Because, what, the IP holders' material is objectively real and true and pure? The delusion is in thinking that having a copyright on something makes the content of the stories more valid.

Because the original material is original, thus the first, and - in combination with its distribution and popularity - what is logically considered to be the common ground between the fans.

You need to stop deluding yourself, and to stop putting words in other peoples' mouth. Again: There is a difference between material being official, material being canon, and material you may consider enjoyable. Nobody forces you to adhere to a specific interpretation of a setting, but that does not make your personal vision official or canonical. These things are not connected. All the entire debate revolves around is a question of standards.

You cannot disclaim responsibility for contributing to something just because you didn't create it from scratch.

I don't. I explicitly said I - and from the looks of it, the majority of fans (which you agreed with!) - are perfectly fine with it. Dig this: I want to contribute.

And my justification is a drive for consistency, a common ground. I have explained this half a dozen times by now, but perhaps you've merely skimmed my posts rather than reading and comprehending them. It would explain how you could consider my stance inconsistent. I don't know what else I could do to explain it, though.

Midichlorians were a deviation.

Midichlorians are an addition.

And you are not referring to audience approval, you are presuming it. I also find it ironic how you claim I'd shove words in your mouth, immediately followed by once again misunderstanding the difference between standards and personal preferences, even though this is something I have mentioned multiple times as well.

As for who has seriously argued it, here is the relevant quote regarding the Noosphere that got all of this started:

Not to mention it's from a Hours Heresy Novel which are stated to be possibly not accurate reflections of the truth.

To say that Games Workshop's opinion on the Noosphere should be relevant to whether or not a GM personally wants to use it is to say that GMs should cede their creative authority to Games Workshop regardless of whether or not they or their players actually like what Games Workshop is doing, and that is madness. People arguing for this sort of thing don't realize their insanity, because they have signed up for a version of reality in which fictional universes contain facts without examining that assumption closely enough to realize it is insane.

"I don't know what you expect from a movie, but elaborate politics and legal analysis is not something I'd consider a necessary element."

I will again point you to a quote from the post you claim to be replying to:

"The OT conflict is similarly simplified but does not punch the momentum out of its narrative by wasting scenes on referencing complicated political machinations that never actually receive a coherent explanation. A few throwaway lines about dissolving the senate are used to establish that the Empire are autocrats, tossed into a scene whose main purpose is to introduce the characters of Darth Vader and Princess Leia, and that's basically it for political discussions in the entire OT. Contrast to the entire Coruscant sequence from the Phantom Menace or the Naboo scenes from Attack of the Clones. Fans recognize that the PT political scenes are time wasters but generally lack the vocabulary to express this, so they latch onto midichlorians, which serve as a symbol of the PT's tendency to pollute the simple and strong narrative of the OT with pretending at complications that don't actually add any depth, and mostly serve to waste momentum and obfuscate the narrative."

A political landscape worth spending multiple scenes on is not necessary to a movie. I specifically made the point that the OT got by just fine without any of that. But if you're going to spend multiple scenes on politics, your political landscape needs to have enough meat on its bones, and your dialogue writing needs to be strong enough, to hold an audience's interest. The prequel trilogies demonstrably do not have this, and remain at-best tolerated by the majority of dedicated fans, even ones young enough to have been brought up with them.

"The political scenes you consider wasteful are a critical part of the Empire's origin history"

They aren't wasteful because they failed to accomplish any function at all, but rather because of how much screentime they wasted on accomplishing that function. The Original Trilogy accomplished in thirty seconds what the prequels spent the better part of an hour on, and the prequels didn't use that time to actually expand upon the political landscape that gave rise to the empire. Palpatine orchestrated a war, used it to have emergency powers voted in, then cleaned up the war and declined to give up his emergency powers. That's a concept that can be put across in about four lines of dialogue, the length of the Naboo and Coruscant sequences were completely unnecessary and added nothing. Anakin and Padme's infamous sand dialogue is infamous for exactly this reason.

Because the original material is original, thus the first, and - in combination with its distribution and popularity - what is logically considered to be the common ground between the fans.

You attribute three things to the IP holders' material, and precisely none of them ubiquitously apply. Only the actual starting work is actually the most original, and from the moment of release onwards the community begins generating their own material. Star Wars is overflowing with community material that predates IP holder material by years or decades. Thanks to the internet, a community work can reach distribution levels which more obscure IP holder works don't always, and in terms of popularity I will again point you to midichlorians. No, being IP holder produced does not guarantee something will be popular, that it will be the most widely distributed, or that it will be the original work.

