Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JavaTigress

  1. OK, I am unsure HOW big a problem this is for the majority of players BUT I thought that I would pitch this suggestion and see how it flies.


    What I would like is something BIGGER than that tiny little box we get for editing and writing our dragon descriptions. These are longer than our dragons' names, naturally.... so WHY do the boxes need to be so small? it makes it HARD to look for typos and grammar issues and such. I don't recall that it USED to be so tiny? AND Mind you this is on a desktop computer I am talking about ( It may NEED to be smaller on a mobile devise , for all I know.) As it stands NOW scrolling to look through what you have written is a PAIN, since the scrolling buttons are quite touchy.


    Anyone else care to chime in on this idea of mine?

  2. 1 hour ago, Awdz Bodkins said:

    You are clearly a better person than they are, as they wanted to troll you more. Most games have a "report" button for abusive players; if you encounter that one again, I hope you are able to use it. You deserve to be complimented for playing a game that most find challenging just to start. I wish you the best of luck and better company in future games.

    I surely WOULD have reported them... if I could have figured out how.

  3. *Sigh* Something is BOTHERING me and I need to 'get it off my chest'.


    Yesterday I was playing online chess, as I often enough do...so nothing unusual there.


    The trouble IS that the other player it pulled up as my opponent?
    Well, turns out they wanted to 'chat.'


    NOW normally i don't chat much while playing chess... I find it somewhat distracting and would prefer to focus on the game itself...anyway MOST aren't that chatty either.

    AT said, I am not necessarily ABSOLUTELY opposed to a quick,' Oh, Hi' , 'good move' or such as that.


    The trouble IS that this particular person very quickly became rather abusive


    Things like : " You must be the stupidest American to ever play chess".


    NOW mentally, of course, I realize that this individual is a TROLL and that the things that they said reflect more on THEM than on me.( AND as a matter of fact I TOLD them, flat out that they were a troll and I didn't see fit to talk tot hem any further... when they couldn't get anything more out of me after that, they then let the timer run out on the game.) The particular individual EVEN had the unmitigated GALL to ask me for a rematch! Ha! I very quickly shot that down. The problem is that it all sort of struck a nerve for me because I have said things mentally at LEAST as abusive to and about my own self. The truly bizarre thing? I don't LIKE it when those sorts of things are said to me by others and they tend to make me angry more than anything...but I almost half believe them when I say them about myself.


    Losses are bad enough, but I truly didn't NEED that.


    ANYWAY...Mentally I know I should be over it, but emotionally... I keep chewing on what was said.

    It's hard to 'let it go' when your own mind keeps whispering...."BUT what if they are RIGHT."

  4. 29 minutes ago, purplehaze said:

    People are entitled to their own opinion of things. No matter how amazing a dragon is there will be some who are not over the top about it.

    I have to admit I was a little disappointed myself when I first looked at it. I had expected something smaller from the size of the hatchie. Also all the hype about it from people who had seen it in DR and loved it had raised my expectations to an extremely high level. On looking at it a bit more, I do realize the detail and the artistry of it, but still will not consider it my favorite among the pygmies. Sorry if that offends. I do think that @Mewtie shows a lot of talent and has given us a lovely addition to the cave. I will be looking forward to more of her work in the future, certainly! Congrats on becoming an in-cave artist!

    This... is a fair point.I mean... NO dragon is gonna be EVERYONE's thing.

    There are always SOME who aren't as pleased with a  new release as are others. Just a fact of being an artist, I think.


    AT said, I DO get the point about pygmies being more difficult to do WELL because of their small size.

  5. 21 hours ago, cbussiere said:

    I'm REALLY liking the look of those pygmies. So detailed, well-colored, and well-proportioned for such a tiny sprite. It looks like really skilled work.

    It does! I already stocked on FIVE of their adorable little eggies! Two pair plus one!


    AND I grabbed a pair of gusties, too, so as for me I am happily locked with brand neweggies for the moment.... or not QUITE!

  6. On 9/27/2018 at 9:14 AM, Nat said:

    I can sort-of see the logic of banning fur from animals raised only for the fur, although I agree with everyone who thinks a better idea would be to make the fur-raising industry follow the  animal cruelty laws, rather than flat-out banning the product.

    This... is an interesting point!

    I mean.... IF there are laws governing the treatment of animals raised on farms( For eggs, milk OR meat!) WHY would those same laws NOT apply to a farm that raised animals for their fur?


    Doesn't make sense to me, QUITE aside from the argument over the ethics of using fur.


    AND I agree with what @RubyEyes said about it getting people to talking and thinking about it. I want to think the discussion CAN be a healthy one.

