Debunking Vitiate being the most powerful force user ever

Avatar image for redsithdisciple
RedSithDisciple

2056

Forum Posts

456

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By RedSithDisciple  Online

So I've seen people use this particular quote to wank Vitiate all the way to Abeloth level and even above the other Mortis Gods. Not on this site particularly but enough to where I saw it necessary to make a thread debunking this absurd notion.

The quote in question is below:

No Caption Provided

"The Sith Emperor is the most powerful Force-user who has ever existed. Unless this implacable enemy can be defeated, the Jedi Order is doomed."

- SWTOR Encyclopedia

Seems like a pretty standard quote, states Vitiate to be the most powerful force user to ever live. However, this is not entirely the case.

In-Universe Perspective

The author, Ian Ryan, had this to say about the encyclopedia.

No Caption Provided

I know this is a large scan so I'll leave the most important part quoted below:

"This encylopedia expands on the already massive galaxy that is Star Wars: The Old Republic. Written entirely in-universe, this book uncovers secrets only hinted at in the game, divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire. Want to know more about Jedi Grand Master Satele Shan? Looking for the secrets of the Sith Emperor's power base? The answers lie within."

- Author's Note, SWTOR Encyclopedia

Basically, what Ian is saying here is that everything in the encyclopedia is from an IU perspective. Now obviously an IU perspective would have no knowledge of the Ones due to them being hidden from the known galaxy Milennia before SWTOR.

Timeline of the Encyclopedia

Edit: Full credit to @cj_the_dj. We also have a documented timeline that spans through everything the encyclopedia binds to, which starts with the Rakatan Empire, which post-dates the Celestials by many years. Many. So obviously, quotes from this book would not bind to the Celestials when they were "creating the galaxy" as that happened Milennia before the Rakatans took over.

No Caption Provided

Encyclopedia is not Omniscient

Another author, Charles Boyd, confirmed that the book isn't even omniscient to begin with.

No Caption Provided

Yes, he also states that the book was intended to be accurate but that's the case with all sources, and sometimes they can still end up spouting misinformation when from IU non-omniscient perspectives.

IU Knowledge of the Ones

In case there's any doubt that not enough would be known about the Ones to make an accurate assessment of their power, we have direct confirmation from the SWTOR Codex that virtually nothing is known about the Ones beyond their technological achievements.

No Caption Provided

With that, I bring this post to a close.

P.S. I'm aware the codex also states Vitiate to be the most powerful force user but that is retconned by post-date quotes.

Avatar image for redsithdisciple
RedSithDisciple

2056

Forum Posts

456

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By RedSithDisciple  Online
Avatar image for famousroman
Famousroman

1567

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Are there not more quotes regarding his supremacy elsewhere? Outside of the encyclopedia?

Avatar image for wolfrazer
Wolfrazer

21362

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Wolfrazer  Online

Never really cared much for this and thought it obvious that he wasn’t, also notifications still aren’t working come on..

Avatar image for cj_the_dj
cj_the_dj

1161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By cj_the_dj

@redsithdisciple: Not that I necessarily believe Vitiate is more powerful than The Ones, but:

Basically, what Ian is saying here is that everything in the encyclopedia binds only to what is mentioned/shown in-game, and nothing beyond. I trust anyone reading this post can do the math from here.

This is such a poor reading of the quote. For one, it doesn't say that these "secrets" are the extent of what the Encyclopedia offers, in fact, it directly contradicts that with the rest of the sentence stating that it also "divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire". Moreover, the very next paragraph talks about how it discusses events before the game to "connect it to the greater Star Wars legacy".

For two, the secrets being "only hinted at in game" doesn't mean what you think it does - it is self-evidently true without the need for any sort of authorial clarification. If we take the quote as one of these secrets, for example, the reason Vitiate is only indicated in-game to be the most powerful Force User ever, is because that is the extent of the material he appears in. That doesn't mean the game itself and the Encyclopedia don't factor in outside context from other lore when implying or stating such. Plus, I see no reason to even assume the "only" part of the statement is referring to the "in game" element, rather than the "hinted" part (i.e. this is never made explicit in-game, but is suggested to be true).

Edit: As for the book being written "in universe" this is hardly a good reason to discount its statements, because it was intended to be accurate at the time of its writing - according to Charles Boyd:

No Caption Provided

Furthermore, it possesses a scope of knowledge far beyond what any mortal group could achieve by 3641 BBY - including, but not limited to, the activities of Sith spirits like Kallig, the inner workings of Republic and Imperial Intelligence and the Emperor’s Hand, and the origin stories of Vette and Mako. There's very much a precedent for this, too, with TCSWE prefacing itself with the claim that, "The in-fantasy conceit of this one is that it has been compiled by some omniscient committee of historians and scholars taking a look back over tens of thousands of years of galactic history. The author/editor is solely responsible for any errors of fact or interpretation."

Avatar image for redsithdisciple
RedSithDisciple

2056

Forum Posts

456

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Are there not more quotes regarding his supremacy elsewhere? Outside of the encyclopedia?

In the codex but I did address that at the end of the post

Avatar image for redsithdisciple
RedSithDisciple

2056

Forum Posts

456

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cj_the_dj:

This is such a poor reading of the quote. For one, it doesn't say that these "secrets" are the extent of what the Encyclopedia offers, in fact, it directly contradicts that with the rest of the sentence stating that it also "divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire".

Moreover, the very next paragraph talks about how it discusses events before the game to "connect it to the greater Star Wars legacy".

Yes major characters in-game. This is literally the whole point of this thread. To show that the encyclopedia binds only to in-game content.

Did you read the whole quote? He says "Beyond the immediate time period, the encyclopedia digs into the past to portray the historic battles and climactic showdowns that shaped the galaxy before the events of Star Wars: The Old Republic." The only non-SWTOR content it might bind to are said historic battles that shaped SWTOR. It doesn't bind to say, the Clone Wars or Galactic Civil War. Moreover, he says that the book connects the game to the SW legacy, which you seem to be interpreting to mean that it binds to the whole universe. That's a misinterpretation if I've ever seen one. All this means is that the book helps you understand the game so that it fits better in the timeline, not that "information in this book can help you determine stuff about later eras."

For two, the secrets being "only hinted at in game" doesn't mean what you think it does - it is self-evidently true without the need for any sort of authorial clarification. If we take the quote as one of these secrets, for example, the reason Vitiate is only be indicated in-game to be the most powerful Force User ever, is because that is the extent of the material he appears in. That doesn't mean the game itself and the Encyclopedia don't factor in outside context from other lore when implying or stating such. Plus, I see no reason to even assume the "only" part of the statement is referring to the "in game" element, rather than the "hinted" part (i.e. this is never made explicit in-game, but is suggested to be true).

I wasn't exactly using this part for the quote itself, but rather what it binds to, as "secrets only hinted in game" I doubt would include beings such as Abeloth or Sidious or Luke or any of the Mortis Gods.

Edit: As for it being written "in universe" this is hardly a good reason to discount its statements, because the book was intended to be accurate at the time of its writing - according to Charles Boyd:

He doesn't say anything about the book being third-person omniscient. In fact, he more or less ducks that part with a vague response about how it's not IU omniscient. All he's saying is that the information in the book is supposed to be accurate. Which congrats, you've found the core aspect of literally every fucking encyclopedia lmao. This does not at all prove it binds to Post-SWTOR stuff.

Moreover, it possesses a scope of knowledge far beyond what any mortal group could achieve by 3641 BBY - including, but not limited to, the activities of Sith spirits like Kallig, the inner workings of Republic and Imperial Intelligence and the Emperor’s Hand, and the origin stories of Vette and Mako.

There's very much a precedent for this, too, with TCSWE prefacing itself with the claim that, "The in-fantasy conceit of this one is that it has been compiled by some omniscient committee of historians and scholars taking a look back over tens of thousands of years of galactic history. The author/editor is solely responsible for any errors of fact or interpretation."

Well yeah, an In-universe perspective does not mean from a specific character. A Third-person IU perspective is over the whole game, which they probably know everything about the game itself but not post-SWTOR stuff. All the info you listed is in-game content.

I'm not sure when TCSWE became a part of this as it's an entirely different source and the name itself already proves it binds to the whole verse, not just one game. Completely different to the SWTOR encyclopedia.

Avatar image for cj_the_dj
cj_the_dj

1161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By cj_the_dj

@redsithdisciple: I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you just didn't understand what I wrote, but this whole reply can basically be summed up with strawmann gifs:

Yes major characters in-game. This is literally the whole point of this thread. To show that the encyclopedia binds only to in-game content.

You're jumping from A to B without any substantiation whatsoever. The quote says the Encyclopedia talks about major characters, but them being "from the game" does not mean the commentary on them isn't framed within the broader saga. As an example, a book entirely about Roger Federer could preface with "this book will tell you all about the famous tennis star" and yet if it said "Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever" you would contextually apply that to all other tennis players - including those not discussed within the book.

Did you read the whole quote? He says "Beyond the immediate time period, the encyclopedia digs into the past to portray the historic battles and climactic showdowns that shaped the galaxy before the events of Star Wars: The Old Republic." The only non-SWTOR content it might bind to are said historic battles that shaped SWTOR.

Not just those that shaped SWTOR specifically. The quote says events that "shaped the galaxy" generally before the events of the game.

It doesn't bind to say, the Clone Wars or Galactic Civil War. Moreover, he says that the book connects the game to the SW legacy, which you seem to be interpreting to mean that it binds to the whole universe. That's a misinterpretation if I've ever seen one. All this means is that the book helps you understand the game so that it fits better in the timeline, not that "information in this book can help you determine stuff about later eras."

Who said anything about later eras? I was addressing the suggestion that the quote doesn't apply to everything before the events of the game, and is limited solely to the content of the game itself. The thread is discussing The Ones and Abeloth, after all, who existed prior to Vitiate.

I wasn't exactly using this part for the quote itself, but rather what it binds to, as "secrets only hinted in game" I doubt would include beings such as Abeloth or Sidious or Luke or any of the Mortis Gods.

For one, this doesn't address my argument that the "only" can refer purely to the "hinted" part rather than the "in game" section - which destroys your whole argument. For two, The Ones don't need to be "secrets only hinted at in-game" for the quote to include them. If you have two pieces of information, X (The Ones power level) and Y (Vitiate's power level), that both contribute to the uncovering of Z (Vitiate > The Ones), you're not wrong if you say that Z is only revealed on the finding Y.

He doesn't say anything about the book being third-person omniscient. In fact, he more or less ducks that part with a vague response about how it's not IU omniscient. All he's saying is that the information in the book is supposed to be accurate. Which congrats, you've found the core aspect of literally every fucking encyclopedia lmao. This does not at all prove it binds to Post-SWTOR stuff.

Quit being a condescending ass when half your post is predicated on a strawmann. Once again, I never said it binds things that happened post-SWTOR.

Well yeah, an In-universe perspective does not mean from a specific character. A Third-person IU perspective is over the whole game, which they probably know everything about the game itself but not post-SWTOR stuff. All the info you listed is in-game content.

I'm not sure when TCSWE became a part of this as it's an entirely different source and the name itself already proves it binds to the whole verse, not just one game. Completely different to the SWTOR encyclopedia.

If you're fine with accepting its accuracy on everything before and in SWTOR itself then I have no issues here. It's just you underlined it being "in-universe" in the quote you cited, so I wanted to make sure you weren't challenging its authenticity on those grounds.

Avatar image for redsithdisciple
RedSithDisciple

2056

Forum Posts

456

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By RedSithDisciple  Online

@cj_the_dj:

I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you just didn't understand what I wrote, but this whole reply can basically be summed up with strawmann gifs:

I understand your post fine. Do you even know what a strawman is? I've addressed every single point in your post. Laughable claim to say the least.

You're jumping from A to B without any substantiation whatsoever. The quote says the Encyclopedia talks about major characters, but them being"from the game"does not mean the commentary on them isn't framed within the broader saga.

As an example, a book entirely about Roger Federer could preface with"this book will tell you all about the famous tennis star"and yet if it said"Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever"you would contextually apply that to all other tennis players - including those not discussed within the book.

If it is explicitly noted that the book only talks about "secrets hinted at in the game" as well as the history of major characters, and that everything is from an IU perspective, you cannot use quotes from the book to evaluate characters who come after the specific time frame of SWTOR.

If the book about Roger in question is noted to be written from a modern in-world perspective, then a quote stating Roger to be the greatest Tennis Player ever would bind only to the players from Roger's time. An in-world perspective does not have a proper grasp of the skill of Tennis players back in, let's say, 12th-century France. Note that this is also a poor example on your part as both Tennis and Roger are part of the real world and not fictional. Therefore, it's utterly impossible for there to be an omniscient source that can credibly evaluate every single Tennis player who ever lived and come up with "the very best." Unless every game ever was recorded all the way back to the first one. Much like how you cannot say Magnus Carlsen is the greatest Chess player to ever live because we don't know how good the best players of the 6th-7th centuries were. It is impossible to determine who "the greatest ever" is in real life due to the lack of knowledge of earlier times.

Not just those that shaped SWTOR specifically. The quote says events that"shaped the galaxy"generally before the events of the game.

Right, but I don't think that expands the list of events too much.

Who said anything about later eras? I was addressing the suggestion that the quote doesn't apply to everything before the events of the game, and is limited solely to the content of the game itself. The thread is discussing The Ones and Abeloth, after all, who existed prior to Vitiate.

As I already clarified, the only content beyond SWTOR the quote can be bound to is historic battles/climactic showdowns that shaped the galaxy for SWTOR to take place. Abeloth and the Ones were definitely not a part of that, and even if they were, an IU perspective from the time of SWTOR does not have a proper grasp of their exact power levels.

For one, this doesn't address my argument that the"only"can refer purely to the"hinted"part rather than the"in game"section - which destroys your whole argument.

For two, The Ones don't need to be"secrets only hinted at in-game"for the quote to include them.

If you have two pieces of information, X (The Ones power level) and Y (Vitiate's power level), that both contribute to the uncovering of Z (Vitiate > The Ones), you're not wrong if you say that Z is only revealed on the finding Y.

1. You can interpret it that way if you want, but given that it's said in the context of the book being written from an IU perspective, it makes a lot more sense for "only" to be referring to "in-game" and not "hinted".

2. That's right. They don't. And the quote would bind to them IF an IU perspective of SWTOR had an accurate grasp of their power levels, which it obviously wouldn't.

3. Let me set it up in simpler terms for you.

X = Ones' power level

Y = Vitiate's power level

If X has an unspecified value due to the quote being from an IU perspective and therefore not being able to objectively measure X's value, you cannot credibly say that Y > X even if you know everything there is to know about the value of Y. You need to have confirmed values for both variables in order to properly compare them. That's an impossibility here.

Quit being a condescending ass when half your post is predicated on a strawmann. Once again, I never said it binds things that happened post-SWTOR.

Aimlessly calling my argument a strawman and getting mad that your Twitter post which confirms that the book is not omniscient, which more or less backs my argument up here, is not helping your case. And this is exactly the problem with IU perspectives. They cannot be omniscient and therefore there's always a chance they're a little off.

If you're fine with accepting its accuracy on everything before and in SWTOR itself then I have no issues here. It's just you underlined it being"in-universe"in the quote you cited, so I wanted to make sure you weren't challenging its authenticity on those grounds.

I'm not. This whole debate is about its legitimacy outside of SWTOR.

Avatar image for cj_the_dj
cj_the_dj

1161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@redsithdisciple:

I understand your post fine. Do you even know what a strawman is?

