Why do people defend stupid numbers?

[Quadlok]

A lot of the numbers do feel "big" (the 5 mile Executor, the 3 million clones) they just aren't big enough. People who aren't familiar with real number crunching don't realize that "big" isn't good enough when you need "really fucking huge"

But anyone who passed grade school level social studies should know that 3 million isn't that big. There are single counties in the US with more people than that. Hell, I remember learning about WWII in fifth grade and finding out that German fatalities alone totalled more than 3 million.

[Lord Poe]

While Traviss and the Al-Travida are the reason for the current scale problem, an encyclopedia isn't the place for such criticism. TFN is a forum, SDN is a forum, Wookieepedia is not a forum.
Although I often comment on Karen Traviss's hard-headedness on talk pages and in the chat room, we have to keep her article neutral.

However, I don't think a link to the Karen Traviss Database would be out of line at all. In fact, its 100% relevant:

http://www.mrpoesmorgue.com/swds/talifa ... issty.html

After all, Traviss herself posted a link to that page on sw.com. If someone would be so kind as to add the above link...?

[Darth Wong]

While Traviss and the Al-Travida are the reason for the current scale problem, an encyclopedia isn't the place for such criticism. TFN is a forum, SDN is a forum, Wookieepedia is not a forum.

Although I often comment on Karen Traviss's hard-headedness on talk pages and in the chat room, we have to keep her article neutral.

Personally, I think the "Neutral Point Of View" rule is a good example of the Golden Mean Fallacy, but certainly, sophomoric insults directed at her would have no place in the article because they would accomplish nothing other than giving her more rhetorical ammunition for her sophomoric behaviour.

[Jadeite]

While Traviss and the Al-Travida are the reason for the current scale problem, an encyclopedia isn't the place for such criticism. TFN is a forum, SDN is a forum, Wookieepedia is not a forum.
Although I often comment on Karen Traviss's hard-headedness on talk pages and in the chat room, we have to keep her article neutral.

NPOV

But taking that into consideration, I re-re-edited that entry with a "neutral" viewpoint on the criticism.

If it gets deleted again, I'll just start to get bored and begin defacing obscure articles with Fifty Hitler Posts

Darth Culator, apparently one of your fellow admins, Azizlight, was too stupid to realize my last edit was informative and from an NPOV, and thus deleted it. Nothing against you personally, but now I have no choice but to relatiate with 50 Palpatine Posts on random and obscure entries.

For all of your enjoyment:

"She's also the current human incarnation of Ysanne Isard. Also, for deleting my last edit, Azizlight is a fag. It was actually informative of a controversy surrounding her and from a neutral point of view. Apparently he's incapable of simply editing something but rather enjoys furiously mashing the delete button like his jacking his flacid penis."

EDIT: Everything got cleared up.

[Srynerson]

For all of your enjoyment:

"She's also the current human incarnation of Ysanne Isard. Also, for deleting my last edit, Azizlight is a fag. It was actually informative of a controversy surrounding her and from a neutral point of view. Apparently he's incapable of simply editing something but rather enjoys furiously mashing the delete button like his jacking his flacid penis."

Well, at least the "She's also the current human incarnation of Ysanne Isard" part of the passage is still there as of a minute ago.

[Jadeite]

Well, at least the "She's also the current human incarnation of Ysanne Isard" part of the passage is still there as of a minute ago.

I definitely believe it fits.

both are psychotic and incompetent.

EDIT: Darth Culator, I might not be vandalizing the SW Wiki with 50 Palpatine Posts (although it would be pretty fun), since I'm now in a discussion with another admin on a possible rephrasing of the original Traviss Controversy edit (although I still stand by the belief that it was neutral enough before).

EDIT THE SECOND: We've come to an agreement that it can be put back in, pending his approval for a neutral point of view. Yayz.

EDIT THE THIRD: I received this message: "I reverted your edit because some comments on that page have got us into trouble by someone at StarWars.com and Karen herself in the past. None of us want to go through that again. My revert was a bit of an over-reaction though, and I'm sorry for that. Though at any rate, I think it's a tad harsh to call me a "fag" and saying things like "jacking his flacid penis". --Azizlight 03:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC) "

My response was "I admit my insults were overly harsh, but I did it for the lulz"

Internet drama averted!

