Prime Marks Ragnos- fully geared VS AOTC Yoda

@DarthAnt66

Interesting piece and there's a lot to consider and digest. For the time being, I'll focus on the part that holds direct relevance to this discussion which is the part that covers Chee and his tick of approval on supremacy quotes and where you directly refer to the Chee quotes in question. Two key counters I'd like to introduce:

1. You make a point of Chee offering supremacy quotes such as Father>everyone and also reference quotes such as Anakin>Kenobi and Ben>Vader. The character X>character Y quotes don't serve as a counter to Chee's overall outlook given they aren't supremacy quotes. Based on what Chee said, the only quotes that don't hold are ones that cover an extensive period of time or all time. Individual and era based supremacy still logically holds. As for the Father quote, that is an extreme outlier that involves characters that defy pretty much every standard applied given they practically serve as force gods.

2. Chee's tick of approval of various supremacy quotes is not necessarily a contradiction of the 'not dealing in absolutes' outlook. Chee approves many, many pieces of content but not all of them are equal in terms of quality or viability in relation to the context of SW debates relating to various matchups. As I've pointed out, Chee debunks GOAT quotes so his tick of approval would not erase the fact that he and other continuity people do not treat GOAT quotes as a way to place a character above all others (aside from the Father which is an exception, not a rule). To offer a clear stance, one could view the Sidious accolades (the GOAT quotes) on the same level as novel blurbs in the sense that they serve as a hype engine but aren't necessarily gospel. This aligns with Chee's tick of approval as the content still serves a legitimate purpose and it also aligns with his rulings on supremacy quotes.

As for your query towards a single Ancient Sith attacking Sidious, I would reinforce the point by acknowledging that these spirits are noted in the Book of Sith as elusive and historically, spirits interacting with the living (on the rare occasions they choose to do so) tend to be single Sith entering a conversation as seen with cases such as Pall and Revan as well as Ragnos and Plagueis. I don't see why Sidious would earn a theoretical Ancient Sith parade. And even if we were to give Sidious the benefit of the doubt, considering the scaling I put forward, adding numbers wouldn't prevent Sidious from being inferior to some of the Ancient heavy hitters like Ragnos, Sadow, etc.


@Vaelias

Where did I say debating them is canonically incorrect please ? I said not using the quotes where the context is clear that the quotes mean most powerful Sith, in terms of force power is incorrect, there is of course still a debate for whether that quote really means that power is referring to force power but more often than not they clearly are.

You argued that the quotes are binding and that ignoring them is incorrect. Given I was arguing for the logic of ignoring them, your post came across as you saying that this was flawed when Chee said it was not. If that wasn't what you were aiming to argue then that's totally fine, we can leave this point.

Yes to whether the Power is political, military might or actual force power . he quite literally says this straight after that lol...

Except arguing power in relation to military, politics, or force power isn't the only type of interpretation/debate Chee is open to. He simply used that as one example of how someone could theoretically challenge a quote. Arguing that a quote lacks viability due to it being a supremacy quote that spans across too many eras as well as the fact that it is contradicted by C-Canon sources is also a viable way to debate a quote.

the debate isn't whether the quote should be ignored or not that's ridiculous.

Since when are we not allowed to question the viability of evidence? I mean, having pieces of C-canon overruled is something Chee has done himself. For example, his overruling of Sidoous saying he died prior to RotJ in the Dark Empire comics. If there is a case for a piece of evidence not aligning with EU content, why shouldn't we explore that possibility?

Dunno where you gathered that from, in the case of Sidious he has about 100 quotes stating that he is the most powerful Sith of all time, even some quotes that flat out say he is the most powerful with the force which as I've shown you, means exactly what it means, these are binding statements, some even of T-Canon which overrules C-Canon, now I can understand debating the authority of a few lone accolades when the context is fuzzy and unclear, but this is most certainly not the case for Sidious at all, even without his quotes Sidious is supreme he has showings FAR beyond any other Sith, What is actually interesting to note is that Chee has personally fact checked and approved dozens of supremacy quotes himself

I got that from the fact that Sidious quotes are directly referenced so in the Chee quotes, he goes for all supremacy quotes but notes Sidious as a very specific example. Just thought it was interesting how some think they are binding despite them being directly questioned here with Chee giving his approval of the idea that most powerful quotes aren't legitimate. As for context, we have Sidious losing to a Sith spirit so I agree that fuzzy context is not a factor. Quite the contrary, it is clear that Sidious has showings that directly demonstrate that his supremacy accolades can't logically work. If he were the greatest Sith of all time in terms of combat capability, then how is he nearly dying to a Sith spirit who scales way below people like Kressh? Now, I want to make it clear, I'm not making this argument to crap on Sidious. As you pointed out, Sidious has showings that dwarf many Sith in terms of power and skill and we can also conclude that he is superior to many with things like Banite scaling. My point overall is that the Ancient Sith are absolute powerhouses that are outliers in terms of force power. As for Chee's fact-checking, that just shows that the quotes are verified and legitimate content. That does not automatically mean that they are viable as a measure of power. If they were, then why would Chee make such a fuss over not dealing in absolutes and making a point of debunking GOAT quotes?

