini tanks have thin armour (by our standards) and the ballisae couldn't penetrate the frontal aspect of any but the lightest, and even then not at a distance or a bad angle.

Automatic rifles have proved quite effective in close combat, as shown by the fact that modern armies have stopped bothering to issue bayonets to the infantry. However, with the Ferroningen being big tough saurian types and the Simini being monkeys with accordingly sized weapons (their infantry LMGs would probably have to be smaller and lighter than most human submachine guns)... I suppose I can see it.

Actually simini don't use light machine guns, but they do use flechette rifles a lot.

Just how thin was this armor, anyway? Also, rockets are not effective against tanks unless they have a shaped charge warhead or are artillery-sized; a tank will laugh at a firework rocket, even a big one.

Frontal aspect: 10cm steel, 5cm carbon fibre, 10cm alumina. (Aluminium oxide, a ceramic.)
The rear aspect lacks the ceramic and carbon fibre, and has a vent to air for, and the rockeys were incendiaries.

Could they not just fly too high to be reached by muscle-powered weapons? I mean, I can hit the ground with a minigun from much higher up than some guy on the ground can hit me with a thrown spear.

Simini don't use gatling guns of any form, so that's no option, and their helicopters generally relied on precision bombardments with small rockets. However, they were only in the range of thrown weapons when taking off and landing, though a bow or rocket could reach them and both were common.

...WHY? Seriously, this is retarded. First of all, because 512 years of war is an extremely long time; any war in human history resolved itself long before that point. It would make far more sense to simply ban the nuclear weapons outright.

It's banning manufactute, not use. Thet just get nukes rationed out by some REMF in Canabi, and, in the new verion of the plot, they don't at all because of the situation on their planet and the lack of desire. They can milk a war like that forever.

Now... this makes somewhat more sense, but I'm not sure how much more sense. Refining weapons-grade fissile material takes a lot of resources; so does making thousands of tons of rocket fuel.

It's still pretty arbitrary, but it's not completely insane.

Simini spacecraft are nuclear- powered. They need that uranium more than anyone else does.

OK. This kind of makes some sense. They lack the supercharged metabolism and other contrived stuff; you could accomplish a lot of this by just engineering out their pain sensitivity and other tricks like that.

It's supposed to be cheap manpower for 18 hours a day.

The problem with this is that animals aren't really smart enough to take orders.

If you can teach a dog that when you throw a ball a certain way you want it to bark, do a backflip, catch the ball and walk backwards across a tightrope on their hind legs, you teach a nosferatu or teras "sick 'em" and "come."

Where did they find humans again, anyway? It might actually make more sense to avoid using humans, because human genetics make it hard for this kind of thing to work. An alien species that uses a different type of sex chromosome system might be much easier to modify this way into two highly dimorphic sexes.

Yes, but the human body was the best choice available to them at the time. A friend of mine had an idea on how to make it work, something about them having all the genes and activator genes on the sex chromosones...

Remember the criticisms of that super-accelerated healing rate. Realistically, it's more important that wounds heal well than that they heal quickly, because only a tiny percentage of your army will be down with wounds at any one time. Giving them the ability to recover fully from things like damage to nerves and joints makes far more sense than just making them heal from anything in three days. It's more realistic, it's more useful, and it doesn't make biologists want to claw their eyes out so badly.

You can do both.

Again, this really is too fast. Maybe... four times? I don't know. Not sixteen.

How about 8 during an adrenalin rush and 4 when healing from significant injury?

I submit that this was probably unnecessary and not very helpful, BUT to the simini (who are basically sentient monkeys) it may have seemed like a good idea at the time. Also, if they (I still don't know how) were familiar with Earth biology, they would have found prehensile-tail monkeys whose DNA is already fairly close to that of humans. You probably could modify humans with a prehensile tail, because we're closely related to other species that have it.

Yet, simini do not have tails themselves. Hmm...

How did they do all this without it being visible from space? You can't build an entire self-sustaining industrial civilization underground.

[/quote][/quote]

No, and this has been removed from the current version.

[Simon_Jester]

Invade how? Do you mean "colonize?" Or do you mean "military conquest of the target?"

I mean "military conquest of the target to smooth colonization," and it's been changed into a war for show. (Keep the plebes preoccupied.)

This is a colossal expense of resources; if the problem is overpopulation this is NOT the solution, because it's so much more expensive than other things that would alleviate the problem.

How about political issues and the possibility of civil war? That should convince some simini to get the hell out of dodge.

