The Great Management-Zoomer war.

General Acid Goop
102

It is a popular meme, a popular meme that calls Nuclear Bombs “Nuclear Bombs”. Is there a better sign of something being popular and widespread than literal meme that was quite popular some time ago?

Sure, I am against double, triple, or quadruple A.W. names, because it sounds stupid, so A.W. Nuclear Bomb seems valid, but sounds stupid.
But those provided examples such as “Sword”, “Arrow” and “Bow” are the most generic terms one can imagine. Just as “Nuclear Bomb” is a generic name for a Nuclear Bomb.

2 Likes
103

Don’t care, meme video brought up = you win by being the funnier person

1 Like
104

John A.W. Rizzi and Jane A.W. Gyatt reporting for duty.

3 Likes
105

CBanned for using vehicle names + being unfunny + brain rot.

2 Likes
106

Hell yeah, I lost.

4 Likes
107

Another solid defeat for the shadow Cabal

1 Like
108

Marine Major

5 Likes
109

So can I be named James A.W. ICBM or John A.W. Warhead? Since by your arguments even the missile isn’t a weapon but the warheads it carries.
P.S: just remembered a thing, Clark A.W. Black Powder(gun powder).

2 Likes
110

What would Baby Gronk think of this?

1 Like
111

The plane literally carried a bomb, it wasn’t loaded with explosives it carried a bomb that it could drop but wouldn’t, also Warhead and ICBM don’t work, but you could have A.W Titan after the ICBM.

If you had bothered to check you’d know that i said earlier that Actual Missile/aircraft hybrids (baka bombs and that) could be argued about, but the example brought up is literally just a plane with a bomb on it.

And let’s focus on the main thing that occurred here: they were using obvious vehicles, not weapons, a ship obviously isn’t a weapon, it carries weapons.

1 Like
112

Yeah but what if one hypothetically used the explosives-less plane and used it as a weapon, hypothetically. Say, rammed it into something.

Would it then be applicable for an A.W. Name?

1 Like
113

Well it doesn’t exist and would be garbage anyways.

1 Like
114

But would it be acceptable under the naming rules

1 Like
115

No because it was made post 1979.

1 Like
116

okay but what if hypothetically one still rammed a plane in cm universe what then

2 Likes
117

What if hypothetically i break your legs, huh, what then.

1 Like
118

I would still be able to do it. UA will feel my terrible vengeance.

1 Like
119

I mean… Someone could make the argument that generic weapon types aren’t banned, considering one of the examples given on the rules page is SWORD. An ICBM would also generally fall under the definition of a Weapon that shows up on google, along with quite a few vehicle types designed for warfare. IE: Tanks, Planes, Subs.

I understand that there’s an aspect of Spirit of the rule to it, however I feel there’s just far too many semi-acceptable grey zones with the current rule verbiage, to where someone might be told you’re completely fine by one person for a name, and then get noted by another.

2 Likes
120

the idea is that all a.w.s are bannable and indeed worthy of one

2 Likes
121

Well google isn’t very reliable with images, it’s searching for what you looked up on a page so if it’s a page about surface to air missiles and that page has an image of a vehicle with those on it will treat it as what you were looking for.

The difference between sword and ICBM is that with a sword it’s referring to a type of weapon series, where as with ICBM that’s underneath missiles, same with nuclear bombs, they’re under bombs, so neither really work, bows, swords, daggers and arrows are all generic terms for a type of weapon, where as with ICBM you’re referring to a specific type of missile.

The rules are very clear on that you should be naming yourself after a WEAPON, no vehicles, nothing made after 1975, it’s not that hard to understand, no naming yourself (ac-47) spooky, it’s clear that vehicles are not weapons.

1 Like