Calendar Awards Forum Leaders List Members List FAQ
Advertisement

Reply Thread is Locked!
This thread is currently closed from further posting.
Closed Thread
$ LinkBack Thread Tools
 
  #21 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-10-2009, 03:15 PM
theunabletable theunabletable is a male United States theunabletable is offline
(◕‿◕✿)
Send a message via AIM to theunabletable
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: socal
View Posts: 4,057
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

LA can also refer to Link's Awakening.
  #22 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-10-2009, 03:16 PM
Hombre de Mundo Sweden Hombre de Mundo is offline
Send a message via Skype™ to Hombre de Mundo
Steam ID: Hombre_de_Mundo



Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: EL's mind
View Posts: 13,609
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

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.

Relevant: we gotta complete that Newbie's Guide 2.0
__________________
  #23 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-10-2009, 03:16 PM
LOZ Historian LOZ Historian is a male LOZ Historian is offline
Studied Zelda Lore: 2002-2009 [Sealed Forever]
Send a message via AIM to LOZ Historian
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Archives of Zelda Theorizing
View Posts: 2,588
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Som View Post
LA can also refer to Link's Awakening.
__________________
'The Historian Conscious'
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMissingLink
You can have a timeline, or you can have canon, but not both . If one strictly follows the strictest form of canon, the timeline is ultimately destroyed. On the other hand, if one strives to create the most coherent timeline, the canon must be broken by corollary. It is the unfortunate world in which Nintendo has placed us, and now it is up to decide which road we shall follow: the road of truth where nothing can be created, or the road of imagination where nothing can be destroyed.
[Bomber's Notebook][The History of the UWM][Exposing the Sheikah]
[Zelda Historians]
  #24 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-10-2009, 03:17 PM
Commander GorMor Canada Commander GorMor is offline
We're no longer hitchhiking, we're riding!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 36 years in space
View Posts: 6,498
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Som View Post
LA can also refer to Link's Awakening.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Also,
@Hombre: That.
__________________
  #25 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-10-2009, 03:29 PM
Smertios Smertios is a male Brazil Smertios is offline
Guardian Dragon
Send a message via ICQ to Smertios Send a message via AIM to Smertios Send a message via Yahoo to Smertios Send a message via Skype™ to Smertios
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Beyond the Beautiful Horizon
View Posts: 2,256
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Zelda informer and Legends Alliance. I prefer to use ZL (Zelda Legends - it is the same place) instead of LA not to confuse it with Link's Awakening...

This thread and the past ones have been scaring me. We don't need another war
__________________
Theorizing
ZU -- ZI -- ZL -- ZD
  #26 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-10-2009, 03:29 PM
theunabletable theunabletable is a male United States theunabletable is offline
(◕‿◕✿)
Send a message via AIM to theunabletable
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: socal
View Posts: 4,057
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

He didn't know what it was referring to so I was just helping out since you guys didn't mention it.
Last Edited by theunabletable; 03-10-2009 at 03:30 PM. Reason:
  #27 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-10-2009, 03:32 PM
Smertios Smertios is a male Brazil Smertios is offline
Guardian Dragon
Send a message via ICQ to Smertios Send a message via AIM to Smertios Send a message via Yahoo to Smertios Send a message via Skype™ to Smertios
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Beyond the Beautiful Horizon
View Posts: 2,256
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Som View Post
He didn't know what it was referring to so I was just helping out since you guys didn't mention it.
Hmm, quick convention.

let's use LA for the game and ZL for the forum/site
__________________
Theorizing
ZU -- ZI -- ZL -- ZD
  #28 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-10-2009, 03:41 PM
LOZ Historian LOZ Historian is a male LOZ Historian is offline
Studied Zelda Lore: 2002-2009 [Sealed Forever]
Send a message via AIM to LOZ Historian
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Archives of Zelda Theorizing
View Posts: 2,588
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo View Post
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.
__________________
'The Historian Conscious'
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMissingLink
You can have a timeline, or you can have canon, but not both . If one strictly follows the strictest form of canon, the timeline is ultimately destroyed. On the other hand, if one strives to create the most coherent timeline, the canon must be broken by corollary. It is the unfortunate world in which Nintendo has placed us, and now it is up to decide which road we shall follow: the road of truth where nothing can be created, or the road of imagination where nothing can be destroyed.
[Bomber's Notebook][The History of the UWM][Exposing the Sheikah]
[Zelda Historians]
Last Edited by LOZ Historian; 03-10-2009 at 04:34 PM. Reason:
  #29 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-10-2009, 07:40 PM
Maru Nui Maru Nui is a male United States Maru Nui is offline
"Blood Explosion Extraordinaire!" ~Omega, Red vs Blue
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!!
View Posts: 308
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Goron Moron View Post
Guidelines, rules... they are the same. It's the reason why ZI is so small, because of their fear of newbies.

