• Announcements

    • Chaos

      Oathbringer Spoiler Policy   11/13/2017

      Oathbringer is out! Let's make our policy on spoilers clear! 1. You must preface topics with Oathbringer spoilers with the prefix [OB] in the front 2. You are only allowed to post spoilers and spoiler topics in the Oathbringer Spoiler Board, Cosmere Theories, and some select work-related forums. 3. For posts in the Oathbringer Spoiler Board you do not need to use spoiler tags inside a topic marked [OB]. For Cosmere Theories, you also do not need to put spoiler tags inside your topic if the topic has [OB] in the title. However, for Cosmere Theories, if you are adding Oathbringer stuff to an old theory without the [OB] tag, those must go in spoiler tags and you must make it obvious outside the spoiler tag that the spoiler is regarding Oathbringer content. 4. For select things that do require talking about OB spoilers, in Events, Coppermind, and Arcanum forums, those are allowed but keep OB spoilers in spoiler tags 5. Avoid and minimize spoilers in topic titles--even though those two boards will not appear in the Recent Topics ticker, topic titles still appear in Recent Activity and the forum home.  6. You aren't allowed to post Oathbringer spoilers in places other than listed, even with spoiler tags.  It will be nine months and then the Oathbringer board will be re-merged with the Stormlight board and you will not need to tag these spoilers. If you'd like to move something in the Stormlight Archive board to the Oathbringer board, to update it with new Oathbringer information, Report the post and we will happily move it to the Oathbringer spoiler board. Part-by-part Reactions Though the Oathbringer Spoiler Board will be very spoilery, very fast (maybe don't come there until you've read the book, as people do have copies that bookstores sold early), you'll have these five topics for reactions if you want to nerd out: Part 1 Reactions
      Part 2 Reactions
      Part 3 Reactions
      Part 4 Reactions
      Full Book Reactions For parts 1-4, they will not include the interludes immediately following it. On Discord All Oathbringer spoilers on Discord will be exclusively in the #oathbringer_spoilers channel for the nine month spoiler period and nowhere else.
Chaos

Espoused Theories

36 posts in this topic

I always liked what Theoryland did, with Factions. You could join a faction of a specific theory and support it in that obvious way. Well, since I always want 17S to be Brandon's Theoryland, let's do something similar and post the theories you support in your signature!

Rules:

1. If you are the creator of the theory you are espousing, put a star by it. There's no need to only espouse your own theories. Just because I'm doing it doesn't mean anything. Do as I say, not as I do...

2. Try to keep spoilers out of the title of the theory. For example, you wouldn't want to espouse a theory like "Sazed is Going to Roshar," for obvious reasons. Obfuscate it to something like "Shards Traveling to Roshar" or something. I don't know how you would rephrase that particular theory, but we really don't want to spoil an ending from a frickin' forum sig. That would be ridiculous.

3. Link to the original theory topic on 17th Shard.

4. Don't espouse theories that Brandon has explicitly confirmed (like the Almighty's Shard name). At that point, they aren't theories, but facts. This is supposed to create discussion on new ideas. Your new ideas should give a different take on the given facts, not contradict them.

5. Format it like so:

[b]Espoused Theories:[/b] [url=insertlinkhere]Theory #1 Name[/url], etc.

It's not a perfect system, but let's try it for now. The obvious problem involves when we have a ridiculous amount of theories. It's not a problem now, but it could be later.

What do you think of this idea? Have any ideas to make it run more smoothly?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this idea a lot. My only thought is that each person will have to be responsible for editing their Espoused Theories within their sig if their theory is either confirmed or denied. Otherwise any new members (or members who don't follow theories too closely) might be misdirected. Otherwise, super plan. I especially like it because I am a little behind on the theories aspect of the 17th Shard and seeing the more supported ones in sigs will help me catch up.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. I mean, I suppose I can always get into the Admin CP and do it directly, but I'd rather not do that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only I knew which theories I espouse... this idea intimidates me blink.gif

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this, will get around to it at some point. Me and Chaos have opposing ideas on many things, but the irony is that I'll probably have more than one of his theories in my sig. XP

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only I knew which theories I espouse... this idea intimidates me blink.gif

I like this, will get around to it at some point. Me and Chaos have opposing ideas on many things, but the irony is that I'll probably have more than one of his theories in my sig. XP

Puck, you espouse my theories, because I am infallible.

On that note I have removed the Aona and Skai's Name theory from my sig, because my theory was resolved. I didn't get Skai's name right, though. I am totally infallible, right? ...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have to go into anyone's sig to remove an confirmed/debunked/outdated theory, you are getting a bright pink animated gif with sparkles, comic sans, and anything else annoying that I can think of in place of your old signature. Please don't make me do that to you. ^_^

Now, which theories to put in my sig...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puck, judging from your sig, I have to ask: did you just auto-Espouse my theories? :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the time being dry.gif After I see enough examples of what other theories are being espoused, I might leave the nest. Who knows?

At least this way my ignorance/laziness can provide some chuckles :)

(On second thought, I may have just started the 17th Shard equivalent of the party system. Uuuuggh!)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the time being dry.gif After I see enough examples of what other theories are being espoused, I might leave the nest. Who knows?

At least this way my ignorance/laziness can provide some chuckles :)

(On second thought, I may have just started the 17th Shard equivalent of the party system. Uuuuggh!)

For your sake, Puck, I hope Chaos doesn't espouse a theory titled "All Theories Espoused by Puck are Wrong."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your sake, Puck, I hope Chaos doesn't espouse a theory titled "All Theories Espoused by Puck are Wrong."

Yes, but if I did that, then I'd be saying my other theories are wrong! ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just waiting for proof myself :P lol

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your sake, Puck, I hope Chaos doesn't espouse a theory titled "All Theories Espoused by Puck are Wrong."

Seriously! Then we'd be in some kind of Cosmeric Liar Paradox, where x could both be equal to x and not equal to x. All logic and mathematics would be out the window. Physics would follow, as well as most of the soft sciences. (...the Humanities would still be safe, but not the academics/critics of them, thank goodness.)

Either way, I suggest that Chaos not throw us into that kind of... well.. chaos

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that Puck and Chaos would both evaporate out of time and space if that happened. Sooo...is there a downside? I kid! I kid!

14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

burned! upvoted

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously! Then we'd be in some kind of Cosmeric Liar Paradox, where x could both be equal to x and not equal to x. All logic and mathematics would be out the window. Physics would follow, as well as most of the soft sciences. (...the Humanities would still be safe, but not the academics/critics of them, thank goodness.)

Either way, I suggest that Chaos not throw us into that kind of... well.. chaos

I can't say how awesome it is that you caught all that. Well done!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, one does what one can :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that theory espousing has gone fairly well since its inception. It would be nice for there to be some way to look at a theory and see who all espoused it, but there isn't a good way to do that unless there's some serious infrastructure change.

However, now I'm wondering how we should handle theory revisions. I would like to revise the Principle of Intent at some point, since I think it could be stated in a much cleaner fashion.

So here's what I'm thinking for a policy on theory revision. People shouldn't post a new topic, since that would hurt the people who may have already espoused a given theory. So people should edit their original post, with these guidelines:

  • The essence of the original theory must be maintained.
  • Put the version number and the date at the top of the revised theory
  • For reference, put the original theory at the bottom.

In my mind these would only apply to large scale revisions, not line level edits. Thoughts?

Edited by Chaos
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, sounds like a good idea, use the topic subtitle/description bit for the version/etc, the date is the post-date.

Should we begin wikifying the (bigger) theories? As long as we have a copy of the different (major) versions, there's nothing stopping us from keeping each theory topic as is, just having the old versions stored in the wiki.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that theory espousing has gone fairly well since its inception. It would be nice for there to be some way to look at a theory and see who all espoused it, but there isn't a good way to do that unless there's some serious infrastructure change.

However, now I'm wondering how we should handle theory revisions. I would like to revise the Principle of Intent at some point, since I think it could be stated in a much cleaner fashion.

So here's what I'm thinking for a policy on theory revision. People shouldn't post a new topic, since that would hurt the people who may have already espoused a given theory. So people should edit their original post, with these guidelines:

  • The essence of the original theory must be maintained.
  • Put the version number and the date at the top of the revised theory
  • For reference, put the original theory at the bottom.

In my mind these would only apply to large scale revisions, not line level edits. Thoughts?

I always assumed that the theory included the discussion as part of it, Not just the original post.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assumed that the theory included the discussion as part of it, Not just the original post.

Yes, but the original post is a factor, especially if you were lurking on the boards and wanted to figure out the main idea behind a thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, most theories will change with time. Almost every theory needs refinement, especially the wrong ones! A "canonical," or at least widely accepted, version of the theory attached to a broader discussion would seem appropriate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or does any one else feel like Chaos is part of the assuredness movement from WoK? No offense Chaos, just a random thought I had after reading some of your theories. :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or does any one else feel like Chaos is part of the assuredness movement from WoK? No offense Chaos, just a random thought I had after reading some of your theories. :)

I don't understand. What do you mean by "assuredness movement"?

EDIT: Found it. Yeah, I can see that. I'm okay with that.

Edited by Chaos
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.