He is talking specifically about S-Canon statistics as I noted above no body even uses them anyway

Not really sure why you brought this up given I never tried to use S-Canon in my arguments.

Except arguing power in relation to military, politics, or force power isn't the only type of interpretation/debate Chee is open to.

Why? that is the only point he mentioned for supremacy quotes, that is the only thing to be debated when it comes to supremacy quotes there is literally no other point you could make for them not meaning what they say unless you wanna argue that a quote is IU and historians writing the sources are incorrect or have no knowledge of a certain character you believe to be exempt from the quote. or if there is another quote that downright contradicts.

Leland Chee wrote:"is the power being measured referring to his mastery over the dark side of the force, the governmental powers he wields as Emperor, or some combination of both"

Arguing that a quote lacks viability due to it being a supremacy quote that spans across too many eras as well as the fact that it is contradicted by C-Canon sources is also a viable way to debate a quote.

You cant argue for it lacking validity simply because it is a supremacy quote, the quote still means what it means it is still a binding part of the source material, the debate is whether or not it is IU or OOU or power refers to factors other than force power, it doesn't just lack validity simply because it is a supremacy quote and Chee said that their could be multiple factors to debate when it comes to these quotes, quotes are THE most accurate way of scaling given that feats are subject to exaggerated mediums, and incase you didn't notice supremacy quotes are still C-Canon, some even T or G Canon, so you cant just make an exception.

Since when are we not allowed to question the viability of evidence?

questioning the viability and assuming all supremacy quotes are not viable simply because there can be multiple factors to consider, are two very different things, you are literally ignoring hundreds of C-Canon sources to favor your favorite characters is what you are doing, as I said the meaning and validity of the quote is up for debate, yes, but most of these quotes have very crystal clear meanings that do validate the quotes, because the meaning of said quote has been concluded, you are the one ignoring the validity

having pieces of C-canon overruled is something Chee has done himself. For example, his overruling of Sidious saying he died prior to RotJ in the Dark Empire comics.

a star wars employee working in continuity altering C-Canon is fine but it is not in the fans power to do so, I cant just turn round and say yeah Sidious never died before ROTJ if it is still in C-Canon and has yet to be discredited by a member of continuity.

I got that from the fact that Sidious quotes are directly referenced so in the Chee quotes, he goes for all supremacy quotes but notes Sidious as a very specific example.

Simply because Sidious was the subject in question, it wasn't Chee who brought Sidious up it was the person asking the question

Just thought it was interesting how some think they are binding despite them being directly questioned here with Chee giving his approval of the idea that most powerful quotes aren't legitimate.

Not once did he say they aren't legitimate, he said there are multiple factors to consider, you cant just have a C-Canon book with everything being C-Canon but the second a supremacy quote shows up then that quote is exempt from the canonicity of the book, that's not how it works, the quote is still C-Canon and binding, it is just up to us to debate the multiple variables, and accurately decipher to true meaning of the quote, for example there is a quote Sidious has that reads "grew more secure in his power" now it can be concluded that this quote is most likely referencing his political power, but quotes like "Sidious is the most powerful practitioner of the dark side to ever exist" is clearly referencing force power, a more debatable one would be Sidious is the most powerful Sith ever that follows up by talking about the size of the empire and shows a picture with Sidious in front of his imperial fleet, one could make a strong argument for that quote referencing military might.

As for context, we have Sidious losing to a Sith spirit

Sidious has showings that directly demonstrate that his supremacy accolades can't logically work.

As I say, showings are subject to exaggerated mediums, Quotes take precedence in every way, especially ones of T-Canon when the showing is C-Canon, there is almost always an explanation in instances like this anyway.

My point overall is that the Ancient Sith are absolute powerhouses that are outliers in terms of force power.

I agree but that can also be true factoring in quotes, they can still be powerhouses and below Sidious, he is just even more of a powerhouse without quotes you wouldn't get the Kun>Ragnos>Nadd>Sadow scaling

As for Chee's fact-checking, that just shows that the quotes are verified and legitimate content. That does not automatically mean that they are viable as a measure of power. If they were, then why would Chee make such a fuss over not dealing in absolutes

He makes sure they are befitting with the lore, that means power levels too, as ive explained there is 0 reason that these binding statements referring to power should be disregarded only the meanings of them debated, and if you refer to my last post i always debunked that,
Chee saying he doesn't deal in absolutes is him answering the question that was "where would Ragnos stand amongst other Sith" he is notorious for not answering questions directly

and making a point of debunking GOAT quotes?

I think we have established by now that that is not what he did at all

Not really sure why you brought this up given I never tried to use S-Canon in my arguments.

Well you said...

Chee notes that while Gillard's list is legitimate, others are not

so i pointed out that "others" is not referring to rankings based on supremacy quotes rather simply S-Canon game stats

The exact number of Sith spirits that attacked Sheev are unknown, but the plural nouns and pronouns require a greater number than one.

