The Debate
taken from page: "The definition of Carnymancy used above has become so broad that it now can encompass every known magic effect or spell, including Uncroaked (freak shows, houses of horror), Thinkamancies (mind-reading shows and mesmerism), or even Predictamancies (crystal balls and fortune telling)."
I want this clarified before it goes back. Are you saying that the "definition" of Carnymancy (as pertaining to Carnivals and Carnies) is so all-encompassing (of all things... carnivally?) that it can be attributed to anything (ie Carnivals contain everything under the sun); or, are you saying that the cases made for the different powers stray beyond that definition? (ie shell games and lion taming don't pertain to Carnivals or Carnies exactly and thus don't count) Or are you saying something else?
Because frankly this statement seems to be overreaching hyperbole at best, and complete BS at worst. Zombies = freakshows? What? House of horror, okay, but that's not real zombies, is it? The other two are more reasonable, but given that we know they both have their own Disciplines, why can't you just accept those as exceptions? It's not like we have other established Disciplines for Flight and Transmogrification. Yeah there's a case that Dwagon Taming is Thinkamancy, but if you believe that, make that case.
That Carnymancy actually covers all those powers is a stretch, and you're welcome to make that argument - though when I made a similar statement it got deleted (by guess who). If you think Carnymancy could be applied to almost anything, fine, you can say that, and you'd be right. But don't give bogus examples and watch the tone - try making a point about the actual powers, like what other Disciplines might more likely fit. That you could fit other Disciplines' spells under the Carnymancy umbrella is not a good argument - that one of the spells currently being placed under that umbrella would more likely belong to another Discipline is.
Because we know nothing about the parameters of Carnymancy it's still in the realm of plausibility (so long as the explanations make sense) that a given power could be Carnymancy. The same is not true of Shockmancy, which has one established spell, and which no one has argued could be behind the other abilities.CIHN July 30
- I think the point of the line is that the way powers are being attributed to Carnymancy is so broad that you could weasel just about anything into it. So, for instance, while in carnival games walnuts are not really turned into pigeons, Carnymancy does it for real. This would then seem to continue along the lines of "while the zombies, ghosts, etc in houses of horror at carnivals aren't real, in Carnymancy they are. While 'mind-readers' at carnivals can't really read your mind, but seem to, Carnymancers really can". Of course the point is that we have no idea what Carnymancy really is, and the definition used to "explain" some of the 'hammer's powers is really kind of useless once taken to the end, as Carnymancy very likely does not overlap with either Thinkamancy or Croakamancy, or any other 'mancy for that matter. From what we've seen, magic is fairly limited. I don't think this needs to be removed, only clarified.User:Knight Mayor 30 July 9:13 am EST
- I have replaced this line in a very simplified form. In my opinion the debate doesn't belong on this page at all, since the very fact that it is so widely contested means it's not even close to wikiworthy, but I left it up out of consideration for the amount of work put into it. I strongly recommend editors put work into making this area short, as it's currently most of the article and not of any guaranteed value. The wiki, particularly the article itself rather than its talk pages, are not the place for these debates: the forum, which has a long thread about this, is. --> ERK!|eyeBook me 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll agree that this argument is best placed on a forum, but I'd also like to chime in that I think a summary of the current arguments in play is a perfectly reasonable write-up on this wiki (whether on the Arkenhammer page or in its own box somewhere). After all, "wikiworthy" here translates to "useful", and there's certainly use in being able to read a summary rather than a long thread's backlog. Menlo Marseilles 20:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The following does not belong on Arkenhammer; I think there is a similar comment on Arkentools, where it belongs; if not, I'll put it in.
- "Rockwell, like Stanley, Wanda, and Charlescomm, has a name which is associated in the Real World with corporations that make or use tools. This suggests that Sizemore may someday attune to an Arkentool. Given that Sizemore's first name is also associated with a form of shovel, it also seems plausible that Sizemore might eventually acquire the Arkenshovel. If every Arkentool is associated with a form of Fate magic, then which type of Fate magic might the hypothetical Arkenshovel possess? Since Sizemore is a Dirtamancer, and Dirtamancy and Changemancy are both forms of Stuffamancy, it seems possible it might be Changemancy."
Unless this is being used to indicate the Arkenhammer is unlikely a Changemancy Tool if the "shovel" is. However, I don't think a speculation on the powers of a speculative Tool should be used as evidence against another Tool. CIHN
New comic seems to indicate that Wanda believes as I do, and the whole Shock/Carny/Change argument is pointless. Can't take it down completely, but it gives me hope. CIHN