Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah and she trashed two of them in a similar way that Maul trashed them in the season finale. Further proof Ahsoka wasn't going all-out on them.
All good and fine but where is your evidence that Ahsoka was holding back further then in Future of the Force (if she was holding back at all)? The fact that her performance was inferior can as easily be caused by other reasons which doesn’t help to provide a case for Ahsoka (e.g. The Inquisitors improving over the course of season 2).
Yeah, and in TPM despite moving and leaping around a lot, Kenobi and Maul ended up in roughly the same spot that their 1v1 started in when Maul force pushed him.
The environment for the TPM duel was obviously different, it was a circular shape with one exit, which closed all the time, so that they’re active duel area is restricted shouldn’t be a surprise while the Temple on Malachor didn’t had any such limiting factors thus your example isn’t valid evidence on this subject.
I also fail to see why they'd just be standing there.
I never said they would just be standing there, that’s what you make of it, I said that there isn’t any evidence they’ve been fighting for a minute and that’s backed up by their positioning before and after the minute ‘break’. What else they were doing, well that’s not my problem.
So you're saying the nexus doesn't prove anything because you can't judge how big the amp is... yet you're saying Ahsoka is definitively not even on par with Maul because a quote suggests he's better that provides no indication as to how large the gap is between them.
The problem here is that Maul with an indeterminately large dark side boost is above Ahsoka by an indeterminate amount, and you think that on its own is solid enough grounds to suggest that Ahsoka and Maul can't possibly be roughly on par?
The thing is that if you’re going by that quote Maul is certainly superior to Ahsoka by at least a noticeable margin while the supposed gap created by the nexus is not a certainty. You, and the other members that support Ahsoka, have to prove that the nexus created an edge for Maul and that it’s effect is noticeable enough to make a difference in this thread (= a potential battle). So yes, until you, or any other member, has actually proven that, with evidence preferably, the certainty takes priority over the “could be a possibility”.
You argued that a decently sized nexus effect is unlikely because the lightsiders didn't display any negative effects... Beni provides a disparity in Ahsoka's performance, and you say that isn't necessarily due to the nexus.
In order to contradict my original statement you would need conclusive evidence, yet Ahsoka’s performance is a debate on itself so it can’t be considered conclusive evidence.
The problem with this argument is that you were the one who argued that there couldn't be much of an effect if the nexus didn't weaken the lightsiders, effectively asserting that the absence of an effect supports your theory, then when Beni suggested a negative effect, you said it couldn't be definitively tied to the nexus.
The reason you pushing this doesn't make much sense is that while you could argue the performance disparity wasn't a result of the nexus, that disparity itself existing makes it ambiguous enough that you can't prove the absence of a negative nexus effect against the lightsiders, which takes away your ability to prove the notion that the nexus had little to no impact.
Similar to my previous point, I said that it can’t be certainly tied to the nexus, meaning that it isn’t conclusive evidence thus it can’t contradict my statement while you, or any other member supporting Ahsoka, have to prove it as a certainty. Let’s consider a real life example, you’ve caused an accident with another car and in court you claim that you caused this accident because the sun was blinding you. However if you can’t prove that the sun was effectively blinding you (= providing conclusive evidence) then the court isn’t going to accept that as a valid reason even though it could be a possible excuse.
If it's in the context of the era, Maul exists in that era. If it's in the context of the story-telling of Rebels, coming up with some contrived reason for Maul fighting Ahsoka makes a lot more sense than Sidious stepping in for some reason.
Fair enough about the time period, I agree it’s the general era. However Filoni’s still talking about why they couldn’t use her as much because the only villains available that could match Ahsoka were Vader and the Emperor, while in season 2 Maul’s trapped on Malachor for the entire duration of it and so isn’t ‘available’. You could argue that they could rewrite it and that it would be easier to do that then to have the Emperor intervene but that’s something Filoni isn’t covering and thus isn’t clear.
As far as "when this character got serious" arguments go... Ahsoka literally instantly bested the Seventh Sister in martial combat unarmed and proceeded to ragdoll her.
She bested her after 50 seconds of fighting, I hardly call that impressive. Taking one part of a fight and pull it out of it’s context isn’t going to prove your point.
You mean like arguing a quote that may not even prove Maul's superiority over her somehow means the gap is big enough that they can't possibly be on par... yet at the same time you say you can ignore the effects of Malachor because their magnitude was never confirmed?
The quote clarifies that the criteria used to divide the groups is “strength”, so they’re pairing the weakest (Ezra) with the strongest (Maul). To my knowledge that means that Maul is the strongest of the group and if there exists a gap then they obviously can’t be on par. The effects of Malachor aren’t proven to the point it would affect the characters noticeably in a fighting scenario, so I indeed call that negligible until proven otherwise. Again, on one side you have a certainty while on the other side you have a possibility, it’s easy to pick the side that’s most likely to be true.
Originally posted by |King Joker|
It's a logical explanation, because it's obvious that not every character will perform as effectively against one opponent than another would. As Beni pointed out, Maul's Juyo would have been incredibly effective against the Inquisitors because of its extremely complicated move set, and the chance that the Inquisitors may have been particularly off-guard to deal with the Sith Lord's incredibly brutal offense that Ahsoka doesn't really employ.
That sounds pretty good admittedly but where is your evidence which would make it an usable argument? Until you’ve actually provided undeniable evidence supporting this, it isn’t a valid excuse and to be honest, the hole “hiding behind fighting styles” becomes rather tiring.
She's visibly not as aggressive in "Future of the Force", and actually frequently pauses her offensive for dialogue in that fight with the Seventh Sister, not keeping any sustained barrage going. There's also the fact that she was likely passing up potential lethal openings given her unwillingness to kill the Inquisitors.
Ahsoka’s fight with the Inquisitors in Future of the Force is of course also longer then Maul’s fight with them so saying she pauses for dialogue amongst other things isn’t the best equation you could use. You keep going on about her unwillingness to kill Inquisitors but it’s only confirmed that that’s a preference, like many Light Side users, but if she had to make a decision between killing an Inquisitor or getting hurt herself (or any of her friends) then I very much doubt she would refrain from killing or injuring them.
So, what were Ahsoka and Maul doing for over a minute if not fighting? Was Ahsoka just listening to Maul drone on about his evil plans? And the lack of mobility between the two in the first unseen portion can very well point to parity between them.
Like I said to DMB, it’s not my problem what they were doing in that minute, I have evidence which points to ‘not fighting’ so it’s your responsibility to prove they were fighting. Maul trash talking for a minute? Sure, why not 🙂
They go from “barely moving” to “jumping all over the place” in like one moment? Doesn’t seem quite realistic or more likely then any other option that could’ve happened.
I think it's pretty obvious that a dark side hotspot is pretty much a nexus, come on now. The Inquisitors were likely using a lightsaber assisted Force flight ability that they were able to accomplish because said dark side nexus. I feel like these aren't far-fetched conclusions to make, and honestly pretending to need more evidence as to how the Inquisitors could all of a sudden fly (when it's mentioned in the context of talking about dark side hotspots) is being a little obtuse.
Fair enough, I could concede on this. Still isn’t conclusive evidence that it would noticeably influence a fight between them (Ahsoka & Maul).
She isn't a Jedi, and she refrained from killing them because she made the conclusion that more Inquisitors would enter the equation if she did, which would have increased the Rebels' problems. I think I should point out that she even refrained from killing the Fifth Brother when she destroyed his lightsaber, so that's even more evidence that she passes up killing blows when against the Inquisitors, even on Malachor.
She prefers not to kill them, sure, but if she has no other option then to kill them then the decision is pretty clear. On your example, we see how she could destroy his weapons but that isn’t prove that she could’ve delivered a mortal blow thus the example isn’t valid for this argument.
I think this has been covered.
Doubt it 🙂
"Time period" does not mean season 2, the "time period" would be the general era, in which Filoni clarifies that in this era, Ahsoka's only true superiors are Vader and the Emperor. Maul being the logicial choice to protect Ezra against Inquisitors also isn't some definitive statement of superiority over Ahsoka you're desperately trying to make it out to be.
Already answered DMB on it, Maul was still trapped on Malachor in season 2 so he isn’t available to appear as a villain in the rest of it in order to give Ahsoka more screen-time. They could of course rewrite it but that wasn’t covered in Filoni’s interview and thus can’t be said with a certainty. On the quote, it wasn’t said that Maul is the most logical choice to protect Ezra, no, it was said that, when using the criteria “strength”, he was the most logical choice to be paired with the weakest of the group, all but saying he’s the strongest. That’s pretty conclusive evidence favoring Maul.