A strawmann is a misinterpretation of your opponent's argument to make it easier to defeat. Given that you spent half of your last post arguing that the quote doesn't apply to the future - when I never claimed it did - you definitely committed one.

I've addressed every single point in your post. Laughable claim to say the least.

Literally this post:

Me: 'For one, this doesn't address my argument that the"only"can refer purely to the"hinted"part rather than the"in game"section - which destroys your whole argument.'

You: '1. You can interpret it that way if you want, but given that it's said in the context of the book being written from an IU perspective, it makes a lot more sense for "only" to be referring to "in-game" and not "hinted".'

Here you concede that you didn't reply to one of my points last post. To add to that, you don't even have a good rebuttal when you do respond - you admit my interpretation is permissible, and thus virtually concede the whole argument, as I'll cover later.

Setting aside that fact, attempting to "address my points" isn't mutually exclusive with a strawmann. Apparently you don't know what it means. Furthering the comedy:

If it is explicitly noted that the book only talks about "secrets hinted at in the game" as well as the history of major characters, and that everything is from an IU perspective, you cannot use quotes from the book to evaluate characters who come after the specific time frame of SWTOR.

You commit the same strawmann again - leaving no actual reply to my argument. This isn't just a trivial point either, the quote talking about the "traits and histories of major characters" is entirely distinct from our quibble about the other part which is the "secrets only hinted at in-game". In this case, we could say that Vitiate being the most powerful Force User ever is a "trait of a major character" which isn't semantically limited to being just about the game itself (the other part of the sentence isn't either, but we'll get to that).

If the book about Roger in question is noted to be written from a modern in-world perspective, then a quote stating Roger to be the greatest Tennis Player ever would bind only to the players from Roger's time. An in-world perspective does not have a proper grasp of the skill of Tennis players back in, let's say, 12th-century France. Note that this is also a poor example on your part as both Tennis and Roger are part of the real world and not fictional. Therefore, it's utterly impossible for there to be an omniscient source that can credibly evaluate every single Tennis player who ever lived and come up with "the very best." Unless every game ever was recorded all the way back to the first one.

The point of a hypothetical isn't grounded in whether or not it would actually happen in real life. Instead it's that - if we accepted the conditions of the hypothetical - would similar logic follow? Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that the quote has a fully accurate knowledge of all tennis players: in that case, it's almost definitely true that that the book's not necessarily limited to just the subject matter it discusses, and you concede as much by quibbling about knowledge.

Right, but I don't think that expands the list of events too much.

It's about the principle of it. If the Encyclopedia is willing to discuss material beforehand that has shaped the galaxy generally - rather than just SWTOR itself - that's going entirely beyond the scope of the game, and so there's no good reason to assume any part of it is limited purely to game-centric content. As I said in my first post, the author "connects it to the greater Star Wars legacy" - which you erroneously assumed meant the future, and thus didn't actually address its implications on the past.

As I already clarified, the only content beyond SWTOR the quote can be bound to is historic battles/climactic showdowns that shaped the galaxy for SWTOR to take place.

You added in the "only" yourself, nowhere is that ever stated. The "historic battles and climactic showdowns" are examples given of what it depicts from the past, but it's never indicated that's the whole of it. As I said above, if it's generally willing to discuss the past, there's no reason to assume it's bizarrely limiting itself in some cases but not others - especially not when it "connects to the greater Star Wars legacy".

Abeloth and the Ones were definitely not a part of that, and even if they were, an IU perspective from the time of SWTOR does not have a proper grasp of their exact power levels.

But you conceded last post that it's accurate despite being in-universe? You're swapping around your argument, with some very dubious reasons, depending on convenience. Don't worry, though, I'll address this further down.

1. You can interpret it that way if you want, but given that it's said in the context of the book being written from an IU perspective, it makes a lot more sense for "only" to be referring to "in-game" and not "hinted".

It being in-universe is an entirely separate phenomenon that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this statement - one determines how the narration is, the other determines the nature of its content. Moreover, even if there were some overlap between it being in-universe and your interpretation of the statement, that doesn't actually make it more probable because of the fact that not every facet of a book needs to be/is intended to be linked (plenty of parts aren't). Conceding my interpretation is entirely semantically permissible practically ends the debate.

2. That's right. They don't. And the quote would bind to them IF an IU perspective of SWTOR had an accurate grasp of their power levels, which it obviously wouldn't.

3. Let me set it up in simpler terms for you.

X = Ones' power level

Y = Vitiate's power level

If X has an unspecified value due to the quote being from an IU perspective and therefore not being able to objectively measure X's value, you cannot credibly say that Y > X even if you know everything there is to know about the value of Y. You need to have confirmed values for both variables in order to properly compare them. That's an impossibility here.

[...]

Aimlessly calling my argument a strawman and getting mad that your Twitter post which confirms that the book is not omniscient, which more or less backs my argument up here, is not helping your case. And this is exactly the problem with IU perspectives. They cannot be omniscient and therefore there's always a chance they're a little off.

I do love a good goalpost change. And, no, me calling your argument a "strawmann" is not "aimless" as it emphasises that I was not claiming what you said I was. Regarding, in-universe perspectives, what Boyd said refutes the idea that the book is "a little off" - he stated it was meant to be "fully accurate at the time of its writing". The only reason he hesitates to define it as omniscient is to give the game room to contradict it in the future where necessary, but in order for that to be relevant you would actually need to prove a retcon here - to either the power level of Vitiate or The Ones.

I'm not. This whole debate is about its authenticity outside of SWTOR.

In what you quoted I didn't say just within SWTOR, though, I said "before" it, too. And you directly tried to dispute that above, so it doesn't seem like we're agreed.

Avatar image for redsithdisciple
RedSithDisciple

2056

Forum Posts

456

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cj_the_dj:

A strawmann is a misinterpretation of your opponent's argument to make it easier to defeat. Given that you spent half of your last post arguing that the quote doesn't apply to the future - when I never claimed it did - you definitely committed one.

I wouldn't exactly call it a misinterpretation when you literally said this in your first post:

As for the book being written"in universe"this is hardly a good reason to discount its statements, because it was intended to be accurate at the time of its writing - according to Charles Boyd:

Anyone can misinterpret this as you saying the book being IU does not change anything. It also makes more sense for people to interpret it that way given that you said this earlier in the same post:

This is such a poor reading of the quote. For one, it doesn't say that these"secrets"are the extent of what the Encyclopedia offers, in fact, it directly contradicts that with the rest of the sentence stating that it also"divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire". Moreover, the very next paragraph talks about how it discusses events before the game to"connect it to the greater Star Wars legacy".

So yeah I would hardly call it a strawman considering how you worded this whole portion of your argument.

Here you concede that you didn't reply to one of my points last post. To add to that, you don't even have a good rebuttal when you do respond - you admit my interpretation is permissible, and thus virtually concede the whole argument, as I'll cover later.

Setting aside that fact, attempting to"address my points"isn't mutually exclusive with a strawmann. Apparentlyyoudon't know what it means. Furthering the comedy:

Clearly, you misunderstood my whole tone in my rebuttal. I say that you can interpret it that way, and then I go on to explain my interpretation and how it is the more logical one. It's almost like sarcasm is a thing. Even worse, you didn't address that second part at all and then went straight to "It's a concession because you say my interpretation is permissible". Comedic how you're talking to me about strawmen when you just made one yourself lmao

You commit the same strawmannagain- leaving no actual reply to my argument. This isn't just a trivial point either, the quote talking about the"traits and histories of major characters"is entirely distinct from our quibble about the other part which is the"secrets only hinted at in-game". In this case, we could say that Vitiate being the most powerful Force User ever is a"trait of a major character"which isn't semantically limited to being just about the game itself (the other part of the sentence isn't either, but we'll get to that).

Can you read? I actually did address the "major characters" part, but you chose to ignore that for whatever reason. Again it's comedic how you were just telling me about how I don't know what a strawman is and yet here you are further proving that you yourself don't know what it is.

This is what you said:

You're jumping from A to B without any substantiation whatsoever. The quote says the Encyclopedia talks about major characters, but them being"from the game"does not mean the commentary on them isn't framed within the broader saga.

And this is what I said:

If it is explicitly noted that the book only talks about "secrets hinted at in the game" as well as the history of major characters, and that everything is from an IU perspective, you cannot use quotes from the book to evaluate characters who come after the specific time frame of SWTOR.

You say that just because the characters are from the game does not mean quotes about them are limited to the SWTOR timeline, and I rebut that by saying the book only talks about in-game content from an IU perspective and you therefore cannot fit such quotes into "the broader saga".

You calling debunks you fail to properly counter strawmen does not help you win an argument.

The point of a hypothetical isn't grounded in whether or not it would actually happen in real life. Instead it's that - if we accepted the conditions of the hypothetical - would similar logic follow? Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that the quote has a fully accurate knowledge of all tennis players: in that case, it's almost definitely true that that the book's not necessarily limited to just the subject matter it discusses, and you concede as much by quibbling about knowledge.

How about you apply all the conditions and not just the ones that help you win this argument? If we're applying the same exact conditions as the SWTOR book, we also apply the condition that the Tennis book is written from an in-world perspective during Roger's time period. Therefore, quotes from the book cannot accurately determine the greatest player ever, as there is no credible grasp of the skill level of players from centuries ago.

It's about the principle of it. If the Encyclopedia is willing to discuss material beforehand that has shaped the galaxy generally - rather than just SWTOR itself - that's going entirely beyond the scope of the game, and so there's no good reason to assume any part of it is limited purely to game-centric content.

As I said in my first post, the author"connects it to the greater Star Wars legacy"- which you erroneously assumed meant the future, and thus didn't actually address its implications on the past.

Specifically climactic battles and showdowns that an IU non-omniscient perspective would know about. Not literally everything. For example, this quote wouldn't bind to let's say the several fights the Son and Daughter had on Mortis because they were completely hidden from the known Galaxy, and therefore an IU non-omniscient perspective would not know about them, let alone have an accurate grasp of their power levels.

Already addressed this part earlier in this post but if you need a refresher I'll leave the same argument posted below.

As for the book being written"in universe"this is hardly a good reason to discount its statements, because it was intended to be accurate at the time of its writing - according to Charles Boyd:

Anyone can misinterpret this as you saying the book being IU does not change anything. It also makes more sense for people to interpret it that way given that you said this earlier in the same post:

This is such a poor reading of the quote. For one, it doesn't say that these"secrets"are the extent of what the Encyclopedia offers, in fact, it directly contradicts that with the rest of the sentence stating that it also"divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire". Moreover, the very next paragraph talks about how it discusses events before the game to"connect it to the greater Star Wars legacy".

So yeah I would hardly call it a strawman considering how you worded this whole portion of your argument.

But I think I can argue this further by addressing the legacy part.

No Caption Provided

Combining this definition with what I posted above I think it's very easy to interpret your argument as you saying the quote binds to post-SWTOR stuff, but I digress.

If you're trying to clarify that you don't think the quote binds to post-SWTOR stuff there's no reason to debate this part anymore.

You added in the"only"yourself, nowhere is that ever stated. The"historic battles and climactic showdowns"are examples given of what it depicts from the past, but it's never indicated that's the whole of it. As I said above, if it's generally willing to discuss the past, there's no reason to assume it's bizarrely limiting itself in some cases but not others - especially not when it"connects to the greater Star Wars legacy".

No Caption Provided

I think you would do yourself a favor to read the whole author's note because this whole point of yours is based on a fundamental misreading of the entire paragraph. The paragraph in question says this:

No Caption Provided

It doesn't say "to portray events such as historic battles and climactic showdowns" or something along those lines. It says "digs into the past to portray the historic battles and climactic showdowns." There is no way to properly interpret this to where it can be referring to stuff beyond said battles and showdowns.

But you conceded last post that it's accurate despite being in-universe? You're swapping around your argument, with some very dubious reasons, depending on convenience. Don't worry, though, I'll address this further down.

No I never once said that. What I said was that Charles stated that the intent was to be accurate but at the same time it's not an omniscient perspective, a stance which I have not once deviated from.

It being in-universe is an entirely separate phenomenon that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this statement - one determines how the narration is, the other determines the nature of its content. Moreover, even if there were some overlap between it being in-universe and your interpretation of the statement, that doesn't actually make it more probable because of the fact that not every facet of a book needs to be/is intended to be linked (plenty of parts aren't). Conceding my interpretation is entirely semantically permissible practically ends the debate.

I find it more unlikely to be referring to your interpretation due to both the fact it's IU and Charles's statement that the book is not omniscient. And yeah, I'm aware that an overlap doesn't always mean they're connected, but again factoring in the author statements, my interpretation ultimately makes more sense.

I do love a good goalpost change.

And, no, me calling your argument a"strawmann"is not"aimless"as it emphasises that I was not claiming what you said I was. Regarding, in-universe perspectives, what Boyd said refutes the idea that the book is"a little off" -he stated it was meant to be"fully accurate at the time of its writing". The only reason he hesitates to define it as omniscient is to give the game room to contradict it in the future where necessary, but in order for that to be relevant you would actually need to prove a retcon here - to either the power level of Vitiate or The Ones.

I'm not sure what this is referring to considering what I said right after but whatever.

You cannot have a fully accurate IU perspective, Charles is just contradicting what he wrote, as well as Ian Ryan. But if you really want a full retcon here are a few post-date quotes that say Sidious > Vitiate.

"When the most powerful Jedi battled against the most powerful Sith, the two sides of the Force clashed in spectacular style. Grand Master Yoda took on Darth Sidious in the Senate building on Coruscant and proved that strength and power have nothing to do with size."

- Jedi Battles

--

"With the galaxy now ripe for conquest, the Emperor has become the most powerful Sith Lord of all and a master of the Dark Side of the Force, ordering the extermination of the Jedi Order with the aid of his apprentice, the deadly Darth Vader."

- Legends Epic Collection: The Empire Volume 1

--

"His power may be unparalleled in the history of the Sith."

- Force and Destiny

In what you quoted I didn't say just within SWTOR, though, I said"before"it, too. And you directly tried to dispute that above, so it doesn't seem like we're agreed.

And we probably won't be.

Avatar image for thenamelessone
thenamelessone

12425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Everyone knows Valkorion loses to Vader, no need for a thread.

Avatar image for arctika
arctika

18229

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Cool thread, that was a good read.

Avatar image for cj_the_dj
cj_the_dj

1161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By cj_the_dj

@redsithdisciple:

Apologies for the late reply, I've been spending the past couple of days with my girlfriend, and - funnily enough - when I'm with her I have no inclination whatsoever to post on Comicvine:

I wouldn't exactly call it a misinterpretation when you literally said this in your first post:

Anyone can misinterpret this as you saying the book being IU does not change anything.

The best case scenario for you is that the statement is ambiguous - which means you should have inquired further, not presumed my argument - but, remember, you have to consider it contextually. The whole thread was you trying to debunk the notion of Vitiate > The Ones, and so when I say you cannot "discount its statements" - in the manner you're doing - I am obviously referring to the usage of them you're trying to refute (i.e. to the distant past). The future was never mentioned, and given that it is not the purpose of the OP, your bringing it up was pointless.

Anyone can misinterpret this as you saying the book being IU does not change anything. It also makes more sense for people to interpret it that way given that you said this earlier in the same post:

'Moreover, the very next paragraph talks about how it discusses events before the game to"connect it to the greater Star Wars legacy".'

So yeah I would hardly call it a strawman considering how you worded this whole portion of your argument.