  7. 37 minutes ago, DarkEternity said:


    Lore of GoNs are directly based off Lugia and Lugia can canonically breed in the Pokemon anime. 



    DragonCave is not Pokemon. There are similarities, sure, and some breeds do seem to take inspiration directly from Pokemon or other things, but that doesn't mean that DC should automatically do everything they do. DC is it's own game, with it's own universe and lore. It needs to be treated as such. If a suggestion is made it should be made because it would be beneficial to DC, not because some other game does it.


    edit: I thought I'd clarify, I don't mean 'not a good argument' for me personally. I mean for Suggestions in general. Threads in this section are generally taken more seriously if there is sound reasoning behind the suggestion, if the poster can give good arguments for why the thing would make sense for the game. Threads that are just 'DC should be more like this other game' usually don't get a lot of support.

    This states my thoughts pretty well.


    BESIDES which, even IF we go by " 'GONs' are Lugia "... I would assume that Lugia,being a very RARE pokemon, would only successfully give you a baby LUGIA a small percentage of the time.

  8. 6 minutes ago, DarkEternity said:

    I n f i n i t e  G o n  A r m y

    The only WAY this could be worth-while is IF the limits on them were lifted entirely WHICH I, quite frankly, don't see happening.

    Increased, maybe, but NOT lifted totally.


    The GONs are supposed to be very powerful and rare dragons, after all, so it makes sense if they aren't as common as some other breeds.

    AND it makes sense if the don't 'reproduce after their kind' the way other dragons do ( Or not often?)


    So... that is another nope from me.

  9. On 9/19/2018 at 11:24 AM, GhostMouse said:

    ... some people enjoy abandoning things to the AP on purpose and auto-abandoned vampires save them a step when doing this. I don't bite eggs often but I would be very sad if an egg I wanted to send to the AP instead vanished forever into the wilderness where no one could enjoy it.

    Even if it isn't what you intended, your suggestion comes off rather mean spirited, in a "if I can't have it no one can" kind of way. Also, many members who play don't use the forums and can't take advantage of the giveaway threads, and the trading hub isn't great for gifting, so the AP is really their only chance of getting a vampire.

    This. Very much this.


    I have no issue with the possibility of repulsing being possible. 

  10. 6 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

    @JavaTigress I bet you quite often DO have meatless dishes. Never have Mac and cheese ? Pizza Margherita ? Four cheese Pizza ? Scrambled eggs ? Spring Rolls ? Pasta Arrabiata....


    Many people - when faced with this subject - suddenly seem to feel that they have meat or fish with every meal. But we don't.

    That is very likely true. AS someone pointed out... some dishes are meatless by nature, while OTHER dishes can be made with or without meat ( like pizza!).

    AND as that same individual pointed out, some cuisines make far less use of meat than others do.

  11. For MYSELF, myself, personally... I am not a vegetarian,much less vegan ( unrepentant omnivore, here. ;) )


    THAT being said I don't think there is anything inherently WRONG with making that choice.... just that I don't think I could, myself, personally.


    I WILL also comment that I think the behavior of the 'meat-eaters'  that @Herk mentioned was pretty reprehensible.

    JUST because I choose to eat meat ( and dairy and eggs ) doesn't mean that there aren't other ways of thinking and points of view on the matter. People may have a variety of reasons for choosing NOT to partake in meat. AND IF I disagree with them it doesn't mean that I shouldn't' treat others who happen to think about it differently than I do with respect. In FACT, even IF I DO normally eat meat I wouldn't be opposed to TRYING the veggie dishes, necessarily. Who knows! If you try them you may even FIND that you actually LIKE some of those meatless dishes, whether you are a full time vegetarian or NOT. IMHO, they shouldn't have created so much DRAMA about it.



  12. 4 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

    I kind of agree about leather - EXCEPT that there aren't farms for leather like the vile fur farms, and on the whole, I believe most leather comes from animals who were slaughtered for their meat. On the other hand, leather is a major landfill problem, as it takes thousands of years to degrade.


    My SO is vegetarian and almost vegan but has to wear leather shoes as his feet go all horrible in synthetics. Most people I know who are in jobs where they are on their feet a lot say the same - especially nurses !

    I am not sure about furs, but as far as leather goes, I have no issues with its use.

    I always had the idea that , as @Fuzzbucket says, LEATHER primarily comes from cattle who were raised for meat anyway.


    It seems to ME that it is better that, if a cow is going to become a steak either way, the hide is put to some use.


    At said, if the leather itself is a landfill problem, It WOULD be good if we either had a better way of disposing of it .... or of reusing it.


    Furs... furs, as I said, I am less sure of.

