Imperial Star Destroyer or Imperator class Star Destroyer ?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-10-25 11:02am

Publius wrote:Rendili StarDrive is quite clearly in direct competition with Kuat Drive Yards; what sense does it make for a subsidiary corporation to operate in direct competition with its parent corporation? If the one is a subsidiary of the other, then why are both signatory sponsors of the Corporate Sector Authority?

To back you up more, AOTC:ICS notes that Rendili StarDrive "... have ordered countless industrial spies and starship designers to reduce Kuat's competitive lead." That quote would make little sense if they were a subsidiary of KDY a'la Rothana Heavy Engineering.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2003-10-25 12:04pm

Vympel wrote:Your no-rebuttal rhetoric about 'irrational excuses' aside, like it or not, Imperial is still

1. Clearly inconsistent with KDY naming convention
2. Clearly based on the same erroneous, lightly researched crap that gave us 'Super-class', no matter what obscure dictionary definition you pull out to defend it.

Doesn't matter. Lets review things here:

1) Canon is the end all be-all. Unless you find a contradiction in higher order canon then lower-order canon is the authoritative source.
2) ICS is a canon source
3) SW ICS (covers the OT) says that the mile long ships are Imperial -class Star Destroyers

Thus until you find a higher order canon source which contradicts this then the vessel's name is clearly defined. No amont of wrangling gets over the fact that canon says they are Imperial class period. Motives, logic, and all other considerations fall before the fact that you cannot dismiss canon fact, which is what this is.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2003-10-25 12:13pm

As I was ignored before because nobody seems to know who I am...

Yes WEG was wrong in its stats, yes it does say Imperial-class. We also know ICS says Imperial-class so that is official. Wizards owns RPG license now so wouldn't their figures on Imperial-class ships overide anything WEG says? Shouldn't WEG be ignored now that SWD20 is out? (I don't really want to hear your opinion of SWD20)

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2003-10-25 12:23pm

Super-Gagme wrote:As I was ignored before because nobody seems to know who I am...

Yes WEG was wrong in its stats, yes it does say Imperial-class. We also know ICS says Imperial-class so that is official. Wizards owns RPG license now so wouldn't their figures on Imperial-class ships overide anything WEG says? Shouldn't WEG be ignored now that SWD20 is out? (I don't really want to hear your opinion of SWD20)

Nope, WEG is still an official source because the new RPG is a totally different beast. They are researched (laugh) by different staffs and produced differently. Just because they are two products in the same line does nto mean one can be ignored over the other. Just as both the Decipher CCG and the new WOTC CCg are both valid information sources despite Decipehr losing the liscense.

Also the ICS is canon not official.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-25 12:53pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:
Doesn't matter. Lets review things here:

1) Canon is the end all be-all. Unless you find a contradiction in higher order canon then lower-order canon is the authoritative source.
2) ICS is a canon source
3) SW ICS (covers the OT) says that the mile long ships are Imperial -class Star Destroyers

Thus until you find a higher order canon source which contradicts this then the vessel's name is clearly defined. No amont of wrangling gets over the fact that canon says they are Imperial class period. Motives, logic, and all other considerations fall before the fact that you cannot dismiss canon fact, which is what this is.

We're past this now- the reason I said that was because I didn't like having legitimate reasons for not liking something called "irrational"- I've already conceded to the strenth of canon *pages* ago.

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2003-10-25 02:39pm

If all described designations are correct, could it be possible that the KDY corporation refers to these ship models as Imperator-class and Executor-class respectively. They are sold to the Imperial starfleet, whereupon the naval bureacracy designates them Imperial-class and Super-class respectively. The corporate Make would be listed Imperator-class Star Destroyer. The Imperial Quartermaster command would list those exact same ships as Imperial-class Star Destroyer.

Like an Acclamator-class trans-galactic military transport ship would be referred to by the Republic media or politicians as a Republic Assault Ship.

It's plausible that KDY could sell their Imperator-class models to other government entities such as local system defense fleets or corporate system security forces who upon purchasing the Imperator-class starships rename them whatever they would find consistent with their own culture, politics, and military traditions.

Real life example:
F-16s are sold to Canada, but now they are called CF-16s by Canada and the Canadian military. They are the exact same plane, but with different names because of their political context.

star wars speculative example:
KDY sells 2 Imperator-class Star Destroyers to let's say, the Chandrilan system militia. Because of the limited size of the Chandrilan military, and their democratic egalitarian traditions those two ships would be redesignated by the Chandrilan military as Patriot-class Battleships. Patriot-class Battleship would still be a legitimate name and valid.