[VT-16]

After all, Traviss herself posted a link to that page on sw.com. If someone would be so kind as to add the above link...?

I did and this was the result:

Why exactly was the link removed? It contained notable quotes from the author and the discussion itself. VT-16 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's more inflammatory than informative, and it's about an argument that is a very small part of who Traviss the Star Wars author is. If we can't be bothered to put up a proper biography of her, even a link to a balanced discussion of her role in the argument would unfairly weight that argument in her article. jSarek 11:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then. VT-16 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Better not push my luck, there. ;)

[WyrdNyrd]

This is my inexpert analysis of the psychology behind the "low numbers brigade", as to why, despite being fans of SW, they understate numbers rather than exaggerate, like fans of other series do.

Firstly, as others have mentioned, they're nostalgic for WEG stats, and/or can't handle/visualise big numbers. Call it innumeracy or lack of imagination.

Secondly, they're not interested in the SW/ST debate at all. Thus, unlike some Trekkies, they get no personal gratification from big numbers.

Thus, when others produce big numbers (no matter how well-researched and well-backed-up by the movies themselves) these big numbers are seen as wankage. And they, like everyone here, hate wankage - It smacks of penis-compensation, and cheapens the original source in their eyes.

So, from the perspective of the low-number brigade, we're the stats-wankers, which explains their animosity. They're objectively wrong, but from their own subjective perspective, they're the defenders of the faith...

[Illuminatus Primus]

Because there are a lot of stupid and lazy authors who can't imagine properly, or made underestimates, or ignored continuity (much of the horrid minimalism like Stackpole is failing even to adhere to WEG canon like the Imperial Sourcebook, by a great margin). These errors were not corrected by licensing personnel and authors refused to change them on pride. This patch work of mistakes and illogic, combined with just poor continuity keeping (in many cases you just have poor attention paid to even earlier minimalistic sources, e.g., Zahn's 25k ISDs from the ISB figures on warships per sector). Then provisional bandaid fixes from those-on-high. The fanbase is largely a bunch of indescriminating sycophantic fanboys who take this patchwork as intentional and authoritive "perspective" on SW and try to post facto justify it, because to do otherwise is to undermine their own personality cults, obsessive indescriminate purchasing of any merchandise, and simply lazy thinking endemic to most people about everything.

[Jim Raynor]

After all, Traviss herself posted a link to that page on sw.com. If someone would be so kind as to add the above link...?

I did and this was the result:

Why exactly was the link removed? It contained notable quotes from the author and the discussion itself. VT-16 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's more inflammatory than informative, and it's about an argument that is a very small part of who Traviss the Star Wars author is. If we can't be bothered to put up a proper biography of her, even a link to a balanced discussion of her role in the argument would unfairly weight that argument in her article. jSarek 11:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then. VT-16 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Better not push my luck, there.

What fucking bullshit. Since when are you supposed to REMOVE relevant information about a subject on SW Wiki, rather than just adding in the parts that "should" have the weight of the article? And like it or not, Traviss's actions HAVE blown up the 3 million clones issue. Everyone here, at TFN, or even the official site are aware of it. Traviss herself has used multiple blog entries to comment on the issue. It's the raison d'etre for Odds, one of the few things she has even WROTE in the SW canon! But then again, I guess we can't blame them. By "trouble," I'm guessing that Karen herself accused them of libel (something she just LOVES to throw around) and threatened to sue.

[nightmare]

I heard Stackpole is generally minimalizing, not just in SW.

[Darth Wong]

It's obvious why authors minimize. Every author with an ego (which is to say "too many of them") wants his lead character to SAVE THE WORLD. But it's pretty hard for one person to plausibly save the world, isn't it? So what's the solution?

Shrink the world.

It's not as obvious why certain fans minimize, but I suspect it's just because they're fans of the aforementioned authors, and I don't think it's a coincidence that most of them have exhibited very little study of realistic military tactics, strategies, industrial and logistical concerns, etc.

[Edi]

I heard Stackpole is generally minimalizing, not just in SW.

Not much of a surprise, as he made his reputation as a writer with the Battletech books, and the Battletech universe is militarily so fucking minimized it isn't funny. A single regiment of 108 battlemechs is considered adequate or even strong planetary garrison for a world with a population of six billion people. It's better to avoid even thinking of those numbers, because the stupid simply burns.

All of that said, he did a very good job with the BT stuff, but he also transplanted the same writing style and everything else from there to SW, which wasn't so very good. It's especially glaring in the first Rogue Squadron book, because every single one of his space combat sequences reads as if it was written for battlemech battles.

Edi

[Darth Culator]

What fucking bullshit. Since when are you supposed to REMOVE relevant information about a subject on SW Wiki, rather than just adding in the parts that "should" have the weight of the article?

Hence my next comment in that discussion. I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to post the author's own words. It's not our fault she makes herself look like a raving lunatic.

I'm afraid I'm outnumbered on this one, though. It seems like the only admins willing to be critical of Traviss are me and Kuralyov, and everyone else just wants to avoid conflict.

[VT-16]

What fucking bullshit. Since when are you supposed to REMOVE relevant information about a subject on SW Wiki, rather than just adding in the parts that "should" have the weight of the article?

Meh, I suggested putting the link in the GAR article instead. :P

everyone else just wants to avoid conflict

On one hand, I can't really blame them. Wookiepedia gets heated up enough in some internal disputes as is, but getting a C&D letter from LFL because CT pulled some strings and bitched long enough, would be pretty fucking terrible, with all the time spent building up the site. I think the only logical place it can be put without being seen as an "attack on an author" is the GAR article's well-filled bts-section.

[PainRack]

I heard Stackpole is generally minimalizing, not just in SW.

Well, let's just say that Stackpole has no techniacl concepts and focuses on writing good stories.

This is the author who describes laser rifles as blasting their way through the human body, but is perfectly capable of arguing that more powerful weaponery can cause fires only. Think of it as the Ghostbusters unlincesed nuclear accelerator causing "just" scorch marks.

Not much of a surprise, as he made his reputation as a writer with the Battletech books, and the Battletech universe is militarily so fucking minimized it isn't funny. A single regiment of 108 battlemechs is considered adequate or even strong planetary garrison for a world with a population of six billion people. It's better to avoid even thinking of those numbers, because the stupid simply burns.

You mean Stackpole or the universe itself? Cause, the universe routinely describe planets as being guarded by a mech regiment, with multiple infantry/armour regiments on top of the planetary militia. Its still woefully undermanned, but understandable considering the fucked up status of the Btech military.

The old days of the SL, where divisions were real divisions and a world could field a mech division, if not more is over.

All of that said, he did a very good job with the BT stuff, but he also transplanted the same writing style and everything else from there to SW, which wasn't so very good. It's especially glaring in the first Rogue Squadron book, because every single one of his space combat sequences reads as if it was written for battlemech battles.

Edi

Didn't he blatently spell it out in Wedge Gamble that the space combat was scripted from the X-wing game itself? It was a contending point on SB, whether this meant that the technical details should be disqualified.

[Stark]

Hey Painrack? Saying 'it's not that bad, they used to field a division' really doesn't help. 1 division for a whole planet of billions of people is *still* fucking stupid minimalistic crap.

And I'd like to see how you go from 'some guy in a lift said it was a nuclear accelerator' to 'lolz it should cause more than scorchmarks, due to my indepth knowledge of the principals and forces involved'.

[Darth Servo]

A lot of the numbers do feel "big" (the 5 mile Executor, the 3 million clones) they just aren't big enough. People who aren't familiar with real number crunching don't realize that "big" isn't good enough when you need "really fucking huge"

I would point out that that would mean people were also unable to comprehend the scale of a conflict like WWII, but that obviously is the case.

I don't think a lot of people DO comprehend the scale of WW2. Sure, they can say the numbers, but thier infantile minds just can't comprehend a number in the range of a million or larger. For example, most people see $100,000 as a LOT of money. Yet it wouldn't even put a dent in the Federal deficit.

[QuentinGeorge]

On one hand, I can't really blame them. Wookiepedia gets heated up enough in some internal disputes as is, but getting a C&D letter from LFL because CT pulled some strings and bitched long enough, would be pretty fucking terrible, with all the time spent building up the site.

If I may jump in here to (belatedly) defend me and my fellow admins at Wookieepedia (hi Darth Culator ) ...that's about the gist of the problem.

