Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jediphile

  1. Again, there is a difference between saying that corresponding has taken place and telling other people about what was said in that correspondence. I said "net-nazi", which you cannot take to be a stab at your political position, of which I know nothing. That is not the same as a nazi, despite your attempt to infer it, and while you may not like, your out-of-the-blue deletion of inoffensive posts without warning or provocation should be expected to result in a harsh response. You could have discussed the matter. Instead you chose to just delete stuff and then forget about it. What do you think that tells me about your respect for Ztalker or me? I don't think "long live the dark side" is particularly insulting in light of the discussion. Besides, I did not do that on the open forum where you're rediculed in public. You could at least acknowledge that. But you could apply the rules equally to everyone instead of applying in one way towards Niner and another towards me. "Equal under the law" is a fairly common principle in any most societies based on legal principles. I should like to think that goes for Lucasforums too, but I've seen little that supports that.
  2. I suppose I'm looking for some glimmer of the possibility that the mods might reevaluate their initial positions on matters like this one and not repeat those actions in the future. For example, El Sitharino has bascially stated that it was fine to delete my entire post because he felt some of it was objectionable and the rest was too immaterial to be allowed even though it was on-topic. I have yet to see the mods actually say that deleted stuff just because they don't think it's constructive despite being on-topic is wrong. Besides, it's scarcely as if there is much indication of progress here, which means we'll just be repeating this exercise in the future - if not with me, then with someone else. You seem open to consider this matter, and Niner certainly has with his recent comments. I don't know about Jae. But El Sitharino and Darth333 seem adamant that I'm just being willfully difficult and should go away or just stop talking altogether. I see little or no change there. What I'd want is a restoration of my faith that events like this one will not occur again in the future. Not deleting post with extreme prejudice would be a pretty good start. Actually taking complaints serious and do something about them instead of ignoring them in the hope that the problem can then be killed by silence would be another step. Talking to people when these things happen and actually listening to to what they say in return instead of dismissing them and hand down the verdict quickly from high like in a drumhead trial would also help. Now, that's a conceit, of course, as there will always be issues like this one. But if the alternative is cynicism and rejection of any attempt at making progress, then the first option still seems better to me. Sometimes you just have to choose to be naive because the alternative is even worse.
  3. Actually, if I'm going to split hairs, it was Niner, when he said I did not use them. But there is a difference between saying that PMs have been posted between people, as I did, and referring to specific things stated in them, as Darth333 did. I have not made references to the PMs between you and me, for example, even though I could use them in support of my position. Because to me those PMs are private and not for the board, unless both sides agree that they are. In light of prompt deletion out of the blue, I felt it was an appropriate comment to make, given that I was to accept Niner's humor as well. But it would seem I'm not allowed to have a sense of humor. Or to mirror El Sitharino's position: Is it my fault if Darth333 did not see it that way? For someone claims that I insist on seeing things from the worst possible angle, she sure did little to promote the opposite herself... What significant point can't you say that about? Sure it could go that way, but it's still important to ask those questions now and then, even if you can never get a definite answer. If you do not believe in discussing these things, then go right ahead. In that case I'll have to conclude that discussions like this one are banned here and that the mods are above criticism and above the rules.
  4. So what you're saying is that no matter what is posted, it will not be deleted unless at least two people complain about it first? This is so bad logic that it's just begging to be pointed out. That people did not complain does not automatically mean that they were fine with it. It just means that they didn't complain. To infer otherwise is to invoke "the silent majority". Heck, I can do that too and claim that there are few people on these boards because they are all annoyed with the lousy moderating, but just can't be bothered to complain about it. You'll note I generally don't do that. I leave that to really bad politicians... DISCLAIMER: The latter does not mean that I'm a politician, but is just an attempt to disprove the idea that I have no sense of humor. I deny that utterly. Since I quoted Niner, you can call my post only tauting if that was true of his as well. Both were stated during heated debates on the verge of flaming. If my post served to make matters worse in that situation, then surely so did Niner's. It's sad to watch how the mods insist on sticking together in order to cover up Niner's blunder here. Just the fact that my post was deleted underscores the problem quite well, and frankly it's somehow perversely amusing to see how the mods now backpedal to differentiate between two virtually identical situations. But I'll bite. Since you just said that it would take more than one complaint for you to delete or revise Niner's post, let me ask it openly: How many complaints did you receive about my posts before you deleted them? And, of course, even if I were to agree that quoting Niner is acceptable - which I don't - that still leaves the matter of what it was necessary to delete the entire post. Basically what you're saying here is that it was okay to delete the entire post, because YOU didn't think the rest of it was of a high enough quality. Sorry, but that is elistist in the extreme! It's also utterly untruthful, since the mods scarecely go through all the posts here and delete all those that are not of "sufficiently high quality". Basically you're saying that the rest of what I wrote did not have a quality that warranted its existence on these boards. Excuse me, but how DARE you judge the content of on-topic material like that?!? I mean, what if a new poster came to this board and said in his first post: "Hi, I'm new here, but I like KotOR, and I really hope they make KotOR3 and preferably soon, though I hope Bioware makes, because TSL sucked so bad, since all the Sith Lords were the worst in Star Wars history. Bye." Now, does this post add anything constructive to the discussion? No. It's all been said before. Is it inflamatory? Since it voices strong criticism of characters in TSL that other people care about, it could be. Should therefore be deleted? No. Yet by saying that what was in my post was "tacked on" and therefore fit for deletion, you're establishing a level of quality in posts here. That's elitist. Also, please point this rule out to me in the forum guidelines. Okay, ED. Take a deep breath, please... Okay? First, while I acknowledge that I very blunt here, I do believe it's relevant to point out the double standard here, and I would humbly ask that you look into the links I posted before judging solely on the bluntness of my comments here. Sadly that will be difficult, of course, since the allegedly offending posts are deleted and cannot be recovered And yes, my comments are blunt. More blunt that I would like. So why is that? Sadly, it's because it is my experience that it is the only way the mods will even acknowledge my existence. While the mods say here and elsewhere that being reasonable and tolerant will yield better results, that has - unfortunately - not proven to be my experience on many occasions. I frequently back down when people tell me that something I've pointed out is being considered by the mods, but here I find that's usually all that happens, and that if I leave it there, I'll have to wait until there are two thursdays in a week AND a cold day in Hell, if not longer... If you find my approach childish, then I can't blame you, but how can you fault me when it works, while the alternative did not? Niner actually responded this time and considered the matter. I too lament this. But if others will only be reasonable if I convince them that they must be because I'm so very unreasonable, then I'm left with little recourse. You're right that it's double standard, but can you blame me for following the examples of the mods? Sadly it was the only way to underscore my point, since nobody wanted to deal with it otherwise. And since I do believe the standards of the moderation and the rules of the forum are relevant to discuss, I maintain that it was necessary to bring this to a point, where the mods had no choice but to resolve the matter. What you conveniently neglect to mention here - referring to a PM not posted to the board and reffered to without my consent, I might add - is that that PM was an angry response to your decision to simply delete completely inoffensive a single post each by Ztalker and myself, where we wondered about what was permissible in response to Niner's now infamous "nerd rage" comment, which killed the discussion between liayd and myself. There was nothing offensive in those posts, and given that they were in response to mod's post about the level the discussion could be taken to, I don't think it can be considered to be unwarranted and fit for deletion. If we had continued, perhaps it had been relevant to step in, but we only posted one each and then stopped. Yet it was just deleted. If you act like a net-nazi, then don't be surprised if I make comments like your chosen name is fitting. That's humor, which I thought you liked, given that you had refused to do something about Niner's post. Let me ask something in return. Is it permissible to mention things from PMs openly on the board, as you do here? Because it seems to me that I'm being deleted for quoting something Niner say on the board... And your intents here can hardly be called humorous IMHO. Interesting. Basically you're saying that the staff will "grow some tolerance" once everybody else has. I see the other way around: Perhaps the rest of us would grow some tolerance if the staff did first by example. And that remains to be seen. When? I have yet to see it yield ANY results. What Niner has said in this topic is actually the closest thing I've witnessed since I joined this forum. Others have appeared reasonable at times, yes, but has remained with only words of sympathy that disappeared quickly once those were called upon to be anything more... Indeed... If LIAYD and