FACTPILE IS BACK!!!
CLICK HERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF
Take a Tour of the Admin's Mancave

Canon Rules

Know what's what in the worlds of the pile ranging from the Mainland, the Topia, and everything in between.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Canon Rules

Postby Darkbladex96 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:39 pm

We are all in agreement that for any sort of vs debate to occur we have to use canon information from the characters continuity; however, factpile has foregone any rules regarding canon which has allowed the "hierarchy of evidence to go out of whack " somewhat. Many companies in fact do have a canon policy in place for their materials which helps us to debate, but there are certain elements that are still very ambiguous. To help clean this up i purpose i very simple and general evidence tier list in the FPrules.

Tier 1

Author statements
Author exposition(usually in comics and manga they appear as text boxes that explain of clarify a situation)

Tier 1 is the "God" tier of evidence, these are concrete facts established by the creator or current writer of the series. They cant be argued with and they are superior to every other piece of data.

Tier 2

Plot exposition- The reason things happen. aka narration ex) shikta is the goddess of creation she created the universe. unless a twist occurs which shows this to be false shikta a universal force.
If exposition contradicts then attempt to extrapolate a general meaning.

Text based explanation aka flavor text-The way thing work outside of what our eyes perceive. ex) Final Fantasy Tactics silence stops a mage from using magic, on factpile any character who uses some sort of energy would be screwed; however the canon explanation is that it robs them of their voice stealing their ability to chant. Because of this any character who can activate powers by thought can ignore FF:T silence.

Calculation based on text explanations- If a weapons is said to leave a creator 1 mile deep and 2 miles across in solid bed rock, feel free to calc the forces involved if you have the mathematical know-how.

Tier 2 tells us precisely whats going own, or how the powers and technology work. It is superior to whats seen on the page or screen, but can be retconned by author statements. Tier 2 is stand alone evidence.

Tier 3

Feats- What we actually see occur(includes cuts scenes and QTE for games), this is the most common form of evidence its both abundant and easy to find. ex) Superman flew from earth to Saturn in 4 mins therefore he is FTL.
If feats contradict then use the most recent 1.

Calculations based on feats- If the character has a feat that can be quantified through mathematics go for it. ex) Ultimate colossus lifted a waterlogged Russian submarine, those things can weigh anywhere from 7,800 tons to 26,000 tons. Gives us low-high limits for colossus' strength.

Tier 3 is good solid evidence, material we can see and quantify. Tier 3 is stand alone evidence.

Tier 4

Power-scaling based on known values- powerscaling is a flimsy but sometimes necessary way to come to a conclusion it involves saying that A is stronger then B therefore A can do what B can do plus more. In games its more along the lines of this item is +4 magic and this item is +6 magic. Ex) The firepower for the Avenger assault rifle in Mass effect 2 is calculable, but the other weapons are not however, they all have DMG rating which show how they stack up compared to each other which can be used to find out how many times stronger then the Avenger those weapons are.

Character statements- What a character says about themselves, the situation, or another character. This the hardest evidence to classify, character statements are bound by said characters intelligence and personality, villains often lie or bluff and most of the times characters draw conclusions without all the information which maybe later revealed. ex) Cell:"I have gathered enough ki to destroy the entire solar system!" 1. he never got to prove this, 2. Cell has the personality of some of the most pompous and arrogant villains up to that point, its very likely that he was bluffing. This is backed up by the fact that even in buu saga no one was claimed or shown to be at star busting levels.

Hearsay exposition- Similar to character statements except this is usually a plot driving legend started by some character in the continuity, often times proven false by the end of the series. ex) The great spirit in shaman king is suppose to be an omnipotent, universal force. Hao Asakura obtains the GS yet has his power defied and is even harmed within his own reality. That kills the notion of omnipotence.

Teir 4 not great evidence but its grounded somewhat in current mainstream information, they are low on the list because they are the most ambiguous form or evidence.