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2003-10-25 02:48pm

Or better yet, in a far-fetched, very hypothetical example, let's say Emperor Palpatine had a Mon Cal mistress of whom he was very fond and has a dark-side brain fart, and decides instead of using KDY warships to form the backbone of the Imperial fleet, decides to go with MC-80s and places an order for hundreds of thousands of them. Those MC-80s would then have been called and referred to as Imperial-class Star Destroyers, but it would still be valid to call them MC-80s.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2003-10-25 03:23pm

CmdrWilkens wrote: Also the ICS is canon not official.

Actually I meant
Imperial-class is the official name (like proper)

Also, alright I get you with them both being used but what about Imperial-class from WEG and Imperial-class from SWD20? Which takes higher? My guess is SWD20 holds over WEG. People often refer to WEG having incorrect stats on Imperial-class but we have newer material covering Imperial-class so shouldn't that be referenced?

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2003-10-25 04:35pm

WEG is to Starwars as Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Brittanae is to early British History.

As for WEG and D20, having contradictory "official" sources doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong necesarily; they should both be used to lead to the same answer if rationally possible and not inconsistent with canon.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-25 06:25pm

Actually, why couldn't the "Imperial-class" be a marketing name? There are several modern ship designers who have come up with what are effectively class names that they use for marketing purposes to multiple countries (For instance the "Meko" type of Blohm and Voss which is known in Greek service as the Hydra-class)--but these are totally irrelevant once the ships enter the service of the respective countries. It would not be implausible to propose that Imperial is the designation given by KDY to the design as a marketing ploy. Because of this, the name caught on in popular perception.

However, the first ship of the class in the Galactic Empire's service is the Imperator and that is the proper name of the ships for their Imperial service. But, even though the ships are completely identical, one should also note that the first ship of this class in Republican service would create a new class name for the ship in Republican service. We do not to my knowledge know the name of that ship.

How is the "Imperial-class" referenced in the AOTC:ICS? This is important to the above possibility:

On pgs. 59-62 of the Imperial sourcebook for WEG, the ISD is specifically referred to in this fashion:

Craft: Kuat Drive Yards' Imperial I Star Destroyer
Type: Star Destroyer

Compare that to the VSD Mk. II:

Craft: Rendili StarDrive's Victory II
Type: Victory-class Star Destroyer

Compare again to the SSD:

Craft: Kuat Drive Yards' Super Star Destroyer
Type: Super-class Star Destroyer

And again to VSD Mk.I:

Craft: Rendili Star Drive's Victory I
Type: Victory-class Star Destroyer

While the ISD Mk.II has the same reference type as the ISD Mk.I:

Craft: Kuat Drive Yards' Imperial II Star Destroyer
Type: Star Destroyer

No class name is actually given for the ISD, suggesting that the "Imperial" name may just be a shipyard marketing designation.

Note: Corrected page numbers; added VSD reference.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2003-10-25 07:39pm

The problem is that:

1) The ONLY reference to Imperator-class is in a non-official publication which references a design which is 914.5m shorter than the Star Destroyer's seen onscreen.
2) Books such as the WOTC RPG say the following:
"Imperial II-class Star Destroyers are upgraded versions of the standard Imperial-class ships..."
- "Starships of the Galaxy pg 97

I think its pretty clear that the ships are of the Imperial-class

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-25 07:57pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:The problem is that:

1) The ONLY reference to Imperator-class is in a non-official publication which references a design which is 914.5m shorter than the Star Destroyer's seen onscreen.
2) Books such as the WOTC RPG say the following:
"Imperial II-class Star Destroyers are upgraded versions of the standard Imperial-class ships..."
- "Starships of the Galaxy pg 97

I think its pretty clear that the ships are of the Imperial-class

But what does "Imperial-class" mean? I'm not denying that the name is used, Greg, I am saying that we see it used in a fashion that is inconsistant with a national navy's name for a class of ships, and there is evidence to support that it is not in fact that class name, which I just provided.

The Imperator-class designation could easily be the proper name--or the proper name could be something else entirely--for the ships in Imperial Service. The ships in Republican service would then be called as a class by the name of the first ship in Republican service even though they are identical to the ships in Imperial service. The ships in Hapan service, the same. Ships in the service of other national organizations, also. It is improper to refer to a multi-national design by a single class name. It would have a different one for the first ship in service in each different country.

