Theorising about theorising.

It's the eve of the Bombers, so I thought I'd do something especially interesting for the main forum. This topic is all about you *points finger at the screen*, the theorists. What makes you tick? How did you begin theorising? How does your life and interests influence your current theorising? Do you have any goals as a theorist, or even any ideas of how to change theorising for the better? This is the topic where you get to tell us all about yourself in a relevant fashion to this board (and don't be afraid to discuss and critique other people's ideas as well! ).


Naturally as the topic creator, I'll start the ball rolling. When I begun theorising on gamefaqs, I had only one goal: to utterly destroy the notion of one timeline that connects all the games. But as I slowly hammered disproofs at the veterans, I discovered myself fitting games together in the timeline myself, until eventually I caved in and admitted that there was one timeline. Then I began a process of experimentation by placing the games in different parts of the timeline to create different theories, all with their flaws. But in the end it came down to one decision, to place ALTTP after MM or TWW, and it was that decision that led me away from gamefaqs and to later become a Wise Man"TM".

But there was one theorist who stood in my way: LexLionHart. He argued that Ganon was sealed in the Sacred Realm in FSA's ending, and my mind turned to one set plan: "WTF?! I MUST WIN THIS DEBATE!". And so it took almost every day of two straight months (minus one two-week holiday), during which at one point we were even debating the dictionary definition of "and the" (I'm not joking!). Victory came slowly but sweetly, and I realised that debating with Lex turned me into the debating leviathon that I am today. If anyone wants training in debates, my recommendation is you find a topic that Lex disagrees with AND DEBATE TO THE END!

So where do I stand now? Well, since deciding that all games are connected in a timeline, my goal has been to find the one true timeline (even though I realise achieving this perfectly is impossible). I'm not satisfied with establishing my own personal preferences, it has to be what was and is intended by the Zelda developers in establishing their universe. Since taking charge of a script for an entire timeline video (slow-going, I can tell you), I have taken on the further responsibility not to shout my own preferences as fact. In effect, my final timeline explanation is like that of Nintendo, E for Everyone.

In theorising itself, there are three rules that I hold to:

1) Do not have dogmas. Every theorist dogma leads to their undoing. Blue Swamp destroyed a dogma, and that caused LOZHistorian to commit seppeku and Link-herootime to go insane, shouting "CANON IS DEAD!" and random moments on the board.

TP continuity error? I don't know..

Of course it also destroyed a common splitist dogma (although not amongst the ASE), that OoT could be the SW and still exist on a split timeline. I would go as far as to say that Blue Swamp has created a theorising renaissance, since literally EVERYONE is now arguing for open-mindedness in theorising because their dogmas have been destroyed.

2) Context is the key. The value of evidence is not about hierarchies of canon, but looking at evidence from all angles. Was it made to serve the timeline? Was it made as a gameplay mechanic? Was it meant to reflect something in the real world? Be skeptical about everything you see, and evaluate all the details that you collect to decide what you believe to be the correct answer. For example, if a plot device acts as a game mechanic, it is less likely to be relevant to the timeline.

3) If your theory gets no support at all from other theorists, it's wrong. This is one rule to trust from personal experience. It's so easy to read a line of text and base an entire thesis upon it, only to find that no one agrees because there's a more common explanation to be found. If you find that no one agrees with your view in discussion, just give up. That's all I have to say.

And now that I've talked about myself for a good long time, all I can say now is, TOPIC CLOSED! (lol, j/k)

What an interesting idea for a thread Raian!

I became a theorist moments after signing up for Zelda Universe.

I witnessed the unorganized and arrogant splittists being crushed at every turn by none other than the United Wise Men. Simply, from my perspective, it was an unfortunate massacre lol. I quickly formulated the ASE with which to unify the voice of the splittists and give them a hope in those dark times. I became the 'noobish' founder of the Allied Splittist Elders, a group that to this very day I am overly proud of.

Of course I couldn't have possibly done it without the help of quick_silver20 and every single member of the group. I was merely the 10-post founder of what has become a thriving group and here I am now.... the still noobish 1000+ post founder of the ASE lol. Thanks ASE people! I couldn't have done it without you.

It's quite evident what makes me tick.....DRAMA.... and PINK ROSES
But this is no place for it...or so I've been told.....

My three rules (if you can call them that) are:

1) Don't take it personally. It's just a game.
2) Don't take it too seriously. It's just a game.
3) Have fun. If you aren't having fun then just leave lol.

My goal is and always has been to find the one true timeline.
And of course to lead the ASE to one day rul.... rul-regulate timeline theorizing...
(Oh I sure hope nobody caught that last bit)

You asked: What makes you tick?

Quite frankly, I'm interested in the series storyline, and naturally this extends to the timeline and story-related theory as well. Why am I so involved? Quite frankly, theorizing is less stressful than talking about things that really matter, and I think everybody needs to take some time to do things like that. Add that to me not being a very physically active person due to my disability, and you get the cocktail for nerdism.