myself were the only ones, then why bother? tk102 had already said something. Obviously. No, I absolutely deny that. It's true that I did find your comment funny, but it's not true that I intended to taunt you or have obvious dislike of you. At most you could accuse me of testing whether the comment was indeed as funny as the mods had claimed. I did not think so, so when I saw a similarly heated debate between especially yourself and another poster, I felt it wholly appropriate to quote the comment and then agree with it. After all, if it was just humor, then that would be okay, and if not, then would confirm my initial reaction to it. Since the mods did not like and repeatedly deleted my post, the latter would seem to be the case in the mods' eyes, despite their original claims to the contrary. Actually, I'm arrogant enough to believe that I have contributed constructively at times - http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=177894 And I dare to believe that even this topic can be constructive if we allow it to be. How many times am allowed to see the same pattern repeat itself before I'm allowed a conclusion? It becomes increasingly difficult to avoid as it continues to happen, you know. Have you considered the possibility, just the possibility, that it could also be because I'm the only one who endures to take the confrontation rather than just give up and run away? Much as I criticise the mods, that should suggest something positive to you. Thank you. Please believe me when I say that I resort to "taking justice into my own hands" only because I see no other recourse. You think I enjoy being universally hated by the mods? I don't. But I frankly find fair and open discussion without fear of random deletion by the mods and with fair rules that are applied equally to everyone to be a more important issue than Star Wars. That's the point here: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who does watch the watchers? I'm frequently left with the impression that nobody does, and that the mods care more about basking in their own autority and prove their relative power by making snide remarks at posters and then get away with it because they're mods and think themselves above the rules. That's not a stab at you or anyone in particular, but it's what I've been wondering for some time, and that's a problem. I sense The Source voicing something similar (please forgive me if I'm mistaken), and it worries me. I visit a number of other of other boards and forums, and this is the only one where I have ever seen it to that degree. It's also the only board where people have called me overly sensitive. Food for thought?
  5. No, you're wrong. I might have edited the post, because I usually type pretty fast and then edit to correct spelling mistakes. But there was a first post that was deleted completely, and a second that was also deleted completely. Don't insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise. Bring you proof. I have no fear of it, since it can only be rope to hang yourself with. EDIT: Besides, the rules here give me little choice but to edit, since I'm not allowed to doublepost. If you started by acknowledging that I respect the rules in this regard instead of immediately using it as a pretense to clobber me over the head, maybe we could make some progress here. My point exactly. Which means you also get to make no claims as to me intents. The door swings both ways. Given my response, I should think I've have surely proven the opposite. And why exactly must I accept this on your part if you refuse to accept it for me? You made it in jest. Fine. So did I, when I quoted it. Why can't YOU accept that? I ask for the same standard to be applied to both posts. Why is that unacceptable? They are very similar. Either they both violate the rules, or neither does. Sophistry. The point you inferred that "nerd rage" was acceptable because I was to take offense. Isn't that enough? Or let me ask it this way: How many people must find a term objectionable, before you delete the post? 2? 5? 10? 50? Should we take a vote every time? Or is it just a matter of whatever the heck the mods happen to feel like at the given time? Then why do you refuse to see me comment the same way? I didn't like the comment the first time, but everyone told me I was wrong, so I took it to heart and moved on. Now that's apparently wrong too... I guess I just spoke above my caste, then... You did, so why can't I? It didn't violate the forum rules, after all. Ah, because you're a mod? Well, double standard... That remains to be seen. Indeed, the utter refusal of the mods to acknowledge the problem here is at the very heart of this topic. The continued denial to accept it as such just escalates the whole matter. So the question remains: 1. Why do mods resort to blatantly delete my posts rather than edit them? 2. Why do they they refuse to talk or even inform me of the matter? I will not have my posts deleted without reason. Make your case and I'll listen, though I can't promise I'll agree. But just trying to silenty kill me by quietly deleting my posts will only prompt me to fill my mailboxes with angry PMs and post topics like this one. Ah, now you put your foot in it. You know full well that I posted to several PMs to both Darth333 and tk102 on this very matter. In short, you're just plain wrong. I DID use the PM system. That especially Darth333 preferred to just ignore me is a big part of the problem here. And yes, those PMs can be produced to prove this. Thus you're either ignorant or lying when you say I have an aversion to using PMs. If the former is the case, you'd have more credibility if you actually took the time to find out what you're talking about. Your position is totally baseless. No. But I'll admit that I expected this to happen, even though it was fine for you to do. Clearly what you write is not nearly as important as who is writing... Actually, that was a yes/no question. Do you have an aversion to simply answering yes or no? EDIT: Oh, I'm quite willing to do that. It does require that people acknowledge their flaws first, however. After all, if they will not be reasonable, when these things are pointed out to them, then why should I be? Why should anyone? What rules were broken? I did what Niner did. His posts were not deleted or revised. Nothing in the forum rules states that I cannot quote him in the way I did before I make on-topic comments. I'll play by the rules, but they must be applied equally and to us all. It cannot be okay that Niner can make an comment about nerd rage and have that accepted, if I cannot then later quote it. That's double standard. It's actually quite plain.
  6. I did not edit it. I posted a new post, where I did make on-topic comments. For example, Sephira concluded that Revan could never defeat Sidious because there were no circumstances that could allow it. I said that there are always circumstances in any fight, including shifting battlegrounds or - as happened - somebody betraying Sidious and stabbing him in the back. Now, who are you to tell me that is not an appropriate on-topic comment to make? If you answer that you're a moderator/administrator, then we're back to living in a caste-system on this forum, where the mods/admins are of a higher class than everyone else. And even if you were right and I posted for the reasons you claim - and that is not an admission in my part - it still does not change the fact that I can make just the same claim about your "nerd rage" comment a while back. After all, I have no doubt that you also made that comment to condescend and then added - to use your own words - "some on-topic material to cover your ass". Why can you do that while I cannot? Don't presume to know my intent - only I can know my mind. If you get to interpret, then so do I. So what does that mean? Does it mean that if I call you a D***head and can convince everyone else to accept that it is then okay to call you that? I shouldn't think so. But let me put it this way, looking back at it now and seeing what your comment caused, do you now feel that you helped or hindered the problems you saw back then? Does your answer make you part of the solution or part of the problem? Which would you rather be? If I had felt the matter had been taken seriously back then rather being rediculed for being too sensitive, there would have been no problem now. Apparently I'm not the only sensitive person here, given that it is so problematic that I dared to quote something you said... And naturally it will become increasingly difficult to see your "nerd rage" comment as the innocent joke you claim to be the more you and the other moderators protest now. That's your interpretation, not a fact. Besides, even if you were right, does that mean that my "on-topic material to cover my ass" must also be deleted? You admit that was on-topic. But it's still deleted, and you accept that. Even if you think I was trying to stir up trouble with the quote, that's a problem, especially for you as a mod, since you must set the example. Do you think you're off to a good start here? And no, I did not post it to stir up trouble. I deny that completely. I did it to prove a point. It's too bad that you all took it hook, line and sinker rather than actually talk to me about it. But as I said, it's what I've come to expect. Mods here seem to like throwing their authority around rather than actually trying to solve the problems. That this matter was blatantly ignored in the first is the reason this topic now exists, so it would befit the mods not to claim innocence themselves. Methinks thou doth protest too strongly. Furem fur cognoscit et lupum lupus. EDIT: Does that mean you admit to the police-state? If so, you have but to say it, and I shall must assuredly remove my sorry self from your illustrious presence.
