• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

Safe For Work Worm Ideas thread

Reader mode
cyberswordsmen said:
Her other activities consist of protecting the city for real while the heroes did PR shit,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fucking what? The heroes did do a lot to stop Bakuda. In fact they did more than the villains given the villains were more about grabbing territory (or do you really think Kaiser was attacking a drug den for the sake of it) and not you know stopping a EMP device that would have set the East Coast back to the stone age. You want to argue that Taylor was moral? Fine, but the heroes did a lot too. They just had far fewer resources to work with. Taylor had infinite money, a full team of back up, and had to only focus her efforts on a few blocks. The heroes were underfunded, working with a third of their team, and had to protect the whole city.
 
TanaNari said:
Taylor wasn't driven to do good. If she was, she'd have called up the heroes and warned them about the bank job in order to walk the team into an ambush.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
One might question whether betraying people who have explicitly trusted her is 'doing good'. Having done that would certainly make me respect her less.
 
alethiophile said:
One might question whether betraying people who have explicitly trusted her is 'doing good'. Having done that would certainly make me respect her less.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How is letting people who trust her commit a crime better? Like if your friends are out to rob a bank not telling the cops isn't a good thing to do.
 
volantredx said:
How is letting people who trust her commit a crime better? Like if your friends are out to rob a bank not telling the cops isn't a good thing to do.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Virtue ethics, not consequentialist. I am more impressed by a person who would rob a bank — this being essentially a perversion of the neutral-to-praiseworthy urge to better your own situation — than a person who would betray their friends who trust them — this being a negation of the highly important virtue of loyalty.

The point isn't "what acts would lead to a better world?" The point is "what kind of person do I most admire?"
 
volantredx said:
How is letting people who trust her commit a crime better? Like if your friends are out to rob a bank not telling the cops isn't a good thing to do.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You do realize this argument is absurdly easy to turn around. How is betraying the trust of the first friends she's had in two years (and doing the exact same thing her bully did to her that essentially ruined her life) for the sake of selling them out to a blatantly corrupt authority figure better than letting them commit a crime?
 
kamenhero25 said:
You do realize this argument is absurdly easy to turn around. How is betraying the trust of the first friends she's had in two years (and doing the exact same thing her bully did to her that essentially ruined her life) for the sake of selling them out to a blatantly corrupt authority figure better than letting them commit a crime?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well because robbing a bank is a crime and people could get hurt, while turning them over to the cops is in fact the lawful thing to do and will result in few if any innocent people being hurt. And before you bring up unjust laws like Jim Crow, They aren't MLK and robbing a bank isn't the same as protesting against unfair treatment.
 
kamenhero25 said:
You do realize this argument is absurdly easy to turn around. How is betraying the trust of the first friends she's had in two years (and doing the exact same thing her bully did to her that essentially ruined her life) for the sake of selling them out to a blatantly corrupt authority figure better than letting them commit a crime?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We're talking about the first three arcs. Taylor had no way of knowing what the PRT was really like at the time. Even on the smallest scale, she had no reason not to believe that Armsmaster was actually honest and mentioned her existence (and role in Lung's arrest) to his bosses.
 
volantredx said:
Well because robbing a bank is a crime and people could get hurt, while turning them over to the cops is in fact the lawful thing to do and will result in few if any innocent people being hurt. And before you bring up unjust laws like Jim Crow, They aren't MLK and robbing a bank isn't the same as protesting against unfair treatment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Your argument relies on the fact that Law=Morally Right. That's not actually true. Look at your first sentence. Your base argument is 'because crime is wrong'. Then you add a bunch of references to civil rights because why? That's not related to this argument at all. I never said anything about them opposing unjust laws. You're adding emotionally charged and politically strong words to try and support and argument where they're irrelevant. What I actually said is: there are more important things in life than follow the letter of the law, especially when the authority enforcing them cannot be trusted.

