Just cleaning up some of the language. CIHN
The page with all the resolutions on it is the Commander Page. That page hasn't changed today, nor in some time, other than a little rewording of the resolutions. If you look up at the Proposed Canon of that page, you'll see two simple sentences that have not changed in a while that make all that resolution nonsense unnecessary.
As far as the Warlord and Caster pages, I have done nothing that significantly changes the essence of what has been on those pages since mid-June. I have added and removed words for grammar and clarity, retitled a couple sections for clarity, and restructured/added to one section, again, for clarity. If you want I will go back and look at the last person's edit before mine (even before my edit in June) and look to see if there is any conflicting information I may have edited out in error.
However, if you jump on the Warlord or Caster pages with a bunch of 'resolutions,' it will be you changing the status quo, not me.CIHN
I may have misspoken: I did change your edit of Commander, adding the word "the" twice, adding an "almost," changing "occasionally" to "less frequently," and adding a phrase of spec about formality. Pardon me.CIHN
- "However, Warlord is a specific term for leaders with the Leadership ability. Commander is a more general term, and also encompasses Casters, who do not have Leadership.Erf-b1-p084a Both CastersErf-b1-p017 and WarlordsErf-b1-p007 can be and have been called "Commander," even insisting on it,Erf-b1-p083 while both have also been referred to with their more specific terms. (Incidentally, Wanda Firebaugh was once referred to as "officer,"Erf-b1-p005, which we can only assume is a rarely-used synonym.)"
- Okay... what did I do wrong here? "Only Warlords have Leadership." Right? That's what the first sentence covers. "Casters are Commanders." That's like the first or second sentence of the Caster page. Casters don't have leadership because only Warlords have Leadership. Where am I going wrong? The rest is only proof that both Warlords and Casters have been called Commander by people who should know whether or not they are Commanders. What is the specific problem with what is written here? What part is unclear, or misleading, or hasn't been confirmed as best as can be? It all references directly the comic in the plainest terms. What would you rather it say?CIHN
DUDE: GET OVER YOURSELF. You are not the king of the wiki. You do not make the rules.
You started off by deleting my change and saying "it's cheating/unfair for something to be both an argument for one theory and also against another." That's bullshit. It doesn't have to be both, it's not always, but it can be, if it interacts with the two arguments differently and the argument against the one isn't just "it supports the other." I made a reasonable counter-argument against Shockmancy and a slightly less solid argument for Carnymancy. But because I used the same evidence to support both, you eliminated one - and not the less reasonable argument, but the more reasonable one. That's bias for your own argument, plain and simple.
I don't even BELIEVE that the hammer is Carnymancy-based, so how can I be biased? I support what I can and counter what I can. I don't know if you noticed, but I simply re-wrote my original arguments, thinking you were being ridiculous and draconian, but I stopped and re-deleted them - yes, Re-deleted my own argument - because I saw that perhaps I wasn't giving equal time, even though I hadn't done what you accused me of. So I re-thought and re-wrote my argument - Against Shockmancy, for Carnymancy, and in between on Changeamancy (which I had not commented on previously - and breaking down Shockmancy for one thing while leaving Changeamancy untouched was unfair. So I hit Changeamancy too.
The plain fact is, though, that the Shockmancy supporters ignore the other powers as irrelevant, while the Carnymancy followers at least attempt to include all possible powers in the discussion. Right or wrong, they're doing a better job of covering all their bases, and thus doing a better job of arguing their point - again, even if they're wrong, and even if the ways they include all the powers are flimsy. At least they're making the effort, and while perhaps unlikely, it's mostly plausible.
I said that Changemancy including lightning creation and flight was flimsy - and I believe that. If you find that rude, RE-WRITE IT TO BE POLITE WITHOUT CHANGING THE CONTENT OR DELETING IT OUT OF HAND. Rudeness is to be avoided, I'll grant you, but let's not throw out the argument with the bathwater. The cold fact is, you can make a (weak) case for Changemancy covering all the abilities - not as well as with Carnymancy, but better than Shockmancy. So, in this one aspect of the debate, there is a clear heirarchy of strength, and that should be made clear. If you don't want to use words like strong or weak, okay. I can go with that. But you find a polite, unbiased way to say that Shockmancy doesn't include the other disciplines, Carnymancy does, and Changemancy can try. Or I'll put in a rude, biased, way of saying it because that part of the argument belongs on there.
You've already shown yourself to be incredibly biased when you take a position and argue it (Disbanding leads to Barbarianism because deleting is too mean? And doesn't fit with your image of a benevolent god? Despite evidence that Erfworld is not a nice place?)
All three Disciplines have equal time and presence? Well, I'll go with presence, but equal time? What, there's a character count? That's stupid. Every viable argument should be put in, and if there are 18 reasons for one and only 1 for the other, deal with it. Maybe that 1 is the critical one, but there's no reason to pare down or obfuscate the arguments for or against any case being made.
Could I treat different ideas equally? Of course I could! Heck, you had me changing my position on parts of the Disbanding debate before the results came out. You saw the evidence in front of you! I even went to the forums to look for differing opinions on Commanders and Warlords because I wanted to see if there were any other rational explanations out there! I've shown time and again that I'm open to other ideas - when they make sense.
But you're so short-sighted - you've got tunnel vision - you see me add (not delete, mind you, add) to the case against one of the three - because that's the one I had an argument against that wasn't already up there - but because it's your pet theory, you assume it's some kind of attack or unfair biased maneuver to make the others look better.
Please note, again - I think ALL THREE arguments are wrong in their basic assumptions. However, given the evidence provided, I think Carnymancy is the best of the three. (Keeping in mind we know nothing about Carnymancy and it's completely speculative, which gives a lot more wiggle room for the time being).
Being unobjective doesn't mean you're going to do a hack job or cover up on the other choices; being an unscrupulous editor does. Just because you don't actively sabotage other arguments doesn't mean you're objective. I'll assume your deletion of my arguments is neither personal nor an attempt to sink the other arguments through wiki jackbooting, and is simply an overreaction based on a misguided view on what makes a fair argument. So let's be clear: I don't think you're unscrupulous, but I don't think you're objective.
You did a fair job of representing the arguments laid out so far (that I know of). Not saying you didn't. But then, the arguments in existence aren't the only ones that will ever be made, are they? You didn't start the page off wrong, but you've sure kept any new anti-Shockmancy arguments going up. Because that might unbalance things - unfavorably for you.
The wiki is about ideas - but you don't like my ideas, or how I present them, but rather than trying to clean up the presentation or, you know, asking me about what I put down, you summarily hacked them out once, then after I tried to improve them to your satisfaction (why would I do that?) you did it again.
I'm 'undermining my opponents?' HOW? First of all, I have no opponents - I merely make what arguments I can. I don't delete anyone else's work. THAT'S undermining, quite literally. You dig the ground out from under me, disallowing me from standing on my own argument. If it's BS, people will ignore it. If it's disprovable, people will disprove and delete it. If it's phrased poorly, people will fix it. THAT's how it should work.
WHAT BICKERING did I do? I mean, other than here on your talk page: I MADE TWO ARGUMENTS. When challenged (bushwacked, I should say) I STOPPED MYSELF from simply re-stating my argument; I didn't attack or defame you; instead I tried to RESTATE my arguments to be more fair and ADDED a third argument for the sake of completeness - not one I originally intended to take a stance on, but to be FAIR to all three arguments. Where is the bickering? Saying that lightning-by-Changemancy is a weak argument? That's bickering? What about "Shockmancy ignores the other powers?" Well, DOESN'T IT? Where's the bickering? Did I say "Those dirty Shockmancers don't bother to answer all the questions, the gits?" Do I complain that you put YOUR pet theory first, and Changemancy last? Do I EDIT the page to make Carnymancy first? NO. HELL NO. Because THAT would be disingenuous, underhanded, and petty.
BTW - Magicians are NOT Hat Magic, that's an uncorroborated theory, and while plenty likely, is NOT a valid disproof of levitation as Carnymancy. Do Hats make you levitate? No, not so much as we've seen. Did magicians tour with carnivals and circuses? Hell yes, they did. The two Disciplines are sisters, anyway - both Stagemancy, and levitating magicians would be Stagemancers because they were stage performers. We don't know which it might fit in. But if you want to argue the hammer is Hat Magic, go ahead. I won't do anything to stop you - other than point out the hammer is not a hat. Hopefully you'd let that argument stay up.
Shifting the argument from levitation by magicians to trapeze acts is NOT objective. It's manipulative. And it didn't improve my argument, you arrogant prick. Frankly I think it's weaker. But heck, if you think my argument is weak, leave it up! Let it be weak. That helps you. On the other hand, if you really think trapese acts is a reasonable argument for flight as Carnymancy, put it up ALONGSIDE my argument. I'm going to delete your version because I don't believe you take it seriously. If you do, please put it back up NEXT TO or as an addendum to or option inside my argument.CIHN
CARNYMANCY: You're right, when guessing about the powers of Carnymancy, it is very open to interpretation. That's what happens when you have such little information. I don't think it's quite as open as you say (but then, you're trying to make it out so that all such guessing is pointless; I wonder what you would say if you were trying to argue something was Carnymancy). The broad scope you attribute to it is, I think, going too much too far. But again, I think that's your point. To make it look more ridiculous than it is.
If we knew more about Carnymancy, we could begin to guess as to its limits. Unfortunately that is impossible right now. However the same is not true for Shockmancy. Having some idea of what it is, we have at least some perspective on it. Now, while I can't say using lightning isn't Shockmancy (it could very well be; though I think equating it to the known Shockmancy attack is wrong and undercutting the best argument for it), I can darn well bet that transmogrification and dwagon taming aren't. You, as far as I can tell, admit this; you write off all the other powers as unimportant or non-critical to identifying the hammer's nature. (Assuming, as you seem to, that it has a key discipline - I want to reiterate that I disagree with this central idea). If it did have a 'key' discipline, and other lesser disciplines, I would place my money on whatever discipline Dwagon taming is covered by, as I see that as being the hammer's chief power.
Yes, it's a stretch that ALL the hammer's powers are Carnymancy. That's why I don't believe that's the case. However, if the main debate is WHICH discipline the hammer is associated with, and not IF the hammer is so associated, I'm going to argue for the one I think is most plausible. The fact that nobody can argue that Shockmancy can cover all the hammer's powers is, to me, damning. I find also that Changemancy is an incredible longshot to be powering the hammer's myriad abilities. For Carnymancy, it's a real stretch, but you can make an argument for each power with a straight face, covering only things you might see at a carnival or circus. That's hardly definitive, and it's probably only possible while we still know nothing about Carnymancy, but it's still plausible until we get new info. It's not nearly as likely as the hammer just not being tied to any specific discipline, but it's plausible. Which makes it the best choice of the three.
Also, remember that Stanley talks about the hammer doing 'neat tricks.' Since the hammer is attuned to him, possibly even made for him, what better discipline for 'neat tricks' than Carnymancy?CIHN
Will you at least admit you're being a serious hypocrite, doing the exact things you accuse me (erroneously) of doing?CIHN
You, my friend, are a laugh and a half. I will make my mistakes, no doubt; but at all times I'm attempting to be fair and objective and do the right thing. If I sometimes mess up it's no sweat off me. But I wouldn't be getting 'emotional' if you didn't swoop in and delete 'truthful arguments' without even seeking an explanation or clarification. You are such a hypocrite. You deleted my argument; I tried to re-write it to suit your personal needs. You delete it again. I re-form and re-shape my arguments to be as clear, succinct, and unbiased as possible. You write a biased, over-the top, emotional argument (with a root of truth) far worse than what you accused me of (daring to say something is unlikely) and when I remove it - only to ask that it be clarified before going back in - you try to act all superior, when I'm only doing what you do, but in a more fair and diplomatic manner.
In the forum and on here, I'm bending over backwards to treat your ideas like any of them make any sense, and to follow your arbitrary rules. Why? You don't deserve it. You've shown yourself to be biased, to hold a grudge, and to have such a loose grasp of logic and poor reading comprehension that I don't know why I even try to reason with you. You're not just stupid; you're not just a dick: you're both, and that's inexcusable.CIHN
New info in comic March 2011: Wanda believes as I do. Emboldened previous comments that stated her position. Not canon, not guaranteed correct, but I'll take her speculation over ours. Didn't delete any of the previous material, just put up a note about the new edit underneath the behavior warning.CIHN
 Arkenhammer Edit War
It appears to me that you are too closely involved in this topic at the moment. I have renamed the discussion over Arkenhammer alignment to "Associated Discipline Debate", and added a comment about respecting others' points of view; I shall go in and edit the areas a little to attempt to restore fairness for all sides. Please try not to edit this area unless you are certain you can make your edits in an objective manner that will not tread on other wiki users' toes. If there is any doubt, then step away and let the other editors handle it. Thanks. --> ERK!|eyeBook me 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)