  7. I do not try to play innocent, but the fact remains that I posted a comment just like Niner's and made on-topic comments just like him. Yet his post was permitted, while mine was deleted. Why? How is that reasonable? How is my post against the rules when - as you say yourself - it was not inflamatory for its content? What, I'm not allowed to quote Niner and then agree with him?!? As for the intent, he posted it to a heated debate where he felt it was appropriate. I did not agree, but the mods did, so I have little choice but to accept it. But when I then do the same to a similarly heated debate, my posts are deleted. The little game I have had enough of is your attempt here to infer that my post was made in a heated debate where it was problematic, while Niner's was not. That is not true. The discussion between lukeiamyourdad and myself had certainly reached a point where several mods had stated that we should cool down. Was Niner's comment okay in that context? If so, then I fail to see how mine was any different. True, it was against my better judgment in that I objected to Niner's post in the past. But I don't make the rules, and I merely followed the guidelines that you yourself set down by example, when you said Niner's post was okay. Apparently that was fair enough. Until I do it, that is. Hence we have bigotry, double standards and hypocrisy. QED. If you're going to set down the rules like that, then isn't it fair that they apply equally to everyone? I don't agree that Niner's comment was okay, but then I'm not a moderator, and I don't make the rules. If that's the board you want, then fine, but I and every other poster must then be judged by the same rules. By allowing Niner's post and deleting mine, you are effectively judging him by a different standard than me. That's hypocrisy of the highest order. Why should any poster here tolerate that? Then why can't I repeat that? Honestly, I find your blatant attempts to villify me rather than deal with the issue in extremely poor taste. Sure, it's easier and certainly far more convenient to villify me than it is to resolve the matter. After all, you can just ban me and thereby dodge taking the fight among the moderators, but it doesn't change the fact that something stinks here. My comment was made in exactly the same spirit and context that Niner's was. If you think that's a problem, then okay, but then apply the same standard to Niner, please. Your attempt to rather villify me is frankly below board. Sadly I cannot claim surprise. It's what I've come to expect here. But it's okay, if you want that. If you insist on continuing the police-state, then at least have the decency to say so that I might seek political asylum elsewhere.
  8. Wrong. The first post, perhaps, but the second was definitely on-topic, as I made several remarks Revan's power vs. Sidious'. Now, I cannot show you that, since you people deleted it, but if you find it, you'll see that was so. Therefore the rule on spamming does not apply. If it did, then it applied just as much to Niner's post as it did to mine. Either we were both right, or we were both wrong. Yet my post was deleted while his was not. Hence: Double standard. QED. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
  9. I merely quoted Niner. Thus I did nothing to change it. Also: The forum rules do not specify the humor rule. Thus I cannot be in violation of the rules that apply here. http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=169078
  10. Forgive my lack of humor, but are you being humorous here? Because it seems difficult to me to see it as anything else, when you first admit to not understanding what I'm talking about, but then still feel confident to proceed to conclude that I have irritational frustrations that cannot be resolved. I don't understand how you can conclude that, when you admit to not understanding what I'm talking about. If it's simply humorous, then why can't I say it too?
  11. Just inflamatory, eh? And of course it's an attack. I will not be goated into letting you sidetrack the issue here by being angry, however. This is not about being overly sensitive, so please stop trying to obscure the issue. If you dont' want to dicuss this, then you should probably take Jae's advice and not post. This is about doing what Rogue Nine did and being deleted for it while he was not. Hence: Hypocrisy and double standard. It's interesting that three of you have now posted to this topic without denying that. I expect the same rules to apply to me that apply to Rogue Nine when it comes to posting. The topic where he mentioned "nerd rage" was at least as inflamatory as the one I'm deleted from if not more so. Thus I find it difficult to accept that my posts are deleted, while his was not. Given the horrid standard of moderating I've experienced on these boards, I'm beyond the point where I care whether I'm banned or not. I've long since lost my trust in the mods on these fora for the reasons stated above and numerous times before. That you resort to simply deleting my posts without even discussing the matter with me is simply below criticism, when I all I did was to do exactly what Rogue Nine did. Heck, I didn't even do that, I just quoted him and then did not disagree with him. In that, you are - of course - trapped by your own arguments of the past. After all, since Rogue Nine's comment was never deleted despite being reported as inflamatory several times, you can hardly fault me for doing the same or, as is the case here, less. So whether it's inflamatory or not is, at this point, quite moot, as you've already accepted posts like that, given that you allowed Niner's to stand despite being made aware of its inflamatory nature. And I take the fact that my posts were promptly deleted as confirmation of that fact. That was you people deleting my posts for inflamatory content, certainly not me. So it's impossible now to back up and say that Niner's post was not inflamatory. Either he was wrong, or you were wrong to delete my posts. It's really that black and white... QED. Want to avoid stuff like this from me in the future? 1. Ban me from these boards. If you do, I'll naturally stop posting, and people will know what hypocritical bigots you people are. 2. Stop deleting my posts when I do not violate the guidelines you have yourself put down by example.
  12. Much as I disagree with him, I can well understand Sephira's position. Because the mods on these boards ARE hypocrites! Twice now, I've posted to this topic since yesterday. And twice now my posts have been deleted. http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=183256&page=3&pp=40 Now, I'll accept it the first time to some degree, since I (1) did not add to the discussion and (2) forgot to include a smiley as a carte blache to say whatever I please. The reason behind this a post that Rogue Nine posted in the discussion of the Bioware/LA partnership in response to a heated debate between lukeiamyourdad and myself. http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2386790&postcount=221 I both reported the post and PM'ed several mods/admins on it, since I found the comment about "nerd rage" to be inflamatory and condescending content. However, as you can see, the post is still there, as the mods/admins told me that the smiley made it acceptable, while I maintained that it didn't matter, because the content of the post is flamebait whether a smiley appears or not. YMMV. However, when I quote Rogue Nine for saying: "The amount of nerd rage in this thread is so thick. xD" in a different topic and then agree with it, after Rogue Nine's own heated debate with Sephira, my posts are simply deleted without comment. And while I accept it the first time for the reasons stated above, I do not the second, since (1) I did include a smiley and (2) I did make several comments that speak to the topic and are to the point. Yet my post is still deleted. And sadly, I cannot say that I'm surprised. The only good thing about is, that we now have proof positive of the hypocricy, double standards and bigotry of the mods/admins on these boards!!! And so we have a class-based board with one set of rules for the mods/admins, and another for everyone else. QED! Now, the mods have the choice to either accept this and do something about it or else to ban me from these boards, thus proving my point. They have that choice, because I will allow none other and continue to repost this message to as many mods/admins and relevant topics as I feel is reasonable until something happens. So if you read this and find that I stop posting, you will know what option they chose... HYPOCRISY, THY NAME IS LUCASFORUMS MODS!
  13. HYPOCRISY, THY NAME IS LUCASFORUMS MODS! (snip!) Mod note: But it is not the topic of this thread. Seeing as how you've already made a thread with an identical post in the Feedback forum, where it belongs, please use that thread for further discussion about this matter instead. ~M Link to the other thread
  14. All but those, at least according to what Obsidian was planning. It makes sense, though. Due to the exile's special powers regarding force bonds, he attracts potential force sensitives and basically "ties" them to himself without realising it himself anymore than they do. So they all follow him. Not Canderous, HK-47 and T3-M4, however. Oh, and G0-T0. They are not force sensitive and follow because of their mutual connections to Revan. Besides, wookiee jedi are well established: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tyvokka http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lowbacca Lucas nixed the idea of Hanharr being a dark jedi, however, and that's seems to be the only reason he cannot become one in the game.
  15. IIRC, Team Exile has stated that they will restore/recreate the option to turn Hanharr into a dark jedi. I think one of the members said so here or on a related board. Team Exile please confirm, if any of you read this. http://www.team-exile.us/
  16. This is sadly quite true. If LA decides to hand KotOR3 to a developer that wants to reveal that Nihilus was just a droid, that Kreia is alive and is actually Revan in disguise, or that the true Sith have since been killed by gizka, then they are free to do so, regardless of what Obsidian, Bioware, or anyone else thinks about it. To each his own. I feel the exact opposite way. At the risk of repeating what others have said, Bioware declined to do KotOR2 and even recommended Obsidian to LA. Obsidian then wrote TSL with another sequel in the planning stages until LA killed that project. http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/08/13/news_6104775.html Since Obsidian has expressed repeated interest in doing KotOR3 while Bioware declined KotOR2, the logical assumption would seem to me to be that Obsidian would be more likely to write KotOR3 than Bioware, since they wrote TSL with the intent of a sequel. Nonsense. If you cut two months of a development schedule for a game that was written at the alarming rate that TSL was written in, which was a little over a year, then it stand to reason that there is no way that it will not affect the end product. Period. Whether a sequel was being planned or not is simply not a factor.
  17. Kavar: "Did you know that when I was training you I considered making you my Padawan?" So no. He trained the exile and considered taking him as padawan, but apparently decided against it. This line from the game makes it very clear that he was never he master, but merely trained him at one point. EDIT: Further evidence from the discussion with Kavar. He merely sparred with the exile, suggesting to me that he merely taught lightsaber combat. Kavar: "You always had deep connections to the Force. I am glad to see that it is once again your ally. When I first sparred with you during your training as a Padawan, I could tell that you were different. And it wasn't just your strong connection to the Force."
