Ms Traviss redeems herself (spoilers, LotF:Revelation)

[Publius]

I'll concede the argument, as I lack the patience, focus, time, and ability to successfully argue my case. I'm just in awe that you all don't seem to take into account the statements and opinions of characters who have made decade-spanning careers in direct opposition to Gilad Pellaeon, and -- with all due respect -- they're more familiar with him in combat than any of us here. I submit to you, once again, that Pellaeon was disliked and distrusted amongst the GA personnel, but unanimously respected by them. You've heard Wedge's account; one suspects that they grant him respect because he's deserving of it.

George Washington was not a particularly great tactician, but he successfully commanded the Continental Army for eight years against the logistically and tactically superior British Army, despite his lack of formal military education and the superior training and professionalism of the British forces and commanders. It is perfectly possible to hold high command without possessing any great genius in the field -- and vice versa. Pellaeon's actual demonstrated performance in combat stands in stark contrast to descriptions of him, which compels us to conclude that those descriptions are either describing a different aspect of his performance or that they are simply mistaken.

To wit: If someone is described as an excellent commander and repeatedly displays a lack of ability in actual combat, either he is excellent at some other aspect of command, or he is simply not excellent. Observation takes precedence before reputation.

Well, out of curiosity, didn't the RotJ novelization mention how the Emperor's death fucked everyone up?

Yes. However, there is considerable difference between saying the death of the Galactic Emperor had a negative impact on the Imperial forces, and saying that the Galactic Emperor was actively exerting influence over them. The fact that Grand Admiral Declann has been explicitly said to have been a master of battle meditation and was employing it takes precedence before the novelization's vague implication and Grand Admiral Thrawn's mistaken theorizing.

[Alexian Cale]

Yes. However, there is considerable difference between saying the death of the Galactic Emperor had a negative impact on the Imperial forces, and saying that the Galactic Emperor was actively exerting influence over them. The fact that Grand Admiral Declann has been explicitly said to have been a master of battle meditation and was employing it takes precedence before the novelization's vague implication and Grand Admiral Thrawn's mistaken theorizing.

Forgive me, Publius, but it is as though you're implying that the Galactic Emperor's death was a "negative impact" in morale only. Doesn't the novelization confirm that the Force energies released upon Palpatine's demise totally screw up the Imperial Fleet's performance?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yet a grand admiral still managed to fight for hours more; Pelleaon does not get a "get out of cowardice and issuing illegal orders free" card, since others were able to perform in spite of Palpatine's death.

[Alexian Cale]

Yet a grand admiral still managed to fight for hours more; Pelleaon does not get a "get out of cowardice and issuing illegal orders free" card, since others were able to perform in spite of Palpatine's death.

To whom is this statement directed? If it is directed at me, I am not arguing or justifying Pellaeon's actions during the Battle of Endor (or even implied as such). I am clarifying that Palpatine's death was more than just an aggrandized session of lowered morale. I recall that the novelization explicitly stated that the Emperor's death released Force energies that utterly destroyed Imperial coordination and efforts.

[Stark]

I'll concede the argument, as I lack the patience, focus, time, and ability to successfully argue my case. I'm just in awe that you all don't seem to take into account the statements and opinions of characters who have made decade-spanning careers in direct opposition to Gilad Pellaeon, and -- with all due respect -- they're more familiar with him in combat than any of us here. I submit to you, once again, that Pellaeon was disliked and distrusted amongst the GA personnel, but unanimously respected by them. You've heard Wedge's account; one suspects that they grant him respect because he's deserving of it.

Dialogue is terrible evidence and you refused to even provide the context for the quote you used.

There is not necessarily a contradiction between Wedge's statements and the known facts about Pellaeon's career, just as there is not necessarily a contradiction between Pellaeon's known poor combat performance and his later rise to promenience and near-canonisation as a war hero.

Conceeding with backhanded 'but I know I'm right' bullshit is expressly against the rules and a bannable offence.

EDIT: well shit, I didn't see page 4.

[Crazedwraith]

Conceeding with backhanded 'but I know I'm right' bullshit is expressly against the rules and a bannable offence.

EDIT: well shit, I didn't see page 4.

Hey Stark, can you fine and quote this rule at all? Because I just trawled through announcements and couldn't see it anywhere.

[Stark]

Really? I'll look. I'm pretty sure it is... By mentioning it I wasn't attempting to play mod and threaten him with a ban (as this is hardly an extremely serious debate) but rather point out how that sort of concession is responded to here. I can't find any examples of it, however.