@Vaelias

Why? that is the only point he mentioned for supremacy quotes, that is the only thing to be debated when it comes to supremacy quotes there is literally no other point you could make for them not meaning what they say unless you wanna argue that a quote is IU and historians writing the sources are incorrect or have no knowledge of a certain character you believe to be exempt from the quote. or if there is another quote that downright contradicts.

Except that's not how the quote necessarily functions. Sentence 1 serves to open up the idea of debate and interpretation. Sentence 2 functions as an example of how Chee is questioning the quote. That does not necessarily mean that it is the only way quotes can be questioned. And to be honest, it is logical intellectual practice to put all evidence under the microscope and examine its viability.

You cant argue for it lacking validity simply because it is a supremacy quote, the quote still means what it means it is still a binding part of the source material, the debate is whether or not it is IU or OOU or power refers to factors other than force power, it doesn't just lack validity simply because it is a supremacy quote and Chee said that their could be multiple factors to debate when it comes to these quotes, quotes are THE most accurate way of scaling given that feats are subject to exaggerated mediums, and incase you didn't notice supremacy quotes are still C-Canon, some even T or G Canon, so you cant just make an exception.

Well per Chee, we actually can argue for lack of viability based on that. Though my argument is two-pronged as I argue it clashes with other content and is a supremacy quote which Chee disapproves of. Chee and his word stands as G-Canon so even if a G-Canon supremacy quote was presented, this Chee quote could be used to shut it down. I agree that quotes are an excellent way of scaling and fully support accolades such as era based supremacy or characterX>character Y style accolades. GOAT quotes are the issue here and my not acknowledging them is a fully supported position.

questioning the viability and assuming all supremacy quotes are not viable simply because there can be multiple factors to consider, are two very different things, you are literally ignoring hundreds of C-Canon sources to favor your favorite characters is what you are doing, as I said the meaning and validity of the quote is up for debate, yes, but most of these quotes have very crystal clear meanings that do validate the quotes, because the meaning of said quote has been concluded, you are the one ignoring the validity

First off, Sidious/Traya are a couple of my faves yet in my Ragnos RT I dunk on them both so saying I'm just supporting my faves with my arguments is objectively incorrect. Anyone who knows me well can vouch for my love of those characters. I'm just basing my arguments on what evidence we have and the Chee quote isn't something you can get around.

a star wars employee working in continuity altering C-Canon is fine but it is not in the fans power to do so, I cant just turn round and say yeah Sidious never died before ROTJ if it is still in C-Canon and has yet to be discredited by a member of continuity.

Never said fans had that power lol. I simply offered an example of Chee's word affecting C-Canon. You keep going on about how I'm doing this awful thing by ignoring these sources but Chee's authority has the power to bypass C-Canon. This point was mainly to enforce that idea seeing as you seem to be not quite grasping it. It was also to show that in cases of contradiction, Chee's word should be the deciding factor. So supremacy quotes vs C-Canon showings. Chee in this case is serving as the deciding factor.

Simply because Sidious was the subject in question, it wasn't Chee who brought Sidious up it was the person asking the question

And Chee fully agreed with what that person was saying.

Not once did he say they aren't legitimate, he said there are multiple factors to consider, you cant just have a C-Canon book with everything being C-Canon but the second a supremacy quote shows up then that quote is exempt from the canonicity of the book, that's not how it works, the quote is still C-Canon and binding, it is just up to us to debate the multiple variables, and accurately decipher to true meaning of the quote, for example there is a quote Sidious has that reads "grew more secure in his power" now it can be concluded that this quote is most likely referencing his political power, but quotes like "Sidious is the most powerful practitioner of the dark side to ever exist" is clearly referencing force power, a more debatable one would be Sidious is the most powerful Sith ever that follows up by talking about the size of the empire and shows a picture with Sidious in front of his imperial fleet, one could make a strong argument for that quote referencing military might.

When Captain Yossarian put forward the idea of there being no such thing as GOAT quotes, Chee fully agreed. There was no case of "yes but..." he just said agreed which indicates he fully supported what Captain said. Also, not dealing in absolutes is a pretty clear message concerning quotes that try to push one character as the undeniable best ever. Supremacy quotes don't bind anything because their power has been stripped by a G-Canon source. It's the same as when Chee stripped blurbs of any power they once held.

As I say, showings are subject to exaggerated mediums, Quotes take precedence in every way, especially ones of T-Canon when the showing is C-Canon, there is almost always an explanation in instances like this anyway.

Quotes do take priority in most cases (though a case by case basis should still be used) but when quotes have their power debunked by G-Canon authority, they don't have the influence necessary to overrule feats.

I agree but that can also be true factoring in quotes, they can still be powerhouses and below Sidious, he is just even more of a powerhouse without quotes you wouldn't get the Kun>Ragnos>Nadd>Sadow scaling

The quotes that make that Ancient scaling you provided are era-specific quotes and are not affected by the Chee quotes presented. I agree that there would be no shame in Ragnos being sub-Sidious. However, based on the evidence I have, I have to say that Ragnos>ANH Sidious seems like a steady placement.

