The Size of the Droid Army "Retconned"

[Master of Ossus]

At least 242,500,000 as Star Destroyer Marine Detachments alone....

Not true! Those star destroyers weren't necessary full. In fact, the vast majority were probably near-empty. I'd estimate we're looking at only a few hundred thousand troops, total.

[PayBack]

That's a load of bullshit.... until such time as you write a book explaining how it's true.....

[IceHawk-181]

Unless you can prove otherwise I will not assume standard compliments are actually met!!

Alright, I will try something to establish some idea of scale.

242,500,000 Stormtroopers on ISD detachments.

1,000,000 Systems in the Empire
387,288 soldiers in a System Army...


Almost 388 Trillion soldiers!!!

387,530,500,000

That's assuming there are no augmented groups (which there are, and which are like 50% larger) etc etc...


In other words...the Empire has a shitload of soldiers and Stormies.....

Orders of Magnitudes greater, apparently, than the GAR

[PayBack]

Your post is full of abuse, slander, and libel against Master of Ossus, not to mention the death threats.. I think the admins should ban you and delete the thread. I see they've already deleted the death threats.

(btw, Trillion or Billion?)

[Stark]

I bet you guys think you're tough for going after a WOMAN!

How widespread is the idea that the movies should conform to the EU? I had a debate the other day with a guy who fully thought that EU trivia could override direct contradiction in the movies. Is this becoming normal?

[IceHawk-181]

It's trillion, but a Trinary Trillion in which we divide by three orders of magnitude, so its a regular base 10 billion.

Obviously, I mean, come on.


It is becoming all too common.
People like Ewok and the moderators at TF.N talk about "Personal Continuity" and "Interpretation of Canon" and question the "Literay Accuracy" of movies and cartoons.

In other words.....If it doesn't fit with your conception of Star Wars, despite what Canon says, ignore it.

I thought words had definte meanings, and LFL policy was not meant to be interpreted by fans, but, oh well.


I accept that three million is Canon at the end of the day (Despite that it should be 3.2 million, 1.2 + 2.0 = 3.2 and all.....) but I guess that is not the way these peopel view it.

No like? Then no Canon!

Yay

[Stark]

'Personal canon'? Isn't that a fucking contradiction? I'm a movie purist, and proud of it - but in debates, you play by the rules.

[IceHawk-181]

Actually, apparently in debate I am supposed to accept that opponent's arguments contain logic, and that I simply cannot find it.

Despite Leland's statement that G-Canon Movie Visuals were a deciding factor in the Executor fix there are still people who challenge Visuals et al based on thier interpretation of the words...


"Movies are G-Canon...everything else is C-Canon."

That statment apparently means everything but; Visuals, Dialouge from Smugglers, Rebel Generals, Partisan Politicians, CIS Generals, and OOU Technical books.

[Lord Poe]

Love this. "Daniel K" gets a 24 hour ban for asking Wallace his opinion on clone numbers, then Wallace quotes Daniel's message and responds to it!

+http://boards.theforce.net/literature/b ... 53/p5/?122

Heh heh...

Fortunately, the number and strength of the Republic and Confederacy armies does not have any bearing on any project I am currently working on for Lucasfilm.

My personal opinion? "Quintillions" of battle droids is much too high. 3 million clones is too low.

Note that the NEC mentions alternate sources of cloning (e.g. Spaarti), and also states that the Republic had a program of forced conscription. Both facts are published EU canon, and could logically be used to nudge that latter figure northward.

Can you say...pussy fence sitter?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I'm not sure if it's polite to point fingers, but the mod who banned Dan-K does not strike me as a unbiased mod in many debates.

[Archon]

I'm not sure if it's polite to point fingers, but the mod who banned Dan-K does not strike me as a unbiased mod in many debates.

None of them like our ilk.

The only way we can win this fight is if there are rational people on the other side. That happens to be a pipe dream, which is sad.

[000]

Love this. "Daniel K" gets a 24 hour ban for asking Wallace his opinion on clone numbers, then Wallace quotes Daniel's message and responds to it!

Actually, ES banned Dan-K a full five minutes after Dan Wallace responded... which is exceedingly odd.

Can you say...pussy fence sitter?

That's awfully harsh. Consider Dan Wallace's position: he's a LFL employee, and he probably has to choose his words carefully regarding the work of another (active) author, especially when on an online community. I honestly wonder how much solidarity LFL contractees are supposed to show-- remember Stradly knocking Triple Zero and then suddenly backpedaling and apologizing soon thereafter? Or the whole bad blood between Stradly and Del Rey, which is vehemently denied now even though there's evidence to the contrary? Or how much Leland Chee seems to freak out when asked a controversial question?

I think there's a little more at work here behind the scenes than we know.