You're trying to peddle some ABC logic with the Inquisitors and you're latching on to a quote that doesn't prove anything. Ahsoka stalemated Maul for over a minute, and your argument against that involves accepting some ridiculous idea that Maul and Ahsoka stood still for well over a minute and just decided to start fighting a couple seconds before the screen cut back to them.
That’s the difference between you and me, I couldn’t care less if it sounds “ridiculous” or how you think the quote doesn’t prove anything, I accept evidence and evidence alone.
Originally posted by Ziggystardust
So are accepting that Malchor was a dark side nexus worthy of amping it's inhabitants? Nerfing Maul and potentially Vader?
Depends on how big the effect of the nexus is, at this point there is no conclusive evidence on it. Personally, looking at how none of the Light Side users experienced negative side-effects of this nexus, I doubt it is a strong one.
Well in the mean, let's briefly go over the various gaps in your argument (and your logic).
1. Maul had a definite form advantage over the Inquisitors, regardless of Ahsoka's ability to be aggressive.
2. At no point was Ahsoka or Kanan in mortal danger of being killed the Inquisitors, so no, she never had a reason to kill.
3. An argument predicated on logic has to make logical sense, in that respect hand-waving that which smacks as an absurdity is a double standard, as the exact same approach you be taken regarding Ahsoka & Maul failing to flip about being "unrealistic."
4. We are not in court, lmao. According to the principles of law yes, innocent until prove guilty is a rule, outside of the court, you appealing to an absence of evidence.
5. The idea that Filoni was discussing who was "available" to fight Ahsoka during that particular season is nowhere stated or even implied, rather contexts you've shoe-horned in. And more to the point, the Emperor was never going to appear in Season 2.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Well in the mean, let's briefly go over the various gaps in your argument (and your logic).1. Maul had a definite form advantage over the Inquisitors, regardless of Ahsoka's ability to be aggressive.
2. At no point was Ahsoka or Kanan in mortal danger of being killed the Inquisitors, so no, she never had a reason to kill.
3. An argument predicated on logic has to make logical sense, in that respect hand-waving that which smacks as an absurdity is a double standard, as the exact same approach you be taken regarding Ahsoka & Maul failing to flip about being "unrealistic."
4. We are not in court, lmao. According to the principles of law yes, innocent until prove guilty is a rule, outside of the court, you appealing to an absence of evidence.
5. The idea that Filoni was discussing who was "available" to fight Ahsoka is nowhere stated or even implied, rather contexts you've shoe-horned in. And more to the point, the Emperor was never going to appear in Season 2.
1. Evidence?
2. She still wanted to defeat/subdue the Inquisitors so there is no reason to not use the advantages she gets like in Future of the Force.
3. The difference between both cases is that there is actual evidence pointing toward them not fighting for anything close to a minute, we can accurately extrapolate how they would've fought during that one minute using the things wee seen on screen. Contrary to them actual fighting because we can't figure out anything else they would've been doing.
4. The things is that these rules are there for a reason, not to mention that the ball is in your camp, you have to prove your point not the other way around.
5. The title of the article mentions how it's a recap of season 2, so it's obviously going to be about that season. The emperor was still more 'available' then Maul because he could go where he wanted while Maul was trapped. Not to mention that it actually doesn't matter since it's Filoni's opinion and starwars.com blogs aren't canon.
1. Provided and conceded to on pg. 2?
2. That's not the point, the point is she's not out to kill, Maul is.
3. What we see on screen is two combatants who appear about to fight, and have every reason and intention of doing so, from which indeed we can extrapolate, in the absence of a plausible reason for not fighting, that fight is what they did.
On the other hand for the very same reason you've stipulated against this logic, that we do not see them fight, we cannot assume they did not move around as you've asserted, before simply returning to the same spot.
4. Yes because when you are going to have someone charged with a crime, you need definitive proof, and cannot keep them in proverbial limbo until that proof comes around.
In this case no, you've predicated the belief that Maul > Ahsoka on the basis that Malachor is not a dark side nexus, however this cannot be ruled out as a possibility, and you've done nothing but appeal to a lack of definitive proof to the contrary to state otherwise, which yes is a fallacy.
Moreover you've failed to provide any alternative explanation to a) the ability of the Inquisitors to fly on Malachor b) Ahsoka's dipped performance against the Inquistors. Which leaves me to believe the presence of a nexus is indeed, the only explanation.