    THAT said, it seems to ME that this law wouldn't stop someone who really WANTS a fur coat or such from going to another city to buy it.


    THEREFOR in my view sort of a silly law in that it achieves NOTHING. the people that don't believe in wearing fur are already NOT going to be buying it, and this law ISN'T going to change the hearts and minds of the people who believe it is OK to use fur and leather. 

  13. 3 minutes ago, Kith said:


    Then there should be some sort of waiver available to absolve them of legal responsibility, should someone decide to sue after the fact. I had to sign one before getting my lower back x-rayed, just in case it made me sterile, so it's not like inserting that sort of paperwork into the preparation for sterilization couldn't be done... I don't know why it isn't already part of the process, really.

    That, actually sounds like a perfectly reasonable way to deal with it, to be honest.


    I am not sure why that ISN'T how it is handled , already, to be honest.

  14. 1 hour ago, Alrexwolf said:


    This is a very, very big thing also. I was recently at the doctors and, when learning of a sterilization procedure I had never heard of (that spares the uterus/ovaries completely), I asked more about how one would go about getting something like that done. I'm an adult. I am over 18, and can make legal medical decisions. Yet, I was told I was too young and that was the end of the conversation.


    I never want children. Any pregnancy would be unwanted. I can barely, in reality, care for myself - let alone another life. And, like some other people in this thread, babies seriously freak me out. Yet, because I'm young, I seemingly don't have a right to say what happens to my body. I can't get sterilized because I'm too young - there are plenty of people like me, over 18, who know they don't want children. Period. They don't have the option to get sterilized because, as Kith said, doctors are aggressive about it. Pro-lifers are aggressive about it. 


    Then they turn around and tell people who would have otherwise gotten sterilized if they had the option/were allowed but got pregnant on accident that they're irresponsible and murdering a child. THAT situation in particular really grinds my gears.

    To be FAIR , though, @Alrexwolf, that situation isn't really JUST on 'pro-lifers'.


    Matter of fact, I am totally in favor of someone being able to decide to be sterilized if they feel that that is the best choice.

    I have no problem with preventing a pregnancy BEFORE one exists.


    I think , more to the point, Docs are AFRAID that if they allow a person to go through with something like that, and that individual later changes their mind, well... that they will be held liable. People sue over some pretty silly stuff AND it isn't difficult for me to imagine this from the Doc's perspective. I am not saying you are WRONG about it being a problem ( I very much believe that it is... if a person NEVER wants kids and KNOWS they NEVER, ever will, why can't they make that choice? Certainly I find that preferable to abortion if/when pregnancy results.), just that docs may have their ( not totally pro-life related...) reasons for taking the stand on it they do... unfortunate though that may be.

  15. 21 minutes ago, Zeditha said:

    Laryal - I think what we're trying to say isn't that abstinence isn't a valid method of birth control, or that it won't work, or that it's silly. Abstinence works for some people, like you. It's simply that some people don't want to, or can't, or get raped, or *don't understand what sex is because of a complete lack of education*. I have heard of cases where people didn't know what sex was, only that they shouldn't do it - or even had no idea that sex would lead to pregnancy.


    Basically what we're saying is that while abstinence might be a solution for you, and for many people, it isn't a solution for everyone.


    (And education is very important. Teaching children literally nothing more than 'sex is bad don't do it' gets nobody anywhere.)

    AND I think there really ISN'T an excuse for the situation you mention... where someone has literally NO idea how pregnancy even HAPPENS. Certainly not if they are an adult.

  16. 9 minutes ago, Alrexwolf said:


    Their point was that if they don't have to have sex other people don't either so abortion isn't necessary / is murder because people can just not have sex.


    Btw, as an ace myself, I would never say that sex is a be all end all, lmao. Not sure where that came from. But implying that, because you're a virgin, abortion is murder/people are irresponsible or bad for wanting to have sex is ridiculous. 

    Not YOU specifically.... but society at large often seems to imply it. :P  Perhaps I ought to have been clearer, there.


    AND I will admit that that WANTING sex isn't precisely irresponsible... though I think it can certainly be indulged in irresponsibly, I think we can agree. 

    Ats why I DO think people should be taught HOW to do it responsibly (USE BC if they aren't trying for a baby, be aware of STDs, that kind of thing!) Because there CAN be consequences to it, if it isn't handled carefully. And , sometimes, saying 'NO' is absolutely a valid choice.

  17. 7 hours ago, Alrexwolf said:

    Did you even look at the Princeton quotes? Literally, all they are is just scientists stating that an embryo begins to form when a sperm fertilizes an egg... which is something all of us know. Your first link actually supports what WE are saying, if you actually read it; the brain is not even formed at all by week 7. Electrical impulses do not begin (movement, in its basic sense) until week 8. You're countering your own argument because your own references literally say that the brain is not formed to any notable capacity until 7 weeks. A fetus cannot even make breathing motions until it reaches the second trimester. 