EDIT - Well bugger me. I'll have to poke around Parting Shots - I distinctly recall people being banned when in a major debate and saying 'I conceed but rar rar I'm right anyway'. It doesn't seem to be in the regular rules though.

[Alexian Cale]

WTF?

I specifically stated that I lacked the "patience, focus, time, and ability" to successfully argue the point, offered to agree to disagree, and state my final piece. As far as the context of the situation, Wedge Antilles made the above quoted statement to Captain Cel, during the last stages of the Yuuzhan Vong war, after she questioned him about his participation in the campaign against Grand Admiral Thrawn.

We haven't seen every friggin battle that the New Republic and Imperial Remnant fought, we haven't seen the full scope of Pellaeon's performance. No one is arguing that he's a Thrawn- or Ackbar- class tactition, but multiple, credible sources disagree. You will forgive me, Mr. Stark, if I take the word of characters who have made decade long careers fighting Pellaeon over your assertion that he's an inept tool. If not, well, it's not like you're about to change my opinion any time soon.

[Batman]

WTF?
I specifically stated that I lacked the "patience, focus, time, and ability" to successfully argue the point, offered to agree to disagree, and state my final piece.

That final piece basically amounting to 'I grudgingly agree I'm wrong because the rules say I have to but I still think I'm right', as evidenced by you continuing to argue the point.

You will forgive me, Mr. Stark, if I take the word of characters who have made decade long careers fighting Pellaeon over your assertion that he's an inept tool.

You're not. You're taking the words of characters over in-universe established fact.

If not, well, it's not like you're about to change my opinion any time soon.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Canon facts are. And canon fact apparently is that Paelleon's record as a combat commander is nothing to write home about.

[Alexian Cale]

That final piece basically amounting to 'I grudgingly agree I'm wrong because the rules say I have to but I still think I'm right', as evidenced by you continuing to argue the point.

My apologies. I was unaware that you can't agree to disagree around here. I also wasn't aware that the rules state that I have to agree with whatever you say.

It's whatever, dude, as I've said, I lack the ability to make a successful argument on the issue. If not agreeing that Pellaeon is just pure shit is against the rules, you can go ahead and ban me for it.


Edit: I can agree with Publius's perspective. He argues that Pellaeon is a lackluster tactition, but a skilled leader with political cunning. That, I can live with.

[GrandAdmiralJello]

Yes. However, there is considerable difference between saying the death of the Galactic Emperor had a negative impact on the Imperial forces, and saying that the Galactic Emperor was actively exerting influence over them. The fact that Grand Admiral Declann has been explicitly said to have been a master of battle meditation and was employing it takes precedence before the novelization's vague implication and Grand Admiral Thrawn's mistaken theorizing.

Forgive me, Publius, but it is as though you're implying that the Galactic Emperor's death was a "negative impact" in morale only. Doesn't the novelization confirm that the Force energies released upon Palpatine's demise totally screw up the Imperial Fleet's performance?

To an extent, possibly. But it's impossible to ascertain just exactly how much of a role this played on the Imperial rout, seeing as the Death Star was destroyed shortly after the Emperor's death. We are told that the station's destruction played havoc with the Imperial taskforce's command and coördination (TaB SB) and that this dramatically impaired the fighting ability of a unit used to fighting with near instantaneous communications.

However, the same source also informs us that a mere three Star Destroyers from that same fleet could have also demolished whatever remained of the Rebel force at Endor. The conclusion that must be drawn is that the loss of the Emperor and the station constituted a temporary, but recoverable, lapse in fighting ability.

Contrast the fleet commanders' performance to that of the freshly arrived Grand Admiral Teshik.

[Alexian Cale]

You misunderstand me. I don't own the RotJ novelization, but I thought that it specifically stated that Palpatine's death mindfucked the Imperials at Endor, due to the Force energies released (and not in an issue of morale).

[Publius]

The specific quote from the novelization is as follows:

Smoke was everywhere, substantial rumblings came from all directions at once, people were running and shouting. Electrical fires, steam explosions, cabin depressurizations, disruption of chain-of-command. Added to this, the continued bombardments by Rebel Cruisers -- smelling fear in the enemy -- merely heightened the sense of hysteria that was already pervasive.

For the Emperor was dead. The central, powerful evil that had been the cohesive force to the Empire was gone; and when the dark side was this diffused, this nondirected -- this was simply where it led.

Confusion.

Desperation.

Damp fear.