I don't. I explicitly said I - and from the looks of it, the majority of fans (which you agreed with!) - are perfectly fine with it.

Everything about this is wrong. For starters, no, I never said that the majority of fans are perfectly fine with it. Rather the opposite, as I have mentioned repeatedly:

The whole scenario draws its Orwellian nature from the fact that GMs willingly cede their creative authority...despite the fact that they recognize that this is worse for both them and their players.

They may be pressured into conforming because certain fans demand it, that doesn't mean they actually like it. That people sometimes follow a crowd without thinking things through is such a universally recognized part of the human experience that they make after school specials about it.

And secondly, I'm going to bring up midichlorians again because no, most fans are not perfectly fine with them. They dislike them. They begrudgingly accept them because communities have gotten into the habit of accepting whatever they're given without modification, even when the desire to change something is quite universal. They've forgotten that stories are a thing human beings tell and that they can retell them however they like.

Dig this: I want to contribute.

Yes, clearly, because you keep doing so. But then you keep backing up and saying that no, actually, you don't. Herein lies the contradiction you are so fervently denying: You have here quite explicitly said that you want to contribute to the culture of arbitrarily defending what the IP holders have declared as being the only proper interpretation of the setting, and that other interpretations of the setting should not be seriously discussed or built upon. But then you also say that you plan on continuing to discuss and build upon an interpretation of the setting that IP holders have specifically abandoned. That is a contradiction. You can claim to be misunderstood as much as you **** well please, but what we have here is that I accused you of strangling discussion of alternative interpretations, you agreed that you are absolutely contributing to that strangulation, but you still have not given up your opposition to major retcons made by IP holders.

I'm not skimming your arguments, Lynata, remember when I told you that when you disagree with someone you should doublecheck and make sure the disagreement is actually there? I actually do that. Every point I make against you is a point I've checked to make sure is actually relevant to what you've said. You say that everyone is free to whatever interpretation of the setting they like with one breath, gloat about unofficial interpretations being rejected even when they are popular in the next, and then immediately go on to defend one of those unofficial interpretations. It's obvious that not all of your worldview has caught up to the reality of the situation, because again: You are not the majority anymore. You cannot crow about how much fun it is contributing to the tyranny of the majority and then ten seconds later pretend you're a moderate who acknowledges that everyone has a right to imagine fictional settings however they like and a niche doesn't have to be the majority to be sustainable.

Midichlorians are an addition.

Midichlorians are a significant change to the fundamental nature of the Force, the change from something being mystical and unexplained by science to having a scientific explanation is a change. But if you want something that's extremely blatant, an early Marvel Star Wars comic, officially endorsed by IP holders, portrayed Jabba the Hutt as not actually being a Hutt. He was a Nimbanel. That was the very first depiction of Jabba the Hutt in any work officially endorsed by IP holders, and it was actually more closely matched to George Lucas' original vision, who originally saw Jabba as being similar to Chewbecca physically. His portrayal in Return of the Jedi, and later on in the special edition of A New Hope, is a retcon. Humanoid Jabba came first, and good luck convincing even a significant minority of fans to roll with Nimbanel Jabba. So again: Whether or not someone happens to own the copyright to something does not affect whether or not it is a deviation. Retcons happen. They aren't even rare.

And you are not referring to audience approval, you are presuming it.

Are you arguing that midichlorians are not unpopular? Because anyone who's familiar with the internet even a little bit knows that just about everyone who has an opinion on midichlorians doesn't like them.

I also find it ironic how you claim I'd shove words in your mouth, immediately followed by once again misunderstanding the difference between standards and personal preferences, even though this is something I have mentioned multiple times as well.

That you continue to restate a contradiction does not make it less contradictory. If you attack people for talking about an unofficial interpretation of a setting and then go on to defend your own unofficial interpretation of a setting, that's a contradiction. You keep talking about things like the original work and audience saturation, but you assume these things are somehow synonymous with IP holders even though they're not. You oscillate back and forth between giving one of them a higher priority than the other. Yes, I know you have different words for these things, that doesn't make a difference. What's important is, if you are sticking to your own preferred interpretation of the universe in spite of an IP holders' claim, in spite of being a minority, because your niche is big enough for your own purposes, why are you so spiteful towards the concept that other people might do the same?