I read this thread again and I still don't get the point of it.
This is wrong, they are two completely different things.

A guideline is a suggestion, how someone is expected to act rather than how they have to act, i.e., it is preferred that you read a topic before posting in it, but you don't have to.

A rule is doctrine, a necessity of action in accordance to a certain situation, i.e., flaming is against the rules, if you do it, you are punished.

Sorry, that just bugged me.

-----

On topic, I believe that opening up our system to the benefits from other forums is a plus for all involved, learning about how they work can help us to work more efficiently. If Impossible can provide us with an alternate viewpoint I say go for it. After all, that's the point of a forum, to hear the views of others in regards to our own interests, in this case, theorizing.
Cheers,
~MARU~
__________________
Fire is the last key to domination for Shadow.
Shadow has taken Earth, Stone, Water, Ice, and Air.
To keep hope alive, Fire flees.
That is where the true adventure begins.
This is the Legend of Maru Nui.
  #30 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-10-2009, 09:54 PM
Axiomist Axiomist is offline
Hylian Puzzle Creator and Counselor
Send a message via Skype™ to Axiomist

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Louisiana
View Posts: 401
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

For real, this should just exist in the Newbie's Guide to theorizing. I mean As, "If you want to be a good theorist and write high quality posts then......" Bc not everyone is going to adopt to it, nice as it may be, and then threads are going to just turn into all out referrals to the 'guidelines".
__________________


  #31 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-11-2009, 02:09 AM
Impossible Impossible is offline
Twili
Join Date: Mar 2009
View Posts: 417
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Historian, if you read over all of my posts since I got here, not just the ones using Lex as an example, you'll find that I clearly outlined most of my ZU problems. Honestly, all the rest is scattered about various posts, files on my computer, and even IM conversations I've had with others. I'll see what I can do later, but for now, read my posts. For the record, I use Lex as an example because I don't want to be accused of making crap up that didn't really happen. Lex posts on LA, so I have a plethora of times when he's "broken the rules" of timeline theory and debate. I've seen the same stuff here, but haven't recorded or kept track of it.

Also, I don't feel the best way for me to do this is to make posts in a topic like this that directly affront or pointlessly generalise. I'd rather do it in practice. Since I got here, several of the things I have problems with on ZU have actually occurred for real, and I find that this is a better way to prove my point about the issue of closed-mindedness and the total lack of scrutiny (because for someone to point out the factual errors would potentially harm their own theory, an issue created by excessive bias and popular theories). And it is NOT just something involving newbies who don't follow guidelines. Even veteran theorists have a tendency to use what I consider "unprincipled" arguments. What I may do is post my actual principles, which I do have prepared, but they would take a bit of editing to suit this particular board. Besides, while context is one of these principles, a far better and more detailed discussion of context can be found in the TMC topic on LA I linked to in the TMC topic here.

I would be interested in knowing what people here see as the principles of timeline theory, though. I specifically have called out ZU in the past for not following certain principles of mine, particularly one relating to the use of relevant evidence (prioritising it over minor non-story details), and the one explaining concept of context and how it impacts intent and meaning - something almost criminally ignored on this boards. That much is hard to deny.

There's also one about the formation of theories, whereby theories should be formed AFTER an objective and principled analysis of evidence. The mistake many people make is switching the order around - they make up a theory, then go out of their way LOOKING for evidence to prove this theory true. People go so crazy with bias that they will argue anything, even if it means claiming that the Link from TP is the Hero of Time, that Ganondorf was sealed in TP's ending, and that TWW refers to TP's events. Which was prominent on ZU for a period of a few months, I believe. In reality, the introduction of a major new game SHOULD cause people to start from scratch, take a step back and put all the evidence together from the beginning, as though they had none of that bias. Of course, this would have undoubtedly produced a split timeline, especially since Aonuma had already confirmed it in 2002. (He OBJECTIVELY couldn't have been referring to anything else, considering they specified one ending and not the other, and admitted that it was "confusing", which it wouldn't be if it were a seven year difference.) But people refused to do this, instead moving further and further away because they tried to counter one bit of evidence at a time, as thought it were merely an "obstacle", an annoyance for others to use against them, rather than stepping back and looking at the big picture in context, and seeing what the intent of those "obstacles" was. Honestly, I don't think I can really ever completely forgive some people for the horrible things they did to try and maintain their timeline out of bias rather than care about intent.