The negative influence of the Galactic Emperor's death is not attested anywhere but on the Death Star itself in the novelization (indeed, one suspects it was not felt in the fleet, or else it would have affected the rebels as well). "Who's Who: Imperial Grand Admirals" adds that Grand Adm. Nial Declann had been practicing battle meditation, and that he stopped when he felt the Emperor's death; this, combined with the loss of the communications ship, the flagship, and then the Death Star itself, is presumably tied to the noticeable breakdown in Imperial combat effectiveness. Ultimately, Thrawn's "borg-implant" theory is not true -- the Emperor was evidently not in the habit of using battle meditation, as there are no known examples of him doing so -- but at least part of his reasoning was correct.

[Alexian Cale]

This is speculation, rather than a serious argument, but you've said it yourself, Publius, that Emperor Palpatine is the most powerful and accomplished of all Force-users. Is it not possible that he could have subconsciously used the Force to control the fleet? Joruus C'Boath was able to perform a similar feat with Thrawn's forces, correct? So, why not Palpatine?


Edit: If it were just present on the Death Star, as well, wouldn't the diffusion of energy also effect Luke? Perhaps, as the text implies, it might have just affected the Imperials.

[Themightytom]

Really? I'll look. I'm pretty sure it is... By mentioning it I wasn't attempting to play mod and threaten him with a ban (as this is hardly an extremely serious debate) but rather point out how that sort of concession is responded to here. I can't find any examples of it, however.

EDIT - Well bugger me. I'll have to poke around Parting Shots - I distinctly recall people being banned when in a major debate and saying 'I conceed but rar rar I'm right anyway'. It doesn't seem to be in the regular rules though.

So you're saying you concede that it isn't in the rules that you can't concede while saying 'but I know I'm right.' but you are sure taht you can find it somewhere.

Isn't that like conceding but saying you know you are right?

It's not irony, its not a catch 22, is there an adjective for a humorous application of hypocrisy?

[Ghost Rider]

-Do not employ the "broken record" debating style. Continuously repeating yourself regardless of what others say is a quick way to get banned.

This is exactly what Alexian Cale is doing with his motherfucking "Agree to disagree". He has no evidence but he's being cuntwhore and being a whiny boy bitchin.

Seriously doing, half assed motherfucking backhanded shit will get banned. Yes, it's not explicit but to the next smary motherfucker who wants to contend this shit?

These rules are here to tell you what you can and can't do, but they do not define "rights" which you can throw in the faces of the administrative staff if they have agreed that you've done something wrong. We have added retroactive rules in the past (eg- the rule about large sigs or harassing females via PM) due to the actions of individual members, and rest assured, we are perfectly willing to do so again. In other words, this is not a court of law. If you find a loophole in our rules, don't be too pleased with yourself because we will simply close it, and then shove it up your ass.

Read and understand that I am not in the most pleasent when people are bitching is there such a rule because Alexian Cale is bordering on put up or shut the fuck up meter.

[Alexian Cale]

-Do not employ the "broken record" debating style. Continuously repeating yourself regardless of what others say is a quick way to get banned.

This is exactly what Alexian Cale is doing with his motherfucking "Agree to disagree". He has no evidence but he's being cuntwhore and being a whiny boy bitchin.

Seriously doing, half assed motherfucking backhanded shit will get banned. Yes, it's not explicit but to the next smary motherfucker who wants to contend this shit?

These rules are here to tell you what you can and can't do, but they do not define "rights" which you can throw in the faces of the administrative staff if they have agreed that you've done something wrong. We have added retroactive rules in the past (eg- the rule about large sigs or harassing females via PM) due to the actions of individual members, and rest assured, we are perfectly willing to do so again. In other words, this is not a court of law. If you find a loophole in our rules, don't be too pleased with yourself because we will simply close it, and then shove it up your ass.

Read and understand that I am not in the most pleasent when people are bitching is there such a rule because Alexian Cale is bordering on put up or shut the fuck up meter.

My apologies, Ghost Rider, your directives have been duly noted. Though I would like to point out that I have:

• a.) Submitted first hand testament from a credible, prominent military figure within the Alliance to Restore the Republic/New Republic/Galactic Alliance, testifying on behalf of the capabilities of Gilad Pellaeon.
  
  b.) Submitted that we are not privy to the full scope and circumstances of the engagements between the Alliance to Restore the Republic/New Republic and the self-styled "Imperial Remnant", so it would be thus illogical to assume or even imply that Pellaeon was an inept fool throughout the entire war.
  
  c.) Submitted that Admiral Pellaeon coordinated the defeat of a powerful Yuuzhan Vong taskforce from a bacta tank.
  
  d.) Submitted that Admiral Pellaeon was chosen to assume the role of Supreme Commander of the Galactic Alliance Navy, despite the GA holding numerous experienced and accomplished strategists and tactitions amongst its number, including the famed Garm Bel Iblis, and a Bothan general capable of defeating a simulated Grand Admiral Thrawn (which is apparently a claim to fame in the GA).