Aside from the author of that sentence erroneously believing in the myth of a singular truth, there is nothing wrong with informing a GM or other players about the origins of a particular idea

This is technically true, but not in the way you think it is. The myth of a singular truth applies to all fictitious settings. There are always competing interpretations and it is entirely unjustified to demand that those interpretations be ignored because the wrong person came up with them. If that demand weren't made, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If people were actually willing to let others have whatever interpretation of the setting they want, there would never have been an argument when I pointed this out.

Also, stubbornness I can deal with, but your abusive tone I consider frustrating,

Then consider misrepresenting my arguments less often. If you're going to respond to me, respond to me and not a strawman. You shouldn't be surprised that I get frustrated restating myself again and again and again and again because you can't be bothered to actually read what I write in context. The number of times my response to you has consisted of nothing but a quote and an explanation of the importance of the parts of that quote which you ignored is too tiresome to count. A civil argument requires definitionally that you argue in good faith, and you haven't.

But congratulations on effectively Godwynning the thread with your ridiculous comparisions.

Godwin's Law declares that the longer an internet conversation goes on, the greater the odds that someone will compare their opponent's position to that of the Nazis, and that whoever does so has lost. It's a very specific law and makes reference to a very specific attempt to bully someone into silence. It does not apply to people who merely refer to the Nazis (although I don't think I've even done that), it does not refer to comparing an opponent's position to any unsavory political platform but specifically that of the Nazis (although I haven't done that either), and it certainly does not apply when pointing out that someone's argument can serve as justification for literally anything that has happened, which includes both the holocaust and the defeat of the Nazis. The argument of "that which is should be" declares both of these things to be justified along with everything else that has ever happened, good or bad, which is sort of the point, and doesn't qualify for Godwin's Law. If the comparison were so ridiculous, you'd have no difficulty responding to it directly, but you haven't, and you can't, because "that which is should be" is a ridiculous position which can be entirely expected to end up producing ridiculous results.

I was going to say I like Godwyn, but alas, I beleived it was referring to the 40k Bolter and RT that found it.

Unless of course it was, and he is also a space nazi. Didn't they make a movie of that?

Unless of course it was, and he is also a space nazi. Didn't they make a movie of that?

Hell yeah!

And it was ridiculous!

(I wasn't sure how rhetorical your question was.......but.....I answered anyway. )

...

On the Star Wars front ... there are now two different EUs, the Lucas-EU, and the Disney EU. The Lucas-EU is still perfectly valid as an EU, but it's now an alternate timeline/universe when compared to the Disney-EU.

In the future, when Star Wars and the Star Wars EU is being discussed it will be necessary to identify which EU one is referring to, but I fully expect that the Disney-EU will become the new default EU.

Lucas-EU is no longer being expanded upon, but if someone wants to use the Lucas-EU for an rpg, that's perfectly fine, and nobody is going to tell them they can't or to stop. That game, however, while based on the Lucas-EU, isn't actually something that can be used in a discussion of the Lucas-EU, because it's not new Lucas-EU material.

Likewise, with Star Trek, JJTrek is an alternate timeline/universe, and OldTrek is still perfectly valid. One simply needs to clarify which of the two one is referring to, though sadly JJTrek is likely to become the new default.

Lupa, you are free to use whatever interpretation or variations/homebrew material and events in your game you wish. However, don't expect anyone else to accept your homebrew material/events as relevant or valid material/events in a discussion of 40k.

Somebody can have a game wherein the players find an intact DAoT STC database/fabricator and DAoT instructional devices. It's still not relevant or valid in a discussion about 40k, except as part of a hypothetical "what-if"-style scenario.

Somebody can have a game set during the Horus Heresy, and the players manage to warn the Loyalist Primarchs and their Legions about the trap at Istvaan before the Drop Site Massacre happens. Or maybe they didn't manage to warn the Loyalists in time, but managed to intervene during the Primarch duels, saving Loyalist and killing Traitor Primarchs.That's perfectly fine. But in 40k, the Drop Site Massacre happened, and Loyalist Primarchs, along with most of their Legions, died there.

Or say we're set later, and the players manage to prevent Guilliman from getting his throat opened. That's fine. But in 40k, Guilliman got his throat cut open and he's been in stasis ever since.

I was going to say I like Godwyn, but alas, I beleived it was referring to the 40k Bolter and RT that found it.