You asked: How did you begin theorising?

I posted an idea or two here and there since I originally joined the community in 2003, but I began hardcore theorizing with the Imprisoning War debates. Master and Sentient remember the glory days, before we were as tight as we are now. I could have cared less about the timeline at large, I just wanted to prove that OoT could be the Imprisoning War, and that it wasn't some insane attempt to reconcile two stories that are irreconcilable.

You asked: How does your life and interests influence your current theorising?

I am interested in history, and, as such, I treat the information we hear of within the games as historical. I'm beginning to lean towards taking into account primary and secondary sources, all that jazz, mostly for personal appeal, since I don't really imagine the developers put that much thought into it. At the moment I mostly exist to pose ideas that don't make a difference, but are fun little side-tidbits, or to challenge the status quo when it comes to relationships between games (as my debates with you have shown).

I've been looking into taking this sort of approach, which, while sort of outlandish in the context of discussing video game storylines, would make for a very interesting style of argument: Historical Criticism

You asked: Do you have any goals as a theorist, or even any ideas of how to change theorising for the better?

Let me put it this way. I am blatantly opposed to a number of Lord Deagra's ideas, as posed in the article Deagra submitted. I admire greatly the sentiment with which they were made, though. To so boldly stick with personal interpretation based on the information he wanted to take into account, and to make a fairly coherent case of them is something I wish I could do better.

Do you still keep in regular touch with the other ASE members, CM? Since most of the UWM use AIM for their discussion, I'm often left out *sob*.

To Lex, got any funny stories about the IW debates with Sentient and MoALTTP? (I'll talk about the serious issues tomorrow. It's late for me. *yawn*)

Their argument: The Imprisoning War
My rebuttal: LionHarted's Zelda Theory Thread

Oh, the joy.

Originally Posted by Raian

Do you still keep in regular touch with the other ASE members, CM? Since most of the UWM use AIM for their discussion, I'm often left out *sob*.

Yes I don't have this AIM thing either lol.
In fact I don't even know what is stands for
"Apple Inducing Machine"??
But why wouldn't I 'still' keep in regular touch? Has something happened?

Often If I see one member doing a particularly good job I'll PM them personally about the theory or statements and sometimes they contact me about their history and whatnot or if they have a question about myself or the group. I speak with them through the elections by giving them group updates and announcements about the timelines and who has filled which of the positions. I'm probably only tight with quick_silver20 but I like to think I have some kind of a connection with each member. But with managing such a large group, sadly I feel I may have left out a few. I hope they will forgive me.

I also forgot to mention that I simply love games of wits and words.

I began theorizing a possible timeline as soon as more games came into release in the series. However though, I had the impression that up until LA or OOT, there was only 1 Link. This soon changed afterwards with the release of WW, where not only I had strictly believed there were multiple Links, but I had believed that a split within the timeline itself was created. I dare set out onto ZU sometime afterwards and help make this theory become the dominant force to believe in.


What makes me tick are pricks who think they know it all. Seriously, there are some pretty annoying people you can't reach through, it's as if talking to brick walls (A.K.A FiErCe_OnI & Super Ganny). This makes debating seem like time wasting, as anything I throw at them just doesn't cut through.


I theorize for the fun of it. I really enjoy the stories many games do tend to tell, and placing them in order makes it that much more fulfilling in getting myself further immersed into the series. I wish to know what happened in what order, that way I can be truly satisfied for the work of art that we, the ASE created for others to behold and enjoy.


When stating a theory, try not to lay all your cards on the table immediately. Give what you think is a good start to a debate, and press on with further evidence to prove your argument. Laying everything out at once may make your theory seem too complicated to comprehend all that quickly.


Remember:

-You're doing this for fun, so make sure to get some fun out of it.
-Be creative. It's more enjoyable to read something when new ideas are presented.
-Don't start crap. Sure an argument can get pretty heated, but acting immature about any situation just makes you look like a fool. Remember, you're supposed to have fun. Learn to accept others, and they'll accept you as well

Originally Posted by Riddle of Steel

-Don't start ****. Sure an argument can get pretty heated, but acting immature about any situation just makes you look like a fool. Remember, you're supposed to have fun. Learn to accept others, and they'll accept you as well

lol I'm no math expert but I think I can assume that
Cloaked Mystery + Drama = Fool

Hmmm...honestly I don't quite remember the details of how i started. Let's see though...

Back in the days like 2 years ago, when there was no theory forum there will always be some random theory threads once in a while. I like those. They offer a challenge and there was always sooo much room to elaborate. I once written a couple of timeline theories back than but they are tooo horrible to share. I don't want to scare anyone now.