I feel like this has got to be a troll. Please, for the love of God, actually read my posts - look at the underlined:

discusses events before the game to "connect it to the greater Star Wars legacy"

discusses events before the game to "connect it to the greater Star Wars legacy"

discusses events before the game to "connect it to the greater Star Wars legacy"

No Caption Provided

This statement says the opposite of what you want it to. I specify the Encyclopedia connects the game to the "the greater Star Wars legacy" by discussing events before it, and only that given that such is all the paragraph in the book discusses. There's no reason to assume I was remotely referring to the future here.

Clearly, you misunderstood my whole tone in my rebuttal. I say that you can interpret it that way, and then I go on to explain my interpretation and how it is the more logical one. It's almost like sarcasm is a thing. Even worse, you didn't address that second part at all and then went straight to "It's a concession because you say my interpretation is permissible". Comedic how you're talking to me about strawmen when you just made one yourself lmao

Once again you show off your total lack of reading comprehension. This is what I said:

To add to that, you don't even have a good rebuttal when you do respond - you admit my interpretation is permissible, and thus virtually concede the whole argument, as I'll cover later.

Credit: Me

I stated you "virtually conceded" the whole argument, because it's not a trivial point that can be ignored and proving your interpretation is more semantically probable than mine, in my opinion, is rather difficult. That's a judgement on the state of the debate, not me saying you've literally conceded the whole thing. Obviously I still have to actually defeat your rebuttal - which is why my statement is prefaced with a "virtually" and I say I'll "cover later" how it negatively affects your argument.

Of course, though, as we've seen consistently throughout this discussion, you simply lack the ability to decipher nuance amongst words - the usage of qualifiers, etc, seems well beyond you. Ironically, despite thinking you'd finally got me with a strawmann:

Comedic how you're talking to me about strawmen when you just made one yourself lmao

...you committed yet another one yourself.

Can you read? I actually did address the "major characters" part, but you chose to ignore that for whatever reason. Again it's comedic how you were just telling me about how I don't know what a strawman is and yet here you are further proving that you yourself don't know what it is.

This is what you said:

'You're jumping from A to B without any substantiation whatsoever. The quote says the Encyclopedia talks about major characters, but them being"from the game"does not mean the commentary on them isn't framed within the broader saga.'

And this is what I said:

'If it is explicitly noted that the book only talks about "secrets hinted at in the game" as well as the history of major characters, and that everything is from an IU perspective, you cannot use quotes from the book to evaluate characters who come after the specific time frame of SWTOR.'

You say that just because the characters are from the game does not mean quotes about them are limited to the SWTOR timeline, and I rebut that by saying the book only talks about in-game content from an IU perspective and you therefore cannot fit such quotes into "the broader saga".

You calling debunks you fail to properly counter strawmen does not help you win an argument.

Your post is just a collection of self-owns by this point. I called your argument a strawmann because it is - you specifically mention "characters who come after the specific time frame of SWTOR" in your post, even after I had already clarified that I wasn't talking about the future - and your point doesn't make sense unless it's addressing the claim you falsely assumed I was making. Let's go through your reasons, assuming now they're talking about the past rather than the future:

(1) Only talks about "secrets hinted at in game" as well as the history of major characters

(a) You're, once again, adding "only" into a sentence in which it was not included. The actual quote merely states that these two elements are part of the book, but doesn't necessarily say they're the full extent of what it talks about: "This book uncovers secrets only hinted at in the game, divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire."

(b) The "secrets hinted at in game" part, which is pretty much the extent of what the OP discusses, is entirely separate from the "traits and histories of major characters", as I made clear in my initial post: 'For one, it doesn't say that these "secrets" are the extent of what the Encyclopedia offers, in fact, it directly contradicts that with the rest of the sentence stating that it also "divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire".' And the entire point of the argument is that the latter can easily be factoring in the past if the former isn't, as I clarified again in my last post: 'The quote talking about the "traits and histories of major characters" is entirely distinct from our quibble about the other part which is the "secrets only hinted at in-game".' So, I'm not sure how - even if that is the "only" other thing the Encyclopedia discusses - that using the latter for my point is remotely impacted. This argument would make sense if we were talking about the future (as both deal with the present or past), but as we're not, it doesn't really follow.

(c) This is a semantical point unrelated to past or future - which I covered last post and you ignored - but you seem to be labouring under the delusion that "the histories of major characters" is the entirety of the second part of the statement. However, as I have quoted several times by this point, it is the "traits and histories of major characters". And, as noted in my previous reply: 'In this case, we could say that Vitiate being the most powerful Force User ever is a "trait of a major character" which isn't semantically limited to being just about the game itself.'

(2) That everything is from an IU perspective

There are two reasons why the quote being from an "in-universe" perspective could have relevance. One is to do with narrative framing: a quote looking from the perspective of 3641 BBY can have knowledge of the past but not the future. Given this, if we were talking about the future, as your argument presumed we were, it would have relevance. However, as we were not, it does not.

The other is to do accuracy - an in-universe perspective can be inaccurate but an out of universe perspective is more objective. This would have relevance whether we were talking about either past or future, but saying that I didn't bother to address it would be false, considering it was a major talking point of other sections of my last post.

How about you apply all the conditions and not just the ones that help you win this argument? If we're applying the same exact conditions as the SWTOR book, we also apply the condition that the Tennis book is written from an in-world perspective during Roger's time period. Therefore, quotes from the book cannot accurately determine the greatest player ever, as there is no credible grasp of the skill level of players from centuries ago.

Of course we're assuming the statement has accurate knowledge in my hypothetical? The point of the hypothetical, as I acknowledged last post, is to show that - if we accept the starting condition of the accuracy of the source - my argument follows. Obviously I need to prove the accuracy independently (isn't that just self-evident generally?), as I try to further down, but that has nothing to do with this specific point.

Specifically climactic battles and showdowns that an IU non-omniscient perspective would know about. Not literally everything. For example, this quote wouldn't bind to let's say the several fights the Son and Daughter had on Mortis because they were completely hidden from the known Galaxy, and therefore an IU non-omniscient perspective would not know about them, let alone have an accurate grasp of their power levels.

You're essentially conceding that the source wasn't deliberately limited by the writers in terms of scope - i.e. to just things that affect the game - and, instead, claiming that the fact it's in-universe non-omniscient does preclude it from knowing some things. But there isn't actually a reason to presume this, as Charles Boyd states that the book is "fully accurate" from an out of universe perspective, meaning that its statements cannot be wrong with our knowledge. The Ones' existence falls under that, and - if they were better than Vitiate - such would render the Encyclopedia false, so he must be stronger than them.

Also, if we really want to limit the Encyclopedia's knowledge of the Celestials to the "known galaxy", they had a profound effect on that, too. So much so that even muggle scholars are aware of some of the things they did:

http://www.swtor-spy.com/codex/galactic-history-01-the-architects/1368/

One must think that a "fully accurate" in-universe source might have a very good gauge of their power, considering it will be aware of the specifics of the above events.

Already addressed this part earlier in this post but if you need a refresher I'll leave the same argument posted below.

But I think I can argue this further by addressing the legacy part.

Combining this definition with what I posted above I think it's very easy to interpret your argument as you saying the quote binds to post-SWTOR stuff, but I digress.

You are aware that something can be tied to "the long lasting impact of particular events, actions, etc. that took place in the past" by becoming linked to that past - without its effect on the future being entirely clear? And that the context of my statement was events "before the game"? And that the context of the paragraph - "From the dawn of the Jedi Order to the crumbling of the Treaty of Coruscant, this book connects the game to the greater Star Wars legacy..." - has both example events connecting it to the broader saga from the past?

I think you would do yourself a favor to read the whole author's note because this whole point of yours is based on a fundamental misreading of the entire paragraph. The paragraph in question says this:

Bro, most of this debate has been me correcting you on basic syntax. Let's not get all "fundamental misreading of the entire paragraph" on me when we both know you're probably wrong.

It doesn't say "to portray events such as historic battles and climactic showdowns" or something along those lines. It says "digs into the past to portray the historic battles and climactic showdowns." There is no way to properly interpret this to where it can be referring to stuff beyond said battles and showdowns.

No? If you had a book about famous people throughout history, you could conceivable imagine it saying: "This book digs into the past to portray the legendary physicists that shaped the world before the events of the Coronavirus Pandemic." That, naturally, does not mean that said legendary physicists are the extent of what the book talks about.

I'm not sure why you're emphasising the "the", as though the word isn't just used to denote a particular thing. In this case, if you want me to clarify its purpose, let's look at the statement without it: "This book digs into the past to portray historic battles and climactic showdowns that shaped the galaxy before the events of the The Old Republic." It still makes sense, but the association between the battles and showdowns and shaping the galaxy is weaker - they did it, but such is not necessarily their defining attribute - and they're more individualised as concepts. Whereas -"This book digs into the past to portray the historic battles and climactic showdowns that shaped the galaxy before the events of the The Old Republic." - the fact that "shaping the galaxy" is why the book is speaking about them is made clearer in this sentence, and they're more generalised as a concept. Think of it like a book talking about "soldiers that won the war" vs "the soldiers that won the war" - in the former scenario, you could imagine it might speak about purely a few individual cases; whereas, in the latter, it's assuredly talking about them as a collective.

Edit: I also wouldn't define the "dawn of the Jedi Order" as a "historic battle" or climactic showdown", yet Ian Ryan's author's note says Encyclopedia talks about that, so - clearly - the book is not limited to just those.

No I never once said that. What I said was that Charles stated that the intent was to be accurate but at the same time it's not an omniscient perspective, a stance which I have not once deviated from.

You've spent the entirety of this post and last arguing against the notion that its information is fully accurate - contradicting your initial acceptance of Boyd's statements?

All he's saying is that the information in the book is supposed to be accurate. Which congrats, you've found the core aspect of literally every fucking encyclopedia lmao.

Credit: Your First Post

You insisting about it not being omniscient only made sense when you were trying to refute its usage of post-SWTOR content. It has no point now, as I've noted before, because its commentary on pre-SWTOR content is "fully accurate" regardless.

I find it more unlikely to be referring to your interpretation due to both the fact it's IU and Charles's statement that the book is not omniscient. And yeah, I'm aware that an overlap doesn't always mean they're connected, but again factoring in the author statements, my interpretation ultimately makes more sense.

Underlined: As I said last post, and you failed to address: "It being in-universe is an entirely separate phenomenon that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this statement - one determines how the narration is, the other determines the nature of its content."

Bolded: Exactly the same as above - Charles' statements discuss narration, not the nature of the book's content.

Italics: You basically re-stated the entirety of your last post without addressing half of my rebuttal (quoted above). Moreover, even the half you did acknowledge you didn't address - you just stated that you're "aware of that" but that "factoring in author statements, your interpretation makes more sense", as though my argument wasn't to dispute this very fact (especially the notion that Charles' Twitter posts - when he's a completely different person - are somehow informing this single phrase at the start of the book, lol). It should be very clear to everyone reading that you're out of ideas by this point, and just spewing bullshit to try and hide the fact that your arguments were crap and got destroyed.

You cannot have a fully accurate IU perspective,

Why not?

Charles is just contradicting what he wrote,

All he said was that the book isn't omniscient. That doesn't mean that all of the statements it did make can't be accurate - you don't need to be omniscient to make a collection of true statements.

as well as Ian Ryan.

So much of your post has been falling back on Charles' statement that the book isn't omniscient to try and refute my interpretations of Ian Ryan's author's note. You're creating a circular argument here - where both your claims are predicated on one another, and neither have independent support.

That aside, I suppose your God awful reading comprehension in relation to everything Ian said has been covered above.

But if you really want a full retcon here are a few post-date quotes that say Sidious > Vitiate.

I meant something... a tad more concrete? Trust me, these statements from other random sourcebooks were absolutely not an attempt to retcon either Vitiate or The Ones' power level. I could go a lot more into that, but this post is long enough as is and I'm tired enough as is, to simply let it go. I'll keep myself limited to refuting your interpretations of the below statements:

Jedi Battles: "The most powerful Sith" doesn't necessarily refer to all time - it can simply refer to the present (i.e. Sidious is stronger than Anakin and Yoda is stronger than all other surviving Jedi).

Legends Epic Collection: Empire Vol 1: Can easily refer to political power (i.e. Sidious has become the most powerful Sith by taking over the galaxy).

Force and Destiny: "May be".

Avatar image for therevaniter
TheRevaniter

262

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@redsithdisciple: Appreciate the tag(I think, I can’t see my name in there but I got the notification).

Good post overall, you ain’t have to convince me because I will defend the fact Vitiate is a punk to my grave. Though this will he good for people who are newer to TOR.

Avatar image for redsithdisciple
RedSithDisciple

2056

Forum Posts

456

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By RedSithDisciple  Online

@cj_the_dj:

Apologies for the late reply, I've been spending the past couple of days with my girlfriend, and - funnily enough - when I'm with her I have no inclination whatsoever to post on Comicvine:

My single ass doesn't know the feeling unfortunately

The best case scenario for you is that the statement is ambiguous - which means you should have inquired further, not presumed my argument - but, remember, you have to consider itcontextually. The whole thread was you trying to debunk the notion of Vitiate > The Ones, and so when I say you cannot"discount its statements"- in the manner you're doing - I am obviously referring to the usage of them you're trying to refute (i.e. to the distant past). The future was never mentioned, and given that it is not the purpose of the OP, your bringing it up was pointless.

I already said if you believe that the quote doesn't bind to post-SWTOR there's no reason to debate this part anymore because I'm not gonna repeat my interpretation and how I came to it, so moving on.

Once again you show off your total lack of reading comprehension. This is what I said:

I stated you "virtually conceded" the whole argument, because it's not a trivial point that can be ignored and proving your interpretation is more semantically probable than mine, in my opinion, is rather difficult. That's a judgement on the state of the debate, not me saying you've literally conceded the whole thing. Obviously I still have to actually defeat your rebuttal - which is why my statement is prefaced with a "virtually" and I say I'll "cover later" how it negatively affects your argument.

Of course, though, as we've seen consistently throughout this discussion, you simply lack the ability to decipher nuance amongst words - the usage of qualifiers, etc, seems well beyond you. Ironically, despite thinking you'd finally got me with a strawmann:

Yeah "virtually concede" when you said this in the same post.

It being in-universe is an entirely separate phenomenon that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this statement - one determines how the narration is, the other determines the nature of its content. Moreover, even if there were some overlap between it being in-universe and your interpretation of the statement, that doesn't actually make it more probable because of the fact that not every facet of a book needs to be/is intended to be linked (plenty of parts aren't). Conceding my interpretation is entirely semantically permissible practically ends the debate.

But even if we were to disregard this rather embarrassing self-own on your end...

Huh nice so because you say "virtually concede" and I interpret that as you saying I concede I therefore have a total lack of reading comprehension. Tell anyone that they "virtually concede" and they'll have more or less the same reaction. And note how you're still strawmanning this part because you completely ignored the first half of that paragraph.

Your post is just a collection of self-owns by this point. I called your argument a strawmann because it is - you specifically mention"characters who come after the specific time frame of SWTOR"in your post, even after I had already clarified that I wasn't talking about the future - and your point doesn't make sense unless it's addressing the claim you falsely assumed I was making. Let's go through your reasons, assuming now they're talking about the past rather than the future:

I profusely apologize that you lack the ability to word your arguments in a way that you get the clear meaning across but that's a problem on your end, not mine, so moving on.

A. You're, once again, adding"only"into a sentence in which it was not included. The actual quote merely states that these two elements are part of the book, but doesn't necessarily say they're the full extent of what it talks about:"This book uncovers secrets only hinted at in the game, divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire."

B. The"secrets hinted at in game"part, which is pretty much the extent of what the OP discusses, is entirely separate from the"traits and histories of major characters", as I made clear in my initial post:'For one, it doesn't say that these "secrets" are the extent of what the Encyclopedia offers, in fact, it directly contradicts that with the rest of the sentence stating that it also "divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire".'And the entire point of the argument is that the latter can easily be factoring in the past if the former isn't, as I clarified again in my last post:'The quote talking about the "traits and histories of major characters" is entirely distinct from our quibble about the other part which is the "secrets only hinted at in-game".'So, I'm not sure how even if that is the"only"other thing the Encyclopedia discusses that using the latter for my point is remotely impacted. This argument would make sense if we were talking about the future (as both deal with the present or past), but as we're not, it doesn't really follow.

C. This is a semantical point unrelated to past or future - which I covered last post and you ignored - but you seem to be labouring under the delusion that"the histories of major characters"is the entirety of the second part of the statement. However, as I have quoted several times by this point, it is the"traits and histories of major characters". And, as noted in my previous reply:'In this case, we could say that Vitiate being the most powerful Force User ever is a "trait of a major character" which isn't semantically limited to being just about the game itself.'

A. First off, I'm not adding the "only" myself. The scan literally states word-for-word "uncovers secrets only hinted at in the game". I never said that in a way where I was disregarding traits and histories, that's your misinterpretation. Even then, none of the extra categories back up your point of the book having accurate knowledge of the Ones.

B. Traits/History of Major characters are SWTOR universe content, adventures/dramatic stories that play out during the Republic/Empire conflict are SWTOR universe content. What does this prove about the quote binding to the Ones, who are not in any way a part of SWTOR? Nothing. Again, I did not ever say secrets are the only thing that's discussed in the game, you're just making that part up at this point. I was using that part to prove that the quote is bound only to SWTOR universe stuff, not that "these secrets are the only thing that's talked about in the book".

C. Yes that's my bad I got sidetracked rebutting your first point I forgot to address the rest but to do it now. The "traits" part was never a problem, and yes it can be counted as a trait for Vitiate. However, an IU non-omniscient as Charles and Ian clarified cannot have an accurate grasp of the power levels of non-major characters who are not even a part of SWTOR to begin with. It might not be limited to the game itself, it could bind to major characters who were a part of Vitiate's story such as Malak but to go even further and say it would bind to hidden Gods that to our knowledge, no one in the SWTOR universe knows about, is where disputes happen.

A. There are two reasons why the quote being from an "in-universe" perspective could have relevance. One is to do with narrative framing: a quote looking from the perspective of 3641 BBY can have knowledge of the past but not the future. Given this, if we were talking about the future, as your argument presumed we were, it would have relevance. However, as we were not, it does not.

B. The other is to do accuracy - an in-universe perspective can inaccurate but an out of universe perspective is more objective. This would have relevance whether we were talking about either past or future, but saying that I didn't bother to address it would be false, considering it was a major talking point of other sections of my last post.

A. There's still a few reasons why the book does not have relevance to the topic of this thread specifically. We have Charles stating that the book is not omniscient, and then we have further confirmation on what exactly the book explores that's not in the SWTOR game itself.

No Caption Provided

So again, the only content outside of SWTOR the book (which again is told in IU non-omniscient) are these said historic battles and climactic showdowns that shaped the galaxy between the time of SWTOR and the Dawn of the Jedi. Now I doubt that this perspective would have fully accurate knowledge of gods who were hidden from the main galaxy long before the Jedi were a thing.

B. I never said you didn't address this part? And yes OOU perspectives > IU perspectives I don't know why you're bringing this up considering it was never a focal point of this debate.

Of course we're assuming the statement has accurate knowledge in my hypothetical? The point of the hypothetical, as I acknowledged last post, is to show that - if we accept the starting condition of the accuracy of the source - my argument follows. Obviously I need to prove the accuracy independently (isn't that just self-evident generally?), as I try to further down, but that has nothing to do with this specific point.

The statement from an IN-WORLD perspective. There is an obvious difference between a perspective that has knowledge on just the current world as well as select past events, dating back to a specific beginning I might add, that shaped the world for modern Tennis to take place, compared to let's say a fully omniscient perspective that would have an accurate grasp of skill levels of every player to ever live. That's not the case with this book if we're structuring it the same way as the encyclopedia.

A. You're essentially conceding that the source wasn't deliberately limited by the writers in terms of scope - i.e. to just things that affect the game - and, instead, claiming that the fact it's in-universe non-omniscient does preclude it from knowing some things. But there isn't actually a reason to presume this, as Charles Boyd states that the book is"fully accurate"from an out of universe perspective, meaning that its statements cannot be wrong with our knowledge. The Ones' existence falls under that, and - if they were better than Vitiate - such would render the Encyclopedia false, so he must be stronger than them.

B. Also, if we really want to limit the Encyclopedia's knowledge of the Celestials to the"known galaxy", they had a profound effect on that, too. So much so that even muggle scholars are aware of some of the things they did. One must think that a"fully accurate"in-universe source might have a very good gauge of their power, considering it will be aware of the specifics of the above events.

A. No what Charles said is that the book was intended to be fully accurate, as is the case with every encyclopedia, but at the same time it's from an IU perspective, and therefore it cannot be fully accurate. Adding in how Charles literally says right after that the book is not omniscient. Rightfully so, given that if Charles was saying what you interpret him to be saying, he would be contradicting his own words, as well as Ian Ryan's.

B. Did you really just link this source without giving any thought to what it actually talks about?

This is the "Original Game Codex Text":

"This datacron holds unheard of power and knowledge collected by an ancient race. You access its power and discover writings which are clearly only one small piece of a massive galactic history:Although the Republic has existed for millennia, there is evidence to suggest that long before its founding, a highly advanced race ruled the galaxy. Referred to as the “Architects” or “Celestials” by scholars, these beings possessed remarkable technology capable of constructing or realigning solar systems. The Corellia system, for example, appears to have been artificially constructed.These claims would seem extraordinary, but many of the Architects’ machines survived the ages. The Vultar system was home to an immense “Cosmic Turbine” that could only have been Architect technology, before misuse destroyed both the turbine and the Vultar system itself. The fabled Centerpoint Station is thought to be an Architect installation, though many species have claimed it as the work of their own people.In addition to their engineering marvels, it is believed that the Architects seeded the Core Worlds with life–particularly humans–though some attribute this to the Rakata’s Infinite Empire. Despite the proof of their achievements, however, there is little evidence to suggest where the Architects came from or what eventually became of them."

This is only talking about The Celestials' technological achievements and has nothing to do with their overall power save for one mention of how powerful their holocron is. And note the part that I bolded which explicitly says little is known about the Celestials beyond these achievements. Also note that the Codex is fully OOU meaning that it's basically saying no one in the SW universe knows much about the Celestials, let alone an IU non-omniscient perspective that would only have knowledge on the events that shaped the galaxy, dating back to the Dawn of the Jedi, not the beginning of time itself or something.

You are aware that something can be tied to"the long lasting impact of particular events, actions, etc. that took place in the past"by becoming linked to that past - without its effect on the future being entirely clear? And that the context of my statement was events"before the game"? And that the context of the paragraph -"From the dawn of the Jedi Order to the crumbling of the Treaty of Coruscant, this book connects the game to the greater Star Wars legacy..."- has both example events connecting it to the broader saga from the past?

I'm saying this a third time, we don't need to debate this part anymore because you've clarified what you meant.

Bro, most of this debate has been me correcting you on basic syntax. Let's not get all"fundamental misreading of the entire paragraph"on me when we both know you're probably wrong.

Yeah don't act like every one of your points has been so perfect and impossible to argue against. You've been thoroughly debunked on several points including this one so don't get on the high horse and make yourself look insecure with these comments.

No? If you had a book about famous people throughout history, you could conceivable imagine it saying:"This book digs into the past to portray the legendary physicists that shaped the world before the events of the Coronavirus Pandemic."That, naturally, does not mean that said legendary physicists are the extent of what the book talks about.

A book about famous people in general would probably say something along the lines of "digs into the past to portray the legendary doctors, prominent leaders, and ground-breaking inventors who shaped the world today". Not the case with this book as it only addresses the battles, rightfully so as it isn't a book on Pre-SWTOR events, but rather the content of SWTOR itself.

I'm not sure why you're emphasising the"the", as though the word isn't just used to denote a particular thing. In this case, if you want me to clarify its purpose, let's look at the statement without it:"This book digs into the past to portray historic battles and climactic showdowns that shaped the galaxy before the events of the The Old Republic."It still makes sense, but the association between the battles and showdowns and shaping the galaxy is weaker - they did it, but such is not necessarily their defining attribute - and they're more individualised as concepts. Whereas -"This book digs into the past to portray the historic battles and climactic showdowns that shaped the galaxy before the events of the The Old Republic."- the fact that"shaping the galaxy"is why the book is speaking about them is made clearer in this sentence, and they're more generalised as a concept. Think of it like a book talking about"soldiers that won the war"vs"the soldiers that won the war"- in the former scenario, you could imagine it might speak about purely a few individual cases; whereas, in the latter, it's assuredly talking about them as a collective.

I'm emphasising the "the" because it strengthens the fact that said battles are what it's referring to, rather without the "the" it's a weaker emphasis, which you seem to understand so I'll leave it at that.

Edit: I also wouldn't define the"dawn of the Jedi Order"as a"historic battle"orclimactic showdown",yet Ian Ryan's author's note says Encyclopedia talks about that, so - clearly - the book is not limited to just those.

No, the Dawn of the Jedi part just means that that's the start of the timeline in which said battles take place.

You've spent the entirety of this post and last arguing against the notion that its information is fully accurate - contradicting your initial acceptance of Boyd's statements?

Lmao what acceptance? This is what I said when you first presented the post:

He doesn't say anything about the book being third-person omniscient. In fact, he more or less ducks that part with a vague response about how it's not IU omniscient. All he's saying is that the information in the book is supposed to be accurate. Which congrats, you've found the core aspect of literally every fucking encyclopedia lmao. This does not at all prove it binds to Post-SWTOR stuff.

And then we started debating it in later posts.

You insisting about it not being omniscient only made sense when you were trying to refute its usage of post-SWTOR content. It has no point now, as I've noted before, because its commentary on pre-SWTOR content is"fully accurate"regardless.

Intended to be fully accurate*. But still from an IU non-omniscient perspective. I don't know if you know this or not, but if something is only intended, that intended thing does not always come to fruition.

A. As I said last post, and you failed to address:"It being in-universe is an entirely separate phenomenon that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this statement - one determines how the narration is, the other determines the nature of its content."

B. Exactly the same as above - Charles' statements discuss narration, not the nature of the book's content.

C. You basically re-stated the entirety of your last post without addressing half of my rebuttal (quoted above). Moreover, even the half you did acknowledge you didn't even address - you just stated that you're"aware of that"but that"factoring in author statements, your interpretation makes more sense", as though my argument wasn't to dispute this very fact (especially the notion that Charles' Twitter posts - when he's a completely different person - are somehow informing this single phrase at the start of the book, lol). It should be very clear to everyone reading that you're out of ideas by this point, and just spewing bullshit to try and hide the fact that your arguments were crap and got destroyed.

A. Actually, I did address it and you're just proving yourself more of a hypocrite with all your comments on my "awful reading comprehension." You gave your interpretation and I explained the faults with it. Do not try gaslighting me and saying I didn't address parts that you know damn well I responded to.

B. If this is how you've been reading stuff your whole life I pity the English teachers who have had to grade your work. You realize that narration and nature of content have a direct correlation with each other right? The perspective of the narrator as well as how informed they are on the topic directly impacts how true or false the information is. But then again not knowing what you're talking about and then proceeding to act like I'm the one who's lost this debate, when you're clearly out of actual arguments and just trying to get the last word in at this point, is a top-tier self-own.

C. I did address it as clarified above so moving on. Oh forgive me you address overlaps in general and I'm supposed to disagree with that comment because we're debating just one overlap? I'll keep that in mind. So let's break down the rest of this, I don't even want to say argument because of how retarded it is. So you say that Charles's Twitter post do not support the author's note because what he's a different person? Lmao it's entirely possible for him to indirectly back another statement up. But then again, I doubt you know what it's like to be backed up because based on this horrible, horrible comeback of yours and the overall poor debating skills you've shown here it's safe to say that usually no one ends up agreeing with you in the end. Lmao your weak and failed attempt to insult just further proves how badly you've lost this debate, and I don't think you can be telling anyone that their argument is full of shit after what you pulled in the above points. You know, I know, and anyone who reads this thread will know that at this point, you're just blatantly coping.

Why not?

I feel like it's pretty self-explanatory.

All he said was that the book isn't omniscient. That doesn't mean that all of the statements it did make can't be accurate - you don't need to be omniscient to make a collection of true statements.

On something you know very well, the statement might be accurate. But on gods who hid from the main galaxy in a time that predates the start of the book's documented timeline and are overall unknown to everyone in SW, let alone an IU SWTOR perspective, that is when statements cannot be taken as legitimate.

So much of your post has been falling back on Charles' statement that the book isn't omniscient to try and refute my interpretations of Ian Ryan's author's note. You're creating a circular argument here - where both your claims are predicated on one another, and neither have independent support.

It's called consistency, and all these points back up the same argument, so I'm not sure what's wrong here.

That aside, I suppose your God awful reading comprehension in relation to everything Ian said has been covered above.

I don't think you can be telling anyone about reading comprehension considering how bad your own reading skills are as shown above but moving on from this last-ditch attempt at an insult.

I meant something... a tad more concrete? Trust me, these statements from other random sourcebooks were absolutely not an attempt to retcon either Vitiate or The Ones' power level. I could go a lot more into that, but this post is long enough as is and I'm tired enough as is, to simply let it go. I'll keep myself limited to refuting your interpretations of the below statements:

I mean, do you think any source was made with the intent of retconning others? Do you think these quotes were made...

"The Sith Emperor is the most powerful Force-user who has ever existed. Unless this implacable enemy can be defeated, the Jedi Order is doomed."

- SWTOR Encyclopedia

--

"The Sith Emperor has mastered the dark side's power to become the most dominating Force-user the galaxy has ever seen."

- SWTOR Codex

...with the intent to retcon all these quotes?

"Yoda went after Palpatine in the empty Senate chamber, but could not defeat the most powerful Sith Lord in history."

- The New Essential Chronology

--

"Yoda faces the dark side's fury, channeled by the most powerful Sith Lord in history."

- Insider 86: Yoda's Right Arm

--

"Beyond the vision of the Jedi Knights, somewhere within the darkness, the greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power bides his time. As his strength grows, his plans begin to shape the course of the galaxy, and his snares await the unsuspecting."

- The Complete Visual Dictionary

Jedi Battles:"The most powerful Sith"doesn't necessarily refer to all time - it can simply refer to the present (i.e. Sidious is stronger than Anakin and Yoda is stronger than all other surviving Jedi).

I admit the quote is debatable.

Legends Epic Collection: Empire Vol 1: Can easily refer to political power (i.e. Sidious has become the most powerful Sith by taking over the galaxy).

Not likely considering right after it talks about his mastery of the Dark Side. I think it's very clear this quote refers to his force power, adding in that it doesn't even mention anything about politics.

Force and Destiny:"May be".

Hyper-literal interpretation. They're obviously trying to say he's the most powerful Sith, just that it's a close position. Heed the following sentences.

"This may be the best meat I've ever tasted."

This means that the meat is the best, but it is contested at the moment.

"This is the best meat I've ever tasted."