I'll admit that this particular issue is nowhere NEAR as bad now, but I've still seen it. I remember recently reading a post where someone said that there "must" be more evidence in FPTRR connecting it to the Oracles, because of one mistaken understanding of a reference to them. In other words, they wanted the evidence to exist, an attitude wjocj often leads to "creating" evidence that isn't really there. This is why we get issues such as the one with misuse of geography (see my post early in that topic) - people are looking for ways to manipulate their evidence to fit a theory. Even if it's a square peg going into a round hole, someone will force it in. Eventually, one's own perspective becomes so warped by this viewpoint based entirely on their own theory, that they become incapable of sharing an objective perspective that allows for proper discussion. Again, see the single timeline arguments after TP came out. Nobody could comprehend that logic except for the people who had created the false evidence because they wanted it to be true. Basing evidence on theories, when what is really important is doing it the other way around. Similarly, this is why we get "reinterpretations" of evidence against the theory, because they're manipulating it; forcing it to fit a theory when it really doesn't if a logical perspective is used. See the "flows of time" point in TWW, or the insistence on ignoring some TMC evidence while unfairly prioritising other evidence - despite the fact that it's obviously less significant than the ignored one.
Last Edited by Impossible; 03-11-2009 at 04:26 AM. Reason:
  #32 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-11-2009, 12:20 PM
Erimgard Erimgard is a male Mexico Erimgard is offline
Bow down before the one you serve, you're going to get what you deserve.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Zelda Theorizing
View Posts: 6,435
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Do we need to rename this section "Internet: Serious Business" now Historian?

Seriously though, I love theorizing just as you do, and I want to see everyone "get along" and be able to debate in a logical manner, but every site is going to have new, uninformed members. Even "veteran" members are still going to make logical fallacies from time to time. It's damn near inevitable.

Now, that's no excuse for me and Hombre not getting that new theorizing guide finished ( ) but still. Adding a huge list of "theorizing rules" isn't going to help new members understand how to theorize better, and it's not going to change anyone's already existing personal bias towards certain theories and types of "evidence".

As for differentiating between a "newbie's guide" and an "expert guide", this guide is planned to be fairly extensive, and the list of logical fallacies will be included. We don't need two separate threads, just one good one divided into sections, in my opinion.

@Goron Moron
Everyone at ZI just gave you a hard time because you spent most of your introduction thread talking about how much better ZU is than ZI...suicide, no? ZI's not small becuase we're "n00baphobes", we're small because we're only a year a and a half old and we keep having server problems
__________________
Nintendo's Missed Opportunity: Four Swords DS


Voted Best Zelda Theorist Summer 2008, Winter 2008, and Summer 2009
Voted Most Knowledgeable of Zelda Winter 2008.
Voted Most Dedicated Theorist Summer 2009


ZeldaInformer | Forums | Bombers Notebook | The Bombers | Resources
  #33 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-11-2009, 01:12 PM
LOZ Historian LOZ Historian is a male LOZ Historian is offline
Studied Zelda Lore: 2002-2009 [Sealed Forever]
Send a message via AIM to LOZ Historian
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Archives of Zelda Theorizing
View Posts: 2,588
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erimgard View Post
Do we need to rename this section "Internet: Serious Business" now Historian?
Sorry. I can't help myself since the embodiment of everything I use to detest in theorizing, and what I misunderstood from the logic of LA and GAME FAQS users being generally arrogant, has arrived at ZU. I want to reform without some figurative war hitting these boards again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erimgard View Post
Seriously though, I love theorizing just as you do, and I want to see everyone "get along" and be able to debate in a logical manner, but every site is going to have new, uninformed members. Even "veteran" members are still going to make logical fallacies from time to time. It's damn near inevitable.

Now, that's no excuse for me and Hombre not getting that new theorizing guide finished ( ) but still. Adding a huge list of "theorizing rules" isn't going to help new members understand how to theorize better, and it's not going to change anyone's already existing personal bias towards certain theories and types of "evidence".
I simply care to much. My wish has always been to find that common ground of debating ethics which can be forged into guidelines for those making that transition between newbie theorists to experienced theorists. (although it has taken much trial and error and revelations to understand my faults) I've been reading Impossible's posts (not all of them yet) and I am realizing his frustrations and agreeing with some of the accusations he has been slapping on certain people. People like Average Gamer, quicksilver20 expose people of the contradictions in their theories and logic patterns - which people are not willing to admit. Likewise, what Impossible does do is lay down the checks and balances of evidences to prove what may be more plausible than the latter argument based on what is in context. But what he does need to realize is no one theorist is perfectly unbiased.