He makes sure they are befitting with the lore, that means power levels too, as ive explained there is 0 reason that these binding statements referring to power should be disregarded only the meanings of them debated, and if you refer to my last post i always debunked that,
Chee saying he doesn't deal in absolutes is him answering the question that was "where would Ragnos stand amongst other Sith" he is notorious for not answering questions directly

Chee not dealing in absolutes is his response to not having one character stand above the rest (the Father obviously gets a free pass in this case). This is also supported when Chee in a different tweet notes that there is always a bigger fish. Chee being against GOAT quotes is pretty consistent and made very clear. Apologies for the low-quality pic.

so i pointed out that "others" is not referring to rankings based on supremacy quotes rather simply S-Canon game stats

No, the S-Canon materials were put alongside Gillard's list as tier lists/general rankings that are legitimate. Obviously, S-Canon ones are used for gameplay purposes only but Chee was providing examples of rankings that actually stood and note that Sidious supremacy quotes didn't make that list.

Gideon/Tempest wrote:The exact number of Sith spirits that attacked Sheev are unknown, but the plural nouns and pronouns require a greater number than one.

As I pointed out to Ant, numbers wouldn't necessarily make a difference given the scaling I presented. But I'll concede to the idea that Sidious got attacked by two spirits.

We dunno the circumstances between the Spirits vs. Palpatine, all we can really infer is it was extremely close since Palpatine was able to fight off the spirits but was left in such a bad shape he needed to body hop into a clone.

Ragnos is usually portrayed as the leader of the Sith spirits on Korriban so he might have fought Palps.

We can’t infer anything. We don’t know if he fought them, if they caught him off guard, how they attacked him etc. All we know is that Palpatine was rescued by his disciple, who managed to ward off the spirits from Palpatine, heavily implying that Palpatine himself was so heavily injured that he couldn't offer any resistance against the attackers. This is not to say he is below the spirits, because he isn’t. However, he’s no less immune to injury, or any less susceptible to damage than anyone else under certain circumstances .

It said the ancient spirits "cowed" him, which means to basically force someone to submit. They also wanted to kill him, obviously they didn't succeed, however.

I agree to an extent that we don't really know much about the encounter, but the little that the encounter implies it was a fight of sorts. If he were off guard then I don't see why the Spirits just didn't finish the job for example.

The Merchant wrote:If he were off guard then I don't see why the Spirits just didn't finish the job for example.

They didn’t finish the job because he was rescued

Except that's not how the quote necessarily functions. Sentence 1 serves to open up the idea of debate and interpretation. Sentence 2 functions as an example of how Chee is questioning the quote. That does not necessarily mean that it is the only way quotes can be questioned. And to be honest, it is logical intellectual practice to put all evidence under the microscope and examine its viability.

Im not repeating myself, ive explained exactly what the quote means, its not hard to grasp tbh

Well per Chee, we actually can argue for lack of viability based on that. 

Not once did she ever say that it lacks validity, he just said there are numerous factors to consider instead to taking the quote at face value, as I said there is literally NOTHING else that can be debated except for what the meaning of the word power means, if the source is IU or OOU or if it is directly contradicted by another quote, please name 1 other thing to debate here! there is nothing else that could be debated that would invalidate the quote meaning exactly what is says

Chee and his word stands as G-Canon so even if a G-Canon supremacy quote was presented, this Chee quote could be used to shut it down.

Chee's word is NOT G-Canon at all, you do know G stands for George right lol, and again Chee's quote cannot shut it down unless the context shows otherwise, all Chee did was explained that we shouldn't take the quotes at face value and look to see what they are really meaning

GOAT quotes are the issue here and my not acknowledging them is a fully supported position.

No it is not supported at all, not acknowledging them is canonically incorrect, you may just not acknowledge Dark Empire because you don't like how powerful Sheev is, as I've explained Chee never even implied you should straight up not acknowledge quotes, he literally only said you need to look at the context around them because there could be multiple variables 

saying I'm just supporting my faves with my arguments is objectively incorrect

No it is not, because you are straight ignoring binding canonical sources in order to wank them, based on your incorrect interpretation of the Chee quotes, which has clear as day context tbh

and the Chee quote isn't something you can get around.

Exactly. so stop stretching it like mad lol, you are probably the only person on this site who thinks that supremacy quotes don't count lol

Never said fans had that power lol.

well u kinda did...

Since when are we not allowed to question the viability of evidence? I mean, having pieces of C-canon overruled is something Chee has done himself

You used Chee altering canon as an indication that we ourselves have that power and should decide what to overrule or not

 You keep going on about how I'm doing this awful thing by ignoring these sources but Chee's authority has the power to bypass C-Canon.