This means that it's the best-tasting meat without any sort of contest. The former does not in any way mean that the meat isn't the best, just that it's a close position.

Avatar image for redsithdisciple
RedSithDisciple

2056

Forum Posts

456

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@redsithdisciple: Appreciate the tag(I think, I can’t see my name in there but I got the notification).

Good post overall, you ain’t have to convince me because I will defend the fact Vitiate is a punk to my grave. Though this will he good for people who are newer to TOR.

Thanks. And yeah you were tagged, it just cut off in the second line for some reason.

Avatar image for cj_the_dj
cj_the_dj

1161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By cj_the_dj

@redsithdisciple: Apologies again for the late reply - been busy in real life and have only been able to work on my post for short intervals:

I already said if you believe that the quote doesn't bind to post-SWTOR there's no reason to debate this part anymore because I'm not gonna repeat my interpretation and how I came to it, so moving on.

Concession accepted.

Yeah "virtually concede" when you said this in the same post.

'It being in-universe is an entirely separate phenomenon that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this statement - one determines how the narration is, the other determines the nature of its content. Moreover, even if there were some overlap between it being in-universe and your interpretation of the statement, that doesn't actually make it more probable because of the fact that not every facet of a book needs to be/is intended to be linked (plenty of parts aren't). Conceding my interpretation is entirely semantically permissible practically ends the debate.'

But even if we were to disregard this rather embarrassing self-own on your end...

I unironically can't believe you write these posts. In case you haven't noticed - though, part of me suspects you have, and that you're just being dishonest - the statement you underlined... also has a qualifier: "Conceding my interpretation is entirely semantically permissible practically ends the debate." And what does "practically" mean? I kid you not, the definition Google gives is "virtually; almost". In other words, the statements mean exactly the same thing, and I was perfectly consistent across my last post.

To think you have the audacity to say I'm committing "self-owns" when you say things like this, lol.

Huh nice so because you say "virtually concede" and I interpret that as you saying I concede I therefore have a total lack of reading comprehension. Tell anyone that they "virtually concede" and they'll have more or less the same reaction.

I would hope that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would at least acknowledge the qualifier. And, even if not, 100/100 people could interpret the statement in the way you did and still be wrong, because it blatantly does not say what you interpreted it as saying.

And note how you're still strawmanning this part because you completely ignored the first half of that paragraph.

A strawmann is a misinterpretation of an opponent's argument, not missing out certain points they've made. And I ignored it because... what even is there to address? You said this:

Clearly, you misunderstood my whole tone in my rebuttal. I say that you can interpret it that way, and then I go on to explain my interpretation and how it is the more logical one. It's almost like sarcasm is a thing.

Either:

(a) You agreed my interpretation is permissible in a partially sarcastic fashion, but it was still a genuine concession. Furthermore, you attempted to explain, instead, that your interpretation is more likely to be true than mine.

(b) You didn't agree that my interpretation is permissible, and your concession was wholly sarcastic.

In the case of (a), I disputed your reasons regarding probability further down, and whether or not your agreement was done with a degree of sarcasm is irrelevant to my observation that it negatively affects your argument (as such an agreement still happened).

In the case of (b), you've yet to explain why my interpretation isn't permissible, so it doesn't help you.

I profusely apologize that you suck at wording your arguments in a way that you get the clear meaning across but that's a problem on your end, not mine, so moving on.

Bro, you didn't even understand that "practically" and "virtually" mean the same thing. You've clearly shown you're not exactly a God at interpreting statements, so I'm not sure why anyone should think it was poor wording on my end and not you just failing to read. Especially when you've not even replied to my argument on the subject this post.

A. First off, I'm not adding the "only" myself. The scan literally states word-for-word "uncovers secrets only hinted at in the game".

You really don't think about what you're writing, do you? You say the first thing that comes into your head and try to pass it off as a proper refutation of my argument without considering any of the underlying logic behind what you're claiming. This is what you said, 'If it is explicitly noted that the book only talks about "secrets hinted at in the game" as well as the history of major characters...', and this is what the Encyclopedia said: "Written entirely in-universe, this book uncovers secrets only hinted at in the game, divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire."

Are you lost? Allow me to explain: the "only" in your sentence means that the book doesn't discuss anything but "secrets hinted at in game" and "the histories of major characters" because of where it's placed - before you list what the book "talks about". Whereas, in the Encyclopedia's sentence, the "only" is specifically referring to either the fact the secrets were just hinted at before or that they come purely from the game, as it's included as part of that phrase and is not placed before the general list of statements. In other words, the book could reasonably talk about things beyond those two categories.

That is why I said you're adding an "only" into the sentence, because in order for the Encyclopedia to be saying what you think it's saying, there would need to be one before the statement that it "uncovers secrets only hinted at in the game, divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire."

I never said that in a way where I was disregarding traits and histories, that's your misinterpretation.

And I never said you said that? You stated, "If it is explicitly noted that the book only talks about "secrets hinted at in the game" as well as the history of major characters...", and I replied with: "The actual quote merely states that these two elements are part of the book, but doesn't necessarily say they're the full extent of what it talks about." I acknowledged that you were including traits and histories, as I stated that the quote discussed "two elements" (i.e. "secrets hinted at in game" and the "traits and histories of major characters"), my issue was that you were limiting it to just that when there was no justifiable cause to do so. The statement from the book doesn't include an "only" before listing them - which I covered in more detail above.

B. Traits/History of Major characters are SWTOR universe content, adventures/dramatic stories that play out during the Republic/Empire conflict are SWTOR universe content.

This is just going back to the original point you made many posts ago which I addressed: 'You're jumping from A to B without any substantiation whatsoever. The quote says the Encyclopedia talks about major characters, but them being "from the game" does not mean the commentary on them isn't framed within the broader saga.' This very argument sent us down the dialogue tree in the first place: you can't just re-state it, ignore everything I wrote, and then act like it's a job well done.

What does this prove about the quote binding to the Ones, who are not in any way a part of SWTOR? Nothing.

The point was never that this statement alone proves the Vitiate supremacy quote binds The Ones, but, rather, that it refutes your argument that they're categorically excluded from it - as it's a separate category from the "secrets only hinted at in game" part emphasised in the OP (not that I agree with your arguments on that front either). Whether or not one can make a case at The Ones inclusion is covered elsewhere.

Again, I did not ever say secrets are the only thing that's discussed in the game, you're just making that part up at this point. I was using that part to prove that the quote is bound only to SWTOR universe stuff, not that "these secrets are the only thing that's talked about in the book".

Addressed prior. But, once again, I'm not sure how you're reaching this bizarre conclusion when I specifically state in the paragraph you're replying to: 'So, I'm not sure how even if that is the "only" other thing the Encyclopedia discusses that using the latter for my point is remotely impacted.' I specifically state that the "secrets" are the "other thing" the Encyclopedia discusses - on top of the "traits and histories of major characters".

C. Yes that's my bad I got sidetracked rebutting your first point I forgot to address the rest but to do it now. The "traits" part was never a problem, and yes it can be counted as a trait for Vitiate. However, an IU non-omniscient as Charles and Ian clarified cannot have an accurate grasp of the power levels of non-major characters who are not even a part of SWTOR to begin with. It might not be limited to the game itself, it could bind to major characters who were a part of Vitiate's story such as Malak but to go even further and say it would bind to hidden Gods that to our knowledge, no one in the SWTOR universe knows about, is where disputes happen.

This is yet another issue where you deflect to Charles Boyd's statements, rather than debate the actual point - soon there won't be very much of an argument left. Very well, I'll deal with your latest rebuttals on that front further down.

A. There's still a few reasons why the book does not have relevance to the topic of this thread specifically. We have Charles stating that the book is not omniscient, and then we have further confirmation on what exactly the book explores that's not in the SWTOR game itself.

In other words, you're deferring to the accuracy issue presented in point B - which I specifically stated comes into contention at other segments of the post: "The other is to do accuracy - an in-universe perspective can inaccurate but an out of universe perspective is more objective. This would have relevance whether we were talking about either past or future, but saying that I didn't bother to address it would be false, considering it was a major talking point of other sections of my last post."

This is very amusing, considering you said this regarding it:

B. Yes OOU perspectives > IU perspectives I don't know why you're bringing this up considering it was never a focal point of this debate.

You "don't know why" I'm "bringing it up"? Because half of this debate has been about the accuracy of in-universe sources, and I wanted to streamline this back to our discussion elsewhere on Boyd's statements. We don't need another debate on him, yet you ignored this and brought him up... again.

At any rate, let's keep going on the new point you did actually make:

So again, the only content outside of SWTOR the book (which again is told in IU non-omniscient) are these said historic battles and climactic showdowns that shaped the galaxy between the time of SWTOR and the Dawn of the Jedi. Now I doubt that this perspective would have fully accurate knowledge of gods who were hidden from the main galaxy long before the Jedi were a thing.

Firstly, that isn't necessarily what the quote is saying. Here it is for anyone reading:

The encyclopedia digs into the past to portray the historic battles and climactic showdowns that shaped the galaxy before the events of the The Old Republic. From the dawn of the Jedi Order to the crumbling of the Treaty of Coruscant, this book connects the game to the greater Star Wars legacy..."

Credit: The Old Republic Encyclopedia

The "from" and "to" here don't have to be the beginning and end. Consider the following statement: "From getting destroyed by CJ in debates to posting too much on Comicvine, this book discusses the entirety of RedSithDisciple's life." These are just random facets of your being - they're not ordered in any way - yet the sentence still makes sense.

Secondly, and this is sort of support for the above interpretation, this is blatantly untrue within the book itself. It summarises Act 3 of each of the class stories - which all happen after the crumbling of the Treaty of Coruscant (such occurs at the end of Act 2). Moreover, to look at the other side of the timeline, it discusses the rise of the Rakata Infinite Empire - which took place millennia before the dawn of the Jedi Order.

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

The statement from an IN-WORLD perspective. There is an obvious difference between a perspective that has knowledge on just the current world as well as select past events, dating back to a specific beginning I might add, that shaped the world for modern Tennis to take place, compared to let's say a fully omniscient perspective that would have an accurate grasp of skill levels of every player to ever live. That's not the case with this book if we're structuring it the same way as the encyclopedia.

This doesn't even respond to what I wrote? The issue of accuracy is discussed elsewhere, let my arguments there attest to that - the purpose of the hypothetical was to explain that another point is true if we take the source being sound as a given. You're just insistently bleating that it isn't, as though we're not already disputing that point, lol.

Did you really just link this source without giving any thought to what it actually talks about?

This is the "Original Game Codex Text":

"This datacron holds unheard of power and knowledge collected by an ancient race. You access its power and discover writings which are clearly only one small piece of a massive galactic history:Although the Republic has existed for millennia, there is evidence to suggest that long before its founding, a highly advanced race ruled the galaxy. Referred to as the “Architects” or “Celestials” by scholars, these beings possessed remarkable technology capable of constructing or realigning solar systems. The Corellia system, for example, appears to have been artificially constructed.These claims would seem extraordinary, but many of the Architects’ machines survived the ages. The Vultar system was home to an immense “Cosmic Turbine” that could only have been Architect technology, before misuse destroyed both the turbine and the Vultar system itself. The fabled Centerpoint Station is thought to be an Architect installation, though many species have claimed it as the work of their own people.In addition to their engineering marvels, it is believed that the Architects seeded the Core Worlds with life–particularly humans–though some attribute this to the Rakata’s Infinite Empire. Despite the proof of their achievements, however, there is little evidence to suggest where the Architects came from or what eventually became of them."

This whole quote is about how the Celestials created the worlds of the Star Wars Galaxy and is about their technological achievements and has nothing to do with their overall power save for one mention of how powerful their holocron is.

That's irrelevant to my point - the codex is talking about muggle scholars and what they know. My point is that, with them having such a profound effect on the known galaxy that these people are aware of it many millennia later, a slightly more informed source (who can say the inner workings of pretty much everything happening at the time period of SWTOR) could perhaps discern The Ones' power level.

And note the part that I bolded which explicitly says little is known about the Celestials beyond these technological achievements.

No, it states there is "little evidence" of their origins and what happened to them. This only matters, as noted above, from the perspective of regular historians who need such evidence.

Also note that the Codex is fully OOU meaning that it's basically saying no one in the SW universe knows much about the Celestials, let alone an IU non-omniscient perspective that would only have knowledge on the events that shaped the galaxy, dating back to the Dawn of the Jedi, not the beginning of time itself or something.

The dawn of the Jedi point was addressed earlier, and the "no one in the SW universe knows" is covered above. To add to the first point, though, how do you suppose these arbitrary cutoffs actually work from a logical perspective? The Encyclopedia clearly has an in-depth knowledge of SWTOR and an in-depth knowledge of history dating back many millennia, but somehow it gets to one year before the point of its in-depth knowledge... and said knowledge just stops? Suddenly it's as ignorant as somebody who's just read one of your posts? Suddenly it's less knowledgeable on The Ones than mortal scholars (you never directly said this, but it's a ramification of arguing it's knowledge only extends to the Dawn of the Jedi and no further)?

I'm saying this a third time, we don't need to debate this part anymore because you've clarified what you meant.

Concession accepted.

Yeah don't act like every one of your points has been so perfect and impossible to argue against. You've been thoroughly debunked on several points including this one so don't get on the high horse and make yourself look insecure with these comments.

Some of my points aren't debatable considering the semantics are, in my opinion, ironclad. There are certainly more subjective arguments within my posts, though, I'll admit, but you're not really the person to dispute them given how much you struggle with reading comprehension.

A book about famous people in general would probably say something along the lines of "digs into the past to portray the legendary doctors, prominent leaders, and ground-breaking inventors who shaped the world today". Not the case with this book as it only addresses the battles, rightfully so as it isn't a book on Pre-SWTOR events, but rather the content of SWTOR itself.

Oh, the irony! You're inadvertently conceding that the sentence doesn't necessarily limit the scope of the book's content given that there can be famous people beyond "legendary doctors, prominent leaders, and ground-breaking inventors" yet you can imagine a book's preface emphasising their contribution specifically. As to why, in this case, it would mention "battles" and "showdowns" in particular... it's because they're exciting. The average reader likes to be told they're going to read about something dramatic, so - naturally - you would highlight those over the more niche and boring elements of Star Wars history. Even then, though, the book still follows up my mentioning the dawn of the Jedi Order as an example of how it connects to the broader saga more generally - as I'll cover shortly.

I'm emphasising the "the" because it strengthens the fact that said battles are what it's referring to, rather without the "the" it's a weaker emphasis, which you seem to understand so I'll leave it at that.

But we're not agreed? You were using the "the" to imply that the historic battles and climactic showdowns are the only thing historically the book discusses. I, on the other hand, was pointing out that the word is simply used to create more emphasis on the fact that said historic battles and climactic showdowns shaped the galaxy. And, given that you didn't really reply to what I said, you don't have an argument to prove your point.

No, the Dawn of the Jedi part just means that that's the start of the timeline in which said battles take place.

Not only is that interpretation blatantly untrue for reasons mentioned prior, but the book does discuss the origins of the Jedi:

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

And even other things like the formation of the Republic:

No Caption Provided

There are so many examples of it discussing subjects that blatantly aren't battles or showdowns.

Lmao what acceptance? This is what I said when you first presented the post:

'He doesn't say anything about the book being third-person omniscient. In fact, he more or less ducks that part with a vague response about how it's not IU omniscient. All he's saying is that the information in the book is supposed to be accurate. Which congrats, you've found the core aspect of literally every fucking encyclopedia lmao. This does not at all prove it binds to Post-SWTOR stuff.'

And then we started debating it in later posts.

In your first post you stated it was "supposed to be accurate" and didn't challenge this notion (you even acknowledged it's "the core aspect of every encyclopedia"); your disputes were limited purely to whether or not it could be used to apply to the future. That's an implicit concession, and you only started claiming otherwise when it became convenient for your argument. Your very quote proves my point.

No what Charles said is that the book was intended to be fully accurate, as is the case with every encyclopedia, but at the same time it's from an IU perspective, and therefore it cannot be fully accurate. Adding in how Charles literally says right after that the book is not omniscient. Rightfully so, given that if Charles was saying what you interpret him to be saying, he would be contradicting his own words, as well as Ian Ryan's.

[...]

Intended to be fully accurate*. But still from an IU non-omniscient perspective. I don't know if you know this or not, but if something is only intended, that intended thing does not always come to fruition.

There isn't a functional difference in this case between it being "intended to be accurate" and actually accurate. Charles is capable of reading between the lines; he should know that the person asking the question is attempting to discern whether or not the Encyclopedia is a reliable source of information. For him to say that was the intent, but then not clarify it didn't turn out that way, would be staggeringly deceptive. Once again, he only mentions its lack of omniscience to highlight that information can be altered if he and the SWTOR writers desire it, not to discredit the Encyclopedia generally.

And, no, "fully accurate" and non-omniscient don't contradict, as I explained last post: "All he said was that the book isn't omniscient. That doesn't mean that all of the statements it did make can't be accurate - you don't need to be omniscient to make a collection of true statements."

Your reply to this was very objectionable:

On something you know very well, the statement might be accurate. But on gods who hid from the main galaxy in a time that predates the start of the book's documented timeline and are overall unknown to everyone in SW, let alone an IU SWTOR perspective, that is when statements cannot be taken as legitimate.

...because it doesn't even address the argument. The point is whether or not "fully accurate" and "non omniscient" contradict, not about whether or not the book includes The Ones - that issue is discussed at other points.

A. Actually, I did address it and you're just proving yourself more of a hypocrite with all your comments on my "awful reading comprehension." You gave your interpretation and I explained the faults with it. Do not try gaslighting me and saying I didn't address parts that you know damn well I responded to.

You didn't. Let's go back through the dialogue tree:

You: 'You can interpret it that way if you want, but given that it's said in the context of the book being written from an IU perspective, it makes a lot more sense for "only" to be referring to "in-game" and not "hinted".'

Me: 'It being in-universe is an entirely separate phenomenon that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this statement - one determines how the narration is, the other determines the nature of its content.'

You: 'I find it more unlikely to be referring to your interpretation due to both the fact it's IU and Charles's statement that the book is not omniscient.'

Me: "As I said last post, and you failed to address: "It being in-universe is an entirely separate phenomenon that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this statement - one determines how the narration is, the other determines the nature of its content."'

Your "explaining the faults" with my interpretation is more or less a repetition of your initial claim without acknowledging my rebuttal. The only difference is your insertion of Boyd's statement, but I addressed that part as a separate point, and only accused you of not responding to my argument insofar as it pertained to the "in-universe" section of your claim. It's only this post where you've offered something remotely substantive as a reply.

B. If this is how you've been reading stuff your whole life I pity the English teachers who have had to grade your work.

I've got an A in every English class I've ever taken, thank you very much.

You realize that narration and nature of content have a direct correlation with each other right? The perspective of the narrator as well as how informed they are on the topic directly impacts how true or false the information is.

But how true or false the information is doesn't determine the nature of what the book discusses - the writers could change their mind and say that the entire Encyclopedia is lies tomorrow and it wouldn't alter the content contained within. In other words, whether the book talks about material limited purely to the game has nothing to do with the omniscience (or lack thereof) of the narrator. True and false are just categorisations of material, they have no direct impact on it.

But then again not knowing what you're talking about and then proceeding to act like I'm the one who's lost this debate, when you're clearly out of actual arguments and just trying to get the last word in at this point, is a top-tier self-own.

You have - the amount of misinterpretations throughout each of your posts, the amount of times I've had to correct you on basic semantics, is awful. In this post alone we have gems like you not knowing that "virtually" and "practically" mean the same thing, being unable to comprehend that where the "only" in a sentence is placed changes its meaning, not even having read the book you're passionately arguing with me about, etc. I'm not trying to have the last word - I don't need to - my replies are for my own entertainment.

Oh forgive me you address overlaps in general and I'm supposed to disagree with that comment because we're debating just one overlap? I'll keep that in mind.

You don't have to disagree with the claim I made to refute my argument necessarily, but you do have to give some form of reasoning as to why it doesn't work. Allow me to elaborate, the skeleton of your argument can be presented as follows:

  • Premise 1: My interpretation of this SWTOR Encyclopedia line overlaps with another line, whereas yours doesn't.
  • Premise 2: It is more likely that these lines will overlap than not.
  • Conclusion: My interpretation of the SWTOR Encyclopedia line is more likely to be correct than yours.

You, in fairness, have given reasons to justify premise 1 - that there is a correlation between the type of narration and the nature of the content, and used Charles and Ian's quotes to provide evidence of the author's talking about the type of narration. Now, I don't agree with those reasons, but that's what our discussion above was for.

However, you have categorically not supported premise 2 with any kind of reasoning. When I pointed out that lines within books do not always overlap, so it is not necessarily more likely that they will than won't, you responded by saying "yeah, but, factoring in author statements, my interpretation makes more sense". But how does it make more sense? The author statements are about the type of narration and, at best, prove your understanding of the line overlaps with another line. They do not prove - in any way, shape or form - that it is more likely that the lines will overlap than not - which is what I took issue with, and why I claimed that your response doesn't really address my argument.

So let's break down the rest of this, I don't even want to say argument because of how retarded it is. So you say that Charles's Twitter post do not support the author's note because what he's a different person? Lmao it's entirely possible for him to indirectly back another statement up.

Because, following up what I said above, in order to prove two lines from a sentence are more likely to overlap than not, you need to use context clues from said sentence to infer that they're connected. Charles' Twitter posts cannot do that, because they're only loosely related to the book - how could they provide information on such a specific matter?

But then again, I doubt you know what it's like to be backed up because based on this horrible, horrible comeback of yours and the overall poor debating skills you've shown here it's safe to say that usually no one ends up agreeing with you in the end.

I can link you to many debates where I've been agreed with/backed up (including by my opponent!), if you'd like.

It's called consistency, and all these points back up the same argument, so I'm not sure what's wrong here.

No, consistency would be both Charles and Ian's quotes supporting the conclusion and nothing else in the argument. You are advocating for them both backing up each other as well, but this actually hampers their ability to support said conclusion. Because - if your usage of Charles' quote is supported by Ian's quote, and your usage of Ian's quote is supported by Charles' quote - Charles' quote is using itself to justify its usage... which it obviously can't do. Now that I have explained the basic idea of a circular argument, I'll leave you to actually respond to the point, and move on from this.

I mean, do you think any source was made with the intent of retconning others? Do you think these quotes were made...

"The Sith Emperor is the most powerful Force-user who has ever existed. Unless this implacable enemy can be defeated, the Jedi Order is doomed." - SWTOR Encyclopedia

"The Sith Emperor has mastered the dark side's power to become the most dominating Force-user the galaxy has ever seen." - SWTOR Codex

...with the intent to retcon all these quotes?

"Yoda went after Palpatine in the empty Senate chamber, but could not defeat the most powerful Sith Lord in history." - The New Essential Chronology

"Yoda faces the dark side's fury, channeled by the most powerful Sith Lord in history." - Insider 86: Yoda's Right Arm

"Beyond the vision of the Jedi Knights, somewhere within the darkness, the greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power bides his time. As his strength grows, his plans begin to shape the course of the galaxy, and his snares await the unsuspecting." - The Complete Visual Dictionary

Setting aside my disagreements with some of the quotes (the NEC is in-universe; and TCVD saying Sidious is "the greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power" does not mean Sidious is the best at using that power - just the most evil to have done so), I don't need to argue a retcon was intended here because they were never written to include Vitiate in the first place. LFL officials have consistently taken issue with using statements to include characters who haven't yet been created:

No Caption Provided

This example is even about Tenebrae himself! By contrast, the quotes about Vitiate being stronger than The Ones do actually need to be "retconned", due to them being published after the latter were created, and in a more real way than citing later quotes and constructing a "scaling chain" to put The Ones over Sidious. In a case where we have contradictory statements, we don't just say the one published further down the line overrules the prior one - a more complicated analysis is needed to determine which is more congruent with the broader narrative. And all that does is turn this into more of a general discussion rather than a definitive refutation of anything.

Just as a note, this applies to all statements, and Vitiate's "supremacy" over The Ones falls under this banner. I even specified in my original post that I don't necessarily have him above them - even with this quote - because I'm not sure how much sense it actually makes with the rest of the material. The extent of the claim I'm making is that I don't agree with your bad faith dismissals of it.

I admit the quote is debatable.

Concession accepted.

Not likely considering right after it talks about his mastery of the Dark Side.

The two aren't necessarily linked - the "and" could suggest that they're entirely separate elements (e.g. "CJ is a master debater and an expert Chess player"). At the very least, this is far too ambiguous to draw any definitive conclusions from.

I think it's very clear this quote refers to his force power, adding in that it doesn't even mention anything about politics.

The statement opens with saying that the galaxy is "now ripe for conquest" and follows up that Sidious "has become" the most powerful Sith of all. Not saying it's absolute, but you can totally get from such that Sidious became the most powerful Sith by ascending to the role of Emperor and having the galaxy at his fingertips. I'd even say it's the more natural reading of the sentence; your interpretation requires that the author thought Sidious wasn't the best Sith at using the Force before this precise moment but is now. That seems such an odd belief to include in a random sourcebook when it's only tangentially related to the subject matter.

Hyper-literal interpretation.

They're obviously trying to say he's the most powerful Sith, just that it's a close position. Heed the following sentences.

'This may be the best meat I've ever tasted.'

This means that the meat is the best, but it is contested at the moment.

No? I've repeatedly said, in real life, that one thing or another "may be" the best of its category to indicate it's up there in the top tier (which Sidious definitely is - we don't need a quote to tell us that) but I'm uncertain of whether it actually is the greatest. There is simply no way you can use a quote with such ambiguous wording to say that the writer "obviously" meant this or that.

'This is the best meat I've ever tasted.'

This means that it's the best-tasting meat without any sort of contest. The former does not in any way mean that the meat isn't the best, just that it's a close position.

It doesn't mean it's not the best, no, but the entire point is the lack of certainty means you cannot discern anything meaningful from it (beyond Sidious being one of the most powerful Sith).

In summary:

  • Sidious has no concrete supremacy quotes over Vitiate that "retcon" his superiority to The Ones - if such a thing can be called a retcon.
  • The Encyclopedia's scope being limited to purely game-centric content is based on the extremely flimsy "secrets only hinted at in game" line - which I've posited multiple different objections to - and the false notion that it only goes back as far as the dawn of the Jedi Order to talk about "historic battles and climactic showdowns".
  • Charles Boyd's statement that the Encyclopedia is non-omniscient is only for the purpose of allowing contradiction in the future where necessary, not to dispute its validity as a source of information on history - in that regard it's "fully accurate".
  • The Ones are known by muggle historians, and - given just how much the Encyclopedia is aware of - it stands to reason that the book can discern their power level and judge it relative to Vitiate's.
Avatar image for redsithdisciple
RedSithDisciple

2056

Forum Posts

456

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By RedSithDisciple  Online

@cj_the_dj:

I unironically can't believe you write these posts. In case you haven't noticed - though, part of me suspects you have, and that you're just being dishonest - the statement you underlined... also has a qualifier: "Conceding my interpretation is entirely semantically permissible practically ends the debate." And what does "practically" mean? I kid you not, the definition Google gives is "virtually; almost". In other words, the statements mean exactly the same thing, and I was perfectly consistent across my last post.

To think you have the audacity to say I'm committing "self-owns" when you say things like this, lol.

Lmao where was I talking about the practically? Try not to commit such humiliating strawmen when I was clearly talking about the concede part.

This is what I said:

Yeah "virtually concede" when you said this in the same post

This is what I was responding to:

'It being in-universe is an entirely separate phenomenon that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this statement - one determines how the narration is, the other determines the nature of its content. Moreover, even if there were some overlap between it being in-universe and your interpretation of the statement, that doesn't actually make it more probable because of the fact that not every facet of a book needs to be/is intended to be linked (plenty of parts aren't).Conceding my interpretation is entirely semantically permissible practically ends the debate.'

But again I'm gonna be merciful and look past yet another self-own on your end.

I would hope that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would at least acknowledge the qualifier. And, even if not, 100/100 people could interpret the statement in the way you did and still be wrong, because it blatantly does not say what you interpreted it as saying.

Yeah I'm sorry but you are not the Supreme Master of English, even though you've proven your ego is so high you probably do think you are. If 100/100 people did agree with my interpretation, that just proves you didn't word your point properly, not that those 100 people are all wrong. But again, your ego is evidently so high even if every sentient being in this realm of existence disagreed with you on the interpretation of something, you would probably still say that all of them are wrong and that you're right.

(a) You agreed my interpretation is permissible in a partially sarcastic fashion, but it was still a genuine concession. Furthermore, you attempted to explain, instead, that your interpretation is more likely to be true than mine.

(b) You didn't agree that my interpretation is permissible, and your concession was wholly sarcastic.

In the case of (a), I disputed your reasons regarding probability further down, and whether or not your agreement was done with a degree of sarcasm is irrelevant to my observation that it negatively affects your argument (as such an agreement still happened).

In the case of (b), you've yet to explain why my interpretation isn't permissible, so it doesn't help you.

It was B thank you very much. As for the explanation, I gave one, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but by all means continue to say that I'm the one who's being dishonest here when you've already lied more than once about me either not responding to a point of yours or claiming I didn't explain something.

Bro, you didn't even understand that"practically"and"virtually"mean the same thing. You've clearly shown you're not exactly a God at interpreting statements, so I'm not sure why anyone should think it was poor wording on my end and not you just failing to read. Especially when you've not even replied to my argument on the subject this post.

Lmao another strawman on your end. Again, the practically and virtually stuff was not a part of this. This was about my interpretation that you were saying the quote binds to post-SWTOR stuff, not you saying my post was a concession. And once again, you're blatantly trying to gaslight me by saying I haven't responded to you when you know damn well I have and you just don't have a proper argument. Your only point in that paragraph was about my interpretation about you talking about the future and this was my response.

No Caption Provided

So let me tell you right now, if you keep your gaslighting up, I'm ending this debate because I'm not gonna waste time writing responses to someone who can't admit when they're wrong.

You really don't think about what you're writing, do you? You say the first thing that comes into your head and try to pass it off as a proper refutation of my argument without considering any of the underlying logic behind what you're claiming. This is what you said, 'If it is explicitly noted that the book only talks about "secrets hinted at in the game" as well as the history of major characters...', and this is what the Encyclopedia said:"Written entirely in-universe, this book uncovers secrets only hinted at in the game, divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire."

Did you even read the context I used "only" in? This was the full sentence and not just your intentionally cropped one to make my argument easier to refute.

No Caption Provided

So yeah I did not ignore the other stuff mentioned in that paragraph, and this is just your usual BS strawman with zero thought given into what I'm actually saying.

