Hello again

[Captain Newland]

Dude... you still haven't done it. You're waffling *around* admitting you've got nothing. Just do it and get it over with: it'll probably make you grow up a little bit.

Well, since I'm in the position, however unintended it may be, alright. I concede that I have no evidence to support my arguments at this time. However, I still want to say that I never intended to make any arguments in the first place (yeah, it's stupid, I know), but I concede all the same.

[Darth Wong]

Dude... you still haven't done it. You're waffling *around* admitting you've got nothing. Just do it and get it over with: it'll probably make you grow up a little bit.

Well, since I'm in the position, however unintended it may be, alright. I concede that I have no evidence to support my arguments at this time. However, I still want to say that I never intended to make any arguments in the first place (yeah, it's stupid, I know), but I concede all the same.

Simple advice: if you truly don't want to discuss Darkstar in future, just ignore any comments relating to him. This strategy is simple, sweet, and gets the job done.

[Surlethe]

Well, since I'm in the position, however unintended it may be, alright. I concede that I have no evidence to support my arguments at this time. However, I still want to say that I never intended to make any arguments in the first place (yeah, it's stupid, I know), but I concede all the same.

Every time you concede a lost argument, you grow up a little bit. We've all had to do it, and it's good for both honesty and humility (and heaven knows teenage guys have way too little of the latter ). A due concession can only help your reputation.

[Captain Newland]

Dude... you still haven't done it. You're waffling *around* admitting you've got nothing. Just do it and get it over with: it'll probably make you grow up a little bit.

Well, since I'm in the position, however unintended it may be, alright. I concede that I have no evidence to support my arguments at this time. However, I still want to say that I never intended to make any arguments in the first place (yeah, it's stupid, I know), but I concede all the same.

Simple advice: if you truly don't want to discuss Darkstar in future, just ignore any comments relating to him. This strategy is simple, sweet, and gets the job done.

Sound advice.

[Lord Poe]

Newland, even though you were an idiot on your old board, and I could probably give several examples if I really needed to, and you're a Darkstar apologist, I have no problem with you being here. Enjoy your stay, but remember we use the actual SW canon here.

[Knife]

I don't really know why Knife brought up your history and I don't really care about your history.

One of my few dealings with the guy. Nothing to really cement his standings or anything. He and I did a bout on Fed ground infantry a while back.

[Captain Newland]

Newland, even though you were an idiot on your old board, and I could probably give several examples if I really needed to,

No need, I'll do it for you. Remember when I denied that a matter-antimatter reaction would produce radiation?

and you're a Darkstar apologist, I have no problem with you being here.

Well that's nice to hear.

Enjoy your stay, but remember we use the actual SW canon here.

And though I disagree with your view of SW canon, I intend to follow it while I'm here. It would be hypocritical of me not to, as I was insisting that people follow my view of SW canon on my board.

[Captain Newland]

I don't really know why Knife brought up your history and I don't really care about your history.

One of my few dealings with the guy. Nothing to really cement his standings or anything. He and I did a bout on Fed ground infantry a while back.

And I'm sure we'll have more than enough time to bout some more. After all, a healthy debate never hurt anyone, did it?

[DPDarkPrimus]

After all, a healthy debate never hurt anyone, did it?

It's hurt quite a few people here on SDnet, but no one who were missed.

[Lone_Prodigy]

I do remember you, Newland, though not too fondly. As I recall you threatened to ban me after I called BigHairyMountainRetard an idiot after he said that the asteroids in AotC were composed of gravel. I do have to say, though, you were one of the lower-grade fucktards on the site. You seemed a bit more open to opinions than special-ed debators like G2K who just stick their fingers in their ears and mumble when they hear anything new.

I'm just curious, do you know what ever happened to that thread where I debated BHMM (I'm not sure what name I was under)? I took a look a couple months later of of curiousity, and not only was I banned, but all my posts were erased. What happened?

[Captain Newland]

I do remember you, Newland, though not too fondly. As I recall you threatened to ban me after I called BigHairyMountainRetard an idiot after he said that the asteroids in AotC were composed of gravel.