If energy and resources are cheap enough in simini society that bands of survivalist refugees can build their own interstellar spacecraft, yeah. The only problem... if resources and energy are that cheap, then a civil war on the Simini homeworld is liable to wipe out the entire species, because of the sheer volume of fire being thrown around.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Serafina. Go to the VA. Find the vietnam vets, they'll set
you straight. Napalm maims, it doesn't kill. You cannot maim a reptile because they regenerate. Do the math.

Do reptiles regenerate burn scars, empirically? Are all incendiaries in the same category as napalm? For that matter, "napalm doesn't kill" sounds unlikely to me. People can die from burn trauma long before their skin (or whatever's left of it) scars over to the point where they can hope to survive. I see no reason why lizards can't do the same.

Or hitting grounded aircraft, their favourite target, then collapsing the weapon, picking it up, and running back into the tunnel, where only infantry may follow.

The point is that the weapon honestly doesn't do much damage compared to what the same giant lizards could accomplish with their bare hands by sneaking through a perimeter. It's a big heavy thing that they're carrying for no reason.

I've seen a smaller bolt than that go over half a kilometre and punch through a car. Also, simini tanks have thin armour (by our standards) and the ballisae couldn't penetrate the frontal aspect of any but the lightest, and even then not at a distance or a bad angle.

You do realize that cars are much, much more vulnerable to penetration than even the lightest tanks? I mean, were these armored vehicles designed to survive artillery shrapnel? Tripod-mounted machine guns build using simini tech? Just how thin is this armor?

Actually simini don't use light machine guns, but they do use flechette rifles a lot.

How does this not amount to the same thing for practical purposes at close quarters.

Frontal aspect: 10cm steel, 5cm carbon fibre, 10cm alumina. (Aluminium oxide, a ceramic.)
The rear aspect lacks the ceramic and carbon fibre, and has a vent to air for, and the rockeys were incendiaries.

The frontal aspect will sneer at anything less than shaped charge weapons (which the lizards don't know how to build) So will the back, being four inches of plate steel. That's the same armor as graced the bow of the infamous Tiger tank of World War Two, you know. The only way an arrow is cracking that is if it's made of depleted uranium and you shot it out of a cannon at about Mach 4.

Simini don't use gatling guns of any form, so that's no option, and their helicopters generally relied on precision bombardments with small rockets. However, they were only in the range of thrown weapons when taking off and landing, though a bow or rocket could reach them and both were common.

Why even fly as low as bow range? Why not just have a couple of guys with rifles in the doors and fly a hundred meters up? Archers aren't going to be able to reach that high without firing more or less straight up.

It's banning manufactute, not use. Thet just get nukes rationed out by some REMF in Canabi, and, in the new verion of the plot, they don't at all because of the situation on their planet and the lack of desire. They can milk a war like that forever.

So what's the problem? They lack the capacity to make their own, or they stupidly obey an unenforceable law telling them not to do so?

Simini spacecraft are nuclear- powered. They need that uranium more than anyone else does.

...See, you just took your good explanation and made it bad again. If they already have plenty of uranium processing ability, they can totally spare some to make bombs.

OK. This kind of makes some sense. They lack the supercharged metabolism and other contrived stuff; you could accomplish a lot of this by just engineering out their pain sensitivity and other tricks like that.

It's supposed to be cheap manpower for 18 hours a day.

That's not the point; the point is that this is a much more plausible genetically modified being than the original supermen were. Instead of being able to change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with their bare hands, fly, and shoot lasers out of their butt or whatever... they're just extremely resistant to pain and shock. And mean and dumb.

Yes, but the human body was the best choice available to them at the time. A friend of mine had an idea on how to make it work, something about them having all the genes and activator genes on the sex chromosones...

But where the hell did they get human genes from, anyway? Does your friend have genetics credentials?

You can do both.

That makes people who studied more biology than you cry.

How about 8 during an adrenalin rush and 4 when healing from significant injury?

For the metabolic rate? Beats me.

[Thanas]

Avianmosquito, in my opinion you are acting like a grade-A jackass in the thread. You post unsustainable and retarded ideas, then you get on a high horse when you are rightfully criticized on that, then you only change details after a five-page bitchfest. And then you have the gall to declare that you actually want critics after just spending five pages not listening to them in the slightest?

When you want criticism and then complain about the tone of it when you receive it you have got nobody to get angry about except yourself.