SwiftRosenthal said:
We're talking about the first three arcs. Taylor had no way of knowing what the PRT was really like at the time. Even on the smallest scale, she had no reason not to believe that Armsmaster was actually honest and mentioned her existence (and role in Lung's arrest) to his bosses.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

At this point Armsmaster has already given his 'you suck because I fucked up and can't admit I can possibly make mistakes' speech to her. She has no reason to think anyone in the Protectorate is any better. Armsmaster has effectively shown her that super heroes are as bad as everyone else underneath. And her opinion of anyone in authority is colored by the uselessness of anyone at school. Armsmaster just proved that super heroes aren't any better.
 
kamenhero25 said:
Then you add a bunch of references to civil rights because why?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because I've had this argument a million times and it always goes the same way I go: "Crime is wrong" someone chimes in "What about Jim Crow? Were you ok with that? Because being against bank robbery is exactly the same." Then I go "No it's not" Then they go "Ha so you do admit sometimes it's ok to break the law. Thus the Undersiders did nothing wrong" I was just trying to save time.

kamenhero25 said:
there are more important things in life than follow the letter of the law, especially when the authority enforcing them cannot be trusted.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But at the same time, it's not ok to just break whatever laws you want because the police are corrupt. Robbing a bank is still wrong. Thus letting a bank get robbed or hell joining in on the robbery because you want to be a loyal friend is the wrong choice because loyalty over doing the right thing is morally wrong.

kamenhero25 said:
At this point Armsmaster has already given his 'you suck because I fucked up and can't admit I can possibly make mistakes' speech to her
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's not what he said at all. She demands he help her go deeper undercover to take down the Undersiders, and when he points out he has no reason to do so she says he owes her because she helped him catch Lung and didn't take any credit. He then points out that Lung nearly died and he got all the blame because she poisoned him and they both agreed to let Armsmaster take all the credit. He then says to give up her undercover scheme because it will get her killed. She then runs home and decides to give all her info to Miss Militia instead after she robs the bank because it will screw over Armsmaster.
 
volantredx said:
You'd admire a bank robber over someone that would stop a crime even at a great personal cost?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yup.

"At a great personal cost" is an utter red herring here. If I were to kill my own family, it would be "at a great personal cost". That doesn't make it any less than monstrously evil.

Loyalty to friends who have trusted you trumps obedience to laws under which you were born.
 
volantredx said:
Because I've had this argument a million times and it always goes the same way I go: "Crime is wrong" someone chimes in "What about Jim Crow? Were you ok with that? Because being against bank robbery is exactly the same." Then I go "No it's not" Then they go "Ha so you do admit sometimes it's ok to break the law. Thus the Undersiders did nothing wrong" I was just trying to save time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That argument has nothing to do with my argument. I can see why that would be obnoxious to see coming up all over the place though.

volantredx said:
But at the same time, it's not ok to just break whatever laws you want because the police are corrupt. Robbing a bank is still wrong. Thus letting a bank get robbed or hell joining in on the robbery because you want to be a loyal friend is the wrong choice because loyalty over doing the right thing is morally wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're still ignoring my central point. The corruption of authority is a factor, but it's not the major factor. The major factor is that there are two options to do something bad here: steal someone else's property or betray someone who trusts you. My argument is that betrayal is a bigger moral wrong than stealing and therefore Taylor made the best of a situation where she had no choice but to do one of two morally dubious things. If you have no choice but to do something morally wrong, doing the less wrong action is the 'good' choice.