Yes but last I check you are not Leland Chee, and you have no authority to straight up ignore binding sources, I've already explained to you why this quote does not at all imply supremacy quotes aren't viable, that is just silly tbh

So supremacy quotes vs C-Canon showings.

Supremacy quotes are C-Canon and even T and G Canon and also not subject to exaggerated mediums or any circumstantial events, so Supremacy quotes every time. Chee literally agrees with this especially seeing as he fact checks the sources, there is a reason why there are no quotes saying Coleman Trebor is the most powerful Jedi in galactic history, because he is not, and a quote like that would not get passed fact checking and would not be approved, you act like all these quotes are just written in by someone other than the people who literally make the lore, and then not fact checked and approved at all

And Chee fully agreed with what that person was saying.

Yes that there are multiple variables and that is what the debate on the quotes is about


the guy literally said Ragnos' quote would put him amongs the most powerful Sith, and then as I clarified for you, that is where further debate comes in for a more solid placement.

the dude wrote:If you definitivley say that one Sith is the most powerful then by definition any other Sith you create in the EU must be inferior so I doubt the continuity people make such abolutes on the powerfulness of the characters

Chee agreeing on this only affirms the Shedding Limitations Methodology, the quotes still apply to characters invented prior to the quote, Chee fact checks these quotes.

When Captain Yossarian put forward the idea of there being no such thing as GOAT quotes

Yes that any other character invented after the quotes would be held down by the quotes and that the quotes would limit 

There was no case of "yes but..." he just said agreed which indicates he fully supported what Captain said.

Well then is he also agreeing with the idea that Captain Yossarian "could be wrong though" 
I've explained above what this means, which is clear by Chee emphasizing on there being multiple variables to consider in 2 sources 

Supremacy quotes don't bind anything because their power has been stripped by a G-Canon source.

Lol no, Chee's word is not G-Canon for one, and as ive explained a million times their power has not gone anywhere at all

 It's the same as when Chee stripped blurbs of any power they once held.

No it is not, because "Blurbs have license to be Subjective" Supremacy quotes don't lol they are FACT CHECKED by LFL and BINDING, also blurbs dont have 0 power they are S-Canon

when quotes have their power debunked by G-Canon authority

Never happened

they don't have the influence necessary to overrule feats.

By your logic Feats have absolutely 0 power and should be ignored too because exaggerated mediums have been confirmed as a thing

The quotes that make that Ancient scaling you provided are era-specific quotes and are not affected by the Chee quotes presented.

False. Kun has multiple all time quotes, and why would those quotes be excluded from Chee's comment, if a person is invented after Sadow's era specific most powerful quote then Chee agrees it should not lock him, this happened with Tenebrae who was probably more powerful than Sadow at the time but whos quotes pre-date Tenebrae's invention, this is the point Chee was making, not that all GOAT quotes don't count at all for anyone, that is very silly 

based on the evidence I have, I have to say that Ragnos>ANH Sidious seems like a steady placement.

Well based on solid LFL fact checked and approved binding statements and even showings it is pretty certain that a steady placement would be TPM Maul > Ragnos.


How do we know it was not the whole of most of the Valley of Sith spirits that cowed Sidious, including Ragnos himself along with other big name Sith, if anything that is very likely what happened.

This is also supported when Chee in a different tweet notes that there is always a bigger fish

There is always a bigger fish yes he is not wrong as you said The Father or The Son or The Daughter or Abeloth then there is still always a bigger fish even from them, Typhojem or Ooradryl, then even a bigger fish from them Marutz or Xurz and then again Wutzek and Lluxos, see what I mean. this does NOT mean that Sidious is not the most powerful nor is it limited, Sidious likely surpassed a lot of entities like Pomojema anyway, so they are not an exception simply for being Entities/Deities. 


Also Chee doesn't deal in absolutes so why would he say yes or no to this question, he is obviously gonna leave some mystical uncertain answer like he always does, this does not mean Sidious' statements aren't binding

Chee was providing examples of rankings that actually stood and note that Sidious supremacy quotes didn't make that list. 

Because he was talking about official ranking systems like the game stats and Gillard's tier list, Sidious' quotes aren't official Ranking Systems lol they are quotes 

Just concede already and have a more canonically correct ranking 

Muh subjective

KingofBlades wrote:Muh subjective

Yeh Fohargh > Sidious tbh

This thread is honestly why people hate white people. Like the virgin Caucasian energy right now is just absolute cringe

@Vaelias

I'm going to make this reply short as most of what you have said consists of wildly unsupported and illogical points as well as you repeating yourself despite a counter being offered to the point you made already. However, the following points should serve to address the replies that at least made some sense and to clarify sections as necessary.

1. Chee's word and its power is something I presumed to be common knowledge so I jumped the gun there so you have my apologies for that. I'll break it down a bit further. When sources contest others, their canon level should be assessed first. For example, if a T-Canon was put against a C-Canon source, the T-Canon source would take priority. And if it were C vs C then neither would face being automatically overruled and the analytical process would go further. With Chee, his word overrules most other sources (where applicable) so his word mimics G-Canon in the sense that it can override pretty much everything. Of course, his word isn't on par with Lucas, no one would try to argue that. To break it down, it would be Lucas>G-Canon material>Chee>everything else.