Therefore, the Imperial-class designation can easily be reconciled as a marketing designation by the Kuat Driveyards and the Imperial type would be known by a seperate class name according to the first ship in service of each nation which possesses such ships. For convenience, most people simply refer to the vessels by the KDY marketing designation due to the proliferation of the type.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2003-10-25 09:15pm

Except Duchess that we don't know what the first Imperial-class was named (except what Mandel says which are UN-Official) so it is safe to assume the first Imperial-class Star Destroyer was named the Imperial.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-25 09:37pm

Super-Gagme wrote:Except Duchess that we don't know what the first Imperial-class was named (except what Mandel says which are UN-Official) so it is safe to assume the first Imperial-class Star Destroyer was named the Imperial.

No, it is not. That is not a safe assumption whatsoever. All evidence points to the Imperial designation being used for the whole class, regardless of national origin. This is not consistant with a national class name, but rather a general manufacturer's type designation. The Imperial Sourcebook also simply refers to the type as "Star Destroyer" without providing a class name where other class names are specifically provided--it is a specific and intentional omission which is repeated for both marks of the ISD.

The blueprints have been established by Vympel to be official material; I suggest you refer back to:

Vympel wrote:There is a huge difference between commercially sold blueprints and a fanfic cooked up and distributed freely on the internet I'm afraid. Unless you can find a Lucasfilm source that says explicitly that they're not official, you don't have a case.

I grant however that the scaling problem remains a serious one; it is possible that the Imperator-class is not the Imperial-type in Imperial service but rather a smaller design of similar form. However, even if that is the case, it simply means that we don't know what the class name of an ISD is as opposed to it being the Imperial-class. In that case it would be "The Imperial-type in Imperial Service", just as an ISD in Republican service would be "The Imperial-type in Republican Service" short of us identifying the first ISD commissioned into the Republican Navy.

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2003-10-25 09:47pm

Duchess:

Although it is not the crux of your argument, you should remember that there is no evidence to suggest that the designation "Imperator-class" -- or any designation other than "Imperial-class", for that matter -- is that used by the Empire. In fact, if the "Star Destroyer Imperator Class" blueprints are official, then that designation is unambiguously not that of the films' Imperial Star Destroyer; the blueprints depict a 686.5 metre long warship (designated model C-15) and state quite clearly that this ship has been "Commissioned by Order of His Imperial Highness Palpatine I, Sovereign of the Known Worlds and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Space Navies". This would mean that the designation "Imperator-class" is an Imperial one, but not for the familiar Imperial Star Destroyer.

PUBLIUS

P.S. -- You may or may not be interested in this sort of thing, but notice the incorrect style used for the Galactic Emperor by the blueprints; the correct style for an emperor is "His Imperial Majesty" or an appropriate individual style (e.g., "His Apostolic Majesty" for the Austrian Emperor and King of Hungary).

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-25 10:12pm

Publius wrote:Duchess:

Although it is not the crux of your argument, you should remember that there is no evidence to suggest that the designation "Imperator-class" -- or any designation other than "Imperial-class", for that matter -- is that used by the Empire. In fact, if the "Star Destroyer Imperator Class" blueprints are official, then that designation is unambiguously not that of the films' Imperial Star Destroyer; the blueprints depict a 686.5 metre long warship (designated model C-15) and state quite clearly that this ship has been "Commissioned by Order of His Imperial Highness Palpatine I, Sovereign of the Known Worlds and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Space Navies". This would mean that the designation "Imperator-class" is an Imperial one, but not for the familiar Imperial Star Destroyer.

Conceded. It would appear then that we do not know the class name of the Imperial-type in Imperial service unless there is a specific reference to a name of the first ship of that class in an official source (the same of course holding true for the other nationalities which have principally employed the vessel).

P.S. -- You may or may not be interested in this sort of thing, but notice the incorrect style used for the Galactic Emperor by the blueprints; the correct style for an emperor is "His Imperial Majesty" or an appropriate individual style (e.g., "His Apostolic Majesty" for the Austrian Emperor and King of Hungary).

I have speculated that there are specific differing Imperial titles in relation to the Imperial throne before. Curiously this all came out of the Imperator-class name--I wondered how one could have the titles "Imperator" and "Emperor" both translated from the Basic when they, at least in the modern English context, are understood to mean (broadly) the same thing.

One possibility I postulated was that there are in fact actually two titles in use here--indeed, Emperor, and Imperator, the later being broadly in the sense of the Roman military powers from which the word originates. The title of Prince, after all, is derived from the Roman Princeps, which was long the principle (*chuckles softly*) title of the Caesars; but the less used title of Imperator was held in conjunction--this being before the rise of the use of the word Dominus in the later Empire; or Avtokrator for the Byzantines. All of which I am certain you are familiar with (but is being provided for the reading public).

Essentially, what I supposed was that there was a traditional Republican title which we would render as Imperator from the Basic, having similiar powers. This title when assumed by Palpatine (or was granted?) gave him a position roughly analogous to an "Imperial Prince" if you will; and that this is the period in which the Imperator-class--appropriately reflecting the title of the Sovereign at the time--was laid down, as is shown in the style used in the blueprints. Only at a later date did Palpatine assume (or was granted?) the equivlant title of Emperor in the Basic, which had different indicated powers and perogatives and would grant the use of "Majesty".

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2003-10-25 10:56pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Conceded. It would appear then that we do not know the class name of the Imperial-type in Imperial service unless there is a specific reference to a name of the first ship of that class in an official source (the same of course holding true for the other nationalities which have principally employed the vessel).

Except that ICS is CANON and overules ALL other OFFICIAL material, Mandel being OFFICIAL (or so you claim) loses to CANON. Thus ICS (which is CANON) says Imperial-class therefore Imperial-class is the CANON class name. Note emphasis on CANON.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-25 11:11pm

Super-Gagme wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Conceded. It would appear then that we do not know the class name of the Imperial-type in Imperial service unless there is a specific reference to a name of the first ship of that class in an official source (the same of course holding true for the other nationalities which have principally employed the vessel).
Except that ICS is CANON and overules ALL other OFFICIAL material, Mandel being OFFICIAL (or so you claim) loses to CANON. Thus ICS (which is CANON) says Imperial-class therefore Imperial-class is the CANON class name. Note emphasis on CANON.

Does the ICS specifically state that Imperial was the name of the first ship of the class? If not I'll be glad to accept your concession, because if it doesn't it conforms perfectly with my argument. The aside about the Mandel blueprints was just that--a totally ancilliary comment which I already conceded to Publius.

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2003-10-26 12:13am

Duchess:

It is rather interesting that you should mention the simultaneous translation of "emperor" and "imperator" as separate words, despite their near equivalence. The old Marvel Series (reprinted in 1999 in A Long Time Ago... #2) introduced a language called "Galactic Standard", which Gamer #5 established as being in common use several millennia before the Battle of Yavin. The word "emperor" could be translated from Basic, while the more archaic form "imperator" could be translated from Galactic Standard. There is a certain degree of evidence for this; the language spoken on Adumar is similar to Basic but still not quite modern. Tellingly, the title of the national ruler of Cartann is "perator"; Adumar's language could be derived from Galactic Standard, with this title being an abbreviation of "imperator" (albeit an ungrammatical one).

The problem is that all the various sources describing the Galactic Emperor's rise to power describe him as immediately becoming Emperor, which carries with it the degree of "Majesty" (if not "Imperial Majesty"); there are no indications of any intermediate stages. Indeed, the Prologue to Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker states quite clearly that "Once secure in office he declared himself Emperor, shutting himself away from the populace" – his assumption of imperial dignity was immediately followed by his withdrawal from public life. The only possible explanation allowing for the style "Imperial Highness" would be if he did not immediately issue a proclamation defining by what style he would be known, and the Imperial Shipyards, Gyndine, did not have a protocol officer on hand when the "Star Destroyer Imperator Class" blueprints were drawn up.

Super-Gagme:

You must understand that The Duchess of Zeon is not arguing that the ship is not designated an "Imperial-class Star Destroyer". Her argument is that "Imperial-class" is the Kuat Drive Yards "universal" designation, and that any state placing an order with it will then be free to rename the class within its own starfleet at its leisure. There is ample precedent for ships' names – and their classifications – changing along with ownership (e.g., the Brandenburg-class battleships Weißenburg and Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm were sold to the Ottoman Empire in September 1910, and promptly became the Torgud Reis-class battleships Torgud Reis and Haireddin Barbarossa).

