[009]
Wyldchyld
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
As I stated before, none of us know the motives of the writers. We\'re not psychic. You have made the assumption that the reason the science is inaccurate is because the writers screwed up. We don\'t know if they screwed up or made a deliberate decision to sacrifice science.
to:
As I stated before, none of us know the motives of the writers. You have made the assumption that the reason the science is inaccurate is because the writers screwed up. We don\\\'t know if they screwed up or made a deliberate decision to sacrifice science.
Changed line(s) 11 from:
n
I think ALP works as a suitable compromise so that the occurrence can be troped without needing to know what the creators were thinking. What I think Zaptech was saying (and he can correct me if I\'m wrong) is that ALP is about what is scientifically inaccurate and how -- but what you cannot do with an objective trope is make it audience reaction, such as having YMMV arguments about details, or start speculating about the author\'s level of knowledge. You simply point out the event happened and the context in which it happened in an objective way.
to:
I think ALP works as a suitable compromise so that the occurrence can be troped without needing to know what the creators were thinking. What I think Zaptech was saying (and he can correct me if I\\\'m wrong) is that ALP is about what is scientifically inaccurate and how -- but what you cannot do with an objective trope is make it audience reaction, such as having YMMV arguments about scientific details or speculating about the author\\\'s level of knowledge relative to educational attainment levels. You simply point out the event happened and the context in which it happened in an objective way.
Changed line(s) 11 from:
n
I think ALP works as a suitable compromise so that the occurrence can be troped without needing to know what the creators were thinking. What I think Zaptech was saying (and he can correct me if I\'m wrong) is that ALP is about what is scientifically inaccurate and how -- but what you cannot do with an objective trope is describe how the audience feels about that inaccuracy, have YMMV arguments about details, or start speculating about the author\'s level of knowledge. You simply point out the event happened and the context in which it happened in an objective way.
to:
I think ALP works as a suitable compromise so that the occurrence can be troped without needing to know what the creators were thinking. What I think Zaptech was saying (and he can correct me if I\\\'m wrong) is that ALP is about what is scientifically inaccurate and how -- but what you cannot do with an objective trope is make it audience reaction, such as having YMMV arguments about details, or start speculating about the author\\\'s level of knowledge. You simply point out the event happened and the context in which it happened in an objective way.
Changed line(s) 11 from:
n
I think ALP works as a suitable compromise so that the occurrence can be troped without needing to know what the creators were thinking. What I think Zaptech was saying (and he can correct me if I\'m wrong) is that ALP is about what is scientifically inaccurate and how -- but what you cannot do with an objective trope is describe how the audience feels about that inaccuracy, having YMMV arguments about details, or start speculating about the author\'s level of knowledge. You simply point out the event happened and the context in which it happened in an objective way.
to:
I think ALP works as a suitable compromise so that the occurrence can be troped without needing to know what the creators were thinking. What I think Zaptech was saying (and he can correct me if I\\\'m wrong) is that ALP is about what is scientifically inaccurate and how -- but what you cannot do with an objective trope is describe how the audience feels about that inaccuracy, have YMMV arguments about details, or start speculating about the author\\\'s level of knowledge. You simply point out the event happened and the context in which it happened in an objective way.
Changed line(s) 11 from:
n
I think ALP works as a suitable compromise so that the occurrence can be troped without needing to know what the creators were thinking. Where I disagree with Zaptech is in the idea that ALP shouldn\'t mention why it\'s scientifically inaccurate. That\'s the point of the trope -- that it\'s a scientifically inaccurate. What you cannot do with an objective trope is describe how the audience feels about that inaccuracy or start speculating about the author\'s level of knowledge. You simply point out the event happened and the context in which it happened in an objective way.
to:
I think ALP works as a suitable compromise so that the occurrence can be troped without needing to know what the creators were thinking. What I think Zaptech was saying (and he can correct me if I\\\'m wrong) is that ALP is about what is scientifically inaccurate and how -- but what you cannot do with an objective trope is describe how the audience feels about that inaccuracy, having YMMV arguments about details, or start speculating about the author\\\'s level of knowledge. You simply point out the event happened and the context in which it happened in an objective way.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
So, given the fact that this is a magical, fantasy setting that regularly tosses away or twists real life science to suit the magic and fantasy setting, we\'re stuck with needing some kind of context from them regarding what they might have been thinking. Until we have that kind of guideline, we\'re just engaging in speculative troping about the creators. Even YMMV isn\'t supposed to engage in speculative troping.
to:
So, given the fact that this is a magical, fantasy setting that regularly tosses away or twists real life science to suit the magic and fantasy setting, we\\\'re stuck with needing some kind of context from them regarding what they might have been thinking that we wouldn\\\'t normally need in a work with a solid expectation for science to not be tossed or twisted. Until we have that kind of guideline, we\\\'re just engaging in speculative troping about the creators. Even YMMV isn\\\'t supposed to engage in speculative troping.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
CriticalResearchFailure requires us to know that the creators were trying to use real life science properly and completely screwed that up. That\'s really easy to know when the work is supposedly set in the real world or based in science-fiction, where the expectation is for the science to be correct. In a magical, fantasy setting it is not possible to make this assumption because it\'s common, and even normal, for real life science to be tossed out the window in favour of magic or the flavour of magic.
to:
CriticalResearchFailure requires us to know that the creators were trying to use real life science properly and completely screwed that up. That\\\'s really easy to know when the work is supposedly set in the real world or based in science-fiction, where the expectation is for the science to be correct. In a magical, fantasy setting it is not possible to make this assumption because it\\\'s common, and even normal, for real life science to be tossed or twisted in favour of magic or the flavour of magic.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
CriticalResearchFailure requires us to know that the creators were trying to use real life science properly and completely screwed that up. That\'s really easy to do in a work that\'s supposedly set in the real world, or a work that\'s based in science-fiction, where the expectation is for the science to be correct. In a magical, fantasy setting it is not possible to make this assumption because it\'s common, and even normal, for real life science to be tossed out the window in favour of magic or the flavour of magic.
to:
CriticalResearchFailure requires us to know that the creators were trying to use real life science properly and completely screwed that up. That\\\'s really easy to know when the work is supposedly set in the real world or based in science-fiction, where the expectation is for the science to be correct. In a magical, fantasy setting it is not possible to make this assumption because it\\\'s common, and even normal, for real life science to be tossed out the window in favour of magic or the flavour of magic.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
CriticalResearchFailure requires us to know for a fact that the creators were trying to use real life science properly and completely screwed that up. That\'s really easy to do in a work that\'s supposedly set in the real world, or a work that\'s based in science-fiction, where the expectation is for the science to be correct. In a magical, fantasy setting it is not possible to make this assumption because it\'s common, and even normal, for real life science to be tossed out the window in favour of magic or the flavour of magic.
to:
CriticalResearchFailure requires us to know that the creators were trying to use real life science properly and completely screwed that up. That\\\'s really easy to do in a work that\\\'s supposedly set in the real world, or a work that\\\'s based in science-fiction, where the expectation is for the science to be correct. In a magical, fantasy setting it is not possible to make this assumption because it\\\'s common, and even normal, for real life science to be tossed out the window in favour of magic or the flavour of magic.