  18. If the rejected dark half of the exile used its powers to "animate" the corpse of a dead jedi to serve as a host for it, then there is no problem at all. Then again, the dark half might not choose just any old dead jedi... Incidentally, isn't it strange that the exile's master is never mentioned in the game?
  19. Maybe... After all, I hold to the theory that Nihilus is really the exile's dark half, which used its powers to animate the dead body of some fallen jedi to serve as its host, in which case that is the body Visas would see, and which would appear to be similar to any other dead person... until the body dissolves in a haze of red dark side smoke, that is... And the fact that Visas looks instead of the exile has always seemed odd to me. The exile was there at Malachor V, after all, so the man behind Nihilus' mask might have been somebody the exile knew. Yet the exile doesn't even bother to look. Why? I suspect it's because the exile already knew on a subconscious level and so fled from that revelation. The exile did not want to see Nihilus' real face, because it would be too difficult. The exile is, after all, in utter denial about his own contition and past throughout the game. So I don't think it unlikely that the exile "fled" from this revelation as well.
  20. If you're talking about the final battle against the Mandalorians at Malachor V, the description of the Nihilus mask in the game leaves little doubt, if you get Visas to get it for you. [Description of the Nihilus Mask] "You have taken this trophy from the remains of Darth Nihilus - it is the last surviving piece of the beast who died and was reborn in the shattered world of Malachor V. By taking it from him, you have gained a stronger tie to the Force."
  21. The only thing that Legacy tells us about Nihilus (in issue 5) is that he escaped death by containing his his consciousness within his armor. There is no reference to whether this is when he allegedly died on Malachor V at the end of the Mandalorian Wars or when he was "killed" by the exile. It seems to suggest the former, but I'm wondering if it might not refer to the latter...
  22. First, obviously you should never take Kreia simply at her word. If Kreia told me water was wet, I'd check with at least two other people to see if they thought it was true before I believed her. With that in mind, however, Kreia remains a great source of information that it would be foolish to ignore IMHO. "Hear all, trust nothing" are the words of wisdom, where Kreia is concerned. Second, Kreia is cast down and exiled from the Sith by Nihilus and Sion, yes. This does not make her equal to the exile, however. The exile achieved his unique powers by denying the will of the force. That is something Kreia cannot do, which is the major reason why she seeks out the exile in the first place. I'd even speculate that she used Nihilus the same way to attack the will of the force, since he has a similar power as the exile's darker half. When he then cast her out, she went to the origin of his "power of denial" instead. So Kreia was exiled, sure. But she's nothing like the exile otherwise. If she were, the entire plot would be moot. As for the exile being jedi or not, that is the exile's choice to make. While the masters would dismiss the exile as jedi out of fear of his powers and Kreia would discount him as one to lure him to her own cause. Sure, the exile is unusual, but then again, isn't everyone? To me that has always been the content of what either Visas or Disciple tells the exile after Kreia kills the masters and then escapes. The exile decides whether he is jedi or sith or something else. It's not something that can be dictated to him by outside powers, especially not in the case of the exile, who can deny even the will of the force. If the exile wants to be a jedi, then he can be, whether the will of the force decrees it or not.
  23. Kreia says it to the comatose LS exile after she has killed the jedi masters. Little reason to lie in that case, as she'll be leaving the exile in any event. Besides, Kreia seems to have this annoying ability to never lie. She bends the truth, sure, she says things that seem to mean one thing, but can be later taken to mean something else. But I don't recall her speaking a clear, confirmable lie during the game. Beyond that, both the jedi masters and HK-47 pretty much support her on that point. It would seem very odd for them all to lie. And spin-offs? No way. The exile is and should remain unique. Sure, Kreia says others will (in the future) stop listening to the force as the exile did, but that only goes some way toward making the exile's choice. You add more people to that list, and the exile stops being a unique person and instead just becomes "yet another force-denier" among many. It's trivial and takes away from the character and from the plot of TSL. I'd hate that.
