Talk:183: Snacktime Rules

Hm, how can we know, really, if it's Randall or Cueball speaking? –St.nerol (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's Randall. I was there. Spotlouise (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Cueball is basically just an abstraction of Randall. Black Hat, too, at times. Odd that no one seems to notice. Daddy (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Everyone knows it; it'd be impossible for Randall to not put himself in the comic. However, the title text is always Randalll, so that implies that the stick figure is definitely Randall. 75.185.176.214 00:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC) I should probably join... I'd be able to stop displaying my IP

The title text is not always Randall. -- Flewk (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I feel like most of the characters are at least sometimes abstractions of Randall. I mean almost always Cueball is. But I think the other characters can be aspects of him sometimes. Black Hat, Beret Guy, he'll sometimes even White Hat and Megan. Although they usually represent other things, if anything at all. But sometimes. 108.162.245.64 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Based on the title text Randall had probably just turned 6, so there would be two years until he next could have a snack - and the mother probably believed that he would have forgotten such a rule by then (alas that was clearly not the case... :-) Kynde (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Or is it ( :-))? 541: TED Talk -- Aronurr (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

As I read it, it isn't that he gets no snacks, it is that he gets no snacks in his rom. 162.158.252.185 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Yes, people here keep talking like it's that he doesn't get snacks, but all we know for certain is that he can't have snacks in his rom, before beed. We don't know if this rule applied to other locations or times.— Kazvorpal (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a thought, but maybe this rule is based on a measurement of Randall's age in terms of some unit other than years, which would be really nerdy. —CsBlastoise (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible the obscure logic is related to school exams - perhaps he is 12 and starting Junior High, the previous year having sat an SSAT exam to get. He turned 12 in the October, so would have been studying aged 11 and perhaps allowed to snack in his room as a result. His mum observed that he'll next sit exams for senior high aged 14 and then for undergrad at 17... so can only snack in years he is prepping for exams. (Unlikely that this is the ACTUAL reason for the pattern, but I'll bet it was something of similar spirit, she'd allowed it age 11 and was post-associating it to some other life event so he can do it at 14 and 17 as well). 141.101.99.53 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I asked Randall about this on the How To book tour. He said it's real. The first two times he wore his mom down on this topic, he was 2 and 5. The first time was an exception, the second time she made a rule. Tbodt (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I read it as if this privilige is given on a multiple of three minus one (i.e. at age 2 at first), but it doesn't mean the privilege is taken away at the next year (i.e. age 3, 4, 6,..). 172.71.102.95 19:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

"It's difficult to defend this policy with a reasonable argument." Is it? Perhaps his mom was saying 'you can have a snack when you're old enough to learn arithmetic'. Or perhaps the snack is just a reward for learning. 162.158.63.131 11:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Alternative snacktime ages desmos: snack time 172.71.195.19 12:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

An explanation to the Rule - an educated guess based on how parents create rules:

Child wants to bring snacks to bed. This could create mess that is both hard to clean and would spread far from just bed. It is also unlikely that a young child would be able to clean the mess, leaving it as work for Mom.

So Child's/Randall's Mom wants to ban bringing edibles to bed. When you ban a child from any action, you can expect two results: 1) Child breaks the ban or finds loopholes, and/or 2) child argues with Mom about fairness of the ban or argues for possible alternatives. Neither are good "Mom result", as the child either does it anyway or at least takes parent's time/energy by arguing endless scenarios.

For a presumably analytical child like we could expect Cueball/Randall to be, giving the Rule in the comic creates an inherent loophole, that the child will then use instead of coming up with new loopholes. The child knows just waiting will allow him to bring food to bed eventually, so he doesn't try to break or circumvent the Rule in other ways.

Mom then presumably hopes, that in one/two years (depending on "current" age) the child will either no longer want to bring stuff to bed, forget about the Rule and simply think doing it is still banned, or in worse case, Mom will "remind him" of another rule, thus preventing eating in bed forever - or at least until the child can face consequences himself. (Perhaps a key question here is, was Cueball/Randall ever allowed to bring food to bed, or has he only wanted to do it few times and "by chance", the rule always prevented him?) Maur11cio (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)