Are you lost? Allow me to explain: the"only"in your sentence means that the book doesn't discuss anything but"secrets hinted at in game"and"the histories of major characters"because of where it's placed- before you list what the book"talks about". Whereas, in the Encyclopedia's sentence, the"only"is specifically referring to either the fact the secrets were just hinted at before or that they come purely from the game, as it's included as part of that phrase and is not placed before the general list of statements. In other words, the book could reasonably talk about things beyond those two categories.

No I'm not lost I already explained how the "only" means "only stuff in game" and not "stuff that's just been hinted at". And yeah, the book does talk about stuff beyond those categories, I've already acknowledged how it talks about climactic battles and the like.

That is why I said you're adding an"only"into the sentence, because in order for the Encyclopedia to be saying what you think it's saying, there would need to be one before the statement that it"uncovers secrets only hinted at in the game, divulges never-before-revealed traits and histories of major characters, and details the high-flying adventures and dramatic stories that play out during the conflict between the Republic and Empire."

Yeah and this is all SWTOR universe stuff. In what way does any of this back up the point of the quote having accurate knowledge of Gods who are not in any way affiliated with any of these categories and are also said by an OOU source to be almost unknown to anyone in the galaxy?

And I never said you said that? You stated,"If it is explicitly noted that the book only talks about "secrets hinted at in the game" as well as the history of majorcharacters...", and I replied with: "The actual quote merely states that these two elements are part of the book, but doesn't necessarily say they're the full extent of what it talks about."I acknowledged that you were including traits and histories, as I stated that the quote discussed"two elements"(i.e."secrets hinted at in game"and the"traits and histories of major characters"), my issue was that you were limiting it to just that when there was no justifiable cause to do so. The statement from the book doesn't include an"only"before listing them - which I covered in more detail above.

I'm not limiting it to just those two things as clarified above, I already acknowledged that it talks about battles as well.

This is just going back to the original point you made many posts ago which I addressed:'You're jumping from A to B without any substantiation whatsoever. The quote says the Encyclopedia talks about major characters, but them being "from the game" does not mean the commentary on them isn't framed within the broader saga.'This very argument sent us down the dialogue tree in the first place: you can't just re-state it, ignore everything I wrote, and then act like it's a job well done.

I have clarified this already. The encyclopedia can be bound to SPECIFIC stuff before SWTOR, but not literally everything like your argument is centered on. Why is this? Because the perspective is IN-UNIVERSE, which is what this whole debate has been about. How an IU perspective cannot accurately judge the power level of Gods who hid from the galaxy long before documented time.

The point was never that this statement alone proves the Vitiate supremacy quote binds The Ones, but, rather, that it refutes your argument that they're categorically excluded from it - as it's a separate category from the"secrets only hinted at in game"part emphasised in the OP (not that I agree with your arguments on that front either). Whether or not one can make a case at The Ones inclusion is covered elsewhere.

I underlined the category because it stuck out a lot more than traits/history of major characters or battles during SWTOR. Those two categories would not in any way bind to the Ones. However, the "secrets" part could easily be interpreted to include the Ones, so that's why I emphasized it. As for the One's inclusion, I think it's clear they're not included in the quote, which you for whatever reason think they are, which is why this debate is even a thing. I could care less about what categories I underlined or referenced in the OP, because even disregarding the categories altogether, the IU perspective part is already enough to prove the quote doesn't bind to the Ones.

Addressed prior. But, once again, I'm not sure how you're reaching this bizarre conclusion when I specifically state in the paragraph you're replying to:'So, I'm not sure how even if that is the "only" other thing the Encyclopedia discusses that using the latter for my point is remotely impacted.'I specifically state that the"secrets"are the"other thing"the Encyclopedia discusses - on top of the"traits and histories of major characters".

Your point there was that the second category (the traits/history part) factors in the past. Yes it factors in the past for THOSE CHARACTERS SPECIFICALLY. This proves in no way at all that these traits/histories factor in gods who hid from the galaxy way before anyone from SWTOR existed.

This is yet another issue where you deflect to Charles Boyd's statements, rather than debate the actual point - soon there won't be very much of an argument left. Very well, I'll deal with your latest rebuttals on that front further down.

If we're debating how accurate a book is, I'm allowed to use the author's statements on the book to back my stance up. You trying to pass it off as me refusing to debate "the actual point" is cope at its finest. The "actual point" of this debate is how accurate the book is, and I use one of the author's statements on that book to back the point of it not being as accurate as you think it is. This is not me avoiding the actual point. This is me having a legitimate argument that you evidently can't properly counter.

In other words, you're deferring to the accuracy issue presented in point B - which I specifically stated comes into contention at other segments of the post:"The other is to do accuracy - an in-universe perspective can inaccurate but an out of universe perspective is more objective. This would have relevance whether we were talking about either past or future, but saying that I didn't bother to address it would be false, considering it was a major talking point of other sections of my last post."

Then this is just a concession on your part. You agree that an IU perspective is not completely legitimate. So concession accepted I guess.

You"don't know why"I'm"bringing it up"? Because half of this debate has been about the accuracy of in-universe sources, and I wanted to streamline this back to our discussion elsewhere on Boyd's statements. We don't need another debate on him, yet you ignored this and brought him up... again.

Yes I don't know why you brought up OOU statements considering they were never a point of this argument. This whole debate has been about an IU source and not once was anything OOU brought up to where it become a part of this debate. As for Boyd's statement, you can try saying I keep retreating to him or whatever. We both know you just don't have a counter to his statement disagreeing with your opinion on a source.

The"from"and"to"here don't have to be the beginning and end. Consider the following statement:"From getting destroyed by CJ in debates to posting too much on Comicvine, this book discusses the entirety of RedSithDisciple's life."These are just random facets of your being - they're not ordered in any way - yet the sentence still makes sense.

Don't flatter yourself, CJ. You have been constantly getting dunked on in this debate due to your inability to understand how perspectives work, not to mention I don't think you can be talking to me about posting too much on Comic Vine when you have over 100 more posts than I do. But moving on to the actual argument, a biography, or well an encyclopedia on a person would not refer to just one part of their life in the intro. The more realistic way a biography intro would be written would be "From his childhood to his election as president, this book connects Abraham Lincoln to the greater American legacy." And do not hit me with the "hypotheticals don't have to be bound by rules" argument. Hypotheticals need to be logical and you can't just come up with one that has no chance of ever happening in real life.

Secondly, and this is sort of support for the above interpretation, this is blatantly untrue within the book itself. It summarises Act 3 of each of the class stories - which all happenafterthe crumbling of the Treaty of Coruscant (such occurs at the end of Act 2). Moreover, to look at the other side of the timeline, it discusses the rise of the Rakata Infinite Empire - which took placemillenniabefore the dawn of the Jedi Order.

Well Nice job. We now have the full timeline of the book, which surprise, does not date back to the time of the Ones. This does not support your point of the book binding to the Ones, and now we essentially have confirmation of this, so once again you have debunked your own argument with your own scan. In fact I think I'll put this in the OP to further reinforce my point. Thanks a lot, CJ.

This doesn't even respond to what I wrote? The issue of accuracy is discussed elsewhere, let my arguments there attest to that - the purpose of the hypothetical was to explain that another point is true if we take the source being sound as a given. You're just insistently bleating that it isn't, as though we're not already disputing that point, lol.

It very responds to what you wrote. You ask if the statement has accurate knowledge and start talking about how it would be accurate I explain why it wouldn't be. So once again, you're just lying about me ignoring your argument in a desperate attempt to hide the fact that you can't rebut my point.

That's irrelevant to my point - the codex is talking about muggle scholars and what they know. My point is that, with them having such a profound effect on the known galaxy that these people are aware of it many millennia later,

aslightly more informed source(who can say the inner workings of pretty much everything happening at the time period of SWTOR) could perhaps discern The Ones' power level.

It's not that they had such a massive effect people millennia later knew about them. Religious people are not just born knowing that God created the universe they live in because he had that big of an effect. They learn about God by reading texts and the like. The same way you learn about the Celestials in SWTOR through their holocron, not through them having such a mass effect on the galaxy.

No, that wouldn't be the case for Gods who are not even a part of the known galaxy by that point and are not known by anyone.

No, it states there is"little evidence"of their origins and what happened to them. This only matters, as noted above, from the perspective of regular historians who need such evidence.

Uh yeah that's what insufficient evidence means. That there's not enough to prove anything about their lives outside of these achievements as fact. This matters to literally every IU perspective during the time of SWTOR.

The dawn of the Jedi point was addressed earlier, and the"no one in the SW universe knows"is covered above.

To add to the first point, though, how do you suppose these arbitrary cutoffs actually work from a logical perspective? The Encyclopedia clearly has an in-depth knowledge of SWTOR and an in-depth knowledge of history dating back many millennia, but somehow it gets to one year before the point of its in-depth knowledge... and said knowledge just stops? Suddenly it's as ignorant as somebody who's just read one of your posts? Suddenly it's less knowledgeable on The Ones than mortal scholars (you never directly said this, but it's a ramification of arguing it's knowledge only extends to the Dawn of the Jedi and no further)?

Both of those points were addressed.

Knowledge has to stop somewhere. Otherwise, we can just keep going and say, "oh you think one year before this knowledge is just non-existent?" This is the real logical perspective on this.

But if we were to look at it from your flawed and head-canonical point of view, one year before could be a debate. But thousands of years before is not at all a debate.

Some of my points aren't debatable considering the semantics are, in my opinion, ironclad. There are certainly more subjective arguments within my posts, though, I'll admit, but you're not really the person to dispute them given how much you struggle with reading comprehension.

You thinking your argument isn't debatable doesn't suffice, friend. As for your "reading comprehension comments", you have shown at least 3 instances of your inability to read properly in this post alone, so I wouldn't be talking if I were you.

Oh, the irony! You're inadvertently conceding that the sentence doesn't necessarily limit the scope of the book's content given that there can be famous people beyond"legendary doctors, prominent leaders, and ground-breaking inventors"yet you can imagine a book's preface emphasising their contribution specifically. As to why, in this case, it would mention"battles"and"showdowns"in particular... it's because they're exciting. The average reader likes to be told they're going to read about something dramatic, so - naturally - you would highlight those over the more niche and boring elements of Star Wars history. Even then, though, the book still follows up my mentioning the dawn of the Jedi Order as an example of how it connects to the broader saga more generally - as I'll cover shortly.

What is this? Your 4th, 5th strawman? I've lost count at this point. I am not conceding that the scope your hypothetical quote isn't limited to what is mentioned in that quote. I am rather correcting the quote itself as there is no chance of a quote like that being used in an actual book about famous people. Now as for the battles and showdowns part, congrats you've debunked that part. Nice job. Now maybe move on from my secondary less relevant points and actually debate my primary one? In this whole post, you have not provided a single piece of evidence that the quote binds to the Ones.

But we're not agreed? You were using the"the"to imply that the historic battles and climactic showdowns are the only thing historically the book discusses. I, on the other hand, was pointing out that the word is simply used to create more emphasis on the fact that said historic battles and climactic showdowns shaped the galaxy. And, given that you didn't really reply to what I said, you don't have an argument to prove your point.

No you were asking why I emphasized "the" and I explained why. I responded to your post fine, and this just your 4th attempt at gaslighting me. I don't need to respond to the rest as it's just you diffrentiating between "to portray historic battles" and "to portray the historic battles". There were no disputes in that part.

Not only is that interpretation blatantly untrue for reasons mentioned prior, but the book does discuss the origins of the Jedi:

Do you even know what Dawn means? The origins of the Jedi is part of the Dawn of the Jedi Order.

And even other things like the formation of the Republic:

Post-dates the Dawn of the Jedi Order

In your first post you stated it was"supposed to be accurate"and didn't challenge this notion (you even acknowledged it's"the core aspect of every encyclopedia"); your disputes were limited purely to whether or not it could be used to apply to the future. That's an implicit concession, and you only started claiming otherwise when it became convenient for your argument. Your very quote proves my point.

Sighs Another fucking strawman lmao. I said Charles said that the book was intended to be fully accurate, and the "core aspect" part was to say every encyclopedia is intended to be fully accurate, but is not always the case. This was because you were interpreting Charles's statement to say that the book actually is fully accurate. To call it a concession just speaks about how bad your own reading comprehension is and how foolish you look when you try insulting mine.

There isn't a functional difference in this case between it being"intended to be accurate"and actually accurate. Charles is capable of reading between the lines; he should know that the person asking the question is attempting to discern whether or not the Encyclopedia is a reliable source of information. For him to say that was the intent, but then not clarify it didn't turn out that way, would be staggeringly deceptive. Once again, he only mentions its lack of omniscience to highlight that information can be altered if he and the SWTOR writers desire it, not to discredit the Encyclopedia generally.

And yeah saying that the book is not omniscient answers the question of how reliable the book is. It being intended to be accurate and not being omniscient does not contradict anything. That's what IU perspectives are. Non-omniscient but intended to be as accurate as possible. That doesn't mean it actually is fully accurate. As for the second point, SWTOR is not the only thing that can retcon the encyclopedia. He says "ongoing narrative" not "ongoing narrative of SWTOR". This means that the encyclopedia isn't supposed to be contradicting anything in the lore overall, not just SWTOR lore itself.

And, no,"fully accurate"and non-omniscient don't contradict, as I explained last post:"All he said was that the book isn't omniscient. That doesn't mean that all of the statements it did make can't be accurate - you don't need to be omniscient to make a collection of true statements."

They directly contradict each other. You'd do yourself a favor to learn what omniscient means.

No Caption Provided

You have to be fully knowledgeable on a topic to make statements on that topic that could even be considered to be objective. Meanwhile, "intended to be fully accurate" and non-omniscient don't contradict each other as explained above.

...because it doesn't even address the argument. The point is whether or not"fully accurate"and"non omniscient"contradict, not about whether or not the book includes The Ones - that issue is discussed at other points.

Listen CJ I'm getting fed up with you blatantly lying and saying "you didn't address this" when I responded to it fine and you just don't have a proper argument.

This is what you said:

All he said was that the book isn't omniscient. That doesn't mean that all of the statements it did make can't be accurate - you don't need to be omniscient to make a collection of true statements.

And this what I said:

On something you know very well, the statement might be accurate. But on gods who hid from the main galaxy in a time that predates the start of the book's documented timeline and are overall unknown to everyone in SW, let alone an IU SWTOR perspective, that is when statements cannot be taken as legitimate.

You say that a perspective does not have to be omniscient to be accurate and I respond by saying on something the perspective knows very well, the statement might be accurate, but not on something it has almost no knowledge of. So quit writing off stuff you can't counter as me not addressing your argument.

Your"explaining the faults"with my interpretation is more or less a repetition of your initial claim without acknowledging my rebuttal. The only difference is your insertion of Boyd's statement, but I addressed that part as a separate point, and only accused you of not responding to my argument insofar as it pertained to the"in-universe"section of your claim. It's only this post where you've offered something remotely substantive as a reply.

And interestingly enough you didn't rebut that reply, so concession accepted I guess.

But how true or false the information is doesn't determine the nature of what the book discusses - the writers could change their mind and say that the entire Encyclopedia is lies tomorrow and it wouldn't alter the content contained within. In other words, whether the book talks about material limited purely to the game has nothing to do with the omniscience (or lack thereof) of the narrator. True and false are just categorisations of material, they have no direct impact on it.

Omniscience is a lot more narration than nature of content so I don't think anyone would've been able to tell this is what you were referring to but moving on.

You have - the amount of misinterpretations throughout each of your posts, the amount of times I've had to correct you on basic semantics, is awful. In this post alone we have gems like you not knowing that"virtually"and"practically"mean the same thing, being unable to comprehend that where the"only"in a sentence is placed changes its meaning, not even having read the book you're passionately arguing with me about, etc. I'm not trying to have the last word - I don't need to - my replies are for my own entertainment.