Hmm, I think I might remember you, although as I said earlier, I never banned, warned, or threatened anyone with either of the two simply for calling someone an idiot once. I do seem to remember you calling someone more than an idiot on one or two occasions, but there were a couple people like that, so I can't say for sure.

I do have to say, though, you were one of the lower-grade fucktards on the site. You seemed a bit more open to opinions than special-ed debators like G2K who just stick their fingers in their ears and mumble when they hear anything new.

I never watched BHMM or anyone else debate, so I can't confirm or deny what you said. Hell, even if I had, they were debating things so complex for someone of my age that on the few occasions when I did pop in, I didn't understand more than two words of it.

I'm just curious, do you know what ever happened to that thread where I debated BHMM (I'm not sure what name I was under)?

No threads were ever deleted except for those put up by someone called "+," who obviously was a troll.

I took a look a couple months later of of curiousity, and not only was I banned, but all my posts were erased. What happened?

Holy crap! I don't know what that's about. I don't recall ever banning you. I may have given you a warning, but I didn't ban you. Avatar of Nerendra III might have done so, I'm not sure. As for all of your posts, that's just plain weird. We never deleted anyone's posts without a ridiculously good reason.

[chitoryu12]

[/quote] We never deleted anyone's posts without a ridiculously good reason.[/quote]

Or a plain ridiculous reason, apparently.

[SirNitram]

We never deleted anyone's posts without a ridiculously good reason.

Or a plain ridiculous reason, apparently.

Eh?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

We never deleted anyone's posts without a ridiculously good reason.

Or a plain ridiculous reason, apparently.

Image deleted. Ein, make a post but do not just go +1. ~GR

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

We never deleted anyone's posts without a ridiculously good reason.

Or a plain ridiculous reason, apparently.

Image deleted. Ein, make a post but do not just go +1. ~GR

Sorry Ghost.

Now Chitoryu, you made a claim of moderator abuse of power (deleting posts for "plain ridiculous" reasons) when the evidence stands for itself that almost nothing ever gets deleted, just moved to a more appropriate venue. That sort of flamebait is what tends to get people branded a troll and permanently banned the quickest. Watch your ass.

Now what you said is known as a 'claim' here, so the burden of proof is upon YOU to produce evidence of such abuse of power or immediately and unconditionally concede, as per Debating Rule Six. Note that any attempts to pass your statement off as merely an opinion will be swiftly attacked for the red herring it is.

Consider yourself extremely lucky you're not having a Pylon (sound it out ) dropped upon you at this point. */me loads and cocks Railgun*

[Bounty]

Ein : right indignation, wrng thread. chitoryu12 was responding to Newland's experiences on the st-v-sw board, nothing to do with SDN.

[Lord Pounder]

Newland in this very thread you have claimed several times that the official view of canon is wrong. Show us how it's wrong. And when you've done that send it in a e-mail to Lucas and his execs because they'd be thrilled to know that a 16 year old knows more about their universe and time line than the guy who, ya know, write it You are a fucking tosser and total waste of space. You can't even concede properly. "you have you opinion and i have mine" is not a fucking concession, it's a fundie saying "i'll pray for you". Your time here will be short and painful untill i manage to dislodge you head from your anus.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Ein : right indignation, wrng thread. chitoryu12 was responding to Newland's experiences on the st-v-sw board, nothing to do with SDN.

Okay.

Chitoryu, you need to learn the proper value of context.

[Batman]

@Lord Pounder(actually more like @Newland)
Um-how can the official view of canon be wrong? The guys who own the franchise are the ones that determine what's canon. It can be stupid, retarded, needlessly restrictive, and a lot of other things, but it can NOT be wrong. We may not agree with it (ENT, anybody?) but unless and until one of the Powers That Be say something they so far had declared canon isn't anymore, it is.

[Covenant]

@Lord Pounder(actually more like @Newland)
Um-how can the official view of canon be wrong? The guys who own the franchise are the ones that determine what's canon. It can be stupid, retarded, needlessly restrictive, and a lot of other things, but it can NOT be wrong. We may not agree with it (ENT, anybody?) but unless and until one of the Powers That Be say something they so far had declared canon isn't anymore, it is.

