Jump to content

Lupa

Members
  • Content Count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Lupa

    Black Crusade GM Wanted

    So you're looking for someone to continue an ongoing campaign? If so, some information about what state that campaign is in would be good. Also, you've stolen my avatar. >
  2. If the Sororitas are dumb enough to dedicate 100% of all forces to even very small incursions, find three CSM flunkies (maybe get a Thousand Sons officer to donate some rubric marines) to attack from the front, then walk in through a side entrance, creating your own with explosives if you have to, raid the reliquary, then walk out without fighting a single battle sister. Having staggered lines of defense was not used throughout history because defending armies felt like the battle was too one-sided and wanted to give the attackers a sporting chance. It's because it is extremely easy to exploit a strategy of immediately committing all of your forces to the destruction of the very first enemy squad you detect.
  3. Lupa

    Will Only war Ever be "Finished?"

    You still haven't explained why that would be any worse than D&D, which isn't really playable without all three core books. Like, yes, I understand that three core books is different from one core book and one add-on book, but you haven't explained why that difference actually matters.
  4. What kind of question is that? The question you begged when you claimed that the only way for fan work to become part of established standards or rules was if they could force their views upon someone else. I don't know why you're acting surprised that I'm talking about this when you're the one who brought it up. The entire rest of your post doesn't have any clear relevance. I asked you to justify an assumption and you started talking about...why your assumption is unjustified and you yourself don't actually believe in it? You've explicitly acknowledged that individual gaming groups can have their own standards/rules, which only makes your previous insistence that force is required for a fan to have their work enshrined in them, because obviously fan work being adopted into a game group's standards without force is not only easy and common but automatic. The previous adventures of the group itself are obviously a part of it and are also obviously fan work. So how exactly is anything in your post supposed to be a defense of this statement:
  5. Even if we eliminate the bit on etymology you're still begging the question: Specifically, the question being begged is why does a fan have to be able to force their personal ideas upon anyone to have their work become part of established standard or rules?
  6. A word means what it is understood to mean. A word's etymology matters only if people in general know about it. People in general almost never know a word's etymology. Canon has no consistent definition outside of theological contexts.
  7. In fact, Star Wars has an enormous expanded universe that dwarfs the amount of material available for 40k. In any case, you say things like this: But the relevance is not really clear. For one thing, you could have a democracy where all men are free and equal and hope for a glorious future, and you could have that democracy hum along undisturbed for the entire 10,000 year history of 40k in some obscure part of the galaxy, and it wouldn't conflict with any popular interpretation of the 40k universe. 40k is gigantic and there's room for lots of weird stuff to happen inside of it and I don't know of any communities that are particularly bothered by that. People wouldn't be especially happy to turn up for a 40k story and find something that is not at all grim or dark since being grimdark is sort of 40k's whole thing, but it still wouldn't contradict any timelines or anything. What you're talking about is tone and theme, which are important in a general sense but not related to the conversation in this thread. I don't understand what you're trying to say with this at all. You put "common beliefs" in quotes, but after doing a search on both this thread and the one that spawned it, I can't find anyone else but you who has actually used that term, and it doesn't particularly resemble anything MrMonstro has said so far as I can tell. That is radically divergent from the way that word is used in any community. "Canon" is (in this context, at least) already a slang term with multiple competing definitions. Insisting on sticking to your own definition shared by almost nobody else only obfuscates the discussion. And here, in a parenthetical, you address what the argument is actually about. Why is it legitimate when done by IP holders but not when done by others?
  8. Lupa

    Currently deployed US Marine NCO, any questions?

