bonesiii

Why does that quote mean it couldn't be the Matoran? The Matoran did build it as far as I know. Pretty much everything there except Kini-Nui was built by them.

*psst* If you really think Greg meant that, just go ask him.

FTR, while Greg probably still does, if this is in response to the quote NS posted, that was from a while ago now. NS was posting it because it's relevant to things people were saying here, not as a new Greg quote. (But it's not that far back either. Just so we're clear, since those timestamps can be easy to miss. )

I agree with most of that. (But I don't see myself as fighting human nature but as a student of it. And it does seem like my asking did get him to "open the vault" and make it clearer why he was disagreeing -- the thing about Ockham's Razor. A little uneasy about the whole analogy too, BTW, as it seems kind of manipulative. I don't want to trick them into opening the vault the way I might get my dog to want to eat by putting some treats in the food; I prefer to appeal to people as people who can recognize when they should open up a vault as it were.) But this has gotten far afield now, so if you wanna know more, best to take it to PM at this point I'd say. On-topic: Do you think maybe a poll about specific sizes might be worth it at this point? I have no idea, and given how early on here tempers flared, not sure it would be wise... but we shouldn't let the canon suffer just because of that, if this is a problem we can come to a consensus on a proposal to bring to Greg. (And we can always remind people of the rules here.) But I for one am a little curious if people are thinking "down to half" like I am or something even smaller. (Or even "nowhere near as small as half but a bit smaller.)

Hm. Well, I was just saying that the topic starter's idea that masks were used because the Matoran weren't worthy seems inconsistent with the Agori society back before all the bad events we know of when GBs were in charge and highly honored, and yet they didn't ask Agori to wear masks. So if that was a GB intention as the first post seemed to say, it would seem to come "out of the blue." Your response looked to me to talk about events that all happened after that time. Does that help? It could still happen... I guess I'm just asking for a specific case as to how. (And it seems unlikely the story team intended this.)

Still not entirely seeing your point... can I venture a guess and lemme know if it's anywhere near the mark? Are you suggesting perhaps the GBs made the Matoran to need to wear masks so they couldn't refuse to do so, and actually wanted the Agori to wear them? (Or suggesting this idea would help the theory?) I would agree the Agori wouldn't necessarily want to, even if that was a thing for the GBs, but I'm just saying, it seems more likely this isn't a factor in why Matoran have masks at all. I think the idea that maybe GBs themselves wore masks and/or like the idea of them is probably closer. Edit: Also, are you saying did catch that I was talking pre-EL? Because I'm still wondering why you brought up later events. As for timeless, I don't know what you mean or how it's relevant... Also, how would you deal with the fact that many MU characters didn't wear masks, which I also mentioned?

I still don't see how it's relevant. As far as I can tell, you're listing things that happened after the GB rule I was talking about. Although admittedly those failures could certainly change their perspective, but you'd think it would be more humbling. I was thinking you were driving at something like that, but it looks more like you missed that I was talking about pre-EL society?

Why do you bring that up, lar? I didn't see anything about it in your post?

Problem is (aside from the masks already having a purpose as Eyru and others said), why would they be considered unworthy for their faces being seen? I have actually used something close to this as a fan-fictional custom in my retelling in Agori society to have the Matoran character explain why he's wearing a mask before Matoran are supposed to exist, and a similar one in the MU with a helmet. But in those cases there were reasons why something like unworthiness would make sense. Matoran in general haven't done anything to deserve such a punishment, and masks are universal to them. Only thing that's coming to mind is a sign of respect to the Great Spirit and/or Great Beings, but why then do Agori not have to wear masks in their society previously ruled by the GBs? If this was the intent, it would just come out of the blue, apparently. (And why not everybody wear them, then?)

