Long Live the Confederation!
I think we all saw this one coming.
Quarto said:But I'm afraid that in this thread, you've reached post-modernism. And post-modernism is the end of the line - there's just nowhere else to go, except to jump off a cliff. . .
By turning your argument for a particular interpretation of P2's dates into an argument against any interpretation of P2's dates (because we can't be sure of anything!), you've turned this thread into a complete and utter waste of time. That's right, buddy - we have no proof that EA or Origin made this or that decision based on this or that idea. We can't prove that P2's dates are Earth-based. Continuing down that line, you can't prove anything either.
LOAF said:I've never seen anyone use A through L for a date.
If you want to embrace my dogma, it's as simple as this: unless otherwise contradicted we should take things as they were meant to be taken. This means that we need to think about the early history of the war in The Confederation Handbook, because it needs some explanations in places where it does contradict other established facts -- but it also means that we should leave well enough alone when Privateer 2 did absolutely nothing. We *know* the intention of the people who wrote those references was to include them in our future history -- they've told us that much themselves, and even without that it's the point of any such references.
... and sure, we *know* that we can always fall back to your silly "but it's always possible that a year isn't a year!" argument IF IT WERE EVER NEEDED -- but we sure as hell don't apply it for the sake of having an argument and generally discrediting Privateer 2.
Pedro said:"Too cool"? we're in a forum discussing video games, you're addressing a computer programmer who has been spotted at more than his fair share of sci-fi conventions, what the hell is has coolness got to do with anything?
Edfilho said:Quick question, out of curiosity... considering that there are humans in the Tri-System for millennia, is there any explanation of how did they get there? I'm not argueing, I'm curious if they are parallel evolved or something.
That’s all I’ve ultimately been out to do here. So, no – for anyone who cares to question my bona fides in this thread – I’m not intending to be frivolous or argumentative for the sole sake of argumentation, just seeing to what extent I can raise what is a serious issue within a “not-as-serious” context. (Games are great for that.) Now, if that’s not to someone’s liking, or interest, that’s fine, but the issue is legitimate all the same. So let’s see if we can yet deepen the discussion without only getting stuck in the proverbial mud.
LOAF – I’ll be happy to respond to all your other comments as well, but for the moment, I want to focus on this one (which I’ve divided into three parts), since it appears to encapsulate the range of our disagreement and offers the chance to see if there’s any common ground at all between us. (Others following this thread will probably appreciate that too.)
I understand. But they are so used. And I would expect that, as a general matter, completely unrelated to WC, though the practice is unfamiliar to you, you wouldn’t go so far as to assert it’s nonsensical. Is my expectation wrong?
Now, as to WC, and specifically P2, I’m really not clear on what you have been arguing exactly. Do you regard “37/G/2769 = day/month/year” as an impossible interpretation, an unreasonable interpretation, or on some other basis, an invalid interpretation? Would you have any problem so interpreting it absent the issue of whether the year is a Confederation year?
For myself, seeing the notations as full-blown dates is fine in every respect – a possible, reasonable, and permissible interpretation.
Okay, that asserts we should approach P2, and any WC game for that matter, with a particular presumption – that what has stood as tradition before – in this case, the use of a single, standard time line – should be assumed to be continued (unless EA expressly says otherwise).
Assuming you’re right about what has been the tradition, no, I do not care for the presumption. I think it’s a bad principle for interpretation because, especially in regard to P2, it forecloses other reasonable interpretations of the given storyline. In all honesty, up to now on this Board, I thought that was the philosophy we operated under – freely proposing any and all logical, if not necessarily mutually compatible, explanations that successfully account for discrete conflicts.
Moreover, why would or should I care to accept on principle or on faith (however you care to phrase it) that P2 takes place precisely 109 years after Prophecy? To me, the whole point of our “game” of canon is to refuse to be satisfied with only what EA expressly tells us, or has expressly done in the past, and instead actively search for and find – exclusively via logical analysis and debate – possible further truths. In other words, I wouldn’t say the point of the exercise is simply to end up in all respects with a single, agreed-upon body of (would-be) canon (which, sure, would be great, except it’s unrealistic), but also, and perhaps more so, to enjoy the process itself, and to that end have as few restrictions as possible on the bounds of our logical creativity. Anyway, that’s been the attraction and fun of it for me.
But your assertion of a presumption implies that you don’t agree with some or all of the foregoing. And it appears P2 has thus exposed some differences in our respective approaches to canon. I’d say I place a greater value on textual interpretation – treating all text equally – than on tradition or original intent, and that you, perhaps, take the opposite approach. And maybe our disagreement runs much deeper than that.
No, this is a serious and substantive subject that goes to the heart of how we discuss canon. And no, I certainly don’t see this discussion as discrediting P2, merely facing up to its essential nature as a game – a tabula rasa in the WC universe. Indeed, I think such an assessment is very much to the credit of a community that typically puts reason and logic at the top of the list in discussions of canon.
Now, let’s compare notes. Any room for agreement here? You see our differences as more a matter of degree or of kind? What’s the jazz for you in trying to pin down the canon? Do you, by any chance, object to my calling the pursuit of canon a “game”?