Tier 5

Gameplay mechanics- What you have direct control over in gameplay (not counting QTE). GPMs aren't used in debates because they either severely limit a character so that you can control them, or so that the game is fun, or they cut out obvious things to streamline a certain aspect of the game. ex) Link has no equip/unequip animation yet we know the items dont just appear there, in cut scenes we've seen link get dressed.

filler- Material to tide anime fans over until the next story arc is ready. i feel that it should be feats and story elements from filler should be usuable as long as they dont contradict any higher canon.

Out-dated character and tech bios- Character bios that arent updated are nearly useless.

Unconfirmed Feats- A feat that a character has claimed to have performed but there is nothing to back it up.

Tier 5 is the lowest evidence available, its only valid if there is nothing higher to use, or if nothing higher contradicts it.



Thats my take on things, comment, critique, and add on it as you will.
User avatar
Darkbladex96
Check My Brain
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: Canon Rules

Postby theobserver » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:31 am

For the sake of silencing trolls and the like who choose to twist the rules or lack thereof to their favor, I suggest that there be a section where non-canon items are explicitly dis-included and labeled inadmissible unless stated by the scenario. Apparently certain individuals are too dense or purposely take advantage of the unwritten rules of proper debating to make a viable case anymore.
User avatar
theobserver
Harvester of Sorrow
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:06 pm
Location: Cyberspace

Re: Canon Rules

Postby Cpt Olimar » Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:02 am

I would be leery of establishing any category that is "inarguable". If science has taught us anything, it's to question everything.

It's not that I don't think what the Author says isn't very, very important... but if George Lucas decided tomorrow to say that Darth Vader was, and has always been a person who never killed an innocent person... would that single statement invalidate the entire movie canon? As with everything, even Author statements should be taken with a grain of salt, we would hope that an Author would know the most about their own product, but that doesn't mean that their statements are always entirely consistent with their own works nor necessarily even accurate.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that every Author's statement be treated as if it were wrong, but there's hardly any reason not to dismiss one particular author's statement as an out-lier if there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary As all humans beings, Author's also make mistakes, there's simply no reason to treat them as infallible sources.


I don't expect to be in the majority opinion on this but *shrug*...
Sanctity Falls primary character - Felix
/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=70&start=0
"Without books, I might perhaps have been tougher; but an educated mind is neither insensitive nor callous"
-Cicero
User avatar
Cpt Olimar
Utopia Overlord
 
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:18 pm
Location: Hocatate

Re: Canon Rules

Postby Matapiojo » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:12 am

Cpt Olimar wrote:I don't expect to be in the majority opinion on this but *shrug*...


I don't like universal canon rules to begin with. I think it will be a nastier can of worms than NOT having canon rules in black and white.

Canon will always be a problem for us, and I think there is no real way to create a suitable shortcut for it as rules would attempt to do. After all, the only entities capable of establishing what canon is, are the owners of the franchises themselves. All we CAN do is document their words/actions and determine an outcome on a case-by-case basis.

...thats just me.
AquilaChrysaetos wrote:Don't make mata mad. Or he'll do this:\
Image
User avatar
Matapiojo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5539
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:35 pm
Location: Uberville

Re: Canon Rules

Postby Darkbladex96 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:35 am

Cpt Olimar wrote:I would be leery of establishing any category that is "inarguable". If science has taught us anything, it's to question everything.

It's not that I don't think what the Author says isn't very, very important... but if George Lucas decided tomorrow to say that Darth Vader was, and has always been a person who never killed an innocent person... would that single statement invalidate the entire movie canon? As with everything, even Author statements should be taken with a grain of salt, we would hope that an Author would know the most about their own product, but that doesn't mean that their statements are always entirely consistent with their own works nor necessarily even accurate.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that every Author's statement be treated as if it were wrong, but there's hardly any reason not to dismiss one particular author's statement as an out-lier if there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary As all humans beings, Author's also make mistakes, there's simply no reason to treat them as infallible sources.


I don't expect to be in the majority opinion on this but *shrug*...


Author Statement is an end all if its and explaination, such as if we were to ask Tite kubo "what was Aizens true goal?" But things like an authors claim that Urza is the most powerful planeswalker, when infact he was defeated is contradictory to what we see. The other guy may have been stronger, he may have been smarter that is up to interpretation.

theobserver wrote:For the sake of silencing trolls and the like who choose to twist the rules or lack thereof to their favor, I suggest that there be a section where non-canon items are explicitly dis-included and labeled inadmissible unless stated by the scenario. Apparently certain individuals are too dense or purposely take advantage of the unwritten rules of proper debating to make a viable case anymore.


Which is what made me think of this, but the problem with your way is who would have the time to look up all these canon policies i only know a handful myself.


I don't like universal canon rules to begin with. I think it will be a nastier can of worms than NOT having canon rules in black and white.

Canon will always be a problem for us, and I think there is no real way to create a suitable shortcut for it as rules would attempt to do. After all, the only entities capable of establishing what canon is, are the owners of the franchises themselves. All we CAN do is document their words/actions and determine an outcome on a case-by-case basis.


I agree, and dont agree. The tier list i made doesnt say what is or isnt canon, assume my list applies to every licensed piece of work under the francises name. What it does is give a view on how most factpilers weigh certain evidence against each other, so in no way is my list limiting what can be used.

Also i forgot to add in DLC and New Game+ items.

DLC- Unique to each game, the tier that DLC belongs to is depend on what it does. DLC thats adds weapons and story arcs are Tier 2 canon, they add directly to the main game content and/or directly affect the storyline.

New Game+- Special items that you only get for beating the game. These are things that the character could never obtain during the canon story thier involvement in a match is completely up to the scenario if not specified they arent included; However, special endings, extra cutscenes etc that reveal an new aspect of the character or story weigh heavily as evidence.
User avatar
Darkbladex96
Check My Brain
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: Canon Rules

Postby Cpt Olimar » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:32 pm

Matapiojo wrote: All we CAN do is document their words/actions and determine an outcome on a case-by-case basis.
...thats just me.


This, albeit a somewhat inefficient way, is probably the best way of dealing with it. In some forms of media, game mechanics are totally irrelevant and only serve to make the game "fun", but sometimes, game mechanics actually are there to emphasize the differences and unique abilities of the characters. I believe a good example of this would be tabletop warhammer, where mata often references the very mechanics themselves to emphasize relative power between characters and certain special abilities, that "save" for Kharne... right?

However in a game like Zelda, gameplay mechanics are not exactly very viable, as there is little reason to believe that a child could physically withstand getting stabbed with a sword though his stomach several times without dying. The problem here is that every media's hierarchy of canon isn't consistent with other ones.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good attempt, and you clearly have a good goal in mind. But like I said, I would still prefer more flexibility in it.
Sanctity Falls primary character - Felix
/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=70&start=0
"Without books, I might perhaps have been tougher; but an educated mind is neither insensitive nor callous"
-Cicero
User avatar
Cpt Olimar
Utopia Overlord
 
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:18 pm
Location: Hocatate

Re: Canon Rules

Postby Matapiojo » Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:07 pm

A system I would be inclined to follow, and I am aware of the undertones it implies, is a sort of "canon respect thread".

By that I mean that we should establish a canon discussion for a franchise here to document and deliberate all avenues. Once there has been sufficient data at least documented, if not determined by the ones participating in the discussion, simply reffer Admin to the thread for him to provide an "official" determination for that particular franchise.

From that point on, we can just divert people that question the canon within debates to the thread which has been decided upon by Admin.
AquilaChrysaetos wrote:Don't make mata mad. Or he'll do this:\
Image
User avatar
Matapiojo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5539
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:35 pm
Location: Uberville

Re: Canon Rules

Postby Siggymansz » Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:07 pm

....I just use the IP Owners Canon Policy, if they don't got one, I treat everything as equal unless invalidated by a majority
(however I do place the Original Media above everything else)
Spoiler
Image
User avatar
Siggymansz
Primarch
 
Posts: 5627
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:25 am
Location: In ure Headz

Re: Canon Rules

Postby EnigmaJ » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:52 pm

It is superior to whats seen on the page or screen


Why is this case?