  24. I'd agree, but then Kreia makes it very clear that the exile alone was the only one to reach a third option, and the jedi masters tell us that the exile is responsible for the powers that the Sith wielded against them on Katarr, which refers to Nihilus' abilities, since he devastated that world. So I'd speculate it's more of a combination. It was revealed, but it was also uncertain. The speculation about whether Vader was really Luke's father or not could easily match most speculation about K3 or a KotOR MMO on these boards today during the years that passed between ESB and ROTJ. People just didn't know. It wasn't until Yoda confirmed it in ROTJ that it became fact. Until then it was just speculation. Take a look at the comic book stories written in that time - they were falling over themselves to avoid the issue, since only Lucas was allowed to give the answer. I know that, but the question is what the vision refers back to. Where did that battle take place? And IIRC, it was on Dxun. Well, they didn't actually notice Atton either. Indeed, it was only the jedi he killed that did, and that's how Atton is able to escape before he was trained to become a dark jedi. Beyond that, I'd assume that being trained in jedi-killing techniques is itself a study into the force as such in that to fight the jedi better, Atton had to understand how jedi think, much as a profiler attempts to understand the mindset of a murderer. But since we're talking about jedi, that also exposes Atton more to force techniques. He was trained in ways to block mind affecting force powers, for example, and if you listen to Atton, he seems to have great insights into how jedi think and act. He had to in order to be a better assassin of jedi. Bao-Dur, by comparison, was a lot more of "simple" soldier, and he wasn't even that to the fullest extent, since we know that they made great use of his skills as an engineer. So he was far less exposed to the force than Atton was, and yet we still know that he was affected too, from what he tells us during the game.
  25. Pretty much, though I would scarcely call Bao-Dur a regular soldier. He was an engineer, and his skills were certainly used as such, even though he seems to have joined as a regular soldier. He was certainly affected by the choice Revan put to the jedi and describes in details to the exile how he felt he lost control of himself with battle fury, which is as close to being seduced by the dark side as non-jedi seem able to become. As Carth would point out, Revan and Malak had the excuse of being lured by the dark side, but not the soldiers who followed them after their fall. Carth refers to Saul Karath, of course, but naturally it applies to Bao-Dur as well, and even underscores Carth's point, since Bao-Dur was able to free himself from those dark emotions without someone to "return him to the light". Consider the following, which can Bao-Dur can say during the game... Bao-Dur: ".Why did you decide to fight?The war went poorly before Revan and the Jedi lent aid to the Republic. Many of us believed the Jedi to be cowards who were afraid to face the Mandalorian threat.I felt the same way. I remembered when word of the Mandalorian attacks arrived on Iridonia.My people had colonies across the Outer Rim. Many of them were among the first systems to fall.Revenge, and to crush the Mandalorians - to send them back to wherever it was they came from.{"Mercy" is said ruefully}I did not join because I wanted to protect, though. I hated them. I wanted to destroy them - to give them the mercy they gave the people they conquered.I remember the thrill I felt when we fought them in battle. Victories were rare, but we celebrated every Mandalorian's death.Do you know how it felt?It's always on my mind, now. That loss of control blinded me, turned me into a weapon.{Apologetic}I... just needed to get that off my chest.I couldn't do that. It was almost as though the battle took control of me, drove me forward.{Off of Telos}General. Need something?I moved around for a couple years. Working as a starship mechanic got me from place to place. I wasn't ready to settle down after the war.{Very serious}As long as I kept moving, I didn't have to think about what happened. Know what I mean?Mostly, I was angry. Angry about what I had done, about why I had done it.{Accusing}Maybe if I had the Force to lean on, I could have worked it out. But then the Force didn't seem to be of much help to others.I was, no doubt. It's hard to face up to yourself sometimes, and for a few years, I couldn't.{Sincere}I'm sure you do.I decided I'd do something constructive. I wanted to make up for the things I'd done in the war.I wanted to design planetary shields, but there weren't many systems with the credits to spare - there was more that needed to be rebuilt than protected.I found out that Telos was going to be the flagship project for the Republic, and it sounded like something good. I saw Telos before the Sith razed it. It deserved a better fate.{Anger}But Czerka ruined everything. I thought I could force Czerka out on my own, but I guess I can't fix everything myself."
  • Create New...