Might
I recommend that you get this notion out of your head that IGA's interview quote is the only source either of us is using for
anything?I'd do it myself had I the list of all of them, but I'm sure plot'll take care of this because he's got all the obscure sources, but he and I share plenty more sources than one fucking quote that will probably at some point be laid out with screenshot and translation.
And then you won't have any more room to cry "waah, made-up!" because you don't like something.
You don't get to play the "you're just angry and rude because I'm disagreeing with your opinion" card. Because it's wrong.
I'm angry not so much at you specifically. I'm angry because I am sick and goddamn tired of myself and plot (more so plot than me) expending all this effort to research stuff, making big posts and the like about stuff because maybe some fans will be interested in hearing these obscure details, and then some of the fans
always lose their minds and fight him on everything and sometimes even go as far as to insult him unjustly because in their minds he has a headcanon they don't share.
And then some time goes by and something gets confirmed or denied and it winds up that plot was some degree of right the whole time.
Kinda like he was over the Netflix series. Which some people treated him like absolute trash over. And now with more information most of his claims and worries have been made either more plausible or outright confirmed.
This isn't entirely about you, specifically. This particular context is one where plot and I are (as per our usual methodology) connecting the dots
we have access to and knowledge of, which are often a mess of obscure sources lumped together in a way that makes some measure of structured sense, making inferences only where necessary, and Occam's Razoring any and all assumptions and guesswork we have to make based on what details we know to be true.
And true to goddamn form, we've got someone swearing up and down they're just as right as we are because we don't have evidence either and it's just out head theory that has no proof. And that person is wrong. We have attempted repeatedly to explain to this person why this is the case, but they just keep on throwing the same refrains of "you're just making this up and assuming like I am" at us regardless of how we actually explain things.
I can't pull a plottwist and throw up half a dozen screenshotted quotes and direct translations, because I don't have these resources at my disposal. Otherwise I would.
So all the things you've been declaring has no proof or evidence? Yeah, it has, and we've got it. Whatever inferences we have to make are made from the stance of what best fits the
official pieces and parts together. That still makes them assumptions and inferences, yes, but ones based upon the
actual evidence. The things you suggest are
not based upon the actual official evidence and canon.
All the things about Soma X, Dracula Y? I don't need to cite sources on those, and I shouldn't have to. Those are not wild guesswork assumptions, they're the simplest possible assumptions that make the most logical sense for the characters and lore-universe at large.
If I see a man with a bullet wound, you wouldn't call me wrong for presuming he'd been shot despite no gun being present, would you?
And just so we're clear; slightly higher-than-normal usage of the word "fuck" and openly admitting to using sarcasm and snark as a counterpoint instead of an actual argument does not equate to "unfriendly" with me. Y'all have seen me actually go off on somebody over a specific thing. This barely qualifies as that. You're just the latest in a string of people treating things said by either plot of I (again, more plot than I) as falsehoods because you say so, and I'm honestly just tired of seeing it. Dude busts his ass too damn much so that
the rest of the fucking fans can have juicy tidbits they might not have found otherwise to get blown off like it's nothing. I'm pissed that it keeps happening (despite him often being proved right in the end to one degree or another), not that you happened to do it this one time.
And this idea of "you have Umbra so you think you're better" is garbage. And I'm offended and insulted some of you would make assumptions and accusations of this length as an attack.
You have
no concept of the back-and-forths behind the scenes.
For every post plot makes that people hotly contest, he asks me and others if he was too vague, or if he worded things poorly, or if he's being too hard on someone. I do the same, though probably less because I don't care as much what y'all think of me. But I do it nonetheless because I'm fully capable of misrepresenting a valid and well-evidenced point and don't want the wrong impression to be given.
For every argument we get into with someone else (sometimes people who actively seem to have vendettas), we ask one another if we've been too harsh, and try and sort our tones out in subsequent posts.
Every major thing we post has slews of discussion behind them so that we have as little room for misrepresentation as we possibly can. Just because you aren't there for them doesn't mean they don't exist.
We have evidence and sources that give us the impressions we have. They just haven't been posted in full yet because I don't have access to all of them and I dunno if plot wants to expend that effort again and probably be told he's still wrong anyway like he has been a hundred times in the past already.