2. Chee has outright pointed out that creators outright do not engage with supremacy for the most part. So we can clearly conclude that the quotes do not/cannot serve that purpose. However, they can serve other purposes such as describing military power, political power, quotes being used as hype pieces, etc. This is why Chee's tick of approval still makes sense.

3. Kun's supremacy over certain people comes in the form of era based information and feats which still holds as Chee is not making a point of shutting down era based supremacy. My memory is a little rusty here but if Kun has all time quotes, they wouldn't be immune. So Sidious still has viable supremacy quotes, but they are the ones that dictate Sidious>any other Sith in his era. My point has consistently been against GOAT quotes.

4. Sidious's experience on Korriban wouldn't have involved notable Sith as Sidious would have mentioned them by name. Especially if it were Ragnos given his Book of Sith notes are right next to the section concerning Plagueis and his experience with Ragnos. And considering the elusive nature of Sith spirits, I hardly see the logic in waves of them attacking Sidious.

@Trayus Marauder

3. Kun's supremacy over certain people comes in the form of era based information and feats which still holds as Chee is not making a point of shutting down era based supremacy.

Isn't he? You're trying to sneakily frame this so that the subject is solely about GOAT quotes and nothing else to fit your bias, without properly reading Chee's words and coming to the conclusion that they just as equally apply to era based supremacy quotes. Let's take a further look:

Leland Chee and some random guy who nobody cares about wrote:Random Guy: If you definitively say that one Sith was the most powerful then by definition any others you create in the EU must be inferior so I doubt the continuity people make such absolutes about the powerfulness of characters.

Leland Chee: Agreed, us continuity people don't deal in absolutes.

The initial point isn't just a problem for Sidious, it's a problem for Kun, Ragnos, etc, too: any other new characters you create in their eras must be inferior to them, per the supremacy quotes. We even see this manifest with Vitiate, where Ulic is claimed to be the only one in the galaxy capable of taking Kun on, which, by definition, puts Ulic > Vitiate if we take the statement as an absolute - in spite of the narrative implications suggesting otherwise. Chee's general answer specifically precludes all blanket statements/absolutes, irregardless of the time span they encompass. However, as Ant pointed out in his blog, this issue is entirely rectified if all of these quotes only include a specific group of characters - which can happen if you accept quotes being bound by OOU dating - as they're not an absolute then (they function the same way as any X > Y statement).

This interpretation can work under the "bigger fish" line, too. For example, Sidious can be stronger than any character conceived thus far, but still potentially inferior to some greater entity whose existence is revealed in later works.

--- --- ---

I hope that clarifies your issues, but, based on your already displayed stubbornness, I doubt it will.

@Trayus Marauder

most of what you have said consists of wildly unsupported and illogical points 

I have literally just explained to you what the Chee quotes mean, nothing is widely unsupported or illogical, everything I have explained is a generally accepted stance and you are the only one to oppose it.
 

 as well as you repeating yourself despite a counter being offered to the point you made already

Im repeating myself because the counters you have offered are literally countered by the original counter lol, I've explained multiple times what Chee is referring to which as I say is the generally accepted stance on the matter, and I understand why you are reluctant to concede as you've likely built your whole lists with the opinion that Supremacy Quotes don't count and it is a big concession to make. 

Lucas>G-Canon material>Chee>everything else.

Lucas is G-Canon, that's what the G stands for

Chee has outright pointed out that creators outright do not engage with supremacy for the most part

Citation needed? he never said that lol

 So we can clearly conclude that the quotes do not/cannot serve that purpose.

No we cant, that's ridiculous, they are binding LFL approved sources 

 However, they can serve other purposes such as describing military power, political power, quotes being used as hype pieces

So they can serve any other purpose except power in the force as that would disfavor your ancients wank, seems convenient, how does that make sense what so ever. 


quotes aren't just used for hype at all as I said in my previous comment, blurbs can be because they have license to be subjective, quotes do not, they are written by 
the content creators, fact checked by LFL and approved. what more proof do you want that they are binding sources 

This is why Chee's tick of approval still makes sense.

Huh? in what way does that possibly make it make sense, quotes do NOT have license to be subjective they are literally part of the source material, if there is a C-Canon book EVERYTHING in that book except blurbs (as they have license to be subjective) is C-Canon there arent just these grey areas when ever a quote you don't like pops up. There are not just certain things in C-Canon sources that are not C-Canon or less binding than the rest of the book, Chee agrees 

Leland Chee, LLP continuity database admin, Jan. - Dec. 2004, several StarWars.com forum posts in the \"Holocron continuity database questions" thread wrote:"Are there different layers within the N, S, C and G levels?

