(04-17-2015, 04:56 PM)Kayllen Wrote: My involvement in this part of the conversation stems from the notion that certain ideas can be uttered as fact without any real evidence or proof and others just sort of hit the ground running with it which, ironically, would then cause a sort of bandwagon mentality wherin someone who comes in and doesn't observe what has been asserted to be fact doesn't acknowledge it and is then questioned, derided, or even belittled for not being on said bandwagon. That's where I have umbrage.
And herein lies the crux of my issue with your argument. In no way has anyone stated that these matters are the "truth." Feasible? Yes. Likely? Possibly. However, at no point have they said "this is the truth, that is how it is."
Your involvement, on the other hand, seems to consist entirely of saying "well, it doesn't SAY that anywhere, so it is not only not true, it's also unfeasible and unlikely." You're effectively denying any attempt to "bend" the lore for entertainment purposes. These are not concepts that are being toted as reality - just feasibilities that people thought could be interesting to play their character from. If it does not explicitly state it in the lore, you cannot have a character that runs with this idea without providing evidence that fits your criterion.
Meanwhile, you do not stand on the opposite point. You don't provide evidence to why it couldn't be, only demand evidence why it could. Your "we don't really know" platform does not hold water, because just as we don't know whether the possible idea is true... we also do not know if it's untrue. So, if you are going to shoot down someone's ideas for bending the lore, at the very least you need to provide your own evidence as to why it can't be that way.
What you do not do is lay the job of providing evidence solely in the hands of your opponent. That is not debate - your counterpoint should consist of evidence as to why their idea is wrong or unfeasible, not lay it on your opponent to provide evidence for every little nitpick you throw while you yourself remain unassailed. "We don't know" is not a valid counterpoint.
If an idea sounds feasible enough, other people might run with it. To the point that it becomes a sort of understood fan-rule, but it is just that - fan-created. It is not truth and can be destroyed with properly provided evidence in the game or from the creators otherwise. Of course, you are right in that people should not be shamed into thinking that this fan-ruling is the actual truth and derided for not agreeing with it. We are not the role-play ruling body, nor will we ever be.
However, I'm going to assume (and possibly wrongly so!) that you mention that point because that is how you feel you are being treated in this thread. However, I posit that it's not because you disagree with the fan-theory, but that you put forth the image that you outright deny it utterly and demand that those who follow it provide evidence as to exactly where it's stated in game this exists (which it doesn't, because it's fan theory). Meanwhile, as mentioned, you do not provide any similar in-game evidence as to why the fan theory couldn't be... because it's in the hands of your opponent to provide all the evidence while you have to don't have to do more than shake your head and say "no no no." I believe that's where the anger and irritation comes from.
~