...All of which were for the explicit purpose of pointing out that Gilad Pellaeon was clearly not an inept man. Perhaps not a shining beacon of military strategy or confidence or even courage -- but as Publius himself agreed with -- Pellaeon was clearly a proficient and reputed taskmaster, a capable leader, and a man with considerable political cunning.

Though, I am curious as to what you'd like me to do to amend my blasphemous mistakes. Edit my posts? Write a formal letter of apology? Or perhaps pledge to sacrifice my firstborn son in your glory? All the above? You let me know, and I will happily do as asked.

Concluding, I'd like to take the time to personally thank you for your objectivity. It is clear that you are a polite, fair-minded moderator, who approaches his task with etiquette and grace uncommon in most cases. A lot of administrators online like to approach rulebreakers such as myself in a gruff, rude attitude, and the common reason for such behavior has been offered that they are deeply insecure people who use the internet as a means of demonstrating some level of intimidation, as if they are somehow better than others, making use of incredibly rude profanities that ultimately fail to make a point. But not you.

No, as one good samaritan to another, thank you for your kindness and patience.

Alexian Cale

[Publius]

This is speculation, rather than a serious argument, but you've said it yourself, Publius, that Emperor Palpatine is the most powerful and accomplished of all Force-users. Is it not possible that he could have subconsciously used the Force to control the fleet? Joruus C'Boath was able to perform a similar feat with Thrawn's forces, correct? So, why not Palpatine?

Joruus C'Baoth never subconsciously practiced battle meditation; in every instance he demonstrated a noticeable level of concentration while influencing groups of people. Although Palpatine had the requisite knowledge and power to have exerted his mentalic influence over the fleet, there is no actual evidence that he did so (Thrawn, who was not present and certainly did not possess all the facts, only supposed that he had).

There is evidence that mentalic influence can be exerted unconsciously (in Yoda: Dark Rendezvous a gregarious Jedi neophyte is found to unconsciously push people to like him), but there is a great deal of difference between low-level compulsion and large-scale instrumentality. There is no reason to believe that Palpatine was doing this, particularly in light of the explicit evidence that Grand Admiral Declann was practicing battle meditation.

As it happens, it is important to remember that neither the diffusion of the dark side caused by the Emperor's death nor the abrupt end of Declann's battle meditation was debilitating. Officers and men were still capable of performing their jobs, albeit under a sort of psychic veisalgia. Performance was degraded, but not actually disabled altogether.

Edit: If it were just present on the Death Star, as well, wouldn't the diffusion of energy also effect Luke? Perhaps, as the text implies, it might have just affected the Imperials.

There is no reason to believe that Skywalker was not affected by the diffusion of the dark side; he was already suffering medically documented physiological distress related to the Emperor's Sith lightning. However, unlike the Imperial officers and men on board the station, he was in a position to recognize the atmosphere for what it was, and therefore in a position to steel himself against it. Like any magic trick, it loses its luster once the trick is understood.

[Alexian Cale]

Very good. Thank you, Publius.

[Batman]

My apologies, Ghost Rider, your directives have been duly noted. Though I would like to point out that I have:

• a.) Submitted first hand testament from a credible, prominent military figure within the Alliance to Restore the Republic/New Republic/Galactic Alliance, testifying on behalf of the capabilities of Gilad Pellaeon.

I.e., dialogue. When the actual recorded evidence, unfortunately, says the man is incompetent.

b.) Submitted that we are not privy to the full scope and circumstances of the engagements between the Alliance to Restore the Republic/New Republic and the self-styled "Imperial Remnant", so it would be thus illogical to assume or even imply that Pellaeon was an inept fool throughout the entire war.

Complete garbage. I would be illogical to assume Pelleon was anything but what he was portrayed as. Which, on the non-administrative level, was, I'm afraid to say, incompetent.

Pellaeon was clearly not an inept man.

He most obviously was as a tactical commander.

Perhaps not a shining beacon of military strategy or confidence or even courage -- but as Publius himself agreed with -- Pellaeon was clearly a proficient and reputed taskmaster, a capable leader, and a man with considerable political cunning.
Though, I am curious as to what you'd like me to do to amend my blasphemous mistakes. Edit my posts? Write a formal letter of apology? Or perhaps pledge to sacrifice my firstborn son in your glory? All the above? You let me know, and I will happily do as asked.