How we debate and reason canon in its context truly defines are logic patterns. An inability to debate ethically only makes it worse on people trying to get better at it - without peoples' bias smoothing them over. When people come up with a timeline, people do get attached to them for a time - and THIS causes people to want to take every context literally. Most of the issues Impossible notes roots back to a Linearist's point of view; which did go hand in hand with literalism due to the conservative nature of generalizing canon. This very aspect is something I resented after the fact of Blue Swamp (Split Timeline Confirmation) because I knew ZU was going to have a hard time evolving out of these ways of thought. Since then, everyone still theorizes for "absolute truth" - the very thing the Split Timeline prevents us from achieving to (a) general perspective/s.

Please don't lock this thread. I'm reading through all of Impossible's quotes and I'm going to deliberately post the accusations here, and discuss these issues.

[Hence I will get back to quoting your last post Impossible]

Edit: Added some things for Impossible in this post.
__________________
'The Historian Conscious'
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMissingLink
You can have a timeline, or you can have canon, but not both . If one strictly follows the strictest form of canon, the timeline is ultimately destroyed. On the other hand, if one strives to create the most coherent timeline, the canon must be broken by corollary. It is the unfortunate world in which Nintendo has placed us, and now it is up to decide which road we shall follow: the road of truth where nothing can be created, or the road of imagination where nothing can be destroyed.
[Bomber's Notebook][The History of the UWM][Exposing the Sheikah]
[Zelda Historians]
Last Edited by LOZ Historian; 03-11-2009 at 03:00 PM. Reason:
  #34 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-11-2009, 01:22 PM
Erimgard Erimgard is a male Mexico Erimgard is offline
Bow down before the one you serve, you're going to get what you deserve.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Zelda Theorizing
View Posts: 6,435
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Worry not, I have no intentions of closing this thread.

On the topic of making a transitioning "new" theorists into "advanced" theorists with minimal confusion and irritation, it works only in cases of segregating, as I did with my short-lived invision free forum. I doubt ZU would consider having two separate Zelda Theorizing forums [or one and a subforum]. My forum was an invisionfree forum where I called the shots, not the largest Zelda forum online. Such a segregation, I'm sure, would not be allowed on a more "professional" forum like this.

The solution is just for older more advanced members to show more patience and helpfullness when dealing with new members...a concept Hombre and I have been promoting in the ZU Zelda Theorist's Group.
__________________
Nintendo's Missed Opportunity: Four Swords DS


Voted Best Zelda Theorist Summer 2008, Winter 2008, and Summer 2009
Voted Most Knowledgeable of Zelda Winter 2008.
Voted Most Dedicated Theorist Summer 2009


ZeldaInformer | Forums | Bombers Notebook | The Bombers | Resources
  #35 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-11-2009, 01:33 PM
LOZ Historian LOZ Historian is a male LOZ Historian is offline
Studied Zelda Lore: 2002-2009 [Sealed Forever]
Send a message via AIM to LOZ Historian
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Archives of Zelda Theorizing
View Posts: 2,588
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erimgard View Post
Worry not, I have no intentions of closing this thread.
Good, because I need this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erimgard View Post
On the topic of making a transitioning "new" theorists into "advanced" theorists with minimal confusion and irritation, it works only in cases of segregating, as I did with my short-lived invision free forum. I doubt ZU would consider having two separate Zelda Theorizing forums [or one and a subforum]. My forum was an invisionfree forum where I called the shots, not the largest Zelda forum online. Such a segregation, I'm sure, would not be allowed on a more "professional" forum like this.
Of course ZU won't consider it... Even if the times for such an act are more reasonable from what the circumstances use to be here. I'm sure since you and Hombre know more about theorizing than the majority of other ZU staff members, you could persuade them... But I suppose we have yet to prove ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erimgard View Post
The solution is just for older more advanced members to show more patience and helpfullness when dealing with new members...a concept Hombre and I have been promoting in the ZU Zelda Theorist's Group.
I really don't know what to say to that. I probably shouldn't say anything or what I feel might seem... not helpful.