Ah yes the "virtually" segment that I already debunked by giving you a quote of you saying I full-on conceded, you not understanding how perspectives work, trying to dismiss stuff you can't counter as me not addressing your argument, and trying to write off an author statement by fundamentally misinterpreting it or just saying I keep deflecting it while avoiding the debate, and straight-up debunking your whole argument with one scan. Don't make me laugh CJ. If you weren't taking this debate as seriously as you clearly are, you would not have spent 6 fucking days writing a response to me if you were as busy as you claim to be. It's clear you're desperate at this point.

However, you have categorically not supported premise 2 with any kind of reasoning. When I pointed out that lines within books do not always overlap, so it is not necessarily more likely that they will than won't, you responded by saying"yeah, but, factoring in author statements, my interpretation makes more sense". But how does it make more sense? The author statements are about the type of narration and, at best, prove your understanding of the line overlaps with another line. They do not prove - in any way, shape or form - that it is more likely that the lines will overlap than not - which is what I took issue with, and why I claimed that your response doesn't really address my argument.

I explained how it makes more sense. You pointed out several times the whole "IU perspective and Charles's statement" argument several times and I used both those quotes to debunk your interpretation of the book having fully accurate knowledge of the past, or more specifically way further back than it actually does.

Because, following up what I said above, in order to prove two lines from a sentence are more likely to overlap than not, you need to use context clues from said sentence to infer that they're connected. Charles' Twitter posts cannot do that, because they're only loosely related to the book - how could they provide information on such a specific matter?

Because it's a direct question about how accurate the book is? He was one of the writers of the book, and now you're gonna write off him answering a question about its accuracy as "loose." This has been a consistent theme with your arguments. Trying to write off Charles's statement as if it's meaningless and contributes nothing to this overall debate, which is ironic considering that you are the one who presented this post.

No, consistency would be both Charles and Ian's quotes supporting the conclusion and nothing else in the argument. You are advocating for them both backing up each other as well, but this actually hampers their ability to support said conclusion. Because - if your usage of Charles' quote is supported by Ian's quote, and your usage of Ian's quote is supported by Charles' quote - Charles' quote is using itself to justify its usage... which it obviously can't do. Now that I have explained the basic idea of a circular argument, I'll leave you to actually respond to the point, and move on from this.

Yes they back each other up but they also back up the overall conclusion that the book does not have an accurate measurement of the Ones' power level. And it's not even a circular argument. Ian says the book is IU, and Charles adds to that by saying the book is not omniscient, diminishing any idea of the book being wholly accurate. This isn't a "one can't exist without the other" situation.

Setting aside my disagreements with some of the quotes (the NEC is in-universe; and TCVD saying Sidious is "the greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power" does not mean Sidious is the best at using that power - just the most evil to have done so), I don't need to argue a retcon was intended here because they were never written to include Vitiate in the first place. LFL officials have consistently taken issue with using statements to include characters who haven't yet been created:

This example is even about Tenebrae himself! By contrast, the quotes about Vitiate being stronger than The Ones do actually need to be "retconned", due to them being published after the latter were created, and in a more real way than citing later quotes and constructing a "scaling chain" to put The Ones over Sidious. In a case where we have contradictory statements, we don't just say the one published further down the line overrules the prior one - a more complicated analysis is needed to determine which is more congruent with the broader narrative. And all that does is turn this into more of a general discussion rather than a definitive refutation of anything.

Just as a note, this applies to all statements, and Vitiate's"supremacy"over The Ones falls under this banner. I even specified in my original post that I don't necessarily have him above them - even with this quote - because I'm not sure how much sense it actually makes with the rest of the material. The extent of the claim I'm making is that I don't agree with your bad faith dismissals of it.

Well nice job you have one author stating his book doesn't bind to Vitiate because it pre-dates his creation. But let's see what the continuity manager himself has to say about contradictions and retcons.

No Caption Provided

So yeah, with this post I don't even need to debate the following quotes but I'll do it anyway.

Concession accepted.

Lmao me saying something is debatable is not a concession.

The statement opens with saying that the galaxy is"now ripe for conquest"and follows up that Sidious"has become"the most powerful Sith of all. Not saying it's absolute, but you can totally get from such that Sidious became the most powerful Sith by ascending to the role of Emperor and having the galaxy at his fingertips. I'd even say it's the more natural reading of the sentence; your interpretation requires that the author thought Sidious wasn't the best Sith at using the Force before this precise moment but is now. That seems such an odd belief to include in a random sourcebook when it's only tangentially related to the subject matter.

Except this doesn't mention anything Palpatine's political ascension. It says the galaxy is ripe for conquest, and then how Palpatine has become the most powerful Sith as well as a master of the dark side. These two are used in tandem with each other very clearly, meaning context-wise, this quote is referring to force power, not political power.

No? I've repeatedly said, in real life, that one thing or another"may be"the best of its category to indicate it's up there in the top tier (which Sidious definitely is - we don't need a quote to tell us that) but I'm uncertain of whether it actually is the greatest. There is simply no way you can use a quote with such ambiguous wording to say that the writer"obviously"meant this or that.

It doesn't mean it's not the best, no, but the entire point is the lack of certainty means you cannot discern anything meaningful from it (beyond Sidious being one of the most powerful Sith).

So then it's up to interpretation essentially. I'm gonna go with the more supported stance that Sidious is the most powerful Sith.

And if you want more quotes:

"Vader imagined the power that could be his if he crushed Palpatine and established his own rule over the Empire. But first, he would need his own apprentice. By himself, he could not hope to defeat the most powerful Sith Lord the galaxy had ever known."

- Vader: The Ultimate Guide

--

"Emperor Zaarin? The idea isn't as ludicrous as it sounds. Demetrius Zaarin gambled everything on an audacious coup d'état and nearly killed the most powerful Sith Lord the galaxy has ever known."

- Insider #66: Who's Who: Imperial Grand Admirals

--

"The Emperor was completely in concert with the dark side of the Force. He was the most powerful Sith who had ever existed."

- Death Star

--

"Yoda was a master at masking his emotions, but not even he could hide them from the greatest Sith Lord ever known."

- Clone Wars: Wild Space

In summary:

  • Sidious has no concrete supremacy quotes over Vitiate that "retcon" his superiority to The Ones - if such a thing can be called a retcon.
  • The Encyclopedia's scope being limited to purely game-centric content is based on the extremely flimsy "secrets only hinted at in game" line - which I've posited multiple different objections to - and the false notion that it only goes back as far as the dawn of the Jedi Order to talk about "historic battles and climactic showdowns".
  • Charles Boyd's statement that the Encyclopedia is non-omniscient is only for the purpose of allowing contradiction in the future where necessary, not to dispute its validity as a source of information on history - in that regard it's "fully accurate".
  • The Ones are known by muggle historians, and - given just how much the Encyclopedia is aware of - it stands to reason that the book can discern their power level and judge it relative to Vitiate's.

Let's give an actual summary here:

- The accuracy of the book's information: The book is intended to be fully accurate, but is told from an IU non-omniscient perspective, as clarified by the authors, and this has not been properly rebutted by the opposition.

- What the book binds to: The timeline of the encyclopedia spans from 30,000 BBY (Reign of the Rakatans) - 3640 BBY (Republic and Sith go to war again after Treaty of Coruscant). Where are the Ones in this timeline? Hidden from the known galaxy and from any IU non-omniscient perspectives.

- Overall knowledge on the Ones: Little is known about them beyond their technological acheivements, and this is confirmed by an OOU source.

- Scaling: Sidious scales over Vitiate with numerous sources, and any quote that contradicts that is invalid per the continuity manager of Star Wars.

So overall, the book cannot objectively measure the power level of Vitiate (who is below Sidious) relative to the Ones, who in turn are said to possess power beyond the understanding of any mortal beings, which would include Vitiate and of course Sidious.

"It had been theorized by Jedi and Sith alike that balance between the light and dark sides was actually under the guidance of a group of discorporate entities—the ones called the Celestials, perhaps—who had merged themselves with the Force thousands of generations earlier, and had continued to guide the fate of the galaxy ever since. In effect, a higher order of intermediaries, whose powers were beyond the understanding of mortal beings."

- Darth Plagueis Novel

--

"In the mysterious realm of Mortis there exists a trio of beings able to wield the Force in ways no known mortals of the galaxy can."

- Databank: The Father

Avatar image for redsithdisciple
RedSithDisciple

2056

Forum Posts

456

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By RedSithDisciple  Online

@cj_the_dj: I'm probably done responding at this point. Instead of just doing the mature thing and conceding when you don't have an argument, you just lie and say I didn't address your argument, you try insulting my own reading comprehension despite proving how bad your own is, point out apparent "strawmen" I've committed while ignoring the many that you yourself have committed, you come up with completely unrealistic hypotheticals to back up an already weak point, you give last-ditch attempts to prove the quote can bind to the Ones which are easily debunked, you dismiss and write off an author statement that you presented when I'm able to use it for my own argument, and then when you debunk your own argument with one scan, you continue arguing as if it never happened. If a character so much as heard someone's name, you would probably think they have full knowledge on that person. I'm not going to continue spending 3 hours writing responses to someone who doesn't know when they're in too deep. You can interpret this is as a concession however much you want, it's factually not one.

Avatar image for redsithdisciple
RedSithDisciple

2056

Forum Posts

456

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for eredin12
Eredin12

41060

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Good thread

Avatar image for zapan871
Zapan871

2151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for cj_the_dj
cj_the_dj

1161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By cj_the_dj

@redsithdisciple: Let's start with your follow up post and a little note on the state of the debate:

I'm probably done responding at this point. Instead of just doing the mature thing and conceding when you don't have an argument, you just lie and say I didn't address your argument, you try insulting my own reading comprehension despite proving how bad your own is, point out apparent "strawmen" I've committed while ignoring the many that you yourself have committed, you come up with completely unrealistic hypotheticals to back up an already weak point, you give last-ditch attempts to prove the quote can bind to the Ones which are easily debunked, you dismiss and write off an author statement that you presented when I'm able to use it for my own argument, and then when you debunk your own argument with one scan, you continue arguing as if it never happened. If a character so much as heard someone's name, you would probably assume they have full knowledge on that person. I'm not going to continue spending 3 hours writing responses to someone who doesn't know when they're in too deep. You can interpret this is as a concession however much you want, it's factually not one.

Not only is everything you wrote after the underlined false, as I'll cover in more detail when I actually address the post, but this opening statement is hilariously ironic considering the changes you made to the OP - which you emphasise immediately afterwards.

Original:

Basically, what Ian is saying here is that everything in the encyclopedia binds only to what is mentioned/shown in-game, and nothing beyond. I trust anyone reading this post can do the math from here.

Now:

Basically, what Ian is saying here is that everything in the encyclopedia is from an IU perspective. Now obviously an IU perspective would have no knowledge of the Ones due to them being hidden from the known galaxy Milennia before SWTOR.

You didn't just "add" to it, as you say you did. You actively edited out your previous argument that it's limited to solely game-centric content, and removed your underlining of the "secrets only hinted at in game" part of the statement. Your argument has changed from how it began - after I've proven it false on multiple fronts - and you've created a new one based on misusing the scans I provided you with. You haven't read the book you're discussing, and - after being shown how you're wrong - the mature thing to do would be just to concede the debate; not write up a last ditch effort post to try and save face, claim you won't reply from now on, and edit the OP to make you look less bad. You talk continually about my "ego", juxtaposed with your apparent "maturity", but I was perfectly civil in my initial reply to you - you were the one who decided to come into this debate with a condescending attitude, and rightly got flamed for it. I suppose now there's nothing left but to defeat that farce of a post above, and show the world the extent of how wrong your perceived superiority is.

Avatar image for redsithdisciple
RedSithDisciple

2056

Forum Posts

456

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By RedSithDisciple  Online

@cj_the_dj: I'll address this because I know it won't take me 3 hours

Not only is everything you wrote after the underlined false, as I'll cover in more detail when I actually address the post, but this opening statement is hilariously ironic considering the changes you made to the OP - which you emphasise immediately afterwards.

Again with the gaslighting. Yeah keep saying I actually didn't address it. Anyone reading the thread knows I did. I'll touch on the OP in the next paragraph.

You didn't just"add"to it, as you say you did. You actively edited out your previous argument that it's limited to solely game-centric content, and removed your underlining of the"secrets only hinted at in game"part of the statement.

Your argument has changed from how it began - after I've proven it false on multiple fronts - and you've created a new one based on misusing the scansI provided you with.

You haven't read the book you're discussing, and - after being shown how you're wrong - thematurething to do would be just to concede the debate; not write up a last ditch effort post to try and save face, claim you won't reply from now on, and edit the OP to make you look less bad.

You talk continually about my"ego", juxtaposed with your apparent"maturity", but I was perfectly civil in my initial reply to you - you were the one who decided to come into this debate with a condescending attitude, and rightly got flamed for it. I suppose there's nothing left but to defeat that farce of a post, and show the world the extent of how wrong your perceived superiority is.

I did add to it. I just also edited some parts and I proudly admit I edited the "secrets" part. Why? Because you for whatever reason thought I was straight-up disregarding the other categories. So again nice job again cropping my post to make it easier to argue.

No it hasn't. My argument has not once deviated from the book not having accurate knowledge of how powerful the Ones are. And yeah, you can call your scans misused all you want. I explain them fine in the OP, and you getting mad that your scan only helped my argument doesn't invalidate anything other than your debating skills. You have not once, not twice, but three times blatantly misinterpreted quotes (probably intentionally with the desperate hope that I don't know how to read) that actually debunked the very foundations of your argument.

Oh I know you're not lecturing me about last-ditch stuff, CJ. As soon as you ran out of arguments for Charles's twitter post which you initially debated as legitimate and tried to say only SWTOR could change it, you then started acting like we couldn't use it and how it contributes little to the topic of the debate. Not to mention several other instances of your weak attempts at insulting. There's a difference between a last ditch post and me being legitimately fed up with your cherrypicked and biased arguments, as well as your inability to understand tone and perspective and overall illiteracy.

I was civil in my first response as well with maybe one curse word used in a humorous fashion, so I don't know what the point of this is. You are the one who started the insults in your second post. Nothing in my post was condescending, and you interpreting it as so just further proves both how bad you are with strawmen and how insecure you are. Nothing left indeed. Other than not wanting to spend another 3 hours tearing your "arguments" apart, I also know it's just gonna be your usual flawed interpretations, random scan that either contributes nothing or even aids my argument, and just overall last ditch attempts to disprove an argument you clearly are incapable of refuting.

But I'm not about to get into typing 3-hour posts about who started the hostility between us so I'm ending it here. You can have the last word and take this is as a concession however much you want, even though it's not a concession in the slightest, but you probably will take it as one anyway to make you feel like you've won this argument, which you haven't no matter how much you say you have in an attempt to boost your ego, so do whatever you wish. I don't care anymore and I won't be responding to you anymore no matter how much you try saying this is a "last-ditch post" when in reality I'm just fed up with debating you on something that's been thoroughly debunked. If you think Vitiate is more powerful than the Ones, that's your opinion that you show no sign of changing.

Avatar image for prodigal_knight
Prodigal_Knight

76

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Are there not more quotes regarding his supremacy elsewhere? Outside of the encyclopedia?

There are many many quotes for Vitiate's supremacy

Avatar image for sheevsmacker
SheevSmacker

4775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Tenebrae never strongest. Vader stronger than him by feat