Land vs Sea - The Team Aqua/Magma Fanclub

[Aquacorde]

Welcome to the combined fanclub for the "Evil Teams" of Hoenn. There are a few reasons why I've decided that having one fanclub for two teams is a good idea. One is that the individual clubs didn't do too well when they were around. Another is that Team Aqua and Magma kind of go hand-in-hand and it's pretty difficult to talk about one without invoking the other. But the main reason is fun. I think we can have quite a lot of fun with rivalries and in-fighting. There will hopefully be contests and energetic debates. But! There can not be actual hurtful insults and things flung around. There's a line between good-natured rivalry and actually hurting people and that should not be crossed. Since this type of thread has only been done once before and not for very long, we must be vigilant and show that we can have arguments without actually being mean.

Right! Now here's how this works. When go to make your very first post in this club, I'm going to want to know a few things. First of all, which team are you joining? Aqua or Magma? Once you join a team, you should be loyal to them. You should argue on their side of any debate and reflect their views in anything you say. You can change teams at any time, sure, but
it is recommended that you stick with one.
Once you have chosen a team, you may apply for administrative position within that team. You will perhaps state the reason you desire such a position and why you would be a good choice. The current boss will review your application and may give you the position. There are three standard administrative positions in a team, two Admins and a Boss.
The Boss may add more as he or she desires.
Now that you've chosen a team, you will want to obtain a partner Pokémon. Your Pokémon will be given to you in its lowest stage of evolution. You may evolve this Pokémon through various means: be promoted, win some kind of event, do something cool, or win your boss's favor. Or you may choose not to evolve it. Whatever the case, you will want to have a Pokémon.
Here are the Pokémon you may choose from:

Aqua

Magma

Quick Sign-Up Form For Those Who Don't Care
About Me Being Creative And Articulate:

Username:
Team:
Partner Pokémon:
Anything Else:

It is encouraged- nay, insisted upon- that you also submit actual content with your introductory post. Discussing the topic currently at hand in the thread is a good way to do this.

Now that you have completed your training, I will finalize your membership into this club by adding you and your partner Pokémon to the exciting list of members!
...Okay, it's not really that exciting. But look! You've made it here! Keep active and follow the rules, that's all we ask of you now.

Team Aqua

EternallyAnna [Boss]

AlexOzzyCake

Mentalii

Team Magma
Otherworld9) [Boss]

Starsprite

okjoek

 

[Squirrel]

I'd love to join :D My love for Hoenn didn't blossom until just before the end of the previous club, so let's make this wonderful. ♥

Username: AlexOzzyCake
Team: Aqua
Partner Pokémon: Poochyena
Anything Else: A world full of water seems like bliss... How nice it'd be to look outside and see an ocean of calm, only ever interrupted with an exciting storm to stir things up! Sounds like my kind of world. Although that's not necessarily Aqua's goal anymore, it's still what I'd like haha.

There's no current topic to answer right now, so instead I'll talk about water! If I was to be the leader of Aqua, I'd do exactly what I said in 'Anything Else'. I'd round up all the water Pokemon I can and make them fire water guns, hydro pumps, whirlpools and whatever else they can use into the sea so we can fill this world full of water! Wouldn't that be a so much nicer place to live in? All the Water Pokémon could roam free and have as much space as they could ever want, plus it'd be such a beautiful world to live in. ♥

 

[Starsprite]

Okay. I want in on this.

Username: Starsprite
Team: Magma
Partner Pokémon: Slugma
Anything Else: Yeah. I'm more of a land person. I like fields and mountains, and all of the pretty things that can grow and flourish on land. Fire is also a lovely element, which is kind of Team Magma's thing. I also like their outfits.

There's no topic that I can see so I'll just ramble a little I suppose. I think with more land there would be a lot more to explore, and maybe even room for new species of Pokemon to develop, as well as room for a growing population of people and Pokemon. And just think of all the adventures you could have exploring all that land~

 

[Aquacorde]

Ooh, fabulous. Welcome both of you!

Yeah sorry I'm not much for set topics- I tend to prefer more of a rambling conversation style of things. So that's that haha. ^^;

Man AlexOzzyCake you just reminded me: I would love to live in a world of only archipelagos. If you've played like... Civ 4 on that type of map you know what I'm picturing haha. Mostly sea with the occasional island cluster or floating city would be fabulous.

Starsprite- but think of the diversity of aquatic life as opposed to terrestrial life. The greatest diversity appears in insects and water dwellers. And insects tend to flourish in wet places. So water's where it's at for that bro!

 

[Starsprite]

Oh, I like rambling~ So this should be right up my alley.

I WILL NOW DEFEND THIS TO THE DEATH

Well there would likely be a much more diverse population of terrestrial life if there was more room for it to live upon. Also, (this is going by my stance of more land, less water, and not all land, no water) think of all the different varieties of plant life. A lot of plants are used for medicinal purposes, so giving room to new species might be the same as giving room to a new cure for something.