The relatively mild Fandalorianpage along with the line "Karen Traviss criticised the wiki format" on her bio page caused an absolute shitstorm, resulting in some guy named "Moose" coming and politely threatening us in the "I'm going to ruin you!" manner.

Since we run a rather fine line vis-a-vie copyright (what with using a lot of copyrighted images, for instance), we'd rather not cause a conflagration of that sort if we can avoid it.

The Grand Army of the Republic wiki article does have a section on the name dispute, so that's where information relevant to that would be better off.

On another note, the 3 million clones idea that has now morphed into a "brushfire" Clone War is utterly ridiculous and most fans would probably agree with that.

(Even most of TFN agrees its a stupid number...so I'm not sure where the "half a dozen eeevil Anti-Traviss fundamentalists" idea of hers comes from...)

[Ender]

Coming out of retirement for this...

If I may jump in here to (belatedly) defend me and my fellow admins at Wookieepedia (hi Darth Culator ) ...that's about the gist of the problem.

The relatively mild Fandalorianpage along with the line "Karen Traviss criticised the wiki format" on her bio page caused an absolute shitstorm, resulting in some guy named "Moose" coming and politely threatening us in the "I'm going to ruin you!" manner.

Dark Moose is, by his own admision, NOT an employee of LFL. He is a fan selected to act as moderator. He has in fact used this fact to justify attempts to hold him accountable for his actions a number of times in the past. If needed, links and quotes can be supplied.

He therefore in no way, shape, or form represents LFL in any official capacity off their boards and his empty bluster is just that.

Since we run a rather fine line vis-a-vie copyright (what with using a lot of copyrighted images, for instance), we'd rather not cause a conflagration of that sort if we can avoid it.

A fine line? No, you don't. Have you actually sat down and read the liscense you operate under? I mean the full legal text, not the bit at the bottom of your page. I'm not a lawyer myself, and don't understand all of it, but I've been following the Creative Commons fights for years. A Creative Commons liscense is written in a way that basically exploits "Fair Use" and paradoy laws to the fullest. Further, there exists a massive organization to back it. LFLs Evil Lawyer Horde (c) would have one hell of a time taking you guys on. The RIAA has been fighting this for years and losing. Deep as his pockets are, Lucas simply can't match their money, resources, and political pull.

You can choose to play nice if you want. But by no means do you have to and Dark Moose has as much oficial capacity to threaten you as the waitress at TGI Friday's does.

[Darth Wong]

Even if you hold all the winning cards in a legal sense, can't LFL still ruin you with the sheer legal costs of merely attempting to litigate? That said, Moose doesn't speak for LFL, so unless you receive a cease and desist order from Lucasfilm's legal department, that doesn't mean shit.

[Ender]

Even if you hold all the winning cards in a legal sense, can't LFL still ruin you with the sheer legal costs of merely attempting to litigate?

They wouldn't be getting ruined, the case would go to the legal team that is protecting the liscense. The Create Commons legal team is holding off the RIAA and MPAA. Lucas can just get in line. And that's assuming that he ignores his lawyers pointing out that the Creative Commons team has precedent and a well written document on their side.

[Lonestar]

I don't think a lot of people DO comprehend the scale of WW2. Sure, they can say the numbers, but thier infantile minds just can't comprehend a number in the range of a million or larger. For example, most people see $100,000 as a LOT of money. Yet it wouldn't even put a dent in the Federal deficit.

Even more importantly, most everyone has moved past the scale of the WW2 Mobilization...nowadays wars are fought "by someoneelse".

[Master of Ossus]

[snip]

The individual you refer to is doubtless "Dark Moose," who is a troll AND a moderator on the SW.com official site. He has no official connection with LFL and has no right to threaten you on LFL's behalf. That being said, how did Karen Traviss criticize the wiki format? Can you post exerpts, please?

[ray245]

Looking at those people...I do not even think how wars is fought...if you argue with them that the ten thousand orcs figure is small compared to modern day figures...they would say it is much larger due to the size they see on the screen...

I would loved to ask who on TF.N has military experience before they argue...and another fact is most of them seem to be Teens...and only war they know of is IRAQ war...hence does not know how large war can grow into.