View Single Post
Old 08-21-2008, 01:29 PM   #116
nine.roses's Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Location: England
Posts: 88
You said:

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
You seem to be very willing to say that they are "fragile" but at the same time unwilling to say anything substantive as to why they should be considered such.

If you do have a case, I would like to see it and if it is persuasive, then it should be accepted (not just by me, but everyone). However without having seen it, it's impossible for any of us to know what it is.

Pet peeve: People that say "I don't have time to make my argument" (but want to me to accept their argument) instead of just making the argument.


Originally Posted by Achilles, twice
All of these can be addressed by the point I've already made: why would the devs place all these "dots" where they did if they're not related? Lack of something better to do?
So what’s the point in me furthering my argument? Should I even both copying and pasting Shem’s big ol’ heap of an argument into this thread?

We made points tackling the veracity of your claims; their fragility. Yet you are so confident you are right, you haven’t actually dealt with a single one. You say you want a case against which the veracity of your argument can be tested, but then you dismiss it because it doesn't corroborate your view. You never bothered to confront my points for their individual merits.

You just simply do not recognise the possibility that those dots were never intended to be connected in such a manner. That there is no pattern to them at all. That they were intended to perform their primary function, and not be given a hidden meaning. That they are not special points in the storyline. My metaphor having failed at its purpose, I have tried to tell you in another manner: but still you fail to understand, and simply cannot grasp the concept. You may be hearing me, but you certainly aren't listening to me.

I cannot present a full case, Achilles, until you get over the above hurdle. All my points will simply be dismissed by the above comment a third time...

This is a double-standard. We should jump through countless hoops to prove our argument to you, but you shouldn't have to jump through any to convince us of yours. But to your credit, you said that you don't want to make an argument per se, so much as pick holes in ours. Which means this isn't an dialog/exchange of ideas in good faith; It's just you being argumentative.
Then we are both guilty. I’m having to jump through a hoop just so you’ll even consider my original evidence against your theory. You say “we should jump through countless hoops to prove our argument to you”, yet I haven’t seen you do anything but bat away my comments like stray flies.

Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you. If you are willing to testify in this thread that your theory is unequivocally correct, then it is down to you to prove it. However, as you have conveniently said this is obviously a "no smoking gun" scenario with only circumstantial evidence, this is proving extremely difficult and thus has resulted in an unfortunate degree of frustration.

Okay, let's try this. At what point in the game do any of the characters come right out and tell us specifically what the "mass shadow generator" is? Do they tell us how it was made? What it looked like? Specifics on how it worked?

I don't recall seeing any of this, yet I (and I imagine many others) somehow managed to figure it out. Same writing device, different sub-plot, yet no debate. Why not?
We didn't need any one of those factors. We are told who made it, what it does, and its role in the final battle of the Mandalorian Wars. We know it requires a great amount of power to function, and that it is a machine that was still apparently servicable a decade after its previous use. What else do we need to know, really? It serves its function in the story without one having to burrow deep for more clues. You'll notice that ALL of the above are answered directly in the story, not indirectly. We are told a pear is a pear. No sleuthing required.

Okay. Then why are you here?
I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at with this question. Could you elaborate, please?

I didn't misunderstand you at all. You attempted to divert the discussion by pointing out that Kreia bends the truth, etc. This is a valid observation, but has absolutely nothing to do with any story not being told by her. So either you're trying to change the story or you don't understand the implications of the argument that you made.
I am not changing the story. I'm just pointing out that certain traits within a (admittedly well-written) character may lead you to see details in the speech written for her... which simply aren't there. You are crediting the writers in writing in another layer of meaning, but your claim has not been adequately substantiated by them or anyone else. I could have written it differently, like so:

"I would like to point out that the writers have written Kreia as a character shrouded in mystery and ambiguity, and her dialogue is often constructed to be extremely vague. Thus, the way in which the character has been written gives you a lot of leverage to insert any theory you would like about her, especially as the myriad possibilities for hidden meaning allows any commentator to manipulate the dialogue written for her to appear as solid facts for their case or else dismiss them as the biased falsehoods of a clearly unreliable narrator."

[off topic] If I'm ever implicated in a major crime, I hope that you're on my jury.
You make it sound like you'd need Hercule Poirot to solve the case. This I doubt. Nevertheless, I'd need more than light circumstantial evidence to see anyone convicted. Otherwise... I could be putting an innocent man away, couldn't I? We wouldn't want a miscarriage of justice.

I'm absolutely convinced by reasonable arguments and I very much appreciate you acknowledging that even though we are currently at a disagreement over this topic.
Thank you. I hope we’ll get over this disagreement soon then. 

I have no problem with tentative adherence to supportable theories. My problem is blind adherence to poorly formed hypothesis that have no tenable supporting arguments. Luckily, that isn't the case at hand.
I suppose it's a matter of opinion. We seem to have differences over what we consider a “poorly formed hypothesis”.

I disagree that this happened. I think they all tied into the same narrative but from different perspectives. They aren't separate stories as you seem to suggest.
Well, I disagree that they are intertwined to such a degree as you imply. With Brianna and Mical, we don't have to remember anything then play it a second time - differently - to come to a conclusion. Are you saying that this Kae/Kreia thing operates at a higher level? Like it’s a prize for the most attentive analysts?

It isn't. It just happens to be the one you're being the most critical of.
If you are willing to say such a thing, then you should no doubt be willing to enlighten me as to what these similar hidden storylines are.

