Page 2 of 3

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:09 pm
by SudenKapala
This topic. Only in First Edition. :lol:

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:17 pm
by Hoss-Drone
Make 2021 great: make boinkbuds a game term and put it on errata version of Data of Borg.

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:21 pm
by BCSWowbagger
Every single good idea I had for an April Fool's Day prank this year arrived in my head (or, in a couple cases, the heads of other R.C. members) between April 2nd and April 14th.

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:21 pm
by SudenKapala
Boinkbuds... This language. :shifty:

Also. [Down]
AllenGould wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:51 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:47 pm *or, per the Glossary list of synonyms, that they are "husband", "wife", "mate", "married", "wedded", "imzadi", "beloved", "bride", "mistress", "widow", "divorced," and/or "boinkbuds" to one another.
And also, the fact that "romantic" does not simply mean "goinked".
I also did not know what "goink" means.

I think I found out:
Image

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:28 pm
by AllenGould
SudenKapala wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:21 pm
I also did not know what "goink" means.
I'm guessing you got it from context, but my source for is the *amazing* webcomic Narbonic - which completed it's run ages ago so you can safely read the whole thing. (We have signed copies of the collection).

This is mostly off topic, other than the root of the word "goink". :D

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:57 pm
by Takket
because their calf looks like the mailman

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:11 pm
by jadziadax8
:o

:lol:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:28 pm
by edgeofhearing
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:47 pm The hyper-literal answer is "because their lore box doesn't say they are romantic partners*."

The reason their lore box doesn't say that is probably lack of space.

*or, per the Glossary list of synonyms, that they are "husband", "wife", "mate", "married", "wedded", "imzadi", "beloved", "bride", "mistress", "widow", "divorced," and/or "boinkbuds" to one another.
As an aside, I really wish that the search engine had some sort of "romantic partner" option so that I don't have to type those search terms in one at a time once every four months.

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:36 am
by Mr.Sloan
edgeofhearing wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:28 pm As an aside, I really wish that the search engine had some sort of "romantic partner" option so that I don't have to type those search terms in one at a time once every four months.
:thumbsup:

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:41 pm
by HoodieDM
Im glad I got all of these funny responses. I wasnt expecting them to be made, but if Gracie is pregnant, then theyd of had to "mate" unless Maury is gonna show up and Geoff is actually the father. But till then, Ill still be disappointed that we dont have them ingame avail options 🤣

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:12 pm
by AllenGould
HoodieDM wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:41 pm but if Gracie is pregnant, then theyd of had to "mate"
But sex != romance.

(And as I alluded, G&G's story gets rather dark if you consider it to be "two kids were found in the woods and locked in a room together for other people's entertainment for their entire lives, until their captors decided it was too expensive to feed them and abandoned them on the side of the road")

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:20 am
by jrch5618
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:52 pm Let's errata Jenna D'Sora to say it, but then not fix the named-in-lore link, so her romantic partnership still doesn't work.
Data (Cold Front) has that front covered at least. So Jenna has her man.

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:21 am
by GooeyChewie
jrch5618 wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:20 am
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:52 pm Let's errata Jenna D'Sora to say it, but then not fix the named-in-lore link, so her romantic partnership still doesn't work.
Data (Cold Front) has that front covered at least. So Jenna has her man.
Well, yes and no. Jenna only has a romantic partner because that Data references her. Her own lore still references a personnel who does not exist.

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:03 am
by AllenGould
GooeyChewie wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:21 am Well, yes and no. Jenna only has a romantic partner because that Data references her. Her own lore still references a personnel who does not exist.
She also references Telemarius III. Not every word on every card needs to be tied to a game mechanic.

edit: Also, Jenna does *not* reference a romantic partner. Even ignoring the "unsuccessful", it says "romantic relationship", which is *not* "romantically involved". And "relationship" is not on the list of synonyms.

Re: Why are George & Gracie not Considered Romantic Partners?

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:16 am
by GooeyChewie
AllenGould wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:03 am She also references Telemarius III. Not every word on every card needs to be tied to a game mechanic.
Not every word needs to be tied to a game mechanic, but "romantic" is tied to a mechanic, and ties Lt. Commander Data to that mechanic as well.

Telemarius III isn't a broken link because no card makes Jenna care about it being in play. If a personnel with the [OS] icon mentioned Telemarius III in lore, then it would be a broken link because Preserver Obelisk would make it matter.