Why should this forum be required to take more of this? Tell me, do you think you are a net contributor at this point who is well regarded by the denizens of this forum? What do you think you could possibly contribute to this board in the future?

Why don't you think about that for a second and then approach the board from a new level based on the answers to those questions.

[Serafina]

To elaborate on Thanas point:

In 112 posts, you have solely posted in threads started by you, centered around your ideas.
All three of them follow pretty much the same pattern as this one and consist of multiple pages where people crizise your ideas, mostly in a non-agressive tone. Your answers to that consist mostly of defending ridiculous ideas with even more ridiculous justifications or changes, repeating the pattern all over again.

Conclusion:
You have 112 posts and three threads. None of these have produced any discussion of value.
You have not contributed a single post to any other part of the board.

Think about it.

[Starglider]

You have 112 posts and three threads. None of these have produced any discussion of value.

The assault rifle thread was ok, but only because it digressed into the history of the M-16 and the relative merits of its replacements.

[Lagmonster]

It's also worth mentioning that there's nothing wrong with only participating in threads that interest you, personally. There is something wrong with being shrill and stubborn in the face of criticism, however harsh, and certainly with engaging your critics in a poo-flinging festival.

[Serafina]

It's also worth mentioning that there's nothing wrong with only participating in threads that interest you, personally. There is something wrong with being shrill and stubborn in the face of criticism, however harsh, and certainly with engaging your critics in a poo-flinging festival.

Yes, of course.
I WAS critizising that the only threads he has an interest in are those he created himself.
Which shows that he either doesn't care about the rest of the forum or is unable to contribute there.

This is not necessarily a bad thing - someone who only posts interesting threads does contribute interesting stuff after all - but his threads are not really interesting. They merely consist of debunking his personal fictive universe, and with the exception of the assault rifle thread don't even unearth interesting trivia.

To me, membership doesn't have to be justified with positive contribution. It IS, however, based on not being a net negative.
That's why long-standing members can get away with bad&insane stuff and why newbies are granted time to learn.

But i, personally, think that he has reached a point where he has shown that he is incapable of learning how to make positive contributions or how to stop making negative ones.
His whole posting history consists of negative contributions and ignoring criticism.

Well, that's my opinion on this.
I don't want to backseat-moderate and i'm not calling for any moderator action - i just want to point out why i am annoyed with him.

[Simon_Jester]

You have 112 posts and three threads. None of these have produced any discussion of value.

The assault rifle thread was ok, but only because it digressed into the history of the M-16 and the relative merits of its replacements.

Well, to be fair, it wasn't that bad even before that. The rifle wasn't as absurd or unrealistic as the oxy-blaster and the Super-Do Everything Farm and Fight guys from the beginning of this thread. The only thing really wrong with the rifle was the weirdness of the autofire system.

Honestly, if Skeet had posted that first, without first making himself look dumb in these other threads, I think it might have been tolerably well received. Might.

[avianmosquito]

You have 112 posts and three threads. None of these have produced any discussion of value.

The assault rifle thread was ok, but only because it digressed into the history of the M-16 and the relative merits of its replacements.

Well, to be fair, it wasn't that bad even before that. The rifle wasn't as absurd or unrealistic as the oxy-blaster and the Super-Do Everything Farm and Fight guys from the beginning of this thread. The only thing really wrong with the rifle was the weirdness of the autofire system.

Yes, but that thread resulted in ONE change to my idea, the high point of that thread was that two other people contributed their ideas, and I had to write it in big, bold print and ALLCAPS before people realised that they were supposed to do this. (And neither was an assault rifle.)

As such, from my own personal perspective, this one has resulted in the most changes, including the decision to provide nothing on the history in any of the books, and is therefore the most productive for me. Unfortunately, nobody else presented an idea. This saddens me, because it's more interesting to talk about their ideas than mine. (Mine are only there to get things started.)

Honestly, if Skeet had posted that first, without first making himself look dumb in these other threads, I think it might have been tolerably well received. Might.

I get it, bad order to go in. I should of started with my area of expertise, and not done this one until... next year at the earliest.

I'll keep that in mind and do the more down-to-earth ones from now on. (And post less often. 3 in one week? No short stories? I've got to come up with a rule for this. Maybe "post a short story after every thread.") The next one will be a week or two from now, and be "lasers." Afterwards... I'll have to change the order, but the ones I have waiting are "melee weapons" "energy shields&physical protection" "tanks" "close air support" "gunships" "submachine guns" and "sidearms."