Thank you for admitting you never really conceeded anything to begin with.

SNIPPY CONDESCENDING BULLSHIT

I know this is backseat moderating but can we PLEASE get rid of this guy?

[Alexian Cale]

I.e., dialogue. When the actual recorded evidence, unfortunately, says the man is incompetent.

We've went in circles about this all night. I happily concede the point.

Complete garbage. I would be illogical to assume Pelleon was anything but what he was portrayed as. Which, on the non-administrative level, was, I'm afraid to say, incompetent.

We've went in circles about this all night. I happily concede the point.

He most obviously was as a tactical commander.

We've went in -- oh, y'know, now you're just trying to be argumentative -- I said that he's clearly not "an inept man", and you respond with this? Unfortunately for you, people who are inept tactical commanders aren't necessarily inept people.

Thank you for admitting you never really conceeded anything to begin with.

I've already conceded to Publius's opinion on the matter (he offered the whole "fine taskmaster, ect." bit). He's a convincing person.

I know this is backseat moderating but can we PLEASE get rid of this guy?

Chances are, you probably will.

[Batman]

I.e., dialogue. When the actual recorded evidence, unfortunately, says the man is incompetent.

We've went in circles about this all night. I happily concede the point.

No. You merely completely failed to provide evidence to the contrary.

Complete garbage. I would be illogical to assume Pelleon was anything but what he was portrayed as. Which, on the non-administrative level, was, I'm afraid to say, incompetent.

We've went in circles about this all night. I happily concede the point.

More conceeded but not really conceeded bullshit.

He most obviously was as a tactical commander.

We've went in -- oh, y'know, now you're just trying to be argumentative -- I said that he's clearly not "an inept man", and you respond with this? Unfortunately for you, people who are inept tactical commanders aren't necessarily inept people.

And nobody but you is concerned about that. In fact, a not inconsiderable portion of what people have been trying to get across to you is that Paelleon not having the foggiest about tactics doesn't prevent him from being a miracle at something else. Like, say, logistics. Thank you for completely ignoring that part of the thread.

[Stark]

So you're saying you concede that it isn't in the rules that you can't concede while saying 'but I know I'm right.' but you are sure taht you can find it somewhere.

Isn't that like conceding but saying you know you are right?

It's not irony, its not a catch 22, is there an adjective for a humorous application of hypocrisy?

Go fuck yourself you stupid cockface. Someone asked me to confirm something, and I agreed that I couldn't. How is this anything at all like saying 'I conceed, but I'm really right and you're all just being obtuse but I can't prove it'?

Frankly, since GR is on my side here and that 'not conceeding' is against the rules and conceeding with provisos or backhanded claims of victory ISN'T A REAL CONCESSION, you fucking lose. As Batman says, he clearly HASN'T conceeded, since he's still arguing the point!

Amusingly Alexian Cale is being a complete fuckstool about this, and insulting a moderator for doing his job. This is great stuff, and *is* against the rules.

It bothers me he can't even be bothered revealing the context to a quote he provided. But of course, he 'conceeded' to Publius but continues to argue with everyone else! This is hilarious.

[Vympel]

The negative influence of the Galactic Emperor's death is not attested anywhere but on the Death Star itself in the novelization (indeed, one suspects it was not felt in the fleet, or else it would have affected the rebels as well).

I don't agree with that - as the quote says,

For the Emperor was dead. The central, powerful evil that had been the cohesive force to the Empire was gone;

Palpatine's central, powerful evil, was a cohesive force for the Empire - there's no reason to believe the absence of same would have any negative effect on the Rebel fleet whatsoever. Second, that this is described as the cohesive force for the Empire, combined with events in the battle related by the novelization - in particular, the "disorganized" fighter response to the Rebel fighters conducting their attack the Death Star after the Emperor's death, tends against a presumption that this drop in effectiveness is only taking place on the Death Star.

(And let the record show that IMO this notion of a Battle Meditation-using Grand Admiral sucks balls, is stupid, and is yet another of the EU's many crimes against good taste.)

[2000AD]

If we go with the idea of Palleon being an average, or even less than average, commander then maybe Thrawn picked him for that reason. Thrawn wasn't planning on dieing (and had a clone as a backup) so why would he need a protege? He picked Palleon as a second in command as he was loyal, would tolerate Thrawn as an alien and wouldn't try and stab him in the back and take command.