And assuming that we only added an extension to the land there would be more miles of beaches, which would be a great support for those creatures that dwell in both land and sea.

 

[Aquacorde]

Yus good. :D

All quite true. But! If you just have masses of land, then you inevitably will get desert areas because of irrigation problems. All plant life needs water, yeah? The places with the most diverse plant life are full of rivers and lakes and things. And with the archipelago structure, more land will be closer to water and that will encourage more plant life on land as well as encouraging reef-like habitats for all kinds of life!

Your move, Magma. ♥

 

[Starsprite]

Also true, I'll give you that, but with the archipelago structure many terrestrial lifeforms will be forced into extinction, including many of the plants that you say would be supported by it. Many species of plants can only thrive on fresh water, which is admittedly in rivers and lakes, but not in the ocean. So presumably if you had land with rivers running through it (a small amount of water) rather than a wide, open ocean, you could have fertile land running along the rivers for miles.

My team also has a cooler uniform.

 

[Aquacorde]

Ah, but archipelagos don't have to be extremely small. Think the Malay Archipelago, not the Hawaiian. They can have rivers run through and freshwater springs and all sorts of environments. And hey, what about a great big basin? A thin circle of land surrounding a massive freshwater lake? That's totally feasible. We're about the expansion of all the waters, not just the seas.

Oho you actually think those dorky hoods are cool? Please.

 

[Starsprite]

You still haven't told me where you plan to put all the terrestrial life. You raise a good point about the freshwater, but the ocean is huge, the aquatic life had plenty of room. (and even more for aquatic life in freshwater freshwater, since there should more river area. compromise, I tell you) Life on land? Well it just needs more space, and you intend to give it less.

It's no worse than those ridiculous bandannas of yours~

 

[Aquacorde]

Less space all clumped up, certainly, but a fair amount in pockets. And what useful land animals need that much space? Anything that is useful to humans is edible or works for us. Most edible land animals are huge and hard to kill or dangerous and hard to kill. Anything that works for us needn't really if we minimize the amount of land what needs to be worked on. Anything what needs a massive amount of space is fairly useless to humans. So why not maximize the amount of usefulness in any given area?

Hey at least the bandannas have a purpose. Your hoods just keep the blasted heat in! Y'all don't need any more of that what with all the hot air you give off~

 

[Starsprite]

Because I'm a vegetarian. That's why. D: (Not really offended. I'm joking. I'm joking. Really. [I am a vegetarian though. :c])

Now that's an argument I can't really give you credit for. I don't think we should be deciding the value of an entire species based on its usefulness to humans. Many animals are useful in ways that usually go unnoticed, and you would have to be very careful with your placement of water so as not to completely disrupt the ecosystem, which happens to affect humans.

It keeps the sun out of our eyes? /bestargumentever

 

[Aquacorde]

If you're a vegetarian then you should be all for the minimization of land-hogging animals so the smaller ones can form symbiotic relationships with the plants. c:

Mm, but it's all survival of the fittest. And due to technology, humans are the fittest species of the lot right now. Due to the same technology- or possibly ingenuity- we can also solve our way out of problems we create for ourselves. And, if things are in such delicate balance, how do you justify land expansion?

Bandanna to keep your scalp from sunburning, sunglasses to protect your eyes, a tan and some sunblock to protect your skin. Much cooler, both in temp and looks!

 

[Starsprite]

Not really. The only animals I really consider to be land-hogging are humans. So long as there are predators and prey population's not a problem. But since humans have entered the equation, and probably won't be seeing a reduction in population any time soon, they need more room.

You know, I could just copy your argument about humans being able to solve their own problems, but I'll try to be a little more creative with this one. I think that an extension of land, if it was given time, would grow to be a habitat for migrating animals (or just moving in general), as well as a place where forests or some kind of plant like could extend into. It's difficult to visualize, because it's a process that would take many many years.

But that's all assuming that humans are not meddling, which they would, of course. So it's possible that humans could make the land habitable more quickly.

Obviously there would be problems with both teams' goals, so really all we can do is debate which one has a higher ratio of good to bad.

Well- well- blue is overrated! Ha! :P

 

[Aquacorde]

In which case they can move out to islands and floating cities and quit bothering the animals. :>

If humans are so meddlesome, then after land expansion they will inevitably agriculturalize the lot of it, which will shove out all the animals anyway- at least, the ones not bullied into domestication. It'll be habitable, yeah, but designed for humans and their meat pets. Better to live in and off the sea, which humans can't control as well. Then most things will just be safe away from such meddling.

Indeed haha. Obvs these are not things what are feasable or good to do in a real-life situation. xD

Yeah? Red is flashy!

 

[Starsprite]

Well, no they can't. Because animals are essential to plant life. You just can't get around coexistence, even if every human on the planet became a vegetarian - no, vegan.

