Originally posted by Nephthys
Actually I can see the point the gals are making.
Your vision must be impeccable to see that which isn't there.
It is faulty to use quotes entirely for your argument. It would be like me claim Sidious would own Windu or Bane purely becuase he 'the most powerful sith', without taking into account the variables or Shatterpoint, Vapaad or the Orbalisks. More details need to be given.
Well, given that power tends to be a factor in combat scenarios, it's valid. More to the point, you (and Advent) need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between "the most powerful" and "the winner."
No one in their right mind has said that Palpatine automatically defeats everyone evar just because he's the most powerful Sith. Not against truly formidable foes. But even if he is beaten, that doesn't lower his status.
Also, quotes don't really mean anything when not backed up by feats.
Fortunately, Palpatine has both, so I'd suggest finding another example. And understand that "suggestion" is to be read as "command."
Marko Ragnos was quoted to be 'the most powerful of the most powerful', but can't back it up with feats, so it would be faulty to claim he would intrinsically beat Ludo Kreesh or Naga Sadow, two who actually have said feats beyond getting tooled by Jaden Korr.
It will be interesting to see how this particular example plays out with Nai, Advent, and the others.
You do realize that Marka Ragnos is the exception to all things, right?
There is also the argument for circumstances, which should be common sense.
I'm going to make this abundantly clear, Exodus, because you seem to have missed the point of the entire forum. You cannot reasonably argue circumstances within the confines of a duel; you can't choreograph every move the combatants will make, you cannot reasonably predict how each combatant will personally, emotionally, and psychologically react to each blow.
It isn't up for discussion. That is why quotes and feats are given in conjunction free reign around here; one could argue that, since Anakin Skywalker uses his lightsaber so much, that it will short circuit half-way through the duel. One could mention that, since Sidious keeps his lightsaber in his sleeve, it could get caught on a random piece of string which allows him to get decapitated. One could mention that General Grievous isn't a Force user and so any random Jedi or Sith could whip out Force Beat His Ass Against Hard Objects until nothing is left but crumpled remains.
That's not the point. Unless you can provide reasonable arguments as to why the underdog wins (i.e. Mace's Vaapad or Bane's orbalisks), power and skill reign supreme.
Period.
The end.
That being said that doesn't mean the whole premise of a Versus Forum is destroyed, as we can argue still that the people could win without any of these circumstances, the majority of the time, in a neutral setting unless otherwise stated, in which that circumstance should be considered, which I applaud Ms Marvel doing in the Yoda v Caedus thread. Going back to Mara vs Jacen, it could be argued that Jacen would win in neutral territory, but if this is changed to the caves where they did fight, it would obviously mean that Mara could capitalise on this setting with her superior guile.
The entire premise of a Versus Forum is destroyed when canon approved quotes can't be trusted and the "foggy window" principle prevents us from relying on source material. Which means circumstances or otherwise, we have nothing objective -- no evidence to accurately use.
This is just my impression. I could be wrong, and its a terrible shame but this is what I think.
You are.
I'd have to hire an army of translators to make sense of what Advent was trying to post in there. It seemed to me that she was hopping from point to point to point to point to point to point, seeing which one would finally last.
Edit: Gideon, stop being an ass.
Oh, okay.
Well, given that power tends to be a factor in combat scenarios, it's valid. More to the point, you (and Advent) need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between "the most powerful" and "the winner."
I'm not saying it isn't valid, I'm just saying that it isn't the only to consider. And I absolutely do NOT think there isn't a difference between the most powerful and the winner, not by a long shot. Anakin could easily be said to be more powerful that Ventress for example, but she manages to fight evenly with him through skill etc. Bane is more powerful than Kas'im, but got tooled when he pulled out Jar'Kai. Yoda is more powerful then Dooku, but if they fought in a narrow corridor, his Ataru and movement would be fatally limited. Power is definately not the clincher in every duel.
No one in their right mind has said that Palpatine automatically defeats everyone evar just because he's the most powerful Sith. Not against truly formidable foes.
O rly? The first post in the Bane vs Sidious thread-
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Sidious=most powerful sith in history.
Fortunately, Palpatine has both, so I'd suggest finding another example. And understand that "suggestion" is to be read as "command."
No. I wasn't arguing that Sidious doesn't have feats to back him up. I was saying that using the quote purely as a means to call the fight is a fallacy, as there are undoubtedly other things to consider in the examples I listed.
It wasn't an attack on Sidious, so you don't have to defend him.
It will be interesting to see how this particular example plays out with Nai, Advent, and the others.
You do realize that Marka Ragnos is the exception to all things, right?
This is probably an in-joke. Could you explain it to me please.
I'm going to make this abundantly clear, Exodus, because you seem to have missed the point of the entire forum. You cannot reasonably argue circumstances within the confines of a duel; you can't choreograph every move the combatants will make, you cannot reasonably predict how each combatant will personally, emotionally, and psychologically react to each blow.
Yes, I know that.