Because the whole planet isn't a single substance as mentioned earlier (presumably), and once it reaches the center, gravity would keep it in place. It was also proposed that transformation of the immediately touching rock into a resistant form (like maybe exsidian) could be the final step, until later for some reason some EP started moving up to form the spring. To the earlier long post, all I really have to say is something I didn't have time to mention before -- as far as I know it isn't my idea. I have no idea who at the time first recognized that it was the obvious implication from the canon, maybe it was me, maybe somebody else or lots of others. It appears to be the canon's writers' idea, but if it is somehow a wrong theory, it's whoever's theory who first suggested it (at least to those like maybe me who heard it from others). I didn't mind it being called mine too much since I do agree with it obviously, but then there's the angle of seeming to steal credit (and forgetting who exactly actually deserves the credit... not something I usually care about lol), so FTR. Edit: Also, I would think that the things I pointed out would also be "doughnuts" in the analogy. Gaining more ability to appreciate a wider range of variation can only be a good thing. And my pointing out a practical way to go about it should be taken as help in doing so. I'd also suggest, though I think you get this now, that if to offer a doughnut you feel you have to fire a cannonball at somebody else, maybe that's a doughnut you should claim for yourself, unless you're on a diet. Or something. Okay, let's say... a delicious salad.

fishers, I'm gonna have to read most of your post later, but just FTR in case you were worried, I wasn't offended. I just saw you calling something boring, that I didn't find boring, and while I accept that due to your tastes it's perfectly okay for it to be, just wanted to try to explain some of why I personally don't find it so. Also, I thought I said it may be going on here, not was. *checks back real quick* Well, "probably", but yeah. "May" or "might" would have been better, as well as my usual emphasis on "something to consider and ignore if it's not the case" -- but for longtime members I usually drop that as I presume most of them would get that automatically. Maybe it's best to err on the side of always mentioning that if I bring it up at all? On-topic: Yeah, who knows about density, really. Let's just say that it could play a role in connecting this subject back to the giant robot's size, but further thought (and maybe info we'll never have) would be needed to figure out how. FTR, the liquid moving thing was directed at the pipe-from-core issue, not density. Sorry for the confusion. (If that's still not clear, feel free to ask and I'll try to explain it.) And acidity was about why EP might be in the core, again not about density. Incidently, I'm not clear on what you mean by "maze core", but probably my fault for skimming (okay, the evil clock's fault ). If you've already explained it that I missed, feel free to ignore this. IB, wouldn't you agree, though, that if the units are just redefined, it is actually just a roundabout way to shrink the size in the units we were given, so just retconning the amount of units down would be the same thing but more direct? (And probably less confusing to most fans?) I still like the idea just 'cuz of the side effect of having Toa at set size, but it's 15 years too late.

I don't know if he took the question right or not (not sure how the asker meant it anyways ), but it might make some sense for him to cut to the chase on denying a quick version in case the questioner did mean that; I got that vibe from this wording, but can't be sure. But how quick is quick? I forget the original wording about Vader, but I seem to recall some sense of 'quick' in his wording there, which at the time made me wonder if he had missed the earlier (subtle) hints to it, making it not so quick. If you miss those, Vader looks like an example of a sudden turnaround, but it seems Lucas intended it very differently, and was letting viewers feel smart if they caught those hints that it wasn't sudden at all. If Greg did catch that, then his Vader example means he's against even gradual turnarounds. I do think the Barraki are probably a bad example for a turnaround at all. (But I can't think of a better example offhand, probably because Greg intentionally writes most of his villains as bad candidates for it, heh.)

I was curious since I might want to use that cape piece myself in the future -- yes, it helps, but it doesn't go all the way down, just about halfway between the default connection and the cape.

I picked "don't know" because it was the closest option to what IMO should have been included -- "lock except for good proposals discussed-out thoroughly among the fans".

Nice idea with the genie out of the bottle piece choices. About the necks, you might be able to cheat (depends on how the cape pieces work, unsure) to get the heads lower. Try putting a vertical lightsaber blade piece nearby (or some such thing), and attaching something like a wrench piece to it (something gripping the cylinder). Then select both a head and the gripping piece, and slide the gripping piece down on the bar. That will give you more precision control (normally). I've used this to move heads closer to torsos before, but not that I recall with those specific pieces. If that doesn't work, you can always somewhat hide the issue by changing the angle of your printscreens to look down on the characters a little so the gap is less obvious.