You have people (not just he and I) that go to ridiculous lengths to formulate theories and confirm/deny details with obscure-as-hell sources. Oftentimes this requires weeks and sometimes months of research and fine-tuning and rewriting. And those of us that do this oftentimes do it almost entirely for the sake of the other fans in the community.
And without fail these attempts are met with concentrated extremes of disapproval and retorts, many of which come from a place of "it's not my personal headcanon that has no evidenced sources" rather than striving for as much canonical accuracy as possible that our works come from.
And we get treated like shit for "how dare you this isn't my headcanon and it doesn't say so in any of the sources
I know so it's wrong" reasons with some people even developing seeming vendettas who attack these kinds of posts regardless of what they actually say. Treated like shit by the very people we went to all this effort for in the first place. And it's happened for ages and it continues to happen still.
There's a reason we don't cite all our sources for every little thing anymore. People don't seem to care about evidence or sources if it contradicts their own headcanons and theories, our ideas still conflict with theirs and they're entitled to their opinions so that makes what we say wrong by default, so what's even the point of citing everything anymore when it's just gonna get blown off again anyway?
And you wonder why we get pissed off.
It's not about "oh no someone's debating what we said." It's never been about that. I can't speak for plot, but it certainly grinds my gears when people erronerously throw around accusations of hypocrisy like it somehow invalidates what they're arguing against.
So now that I've finished explaining the actual reason I have a problem with this attitude, I'll retort properly.
Just because you spent hours, days, weeks, months researching something does not mean in any way that it was done right.
If the sources of research are every scrap of canon detail or lost interview or thing said in a board meeting by the people behind everything, then I'm sorry to say but if there were ever a "right" way to do this sort of thing, that's it. We don't make any claims that our way is "right" and everyone who doesn't do it is wrong, only that the way we do things often has the most canonical support for whatever we wind up having when we finish connecting all the dots. It isn't our place to dictate that our methods are singularly correct and all others are false, so it is just as true that it isn't your place to dictate the same premise. Especially not as a poor attack like this.
You see my disagreeing with your conjectures (such as Sōma beating Dracula because he's good-natured) as something of an attack, which I think is frankly idiotic.
Okay, should I just assume this entire argument has been a shitpost? Because you keep changing how you're spelling Soma's name and I'm not sure if it's a joke or just happenstance.
"Soma beats out Dracula because he's a fundamentally better person" isn't some random conjecture, as I've said repeatedly now.
Soma has all of Dracula's major powers, albeit without a thousand years of practice. But he has them nonetheless. Soma has Dracula's soul and thus the same connections to Chaos and the Belmonts and everything else he had when he was still alive as Dracula. The only major differences that aren't semantics is that Soma's human, lacks Dracula's centuries of experience, and is a morally better person. Seeing as we've seen humans, lacking Dracula's centuries of experience, and being morally better people than him,
continually kick his ass for the entirety of those thousand years, we have an ESTABLISHED precedent in the series that Dracula's lack of humanity is part of what makes it so easy for humans with it to beat his ass. Is it explicitly stated anywhere that "good people win because they're good people?" Of course not, but it shouldn't have to be. Writers aren't obligated to spell out literally every little detail so that people don't have to ever take any additional effort to connect the dots implied for them on their own. We see time and again in the series that regular humans with strong moral fiber taking Dracula down. Is Soma suddenly exempt from this because you say so? Where's the logic in that, when we HAVE an established precedent for exactly this implication all throughout the series?
I'm not taking your disagreements as a personal attack. I've explained at length above what's actually pissing me off is more a generalized attitude rather than you specifically. I'm taking your disagreements as seemingly random outbursts of "BUT YOU MADE IT UP" as the go-to response to anything you don't seem to feel like contesting at length, because so far that's what they've come across to me as. Are you wrong for disagreeing? Of course not. Am I wrong for wanting a little more to work with than you repeating the same general remarks? Also no.
As I said already I don't really care if you think it's idiotic or not. The only actual insult I've thrown at your argument thus far was simply to say that a portion of it wasn't worth anything beyond snarky sarcasm, and that only pertained to that one small facet of the argument(s) at large. I was just in the wrong in doing so as you are here, but that's how I felt at the time and wasn't going to make up some bullshit fake argument to lie about how I actually felt about that particular point of yours.