Edit:

Well, I guess I have something helpful to note. Maybe we could do without different boards. But at the same time when people start to make that "transition", they need to be subject to certain guidelines. These "guidelines" mostly seem to be in prevalent absence in the theories related to timeline order debates. Those that specifically get into timeline theorizing face more complexities than what other theorists face when creating topics unrelated to timeline orders. Hence, I will stay consistent in saying I feel newbies should refrain from adopting a set timeline belief until they have theorized on other things non-overall-chronology-wise. It gives them time to explore their options, while becoming versed in their canon and recollections of various storylines, and applying them to debate. And those that are more seasoned theorists do have the responsibility of being patient and helping others make that "transition". When people feel they are ready to tackle things into the next league, then and only then is it their responsibility to read the Expert Guidelines - which go more in depth on how to debate ethically and interpret examples of canon differently - (This is what I hope to derive from this thread with Impossible)
__________________
'The Historian Conscious'
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMissingLink
You can have a timeline, or you can have canon, but not both . If one strictly follows the strictest form of canon, the timeline is ultimately destroyed. On the other hand, if one strives to create the most coherent timeline, the canon must be broken by corollary. It is the unfortunate world in which Nintendo has placed us, and now it is up to decide which road we shall follow: the road of truth where nothing can be created, or the road of imagination where nothing can be destroyed.
[Bomber's Notebook][The History of the UWM][Exposing the Sheikah]
[Zelda Historians]
Last Edited by LOZ Historian; 03-11-2009 at 02:58 PM. Reason:
  #36 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-11-2009, 02:41 PM
Commander GorMor Canada Commander GorMor is offline
We're no longer hitchhiking, we're riding!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 36 years in space
View Posts: 6,498
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Do we even really need a Newbie Theorist board and a Advanced Theorist board?

Edit:
Quote:
@Goron Moron
Everyone at ZI just gave you a hard time because you spent most of your introduction thread talking about how much better ZU is than ZI...suicide, no? ZI's not small becuase we're "n00baphobes", we're small because we're only a year a and a half old and we keep having server problems
I did no such thing. It was only after they started to LOL at me that I decided to call them Zelda Inferior. I have my own sources to believe.
__________________
Last Edited by Commander GorMor; 03-11-2009 at 02:44 PM. Reason:
  #37 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-11-2009, 03:10 PM
LOZ Historian LOZ Historian is a male LOZ Historian is offline
Studied Zelda Lore: 2002-2009 [Sealed Forever]
Send a message via AIM to LOZ Historian
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Archives of Zelda Theorizing
View Posts: 2,588
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Goron Moron View Post
Do we even really need a Newbie Theorist board and a Advanced Theorist board?
It could work... but it would detach the seasoned theorists from the mission of guiding newbies into more complex debates. So I suppose I understand where Erimgard is hesitant (I edited the last post to restate my thoughts on the ordeal).

People don't like these topics because they think we are going to make things so complex that newbies won't ever want to make that "transition" because it will be too overbearing. Of course a theorist makes the mission/s. And depending on the extent of those priorities, its his or her determination that reflects upon the accomplishments as a theorist. So the theorist is responsible for their advancement if they so choose to...

If anything comes out of this thread, I want to collect what I can to suggest and or apply later when it will help newbies.

@Impossible:

I'm still gathering the quotes... I want to take time with your first post back to me in those regards... Eh. And I don't know if I will have it all together by tonight... as I do have some important real life matters to attend to (shocking).
__________________
'The Historian Conscious'
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMissingLink
You can have a timeline, or you can have canon, but not both . If one strictly follows the strictest form of canon, the timeline is ultimately destroyed. On the other hand, if one strives to create the most coherent timeline, the canon must be broken by corollary. It is the unfortunate world in which Nintendo has placed us, and now it is up to decide which road we shall follow: the road of truth where nothing can be created, or the road of imagination where nothing can be destroyed.
[Bomber's Notebook][The History of the UWM][Exposing the Sheikah]
[Zelda Historians]
Last Edited by LOZ Historian; 03-11-2009 at 04:27 PM. Reason:
  #38 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-11-2009, 04:30 PM
Impossible Impossible is offline
Twili
Join Date: Mar 2009
View Posts: 417
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

Quote:
When people come up with a timeline, people do get attached to them for a time - and THIS causes people to want to take every context literally.
This is what I'm referring to. People get attached to their timeline and start making the evidence fit it. And over the years, as new evidence arises (in this case, it's often new translations that support other theories than the ones popular here), they will sink further and further without realising that their theory no longer has any objective sense. I think the board has gone that far yet again with some theories, such as TMC's placement - for which people have no problem creatively manipulating the ****ing insanely blatant symbolism present in TMC's ending (especially after the cap, FFS!) and its reference (in all languages other than English) to Link's first adventure. There's clearly some bias in the evidence interpretation. Especially if you listen to Lex, because apparently I'm a hypocrite if I use minor evidence (even if that evidence is relevant to TMC's own story and world), but every tiny point for another placement (that has no relevance to TMC, a la Oracles/Triumph Forks) should still stand.