Right, I got the names mixed up. I blame this forum!

So SM have weapons named after space nazis. No wonder people think the Imperium is facist.

No, in 40k the drop site massacres were the result of a paranoid Emperor seeking to kill Horus, who he (incorrectly) feared would betray him, and sent several other legions to kill him. Several of them, out of loyalty to their brother or fearing that they would be next on the chopping block, defected to Horus' side and warned him of the attack. Despite the warning, most of the troops on both sides were slaughtered in a bloodbath and Horus' ability to project force was shattered, however in order to inspire a zealous paranoia in his population the Emperor had his propaganda machine push the story that it was a major defeat rather than a bloody stalemate. Feel free to dig up hard evidence saying otherwise.

Now here's something that can be proven: In the real world, lots of people like the more popular version of the drop site massacre story (by definition) and are much less likely to accept a story that contradicts this rather than one that builds on it (though you could still probably find a niche for the alternative I just made up). This distinction is trivial in the extreme examples that you like to present, but the examples I keep bringing up that you refuse to discuss (or at least not in such a way that's actually relevant), things like midichlorians and centurion armor, those are much more important, because the community and the IP holders have pretty strong disagreements and trying to pressure people into accepting setting elements they dislike is an awful way to behave as a community. When a GM comes asking about the internet in 40k, or midichlorians in Star Wars, or any other setting element, and you give them the version that you, personally prefer, you aren't giving advice. You're repeating dogma and implying that the only correct way to run their game is your way. Unless a GM is specifically asking about IP holder intent, or what came first, or whatever criteria you personally use to judge whether or not something is the best, you should be giving them options, not orders. Attempting to get people to run things your way by refusing to mention alternatives, or even worse attempting to shout down those who do, is attempting to force people to play your way instead of how they'd like. And that is repugnant. Just because you don't have a whole lot of power over how people run their games doesn't make it any less appalling that you will do everything in your power to make sure they run their games the way you run yours.

Of course, being entirely fair, you personally haven't explicitly declared that you want to shout down alternative interpretations the way Lynata just did, but if you aren't then I do have to wonder what on Earth you're actually disagreeing with me about.

Clearly, I am eating other peoples' ideas for breakfast and revel in the tears of crushed creativity. The forum is practically filled with my fascist, oppressive dictates to adhere to The One Truth.

My accusation:

It is not a fundamental law of the universe that the majority of fans must refuse to accept community-created interpretations of the setting even when they like those interpretations better, it is a result of prevailing cultural attitudes, attitudes which you contribute to by pedestalizing IP holders' interpretation to the point of not only refusing to discuss alternatives but shaming people who do so. You cannot disclaim responsibility for contributing to something just because you didn't create it from scratch.

Your response:

Dig this: I want to contribute.

Just because you're willing to tolerate alternative viewpoints when the local corporate overlord commands you to doesn't change the fact that you explicitly believe in actively strangling discussions of community-driven alterations when they do not. Yes, when licensed authors explicitly come out and say that there is no canon you will begrudgingly stop publicly shaming people for adhering to the wrong interpretation of a fictional universe, although you also admit that it took you a long time to come around to this perspective and you only came to it because those licensed authors explicitly signed off on it. In Star Wars, where the IP holders do not explicitly condone all interpretations regardless of origin, you assume by default that fans should be bound to the same rules as licensed writers regardless of their opinions and, according to your own words, you want to contribute to a culture of shaming and bullying anyone who dares deviate from or object to this. Not only that, if you don't believe in refusing to discuss alternative interpretations of settings like Star Wars or Star Trek or in shaming those who do, then you have at this stage walked back literally every relevant point of contention you have with me.

Been away for the week - that's the reason for my late response.

@Lupa ... well, what to say ?

First of all, it's good for you that you are confident in your opinion, but when dealing with topics you obviously don't know a lot about, throwing around big statements like :

No, there aren't. I am quite confident that there are precisely zero physicists, biologists, or sociologists who are debating, as a matter of profession, philosophical questions. Because if they did, they wouldn't be scientists.

only proves your ignorance.

Of course philosophical questions are beeing discussed in other scientific disciplines, and more to the point (regarding your last sentence) just as a sociologist is a scientist (at least in the sense that he study at university) so too is a philosopher because, believe it or not philosophy is a scientific disciplin you can actually study at a university (that's what I did, for example)

I guess you want proof - regarding everything I wrote as a fairytale unless proven otherwise and if you are truly interested in the topic you can fact check it yourself by visiting various universities homepages - since i regard the fact that philosophy is a science as common knowledge - i'm not willing to further elaborate it here.