In my previous posts, I was willing to accept, for the sake of argument, your and plottwist's claims, but you two are throwing a fit now because your interpretation of things isn't as solid as you make it out to be.
No, we're throwing a fit because we're both sick and tired of people with disagreements thinking "YOU JUST MADE THIS UP THERE'S NO PROOF" is a valid counterargument. It gives us nothing to work with and brings nothing of actual value to the table, so as a result there becomes no argument or debate to have anymore. And all the shit in the past he and I have found and come up with would HOPEFULLY at least establish a precedent that he and I don't ever pull shit out of our asses and HAVE sources in some form or another behind what we come up with, but apparently this precedent does not exist and some of you still treat our words as the ramblings of lunatics who don't know anything.
It's not a superiority thing, before you pull that card out of the bag again. It's like being an employee at a company for a long time, and every other time there's a new hire they act like you're just as new as they are and don't know what you're talking about. It's annoying. It's frustrating. We're not asking for fame and fortune and pedestals of gold here. We'd just like it if those of you with dissenting ideas could remember sometimes that we're not simply yanking this shit out of thin air.
Your theories and connecting the dots is in no more valid than that of other fans, nor do your arguments hold up to scrutiny 100 % as you claim.
This falls back under "what's the "right" way to do it" thing from before. There is no inherent "right" way, but when it comes down to developing canon-inspired ideas or theories or expansions relying on all canon information accessible is about as close to a "right" way as it gets.
We also never treat any of our ideas as being completely factual and immune to scrutiny, despite what you may think. Plot in particular stresses "this is an opinion" in his longer posts extensively, and in fact more so than he used to because some of you can't seem to understand an opinion as an opinion without it having a giant disclaimer on it.
I on the other hand am a bit more harsh and direct about things than he is most of the time, but I don't hold anything we come up with as infallible either. I can see how my presentation can give that impression, however, so apologies on that front as it was not intended. What I
do hold a bit above scrutiny is the work that goes into these things, as I've explained. It's not scrutinizable that we haul ass and lose sleep and rip our hair out over some of these ideas. That's just a question of facts and workload. When that workload gets blown off for whatever reason, it's annoying as sin.
Our ideas are just as fallible as any of yours. But when we have a list of related canon elements and developer lore nuggets tied together creating those ideas, and people who perhaps don't have that list (or at least a list of similar measure and extensiveness) blow it off as if that list doesn't hold it up, you can see hopefully why this is annoying and oftentimes results in a bit of indignance.
As for part of Dracula remaining in perpetual limbo and only his evil will getting resurrected, as opposed to him getting mind-raped by Chaos into just being evil again... All you ever had going for you was conjecture on this as well. Demanding proof from me because "plausible is not enough" is an argument that works exactly the other way around. Sure, it is plausible that Chaos does mind-rape. Do you have proof? No. IGA's quote says nothing of the sort. He said that the "evil intent gets resurrected". Chaos is not mentioned here.
I've explained at length that the interview is not the sole source as you mistakenly believe (seriously where the hell did you ever get this impression), so I'm not wasting either of our time by doing it again. The gist of my retort here is this:
-we have other sources that relate to the resurrection cycle and the state of Big D's soul
-we have other sources that directly relate to Chaos and its role
-we have other sources that have extremely high plausibility of relating directly to Chaos due to what they describe, despite Chaos not being namedropped
-we have other sources that defend the whole "Dracula splits into good and evil halves and the evil half is what comes back post-SotN" idea
Does this make what we say absolute fact? No.
Does this make what we say more plausible due to multiple facets and layers of support for the theory? Yes.
There's nothing more I can say here to defend that we have other sources, until/unless plot posts all of them, because as mentioned I don't have the scans and translations and all the other stuff he does. If I did, it'd be up by now. I'm sorry there's nothing really I can do on this front.
Sōma beating Chaos when Dracula could not, in your opinion? Gameplay. Sometimes, the explanation is easier rather than this whole construct you came up with. You saying he won because he had more humanity than Dracula is 100 % theory, not backed up by anything. Again, something you take issue with my argument, but you hypocritically do yourself.