    5 of Solidscarlet's 6 posts were between February 13th to 15th. One more on February 28th. Gaius' first post in this thread was March 4th. The Mightiest Caz posted a question for Solidscarlet on February 17th which Solidscarlet has yet to answer. Whatever scarlet's reasons for leaving this thread, they're clearly unrelated to anything Gaius said. In any case, Gaius has already made it clear that he didn't want to come off as accusatory, and since his first post he's stated that he's looking for clarification, not making accusations. There is no reason to assume he intends to make accusations just because you don't like his tone, because tone doesn't actually communicate through the internet so you don't actually know what tone was intended. This, however, is completely unfair. Solidscarlet never once mentioned civilians, you're putting words in his mouth. Likewise this: Solidscarlet's post uses the general "you" so the black and white sequestering is clearly something he believes that everyone has to do in order to function. That doesn't mean he claims this is the opinion of the entire military, though if he isn't he clearly thinks the military is wrong (assuming your own statements about the general opinion of the military are correct, which I will assume for the sake of argument they are). You're making assumptions about his intent and the words he's actually written don't hold up to those assumptions. What he's actually written is rather unclear and it is unfair to assume the worst.
  9. Lupa

    Equipment List

    This website has searchable lists of armor, weapons, and creatures, but unfortunately not non-combat equipment. Hopefully that's good enough for whatever you need.
  10. This is not what that word means. Most philosophy degrees are Bachelor of Arts, not Bachelor of Science, and even when they are Bachelor of Science the fact stands that "scientist" simply does not mean "someone who studied at a university" or even "someone who has earned a Bachelor of Science degree," as in common usage engineers are not typically considered scientists. Even doctors are not typically considered scientists in common usage despite being biologists. The dictionary definition of "science" (since all dictionary definitions for "scientist" just point to "science") doesn't reach something that even resembles the definition you just gave until four or five entries down and even those definitions are so vague as to include people who "study" the play-offs or Halo backstory. You're declaring yourself correct by changing a definition such that your statement means something completely different from what what a reasonable English speaker would have understood from hearing it. That's sophistry. Yes, and? You call me susceptible to misinterpretation and then quote my own arguments back at me while pretending to have made a counterpoint. I am genuinely confused as to how you could think you're making a counterargument with this. That specific works physically exist as a matter of fact but that the events they describe do not actually exist, and that the difference between these two is important, is my argument. That a story can be so well-liked by a community that everyone builds off of, rather than contradicts it, is again part of my argument. The critical point of my argument is that behaving as though these entrenched but still fictitious stories are factually real leads people to behave as though other, significantly less entrenched stories, are also factually real, and that people must adhere to them even though the community at large, as well as sub-communities like individual RPG groups, are free to change them at-will. The only thing that is required is enough consensus to establish a niche, and when you're holding a discussion or running a game, that niche can be as small as two people. None of what you're claiming here is actually contradictory to any of that, and in fact it's the foundation I've been building, the teeth I've been pulling, to get people to recognize that no amount of universal recognition makes something fact. I am aware of your assumption, and my entire argument is that this assumption is unfounded. Even in places like Star Wars where licensed authors are required to honor one source above another, there is no reason to leave out alternative interpretations which were either retconned or originated from the community and picked up traction there, and certainly there isn't any reason to categorically refuse to discuss or attack those who discuss alternatives just to try and stifle any competition to whichever interpretation of the setting you, personally, happen to favor, regardless of what criteria you used to arrive at that preference. No, that was a response to Jacvs, not you. Jacvs treated and continues to treat the 40k universe as though it were a physically real place (though he is aware it is not, he has apparently failed to grasp the finer points of the difference between reality and fiction, and specifically that nothing can ever be true about the latter since it is untrue by definition), has explicitly stated that some setting elements of 40k really are facts. You have contradicted him on this point which means you disagree with him exactly as much as I do. When I quote someone the paragraphs that follow are responding to the person who made that quote. The post you're referring to contained a response to both you and Jacvs and they are separate responses broken up by quotes of your two distinct counterarguments. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just responding to two separate counterarguments from two different people. Also: Whatever article you attempted to link didn't go through.
  11. My accusation: Your response: Just because you're willing to tolerate alternative viewpoints when the local corporate overlord commands you to doesn't change the fact that you explicitly believe in actively strangling discussions of community-driven alterations when they do not. Yes, when licensed authors explicitly come out and say that there is no canon you will begrudgingly stop publicly shaming people for adhering to the wrong interpretation of a fictional universe, although you also admit that it took you a long time to come around to this perspective and you only came to it because those licensed authors explicitly signed off on it. In Star Wars, where the IP holders do not explicitly condone all interpretations regardless of origin, you assume by default that fans should be bound to the same rules as licensed writers regardless of their opinions and, according to your own words, you want to contribute to a culture of shaming and bullying anyone who dares deviate from or object to this. Not only that, if you don't believe in refusing to discuss alternative interpretations of settings like Star Wars or Star Trek or in shaming those who do, then you have at this stage walked back literally every relevant point of contention you have with me.
  12. But in 40k, the Drop Site Massacre happened, and Loyalist Primarchs, along with most of their Legions, died there. No, in 40k the drop site massacres were the result of a paranoid Emperor seeking to kill Horus, who he (incorrectly) feared would betray him, and sent several other legions to kill him. Several of them, out of loyalty to their brother or fearing that they would be next on the chopping block, defected to Horus' side and warned him of the attack. Despite the warning, most of the troops on both sides were slaughtered in a bloodbath and Horus' ability to project force was shattered, however in order to inspire a zealous paranoia in his population the Emperor had his propaganda machine push the story that it was a major defeat rather than a bloody stalemate. Feel free to dig up hard evidence saying otherwise. Now here's something that can be proven: In the real world, lots of people like the more popular version of the drop site massacre story (by definition) and are much less likely to accept a story that contradicts this rather than one that builds on it (though you could still probably find a niche for the alternative I just made up). This distinction is trivial in the extreme examples that you like to present, but the examples I keep bringing up that you refuse to discuss (or at least not in such a way that's actually relevant), things like midichlorians and centurion armor, those are much more important, because the community and the IP holders have pretty strong disagreements and trying to pressure people into accepting setting elements they dislike is an awful way to behave as a community. When a GM comes asking about the internet in 40k, or midichlorians in Star Wars, or any other setting element, and you give them the version that you, personally prefer, you aren't giving advice. You're repeating dogma and implying that the only correct way to run their game is your way. Unless a GM is specifically asking about IP holder intent, or what came first, or whatever criteria you personally use to judge whether or not something is the best, you should be giving them options, not orders. Attempting to get people to run things your way by refusing to mention alternatives, or even worse attempting to shout down those who do, is attempting to force people to play your way instead of how they'd like. And that is repugnant. Just because you don't have a whole lot of power over how people run their games doesn't make it any less appalling that you will do everything in your power to make sure they run their games the way you run yours. Of course, being entirely fair, you personally haven't explicitly declared that you want to shout down alternative interpretations the way Lynata just did, but if you aren't then I do have to wonder what on Earth you're actually disagreeing with me about.
  13. "I don't know what you expect from a movie, but elaborate politics and legal analysis is not something I'd consider a necessary element." I will again point you to a quote from the post you claim to be replying to: "The OT conflict is similarly simplified but does not punch the momentum out of its narrative by wasting scenes on referencing complicated political machinations that never actually receive a coherent explanation. A few throwaway lines about dissolving the senate are used to establish that the Empire are autocrats, tossed into a scene whose main purpose is to introduce the characters of Darth Vader and Princess Leia, and that's basically it for political discussions in the entire OT. Contrast to the entire Coruscant sequence from the Phantom Menace or the Naboo scenes from Attack of the Clones. Fans recognize that the PT political scenes are time wasters but generally lack the vocabulary to express this, so they latch onto midichlorians, which serve as a symbol of the PT's tendency to pollute the simple and strong narrative of the OT with pretending at complications that don't actually add any depth, and mostly serve to waste momentum and obfuscate the narrative." A political landscape worth spending multiple scenes on is not necessary to a movie. I specifically made the point that the OT got by just fine without any of that. But if you're going to spend multiple scenes on politics, your political landscape needs to have enough meat on its bones, and your dialogue writing needs to be strong enough, to hold an audience's interest. The prequel trilogies demonstrably do not have this, and remain at-best tolerated by the majority of dedicated fans, even ones young enough to have been brought up with them. "The political scenes you consider wasteful are a critical part of the Empire's origin history" They aren't wasteful because they failed to accomplish any function at all, but rather because of how much screentime they wasted on accomplishing that function. The Original Trilogy accomplished in thirty seconds what the prequels spent the better part of an hour on, and the prequels didn't use that time to actually expand upon the political landscape that gave rise to the empire. Palpatine orchestrated a war, used it to have emergency powers voted in, then cleaned up the war and declined to give up his emergency powers. That's a concept that can be put across in about four lines of dialogue, the length of the Naboo and Coruscant sequences were completely unnecessary and added nothing. Anakin and Padme's infamous sand dialogue is infamous for exactly this reason. You attribute three things to the IP holders' material, and precisely none of them ubiquitously apply. Only the actual starting work is actually the most original, and from the moment of release onwards the community begins generating their own material. Star Wars is overflowing with community material that predates IP holder material by years or decades. Thanks to the internet, a community work can reach distribution levels which more obscure IP holder works don't always, and in terms of popularity I will again point you to midichlorians. No, being IP holder produced does not guarantee something will be popular, that it will be the most widely distributed, or that it will be the original work. Everything about this is wrong. For starters, no, I never said that the majority of fans are perfectly fine with it. Rather the opposite, as I have mentioned repeatedly: They may be pressured into conforming because certain fans demand it, that doesn't mean they actually like it. That people sometimes follow a crowd without thinking things through is such a universally recognized part of the human experience that they make after school specials about it. And secondly, I'm going to bring up midichlorians again because no, most fans are not perfectly fine with them. They dislike them. They begrudgingly accept them because communities have gotten into the habit of accepting whatever they're given without modification, even when the desire to change something is quite universal. They've forgotten that stories are a thing human beings tell and that they can retell them however they like. Yes, clearly, because you keep doing so. But then you keep backing up and saying that no, actually, you don't. Herein lies the contradiction you are so fervently denying: You have here quite explicitly said that you want to contribute to the culture of arbitrarily defending what the IP holders have declared as being the only proper interpretation of the setting, and that other interpretations of the setting should not be seriously discussed or built upon. But then you also say that you plan on continuing to discuss and build upon an interpretation of the setting that IP holders have specifically abandoned. That is a contradiction. You can claim to be misunderstood as much as you **** well please, but what we have here is that I accused you of strangling discussion of alternative interpretations, you agreed that you are absolutely contributing to that strangulation, but you still have not given up your opposition to major retcons made by IP holders. I'm not skimming your arguments, Lynata, remember when I told you that when you disagree with someone you should doublecheck and make sure the disagreement is actually there? I actually do that. Every point I make against you is a point I've checked to make sure is actually relevant to what you've said. You say that everyone is free to whatever interpretation of the setting they like with one breath, gloat about unofficial interpretations being rejected even when they are popular in the next, and then immediately go on to defend one of those unofficial interpretations. It's obvious that not all of your worldview has caught up to the reality of the situation, because again: You are not the majority anymore. You cannot crow about how much fun it is contributing to the tyranny of the majority and then ten seconds later pretend you're a moderate who acknowledges that everyone has a right to imagine fictional settings however they like and a niche doesn't have to be the majority to be sustainable. Midichlorians are a significant change to the fundamental nature of the Force, the change from something being mystical and unexplained by science to having a scientific explanation is a change. But if you want something that's extremely blatant, an early Marvel Star Wars comic, officially endorsed by IP holders, portrayed Jabba the Hutt as not actually being a Hutt. He was a Nimbanel. That was the very first depiction of Jabba the Hutt in any work officially endorsed by IP holders, and it was actually more closely matched to George Lucas' original vision, who originally saw Jabba as being similar to Chewbecca physically. His portrayal in Return of the Jedi, and later on in the special edition of A New Hope, is a retcon. Humanoid Jabba came first, and good luck convincing even a significant minority of fans to roll with Nimbanel Jabba. So again: Whether or not someone happens to own the copyright to something does not affect whether or not it is a deviation. Retcons happen. They aren't even rare. Are you arguing that midichlorians are not unpopular? Because anyone who's familiar with the internet even a little bit knows that just about everyone who has an opinion on midichlorians doesn't like them. That you continue to restate a contradiction does not make it less contradictory. If you attack people for talking about an unofficial interpretation of a setting and then go on to defend your own unofficial interpretation of a setting, that's a contradiction. You keep talking about things like the original work and audience saturation, but you assume these things are somehow synonymous with IP holders even though they're not. You oscillate back and forth between giving one of them a higher priority than the other. Yes, I know you have different words for these things, that doesn't make a difference. What's important is, if you are sticking to your own preferred interpretation of the universe in spite of an IP holders' claim, in spite of being a minority, because your niche is big enough for your own purposes, why are you so spiteful towards the concept that other people might do the same? This is technically true, but not in the way you think it is. The myth of a singular truth applies to all fictitious settings. There are always competing interpretations and it is entirely unjustified to demand that those interpretations be ignored because the wrong person came up with them. If that demand weren't made, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If people were actually willing to let others have whatever interpretation of the setting they want, there would never have been an argument when I pointed this out. Then consider misrepresenting my arguments less often. If you're going to respond to me, respond to me and not a strawman. You shouldn't be surprised that I get frustrated restating myself again and again and again and again because you can't be bothered to actually read what I write in context. The number of times my response to you has consisted of nothing but a quote and an explanation of the importance of the parts of that quote which you ignored is too tiresome to count. A civil argument requires definitionally that you argue in good faith, and you haven't. Godwin's Law declares that the longer an internet conversation goes on, the greater the odds that someone will compare their opponent's position to that of the Nazis, and that whoever does so has lost. It's a very specific law and makes reference to a very specific attempt to bully someone into silence. It does not apply to people who merely refer to the Nazis (although I don't think I've even done that), it does not refer to comparing an opponent's position to any unsavory political platform but specifically that of the Nazis (although I haven't done that either), and it certainly does not apply when pointing out that someone's argument can serve as justification for literally anything that has happened, which includes both the holocaust and the defeat of the Nazis. The argument of "that which is should be" declares both of these things to be justified along with everything else that has ever happened, good or bad, which is sort of the point, and doesn't qualify for Godwin's Law. If the comparison were so ridiculous, you'd have no difficulty responding to it directly, but you haven't, and you can't, because "that which is should be" is a ridiculous position which can be entirely expected to end up producing ridiculous results.
  14. There are two things wrong with this. Firstly you hop from what should be and what is and pretend they are necessarily connected to one another at the hip. Unless you want to start arguing that the Rwandan genocide was awesome, you might want to pay more attention to disentangling the two. I am already aware that a lot of GMs feel they're required to stick to the word of IP holders even when both they and their players dislike that word, and that is the entire problem. You can't just point to the fact that something exists and then claim that this is a justification for it. Secondly, you're also factually wrong. Some setting details laid down by the IP holders are so commonly reviled that you are going to get a good audience reaction by rejecting them. Midichlorians is one of them, and that's why I brought it up. Now, midichlorians is reviled because it became a memetic symbol of the general failures of the Phantom Menace, which is a pretty terrible reason to hate something so much, but even dedicated fans do not tend to go read about cinematic (or literary or whatever) criticism enough to get a handle on the basic vocabulary of things like a lack of strong character arcs or sideplots whose only function is to resolve themselves and thus are a waste of time, so they latch onto something that emotionally, viscerally stands out as a departure from form. Midichlorians revise the Force from being something mystical and unexplained to implying that it's scientifically quantifiable but failed to do anything interesting with that, and that's emblematic of the prequel trilogies generally abandoning the simple, strong, and archetypal conflict of the Rebel Alliance vs. the Galactic Empire and replacing it with poorly explained nonsensical galactic politics in which it is implied that the Trade Federation is unjustified in their invasion because the scary music plays whenever they're winning, but despite wasting multiple scenes on politics the political and economic landscape is never fleshed out enough for a viewer to even have an informed opinion of whether or not the Trade Federation was in the right to establish their apparently legal blockade. The OT conflict is similarly simplified but does not punch the momentum out of its narrative by wasting scenes on referencing complicated political machinations that never actually receive a coherent explanation. A few throwaway lines about dissolving the senate are used to establish that the Empire are autocrats, tossed into a scene whose main purpose is to introduce the characters of Darth Vader and Princess Leia, and that's basically it for political discussions in the entire OT. Contrast to the entire Coruscant sequence from the Phantom Menace or the Naboo scenes from Attack of the Clones. Fans recognize that the PT political scenes are time wasters but generally lack the vocabulary to express this, so they latch onto midichlorians, which serve as a symbol of the PT's tendency to pollute the simple and strong narrative of the OT with pretending at complications that don't actually add any depth, and mostly serve to waste momentum and obfuscate the narrative. None of that really matters, though. What matters is that fans hate it and retconning them out of existence makes you more likely to carve out a niche, not less, and no amount of George Lucas or Disney insisting that fans embrace midichlorians will make it happen. Because, what, the IP holders' material is objectively real and true and pure? The delusion is in thinking that having a copyright on something makes the content of the stories more valid. It doesn't. Stories and setting details that originate from the community do sometimes gain penetration sufficient enough to set up their own niche or even overtake the official explanation in popularity, again see midichlorians: Most fans are happy to accept a version of the setting where they don't exist. Specific reinterpretations gaining momentum within certain niches isn't even uncommon, and to throw a temper tantrum over the idea that someone might argue in favor of such a reinterpretation by insisting that only the IP holders can ever produce legitimate content is both juvenile and harmful to a community. Whether you accept it or not, what you are arguing is that only the IP holders' interpretation of the setting is worthy of discussion and that fans should only be discussing that interpretation. You hide behind the excuse that this is just how things are while quietly ignoring that you are the reason this is how things are. Disney is not sending out brownshirts to break the kneecaps of people who seriously discuss alternative Star Wars interpretations. It is not a fundamental law of the universe that the majority of fans must refuse to accept community-created interpretations of the setting even when they like those interpretations better, it is a result of prevailing cultural attitudes, attitudes which you contribute to by pedestalizing IP holders' interpretation to the point of not only refusing to discuss alternatives but shaming people who do so. You cannot disclaim responsibility for contributing to something just because you didn't create it from scratch. When your justification for why a certain attitude should go on existing is that it already exists, you are arguing in defense of literally every terrible thing that has ever happened in all of human history, from trivial stuff like this right on up to sustained campaigns of genocidal hatred brought about by racism or century-spanning tyranny brought about by misguided revolutionaries. The argument of "arbitrary reverence for IP holders interpretations should exist because it already does exist" is so incompatible with any coherent moral philosophy that I'm amazed I have to explain it at all. You're bringing up legal rights even though they aren't relevant. Midichlorians were a deviation. They were also created by IP holders. Some deviations become more popular than the original. Some become popular enough to sustain a niche. Some fade away entirely. Which is which is not determined by legal status. Then I guess it's a good thing I incessantly refer back to audience approval when making my arguments? You are fast exceeding the limits of my patience for having words shoved in my mouth. I am sick to Hell of you claiming that I have said literally the exact opposite of what I have actually said, so cut it the **** out. My argument is and has always been that a story stands on its ability to be read and retold, not its legal status. Your argument is that the IP holders' version of the story holds some special significance, you are the one ascribing legitimacy to a story above and beyond its ability to retain an audience and inspire other creators to build on it, though you then immediately bounce back to claiming the opposite. You still can't have it both ways: Either the IP holders' version of events has some special significance above and beyond its ability to retain an audience, or it does not. The correct answer is that it does not, but if you claimed that it does and actually stuck to that you would at least be consistent. I'm going to quote that post you're cherry-picking from in full: I've bolded a few things for you so that maybe you can track down the context that apparently eluded you the first time around. My posts are more than one sentence long. If you are going to respond to them, you are going to have to start parsing entire paragraphs, not just individual sentences, and I am sick of clarifying my position by reposting, sometimes literally word for word, something I've already said. Whenever you disagree with something written, the very first thing you should do is go back and reread it and look for anything that contradicts what you assume they said, and then doublecheck to see if they're being internally contradictory or if you just made bad assumptions. I'm sure you can provide examples to back this statement up. I find it hard to believe that anyone would explicitly state that a GM and their group should be forced to play a version of a setting they dislike, or not play at all. That isn't what I said, so again I will have to ask you to respond to what I have actually said and not what you assumed I meant. What I said is this: You will note that force is not involved. The whole scenario draws its Orwellian nature from the fact that GMs willingly cede their creative authority to an entity with absolutely no capability to enforce their interpretation of a fictional universe, despite the fact that they recognize that this is worse for both them and their players. As for who has seriously argued it, here is the relevant quote regarding the Noosphere that got all of this started: To say that Games Workshop's opinion on the Noosphere should be relevant to whether or not a GM personally wants to use it is to say that GMs should cede their creative authority to Games Workshop regardless of whether or not they or their players actually like what Games Workshop is doing, and that is madness. People arguing for this sort of thing don't realize their insanity, because they have signed up for a version of reality in which fictional universes contain facts without examining that assumption closely enough to realize it is insane.