Yes, of course.
I WAS critizising that the only threads he has an interest in are those he created himself.

Actually, it's just that I can't find the threads I was looking for.

This is not necessarily a bad thing - someone who only posts interesting threads does contribute interesting stuff after all - but his threads are not really interesting. They merely consist of debunking his personal fictive universe, and with the exception of the assault rifle thread don't even unearth interesting trivia.

If you don't find it interesting, why do you comment on it? As far as the content, I've been waiting and waiting for people to contribute their ideas, I've pointed out that this was the point of the thread, nobody ever contributed anything. (Except on the assault rifle thread, and neither idea was an assault rifle.) And as far as the assault rifle thread, it degenerated into M16 apologetics fairly quickly.

But i, personally, think that he has reached a point where he has shown that he is incapable of learning how to make positive contributions or how to stop making negative ones.

I'm quite aware that my tone needs work, and that I need to spend more time on other people's threads, or at least comment on them instead of just reading them. I'll work on a calmer tone, these things take time, and I'll start commenting on others threads instead of just reading them, but my focus will remain here.

His whole posting history consists of negative contributions and ignoring criticism.

Ignoring? Get a dictionary, read the definition of that word to yourself. Nothing I have ever done resembles "ignoring" in any way, shape or form.

Well, that's my opinion on this.
I don't want to backseat-moderate and i'm not calling for any moderator action - i just want to point out why i am annoyed with him.

Alright, I get it, I annoy you. Why then come to my threads? If you don't want to deal with me, don't. It's not like anybody is forcing you to come here. Or can you just not help it? (In that case, we both need to work on our self control.)

It's also worth mentioning that there's nothing wrong with only participating in threads that interest you, personally. There is something wrong with being shrill and stubborn in the face of criticism, however harsh, and certainly with engaging your critics in a poo-flinging festival.

I get it. I'm working on it. I'm ignoring the insults, I'm making changes, I'm being ten times harder on myself than the critics, as I should of been from the beginning. What more do you want?

[Jeremy]

nobody ever contributed anything.

That's not true. I contributed several ideas to help you improve. Do you want us to come up with our own post-human species

What more do you want?

You to lighten up a bit more and be cheery. Stop being hard on yourself, stop cussing at others, stop taking criticism as personal attacks, continue working from criticism, and be a little more happy. Maybe taking out one or two lines in your sig--that's your choice though.






Oh and a carrot cake if you have one on hand. If not that's okay I understand how things go in this economy.

[Feil]

Avianmosquito: For the sake of adorable kittens and puppies cuddling baby Jesus, would you stop using the word of to mean have? If you absolutely must use the colloquialism, it is written could've or could 'ave.

[Samuel]

You cannot maim a reptile because they regenerate. Do the math.

Which requires energy. And not all reptiles regenerate.

Or hitting grounded aircraft, their favourite target, then collapsing the weapon, picking it up, and running back into the tunnel, where only infantry may follow.

Or CO.

I've seen a smaller bolt than that go over half a kilometre and punch through a car.

Cars aren't made to stand up against explosives.

Also, simini tanks have thin armour (by our standards) and the ballisae couldn't penetrate the frontal aspect of any but the lightest, and even then not at a distance or a bad angle.

Tank size is not determined by the size of your species. If people use small tanks, heavier ones will be built to destroy them and you will get larger and larger ones until you hit the limits of what you can effeciently crank out.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, but that thread resulted in ONE change to my idea, the high point of that thread was that two other people contributed their ideas, and I had to write it in big, bold print and ALLCAPS before people realised that they were supposed to do this. (And neither was an assault rifle.)

Skeet?

Once you start a thread, you do not have ownership rights over it. There is no guarantee that other people will choose to obey your idea of what the thread is for. It's not a question of people "realizing that they were supposed to" post the kind of content you want to see. It's a question of whether or not they choose to do so.

In my case, I'm sure I could imagine a variety of infantry weapons... but I don't really care, so I don't bother. That doesn't mean I can't or won't discuss someone else's.

As such, from my own personal perspective, this one has resulted in the most changes, including the decision to provide nothing on the history in any of the books, and is therefore the most productive for me. Unfortunately, nobody else presented an idea. This saddens me, because it's more interesting to talk about their ideas than mine. (Mine are only there to get things started.)

Then I submit that your best bet is to look around the forum for threads with other people's ideas, and post in those, too. For example, they may have interesting opinions about other things that have nothing to do with the subjects you choose to start a thread on.