    "Baby's first sucking and swallowing impulses kick in around 16 weeks." They can't even swallow until 16 weeks. They don't even have a spinal cord or brain (two things required to have any pain response/neural impulses) until almost two months in.


    Also, just because you feel you have some weird moral high ground for being a virgin means nothing to the actual debate of when life begins or whatever. We are a social species - intimacy is part of what keeps us close. I'm a virgin too, whoop-de-doo. It doesn't mean I can't make a mistake. Can't be pressured. Can't be raped. It has nothing to do with the abortion discussion, at all. round of applause for you for choosing a life of celibacy i guess?? but sex is a natural instinct and nothing will stop curious teenagers/young adults. giving them the tools they need to keep themselves safe and educating them on symptoms, signs, and risks, however, means that when they decide they're ready they have a greater chance at being safe.

    Scuse me!

    I don't see the need for the snarky tone here.


    I believe their point, which is a valid one, BTW, WAS that choosing NOT to have sex is a perfectly POSSIBLE and valid choice.

    I get SOOOOOOOoooo sick of sex being touted as the be-all, end-all of human existence. ( FULL disclosure, I believe I am an asexual.)

    Abstinence is a perfectly valid choice... and many people seem to forget that.


    I would ADD that there might be a variety of reasons that a person might choose to abstain....without it being because they are 'holier-than-thou' OR unable to get a partner.maybe they just don't WANT to have sex? Maybe they don't currently feel ready? Maybe... any NUMBER of things.

    THAT being said, I do get your point about it being a powerful instinctive drive for most people and DIFFICULT at best for most people to control. Mistakes can be made and experimenting by young people can and DOES happen. PERSONALLY I would rather see better and more effective birth control... and perhaps better knowledge on how to properly use it. I personally believe that that would prevent many abortions. As far as when life begins...I believe it happens at some point before birth, though I fully understand there isn't really scientific evidence for that, necessarily.

  18. 10 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

    Personally I think the groups would satisfy pretty much all my organizational needs if they were just a little more fleshed-out. There have been *many* suggestions/posts since Groups were introduced asking for filters, and honestly that's something that many people were surprised *wasn't* a function when Groups were introduced. The entire point of Groups, imo, is to have better/easier access to your dragons. Right? But when you can't use Groups at *all* on the 'breeding' page, which is arguably the most data-intensive page people will use on any sort of regular basis, it can get very frustrating. Having the exact same filter that Fertility uses would be awesome on the breeding page, while being able to actually filter by *group* would be even better. 


    I really don't need nested groups or tons of tags or any of that stuff, I'd just like the already-implemented *groups* to function better. There are so many things that Groups *could* be used for, but right now can't. So much potential there, and yet right now they really don't do anything at all beyond showing us our dragons in a certain way. It would be so wonderful to use Groups to filter breeding, but it would also be great to have other expanded group functions... Like maybe automatically adding all 'such-and-such' dragons in the future (ie, right now when we make a group we can 'add same breed' to add all our current dragons of that same breed, but it would be great to check something so that every dragon you get *after* making the group, that is the same breed or same lineage or whatever, will just be automatically added to the group).

    I do agree that I wish we could do more stuff with groups( which we already have!) 

    For instance I really LIKE your suggestion of making the breeding page filterable BY GROUP ( or perhaps tags could do that?).( I'd have instant access to all my CBs when breeding, then!) AND,personally,I'd LOVE the option to highlight more groups than four!


    I don't think I am opposed to the idea of tags on top of that, though. They would fill a slightly different function, I think, like @angelicdragonpuppy said.

    BOTH could be useful tools ( And I believe groups could be made MORE useful?)



  19. 35 minutes ago, Ruby Eyes said:

    I don't see the need for this.

    Is is my take on it. HOWEVER... I am not necessarily opposed to having the option.


    I think I support this. As long as the end result isn't members telling others to ignore other players just because THEY do.

    HONESTLY, @Fuzzbucket, anyone trying to pressure ME into putting an ignore on someone I didn't feeling like would PROBABLY get a big "Yeah, RIGHT" and an ignore themselves from me. I wouldn't LET myself be pressured into it. IF I used it, it would be because I personally Wanted to do so, for whatever the reason, NOT because someone else told me I ought to. Ats my choice and NOONE else's, thanks very much.


    ALL of that said, I think IF would work best IF, as someone commented, anyone n ignore got mutual invisiblity to eachother. They can't see your trades and you can't see theirs.