It isn't up for discussion. That is why quotes and feats are given in conjunction free reign around here; one could argue that, since Anakin Skywalker uses his lightsaber so much, that it will short circuit half-way through the duel. One could mention that, since Sidious keeps his lightsaber in his sleeve, it could get caught on a random piece of string which allows him to get decapitated. One could mention that General Grievous isn't a Force user and so any random Jedi or Sith could whip out Force Beat His Ass Against Hard Objects until nothing is left but crumpled remains.
That wasn't what was talking about, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I was arguing that if say Mara Jade and Caedus were fighting, Jade would use her superior tactical advantage. I don't need to specify what will happen exactly, unless pushed, to which I could say she could lure him into position for an ambush. Not that she will, but that its a viable factor in their duel. Simply stating 'Zomg, Caedus is more powaful', doesn't give justice to the characters.
That's not the point. Unless you can provide reasonable arguments as to why the underdog wins (i.e. Mace's Vaapad or Bane's orbalisks), power and skill reign supreme.
I'm not contesting that. I'm saying that people just saying power and skill reign supreme period, nothing else matters are wrong. More thought need to be given.
The entire premise of a Versus Forum is destroyed when canon approved quotes can't be trusted and the "foggy window" principle prevents us from relying on source material. Which means circumstances or otherwise, we have nothing objective -- no evidence to accurately use.
We don't need to have absolutes for everything Gideon. In fact, absolute statements are what would destroy this forum. If a list came out with every character written in power order, saying so and so is above so and so no matter what, the Forum would collapse. Arguing circumstance, disabilities, variables, is the lifeblood of the Forum, not what will destroy it.
You are.I'd have to hire an army of translators to make sense of what Advent was trying to post in there. It seemed to me that she was hopping from point to point to point to point to point to point, seeing which one would finally last.
Well we're different. and arguing about that is what we signed up for. Again, if we had a piece of paper telling us which person was right in everything, this place would suck.
Now, I know quotes are a factor, and I know power and skill are too, but they aren't the only factors. If a quote came out saying character X is above Y in fencing then yes, X would be above Y. But, if the source also said Y has a sword that can cut through anything, who do you think would win?
To quote LOST- 'You can't forget about the variables'.
Your lack of comprehension disturbs me, child.
Originally posted by Exodus
That wasn't what was talking about, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I was arguing that if say Mara Jade and Caedus were fighting, Jade would use her superior tactical advantage. I don't need to specify what will happen exactly, unless pushed, to which I could say she could lure him into position for an ambush. Not that she will, but that its a viable factor in their duel. Simply stating 'Zomg, Caedus is more powaful', doesn't give justice to the characters.
And simply saying "lawlz mara cud owtsmarrt him" is even more proposterous. A very specific set of circumstances had to occur in order for Mara Jade to gain an advantage over her nephew; it wasn't a strict lightsaber duel in which she happened to outmaneuver him. It was a protracted engagement in a specific environment. More or less cat-and-mouse.
If that is what we're now arguing, then the thread creator has an obligation to explore the environment and context of the duel in greater detail.
But if the opening post says "Mara vs. Caedus. Tatooine desert. Fight!" then one cannot respond with:
"After a series of feints and jabs, Mara takes out her keychain and Caedus -- in his infantile stupidity -- becomes enamored with the shiny object, allowing Mara Jade to lure him thirty paces backward into a cave, where she throws the keychain, prompting Caedus to drop his lightsaber and pursue the shiny object, allowing Mara Jade to detonate conveniently placed charges to bury Caedus alive."
Which is where you're going with this.
I'm not contesting that. I'm saying that people just saying power and skill reign supreme period, nothing else matters are wrong. More thought need to be given.
It is the burden of whomever's defending the underdog to provide logical reasons why the quote shouldn't be considered the end all.
For example: Darth Bandon vs. Darth Sidious. The multitude of quotes at Sidious's disposal proclaim him to be the most powerful Sith Lord ever. Since power and skill are given free reign unless proven otherwise, it is your obligation to prove that Bandon is equipped with something that may leave the conversation open to discussion.
If he has nothing, no Orbalisks or Vaapad or shatterpoint charism or cortosis or uber proficiency in a certain antiquated martial art, then the quote stands and Sidious wins.
Your idea of QUOTES DONT APPLY EVAR! is stupid.
We don't need to have absolutes for everything Gideon. In fact, absolute statements are what would destroy this forum. If a list came out with every character written in power order, saying so and so is above so and so no matter what, the Forum would collapse. Arguing circumstance, disabilities, variables, is the lifeblood of the Forum, not what will destroy it.
You... have no idea what Advent said in that thread, do you? She provided a quote from Chris Cerasi that mentions that EU materials, comics, novelizations, and video games are all "windows" into the actual mythos and that some windows are foggier than others.
That means the feats and events themselves cannot be trusted completely. It doesn't just invalidate the statements. It brings PIS to a whole new level: we cannot now, with any accuracy, gauge the power of Luke Skywalker given the numerous inconsistencies.
His lower end abilities might, in fact, be his actual level. That statement, if regarded with any value, removes our capacity to debate at all.
It's broken. Period.