Related: canon doesn't cover all things. We have developed a lot of theories based on what the film has shown that supercede canon in the most minor fashion--by assuming there was more at play. IE, the lightspeed or FTL and invisible damaging turbolaser segments, or how a 'quad laser' is not a laser, but something closer to a blaster or turbolaser in that sense.

We need to make assumptions, so at times the canon can be 'wrong' until Lucas decided to address it directly. If he should come out and say "Um, yeah, there were 100 billion clones manufactured during the clone war," then that's gonna obliterate all previous canon as we know. But until he says "Turbolasers do damage only with the glowy, slow-moving part" we can assume he's wrong in the sense that his intent is wrong. This is the basis for this board's form of criticism--if we throw out what Lucas wanted and replace that with more of what he actually gave us, we make a truer 'canon' than just what he said, in essence.

Because, as we can see, sometimes he has people say dumb things. 1.2 million clones as the army made by the Kamino folks? That doesn't make much sense. If Lucas came out and posted on this board and said "Actually, 200k of them were used as garrison forces, and only a million clones were used as combat forces over the war," then that's the offical canon. But it would also make no sense, even less sense than the hated 3-million number. Trek is a great example--in the Original Series, an episode called Obsession, they state that a pound of animatter could destroy an entire solar system, and that an ounce would be sufficent to rip away half the planet's atmosphere. Once ounce of antimatter is about 1.2 to 1.5 megatons and a pound is about 15 to 20 megatons. So, obviously, something was dead wrong, and in this case it's just the writers.

So it's quite possible for accepted canon to be flat-out wrong. This is usually covered under an outlier and considered to be a fluke of some sort, but if the author specifically wrote incorrect science into their material, and made it abundantly apparent that this was accepted fact in their universe, we're stuck.

Anyway, I'm not saying that canon is useless. I'm just saying that we all look for more reasonable explinations to things than just what is stated. The head-author of the entire series does carry a lot more weight, but I don't believe any of us would lay down our logic--no questions asked--if Lucas came out and put into film or writing something which was so outrageous that it flew in the face of even the most minimialistic calc's.

Also, I'm not defending this guy. He can disagree with canon, but that doesn't make it not canon. And until we do have the nightmare scenario I poisted, it seems ridiculous to make a personal retcon of events and attempt to pass it off as anything other than their unenlightened opinion of how they'd like things to have gone. Ignoring the movie canon is as reasonable as saying "I would prefer it if Vader had lived, so to me, he did, and goes to play catch with Luke on sunny Saturdays."

[Covenant]

No edit?

Too Long, Didn't Read summary of my point: Canon can be wrong because authors can be wrong, and this is why we often ignore their intent and look precisely at what we were consistantly shown. Even if Lucas wanted there to be, at max, 1.2 million clones involved with the Clone War, but quintillions or quadrillions of enemy droids, it would still be incredibly ridiculous and wrong, even though he said it. We would probably have to accept it, but I think a lot of people would still say he's wrong, in the same manner as a filmmaker showing drywall stopping bullets would be wrong. Authors can make mistakes and say things that are not true.

And the other half of the point is that we often toss out intent--such as Lucas saying "Well when I made it I thought this should happen," because we usually consider the film footage to be canon higher than what he wanted to show, so in this sense he can also be wrong, since we often look at the movies as the actual canon universe and everyone else just as people. It's the actual work that's canon, not the author's imagination.

[Batman]

Covenant, are you sure you know what canon actually means?

[brianeyci]

He could be going by the dictionary definition of what's a canon, eg., generally accepted "good" works.

Star Wars has a canon and it's defined with levels of canonicity. If there's a contradiction between GL and a novelist, there's a resolution method they define Covenant, so Star Wars canon is never wrong. Sorry. It's in the PSW forum.

Even in say... something like Starcraft where there is no resolution method, you usually go with only the original source as canon, or whatever the authorities in the fan community declare are representative of the original source. If there are contradictions there then it gets messier, but that's why purists usually don't call anything canon unless it's really representative of the heart of the work. I am a purist so if I was a hardcore fan of let's say Stargate, I wouldn't consider any novelizations or scripts or even author's intent written in notes or author's interviews canon unless it's explicitly spelt out. Worst comes to worst when there's no canon policy, nothing but the original source is canon. Then you have to assume a work has internal consistency, which bad works don't always have, so I guess your criticism of "canon can be wrong" could be true in wildly inconsistent universes like in comics. But not when there's a resolution mechanism and there's a reasonable level of consistency.

Brian

[Covenant]

That's a fair question, but I'll try to explain myself, then you can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm gonna steal this from the SW Canon thread.

Are the entries in the Holocron sorted as cannonical & non-cannonical? Are there various degress of oficialness?

The database does indeed have a canon field. Anything in the films and from George Lucas (including unpublished internal notes that we might receive from him or from the film production department) is considered "G" canon. Next we have what we call continuity "C" canon which is pretty much everything else. There is secondary "S" continuity canon which we use for some older published materials and things that may or may not fit just right. But, if it is referenced in something else it becomes "C". Similarly, any "C" canon item that makes it into the films can become "G" canon. Lastly there is non-continuity "N" which we rarely use except in the case of a blatant contradiction or for things that have been cut.

I will not go into specifics as to what is considered "S" canon or what items that are seemingly "C" canon are actually "G" canon.

Okay, I know that the novels are C-level, and I assume that most of the newer comics are also C-level. Where on the continuity spectrum to the Video games come in?

"...continuity "C" canon which is pretty much everything else. " By everything else I mean EVERYthing else. Novels, comics, junior novels, videogames, trading card games, roleplaying games, toys, websites, television. As I've mentioned earlier, any contradictions that arise are dealt on a case-by-case. This has been our general approach to continuity since we began using the Holocron database to track it.

In a nutshell, anything created by the author would be C-level. Anything in the the novels created by George Lucas (whether it comes from unpublished early script versions, unpublished author interviews with George, or George's revisions to the novelization manuscript) would be G-level unless contradicted by the films.

It gets a little more complicated when something is seen on-screen but not named. So the "shuura fruit" mentioned in the AOTC novel would be G because you see it in the film, although the author came up with the name.

Is there anything post-Return of the Jedi that is G level?

Not in the database, no. If there is anything anywhere, only George knows.

Now, as we see, canon here is very clearly defined. If George Lucas says it, it's got the highest level of canon, including production notes. So if he says it, it should be the highest level of canon whatsoever. But, I also said, if he came out and said something such as "1 million clones were all that was used in offensive actions during the clone wars," we'd also know that makes no sense. And if he said "Blasters and Turbolasers are plasma guns," then he'd be wrong again, or at least basing his stuff on stuff we know doesn't hold up. In the production notes, IE the script, he refers to lasers several times instead of 'turbolaser' specifically or instead of 'blaster.' Before this was corrected by other, better canon, technically by Lucasfilm standards they were canonically just a laser gun. IE, canon can be wrong sometimes, and we'll need to wait for someone to come and correct it with better, more reasonable canon before it's right. Similar to the SSD length debate--where established canon was, for a while, wrong.

[brianeyci]

If GL says there were 1 million clones in the clone wars, then it's canon period. There are ways to rationalize it, like saying that the clones are special forces or something. Hard to swallow, but that's it.

If he says blasters are plasma guns, then that's it they're plasma guns. There's ways to rationalize it too like the plasma referring to something specific in the operation of the gun instead of the bolt.

I intepret "anything from the films and from George Lucas" as including anything from George Lucas' mouth about SW as canon, especially the part when Chee mentions unpublished author interviews (meaning anybody who talks to George Lucas about SW is interviewing him and getting canonical information about SW that's G level). If I'm wrong about that I'm sure some SW fan will bash me in the head.

Canon can't be wrong except in the case of a logical flaw. There's ways of rationalizing it, and they may be unpalpatable but they're there. And even then in universes like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy there may be explicitly spelt out anti-logic technology so sometimes if you find a logical flaw it might be dealt with. My point about comics is that there's so much inconsistency in the canon itself that your idea about wrong canon could work with them, but outside of comics I can't imagine a universe so inconsistent that the canon is wrong. In most universes what the author wants, or author's intent, is not canon so there's no such problem about the author arbitrarily declaring something contradicting his creation.

Brian