Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo  Here's the thing: Newbies will always come here without reading the rules and without reading guidelines or the newbie's guide. They'll just do what they came to do. Are you suggesting that everytime someone violates these guidelines we're supposed to reffer them to these guidelines or talk like we would today? Because if it's the latter, I don't see any need for it. And should we reffer them to the guidelines, we'd just be smashing a tl;dr thing in their face that they most likely don't care to read or the person doesn't quite understand and fails to apply it even though the person has read it. |
It's not quite the latter. Erimgard once had a personal Zelda Theorizing board, and there were stages from Beginner to Experienced Theorists. "Experienced theorist" take things a few steps further with how they choose to analyze elements they use to support a theory. To me, when newbie theorists make that transition to becoming more versed in their canon (be it by research or influence by other senior members), they need to be subject to the guidelines.
From my experience, I don't believe any newbie theorist should tackle proving a timeline belief until they have accumulated a good set of theories (non-overall-chronology-specific) under there belt. Since I have no serious chronological bias, I find for myself this gives one time to rethink things, become versed in canon in different areas, and explore other options on the table.
Impossible is an experienced theorist, and he has been challenging how senior theorists here have been going about deciphering canon. This is an issue that effects the guidelines by those whom type it up. If these issues can be resolved, then it should be less chaos on the newbies when senior theorists start pounding away why something is or isn't correct, but rather being a guide instead.
In fact if I may be so bold to propose, we could have a "Newbie's Guide" and "Experienced Guide". And it doesn't need to be seen as elitist, just a higher level of debating and deciphering standards. How the latter guide is constructed does however reflect on the Newbies guide... but not as heavily of course.
Edit:
The reason I am targeting Impossible is because he is the embodiment of what I feel is
LA's spirit in general. He has the the balls to come and stand behind the minority beliefs here, challenging the majority way of thinking on these boards. I respect that. So let's give him the stage he deserves.