As to the pegasus example: In my mind, your analysis wasn't bad, but when comming to the important part - you made an error (again - my point of view)

Pegasus the creature does not exist. That the word "pegasus" happens to be tied to a very specific anatomy in language has nothing to do with how real or not they are. Basilisks and bugs are both words that conjure up very different images in the minds of those who hear them, in the former case because basilisks are fictitious creatures who are defined by their deadly gaze rather than their anatomy and "bugs" is a slang term that can refer to either insects specifically or anything that is creepy crawly, including arachnids and other related creatures.

A 40k "space marine" or a "bolter" is more a "pegasus" than a "bug" - if you can get the meaning - we don't know the exact size of a pegasus but we know what it is.

Or do you claime that the term "space marine" conjures up a very different picture in every single one 40k fan ?

Next Quote from you:

If something is fact, you can prove it, so if it is a fact that there are twenty Primarchs then go cite some sources that prove, factually, that there are twenty Primarchs. No, sources from Games Workshop are not good enough, that's appeal to authority. To prove it as a fact you must have sources that can be traced back to firsthand evidence. Obviously this is impossible, therefore your suggestion that something can be a fact inside the context of a fictional universe is wrong. It's called reduction to the absurd.

Since it seems that you are for some reason very susceptible to misinterpretations, here I'll try to explain it to you one more time :

It is not a fact that there are or ever were or ever will be X Primarchs.

It IS a fact that in, for example the HH Anthology Visions of Treachery it is told that the E created 20 Primarch (Page 36) - here comes the important part no one needs to use this information, it is absolutely legit to go for an alternate version of it all, but that the book says there are 20 primarchs, is a fact.

I am rolling with this version - provided in this case by the Black Library - therefor your recurrent mentioning of the (again) fact - that it could be any other number of primarchs in another version of the story (wich by my interpretation would be another story entirely) is obsolete.

When people talk about what happened at the Red Wedding in the song of ice and fire novel series - they are talking about a very specific story and not about a fanfic spin-off.

As to the thread that started the whole topic for me, the first post went like this :

Hey guys, asking cause of the high level of expertise on this forum. I/we in our Group have just started playing and we are confused with the technology of computers, the use of internet-like information and so on?

Or is most of it stored in gigantic librariums or other Buildings? Is it mostly books and tomes or is it computers and data-slates?

Thank you for sharing info!

My assuption (which may be a bold one), that was shared by others, was that the creator of the topic wanted to know about the technology of computers, the use of internet-like information and so on, in the 40k universe as described in it's largest, relatively consistent and original form (the "loose canon" one by GW) and not that he asked me to create an alternate 40k universe for him, where information is stored only in food, which needs to be consumed to optain said information.

Since the original 40k gives us a lot of blanks the possibilities are still huge. But in the very same context the probabilty of finding archeotec like the Noosphere is low.

Thankfully low probability is one of the least problems a GM needs to deal with - because he can make anything happen - therefor, opinions were exchanged, informations were given and no harm was done, right ?

Finally, here is what I wrote in one of my posts :

And this is where it boils down to consensus - and when dealing with 40k this "loose canon" that Lynata referred to and that consists of the so called "official" stuff can (and actually does) give most people a framework (what you call "popular shared details") and a context for communicating with other fans and in this context statements that can be true.

In said context i would personally tend to the view that the heresy did happen.

This is what you tried to make me say :

You believe that certain people can make something factually real within a fictional universe, but that is a contradiction.

As long as you are not able to differentiate between the basic concept of reality and the basic concept of truth and keep putting words in my mouth, we have no common ground to keep this discussion up and I see no reason to further replie to your very own "fact stating".

That's not a scientific question, it's a language question.

Both wrong and right it is a language question and also a scientific one.

Check this out : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language%C2'> not a bad article - if you want proof since wikipedia can be editied by anyone, look for books by John Searle, Bertrand Russel, Noam Chomsky, or even Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Language is one of the most important things when hurling around heavy stuff like reality or truth.

Regards MrMonstro

My accusation: [...]