[thejester]

The fact that Traviss' co-author withdrew a statement that contradicted Traviss' position would suggest quite a bit. He basically closed ranks, and made himself look a fool in the process, in order to offer protection to Traviss - apparently failing to notice that the statement in question was but one non-essential part of a much larger argument.

[VT-16]

"Quintillions" of battle droids is much too high.

Why? Seriously, ask him why?

[Mange]

"Quintillions" of battle droids is much too high.

Why? Seriously, ask him why?

Don't expect to get an answer to that... Seriously, it seems to me as if 99 % of the people involved in the Star Wars EU (continuity editors, authors, artists etc.) have difficulties understanding the scale of the Star Wars civilization.

[Vympel]

The fact that Traviss' co-author withdrew a statement that contradicted Traviss' position would suggest quite a bit. He basically closed ranks, and made himself look a fool in the process, in order to offer protection to Traviss - apparently failing to notice that the statement in question was but one non-essential part of a much larger argument.

The most pathetic thing about Ryan Kaufman's about-face was the insinuation that he was being quoted "out of context", which was a total lie. His post is clear and unambiguous, and he said nothing else in the post in question or anything surrouding it that would somehow alter the meaning. His "3 million 3 million 3 million" was the part that really made him look the fool. I have about as much respect for liars and backpedallers like that as I do for childish nitwits like Traviss. None.

[Mange]

Now one of the defenders of the three million figure has started to bring up "dramatic suspense" and "literary format" as viable means of explaining the three million figure...

[apocolypse]

The fact that Traviss' co-author withdrew a statement that contradicted Traviss' position would suggest quite a bit. He basically closed ranks, and made himself look a fool in the process, in order to offer protection to Traviss - apparently failing to notice that the statement in question was but one non-essential part of a much larger argument.

The most pathetic thing about Ryan Kaufman's about-face was the insinuation that he was being quoted "out of context", which was a total lie. His post is clear and unambiguous, and he said nothing else in the post in question or anything surrouding it that would somehow alter the meaning. His "3 million 3 million 3 million" was the part that really made him look the fool. I have about as much respect for liars and backpedallers like that as I do for childish nitwits like Traviss. None.

True enough. Right after Kaufman posted that, I asked why have the 3 million number then if LFL could not or would not give a set clone number. I don't think I ever got a response. The only one that bothered was a mod who half-assed answered the question.

[Master of Ossus]

The most pathetic thing about Ryan Kaufman's about-face was the insinuation that he was being quoted "out of context", which was a total lie. His post is clear and unambiguous, and he said nothing else in the post in question or anything surrouding it that would somehow alter the meaning. His "3 million 3 million 3 million" was the part that really made him look the fool. I have about as much respect for liars and backpedallers like that as I do for childish nitwits like Traviss. None.

Much as I don't agree with Kaufman's "about face," he did a decent thing for me, once.

[Master of Ossus]

WHAT THE FUCK!

I was just banned from TFN!

You have violated our Terms Of Service and are currently banned from using this board system.

In most cases, bans are temporary (24 hours to 1 week); occasionally they are accidental.

Please submit an unban request using this form to inquire in to the nature and the duration of your ban. Your request will be sent to one of our moderators for review and you should receive a prompt reply back. Please keep in mind that all aspects of the board system, including unban requests, are subject to the Terms Of Service

People evading bans by creating or using alternate accounts will have their alternate account banned, and time added to their original ban.

I have submitted a request form to be unbanned, but what in the name of heck did I do that even came CLOSE to warranting such disciplinary action?

Here is the last post I submitted:

Are you saying that thinking a person is being an arrogant, self-important fool who has no right to dictate thread content automatically makes me a Karen Traviss-lover? Are you saying that you truly think of this debate in such simplistic terms that you don't believe anyone can disagree with you without being some sort of Traviss maniac? Or was that just spam?

Havac, please calm down. IMO this clearly crosses the line that the moderators have established for this thread, and I do not wish to see this thread locked because of the actions of a small minority of posters.

And here's the second to last message:

Read the argument again.

I have. And this will be great.

He is making claims that the Jedi did not tell Palpatine, and bases his argument that Palpatine is out of the loop on that. He is drawing a conclusion without evidence to back it up.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Palpatine was consulted.

SO I can say, "Senator Fang Zar is actually a Yuuzhan Vong in an ooglith masquer," and I'll be right because no one can disprove me?

Thanks for savaging your own argument. Let me paraphrase:

"Senator Fang Zar [Chancellor Palpatine] is actually a Yuuzhan Vong in an ooglith masquer [was actually consulted]," and I'll be right because no one can disprove me?

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO'S DEMANDING PROOF OF A NEGATIVE.

The original supposition, which you rejected, was "Chancellor Palpatine was not consulted."

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that he was consulted. Ergo, the reasonable conclusion is that he was not consulted. This inference is supported by a multitude of logical principals, including Occam's Razor.

Then how come whenever anyone offers any sort of theory that would make the Clone Wars work with 3,000,000 clones, it gets shot down because they're just providing theories without evidence?

It is clear to me that you do not understand how logical principals operate. I will attempt to explain this to you, but since logical reasoning is an important skill in life and since I have no chance (or desire) of describing this in a comprehensive manner I would advise you to take a class in this if you are still in school or engage in independent study of the subject if you are not.

If there is no evidence for something, then it should be rejected. That is why we reject the claim that Palpatine was consulted (ie. no evidence exists suggesting that he was consulted, ergo it is reasonable to claim that he was not). Similarly, there is no evidence that Senator Fang is a Yuuzhan Vong, and so we reject that claim using the same reasoning. If you accept the argument that Senator Fang is NOT a Yuuzhan Vong in the absence of evidence, you MUST similarly reject the idea that Palpatine was consulted in the absence of evidence. The reasoning moving us to both conclusions is identical.

Since we have rejected the idea that Palpatine was consulted in this case, any hypotheses that we present involving this fact should not include the term "Palpatine was consulted." StarKiller's does not include this term. To reject StarKiller's hypothesis on such grounds is to utilize the "Appeal to Ignorance" fallacy.

I'm sorry, but until StarKiller can back up his theories with any evidence, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Either accept that, or change your double standards on evidence.

There is no double standard. It is impossible to prove a negative proposition (ie. it is impossible to prove that Palpatine was NOT consulted; it is impossible to prove that Senator Fang Zar is NOT a Yuuzhan Vong). Several statements in this thread rely on this principal, inluding StarKiller's and your own. It is possible to REFUTE a positive proposition, such as the one that StarKiller based his argument on. Thus, one side of this discussion is providing a testable hypothesis while the other one is wasting time. It so happens that no evidence exists which would refute the testable hypothesis that StarKiller presented, and so his opponents (like you) have taken to appealing to ignorance in a misguided effort to discredit his ideas.

I guess that I clearly warrant a ban for violating the TOS.

After all, those posts clearly contain material that is "knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, that otherwise violates any law, or that encourages conduct constituting a criminal offense," and used "nicknames that might be deemed abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise inappropriate."

I imagine that, of course, Havac will receive nothing for describing his thoughts that another user was "an arrogant, self-important fool who has no right to dictate thread content," since he's apparently on the right side of the law.

[Vehrec]

You demonstrated a capacity for logical thought, in direcet defiance of their new 'suck up to VIPs' rule. Therefore, you have been banned. Terms of Service violation in this case probably just means that you made someone mad and they had some pull from kissing up to a mod.

[Master of Ossus]

You demonstrated a capacity for logical thought, in direcet defiance of their new 'suck up to VIPs' rule. Therefore, you have been banned. Terms of Service violation in this case probably just means that you made someone mad and they had some pull from kissing up to a mod.

Probably.

Anyone know how long it usually takes to get an e-mail on why you were banned and for how long?

Edit: Here it is!

You clearly haven't learned to refrain from engaging in making personal
remarks about the people you claim to be debating. That's not a
debate.

Thus, your ban is for 72-hours. The next time it'll be a week. The
time after that probably a month, etc, etc, etc.

Thanks,
David (dp4m)

mailhost.in.snowball.com @ 5/22/2006 11:04:23 AM

What does he mean I "haven't learned to refrain?" When have I been accused of anything similar in the past?

Does TF.N have any method for allowing an impartial review of the moderating process (and by that I mean a different moderator)? Furthermore, why are they cutting Havac so much slack? Did he not describe another user as an arrogant fool?

[Mange]

I understand less and less of the moderator policies over at TFN, since when is saying that someone else conceded a point earlier "personal comments" (see one of StarKiller_Outrider's posts here +http://boards.theforce.net/literature/b ... 96/p5/?107 ) and where in the TOS does it say you can't post that? Of course, I don't know if something has been edited out, but still.

EDIT:

Does TF.N have any method for allowing an impartial review of the moderating process (and by that I mean a different moderator)? Furthermore, why are they cutting Havac so much slack? Did he not describe another user as an arrogant fool?

The "What to do if you are banned" thread (+http://boards.theforce.net/rules_announ ... 4099/p1/?0 ) says that:

If you feel you are innocent, use the contact1@theforce.net email, not the unban request form.

[Hot Hands Harry]

I'm StarKiller_Outrider over there and I all ready got a ban warning. I asked why Excellence and Havac weren’t warned and DP4m said that was there style and it was ok you just have to read harder.

Does anyone know if it save PM, that the jest of what I remember.

I responded that, so its ok to be border line negative. Ok, I’ll try to be like them and be more boarder line negative in the future. I so far have go no more replies.

[Knife]

I haven't read all of your threads over there, MoO, but I've followed this debate and besides their intent to keep VIP's at any cost, I don't understand your ban either.

That is, unless some mod is monitering others here or elsewhere and are talking out of two sides of their mouths.