The Holocron makes no such distinction."(06-29-04)

Supremacy quotes are still as canon as the rest of the source. again you are literally the only one with this opinion

Chee is not making a point of shutting down era based supremacy

He is not making a point of shutting down any supremacy whatsoever he is merely stating that one has to examine the quote too see it what it is meaning it is still a binding source, so the meanings cant be stretched too much after all, but with the right context there are ways around some quotes.

Sidious's experience on Korriban wouldn't have involved notable Sith as Sidious would have mentioned them by name. Especially if it were Ragnos given his Book of Sith notes are right next to the section concerning Plagueis and his experience with Ragnos

Ok but it still could have been every other Sith spirit ever for all we know 

And considering the elusive nature of Sith spirits, I hardly see the logic in waves of them attacking Sidious.

Well considering Sheev is far more powerful than any of them, that's clearly what happened else they would not have overcome him

AA3 wrote:@Trayus Marauder

3. Kun's supremacy over certain people comes in the form of era based information and feats which still holds as Chee is not making a point of shutting down era based supremacy.

Isn't he? You're trying to sneakily frame this so that the subject is solely about GOAT quotes and nothing else to fit your bias, without properly reading Chee's words and coming to the conclusion that they just as equally apply to era based supremacy quotes. Let's take a further look:

Leland Chee and some random guy who nobody cares about wrote:Random Guy: If you definitively say that one Sith was the most powerful then by definition any others you create in the EU must be inferior so I doubt the continuity people make such absolutes about the powerfulness of characters.

Leland Chee: Agreed, us continuity people don't deal in absolutes.

The initial point isn't just a problem for Sidious, it's a problem for Kun, Ragnos, etc, too: any other new characters you create in their eras must be inferior to them, per the supremacy quotes. We even see this manifest with Vitiate, where Ulic is claimed to be the only one in the galaxy capable of taking Kun on, which, by definition, puts Ulic > Vitiate if we take the statement as an absolute - in spite of the narrative implications suggesting otherwise. Chee's general answer specifically precludes all blanket statements/absolutes, irregardless of the time span they encompass. However, as Ant pointed out in his blog, this issue is entirely rectified if all of these quotes only include a specific group of characters - which can happen if you accept quotes being bound by OOU dating - as they're not an absolute then (they function the same way as any X > Y statement).

This interpretation can work under the "bigger fish" line, too. For example, Sidious can be stronger than any character conceived thus far, but still potentially inferior to some greater entity whose existence is revealed in later works.

--- --- ---

I hope that clarifies your issues, but, based on your already displayed stubbornness, I doubt it will.

UP!

@Vaelias

You've explained your interpretation of what the Chee quotes mean, not what they objectively represent. Also, you really need to hop out of this pack mentality. Even if I'm the only one using this argument, being the only one to hold an opinion does not automatically make it wrong. Oh, and I wasn't aware you were the spokesperson for every SW debater. You should have told me you had that credential earlier. As for my potential concession, I'm not offering it because you've yet to convince me of your argument. Note I conceded to Gideon because they were able to offer a point that genuinely poked a hole in my argument. Admittedly I was trying to push the envelope a bit but still, they called it out and it was an effective counter. If you offered the same, you would get the same result.


Chee pointed out that "us continuity people don't deal in absolutes" and given that continuity people are partially responsible for creating/framing a consistent narrative within the SW universe, they serve as creators in a sense. So this ideology would carry across all the relevant pieces of information. Supremacy quotes that are GOAT quotes can function in any way that doesn't directly defy Chee's word. Also, I never said that quotes were just for hype, I pointed that out as one of the uses that are possible and that align with the no absolutes ideology.


@AA3

On what basis am I being sneaky? My framing of the argument is based on the source I provided and its potential impact. As for my "bias", you're implying that my stance just supports a handful of characters I like. When in reality this stance serves to benefit a wide range of characters and it seeks to adhere to the information we possess. If I were truly being biased then I would try to push for era-based supremacy quotes being null and void as well given that would benefit people like Ragnos even more. The quote discusses if "one Sith was the most powerful" so era supremacy quotes can still fly because being best of your era does not mean you are best of all, especially considering the sheer length of the SW timeline and how it would allow for many characters to hit that MVP Sith status.

Supremacy being bound by OOU dating is a neat idea but still defies Chee's word here. For example, supremacy quotes that are published late in the EU's existence would stand unchallenged which doesn't comply with the 'no absolutes' ideology.

@Trayus Marauder

I don't care for a lengthy side debate on your reasons and motivations, so I'll keep this brief and to the point. You spent way too much of your post attacking a single line at the beginning of mine rather than the actual content:

The quote discusses if "one Sith was the most powerful" so era supremacy quotes can still fly because being best of your era does not mean you are best of all, especially considering the sheer length of the SW timeline and how it would allow for many characters to hit that MVP Sith status.