volantredx said:
That's not what he said at all. She demands he help her go deeper undercover to take down the Undersiders, and when he points out he has no reason to do so she says he owes her because she helped him catch Lung and didn't take any credit. He then points out that Lung nearly died and he got all the blame because she poisoned him and they both agreed to let Armsmaster take all the credit. He then says to give up her undercover scheme because it will get her killed. She then runs home and decides to give all her info to Miss Militia instead after she robs the bank because it will screw over Armsmaster.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So the part where he tells her that she's a stupid child doesn't matter? Or the part where he blames her entirely for poisoning Lung when it was Armsmaster's tranquilizers that shut off his regeneration and allowed the poison to actually put his life at risk? Or the part where he tries to avoid the blame for said tranquilizer mishap, tranquilizers he had neither tested nor gotten approved, by saying that it's Taylor's fault despite it being his fuck up? Or the part where his motives behind convincing her to give him all the credit was that he wanted to be known as the guy that stopped Lung, not because he was trying to protect her? Or the part where he flippantly tells her that she should just hang up her costume because she's not good enough to be a hero when the chance to be a hero is all she has left in life? Armsmaster spends the entire conversation being a jackass because he refuses to accept blame for something that was actually his fault.
 
Last edited:
alethiophile said:
Loyalty to friends who have trusted you trumps obedience to laws under which you were born.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I argue the opposite. Like if my friend told me he got a bunch of roofies to rape some chicks at a party I don't think I have any obligation to protect him. Or to be more grounded, if a buddy showed me his gun and said he's off to rob a 7/11 calling 911 is better than just shrugging and saying "whatever man, you be you." Loyalty only goes so far.

kamenhero25 said:
The major factor is that there are two options to do something bad here: steal someone else's property or betray someone who trusts you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And I think that's an atrocious idea because it puts personal bounds over anything else. Which as I pointed above you're saying it's better to let friends do something you know is wrong rather than step in to stop them just because they're your friend. Like lets say Taylor wasn't friends with the Undersiders and still somehow learned about the bank robbery telling Armsmaster than is good right? So the only difference between the two is that she likes them. So morality isn't based on any code of behavior but instead on personal relationships. That's horrible.
 
volantredx said:
I argue the opposite. Like if my friend told me he got a bunch of roofies to rape some chicks at a party I don't think I have any obligation to protect him. Or to be more grounded, if a buddy showed me his gun and said he's off to rob a 7/11 calling 911 is better than just shrugging and saying "whatever man, you be you." Loyalty only goes so far.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In this sort of situation, if you want to be morally spotless about it, I suppose your best option is to attempt stopping him yourself. Which wasn't really an option for Taylor at the time.

volantredx said:
So morality isn't based on any code of behavior but instead on personal relationships. That's horrible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's exactly how morality works.

You can't treat everyone equally; the obligation you have to, say, your own child, is something you simply can't fulfill with regard to everyone on the planet, it literally is not possible. Thus, morality consists in fulfilling the obligations you actually have, not the ones you might have if things had gone differently. By becoming friends with the Undersiders, joining their team, and agreeing to go along on the bank job, Taylor gained an obligation of loyalty to them, which she would lack if she was just a bystander with special knowledge. This obligation, being personal and specific, trumps the one she might have to hypothetical people who could possibly be hurt when she carries through. (And, hell, what about the people who might be hurt if she does lead them into a trap, and it devolves into an enormous cape fight? You don't get to write them off without notice.)

By contrast, what Mike Allen did in Security! — basically, he did trap the Undersiders, based on his outside knowledge — is just fine, since he did not have any obligation to respect the Undersiders' trust.
 
I wonder how Taylor would react to the POTUS!Si, she has been burned by authority figures in the past, to her knowledge POTUS is the highest authority figure there is.
 
alethiophile said:
Yup.

"At a great personal cost" is an utter red herring here. If I were to kill my own family, it would be "at a great personal cost". That doesn't make it any less than monstrously evil.

Loyalty to friends who have trusted you trumps obedience to laws under which you were born.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In my D&D games, that would make you Chaotic Good.

Sadly, my D&D games are not on topic here.

So I'll shut up now.
 