Without venturing to comment on the merits of this theory, you should note that she is not disagreeing with the canonical identification as "Imperial-class"; rather, she is proposing a specific explanation of what precisely that identification means. That the ship is designated "Imperial-class" is one of her premises; by simply repeating the fact, you are only affirming the validity of her premise, not responding to her argument at all. Your methodology is equivalent to disputing the claim that Caesar was Gaius Iulius's cognomen by insisting that his name was Gaius Iulius Caesar.

PUBLIUS

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-10-26 01:45am

Vympel wrote: I thought scaling errors was being used *against* the Mandel blueprints? That's all I'm saying. The weaponry of the WEG ship doesn't correspond to the canon ship is what I meant.

Actually, I can point out that according to the canon novelization for ANH, the Devastator carried dozens of heavy weapons emplacements. This could easily correspond to the WEG figures. But the weapons descriptions can easily be argued as "incomplete" or for a different class of vessel.

However, you cannot rationalize the starship dimensions that way, nor tonnage or the sorts.

However, as I said, I am perfectly willing to treat the WEG stats as being a separate vessel if you're going to take that view, it still won't alter the canon aspect in the slightest. The fact you consider it "stupid" doesn't alter the basic facts one iota, no matter how ferverntly you scream otherwise.

And where did I argue against this, exactly?

By your persisting in this debate and your continued whining about how "stupid" Imperial class is, among other things. You've continually demonstrated that you are in fact arguing this position mostly on subjective opinion rather than objective analysis. If you like, I will be more than happy to point out examples of this.

In fact, your allegations that Imperial class is wrong because WEG is flawed suggests that any source that draws on this naming convention is poorly researched. So by definition, you must also consider the OTC ICS to be a poorly researched book and DWR a complete fucking moron. I mean, its certainly inconceivable to think that that might actually be the designation after all, isn't it?

Nice strawman and ad hominem.

Nice misrepresentation. Its only Ad Hominem if I am ONLY attacking you and not addressing your arguments. Please be so kind as to point out just how I have been ignoring your arguments. As for the strawman, I might point out that you have in fact been using subjective opinions to dismiss my arguments. (IE saying what I am doing is "stupid." without exactly addressing what is wrong with my methodology.)

Instead, I correctly pointed out that the underlying motive behind your argument has been, as you indicate from time to time, your personal, subjective dislike of the conclusions, not any sort of legitimate or rational flaw in the conclusion. (PS, saying "its stupid" does not count.)

I've already said how it can be done in a no-contradications way.

Yet you persist in venting your "its stupid" bitchfest rather than conceding the arguments, and then when someone points out that you are basing your entire argument on an illogical and biased premise, you scream they are engaging in logical fallacies. Do you need me to point out the times you based your argument on the fact its supposed to be "obvious" or that the counterargument was "stupid?"

Or on the other hand, maybe you might point out what rules of debating allow you to just dismiss an opponents argument by calling it stupid rather than countering it with logic and evidence.

Your no-rebuttal rhetoric about 'irrational excuses' aside, like it or not, Imperial is still

1. Clearly inconsistent with KDY naming convention
2. Clearly based on the same erroneous, lightly researched crap that gave us 'Super-class', no matter what obscure dictionary definition you pull out to defend it.

I see, so your logic is based on:

1.) An apparently subjective interpretation of evidence that relies on knowledge of the author's mind that you admit you do not have firsthand knowledge of.

2.) Generalized prejudgement of a particular source. Basically, you consider it convenient to toss out WEG because its supposed to be "full of errors and poorly researched" when it says something you don't like, even if you can't provide a logical reason why. (And by extention, by insisting WEG is flawed, you insist all other sources that use "Imperial" class are flawed, like say, the OT ICS. Why not just come out and say you think DWR is a moron and should not be listened to?)

I've already laid out how the issue can be resolved with no contradictions at all.

Oh yes, the "slang" excuse. Since when do factual classifications (which is how Imperial-class is treated in the OT ICS) treated as slang? Especially since we know that other people than the Rebels use the "Imperial-class" designation. I suppose they're all Rebels in disguise?

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-10-26 01:07am

Vympel wrote:
Connor MacLeod wrote:
Except that source materials, no matter whether canon or official, are not categorically ignored or judged based on who produces them (even though this is in fact what MANY people do, even if they do not admit to doing so.) Evidence is judged on an individual basis, and handled in accordance with its status in relation to other materials (particualrily that in supposed conflict.) ITs also worthwhile noting that often "contradiction" is a convenient excuse used by people who want an easy way to ignore something they don't like (EG, certain fanatics who did not like the AOTC: ICS would invent l udicrous arguments designed to create apparent "contradictions" with other source materials in order to dismiss it.)

Even if we grant the notion that, say, the WEG material is generally inaccurate (in some ways it is, but this is hardly in the majority), this hardly proves the general assumption that it must be ignored until proven otherwise (which seems to be the rule among many, despite the irrationality of such logic.)
I think you're confusing the differences in people's methodology with a full-on 'tossing out' of WEG. Your approach is to create new ship classes in the case of size errors, for example. My approach is to correct the sizes- i.e. there is no 'Super-class' 8km ship. Not only do we know exactly what kind of ship they were talking about when they put that in there in the first place, there are certain plot points that cannot work either because e.g. it contradicts what we know about the ship in terms of how it's related to the Executor etc. I also will not create 15m AT-ATs, or 160km Death Star IIs. They just got the size wrong. It's not throwing out the source, it's correcting it.

Except you have to first prove source material is utterly irreconcilable before you can dismiss it. This is the single fact you refuse to accept or acknowledge, because you appear to either be unwilling or uninterested in making the effort at reconciliation.

To borrow on your "Super class" example, you repeatedly insist it is "stupid" to do so, but you give no reasons that actually indicate just what makes it irreconcilable. Canon proves that the Executor class is clearly 11 miles long, and official evidence points to the existence of the "Executor"-class vessel designation.

By Canon overriding official, we know that the Executor (And ships like her) must be 11 miles, not the intended 5-8 miles. However, its clear that there is an *intent* for such a ship to exist, at least officially, and we also know that the Executor is mistaken for this smaller ship, which while similar, is also distinctly different in a number of ways (number of engines, fighter complmeent, dimensional differences between the two vessels, etc.) If the Executor is 11 miles long, and not a Super class, then the accompanying stats MUST refer to a similar but different vessel. In fact, there is no evidence that even remotely suggests it is impossible for the vessel to exist, despite your claims. (Even Curtis, whom you seem to love to references, admits its possible for the Executor-class and the "Super" class to be separate vessels.

In short, if you want to toss something out, you must first prove it is irreconcilable. Dismissal of evidence is not some cheap and easy excuse for you to ignore something you don't like, even though you seem to think it is. Burden of proof is upon you to prove that it is impossible for it to co-exist with the Executor class - it is not some "difference of opinion" that you can dismiss as being stupid.

And if you insist on referring to my methodology as stupid, go fuck yourself.

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2003-10-26 01:15am

As regards the designation "Imperial-class" being slang....

There is no evidence of any kind whatever to suggest that the designation is slang. Slang designations for enemy vessels are usually created when the real name is unknown (as with the Nihon Kaigun in World War II) or when the real name is unwieldy and foreign (as with the Raboche-Krest'yanskaya Krasnayy Flot in the Cold War), but this is eminently not the case in the Galactic Civil War; not only do the rebels speak the same language as the Imperials (viz., Basic), but many of the rebel leaders are former Imperial officers themselves, and would most assuredly know the real names of the commonest Imperial warships.

Furthermore, the known style of rebel slang is generally functional and descriptive. "Eyeballs" for TIE and TIE/ln fighters, "squints" for TIE interceptors, "brights" for advanced model fighters, "stormies" and "snowmen" for stormtroopers, "Imps" for Imperial personnel in general; perhaps most significant of all, Star Destroyers are known as "ImpStars" and "ImpStar Deuces" or "VicStars" and "VicStar Deuces". Given this trend toward highly informal and utilitarian usage, why would such a stylised and even formalistic name like "Imperial-class" be used? It is highly inconsistent with other known examples of rebel slang, especially in light of the existing "ImpStar" names.

On that same note, why would this ship alone be given such a peculiar name in slang terms? Why are other Imperial ships not known by spurious class designations? Why are Victory Star Destroyers not known as "Little Caesar-class"? Why not all Imperial warships?