I get the sneaking suspicion that humans would find a way to meddle, even in the sea. I mean, they already have for oil, so if they were forced to live on islands they would probably just find a way to mess up that as well. I mean, if they do so happen to inhabit the land extensions first, which depending on where you put them may not be the case, then there's still room to benefit themselves at the very least, which was what you were arguing for a moment ago.

Maybe Team Magma should enforce regulations for habitats. I mean, if we managed to reach our goal then we'd likely be powerful enough to control what goes in to the new land. I'm not saying that humans could never inhabit it, but it would be in order to promote development before they start meddling.

I know, but it's a lot of fun to debate. It involves a lot of thinking, and theorizing.

So is that design on the side of your team's pants!

 

[Aquacorde]

Yar, but not all animals. We could do away with desert-dwellers in the archipelago scenario. That ecosystem is fairly isolated and its absence wouldn't have much impact on the reinvented planet.

However, due to our increased knowledge of environmental impact, we could meddle in a less harmful way. And even if we can mess about with selective breeding and what have you on the surface, water is uninhabitable for humans. There's less of a range of things we could do to muck it all up. We can do most anything on land, though.

That's a possibility. However, how would you go about that? We've got enough problems concerning wildlife habitats and poaching etc in this [sort of] well-regulated world. It's really hard to keep on top of rural and outlying areas of government. And people tend to be a bit bloody-minded and do what they want no matter what.

Yus indeed. :>

And we're not going to talk about your team's arm and leg warmers?

 

[Starsprite]

While you could, admittedly, it's more the plant life that I'm worried about at this point. There's enough deforestation with the amount of land we have. If you lowered the size of the land the resources on it would be depleted rather quickly, and then what would you do?

Well if we had such knowledge of environmental impact we could just apply that to land, no? Also, less options doesn't mean less frequent mistakes. I'd also like to argue, that despite your affinity for the water, you still have to live on the land, and if you mess up what little land you have you have no options.

JUST USE GROUDON. PROBLEM SOLVED.

Ahem...I understand that regulating the people is difficult. Perhaps educating them as to why we do what we do would make it slightly (only that) easier. Besides, if there was a lot of monitoring in rural areas then regulations would be easier to enforce.

OH. OH. WHAT ABOUT THEM THEN?

 

[Aquacorde]

Nah if you lowered the amount of land in a given area, the plant life would become more concentrated and more lush, especially since humans would be out moving to coastal areas etc.

We could, but humans are forever being stupid and traipsing all over the place leaving disasters in their wake. As for living on the land- beach cities! Floating metropolises! We can use the land, yes, but that doesn't mean we have to use much of it. And as we're staying off it for the most part, how are we to screw it up?

Ah, but then you have a militaristic state. Hardly a pleasant place to live. And the minute you relax on the policing, there's going to be a bunch of people out to do what they feel like. And even if it's only one in twenty people, over the entire region it'll be having a massive effect. And what if your rural charges resist? You've not got enough people to quell the ensuing riots. How is your team going to keep from being overthrown by the general population?

Impractical and ugly, that's what about them!

 

[Starsprite]

I understand what you're saying, but regardless of how concentrated the plant life would be it takes a long time for a trees and such to grow. So people could only cut them down at the rate they grow to be able to maintain a forest, for example. And people would undoubtedly cut them down.

You could screw it up by overfishing, spilling oil, polluting the water, and surely through other ways as well. These are all dilemmas of coastal settlements. Just because they live by water doesn't make them any more intelligent.

Fine. Let the people use the land for farmland. Again, in the grand scheme of things it just extends room to the humans overpopulating the planet. The ideal scenario would be to create the land in remote areas that would be difficult to fine, or near less sophisticated society, who may use it for farmland, but not in the mass farming sense.

Like the midriff your female grunts wear?

 

[Squirrel]

Man you guys are fast xD

Okay forgetting all the worldly issues that either side would cause, I'm going to talk about the Pokémon. x] If Ground and Fire type Pokémon were left to rule the Earth, that would simply lead to nothing other than destruction. Fields would become baron wastelands due to the Ground types wanting sandy/desert homes. Mountains would become volcanic from the huge build up of Fire types populating them. The world would become far too hot to inhabit and all these trees and farms you're talking about would simply perish! Now surely that's not a world you want to see develop, is it? Water Pokémon on the other hand are a race of creation. They allow the Earth to develop in the way it should rather than simply destroying it. They, quite obviously, provide water, the most essential resource known to man (other than Oxygen which all those Fire types are burning up in combustion anyway), so where on Earth would we be without them? We'd simply all die, there's no second guessing that fact. Sure there wouldn't be as much land to live on if Water types ruled, but what's to stop the creation of off-shore towns on floating rafts/platforms? We'd be properly prepared with solutions like this before introducing the surplus of water into the world so you can't tell me people won't have places to live. We're not saying we want to remove space from people, we just want it to be put to better use with the power and majesty of water.

Also lol Magma hats are dumb. Seriously fire dinosaur things? What are you 12? ;)