Yeah, this is an old idea of Greg's. He gave the example of Darth Vader's turnaround at one point on the old forums as seeming unrealistic to him. I don't get it, but it's one of his things. I suspect he doesn't mean that villains can't change but that "good" villains (the kind he enjoys for story antagonists) don't. But unsure... doesn't sound that way in this wording. Note that he did tell a redemption story of sorts with Brutaka, which was one of my favorites. He might be generalizing to have a short answer, as he usually doesn't say more than a sentence or two at a time.

As you know, I liked your idea, but either way requires a retcon. I don't agree that it doesn't make sense -- it's just non-canon (just like a smaller amount of those units to make it fit on Earth-sized planet is also non-canon). I do think shrinking the amount of units is an easier retcon than shrinking how big that unit is, though, at this point. I think your idea would have worked great had it been adopted and promoted in 2001 but it's too late for it (at least if you also shrink Toa/etc.... I suppose that part is unneeded... might be worth considering... but since then we're really just shrinking the giant in terms of real-world feet and people will 'translate' that to Earth miles/kilometers, might as well shrink the amount of "feet" ). Okay, Thormen, I read your latest post in more detail. Some highlights: -Good point about the magma theory being problematic with the heat being near EP. The traditional theory (due to the collapse problem I mentioned earlier; I don't recall this one being brought up) has been that due to the planet's massive size and stresses that could cause, there were some pockets of magna near the surface but that the core was solid. This was before Greg chimed in about gravity, though, and I don't recall seeing the topic revisited since that. -I agree the pipe thing is an issue, but it's been an issue in various ways with every interpretation, because something that transforms or destroys most (vast majority of?) substances being forced up through who knows-how-many things to a well is odd from the get-go. That may suggest a natural formation of a substance (I theorize exsidian-rich rock) that forms a pipelike shape and function. That could work under many theories including yours, methinks (it would be difficult with the majority-magma theory though). We do have to keep in mind too that the substance has self-motive abilities (whether consciously controlled by the Entity or not, though as far as I know we've only heard of the former). So the normal rules of a liquid's behavior might not apply. -About why the EP is there, my basic theory (regardless of how the Shattering works) is that if it was ever anywhere else, it ate like an acid through most substances and gravity naturally made it end up there early in the planet's history. In your theory, if it wasn't always there, most likely the other explosive would be a product of EP transformation. (Or maybe something else was, which reacted with it in your idea, and didn't exist there before because EP was, but now we're adding yet another unknown. ) -To fishers' question about how the GBs would know the other substance is there, that's actually easy -- same ways we know the basic composition of our own core. They could then naturally want to find a bit of it on the surface and see how it reacts to conditions related to EP. That still doesn't fit the image with the table explosion, though; it looks like it's contact with the substance that causes the explosion, not a lack of EP or whatnot. Normally it should be, yeah, but I had already done that, and he kept asking me why and not accepting that answer, and he wasn't accepting to just agree to disagree on it, so at that point, normally that's when considering there might be something else going on is best. (Many times in the past, BTW, this has still in the long run proved best even in the few cases where they misinterpret at first. Misinterpretations can be cleared up with further discussion. But if nothing is done to try to identify the reason for the unusual responses, usually it never gets better. Remains to be seen how he'll react after this, though. FTR, it might be best to just drop it and let him continue it by PM if he feels the need.) It looks like a better approach might have been to scrutinize the line I breezed past about Ockham's Razor. I forget how he worded it before, but now it looks like he disagrees with it in general (which I wouldn't have imagined). But I only barely noticed the earlier statement, so had no idea he meant something like what he now seems to mean. Regardless, unless he chooses to explain, I dunno what else to say there. Although it might help to point out that I've recently started considering that so important as to deserve a fifth spot after my old four rules for effective truthseeking (open mind / systematic uncertainty, sound logic, all-inclusive research, and considering all possibilities). Ockham's Razor is very useful in my experience. But I don't know why he seems to think it isn't so don't know how else to start going about showing him why. BTW, fishers, please remember my response was aimed more at you than Thormen anyways, since you had actually said the old normal theory was "boring". You brought it up, so it's frankly unfair of you to act like my commenting on that was somehow unwarranted. It was partly a defense of it in response to your saying that. I only mentioned that it might be the case with others because I'd actually been wondering that based on several clues in their posts, and I took your seeming to voice that as likely confirmation I was on the right track. Still not convinced I wasn't, too. But I'm always up for even more experimentation with even more ways to do things, and trying some weird blend of total silence on personal taste's role might be worth trying out... I just suspect it will hurt more than help, as leaving elphants in rooms to grow usually doesn't end well. I actually suspect the opposite might be the problem; that it's gone unsaid too often of late... but I'm not sure because the fanbase is aging and everything changes when that happens, often in ways hard to predict from past experience. And... outta time again... Anywho. Giant robotserzorz.... >___>

