Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6639453" data-attributes="member: 8461">The fact that it's &quot;enough&quot; for people isn't meeting any sort of objective standard, though, which is kind of what &quot;canonity&quot; is all about, e.g. it's an objective status bestowed by the highest authority, and so doesn't rely on any degree of public acceptance. As the holders of a given intellectual property are the ones who hold that title, the claim of someone else to have any similar status, even if they're the original creators of said property but no longer own it, must therefore be subject to scrutiny.In this case, the question of &quot;Ed trusting her to speak on his behalf&quot; is itself something that we're being asked to take at face value, at least insofar as the links you've posted go. I'm not trying to be paranoid, nor suggest that there's any level of foul play involved, but I'm a pretty firm believer in &quot;trust but verify.&quot; That she says that she's speaking in Ed's voice - to the point of writing that the content of her posts is a reply of his that he's dictating to her - is something that we can't verify (with regards to what's been linked to here, I mean).Saying that there's no reason for someone to lie isn't any indication that they're not, unto itself. I'm not saying she is, but at the same time I haven't seen any impetus to give her the benefit of the doubt. It's also odd to consider that she has a copy of a contract that she's not a party to.I think you mean &quot;nonnegotiable,&quot; and in that regard I agree; while there can be confusion over the status of something as canon or not, there's a very clear final arbiter, which is the IP holder (though they can be silent on various topics). That said, the issue of something &quot;being told multiple times&quot; doesn't matter in the slightest - canonity isn't a popularity contest, and it doesn't depend on any degree of public acceptance. I also don't think that it's a necessary presumption that Ed would have clarified things if this were not the case, since that creates an expectation that &quot;this must be true, since we'd have been told if it was false.&quot;Possibly, but I think it's better not to assume reasons.Except that that is meaningless, insofar as it has no particular impact besides players wanting details with the nebulous stamp of &quot;official&quot; on them, for their own personal desire to not use &quot;unofficial&quot; material. That's what I was talking about before, with regards to such a contractual stipulation having no particular force or effect in any regard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 6639453, member: 8461"] The fact that it's "enough" for people isn't meeting any sort of objective standard, though, which is kind of what "canonity" is all about, e.g. it's an objective status bestowed by the highest authority, and so doesn't rely on any degree of public acceptance. As the holders of a given intellectual property are the ones who hold that title, the claim of someone else to have any similar status, even if they're the original creators of said property but no longer own it, must therefore be subject to scrutiny. In this case, the question of "Ed trusting her to speak on his behalf" is itself something that we're being asked to take at face value, at least insofar as the links you've posted go. I'm not trying to be paranoid, nor suggest that there's any level of foul play involved, but I'm a pretty firm believer in "trust but verify." That she says that she's speaking in Ed's voice - to the point of writing that the content of her posts is a reply of his that he's dictating to her - is something that we can't verify (with regards to what's been linked to here, I mean). Saying that there's no reason for someone to lie isn't any indication that they're not, unto itself. I'm not saying she is, but at the same time I haven't seen any impetus to give her the benefit of the doubt. It's also odd to consider that she has a copy of a contract that she's not a party to. I think you mean "nonnegotiable," and in that regard I agree; while there can be confusion over the status of something as canon or not, there's a very clear final arbiter, which is the IP holder (though they can be silent on various topics). That said, the issue of something "being told multiple times" doesn't matter in the slightest - canonity isn't a popularity contest, and it doesn't depend on any degree of public acceptance. I also don't think that it's a necessary presumption that Ed would have clarified things if this were not the case, since that creates an expectation that "this must be true, since we'd have been told if it was false." Possibly, but I think it's better not to assume reasons. Except that that is meaningless, insofar as it has no particular impact besides players wanting details with the nebulous stamp of "official" on them, for their own personal desire to not use "unofficial" material. That's what I was talking about before, with regards to such a contractual stipulation having no particular force or effect in any regard. [/QUOTE]

Verification