Sorry, I did not want to imply any intention of rekindling that debate... I think we've made it abundantly clear that we are getting nowhere. I merely wanted to address what I perceived as a misrepresentation of my general modus operandi here.

just as a sociologist is a scientist (at least in the sense that he study at university)

This is not what that word means. Most philosophy degrees are Bachelor of Arts, not Bachelor of Science, and even when they are Bachelor of Science the fact stands that "scientist" simply does not mean "someone who studied at a university" or even "someone who has earned a Bachelor of Science degree," as in common usage engineers are not typically considered scientists. Even doctors are not typically considered scientists in common usage despite being biologists. The dictionary definition of "science" (since all dictionary definitions for "scientist" just point to "science") doesn't reach something that even resembles the definition you just gave until four or five entries down and even those definitions are so vague as to include people who "study" the play-offs or Halo backstory. You're declaring yourself correct by changing a definition such that your statement means something completely different from what what a reasonable English speaker would have understood from hearing it. That's sophistry.

A 40k "space marine" or a "bolter" is more a "pegasus" than a "bug"

Yes, and?

Since it seems that you are for some reason very susceptible to misinterpretations, here I'll try to explain it to you one more time :

It is not a fact that there are or ever were or ever will be X Primarchs.

It IS a fact that in, for example the HH Anthology Visions of Treachery it is told that the E created 20 Primarch (Page 36) - here comes the important part no one needs to use this information, it is absolutely legit to go for an alternate version of it all, but that the book says there are 20 primarchs, is a fact.

I am rolling with this version - provided in this case by the Black Library - therefor your recurrent mentioning of the (again) fact - that it could be any other number of primarchs in another version of the story (wich by my interpretation would be another story entirely) is obsolete.

When people talk about what happened at the Red Wedding in the song of ice and fire novel series - they are talking about a very specific story and not about a fanfic spin-off.

You call me susceptible to misinterpretation and then quote my own arguments back at me while pretending to have made a counterpoint. I am genuinely confused as to how you could think you're making a counterargument with this. That specific works physically exist as a matter of fact but that the events they describe do not actually exist, and that the difference between these two is important, is my argument. That a story can be so well-liked by a community that everyone builds off of, rather than contradicts it, is again part of my argument. The critical point of my argument is that behaving as though these entrenched but still fictitious stories are factually real leads people to behave as though other, significantly less entrenched stories, are also factually real, and that people must adhere to them even though the community at large, as well as sub-communities like individual RPG groups, are free to change them at-will. The only thing that is required is enough consensus to establish a niche, and when you're holding a discussion or running a game, that niche can be as small as two people. None of what you're claiming here is actually contradictory to any of that, and in fact it's the foundation I've been building, the teeth I've been pulling, to get people to recognize that no amount of universal recognition makes something fact.

My assuption (which may be a bold one), that was shared by others, was that the creator of the topic wanted to know about the technology of computers, the use of internet-like information and so on, in the 40k universe as described in it's largest, relatively consistent and original form (the "loose canon" one by GW) and not that he asked me to create an alternate 40k universe for him, where information is stored only in food, which needs to be consumed to optain said information.

I am aware of your assumption, and my entire argument is that this assumption is unfounded. Even in places like Star Wars where licensed authors are required to honor one source above another, there is no reason to leave out alternative interpretations which were either retconned or originated from the community and picked up traction there, and certainly there isn't any reason to categorically refuse to discuss or attack those who discuss alternatives just to try and stifle any competition to whichever interpretation of the setting you, personally, happen to favor, regardless of what criteria you used to arrive at that preference.

This is what you tried to make me say :

No, that was a response to Jacvs, not you. Jacvs treated and continues to treat the 40k universe as though it were a physically real place (though he is aware it is not, he has apparently failed to grasp the finer points of the difference between reality and fiction, and specifically that nothing can ever be true about the latter since it is untrue by definition), has explicitly stated that some setting elements of 40k really are facts. You have contradicted him on this point which means you disagree with him exactly as much as I do. When I quote someone the paragraphs that follow are responding to the person who made that quote. The post you're referring to contained a response to both you and Jacvs and they are separate responses broken up by quotes of your two distinct counterarguments. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just responding to two separate counterarguments from two different people.

Also: Whatever article you attempted to link didn't go through.

Did not read most of the above.

However, what strikes me the most here is that a fictional universe (Star Wars), which only consists of six movies (four of them terrible) is supposed to be "true canon" whereas a fictional universe (40K) that has been incrementally developed for the past thirty years is not "true cannon".