About last May this one member who I didn't know all that well name Master of ALttP PM asking if i want to join the secret alliance (at that time) Wise Men group. He told me the leader was LOZ historian, who at the time I got into a few little arguements with. I was okay with that...

During the summer it was manly us two behind the scenes, because LOZH and silver arrow were gone. So it was up to us to try to convince people to like a timeline that we had a idea on. And some other things happen over the summer... no worth mentioning.

But now finally we have a theory sub-forum, even better, we have our own forum, and sub-forum, THE bombers. Yeeahh!!! how fun.

the rules to save your life:

1. DO NOT ASSUME. Anyone can assume and that doesn't make a good theoriest. Always use plenty of evidence.

2. Think twice before posting. Trust me there has been soooo many times where i posted such stupid things because a) I didn't think it over or b)I didn't research it enough.

3. Always have a back up plan in case something doesn't work out. Nothing looks worse than be unprepared. hahah.

And yes I love theorising...I wish I can be around more...I'm sure some refer to me as the invisible wise men. All I have to say is that I don't blame them.

Originally Posted by Cloaked Mystery

lol I'm no math expert but I think I can assume that
Cloaked Mystery + Drama = Fool

I originally meant any debatabing situation, but you still make a fair point lol.

lol Tut Tut. Riddle of Steel.

In my experience as a theorist (which isn't all that long actually)
I've come to a conclusion about the components of a theorist.

Welcome to cooking with Cloaked Mystery! ~Today~

A recipe for a theorist:

50% Theory
49% Presentation
1% Complete and utter foolishness

I think it's time for me to work on the other 99%

Originally Posted by LexLionHart

I posted an idea or two here and there since I originally joined the community in 2003, but I began hardcore theorizing with the Imprisoning War debates. Master and Sentient remember the glory days, before we were as tight as we are now.

Ah, those were the days. I miss having a massively long debate, but nothing apart from the Seal War has ever caused me to get into one.

Anyways, onto the questions. I first got into theorising back in early 2006, when I experimented with my own timeline (I think it went like this: LA - OoT/MM/Oracles - TMC - TP - ALttP - FS - LoZ/AoL - FSA - TWW), and I begun having some debates with LOZ Historian via PM, and that's what really got me into theorizing. After that, I slowly developed into a better theorist, and eventually became a part of the UWM.

What makes me tick? I'm not actually sure about that. I guess I just loved the Zelda series so much I just felt compelled to discuss it with other fans, and that eventually led to me making some great friends here, and that makes we want to stay here all the more.

My outside life doesn't at all affect my ways of theorising or thinking about things. Most of my ideas that I have about ways of theorising come when I'm at ZU. Personally, I don't talk that much about Zelda in real life. It's just plain boring. You need a text dump in order to have a good discussion, and you don't have one of those handy in real life discussions.

I don't have any goals as a theorist. I just do this because it makes me feel good. Well, actually, when I first came to ZU, I really wanted to become a well-known theorist, and I think that's happened, which makes me very happy. If I have any goals at the present time, it would be just to continue theorising.

Shocking tidbit: I'm a TWW generation fan . That's right. My first Zelda game was TWW. Legally, I should still qualify as noob.

I began theorizing in 2000 back when there wasn't much to theorize on. I got really into theorizing come the release of TWW and became a hardcore theorist upon joining ZU, absorbing all the Zelda knowledge I could from people like Lord of Shadow and TSA. It wasn't until I was already a well known theorist on the ZU boards that the other Wise Men got started their theorizing at ZU.
What peeves me? People touching my swords peeves me. Or any of my stuff for that matter. As a theorist I get peeved upon seeing newbies almost worshiping the knowledge of a fellow theorist who isn't even in my league, while my comments go by seemingly ignored. Another thing that peeves me is the Bombers entrance test. It requires two pages for your theory when if you just get to the point you're only really saying a paragraphs worth of theory. I'm not good at expanding so I tend to add filler, so I fail.
My goals as a theorist are to simply be respected and to show everyone the possibility of there not being a complete timeline.

Anyway, on the subject of massive debates, I've become a big proponent of the notion that any idea that you can support with

(1) reasonably-interpreted factual basis, or a canonical set of evidence that points to the possibility of your theory,
(2) functional importance, in terms of the overall series plot (or complete irrelevance, in terms of smaller details; for an example of such a theory, see my Bombers' contest article [click the Contest Banner in my sig]), and
(3) plausibility, or, rather, that your theory is believable based on your ability to establish and mutually connect 1 and 2, and that other learned people actually subscribe to the idea

is good enough to be possible.

That being said, I still maintain that my FSA theory regarding the Four Sword sealing Ganon in the Dark World (and this being the direct intention in FSA) successfully accomplished requirements 1 and 2, but that so few people believed it that it failed to fulfill 3.

I too believe that Ganon was sealed into the Sacred Realm at the end of FSA, given the nature of a previous pyramid seal in the series.