Question: I'm not really a frequent viewer of QQ. I was mostly on it just to read Amelia, Tananari's fanfic. I came back to look around after literal months of not even opening the site,and was there some sort of mass wipe of content? I ask because, I remember the Worm fanfiction idea thread (Or something in that vein) being a thing and being a WHOLE lot bigger than 23 pages. I also remember there was a fairly large Wormverse NSFW thread as well, that seems to have vanished. Did I miss some massive cleanup done by the admins or something?
 
Kishoto said:
Question: I'm not really a frequent viewer of QQ. I was mostly on it just to read Amelia, Tananari's fanfic. I came back to look around after literal months of not even opening the site,and was there some sort of mass wipe of content? I ask because, I remember the Worm fanfiction idea thread (Or something in that vein) being a thing and being a WHOLE lot bigger than 23 pages. I also remember there was a fairly large Wormverse NSFW thread as well, that seems to have vanished. Did I miss some massive cleanup done by the admins or something?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The SFW thread as always been tiny. The NSFW thread is the active one.

If you can't see any of the NSFW boards, I'd guess your site settings are shifted somehow.
 
Oh, I see what I was screwing up. I can see them now.

Next question, not sure if you'd know this or not, but is there some sort of index for the thread? Its like 300+ pages long and the threadmarked index stops at a story thats on likepage 140.
 
Kishoto said:
Oh, I see what I was screwing up. I can see them now.

Next question, not sure if you'd know this or not, but is there some sort of index for the thread? Its like 300+ pages long and the threadmarked index stops at a story thats on likepage 140.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nope. You'll just have to read through it the slow way. Some of the discussions that were most interesting and entertaining live never even produced index-worthy snippets.
 
TanaNari said:
Someone really should open that thread up so everyone can use threadmarks. There has to be some kind of setting for it. Would make things far more convenient for everyone.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It originally was set so that anyone could make threadmarks, case in point I personally setup the one pointing towards the incomplete index, but then it was changed to thread opener only.

I believe I have asked about changing individual thread permissions and IIRC the answer was that it was an all or nothing deal, in that the entire QQ site has free threadmark permissions or the entire QQ site has OP restricted threadmark permissions with no grey areas in between.
 
Last edited:
doomlord9 said:
It originally was set so that anyone could make threadmarks, case in point I personally setup the one pointing towards the incomplete index, but then it was changed to thread opener only.

I believe I have asked about changing individual thread permissions and IIRC the answer was that it was an all or nothing deal, in that the entire QQ site has free threadmark permissions or the entire QQ site has OP restricted threadmark permissions with no grey areas in between.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I keep meaning to get on that, but have other things to do.

I'm pretty sure someone did make a couple of index posts for snippets, which is what I was going to use to do the threadmarking... if I could find them, anyway.
 
Prince Charon said:
I keep meaning to get on that, but have other things to do.

I'm pretty sure someone did make a couple of index posts for snippets, which is what I was going to use to do the threadmarking... if I could find them, anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The only threadmark for the NSFW thread points towards Nekraa's index, which is the most complete index it has thus far.

Honestly I'd say just open up a new tab for the NSFW thread, go to the first page, and re-read the thread and threadmark the interesting bits whenever you get the time. Doing just a page or two on normal days, then maybe a few dozen when you have larger stretches of free time, would give a sense of advancement, that feeling of 'Whoohoo! 20 pages indexed today!' rather than looking at it thinking 'Fuck....I gotta go through and threadmark over 300 pages....ugh, I'll do that later when I have more time.'
 
Storytime thread updated with a new SI! This time it's actually an SI and not just be being memories and feelings locked inside a characters skull via reincarnation.

Here is a link for those interested.

Neko Dee Neko- In which I am dropped in worm as a catgirl. Things go to shit on a hell basket rather quickly.
 
Guys. Have you ever felt like you were reading something just to get that brilliant idea to cross it with?

I just got that feeling.

Introducing the idea: Worm/Kamen Rider Decade. Because this is a world that needs more than one Rider to fix!
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top