Chaos Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 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? 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeldaDad Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted March 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 If only I knew which theories I espouse... this idea intimidates me 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silus - Shard of Flame Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted March 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 If only I knew which theories I espouse... this idea intimidates me 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? ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KChan Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted March 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 Puck, judging from your sig, I have to ask: did you just auto-Espouse my theories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 For the time being 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyman Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 For the time being 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted April 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe ST Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 I'm just waiting for proof myself lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 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 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Silus - Shard of Flame Posted April 6, 2011 Popular Post Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 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! 18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 burned! upvoted 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silus - Shard of Flame Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Puck, you get 10 AWESOME POINTS for being able to take a joke. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyman Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Posted April 9, 2011 Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 Well, one does what one can 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted July 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) 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 July 27, 2011 by Chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe ST Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emeralis00 Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted August 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyman Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOM1else Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted August 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 (edited) 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 August 18, 2011 by Chaos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts