DS acceleration at Yavin (split from "practicality of m

[Lord of the Farce]

From me, no comments, but here's a couple of quotes...

From ANH and the Annotated Screenplays:

Death Star Intercom Voice: We are approaching the planet Yavin. The Rebel base is on a moon on the far side. We are preparing to orbit the planet.

Death Star Intercom Voice: Orbiting the planet at maximum velocity. The moon with the Rebel base will be in range in thirty minutes.

From the ANH novelisation:

"The red represents the progress of the Imperial battle station as it moves deeper into Yavin's system."

[Lord of the Farce]

Quick note: the "red" in the novelisation quote is in reference to the "large red dot" of the Death Star, not the red curving wedge that marked the Death Star's line of fire.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

Of course, the fact this ignores all official evidence and probably all the canon evidence in the novels and radioplays is nothing for our intrepid paper-writer.

I'm just goin where the math takes me... and that same math fits virtually all of the evidence you cite -- with the rebel screen being the sole irreconcilable exception AFAIK (and that has been explained)... if you can find anything else to use against me, have at it, as there are almost certainly things I have missed, given that I have not read everything SW...

[Patrick Degan]

1. You are arguing from the premise that the Death Star cannot be accomplishing the velocity necessary to close to intercept with Yavin-D and are trying to contort the evidence to fit the conclusion.

ok, 2 parts to this one:

1. I see where the premise might be an issue... perhaps it should be that the DS did not perform that feat, not that it could not.

The premise is the entire issue —and one you refuse to see is wrong from the get-go. Theory does not precede observation. But this is exactly what you are attempting to do.

2. I fail to see where I have contorted evidence (snip extraneous material)

You started doing so from the moment you declared that "the Death Star is not accelerating toward Yavin-D" and proceeded to attempt to "prove" the pre-judged conclusion.

2. You are arbitrarily dismissing the Rebel tactical display as unreliable evidence.

how is it that my dismissal of that display is stirring up such a hornets' nest? have I not listed my reasoning to anyone's satisfaction?
a) not to scale wrt either sizes or distances

This issue has already been dealt with. Our own military uses iconographic display for tactical purposes. Ship/plane icons may not be to scale, but distances are rendered to scale.

b) only the DS moved any significant distance

And once again, you dismiss outright the possibility that this represents the Death Star accomplishing a powered interception orbit.

c) the only reason the DS was the only thing moving is because the rebel display is operating on a very different frame of reference -- one based upon the vector passing thru the centers of both Yavin and Y4. This particular reference, being the basis of the display, never moves... thus everything else represented upon it must move, and will do so at a far greater pace than they really are.

That argument is sheer nonsense. The movement of the DS icon around the display was based entirely upon the telemetry data they were receiving from their own tracking and fixed to the second. Once again, in our own military and NASA, we employ a very similar type of iconographic display and certainly did so to track the Apollo moon missions.

When calculating anything pertaining to orbital motion and/or navigation, one must be extremely careful to make sure that the frame of reference is the proper one for the intended tasks, or you will end up somewhere you most certainly do not want to be. That said, the rebel display is perfectly suited as a countdown clock... when it rings, you go boom! I just fail to see how, given the evidence, it can be trusted as anything else. what exactly makes this decision on my part arbitrary?

Because we don't get to pick and choose which pieces of evidence suit us and which ones do not. And outsized icons for operator convenience do not make a case for inaccurate display.

3. You are assuming that the Death Star's ranging display is representing the true orbital velocity of Yavin-D, and this on the assumption that the Death Star is simply occupying a stationary position or a geostationary orbit and "waiting" for Yavin-D to move out of opposition on its own momentum.

As I stated eariler in this reply, I performed a number of iterations covering various combinations of different values for those variables which are either unknown or highly vague, all of which based upon the proper frame of reference for this scenario -- one based solely upon Yavin itself.

I hate to have to tell you this, but in a two-body problem, both bodies must be considered in the equation, not just the one you prefer to deal with.

(snipping lots of iterative assumption)now I am perfectly willing to concede that it might have in fact been moving... but no way are you going to tell me that it was moving anywhere near as fast as Mike wishes it were, much less accelerating at such rates as he proposes... the math just will not support it without changing the starting variables so much as to render all the on screen evidence invalid -- try it and see.

This also is sheer nonsense. Your own maths undermine the argument you're trying to make here, given that the velocity you imply for Yavin-D would exceed escape velocity from the primary, or resolve out to a much shorter orbital period than the 122 hours you stated in your treatise. And you persist in ignoring the variable regarding the Death Star's own orbital velocity around Yavin by declaring outright that it is merely occupying a stationary position while waiting for the moon to come out of opposition. And you've just provided the proof that you are contorting the evidence to fit your pre-supposed conclusions:

the math just will not support it without changing the starting variables so much as to render all the on-screen evidence invalid

I will remind you once again —theory does not precede observation.

Of these, the first is the fundamental error which undermines your entire case. You are assuming the premise of the argument as proof of the argument.

funny, I thought the math was the proof...

Math based upon a false assumption or a missing element to the equation yields a wrong result every time.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

aahhh... now here is evidence...

From me, no comments, but here's a couple of quotes...

From ANH and the Annotated Screenplays:

Death Star Intercom Voice: We are approaching the planet Yavin. The Rebel base is on a moon on the far side. We are preparing to orbit the planet.

Death Star Intercom Voice: Orbiting the planet at maximum velocity. The moon with the Rebel base will be in range in thirty minutes.

the first quote is telling, as it is no longer quite as vague as in the movie itself... it establishes that the DS is indeed moving, but still lacks any indication of its' velocity. In addition, it tells us generally where Y4 is, but as 'on the far side' literally means 'anywhere on the side of the planet we cannot see' it does not contradict the visuals at all

for the second quote above, it is now firmly established that the DS is indeed orbiting Yavin -- I stand corrected on this point. However, it tells us nothing about the parameters of said orbit (eccentricity, mean anomaly, true anomaly, etc... it also establishes that regardless of the orbital parameters, the DS is currently at the maximum velocity for that orbit (perigee), therefore it will not (dare I say cannot?) accelerate further -- it can however slow down.

From the ANH novelisation:

"The red represents the progress of the Imperial battle station as it moves deeper into Yavin's system."

like I said, corrected on the 'is it moving' bit... the scenario still fits the math, as it doesnt take much to incorporate the necessary adjustments. we just get to toss out the assumption of a stationary position.

See guys? I am not as intransigent as you seem to believe.

[Lord of the Farce]

the first quote is telling, as it is no longer quite as vague as in the movie itself...

Huh? What do you mean "as it is no longer quite as vague as in the movie itself"? The quote is from the movie (and backed up by the annotated screenplay, which was why I also put a reference to it).

[Darth Wong]

the first quote is telling, as it is no longer quite as vague as in the movie itself...

As LOTF pointed out, this comes from the movie. WATCH THE MOVIE. How can you produce these detailed screenshots and be so goddamned unfamiliar with the movie from which they came? First you produce a screenshot from the scene in which Y4 seems to be moving at >1000km, and you use it as proof that it can be moving at 50km/s or less(!!!) Then, you act as though this line from the movie is ONLY found in the screenplay. Didn't you ever WATCH it, in real-time complete with audio? Or is your entire concept of Star Wars based on static screenshots taken out of context?

like I said, corrected on the 'is it moving' bit... the scenario still fits the math, as it doesnt take much to incorporate the necessary adjustments. we just get to toss out the assumption of a stationary position.

See guys? I am not as intransigent as you seem to believe.

No, it doesn't. The scenario only fits the math if you throw out most of the evidence, and seize upon ONLY the parts of the evidence which DON'T make sense. You use screenshots such as the ones I showed in order to show that Y4 is very close to the edge and about to pass through. However the velocity of Y4 in that scene is ridiculously high; so high that 30 minutes is a HUGE overestimate. So it is OBVIOUSLY a PROJECTION for Tarkin's benefit. It is not showing Y4's current status; it is showing him what they INTEND to do (unless you seriously think their rate of closure was that high).

The fact is that given the high velocity on the DS display, the Rebel display is MORE reliable, not less. And your attempt to pretend the math cannot possibly work out is a joke; you are still starting from a groundless assumption, namely that the DS comes out of hyperspace with no initial velocity to worry about. Suppose it comes out of hyperspace with such a velocity that it's basically moving around Yavin in the same direction as Y4? In that case, it would have to accelerate in the opposite direction at a prodigious rate and continue accelerating until it nullifies its velocity in one direction and begins counter-rotating back toward Y4.

This would explain the initial viewscreen, the acceleration on the Rebel display, the positioning, etc. It would explain everything, except for the DS display which shows them closing at >1000km/s, and which must therefore be a time-compressed projection for Tarkin's benefit, unless you choose to believe that the DS had LOS in less than one minute (extrapolated from the velocity in the scene), and spent the remaining 29 minutes just sitting around.

Face it; your math is based upon deliberate exclusion of evidence with nothing but flimsy excuses to back it up, and you seize upon a display which obviously says something COMPLETELY different from what you claim with your out-of-context static screenshot. I provided two time-indexed screenshots and even a video clip for evidence, and you chose to answer everone's posts but mine.

[SirNitram]

Of course, the fact this ignores all official evidence and probably all the canon evidence in the novels and radioplays is nothing for our intrepid paper-writer.

I'm just goin where the math takes me... and that same math fits virtually all of the evidence you cite -- with the rebel screen being the sole irreconcilable exception AFAIK (and that has been explained)... if you can find anything else to use against me, have at it, as there are almost certainly things I have missed, given that I have not read everything SW...

The math, applied to your unreasonable assumption, should take you to a situation where Yavin must be mostly neutronium in order to hold Y-4. You are committing the same BS that Darkstar, famous idiot, does: Start from your assumption and ruthlessly bend all evidence to fit your claim. If it can't be bent, throw it out and make excuses(Like your treatment of the Rebel screen).

I'm sure you'll think this is harsh, but oh fucking well. People have driven the point home repeatedly.

Speed of the DS. Well, in West End Games statistics, it has a speed of 3 in space. The SSD Executor, with a speed of 4 in space, circumvented Endor in a matter of minutes. Ergo, we can safely assume the DS is capable of the same thing, with a slightly longer timeframe.

Further evidence for these accelerations is found in the AOTC ICS, which lists the Acclamator Cruiser at 4500G's. SW Tech can hack it.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

Mike, relax... I am getting there, I am just taking things as I can... gotta sleep sometime eh?

anyway, LotF and Mike, I honestly do not remember hearing the phrase 'we are approaching the planet Yavin' in the movie itself, and was going on that alone. Thanks for for providing the ref LotF

Huh? What do you mean "as it is no longer quite as vague as in the movie itself"? The quote is from the movie (and backed up by the annotated screenplay, which was why I also put a reference to it).

[Darth Servo]

Mike, relax... I am getting there, I am just taking things as I can... gotta sleep sometime eh?

anyway, LotF and Mike, I honestly do not remember hearing the phrase 'we are approaching the planet Yavin' in the movie itself, and was going on that alone. Thanks for for providing the ref LotF

Then you need to go watch the movie again. Its there.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm just goin where the math takes me... and that same math fits virtually all of the evidence you cite -- with the rebel screen being the sole irreconcilable exception AFAIK (and that has been explained)... if you can find anything else to use against me, have at it, as there are almost certainly things I have missed, given that I have not read everything SW...

Medieval astronomers "went where the math took them" in measuring the orbits of the planets in a Copenician solar system with circular orbits. Those numbers worked elegantly as well, so long as you didn't mind little discrepancies like Mars' retrograde motion each season. The numbers also worked out equally elegantly in Claudius Ptolemy's Earth-centric solar system so long as you didn't mind dealing with the even larger discrepancy of Mars' apparent orbit of an invisible body to account for its retrograde motion in that model.

[CmdrWilkens]

I'm just goin where the math takes me... and that same math fits virtually all of the evidence you cite -- with the rebel screen being the sole irreconcilable exception AFAIK (and that has been explained)... if you can find anything else to use against me, have at it, as there are almost certainly things I have missed, given that I have not read everything SW...

Medieval astronomers "went where the math took them" in measuring the orbits of the planets in a Copenician solar system with circular orbits. Those numbers worked elegantly as well, so long as you didn't mind little discrepancies like Mars' retrograde motion each season. The numbers also worked out equally elegantly in Claudius Ptolemy's Earth-centric solar system so long as you didn't mind dealing with the even larger discrepancy of Mars' apparent orbit of an invisible body to account for its retrograde motion in that model.

Bah, pesky contrary data should be ignored DarkStar taught us that

[Shaka[Zulu]]

Ok, from here on I am going to try to turn this to a more constructive direction, instead of stupidly defending my original paper which has been shot full of a number of holes by my own blindness... To this end I will strive to account for all the evidence (including the rebel display which I still think is just a glorified alarm clock, but you wont hear me call it that from now on) beginning -- hopefully -- with this post.

As LOTF pointed out, this comes from the movie. WATCH THE MOVIE. How can you produce these detailed screenshots and be so goddamned unfamiliar with the movie from which they came? First you produce a screenshot from the scene in which Y4 seems to be moving at >1000km, and you use it as proof that it can be moving at 50km/s or less(!!!) Then, you act as though this line from the movie is ONLY found in the screenplay. Didn't you ever WATCH it, in real-time complete with audio? Or is your entire concept of Star Wars based on static screenshots taken out of context?

no Mike, it isnt based on that... but I honestly did not remember hearing the line 'we are approaching the planet Yavin' in the movie (it might be the version I have, a faulty copy whatever, but I swear to you that 'we are approaching the planet Yavin' is not in it, although 'preparing to orbit the planet' is. as to the moon's velocity, I just dont see where you are getting that 1000km/sec figure, as (yes using Curt's data) all the orbital elements come together nicely with a calculation of about 42km/sec at that point in the orbit. if you or anyone else has any actual element data which allows for a different result for Y4's orbit that fits with the observed visuals, please let me know.

No, it doesn't. The scenario only fits the math if you throw out most of the evidence, and seize upon ONLY the parts of the evidence which DON'T make sense. You use screenshots such as the ones I showed in order to show that Y4 is very close to the edge and about to pass through. However the velocity of Y4 in that scene is ridiculously high; so high that 30 minutes is a HUGE overestimate. So it is OBVIOUSLY a PROJECTION for Tarkin's benefit. It is not showing Y4's current status; it is showing him what they INTEND to do (unless you seriously think their rate of closure was that high).

so basically you (et al) are saying that I am indeed suffering from a massive case of GIGO (bad premise + bad initial data + good math = very bad result), and that all of the orbital elements of Y4 established for the calcs are wrong -- all the masses, eccentricites, inclinations etc are invalid. Ok... fine.

I suppose then someone wont mind if I ask for some info, such as:
1) concerning the rate of closure, do we actually really know if the range was decreasing, was it just the angular separation for LOS purposes, translated to look like distance on the rebel display, or both (and to what extent)? (I would prefer not to just blindly accept the rebel representation without a second source to confirm)...

2) I need to add a piece of evidence from the rebel side here as well... when the DS acheived LOS on Y4, the rebel announcer stated either 'the death star has cleared the planet' or 'the death star is clear to fire' twice (repeated it for emphasis I suppose) I just cant remember the wording exactly... now I know what I think it means: 'the DS has the angle on us!'; at the same time, the DS controller states 'rebel base in range' (but what is the superlaser's range?) what do you all think?

3) I know which evidence I counted in the original text: all the displays from the DS overbridge; all the evidence which I interpreted differently: the 'orbiting the planet at maximum velocity' statement (which I applied to Y4, as it was apparently at or near perigee itself) and the evidence I discarded or failed to consider: the rebel display, the 'approaching the planet, preparing to orbit' statement. am I missing anything else?

The fact is that given the high velocity on the DS display, the Rebel display is MORE reliable, not less. And your attempt to pretend the math cannot possibly work out is a joke; you are still starting from a groundless assumption, namely that the DS comes out of hyperspace with no initial velocity to worry about. Suppose it comes out of hyperspace with such a velocity that it's basically moving around Yavin in the same direction as Y4? In that case, it would have to accelerate in the opposite direction at a prodigious rate and continue accelerating until it nullifies its velocity in one direction and begins counter-rotating back toward Y4.

Ok, I fully admit to falling into the 'absence of evidence' fallacy, and that I wantonly failed to take that possibility into account. However, what we really need to determine is in what direction the moon and DS are in fact moving at the start of the countdown, and the distance from the DS to Yavin at the 'max velocity' statement, which should be perigee... we can already infer from the initial targeting screen on the DS what the angular separation is between the 2 bodies, but once again we (or rather I) need better data apparently than curt's numbers to work it out...

This would explain the initial viewscreen, the acceleration on the Rebel display, the positioning, etc. It would explain everything, except for the DS display which shows them closing at >1000km/s, and which must therefore be a time-compressed projection for Tarkin's benefit, unless you choose to believe that the DS had LOS in less than one minute (extrapolated from the velocity in the scene), and spent the remaining 29 minutes just sitting around.

so, we have gone from my ignoring the rebel display because it is inaccurate wrt scale, distances, and proper motion (at least so far as I know, given that all my previous orbital data for Y4 has been dismissed)... to your ignoring the DS targeting display because it is supposedly time compressed... what a wonderful bit of progress... is there any way we can meet in the middle here?

Face it; your math is based upon deliberate exclusion of evidence with nothing but flimsy excuses to back it up, and you seize upon a display which obviously says something COMPLETELY different from what you claim with your out-of-context static screenshot. I provided two time-indexed screenshots and even a video clip for evidence, and you chose to answer everone's posts but mine.

darnit guys... I give up on the initial scenario ok, but just humor me for a minute while I propose a new one:

given recent events, I propose that the DS had in fact established a para- or hyperbolic orbit, with perigee occuring during the same timeframe as the phrase 'orbiting the planet at maximum velocity'... since we cannot know just what the DS's initial elements were upon coming out of hyperspace, I dont think it is wise (or fair, as you could give it all sorts of boons, while I would choose not to) to speculate what it did to get to that point, so we can concentrate on what it did from the start of the countdown on. first, are there any issues with this premise?

now there are some concerns here:

1) regarding Y4, this has the potential to end up skewing Y4's orbit even more towards an e of 1, and shifts its other elements such that it is going even faster during the scenario than originally calc'd... this even opens up the possibility that the moon is actually moving away from the DS... a possibility which I think you all might really like.

2) can we agree that huge accelerations on the DS's part are not required -- that is, after the 'orbiting the planet at maximum velocity' phrase is uttered? in fact the phrase would seem to disqualify the possibility of further acceleration, unless the DS broke orbit to pursue a powered intercept (a presumption for which there is no evidence AFAIK)

[Darth Wong]

no Mike, it isnt based on that... but I honestly did not remember hearing the line 'we are approaching the planet Yavin' in the movie (it might be the version I have, a faulty copy whatever, but I swear to you that 'we are approaching the planet Yavin' is not in it, although 'preparing to orbit the planet' is. as to the moon's velocity, I just dont see where you are getting that 1000km/sec figure, as (yes using Curt's data) all the orbital elements come together nicely with a calculation of about 42km/sec at that point in the orbit. if you or anyone else has any actual element data which allows for a different result for Y4's orbit that fits with the observed visuals, please let me know.

Y4's orbit is fine (although Curtis's orbital period estimate is 174 hours, not 122 hours). However, your assumptions are unfounded. And the 1000 km/s figure is scaled directly off the visible movement of the Y4 image on the DS screen. Did you even bother downloading the video clip I linked to on my post?

so, we have gone from my ignoring the rebel display because it is inaccurate wrt scale, distances, and proper motion (at least so far as I know, given that all my previous orbital data for Y4 has been dismissed)... to your ignoring the DS targeting display because it is supposedly time compressed... what a wonderful bit of progress... is there any way we can meet in the middle here?

Don't fuck with me, Willy. I have presented incontrovertible evidence that the display in question must have been showing a projection. When you saw the Rebel briefing-room's display of an X-wing firing a torp into the DS's exhaust port, did you assume that this was actually happening because it was on the display? Your only evidence for ignoring the Rebel display is that it doesn't fit your model (convenient bit of circular logic; the model is good because it works without the Rebel display ... which is no good because it conflicts with the model). That is not remotely comparable to the direct observations which I use to show that the scene in question must be a time-compressed projection rather than a real-time status display.

The DS display shows Y4 moving at more than 1000 km/s. Do you want another link to the clip? Here it is! If you would bother watching the video clip that I digitized and uploaded and conveniently LINKED TO, you would see that it is moving so quickly that the DS will have LOS in less than one minute. Since we know that the DS did NOT have LOS in less than one minute, there was OBVIOUSLY something wrong with the display, ie- it must have been a time-compressed projection for Tarkin's benefit.

Think about this: I use direct observations (known time to LOS) in order to contradict a particular interpretation of a display screen. In other words, I use a piece of EVIDENCE to prove that one interpretation should be used rather than another. In your case, you use your OWN hypothesis (NOT a piece of evidence) in order to completely discard the Rebel display, with no plausible justification whatsoever except for the circular logic that you can't reconcile it with your model. In effect, you elevate your model to the status of evidence. That is unacceptable as a matter of basic principle and scientific philosophy.

darnit guys... I give up on the initial scenario ok, but just humor me for a minute while I propose a new one:

You give it up because the evidence is overwhelming, but you still insist on A) ignoring the Rebel display without a plausible reason and B) acting as though a critical piece of evidence (the ridiculously high rate of movement of Y4 on the DS display, which has been pointed out by everyone repeatedly and explained with multiple screenshots and even a video clip) is just some figment of our collective imagination.

2) can we agree that huge accelerations on the DS's part are not required -- that is, after the 'orbiting the planet at maximum velocity' phrase is uttered? in fact the phrase would seem to disqualify the possibility of further acceleration, unless the DS broke orbit to pursue a powered intercept (a presumption for which there is no evidence AFAIK)

This presumes a physically nonsensical maximum velocity in vacuum, as opposed to a semantic shortcut on the part of the officer in question. I think that a semantic shortcut is preferable to an explanation which tramples recklessly over physics, particularly when you still have never produced a vaguely plausible reason to disregard the Rebel display. What the fuck were they all doing standing around staring nervously at the thing if it had nothing to do with the actual position of the Death Star?

PS. Here's a tip: you would have gotten a more civil set of rebuttals if you hadn't been such a smart-ass about this.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

OMG.... I cant beleive I did that -- now Ive got to figure out where the hell I got the period of 122 hours for Y4 from! ( although considering that I was sleep deprived for most of the nights I worked the original text, It wouldnt surprise me at all if I just experienced a fit of brain-fatigue induced dyslexia... whats worse is that I failed to realize it after all this time (never went back to check)

I also missed the original link to the vid you posted (facefaults into keyboard)

ok... I am hereby stringing myself up for public flogging. I deserve it as such an error on my part is unforgiveable (at least I cant forgive myself for it). whatever you all choose to change my rank to, I will suffer it gladly.

but I think I need to clear something up as to that last post... I'm afraid you might have misunderstood my reading of the 'max velocity'... I was thinking that it indeed wasnt referring to any particular max v of the DS (as it shouldnt really have one... acceleration limits are something else) but rather the max velocity for the orbit the DS was using... my reasoning is that if the DS was on a powered intercept trajectory, it wouldnt really be in orbit at all, and was simply treating Yavin as a navigational obstacle...

I just want to reconcile all the data and evidence now... I promise. no discarding of evidence, no ego... I have to try to regain some level of intellectual honesty. dammit I cant even write my mecha feasibility post now, Im so screwed up. (was planning on revamping it anyway, as I was finding it unwieldy)

[Darth Wong]

Don't worry, I'm not planning on giving you any nasty titles. The fact that you were eventually willing to admit error (even if it took a while) still puts you head and shoulders above the people who normally acquire the VI title.

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, from here on I am going to try to turn this to a more constructive direction, instead of stupidly defending my original paper which has been shot full of a number of holes by my own blindness... To this end I will strive to account for all the evidence (including the rebel display which I still think is just a glorified alarm clock, but you wont hear me call it that from now on) beginning -- hopefully -- with this post.

That's one hell of a one-trick toy, isn't it? A big table-sized computer that shows a countdown of the solar system and a Death Star approaching it to destroy it in one swift blow... one would think they would use something more useful, like a radar or even a table full of miniatures.

Or in case they really needed an alarm clock, they could have used a big screen reading: "T-30 minutes"

[Slartibartfast]

Don't worry, I'm not planning on giving you any nasty titles. The fact that you were eventually willing to admit error (even if it took a while) still puts you head and shoulders above the people who normally acquire the VI title.

What about Rabid Monkey? No, I'm not suggesting that you change his title! I'm just asking what does one need to deserve such a title? I've seen several members with that rank, even a couple of newbies and I wondered what it stands for.

[Master of Ossus]

Don't worry, I'm not planning on giving you any nasty titles. The fact that you were eventually willing to admit error (even if it took a while) still puts you head and shoulders above the people who normally acquire the VI title.

What about Rabid Monkey? No, I'm not suggesting that you change his title! I'm just asking what does one need to deserve such a title? I've seen several members with that rank, even a couple of newbies and I wondered what it stands for.

Rabid Monkey is a title given to the members of the Brotherhood of the Monkey. It is not an insulting or derogatory title, but a statement of their allegiance. I believe you can join them upon request.