Let me elaborate a little bit and derive two different types of canon (based on Star Wars and WH40K)

It was stated above that GW purposefully avoids defining "hard facts" in the 40K universe and that there are certain inconsistencies and "flaws" in the various publications that represent the universe. The common fundament all these publications/stories/texts share is a rather accurately fleshed out image of a dictatorial government,which slowly decays due to an internal conflict, in which its "grand designer" was wounded and is slowly dying . This is - and I am repeating myself here - the fundamental situation in the 40K universe: mankind is besieged by all sides from various threats and must struggle for its very existence. All stories that play out in this sphere are mere illustrations of this overall topic. Due to the scale of 40K - the whole universe - and the diversity of planets in the Imperium some individuals/factions/armies/... are bound to act out of character and thus it might seem that a certain story is "flawed" or not-canon. But in essence the contrary is true - 40K is so large in scale that many different behavioral patterns (which might seem illogical or out-of-character) are probable, will happen (as far a fictional event can happen), and will be told as a story (by professional author or fan). Does this mean that because there are various different stories on individuals who "know" different versions of what is real in 40K there are no common "canon events"? No, because due to the pure scope of the overall story several versions "reality" exist within the SAME fictional universe.

It is exactely this ambiguity that makes 40K so appealing. Within a particular set of boundaries - and these boundaries were set really generously by the creators - anything goes: You want a democracy, where all men were created free and equal and where they all hope for a glorious future? No problem - just wait until Tzeench appears to destroy this world. Maybe the inquisition will stop Chaos before it is too late but then they will force a brutal terror regime (the regular Imperium) on the world's populace. - See what I did there? 40K is defined in such a way that you can create stories that seem "non-canon" at first but are really not if certain rules are not broken.

If you follow my argument you will see that I aggree with Lupa's statement about language games and what canon means for one community does not necessarily also mean canon for another community. On the other hand MrMonstro's explanation on "common beliefs" that are necessary for a fictional universe to be collectively shared by a group of people is also valid.

In the rather complex/rules-based 40K case I will argue that canon is not so much a particular state or course of events but rather a commonly shared rules set (see example above) that defines how things work (not unlike laws of nature). In the very simplistic case of Star Wars certain individuals are highly relevant for the universe (see Grand Moff Thrawn) - there existence makes or breaks the fictional universe. "Undoing" individuals and erasing parts of an expanded universe in order to tell the story in a different/better way (which I regard as legitimate when done by the creators/ rights-holders) completely changes the tone of a universe.

To sum it all up: there are different types of "canons": (i) simplistic canons (e.g. Star Wars), where individuals matter and define the universe, and (ii) rules-based or complex canons such as WH40K where there is a set of rules, which defines the universe. Within these boundaries everything is canon.

Following this line of argumentation, fan fiction in a "simplistic canon" universe can never be canon, where as fan fiction in a "rules-based canon" universe can be canon.

However, what strikes me the most here is that a fictional universe (Star Wars), which only consists of six movies (four of them terrible) is supposed to be "true canon"

In fact, Star Wars has an enormous expanded universe that dwarfs the amount of material available for 40k. In any case, you say things like this:

You want a democracy, where all men were created free and equal and where they all hope for a glorious future? No problem - just wait until Tzeench appears to destroy this world. Maybe the inquisition will stop Chaos before it is too late but then they will force a brutal terror regime (the regular Imperium) on the world's populace. - See what I did there? 40K is defined in such a way that you can create stories that seem "non-canon" at first but are really not if certain rules are not broken.

But the relevance is not really clear. For one thing, you could have a democracy where all men are free and equal and hope for a glorious future, and you could have that democracy hum along undisturbed for the entire 10,000 year history of 40k in some obscure part of the galaxy, and it wouldn't conflict with any popular interpretation of the 40k universe. 40k is gigantic and there's room for lots of weird stuff to happen inside of it and I don't know of any communities that are particularly bothered by that. People wouldn't be especially happy to turn up for a 40k story and find something that is not at all grim or dark since being grimdark is sort of 40k's whole thing, but it still wouldn't contradict any timelines or anything. What you're talking about is tone and theme, which are important in a general sense but not related to the conversation in this thread.