What evidence is there to support the idea that this name is slang? None, save only personal distaste for the name. Yet nevertheless, there, quite literally in plain black and white text, printed in any number of sources, both "in universe" and out, are the words "Imperial-class Star Destroyer", with no indication of any kind whatever that it is a slang term. That is the state of the facts of the matter, and that is how they stand, blissfully unconcerned that they may be found distasteful or silly or even stupid. Facts, as John Adams once noted, are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

PUBLIUS

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-26 01:29am

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Actually, I can point out that according to the canon novelization for ANH, the Devastator carried dozens of heavy weapons emplacements. This could easily correspond to the WEG figures. But the weapons descriptions can easily be argued as "incomplete" or for a different class of vessel.

The Devastator carries dozens of heavy weapons emplacements on the model itself.

However, as I said, I am perfectly willing to treat the WEG stats as being a separate vessel if you're going to take that view, it still won't alter the canon aspect in the slightest. The fact you consider it "stupid" doesn't alter the basic facts one iota, no matter how ferverntly you scream otherwise.

More rhetoric. I'm not going to bother quoting every time you denigrate my position that it's simply 'stupid', it's not worth my time.

In fact, your allegations that Imperial class is wrong because WEG is flawed suggests that any source that draws on this naming convention is poorly researched. So by definition, you must also consider the OTC ICS to be a poorly researched book and DWR a complete fucking moron. I mean, its certainly inconceivable to think that that might actually be the designation after all, isn't it?

Now that it's canon, it is. I've said this multiple times. Get it through your skull for fuck's sake.

Nice misrepresentation. Its only Ad Hominem if I am ONLY attacking you and not addressing your arguments. Please be so kind as to point out just how I have been ignoring your arguments.

By repeatedly dismissing them as irrational without bothering to address them save for vague hand waving.

Yet you persist in venting your "its stupid" bitchfest rather than conceding the arguments

Uh huh. Clearly, you can't read. I suggest you type in the word concede in relation to this thread using the find function.

I see, so your logic is based on:

1.) An apparently subjective interpretation of evidence that relies on knowledge of the author's mind that you admit you do not have firsthand knowledge of.

Explain how Imperial can be consistent with

Acclamator
Procurator
Mandator
Executor

Please. Go ahead. Heaven forbid you actually respond to the fucking point rather than just stand on a pedestal and make generalized comments.

2.) Generalized prejudgement of a particular source. Basically, you consider it convenient to toss out WEG because its supposed to be "full of errors and poorly researched" when it says something you don't like, even if you can't provide a logical reason why. (And by extention, by insisting WEG is flawed, you insist all other sources that use "Imperial" class are flawed, like say, the OT ICS. Why not just come out and say you think DWR is a moron and should not be listened to?)

"Supposed to be?" It is. This is not disputable. Not that I ever tied WEG to the argument, save as a tangent to which to rail against their stunning ineptitude, which you seem to defend.

Oh yes, the "slang" excuse. Since when do factual classifications (which is how Imperial-class is treated in the OT ICS) treated as slang? Especially since we know that other people than the Rebels use the "Imperial-class" designation. I suppose they're all Rebels in disguise?

New Republic bias. Or do 15m AT-ATs exist, for example, because WEG said so and you're *so* reluctant to correct their inept mistakes? Or do E-Webs take a long time to set up, like WEG claimed, even though we saw it being set up in seconds in the actual damn film? Or do you think that official novels are some sort of perfect source rather than the murky window into the universe that Lucasfilm says they are? Your biblical inerrantist "invent any explanation, no matter how implausible" style way of dealing with obvious errors is not convincing, nor is it required.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-26 01:41am

Publius wrote:Duchess:

It is rather interesting that you should mention the simultaneous translation of "emperor" and "imperator" as separate words, despite their near equivalence. The old Marvel Series (reprinted in 1999 in A Long Time Ago... #2) introduced a language called "Galactic Standard", which Gamer #5 established as being in common use several millennia before the Battle of Yavin. The word "emperor" could be translated from Basic, while the more archaic form "imperator" could be translated from Galactic Standard. There is a certain degree of evidence for this; the language spoken on Adumar is similar to Basic but still not quite modern. Tellingly, the title of the national ruler of Cartann is "perator"; Adumar's language could be derived from Galactic Standard, with this title being an abbreviation of "imperator" (albeit an ungrammatical one).

