Page 1 of 2
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:05 pm
by Cpl Kendall
GStone wrote:
I took your use of the word 'vouche' to mean that the account is not a sock puppet.
That's part of it. But it's also my understanding that when you vouch for the account that you also vouch for the persons behaviour as well. I may have misunderstood but that's what I was given to understand what was happening when I vouched for my wife.
Then, let me ask you a hypothetical? If there was a thread to discuss whether something new that's been mentioned as to the heirarchy of the Wars canon and what it means for the policy of the board/site over at SDN and if I continue to post the same views there that I have over here (and other posters keep saying again and again that I'm not paying attention, though at the same time, I am following the policy of the board in other threads and sticking to it), would I be accused of breaking the rules of the board and be accused of various things, like wall of ignorance, broken record, etc. etc.?
I really don't follow your views on SW canon enough to comment directly on you. But if you came on the board and espoused a mistaken view on canon and refused to see the real version of canon and showed a repeated wall of ignorance and did AVOGARDO's trick of simply repeating your argument ad nausum then you'd eventually be dragged up in front of the Senate.
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:00 pm
by Cpl Kendall
GStone wrote:
Okay, so then even if I had a different view of what something would mean to the canon and still believed it in opposition of what others thought, I'd be brought in front of the senate for sticking to that opinion because I had a different view from the majority of the others, even if I was following the rules and the board's policy in the other threads.
So, I'd be brought up for possible banning for not giving up my opinion. I would need to have the prevailing view of the upper tier of SDN members to keep that from happening.
We don't do that here. We don't ban or bring up the question of banning because you stick to your guns with your arguments.
Do you realize how much this is making SDN sound like a cult?
I really don't care to enable yet even more whining about SDN so I'll make this brief. If you refuse to acknowledge that your wrong about what LFL says about canon then you deserve what you get. I don't see what's so great about sticking to your guns if your wrong.
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:20 pm
by Who is like God arbour
Cpl Kendall wrote:I really don't care to enable yet even more whining about SDN so I'll make this brief. If you refuse to acknowledge that your wrong about what LFL says about canon then you deserve what you get. I don't see what's so great about sticking to your guns if your wrong.
The problem with Lucasfilm Ltd. is, that they have no real canon policy. If they would have, they would more attend to continuity than making money. A canon have to be continuous and consistent and should keep the tenet and vibes of the original. But fact is, that some novels of the EU are describing a universum, which is for someone, who has only seen the movies, not recognisable. For them, it is another world, in which the actors have the same names as in Star Wars.
Also it is a fact, that some novels of the EU are not only contradicted by other EU novels, but even by the movies.
That's the consequence of no real canon policy. If Lucasfilm Ltd. would have one, some Star Wars Fans wouldn't have so much problems with some EU authors lately.
But to be able to argue about Star Wars reasonable, you have to create a reasonable canon at first.
If you want to use the absurd canon from Lucasfilm Ltd., which doesn't even deserve the name "canon", you can do so. But please respect, that not all people think like you and some of them are creating a reasonable canon, whith which one can argue about Star Wars at all.
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:35 pm
by Cpl Kendall
That's BS, here is LFL canon policy:
The thread from where the facts come from. Leland Chee posts as Tasty Taste.
An interview with Leland Chee
Holocron Continuity Database Questions
Tasty Taste
Date Posted: Jan 21, 2004 9:16 AM
Are the entries in the Holocron sorted as cannonical & non-cannonical? Are there various degress of oficialness?
The database does indeed have a canon field. Anything in the films and from George Lucas (including unpublished internal notes that we might receive from him or from the film production department) is considered "G" canon. Next we have what we call continuity "C" canon which is pretty much everything else. There is secondary "S" continuity canon which we use for some older published materials and things that may or may not fit just right. But, if it is referenced in something else it becomes "C". Similarly, any "C" canon item that makes it into the films can become "G" canon. Lastly there is non-continuity "N" which we rarely use except in the case of a blatant contradiction or for things that have been cut.
I will not go into specifics as to what is considered "S" canon or what items that are seemingly "C" canon are actually "G" canon.
Okay, I know that the novels are C-level, and I assume that most of the newer comics are also C-level. Where on the continuity spectrum to the Video games come in?
"...continuity "C" canon which is pretty much everything else. " By everything else I mean EVERYthing else. Novels, comics, junior novels, videogames, trading card games, roleplaying games, toys, websites, television. As I've mentioned earlier, any contradictions that arise are dealt on a case-by-case. This has been our general approach to continuity since we began using the Holocron database to track it.
In a nutshell, anything created by the author would be C-level. Anything in the the novels created by George Lucas (whether it comes from unpublished early script versions, unpublished author interviews with George, or George's revisions to the novelization manuscript) would be G-level unless contradicted by the films.
It gets a little more complicated when something is seen on-screen but not named. So the "shuura fruit" mentioned in the AOTC novel would be G because you see it in the film, although the author came up with the name.
Is there anything post-Return of the Jedi that is G level?
Not in the database, no. If there is anything anywhere, only George knows.
Though I don't discuss specific continuity issues in this thread, I do want to the address the fact that in the Holocron, we track continuity by Holocron entry and not by source.
What that means is, a particular source would never be discounted in its entirety, only those elements of that source that are contradictory.
Hence, while there may be individual elements of say the Marvel Comics or the Holiday Special that are considered non-continuity, all the other parts can still be valid.
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:49 pm
by Cpl Kendall
Frankly I find that simple and concise, if you have trouble following that you either can't read english or theres something wrong with you. There's no need to go invent another make believe canon policy to satisfy your drama. And if you do then I wouldn't expect any kind of respect or understanding.
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:13 pm
by GStone
Are you unaware of Chee saying there's a films only continuity and a films+EU continuity?
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:17 pm
by Cpl Kendall
And how does that change anything? Everything in the films still happens in both continuities right?
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:50 pm
by AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
It means that there are two different continuities and you get to choose which one you use. The point is that even though the films happen in both continuities, the EU doesn't.
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:00 pm
by Cpl Kendall
Frankly there's more than enough to defeat the trekkie side of the debate in the movies alone. But I don't intend to be drawn into an endless debate with you people, you'll just drag this out until I get fed up with you.
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:13 am
by GStone
And yet you're still here. You should know by now that there's pretty much a statistical impossibility that we'd ever sway any from the other side that's been debating for some time. So, something keeps bringing you back here. What is that? I'm actually curious what that is and when I say I am curious, I really am. I don't have any underhanded word play scheme in the works. That's too much work.
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:19 am
by Cpl Kendall
GStone wrote:And yet you're still here. You should know by now that there's pretty much a statistical impossibility that we'd ever sway any from the other side that's been debating for some time. So, something keeps bringing you back here. What is that? I'm actually curious what that is and when I say I am curious, I really am. I don't have any underhanded word play scheme in the works. That's too much work.
I come here to see what the trekkie side of the fence is like.
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:53 am
by GStone
Which doesn't require posting. What is it about this place that drives you to post?
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:04 am
by Cock_Knocker
GStone wrote:Which doesn't require posting. What is it about this place that drives you to post?
Probably the same thing that many of you get out of posting at SD.net. Only we don't hide who we are.
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:48 pm
by GStone
And yet, you take the name 'cock knocker' here and not 'Lord Poe', 'Wayne Poe', etc. Anyone that didn't know who you were by the board name wouldn't know without having gone through your posts.
Given that I'd probably be banned by Wong without even being brought up to the senate, what incentive would I even have to go there? I'd be paying 10 bucks just to post once or twice. It isn't worth the ten bucks, but I'm wondering about Kendell's reasoning.
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:11 pm
by Cpl Kendall
GStone wrote:Which doesn't require posting. What is it about this place that drives you to post?
None of your business.