If you follow my argument you will see that I aggree with Lupa's statement about language games and what canon means for one community does not necessarily also mean canon for another community. On the other hand MrMonstro's explanation on "common beliefs" that are necessary for a fictional universe to be collectively shared by a group of people is also valid.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with this at all. You put "common beliefs" in quotes, but after doing a search on both this thread and the one that spawned it, I can't find anyone else but you who has actually used that term, and it doesn't particularly resemble anything MrMonstro has said so far as I can tell.

In the rather complex/rules-based 40K case I will argue that canon is not so much a particular state or course of events but rather a commonly shared rules set (see example above) that defines how things work (not unlike laws of nature).

That is radically divergent from the way that word is used in any community. "Canon" is (in this context, at least) already a slang term with multiple competing definitions. Insisting on sticking to your own definition shared by almost nobody else only obfuscates the discussion.

"Undoing" individuals and erasing parts of an expanded universe in order to tell the story in a different/better way (which I regard as legitimate when done by the creators/ rights-holders) completely changes the tone of a universe.

And here, in a parenthetical, you address what the argument is actually about. Why is it legitimate when done by IP holders but not when done by others?

Following this line of argumentation, fan fiction in a "simplistic canon" universe can never be canon, where as fan fiction in a "rules-based canon" universe can be canon.

You are twisting the meaning of the word now, though.

"Canon" generally means established standards or rules, as the term is derived from an ancient Greek word meaning exactly that. As such, fan-fiction can never be canon simply because you would have one fan force their personal ideas upon another - and sooner or later this would create conflicts that are impossible to resolve without dismissing some of these personal ideas. It's a catch-22, and exactly what we see right now in numerous Black Library novels, or even FFG's games.

Aside from this paradox, I would say your definition of the term is also redundant, simply because it ends up meaning the exact same thing as fan-fiction.

A word means what it is understood to mean. A word's etymology matters only if people in general know about it. People in general almost never know a word's etymology. Canon has no consistent definition outside of theological contexts.

But since 40K deals with chaos gods, elder mytholgy and the imperial state relgion of Him-on-Earth, you could say that 40k has theological context.

A word means what it is understood to mean.

Indeed, languages evolve after all. Yet I have never heard of "canon" being interpreted as "non-committal subjective ideas" so far, and it would be a redundant use. The phrase "generally understood as" references my experiences on this and similar forums when conversing with other fans and authors.

Feel free to make a poll, though.

Even if we eliminate the bit on etymology you're still begging the question:

"Canon" generally means established standards or rules, as the term is derived from an ancient Greek word meaning exactly that. As such, fan-fiction can never be canon simply because you would have one fan force their personal ideas upon another

Specifically, the question being begged is why does a fan have to be able to force their personal ideas upon anyone to have their work become part of established standard or rules?

Specifically, the question being begged is why does a fan have to be able to force their personal ideas upon anyone to have their work become part of established standard or rules?

What kind of question is that? Anyone is free to adopt other peoples' ideas if they so wish. We do this on this forum all the time, and I regularly post recommendations for groups to discuss their preferred interpretation of the setting before a game and establish their standards and rules.

If you are referring to the 40k fandom as a whole, then the answer is simply because said fandom lacks the capabilities to establish them, starting with the missing networking between the many semi-isolated groups, and going all the way to the immense hassle. After all, deciding on something is much more difficult with tens of thousands of people than your local P&P group of five.

And then you still wouldn't be happy because the community may have overruled your personal favourite.

Specifically, the question being begged is why does a fan have to be able to force their personal ideas upon anyone to have their work become part of established standard or rules?

What kind of question is that?

The question you begged when you claimed that the only way for fan work to become part of established standards or rules was if they could force their views upon someone else. I don't know why you're acting surprised that I'm talking about this when you're the one who brought it up. The entire rest of your post doesn't have any clear relevance. I asked you to justify an assumption and you started talking about...why your assumption is unjustified and you yourself don't actually believe in it? You've explicitly acknowledged that individual gaming groups can have their own standards/rules, which only makes your previous insistence that force is required for a fan to have their work enshrined in them, because obviously fan work being adopted into a game group's standards without force is not only easy and common but automatic. The previous adventures of the group itself are obviously a part of it and are also obviously fan work. So how exactly is anything in your post supposed to be a defense of this statement:

"Canon" generally means established standards or rules...As such, fan-fiction can never be canon simply because you would have one fan force their personal ideas upon another

<redacted> Nah, this is not going to work.

<redacted> Nah, this is not going to work.

The thread, in a nutshell.