The problem is that all the various sources describing the Galactic Emperor's rise to power describe him as immediately becoming Emperor, which carries with it the degree of "Majesty" (if not "Imperial Majesty"); there are no indications of any intermediate stages. Indeed, the Prologue to Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker states quite clearly that "Once secure in office he declared himself Emperor, shutting himself away from the populace" – his assumption of imperial dignity was immediately followed by his withdrawal from public life. The only possible explanation allowing for the style "Imperial Highness" would be if he did not immediately issue a proclamation defining by what style he would be known, and the Imperial Shipyards, Gyndine, did not have a protocol officer on hand when the "Star Destroyer Imperator Class" blueprints were drawn up.

The later is a curious possibility. My own thought of an intermediary stage was that it was an undefined period--which I understood to be implausible, but could potentially be an unresolved issue considering the state of the canon material for that era being incomplete--or more likely, the possibility of the addition of the greater title occuring shortly after the dismissal of the Imperial Senate and the assumption of autocratic powers by the Emperor. This, however, would require mistranlation of the Imperial title on several occasions--not impossible, but there is no evidence for it except for the extant inconsistancies in usage.

However, I do admit that the whole theory is essentially an effort to understand these general inconsistancies in the reference to the Imperial Dignity and in the apparent parallel of Imperial titles; and both can be more easily explained by the existence of the older Galactic Standard, and the lack of an initial proclaimation defining the style by which the Emperor was to be known. The later case is not entirely without precedent in terran history. This could also explain any later incorrect references as being a case of historians referring to sources from the Early Empire which styled the Emperor incorrectly before clarification was offered.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-26 01:42am

Connor MacLeod wrote: Except you have to first prove source material is utterly irreconcilable before you can dismiss it. This is the single fact you refuse to accept or acknowledge, because you appear to either be unwilling or uninterested in making the effort at reconciliation.

To borrow on your "Super class" example, you repeatedly insist it is "stupid" to do so, but you give no reasons that actually indicate just what makes it irreconcilable. Canon proves that the Executor class is clearly 11 miles long, and official evidence points to the existence of the "Executor"-class vessel designation.

By Canon overriding official, we know that the Executor (And ships like her) must be 11 miles, not the intended 5-8 miles. However, its clear that there is an *intent* for such a ship to exist, at least officially

Now who's arguing that the intent is 'clear'? Are you seriously suggesting that WEG ignored the canonical 'Super Star Destroyer' all together and instead invented a 8km ship for nothing? They made a fucking mistake.

and we also know that the Executor is mistaken for this smaller ship

No, we know the author's used WEG's poorly researched source material and compounded the mistake.

which while similar, is also distinctly different in a number of ways (number of engines, fighter complmeent, dimensional differences between the two vessels, etc.) If the Executor is 11 miles long, and not a Super class, then the accompanying stats MUST refer to a similar but different vessel.

Or they were *wrong*.

In fact, there is no evidence that even remotely suggests it is impossible for the vessel to exist, despite your claims. (Even Curtis, whom you seem to love to references, admits its possible for the Executor-class and the "Super" class to be separate vessels.

Anything's *possible*. However, it is quite clear that WEG made a mistake- they were not making up a new ship class. Lucasfilm has already corrected the size of the Executor once. I see no reason to invent new ship classes to cover up their sheer incompetence when Lucasfilm clearly doesn't feel the need.

In short, if you want to toss something out, you must first prove it is irreconcilable. Dismissal of evidence is not some cheap and easy excuse for you to ignore something you don't like, even though you seem to think it is. Burden of proof is upon you to prove that it is impossible for it to co-exist with the Executor class - it is not some "difference of opinion" that you can dismiss as being stupid.

Nice try. I don't have to prove anything- you're making the positive claim, you provide the proof. Prove they're different vessels. Your entire "invent new items whenever some schmuck at WEG gets the size wrong" methodology is absurd. 15m AT-ATs? Sure, let em on in! 160km DS2s? Well, you can't prove that they're *not* different vessels- there must've been one!

And if you insist on referring to my methodology as stupid, go fuck yourself.

It is stupid, and right back at you in terms of go fuck yourself. You're so fanatical in defending obvious mistakes you seriously attempt to advance the prospect that
WEG never intended to depict the Executor's class, and instead really wanted to make a seperate 8km mini vessel, never mind the fact that the official material has NEVER made such a distinction between the two. And your best excuse is that they were misidentified? How the fuck do you misidentify a ship of twice the size, exactly? Your vehement denials to the contrary, it is quite obvious what they were saying when they put that idiotic ship to paper, and it certainly appeared as such to an entire generation of EU materials that had to work off that crap.