I get it, bad order to go in. I should of started with my area of expertise, and not done this one until... next year at the earliest.

What you should do is recognize where you're out of your depth. That's OK; very few authors have degree-level knowledge of anything they write about, let alone everything. But when people who show clear signs of knowing more on the subject than you are telling you your concept is deeply, deeply flawed... it's time to stop and seriously reconsider what you're doing. And, ideally, make significant changes rather than minor tweaks, so that the people trying to look over your stuff don't get the idea that you're fighting a desperate delaying action to avoid having to admit you made a mistake.

Yes, of course.
I WAS critizising that the only threads he has an interest in are those he created himself.

Actually, it's just that I can't find the threads I was looking for.

What do you mean?

If you don't find it interesting, why do you comment on it? As far as the content, I've been waiting and waiting for people to contribute their ideas, I've pointed out that this was the point of the thread, nobody ever contributed anything. (Except on the assault rifle thread, and neither idea was an assault rifle.)

What makes you think that there are dozens of people sitting out there with ideas for assault rifles or genetically modified supersoldiers just waiting for you to spawn a thread on the subject? This isn't a dedicated fan fiction forum; we don't have THAT many amateur writers here. Moreover, many of them tend to play their cards fairly close to their chest, because they prefer to discuss ideas with people who know more than they do, and they already know enough that most forum-goers don't qualify.

His whole posting history consists of negative contributions and ignoring criticism.

Ignoring? Get a dictionary, read the definition of that word to yourself. Nothing I have ever done resembles "ignoring" in any way, shape or form.

It does to me. The trouble is that at first, it was taking so long to get you to realize that there were major scientific issues with some of what you were proposing... and that the simini keep getting cast as making truly idiotic bad decisions.

[Norade]

You know what I find funny about this thread? That the answer to why fighting his lizard people on the ground is in is sig.

"If at first you don't succeed, call an airstrike." -Anonymous

[CaptainChewbacca]

Avianmosquito: For the sake of adorable kittens and puppies cuddling baby Jesus, would you stop using the word of to mean have? If you absolutely must use the colloquialism, it is written could've or could 'ave.

OH MY FUCKING GOD THANK YOU!

I was going out of my MIND reading this thread!

You could have fixed the spelling.
You should have the grammar.
It couldn't have been more distracting.
We shouldn't have to point it out.

I see mistakes like this often grading papers, usually by ninth and tenth-graders who think that because 'could've' rhymes with 'could of' that they're spelled the same. Use the contraction or use the words, but don't use the wrong words.

[avianmosquito]

Avianmosquito: For the sake of adorable kittens and puppies cuddling baby Jesus, would you stop using the word of to mean have? If you absolutely must use the colloquialism, it is written could've or could 'ave.

OH MY FUCKING GOD THANK YOU!

I was going out of my MIND reading this thread!

You could have fixed the spelling.
You should have the grammar.
It couldn't have been more distracting.
We shouldn't have to point it out.

I see mistakes like this often grading papers, usually by ninth and tenth-graders who think that because 'could've' rhymes with 'could of' that they're spelled the same. Use the contraction or use the words, but don't use the wrong words.

Yeah, I get it. My grammar isn't so good when I'm stuck in-character. (Which happens a lot after I write. It used to frustrate my mother. Still does, far as I know.)

[CaptainChewbacca]

Yeah, I get it. My grammar isn't so good when I'm stuck in-character. (Which happens a lot after I write. It used to frustrate my mother. Still does, far as I know.)

You have to get in-character to be an omniscient, third-person narrator? Why can't you ever admit your fuckups are just fuckups?

[Norade]

Yeah, I get it. My grammar isn't so good when I'm stuck in-character. (Which happens a lot after I write. It used to frustrate my mother. Still does, far as I know.)

You have to get in-character to be an omniscient, third-person narrator? Why can't you ever admit your fuckups are just fuckups?

Because he has issues and if he admits he's wrong even once his daughter won't love him anymore. Seriously. He actually posted words to that effect in his may I make a new forum thread. I'd quote, but it's easy enough just to read it.

[avianmosquito]

Yeah, I get it. My grammar isn't so good when I'm stuck in-character. (Which happens a lot after I write. It used to frustrate my mother. Still does, far as I know.)

You have to get in-character to be an omniscient, third-person narrator? Why can't you ever admit your fuckups are just fuckups?

Because I'm not an omniscient, third-person narrator. It's first person, and although I know everything my narrating characters know, I know little beyond that.