(Spoiler) About amaurots downfall

[YianKutku]

I was more referring to the unfortunate trend of many a poster around these parts being rather desperate to have her be pure and righteous, justified in all that she does - thus, from their perspective, they would be fond of the idea of the Ancients being the harbingers of their own annihilation so they can argue that what Hydaelyn went on to do was a necessity and not the complete erasure of an entire society and race of people.

Who? Which posters specifically?

[Theodric]

Who? Which posters specifically?

I'm not going to list them by name, since that could easily be mistaken as 'naming and shaming'. You're free to agree to disagree with me if you wish to believe that there aren't a lot of posters around these parts siding with Hydaelyn at every possible turn, though.

The lore forum is, after all, a lot more pleasant when it operates under the same rules of debate that the Ancients adhered to!

I do not intend to condemn anybody for it - we all have our favourite factions and characters, after all. I simply hope that the story does not backtrack when it comes to Hydaelyn from this point on. Though she may not be a deity, she's still a 'higher being' of a sort and they tend to be much more interesting when they do not simply act with purity in anything and everything that they do.

[YianKutku]

The lore forum is, after all, a lot more pleasant when it operates under the same rules of debate that the Ancients adhered to!

But you're not operating under the same rules of debate. You're making insinuations and poisoning the rhetorical well, while refusing to outright state your citations and sources.

For example, you said (in another thread) that you would prefer that Hydaelyn and Zodiark are both defeated or neutralized, because you prefer the plot development that has "history in the reins of man". That's a good, strong statement, and while I strongly disagree with it, I would not think to criticize that.

But going "Hydaelyn is definitely evil, because what if such-and-such" is much less strong, and relies too much on unsupported speculation presented as fact. If you present your evidence and interpretations thereof, there will certainly be pushback (from myself or others) for that, with our own evidence and interpretations. Similarly, when I said that I believed the Amaurotines were complacent and that resulted in their undoing, I expect pushback using evidence and sources from the game lore, or reasonable interpretations thereof, and I'm willing to change my mind if I learn a new interpretation that works better.

But simply going "you want the Ancients to be at fault because you want to remove all blame from Hydaelyn" is bad debating form, by positing motivation to the poster, rather than looking at their evidence and interpretation. Especially when I say "why do you think that, what is your evidence", and you decline to engage. That's not debate, but merely avoiding debate.