Lambast MercyYes, good point. It would offer a very good fulcrum for Artis' final judgment as opposed to "Because this random person said so"

Rebecca Hail

Kara waldeN

M. LehmanI'd say that a system where players are expected to make good-faith efforts to remain within the lore is reasonable, as is the right of others to question or discuss lore-friendliness of specific RP. If a player can refer to the evidence to prove or disprove a proposition, then so be it. No need for a privileged sub-group of members to actually be the lore police.

And if that doesn't work we can all just log into Alts and be outright abusive until they go away, amirite?

Wait, oh that would be like a secret police force wouldn't it?

Nasty. I like it.

Desert Fox isn't an alt, stop trying to imply that.

Renraiku

Lambast MercyYes, good point. It would offer a very good fulcrum for Artis' final judgment as opposed to "Because this random person said so"

Usually one of the Lore buffs sites a source. Same thing.

Lambast Mercy

Renraiku

Lambast MercyYes, good point. It would offer a very good fulcrum for Artis' final judgment as opposed to "Because this random person said so"

Usually one of the Lore buffs sites a source. Same thing.

I don't think it's the same thing. I haven't looked, but I've yet to see anyone post a link to any lore site beyond a wiki to something that is still very open to personal opinion to enforce their position. I've read plenty of Elites background, and I can't tell anyone where I picked up all my information. I doubt I could find half of it again. I had to look all over the place, down many pages of 'some guys opinions' to piece together my own understanding of what is and what isn't Lore.

This is why I'd like a reference page here so we can all site the same sources and come to (hopefully) a consensus.

I think of myself as 'in the know' enough to carry on writing without being a problem, but I'd still be happy to find more reference material that is more solid than a shouty person.

M. Lehman [snipped for brevity] Isaiah has posted pages from the EDRPG to uphold his/our positions on both cybernetics and AI. This is an example of what I'm talking about in terms of referring to sources. It isn't about stifling creativity. It's about fidelity to the universe in which we RP.

ArtieMaking non-constructive posts "tinted" by some personal grudges, stubborn standings and similar is certainly a thing that doesn't help any discussion. Not just this one, but any discussion, anytime, anywhere. Although such posts may hold the truth, it makes much harder to reach some mutual agreement even both sides of the dispute are basically riding the same wave. It's not the most fortunate way how to make a discussion, but until it will stay within some boundaries, won't be prolonged and won't turn into insults (like some of the recent, now deleted posts)... well, so be it.

But, from my understanding, the consensus was more or less reached already and it looks like the discussion is revolving just about the things mentioned above. Attitudes, approaches, subjective standings, opinions about other posters... and I am not sure if there is a point in discussing that. I think it may be better to try to understand other people motivation via PM and it may even bring positive surprises that the other person is different than it may looked like by the first impression...

Sappho

M. Lehman [snipped for brevity] Isaiah has posted pages from the EDRPG to uphold his/our positions on both cybernetics and AI. This is an example of what I'm talking about in terms of referring to sources. It isn't about stifling creativity. It's about fidelity to the universe in which we RP.

That he did. But, so did I & Synthya. Oddly enough, none of which directly contradicted each other, at least, not as far as I can tell.

Perhaps it's just me, but it seemed that Isaiah focused on a point & seemed to not take into account or address the additional point from an alternative source which, instead of adding to the lore base discussion, gave at least in my own view, a strong impression that any additional point was invalid, if not contradictory, if for no other reason than by ignoring the question.

Perhaps, it might be better if there were a determination or at least an agreement on exactly what is to be considered a valid reference for lore purposes.

Is it only that which Isaiah posted from the EDRPG, or is that to also include that which is found via the E:D Fandom site? The question was asked & never answered, & in fact, his response only re-iterated the same point & from the same source.

So... again... for consensual purposes, what source(s) is to be considered valid lore & what is not?

Kara waldeN

Rebecca Hail

Kara waldeN



And if that doesn't work we can all just log into Alts and be outright abusive until they go away, amirite?

Wait, oh that would be like a secret police force wouldn't it?

Nasty. I like it.

Desert Fox isn't an alt, stop trying to imply that.

Why? Does it upset you? Strange thing to focus on. What do you think of his online bullying?

SapphoIndeed she is. I never considered that relevant.

So, by your definition, anything found on the E:D Fandom sites, at least lore-wise, is invalid? I think that needs to be determined.

M. LehmanThe general hierarchy for lore canon is:

1) Primary canon. Anything in the game itself, including all galnet and lore beacon information. Also, all official novels released at the time of or after Elite: Dangerous's launch.

3) Secondary canon. Basically the EDRPG books, which can be considered canon unless contradicted by a primary canon source.

3) Tertiary canon. Pre-ED novels, novellas, and content from previous games. Much of this has been retconned or relegated to myth and rumor.