50? I remember three, maybe five or six. Most of the time it seems to have the opposite effect and people appreciate the help or attempted help at getting to the bottom of something that was evidently causing them annoyance. People are hard to predict, what can I say? Then again, that's my memory lol. (Also, I don't speculate; I bring it up when there's good reason based on things they've said to think it may be the case. ) And if it IS around 50 due to how long I've been doing this, the positive reactions are still way beyond anything I could guess a number at. Incidently, always trying to understand people is one of the best ways to try to figure out when it'll have its intended effect and when not. If somebody doesn't like being attempted to be understood, that's only going to compound the problem, you know? I'm not telepathic; I can only go based on what they say. (But I won't even assume that's what's going on here, heh. ) So, we would have Munty's solid EP version as most dense, in your interpretation, Thormen's as a mix, other mixes possible then on a range to pure EP liquid core? I guess that works. Not sure about required though -- different solids can have different densities. [Wait... I thought you said MORE dense... The above post made me catch this though. I would think the liquid would be more dense? If it's anything like water, anyways. Then again, that depends on the molten vs. solid nature of the rock; I have argued it is probably not mostly molten since Bara didn't collapse inward, but we don't know that. And of course, on the substances involved. Anywho. I grant that it's possible. ]

Pretty sure it was the prototype. Remember, it wasn't stabilized before the discovery of EP -- the prototype exploded and was left there until Mata Nui came along and had it put back together. I think there was something about the GBs having realized by that time that EP could stabilize it and leaving instructions. Right -- we shouldn't assume it is resistant. That's just shorthand for its being confirmed as that ingredient and the theory based on that that it's probably resistant. (The GBs had to have something resistant for that vial... not necessarily exsidian though.) No, it's not subjective -- when one explanation relies on extra unknowns that another doesn't have, that's a definite difference between the two. Doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but it does help show what appears more or less likely. And yes, I was talking about that, as far as I recall (though this has covered a lot of subjects, so not sure if that applies to everything). I thought I made that clear, but apparently not, so my bad. I don't know how to take the rest of what you said as it comes across as... well, your words literally appear to say you think Ockham's Razor is "completely pointless." I hope you didn't mean it that way, though... but without a clarification I don't know what else to say. *reads to the end* Uh... Okay? There was no attitude except enjoying considering ideas about a toy. I did think it odd that the Shattering wouldn't be taken as evidence of explosive properties, so if that offended you, I'm sorry. But I think odd and silly things too. [Edit: Er... I think odd and silly things... far odder and sillier than anybody else. I didn't mean your idea was odd or silly. >_<] As for how the topic started, I don't know exactly what you mean, but you seem to want to say something, so please consider sending me a PM about it. Just be willing to hear me out too and consider you may have misjudged. You generally seem like a reasonable person, and it's disappointing that somehow you have reached that kind of point. Please know that there's never any need to hesitate to bring up constructive criticism to me (although if you consider it personal, PMs are probably best ). Pet peeve of mine that people think they need to walk on eggshells around staff members. You really don't -- if you have a concern, you are absolutely free to (respectfully) voice it. And I always want that; the main reason I'm on here is to find ways to always keep improving. As for fishers, I didn't see a criticism except assuming that I had assumed something or closed my mind to something (still not sure where that came from since I had clearly stated otherwise earlier, but okay; she probably missed that too lol). But it's against my rules to do that. (Literally; I actually wrote up rules that include that. I was a bit surprised fishers leaped to that assumption as previous statements had led me to believe she had read my posts about that, but I didn't mention it because nobody's under any obligation to remember what silly old me happens to write, heh.) Also the 'accusation' thing -- maybe you did take it that way? I expected since you're usually so reasonable that you wouldn't take it that way and would find it a possibly helpful suggestion to consider, but maybe not. See, I just don't consider personal tastes something to be offended about. I admit sometimes that works against me as I forget that sometimes people do, but to me it's so ingrained that all personal tastes are equal I can forget that honest curiousity about them can be taken as "are you a shrink?" If somebody wants a more complex explanation, nothing wrong with that, and if that IS what's behind it (and I'd noticed the pattern and it seemed similar to a pattern I'd followed myself -- another reason I would find being offended at it odd, BTW ) -- and identifying that, and that Bionicle (if Bionicle) wasn't aimed at that particular taste by bad luck, can help be more okay with it (if they do, as you put it, find the one they used or seemed to use more boring). In retrospect, though, the "laughing at it" part proooobably didn't go down too well. >_< I meant it as self-deprecation... but yeah. (And the electric poles thing alone... but it could be taken the wrong way now that I think about it. Anyways, outta time again... and fair warning: I had to skim some parts of these latest two posts... hope that doesn't mess things up. We'll see if I have time to look more closely at every part tommorrow, but this is a bad time. Thormen, please remember that you had kept asking me for more details, and I've gone way out of my way to try to answer you. Please try to consider how it may not be fair to then get angry if I wasn't crystal clear on everything. I just don't have that kind of time anymore. It sounds like you get that from a similar situation. No hard feelings, man? And since you asked for the moderator-level -- everybody, please remember at all times to keep this subject in perspective. Thanks. (Also, we really should try to reconnect it back up to planet size and thus the giant robot's size, heh.)

And I still stand behind what I wrote there. Then it seems like we're still having the discussion because, you're not accepting points raised why there are problems with "equally likely"? I haven't seen you respond to most of them, and since you're now saying you don't even know why I disagree with that part (incidentally, why single out this one paragraph? You've done that twice now?), that's puzzling. I thought I explained why. Anyways, I wasn't assuming anything, but just suggesting that might be what's going on with Munty and you, since you have been continuing to suggest and promote more complicated alternatives. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a trend I've noticed in a lot of people so the possibility is worth considering here. I don't do that, fishers. I was saying the one I mentioned appears to be canon and/or the most canonically plausible. That doesn't mean alternatives are impossible... but it does make them more complicated (if the scenario in question is more complicated anyways), which probably makes is it more unlikely. Just keep this thing in perspective, okay? As much as other versions might seem good in this kind of discussion, the story wasn't aimed at this sort of discussion. It's perfectly fine to consider alternatives, just be realistic about how likely they are. (Of course, you don't really have to do that either, but Thormen keeps pressing the question of why I happened to disagree on that one point, so yeah. Anyways, while I'm posting, one more point to your idea, Thormen -- more evidence in its favor -- you mentioned "stabilizing" something, and fishers mentioned exsidian as the only known substance not destroyed/transformed by it. But I'm not sure about that, since wasn't it EP that was said to stabilize the power source of the prototype robot? (I... think?) And as far as I know that wasn't exsidian. Regardless of what that was, we do know that stabilizing things and itself being explosive are within the range of possible behaviors for EP. The gap in knowledge here is that we only know of EP in the core, which makes that the more likely theory. (Make sense? Plus, it was "common knowledge", which as I mentioned might be wrong, but we can't track that down with endless back-and-forth between ourselves; yall need to go look for quotes or go ask Greg if he recalls now. ) Edit: First, fishers, that was consulting them. Second, why are you taking it as an "accusation"? There's nothing wrong with having that preference.