  15. If all you're going to do is shout that the majority opinion is the only one that should be recognized, you don't need to spend multiple paragraphs on it. It only takes one sentence. Also: You're going to have to give up on Thrawn. Because the majority don't really care about him, and once Disney starts pumping out large amounts of contradictory material the bulk of the fans will follow that. Thrawn will retain supporters and because of the immense size of the Star Wars fandom he'll even have enough of them to sustain a community of writers, GMs, etc. etc. working to produce unofficial content in the version of the universe where he hasn't been excised, but every time someone says "Disney said he isn't real" as though that's some kind of actual criticism of the work of Timothy Zahn or anyone else who builds on them is contributing to a barrier that prevents new people from finding those stories and joining that community. You say you agree with my opinions a bit. You don't. You agree entirely, and just don't want to rip off the band-aid and recognize that you can no longer use majority opinion or corporate backing to try and bludgeon competing interpretations of Star Wars into submission, because you've lost the latter and will lose the former as soon as Disney gets its merchandising machine churning out EU material for the JJ Abrams version. If all you care about is what the largest chunk of the audience thinks, then I'm going to have to ask you for a third time now: Are you giving up on Thrawn and the other EU materials? Because you seem pretty committed to sticking to what came before, except then you turn around and talk about how only IP holders have the right to change things. So which one is it? Take a consistent goddamn position on this, because you are constantly contradicting yourself by going back and forth between condemning JJ Abrams for completely ignoring the existing work in a canon and then condemning me for supporting your condemnation of Abrams. You can't have this both ways: Either the IP holders have absolute control over how a fictional universe works or they do not. In the actual real world the answer is that they do not because fans can and do ignore it when the IP holders do something they don't like, but saying that they do would at least be internally consistent. You assume, for some reason, that when I say that the only thing that matters is whether or not an audience will accept your changes, regardless of what IP holders say, that I am pushing for thoughtless revision to the setting. This is completely disingenuous because I have stated repeatedly the difference between good and bad changes to a setting. I have brought up in the past the considerations someone has to make when changing an element of the setting, and there are costs to how much you can change the setting, and I can dig these up and quote them for you if you desperately want me to prove that yet again people are responding to the words shoved in my mouth and not what I've actually said. Hell, let's look at that again: If it's so apparent then you should be able to point to my actually saying as much. All I've actually done is point out how many fans aren't on board with it, something you also do in literally the exact same sentence. According to your own standards of what makes something "apparent," you apparently agree that midichlorians are bad. Seriously, I don't know why this is so hard for you, but if you want to have a productive conversation with anyone about any disagreement, you need to learn to respond to what people have actually said and not what you assume they meant. EDIT: Oh, and I almost forgot: Yes, they have. Every time someone recommends against something purely on the basis that its canonicity is shaky or that it is non-canon, they are arguing that the corporate IP holder should be dictating the events of your game. If you're going to defend a setting element, you should defend the actual setting element, not just argue from authority.
×