I mean, I got annoyed at Pinecove well before I even came here for his arrogant, closed-minded claims, things like "TMC being first is impossible". It's not impossible unless TMC has events that are dependent on other games, which it does not.

I actually think this is a distinction that should be made in these rules you're talking about - there's dependent evidence (i.e. the Triforce being brought to Hyrule after ALttP is seen by many as necessary for AoL's BS and LoZ and AoL themselves to occur), which actually forces a game to occur after another game, or which makes it impossible for a game to occur at certain places (certain games with connected stories are dependent on each other). But there are also other kinds of evidence that people mix up with those points when they make closed-minded claims. I'm not sure how to classify them yet.

I guess referential evidence is something that is a similar element in two games, but doesn't necessitate an order or even a particular placement at all - this can cover many things, but especially the use of cameos and Easter eggs. People have gotten way too deep with things like assuming Salona are Subrosians (using theories as evidence is BAD), and hence that this somehow influences the OoX placement. It doesn't. Maybe this should be a section of evidence specified for things that aren't directly story related? I guess this covers gameplay references (which obviously shouldn't be prioritised), but not all artistic evidence, like geography.

Intent evidence is another one, and that's the core of many of my arguments, but people often disregard something like TMC being first BECAUSE it's intent evidence and not dependent evidence - or they mistake something like TMC's hat as an argument for dependent evidence, which is a load of crap, because it isn't. But why can't I make the same claim? Referential evidence is not dependent either, yet people claim that this makes it "impossible" for TMC to not be after TWW . So I find myself simultaneously arguing that people misuse evidence that doesn't actually force TMC to be anywhere (i.e. my argument that there are no contradictions in TMC being first, which has yet to be countered in the TMC topic), and also arguing that people misunderstand the evidence for TMC placements because they discount evidence that doesn't force it to be somewhere, ignoring the impact on intent (i.e. the hat). Those kind of seem like opposite things, but by making these distinctions between evidence, there's a clear reason for it. So I'd say intent evidence > referential evidence, for the obvious reason that the latter can't be directly linked to intent, or the storywriters. If a placement has no dependent evidence against it, and has significant intent evidence in favour of it, it should be seen as an extremely valid potential placement.
Last Edited by Impossible; 03-11-2009 at 04:33 PM. Reason:
  #39 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-11-2009, 05:09 PM
Maru Nui Maru Nui is a male United States Maru Nui is offline
"Blood Explosion Extraordinaire!" ~Omega, Red vs Blue
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!!
View Posts: 308
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

^This is great, and I find that many of the impressions I've gotten from observing the behaviors of people of this forum, and how they respond to what I say, match up a lot with it.

Also, well written,(which a lot of people find annoying because it leaves them little room to argue against it, just FYI) kudos.
Cheers,
~MARU~
__________________
Fire is the last key to domination for Shadow.
Shadow has taken Earth, Stone, Water, Ice, and Air.
To keep hope alive, Fire flees.
That is where the true adventure begins.
This is the Legend of Maru Nui.
  #40 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-13-2009, 07:20 AM
Viral Viral is a male Australia Viral is offline
Spirit of Seasons
Send a message via AIM to Viral
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
View Posts: 1,657
Re: The "Impossible" Challenge

A bit off topic, but I'm really looking forward to your work for ZI LOZH.
__________________

Check out ZeldaInformer.

Bombers Articles: (Zelda Theorising)
The Master Sword Exposed (out of date due to SS, some images missing)
The Oocca: Engineers of Hyrule
The Great War of Ikana
The Mysteries of Malladus: The Demon King's Story

I'll be updating some articles and providing new content at Zelda Informer over December/January (2011/2012)

Last Edited by Viral; 03-13-2009 at 07:22 AM. Reason:
Closed Thread

Tags
challenge, impossible


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Advertisement

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 PM.

Copyright © 2014 Zelda Universe - Privacy Statement -