Thormen has already said he's proposing another explosive that we don't know of, so that's more complicated. And draining is the cause in my understanding; a reaction with a substance used somehow in it. (Not directly in my retelling's version, though).

No need to apologize -- I find it funny too (now).

I think this is actually probably the key to what's going on here -- an emotional desire for it to be something more than it was intended to be, which, details aside, was simply an explosion of EP (without really worrying about how plausible it was). I think maybe we're so used to that now, that we assume that's "boring", but it was once a new idea, and any new ideas now can get old to us too. (Of course, original reactions to it varied too, as taste often does.) I notice this trend in many areas of life -- people want to see more than what's there, because they assume what's there is boring if it's relatively simple. What I've discovered is the truly interesting thing is to actually learn to embrace the (relatively) simple, and find value in understanding the logical reasons they are that way and not some 'flashy' but nonsensical way. I've given the example before of electric poles. I used to find them so boringly ugly as to wish they didn't exist, but as I understand more and more about how things work and why things are how they are, I realize it's actually fairly brilliant. The surprising nature of their existing even though human nature wants something flashier is in itself incredibly bold. I means people dared to do something for reasons actually more important than superficial ones. Nothing wrong with the flashier things either, especially if they do fit in a world and/or context where for that time and place they are the practical things, but yeah. And let's register the irony here given how things went on the first few pages LOL.

Uh... what? No... ever heard of dominos, C4, etc.? And we're talking about a "chain reaction", remember? To your next, can we please stop playing "rewind the discussion"? If you want to know why I responded to some part of a long discussion, go back to the response to that part and read it and its context. I don't have time to dig it up. And I don't understand why you're confused about that one, since you said you now get that it did explode. But it sounds like this idea that only one cause can be to blame and has to be right at the start is behind it. If so, that would be where you're getting confused. [And re-reading it more closely, it looks like I did explain clearly why I disagree with it, in the responses to them! Just go back and read the whole response. In short, the idea that there's another major explosive (not "first"; there was no hint in your post that you meant that) and EP was just a sideshow, is not equally likely canonically and I've explained in detail why. I think the biggest problem is with Ockham's Razor; you're inventing a non-canon major explosive when we already have a canon one.] See my previous post about that. I don't see why you're making such a big deal of first, when explosions normally don't work like that anyways. But even when they do, by no means does it mean you can or should only talk about the first part instead of the most important part. When C4 goes off in the standard military system, a different explosive goes off first, but it's C4 that really causes the door to be blown open etc. Nobody seems confused on that, so why the confusion here? Or to apply a radically different example that isn't about explosives but cause and effect, in the Two Towers, when the Ents broke the dam and flooded Isengard, they used the water to cause the disaster, and it's most notable because it had the most power, but it wasn't what happened first -- first they smashed supports for the rock holding the water back. (And there's no real first anyways... because THAT happened because of Saruman cutting down trees, which happened in turn for reasons etc. What you call first is arbitrary anyways, usually. Admittedly if the question is "what exploded first?" something can be picked, like the detonator cap to C4, but the detonator cap or the Ent attack or the contact with the material of that table or whatever isn't the main cause of the distastrous results; it's the big part that those things cause. Cause and effect is a chain/tree, not a single thing. The main cause is C4 exploding, water flooding Isengard, and EP exploding causing the Shattering. Does that help? )

There's no "started" in those quotes -- you added that. And it wasn't that many posts back, but if you missed it, that's okay. Now you know. But it's pretty simple logic, no? (Again, unless, as I also said then, the EP just decided it was destiny to explode then. But probably something else had to contact it to start it somehow or another, and presumably it was the substance of that table. That's not at all inconsistent with the EP exploding and causing the Shattering!) Okay, thanks for saying it outright now. If you don't make it clear you accept that your earlier idea was (or might be) wrong, it's hard to know how to interpret your posts, so... well, worth a double thanks. I was never commenting on what exploded first, to be crystal clear, and the idea seems questionable in light of typical chemistry anyways; explosions aren't normally one thing or the other exploding, they're a reaction, and the explosion is the result of that reaction from BOTH. And outta time for posts on the next page... Later (if need be).