5. That doesn't preclude Filoni making a general statement regarding the period at all. You've just decided that.
Indeed I'd suggest clinging to the non-binding nature of his statement as opposed to attempting to force a false reading. 👆
That sounds pretty good admittedly but where is your evidence which would make it an usable argument? Until you’ve actually provided undeniable evidence supporting this, it isn’t a valid excuse and to be honest, the hole “hiding behind fighting styles” becomes rather tiring.Dude, just think it out. How would Maul's fighting style not be more advantageous than Ahsoka's? It's pretty much the exact same reason why Dooku would last a shorter amount of time against Sidous than he would against Yoda. It's a similar reason why Maul stomps Savage, yet his peer in Kenobi didn't -- or why Ventress does much better against Anakin than against Dooku. Different fighters stack up differently against one another, it's just a simple fact, not something that should have to be spoon-fed.
Ahsoka’s fight with the Inquisitors in Future of the Force is of course also longer then Maul’s fight with them so saying she pauses for dialogue amongst other things isn’t the best equation you could use. You keep going on about her unwillingness to kill Inquisitors but it’s only confirmed that that’s a preference, like many Light Side users, but if she had to make a decision between killing an Inquisitor or getting hurt herself (or any of her friends) then I very much doubt she would refrain from killing or injuring them.She wasn't being as aggressive as Maul (which is what you were claiming) because she chose not to keep any sustained offensive going, which is the point -- and it also is one of the explanations why Ahsoka's fight was longer in FotF.
You keep going on about her unwillingness to kill Inquisitors but it’s only confirmed that that’s a preference, like many Light Side users, but if she had to make a decision between killing an Inquisitor or getting hurt herself (or any of her friends) then I very much doubt she would refrain from killing or injuring them.
Like I said to DMB, it’s not my problem what they were doing in that minute, I have evidence which points to ‘not fighting’ so it’s your responsibility to prove they were fighting. Maul trash talking for a minute? Sure, why not 🙂It is your problem, because it makes your theory completely and utterly illogical. To accept your 'evidence' would mean having to accept the insane premise that Maul and Ahsoka abstained from fighting during the course of well over a minute. That makes your argument very hard to believe, especially when compared to the pretty easy to accept idea that Maul and Ahsoka were evenly matched during that first minute and a half, hence the relative lack advancement or retreat from Ahsoka or Maul.
They go from “barely moving” to “jumping all over the place” in like one moment? Doesn’t seem quite realistic or more likely then any other option that could’ve happened.We only see one strike from Ahsoka when the screen cuts back and they start jumping all over the place when Ahsoka actually starts to push Maul back.
Fair enough, I could concede on this. Still isn’t conclusive evidence that it would noticeably influence a fight between them (Ahsoka & Maul).It's evidence that Maul was more powerful than standard since he's on a dark side nexus, which would've given him an advantage, no matter how you slice it.
She prefers not to kill them, sure, but if she has no other option then to kill them then the decision is pretty clear. On your example, we see how she could destroy his weapons but that isn’t prove that she could’ve delivered a mortal blow thus the example isn’t valid for this argument.I really doubt the Inquisitors were pushing her to her absolute max that she had to pull out all the stops, and seriously? You don't think she could have killed the Fifth Brother after she just did this?:
She had him dead to rights and could have killed him easily -- it's undeniable evidence that she was refraining from killing the Inquisitors.
Doubt it 🙂
Already answered DMB on it, Maul was still trapped on Malachor in season 2 so he isn’t available to appear as a villain in the rest of it in order to give Ahsoka more screen-time. They could of course rewrite it but that wasn’t covered in Filoni’s interview and thus can’t be said with a certainty. On the quote, it wasn’t said that Maul is the most logical choice to protect Ezra, no, it was said that, when using the criteria “strength”, he was the most logical choice to be paired with the weakest of the group, all but saying he’s the strongest. That’s pretty conclusive evidence favoring Maul.You conceded that 'time period' meant 'general era', and the quote says We all felt that Ahsoka, the only person that could really match her in this time period, blow for blow, would be Vader or the Emperor -- so Filoni is saying Ahsoka's only true superiors in this general era are Vader and the Emperor.
And yeah, Maul is stronger than Ahsoka against the Inquisitors, which is the enemy Ezra was vulnerable against. 🙂
That’s the difference between you and me, I couldn’t care less if it sounds “ridiculous” or how you think the quote doesn’t prove anything, I accept evidence and evidence alone.