If feats contradict then use the most recent 1.


If feats contradict, I would say use the most consistent. My take on this here-

Code: Select all
b.) If both are at the same level of canon, the event that is more consistent with previous events is the one that is accepted. For example, if "Event 5" is inconsistent with "Event 1", but "Events 2,3,+4" seems to support what happened in "Event 1", then "Event 5" is ignored as being inconsistent with the rest of canon and being influenced by PIS, or plot-induced stupidity. However, if a stream of new material comes out that seems to support the "contradictory Event" ( Recent Events 6,7,8,9+10 support what happened in "Event 5", as opposed to what happened in "Event 1" ), then we may have to accept the possibility that "Event 5" retconned, or overrode what happened in Event 1.


Plot exposition- The reason things happen. aka narration ex) shikta is the goddess of creation she created the universe. unless a twist occurs which shows this to be false shikta a universal force.


Depends on the narrator. A third person Omniscient Narrator would describe every event as it occurs. This should be on the same exact level as visuals/feats because both describe the event, but in two different ways. All this rule basically does is that it automatically places descriptions from novels and such above mediums such as a television show or movie. If theres a book and it describes Character B doing something, but a movie scene clearly shows Character B doing something else, there's no reason why we should automatically place what the "Omniscient Narrator" tells us over what we see with our very own eyes.

And there are the cases where the narrator is 3rd person subjective or 1st person, and in these cases, the narrator himself/herself is just as fallible as any character in the story.

Text based explanation aka flavor text-The way thing work outside of what our eyes perceive. ex) Final Fantasy Tactics silence stops a mage from using magic, on factpile any character who uses some sort of energy would be screwed; however the canon explanation is that it robs them of their voice stealing their ability to chant. Because of this any character who can activate powers by thought can ignore FF:T silence.


This really only applies to video games, where the "flavor text" can be used to prove a certain aspect of a video game as a game mechanic.

And I really don't see what the difference is between this "flavor text" and the "author text" is, except that one is commonly used video games and the other is commonly used in comic books/manga. Both come directly author and describe things in a 3rd person Omniscient sort of fashion.

Also, there are situations where "flavor text" is fallible. Pokedex entries, for example, may come directly from the author, but canonly, they are written by in-game scientists meaning that the information written in them is fallible. And for this reason, they can't override feats. The same should be said about "flavor text" in other media, such as Metroid, where the text itself comes from an in-story source.

In games its more along the lines of this item is +4 magic and this item is +6 magic.


Assuming said "stats" are not game mechanics. See take on it here.

viewtopic.php?f=60&t=1884&start=30

Gameplay mechanics- What you have direct control over in gameplay (not counting QTE). GPMs aren't used in debates because they either severely limit a character so that you can control them, or so that the game is fun, or they cut out obvious things to streamline a certain aspect of the game. ex) Link has no equip/unequip animation yet we know the items dont just appear there, in cut scenes we've seen link get dressed... or if nothing higher contradicts it.


In many cases, something has to be contradictory about that aspect of the game for it to be considered game mechanics to begin with. But that aside, game mechanics should be inadmissible under all circumstances because the fact that its game mechanics indicates that its inaccurate. Yeah, maybe you can speculate on it and think about it and such, but you can't come to a final verdict on anything if all the evidence you have is already known to be inaccurate.

filler- Material to tide anime fans over until the next story arc is ready. i feel that it should be feats and story elements from filler should be usuable as long as they dont contradict any higher canon.


This is insanely out of place in this thread, and really shouldn't be included. The purpose of this thread of yours seems to be to dictate how valid evidence from the canon media in a franchise/series are in comparison to each other, but this particular subtopic jumps from that to dictating what is canon to begin with. Thats really completely different discussion ( which technically could be integrated into this one ).