Once again, you seek to drag the thread off topic. Distraction perhaps?
Off topic? Of course not. What I said was entirely on-topic: your theory is a theory. It has not been proven. It is not definite.

(i.e. gathering "facts", which go in the front end, not out the back end as you erroneously assert above)
A truth, a fact; call it what you will. A proven theory is factual in nature. There is no “well, possibly but maybe not” to it.

The scientific method is process of making observations, forming hypothesis to explain said observations, then testing the hypothesis via various means to see if they hold up to scrutiny.
I'm holding this up to scrutiny, and it seems extremely fishy to me. If you need to be an expert at deduction and follow a rather unusual path of gameplay to come to this conclusion... in a game full of hidden surprises, falsehoods and mysteries then you are impressive indeed. Were it not for Scorch, then most of the people in this thread would have spent years playing through the game without ever tagging on.

Tell me truthfully: was it just in two playthroughs that you tagged onto this revelation? Four, perhaps? A year? Or only when you read the Wookieepedia entry on Arren Kae? It doesn't sound like a true theory, it sounds like a false lead.

Interestingly, this process is precisely what was used to come to this conclusion. Observations were made during game play. Hypothesis were formed. Predictions were made and tested (for instance, if Kreia were Handmaiden's mother, then we would need some other evidence pointing to her being Master Kae as well. Lo and behold, we get some. A lot if you play as a female). So if hypothesis can be tested and passes, then the resulting theory is scientifically sound.
The scientific method requires accuracy. You may be a scientist and philosopher, and as I have discovered you are strong in your field. But I do not think you are truly a scholar of language.

Was it, to a great degree, a fair test? Did you foray into various possible pragmatic meanings; analyse the syntax of the sentences so that there was no doubt as to the clarity of your findings? Did you study the context within which each statement was set (both in terms of the physical location of all appropriate characters if applicable, and in terms of the tone of the conversation in general), and determine from this that some statements indeed had elements that were out of place with the general message of the utterance? Did you study the sequence in which the various elements of the revelation were made (if there was any at all), and determine from this whether it followed normal literary convention and thus was stronger or weaker for it? Did you value each comment based on its reliability? Did you truthfully do all of this without an unacceptable degree of bias?

This is the effort to which you must go in such a situation as this, where there is no “smoking gun” as you say; no direct reference. Otherwise your method counts for nothing.

Let’s test.

For your reference, this is what Scorch put on his site as key evidence (the other stuff is simply fuel):

Kreia: “But that is my belief, since I knew Revan long ago… as a master knows their apprentice… He came to me, yes. Both before and after he knew himself… But in the end, he turned back to me. When he realised there was nothing more to be learned from the Jedi – except how one could leave them forever… I knew her mother. She was a Jedi Knight. A master – named Arren Kae. She joined the Mandalorian Wars after the shame of her birth was revealed… Revan welcomed her. She was said to be a skilled warrior. Beautiful. And strong in the Force.”

Mical: “Revan had many masters, Zhar, Dorak, Master Kae before Kae left for the Wars. Towards the end of his training, he sought out many to learn techniques. It is said that he returned to his first master at the end of his training, in order to learn how he might best leave the order.”

He seemed content with this, but to be fair we must also consider these items:

Mical: “Revan had many masters, including Zhar, Kae, and Dorak... and towards the end of the training, Revan sought out many other teachers to learn certain techniques. And it is said that he went to his first - and final - master to learn how to leave the order entirely, as she had. (After Kreia interrupts and wipes his mind). I do not recall who Revan's master was... strange.”

Before I go on… could you kindly direct me to any other quotes that I have missed? I’d like to be extremely precise in this.

No, I'm not. You presented the work of a different writer as a valid argument against the story created by this one. Unrelated. That is neither my fault nor my doing.
Avellone followed the selfsame guidelines. My argument was not based around Zhar’s quote: I could quite easily have not included it and have my argument stand on Kreia’s quotes alone.

You seem to be making my point for me.
The coincidences we were talking about were coincidences in elements of text written by Obsidian writers. “But as one trained in the Force” indicates that the Force stands in for coincidences. In that universe, it may be true. In this one, the Force does not exist so therefore the following statement “you know that true coincidences are rare” is not true based on that premise.

There are coincidences in the dialogue of KotOR II. That’s not the Force, that’s human error.

For his argument? It absolutely is not.
I apologise for not being clear. The burden of proof is on you in this case in general. I had thought you'd understand thanks to my illustration.

The burden of proof for "Bill's" claim is on Bill.
Exactly... and you are in the position of Bill:

Originally Posted by nine.roses
Achilles: "I think that my theory of Arren Kae and Kreia is correct."
nine.roses: "What is your proof?"
Achilles: "No one has shown me that Chris Avellone did not plan this. Thus, it is correct."
Originally Posted by Achilles
No, you don't sound patronizing at all. You do sound as though you're having a small measure of difficulty keeping track of all of the various arguments that are being made and what they are in relation to.
No, I just suppose I am not being clear and that you are constantly misunderstanding the gist of my messages. I had thought I was mostly precise in my prose, but from your reactions it would seem that I am not.

That's your standard of proof and you're welcome to it. I believe that I addressed people that need smoking guns in an earlier post.
I do not believe anything in which there is an unreasonable amount of doubt. These "hints" are too light, too vague - I do not require the gun, but perhaps a little smoke. And, at least, a gunshot wound...

nine.roses is offline   you may: quote & reply,