I've explained why this is far more than absolute conjecture. Whether you choose to accept that is beyond my control. But whether you choose to or choose not to, the fact remains that this idea is more than empty conjecture. If you're not willing to read a little bit deeper into the obvious implications or the things hinted at so strongly they're barely hints anymore, that's fine. But it's not my fault or problem if you aren't, and that's part of what needs to be done to conclude the Soma humanity thing. All the pieces are laid out in the Sorrow storylines. I am not at fault if you don't want or haven't put those pieces together. But I have. Something doesn't just become pure conjecture just because you think it is. I can back it up (but I'm not going to list all those tiny story elements because we'd be here all day and it's not a hard thing to do, and you're capable of doing it yourself and maybe even drawing a slightly different conclusion with its own merits). The things you're throwing out like "it's just gameplay" cannot be backed up. Gameplay is a separate beast from plot in almost every case and does not hold bearing on plot outside of specific circumstances which are directly connected.
You may think "gameplay" is an easier and simpler way to explain things.
Well, when the "explanation" glosses over everything involved and just chalks everything up to a copout excuse, of course it's easier and simpler. That doesn't mean it's a fair analysis.
I've already explained several times why the "your ideas are 100% theory and no evidence" and "you're hypocrite" arguments are both out of line and completely unfounded. So I'll not waste time doing it yet again.
I have no problem with being wrong, but I have a problem with people who prance around acting like they are some sort of authority on matters never stated as canon, who then behave in a hypocritical fashion and demand prove against their own theories when they supplied little to nothing else but certain interpretations of quotes.
Clearly you do have a problem with being wrong, since you've done nothing but scream "THEORY, THEORY! NO EVIDENCE, NO PROOF! INTERVIEW DOESN'T SAY, THEORY, THEORY!" since we got into the thick of it, despite those screams (as I've explained) being completely off-base.
Nobody here's an authority on anything.
Are Plot and I among the ranks of those who have an unhealthy obsession with canon details and deeper-than-many understanding of what's all in it?
We are.
Does that make us an authority on anything? lolno, not even remotely.
Do we treat ourselves as authorities? No, or at least not intentionally.
But does that mean we're playing with the same deck as the people not as engrossed in the canonstuffs as we might be?
Of course not, why would it?
Our house might have a few additional rooms than your house, but that doesn't make our house better or your house worse. Only that ours might have a few additional rooms.
Just because we might occasionally like for the countless hours of work we've put into getting to this point to at least be acknowledged insofar as "what creates these arguments and theories and ideas" goes doesn't mean we think we're authorities on the matter.
You don't get to go "OH YEAH WELL WHERE'S YOURS" when an opposing party asks for evidence supporting your theory. That's not how burden of proof works.
We made a base statement, and provided a relevant piece of information that backed it up (the interview quote).
Deliberation continued and moved away from that base statement.
We asked for you to provide evidence of your own, since we provided first proof. It might not defend everything we've said in full, but it isn't meant to. It was meant to defend that one aspect and that one aspect alone.
We gave a piece of relevant evidence first, and we requested the same courtesy from you.
You responded by basically declaring we had no evidence ever and that we were hypocrites for daring to ask for evidence from you when we had provided none.
We have a whole mess of evidence for X or Y or F1-59D. But it doesn't do anyone any good to absentmindedly throw it all up at once. Which is why we posted on piece that had immediate relevance to the point at that time.
You give us some actual evidence in your corner, and we then know what pieces are more relevant for us to bring out. Argument of proof is not a one-way street. If one party doesn't give anything to work with, then the second party can't do much else.
So you can call us hypocrites for asking for your evidence. We
did provide first proof (whether or not it was enough for you or that you interpreted it as our only proof and that we were using it for literally everything is irrelevant), and you've been refusing (or unable, without anything to go by I can't know which it is) to provide any yourself because you claim we haven't provided any--when we absolutely have.
You're the one practicing hypocrisy here.
You wanna have an actual fair evidential debate over details? Then start coughing some up. Plot and I have a nightmare of obscure canon details to use, but if we don't have a framework of what you're working with, then there's no way for us to know with reliability which of those details we should implement into the discussion.