Canon describes the events that most fit into the author's ( or what ever person or group holds rights to the franchise/series ) vision of the universe. If we go with this definition then the hierarchy would be-

1-Official Statements
2-Sources made directly by creator/owner ( not necessarily just the original, but any source made directly by the person in charge )
3-Sources made by second-hand sources that the creator/owner explicitly says is canon and apart of his/their story
4-Sources made by second-hand sources where the creator/owner may not have directly created, but had some hand in its creation. The creator/owners' role in these cases would be significant ( ex. The creator/owner's role would be more significant, of example, if he helped with the plot/storyline, rather than if he merely helped with the character designs.
5.- Sources made by second-hand sources where the creator/owner had no hand in creating, but has not said anything about its canonicity.

4 and 5 may be non-canon, but they aren't necessarily are. They're just lower than the ones above it. In the case of DBZ, for example, anime filler can fit into any one of these tiers, as is the case with that live-action movie.
EnigmaJ
Check My Brain
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: Canon Rules

Postby Darkbladex96 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:13 pm

This is what the thread is for, to see how we can clean this up I appreciate everyone participation thus far.

Why is this case?

Because it explains what we see more in-dept. If a character destroys a building with a bubble attack, it might not seem very power or impressive. If we get a canon explanation say from a source book that states the inside of the bubble was the temperature of the suns surface, because of this we know that characters with high lvls of durability might still fall to this attack. Warp from Mass effect is a good example, as well it has never torn anything apart yet its description says it shreds at the molecular lvl.

If feats contradict, I would say use the most consistent. My take on this here


I totally agree, but the current incarnation rule(the way i read it) somewhat kills that notion. The current team for a comic might not perceive superman or Thor as strong as the last team, or they may envision him much more powerful. Thats why i feel only feats from the current can really apply to comic characters. But if a feat is repeated a good number of times its fair game.

Depends on the narrator. A third person Omniscient Narrator would describe every event as it occurs. This should be on the same exact level as visuals/feats because both describe the event, but in two different ways. All this rule basically does is that it automatically places descriptions from novels and such above mediums such as a television show or movie. If theres a book and it describes Character B doing something, but a movie scene clearly shows Character B doing something else, there's no reason why we should automatically place what the "Omniscient Narrator" tells us over what we see with our very own eyes.

And there are the cases where the narrator is 3rd person subjective or 1st person, and in these cases, the narrator himself/herself is just as fallible as any character in the story.


actually this concern is covered, look at Hearsay exposition. It doesnt make novel description any higher then other mediums(unless they are the same francise). The situation you described happens regularly on FP in debates related to books that have movie tie ins, And in these debates the novel always trump's the movie
because of the book being the original media. The point you brought up here is completely valid, but the scenario will likely never happen.
Character B is shown shooting a gun then the narrator comes on and tells us he's flipping waffles.....
i just dont see that happening.

This really only applies to video games, where the "flavor text" can be used to prove a certain aspect of a video game as a game mechanic.

And I really don't see what the difference is between this "flavor text" and the "author text" is, except that one is commonly used video games and the other is commonly used in comic books/manga. Both come directly author and describe things in a 3rd person Omniscient sort of fashion.


They really should be the same thing, they were only separated because of my train of thought.

Also, there are situations where "flavor text" is fallible. Pokedex entries, for example, may come directly from the author, but canonly, they are written by in-game scientists meaning that the information written in them is fallible. And for this reason, they can't override feats. The same should be said about "flavor text" in other media, such as Metroid, where the text itself comes from an in-story source.


Now the pokedex is special, the pokedex is fallible because its written based on the observation of characters(researchers) in the Pokemon universe. The pokedex is what the scientist etc in the pokemon world have compiled on each species.

This flavor text you speak of in metroid can you give me an example, obviously info like a data pad or something where a character has written there observation or findings could be fallible, but item descriptions like the speed booster arent.

Assuming said "stats" are not game mechanics. See take on it here.


that thread is very true, however which is why i only propose using it as a final option, powerscaling pokemon is bad because they have feats which makes the powerscaling wrong. If there is nothing to invalidate it it should be usuable.

In many cases, something has to be contradictory about that aspect of the game for it to be considered game mechanics to begin with.


.....TBC.............
User avatar
Darkbladex96
Check My Brain
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:47 pm

Next

Return to News, Rules, & Updates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest