Since when is Sidious uber?

I am a survivor of the Janus era (my thy rest in peace) and have been out of the loop for about half a year. I come back, and suddenly, the godly ancient sith have become worms, Naga Sadow and Marka Ragnos, who were once the most uber of the most uber, are bigger worms, the once weak sidious and yoda are Lords of all that is holy, and the KOTOR era has become a time of the weak and helpless while the movie era jedi have become demi-gods.

now my question to all of you is WTF happened?!?!?!?

People wised up and realized that hurling a brick does not make you uber.

lol... I wasn't in the so called Janus Era so I can't tell you that but... I can tell you DE Sidious has become the most powerful Sith and NJO Luke the most powerul Jedi since you're not here.

Luke was UBER back then, no doubt. the Janus era was a glorious time. the posts being half a page long each, full of quotes and facts, the ignorant were insulted, and the toadies banished. those who were not powerful never became powerful.

But back to the original question. how did this metimorphisis happen? i suspect lightsnake had something to do with this...

Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
People wised up and realized that hurling a brick does not make you uber.

And the "Antediluvian" period sucked. I admired they're debating skills, but their bad attitudes toward any opposition was annoying, to say the least. They had an extreme superiority complex, and I'm glad they're gone. From what I've heard Janus has dissapeared, and EoD is in shambles. Sucks for them.

They understood the true power of the dark side. if someone disagrees with you, then they must be executed, their blasphemy stopped, and their heresy silenced. it proved quite effective.

With all due respect to the 'Janus-era', this era [if we had to name it after the most skilled debater, it would be the Advent-era] relies more on fact and evidence than on personal bias. Some of the debaters back then admittedly despised Sidious to the point that they would belittle his achievements ["he was the benefactor of circumstance"] and his power ["Dooku > Sidious"]. Y'know, stupid stuff. Then, they would proclaim that Ragnos could waltz through a gauntlet filled with the likes of DE Sidious and NJO Luke without all of his limbs and effort.

Unfortunately for them, some of us have compiled an arsenal of quotes, sources, and evidence to use, that they never could refute. So, rather than fight it forever, some of them accepted it: Nai Fohl, for example, who was one of the more prominent of the anti-Sidious, pro-Dooku, pro-Ancient Sith types now accept that DE Sidious is - at the very, very, very least - one of the very most powerful Sith Lords in the saga. Then, people like Lightsnake managed to point out that the Ancient Sith uberpower primarily stemmed from their Sith technology, and without it, they resort to hurling bricks. Sidious, however, never relied on technology and such to enhance his power, so he is naturally more powerful than they are. Canon quotes in regards to his strength in the Force are much more abundant and plentiful than those for the Ancient Sith, which allows us true logicians to make a much better argument.

In conclusion, with the exception of a few, the Janus-era debaters were only good at bashing their opponents into submission and belittling the accomplishments of superior powers. Not actually arguing their point.

ha! there was a good deal of bashing at that time, no doubt. but there was also a good deal of fact. I always believed taht DE sidious was great and powerful. But ROTS? no. he was weak, and would have been crushed by the likes of Revan and Kun. maybe this is my personal bias from the Janus era, but this is what i believe, and until serious evidence is shown to me that ROTS Sidious can blast through gient worm beasts and run through the entire Star Forge, i will not stop thinking this way.

Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
And the "Antediluvian" period sucked. I admired they're debating skills, but their bad attitudes toward any opposition was annoying, to say the least. They had an extreme superiority complex, and I'm glad they're gone. From what I've heard Janus has dissapeared, and EoD is in shambles. Sucks for them.

Yeah. Janus left and the other guys and lightsnake and the new era guys moved in, they extinguished the era where the ancient Sith are powerful. idk

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
ha! there was a good deal of bashing at that time, no doubt. but there was also a good deal of fact. I always believed taht DE sidious was great and powerful. But ROTS? no. he was weak, and would have been crushed by the likes of Revan and Kun. maybe this is my personal bias from the Janus era, but this is what i believe, and until serious evidence is shown to me that ROTS Sidious can blast through gient worm beasts and run through the entire Star Forge, i will not stop thinking this way.

You don't have to believe me. That's the beauty of the Advent-era. We all have different opinions; sure, we might be able to disprove them and so forth, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're an idiot if you don't blindly follow the current taboos at the time. You, Null, were - and are - one of those people: you seem to follow this idealogy seemingly because Janus argued it. No offense to Janus (because he is an outstanding debater when he wants to be), but he is as biased and as rude as they come. He also supported the 'Dooku > Sidious' idea (seriously, how stupid is that?) and look how hard that got debunked.

But, you said it yourself. You've been out of the loop. If you compare our arguments to those of the 'Janus-era' with an objective state of mind, you'll clearly see that ours is better supported and reinforced.

As for RotS Sidious being 'weak', well, we could debate that all night. I've got quotes and evidence to prove that he isn't weak. Perhaps tomorrow you would like to discuss it?

Edit: By the way, it's proven by the RotS novelization (G-canon) that Yoda is more powerful than Revan or any Jedi prior to him. Sidious is his equal, which makes him - incidentally - more powerful than Revan as well.

QUOTES! i hate them more than anything. quotes are for fools who can't find evidence! if i suddenly made up a show, in which character A got WTFpwned by character B, then said A was better, you would have to believe me, sinse i created it. but the facs point in another direction. idk, it all seems so stupid to me.

An edit to your edit: READ ABOVE!

btw: i didn't realize you were Escape 81! it is good to hear from you again! You always were a Sidious supporter, if not fanboy, but a smart one that provided good facts!

The Janus-era, while full of insults from the Antediluvians, was a Golden Age in the SW forums. They all left right about the time the public hype over SW began to die. Most topics had been questioned and answered, threads were starting to look rather familiar. So, while the forums were dieing, Janus and Sorgo and the like actually kept the place entertaining.

We've moved on from the Dark Ages, where brute force was the tool into forcing your opinions on others. We now use logic, reason and fact instead of opinions derived from personal bias.

But you have to admit, the Dark Ages were rather fun compared to this Enlightenment.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
QUOTES! i hate them more than anything. quotes are for fools who can't find evidence! if i suddenly made up a show, in which character A got WTFpwned by character B, then said A was better, you would have to believe me, sinse i created it. but the facs point in another direction. idk, it all seems so stupid to me.

An edit to your edit: READ ABOVE!

If this is your personal philosophy, you've pretty much destroyed the whole notion of 'Ragnos-owns-all', since, of course, there isn't any on panel evidence displaying his "awesome power", and quotes - according to you - are "for fools who can't find evidence!"

Edit: Tangible, I used to have a healthy respect for the Antedivulians, and yes, they were entertaining, but nine times out of ten, they didn't debate. They bashed. In fact, I should retract my statement: they [with the exception of a few] were not good debaters. Not at all. Rather, they were a cadre of near-genii who either could not or would not support their personal opinions with any semblance of evidence or fact, and opt to bash the opposition into submission.

So, yeah, they answered the 'questions', but did so incorrectly.

Indeed. The only thing that made Ragnos look even above average was a single quote saying he was "The most powerful of powerful"...

EDIT: Here ya go. EoD in all it's intellecutual glory.

Click

haha! no, by quotes i mean from creators and authors who know truly nothing of what they create. Quotes from Kreia, imho, are good evidence, but wouldn't stand up to acual battle fact.

haha! no, by quotes i mean from creators and authors who know truly nothing of what they create.

I see. So, essentially, what you're saying is: quotes function as evidence so long as they happen to support my theory, but not otherwise. Not by the creators of the work who have more insight into the stories than anyone else.

Quotes from Kreia, imho, are good evidence, but wouldn't stand up to acual battle fact.

Here is the difference: Kreia is a character - a fallible third party. She has weaknesses, gaps of information, biases, and so forth. She wasn't even present during the Ancient Sith reign. However, she was a gifted historian, and to that end, we must take her 'quotes' into consideration. But that isn't proof alone. It's supporting evidence.

On the other hand, the quotes made by the omniscient narrator or the creator function as automatic fact because they exist outside of the story itself.

now you are twisting my words. a creator is fallible as well, and can make mistakes. They see what they created, not how it is being viewed. This is a flaw in their work. something might look right to them, but it is totally wrong to the player, or reader, or viewer, or whatever.

And yes, because Kreia was a jedi historian, and a sith lord, she knows what she is talking about quite well.

I remember the "Janus" era, I made this account back then, though it's been mostly inactive since, I'm also the one who asked lightsnake to check these forums out in the first place, and what do I remember about that time?

9 times out of 10 I was bashed for what I've said. I remember once arguing Sid's>Revan, and being laughed out of the topic, though not one person put up an argument beyond older sith>new sith. The problem with that era was that, like Gideon pointed out, it was rife with fanboyism to the point where some wouldn't even look at an argument that didn't fall in line with the status quo.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
now you are twisting my words. a creator is fallible as well, and can make mistakes. They see what they created, not how it is being viewed. This is a flaw in their work. something might look right to them, but it is totally wrong to the player, or reader, or viewer, or whatever.

But unfortunately, its not up to you to decide what the creators intent was, and thus pick out the mistakes in his work, unless of course they conflict with a higher source of canon material, in which case it's a no brainer

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis

And yes, because Kreia was a jedi historian, and a sith lord, she knows what she is talking about quite well.

Personally, I agree with you to a point, if there's someone in KOTOR who is qualified to speak about the ancient sith with any accuracy is Kreia, problem is we can't be absolutely sure of the accuracy of what's she's said. So while it can be used as support for an argument, it doesn't hold the weight of say the omniscient narrator

I was the in the "janus" era. Iv seen crap like anyone > sidious and both sidious and vader were the most underrated characters, thanks to JJ, Vos, Gideon, Me, Sexy, advent, Ls and styles, vader is no longer a "worm" as he used to be in that era

As for sidious being the top sith, all credits go to Ls advent and gideon