You're focusing way too much on the specific conditional statement being used, rather than the actual reasons why said conditional statement would be a negative if it were true, which equally apply to era-based supremacy quotes meaning that they should likewise be dismissed (under a non-Shedding Limitations methodology). To quote again, the issue is that: "by definition any others you create in the EU must be inferior so I doubt the continuity people make such absolutes about the powerfulness of characters." And, as I stated last post:

I wrote:The initial point isn't just a problem for Sidious, it's a problem for Kun, Ragnos, etc, too: any other new characters you create in their eras must be inferior to them, per the supremacy quotes. We even see this manifest with Vitiate, where Ulic is claimed to be the only one in the galaxy capable of taking Kun on, which, by definition, puts Ulic > Vitiate if we take the statement as an absolute - in spite of the narrative implications suggesting otherwise.

Again, Shedding Limitations rectifies all this.

Supremacy being bound by OOU dating is a neat idea but still defies Chee's word here. For example, supremacy quotes that are published late in the EU's existence would stand unchallenged which doesn't comply with the 'no absolutes' ideology.

They're not absolute, though. Even if more new characters aren't created the possibility is left open and that's all that's really required. Chee doesn't have an issue with X > Y statements - as Ant has clarified - just statements that bind not yet created characters below existing ones.

You've explained your interpretation of what the Chee quotes mean, not what they objectively represent. 

It is very clear from the context of the quote
 this...

Leland Chee, LLP continuity database admin, Jan. - Dec. 2004, several StarWars.com forum posts in the \"Holocron continuity database questions" wrote:"Are there different layers within the N, S, C and G levels?

The Holocron makes no such distinction."(06-29-04)

and the fact that Quotes have no license to be subjective and must be fitting with the lore and are C/T/G-Canon, binding and approved, that I am correct and you are incorrect because your argument involves ignoring binding sources that are LFL approved, so it is not my interpretation of the quote, it is what it clearly means according with LFL policy and what is widely agreed on

As for my potential concession, I'm not offering it because you've yet to convince me of your argument.

Lol i shouldnt even need to convince you that canon means you cant ignore it 

Note I conceded to Gideon because they were able to offer a point that genuinely poked a hole in my argument.

Offering a quote to debunk an IU feat is a lot different than what we are debating, I cant just offer you a quote, its debunking a quote, which has been done and you refuse to concede and basically just keep saying "no not true" 

If you offered the same, you would get the same result.

I literally don't know what else I can say, its just clear as day just learn LFL policy lol

Chee pointed out that "us continuity people don't deal in absolutes" and given that continuity people are partially responsible for creating/framing a consistent narrative within the SW universe, they serve as creators in a sense. So this ideology would carry across all the relevant pieces of information. Supremacy quotes that are GOAT quotes can function in any way that doesn't directly defy Chee's word

Yes the quotes are not "absolute" because new material could reveal otherwise in the future, hence Sheev's "most powerful expression of the darkside" quote
is not absolute because since that quote Abeloth has been invented so have the Ones and other people clearly meant to be more powerful than Sheev

I pointed that out as one of the uses that are possible and that align with the no absolutes ideology.

That doesn't even make sense, you are basically saying, nah that quote doesn't mean what it says its just for hype 
you are completely misunderstanding the "no absolute" ideology your version does not at all line up with LFL policy mine does, that's why logically my "interpretation" of the quote which I share with literally everyone here, is the correct one.

@Trayus Marauder

@AA3

I share your lack of interest in discussing motivations. Just wanted to get the "bias" point out of the way.

Well, I'll hand it to you, I'm considering offering my second concession of this debate. I'll have to look over the shedding limitations blog in its entirety as well as think it over/look over it with fresh eyes. I'll get back to this in a day or two. If you want to leave any other points here in the meantime, I'll be sure to take a look.

@Vaelias

I'm sure you can understand why I'll hold off responding (and maybe not respond at all). I don't see anything groundbreaking or thought-provoking presented in your reply and responding to those points would just be turning this into a tit for tat argument rather than an intellectual debate. Besides, I need to look over the material that AA3 is referring to. Though for the record, approaches like what AA3 just pulled is how you push towards a clean concession.

Trayus Marauder wrote:@AA3

I share your lack of interest in discussing motivations. Just wanted to get the "bias" point out of the way.

Well, I'll hand it to you, I'm considering offering my second concession of this debate. I'll have to look over the shedding limitations blog in its entirety as well as think it over/look over it with fresh eyes. I'll get back to this in a day or two. If you want to leave any other points here in the meantime, I'll be sure to take a look.

@Vaelias

I'm sure you can understand why I'll hold off responding (and maybe not respond at all). I don't see anything groundbreaking or thought-provoking presented in your reply and responding to those points would just be turning this into a tit for tat argument rather than an intellectual debate. Besides, I need to look over the material that AA3 is referring to. Though for the record, approaches like what AA3 just pulled is how you push towards a clean concession.

Lol I literally debunked the quotes and showed you why your "interpretation" does not fit with LFL Policy an u basically just said no and repeated yourself, learn the policy please, I literally have already said what AA3 said in my previous comments lol

@Trayus Marauder

hp responding to Trayus but still ducking bran

As much as i loved reading this all, imagine if this was a canon thread.


Shame. Marka Ragnnos should be canon