Why are you rejecting games and books confirmed to be canon by the devs in your "theories" ?

[vestal copper]

I just think its unacceptable to allow people to reject any canon source that they dont accept, because it can be abused to defend once theory by "destroying" any counter arguments using a canon source with "I dont consider it to be canon"

And I am clarifying my point, just in case somebody might understand your statement as implying that I claim that people arent allowed to make theories without using every source

[terse sinew]

'I just think it's unacceptable to allow people to reject any canon source"

Maybe not, but you can see how some people might see that statement and jump to that conclusion

[gaunt sigil]

Exactly. That’s why I felt clarity was in order

In terms of server policy

[cedar dove]

@vital nebula I think it is finally time to do your thing

[gaunt sigil]

https://tenor.com/view/do-it-get-to-work-gif-21630516

[vital nebula]

Did you read it?

[cedar dove]

yes and I like it, it works pretty well

like that time I made the "microwave in a house" analogy and solved the MC universe debate

[vital nebula]

Alright

[vestal copper]

By the way, with "reject" I dont mean that somebody dosent use every canon source, but that somebody dosent acknowledge all sources confirmed to be canon as all being canon sources and dosent make his/hers theories accountable to those sources

[vital nebula]

Lets do this

[vestal copper]

You going to delete thiss ?

[gaunt sigil]

Leeeeeeeeeroy

JENKINSSSSS

[terse sinew]

Probably about time, this thread is really argumentative

[vestal copper]

Me making screenshots: E

[vital nebula]

Alright, its time for me to step into the wild west that is this thread

So theorizing, am i right fellas?
This community likes doing that, its fun and interesting. But nowadays we have more than just MC to work with, and people keep going crazy about whether to use those sources or not

Lets start with some objective things:

• Spinoffs like MCD are confirmed to be canon, regardless of what anyone thinks of it. They are not just valid sources, but are those that the devs went out of their way to connect to MC and say that its elements are part of the MC universe
• Circumstances are different for everyone. Some will have all the time in the world while others have IRL things to do
• People view theorizing in different ways. Not everyone shares the exact same definition of what a "theory" exactly is and what it allows and denies

Got that? Good! Here's my perspective on this debate, and what i think is the most ideal way to view it:

Theorizing for MC lore can be divided in two main ways: for fun and seriously (or as i like to call it, for glory). There are those that just want to theorize for fun, because its entertaining and interesting. Meanwhile you have others that take it seriously (me included) and that want to find THE most likely answers to mysteries of the MC universe. Both of these methods are completely valid, but they achieve different things

Now lets apply the objective points i made:
Sources like MCD are canon. This isnt an assumption or theory, its a fact. For people that theorize seriously, they MUST consider all the facts and information to find the answers. There are no buts here, you have to take it. This may sound harsh but its actually beneficial (i'll talk about this in a bit). On the other hand, you have people that theorize for fun. They arent taking this seriously and their goal isnt to find the most likely answer, so they arent obligated to use other canon sources. Here we can apply the objective point that some people dont have all the time in the world. This leads to them not having time to look into everything about the canon sources. For a serious theorist, this is a challenge to overcome, and there are ways of doing so. But for a casual non-serious theorist, this isnt a big deal. If they can find a possible answer within the base game while having fun and finding it interesting, it accomplishes their goal of theorizing for fun

As you can see, we have two valid ways of theorizing with different goals. A key part about this whole debate is knowing which of these ways each individual uses. If this can be achieved, you understand the other's point of view, and can therefore adapt to one POV or agree to disagree

Now for what i said i would talk about. Sources like MCD being canon and how it sounds. It feels to me that people have this weird feeling of rejection to other sources that arent the base game. Im not sure if its nostalgia or a feeling of being outside your comfortable spot. It feels like people fear the theorists that tell people to use them. Dont worry, you are not being held hostage, its just that people who theorize seriously want to share with you a valid source that opens doors. MCD being canon isnt something harsh, not at all lol. Its actually beneficial, since SO many new details and features are shown. You have details that change previous theories like necromancy, and other details that add even more mystery than in MC, such as item descriptions and elements in structures. Take this example for instance: lets say a dev like Kingbdogz or Agnes suddenyl one day tweets "Necromancy is what brings undead mobs to life". This would be a dev quote regarding the base game. However, this has the exact same weight as MCD, since that game already showd necromancers. It wouldnt be fsir to consider necromancers until a dev says it even though its already confirmed in a canon source, right? Its important to consider that when someone says "MCD confirms that...", its something that was investigated and theorized seriously, not something out of nowhere just to make you and your theory shut. Its a valid source, and people are using it to share with you an answer that is backed up by it, making it more likely.

To summarize this part, MCD and serious theorists using it arent danger, they are the opposite. A valid source that opens doors and people with the intention of sharing you what is within the doors. So, it would be pretty nice if people could stop being overly defensive about using only MC. There is a much better way of doing so, and its by sharing the fact that you theorize just for fun, and arent interested in finding the most likely answer. This makes your perspective be understood while not sounding so incredibly defensive over something that is a fact, so i recommend this approach for casual theorists

Now, lets talk about headcanons and fanons. I dont consider this to be in the same territory as theories. Headcanons and fanons allow for the creation of places, characters and events that dont have evidence of existing. Headcanons are that, canons in your head. These dont care about all canon sources and just tend to use logic. Now, this is VERY similar to casual theorizing, hence Seal saying that not using spinoffs isnt theorizing. But this has to be a friendly accepting community for any theorist so we cant have that either lol. Some differences between casual theorizing and headcanons are that:

• Headcanons can have much more personal conclusions between people, having more creativity. While casual theorists can apply the same analysis and come to a logical and possible conclusion together
• Headcanons can include multiple elements that dont have evidence, unlike casual theorists that should still make the effort to keep things within evidence
  They are VERY similar like i said, but its either this or Seal's logical view that casual theorizing is making headcanons

[vital nebula]

In conclusion, i think the best approach for this topic is to view theorizing for MC lore in two ways, people doing so for fun and people taking it seriously. Canon sources are a MUST for serious theorist, and they share it because of how important and beneficial it is for the search of the most likely answer. Casual theorists, although doing something very similar to headcanons and fanons, still aim to theorize, but prioritize the fun and dont look at all canon sources, not to mention some dont have the time. It is important to identify which of these ways of theorizing is the one you choose and which way you will use with others

And here ends my perspective on it. I hope we can all agree with most if not everything i said here to avoid all the arguing of this topic

[cedar dove]

Based good ending

[vestal copper]

Bro used an entire day to develop thiss, writte thiss and copy paste it now

[vital nebula]

Time to read people

[vestal copper]

Just so I wont read it, because of my lazyness

[vital nebula]

I actually only took 1 hour and 10 minutes lol

Its +4,200 words

Ive been meaning to take a stand on this thread ever since it was made

[vestal copper]

Thats an entire day compared to the effort I do for my theories, headcanons and etc

[terse sinew]

Yeah I theorize for fun

Which is probably why I keep confusing gameplay with lore

[vital nebula]

Lol

[vital nebula]

Good, thanks for sharing which way you theorize

[grave hatch]

Do some people not theorize for fun? What's the point if you're not having fun?

Or is it just that there's a more serious objective that's used to have fun

[vital nebula]

Some people genuinely want to find the most likely answer, even if its not the most interesting or mind blowing one

[grave hatch]

ok i guess you could say there's a small difference there

[vital nebula]

And even if its not the answer they would prefer. I am one of this people but i also have fun

[vestal copper]

I just see it as thiss:
Theories made for fun are called headcanons and serious theories are called theories. The basis of thiss view is that it seems like most people in the theorist communities of other franchaises have thiss view too

[vital nebula]

Like i said, you have a logical view

But this server might not want to seperate it that way and still call "theories" to those that only use the base game

Hence the sentence written like this

[vestal copper]

[vestal copper]

I read it and I agree with everything (if I understood everything correctly)

[vital nebula]

Awesome

[vital nebula]

And thank you

[vestal copper]

Also thiss is litterly what thiss forum was partialy suposed to find out

[vital nebula]

Yeah, but the title of the forum activated people's "spinoffphobia" and "defensive mode", which i address in the wall of text

[vestal copper]

(The other purpose being to convince people to not just completly reject every non base game canon source and ignore every counter argument made with a non base game canon source)

[vital nebula]

Yes

I will say tho, people are right about the title. Its a double-edge sword

[vestal copper]

I blame my english teacher for teaching me how to do it lol

[vital nebula]

I do think you did a very based and bold thing by creating this thread. It needed to be addressed this way

[vestal copper]

Thx

[vital nebula]

People like me tend to be very forgiving of people going "No! Only base! Idc if MCD is canon!". Stepping up and saying all the facts this way is good

[vestal copper]

Funfact: I made a sequel #1081990303721984111

[vital nebula]

Yeah, i noticed

Hopefully it doesnt end up the exact same way

[vestal copper]

It almost did already

But I quickly was like: hey thiss isnt the purpose of thiss thread

[vital nebula]

Good

[grave hatch]

The question in the title there is obviously subjective, so hopefully that will lead to less confrontational discussion

[vital nebula]

Yup

[vestal copper]

Imagine almost nobody going to write something in there because I didnt do a confrontational titel lol

[vital nebula]

Lol

Double-edge sword like i said with this thread's title. It comes across as aggressive, but that same thing makes people jump in

The same isnt happening with that other thread

[vestal copper]

People love jumping into a the blade of a sword, dont they ?

Lol

[vital nebula]

Its like publicity. We unfortunately live in a time where the phrase "negative attention is still attention" is correct

[vestal copper]

Negative attention is good to get attention, but not good to convince somebody

cough the last generation cough

[vital nebula]

Yeah

[terse sinew]

So if this problem crops up again in which something from other sources challenges a base game theory, how should we go about it?

[vital nebula]

It would depend on what people's way of theorizing is

[vestal copper]

I probaly have to do it again in the future tho, considering how long "just for fun" theorists theorise before they quit or even leave lol

[vestal copper]

Dont imdently reject it, atleast look at what the opposition has to say. And maybe you can use the information provided in the future for your own theories

[grave hatch]

isn't that what the base game tag is for?

[vital nebula]

You do so for fun, you dont mind it. You do it seriously, the new evidence HAS to be considered, and a new theory would be made if the evidence disproves the base game theory

[terse sinew]

I tagged one of my theory threads as base game and people still tried to apply MCD to it

[vestal copper]

Like, an option to learn the lore of MCD and etc is by trial and error (kinda like I did when MC was mostly unknowen to me)

[vital nebula]

Understandable, yeah

[vital nebula]

The tags dont match with what i shared in the wall of text

[vestal copper]

(And not just MCD, but also MCL and Rotai

[vital nebula]

The tags should be overhauled in general, there isnt even a MCL tag

And no, "other" doesnt work since we do have a tag for MCD

[vestal copper]

I think there should only be theory, headcanon, fanon and other tag

[vital nebula]

It depends if the server would agree with your view

If not, it would be "just for fun", "serious theorizing", "fanon" and "other"

[vestal copper]

Because like you said, somebody rlly theorising just for fun wouldnt give a frick about people mentioning MCD

[vital nebula]

Also, "joke" can be removed. It just leads people to make uneccesary threads

[vestal copper]

NO

WE NEED TO KEEP JOKE

[vital nebula]

I already did this in my server a while ago btw

[vestal copper]

(We need RGN tag so we can theorise about RGN, like him being a religious figure

[vestal copper]

You have a server ?

[vital nebula]

Yes

[vestal copper]

Is it a theory server ?

[vital nebula]

I added a section of theory channels not too long ago

[grave hatch]

I don't like that because it demands a dichotomy of "canon" or "anything goes" when a lot of people don't want just any old bs in their base game stuff

[vital nebula]

Following the very same perspective i shared in the wall of text

Even though my server isnt active, when we used those channels, it worked really well

[vestal copper]

Why do you care about somebody mentioning MCD, if you make theorise for fun ?

(Not meant to sound toxic

(Or accusatory

[terse sinew]

The very first theory thread I made was asking why piglins got mad when you opened chests that belonged to you. Somwhere along the way, the question of who built the bastions came into the conversation. Me, not knowing anything about MCD, said piglins can't build. I got this:

oh I can't add screenshots here

[vestal copper]

You need higher rank or driver

[past hatch]

ok ok ok really quickly where would i find canon info to be able to theorise that villagers probably snap chickens necks instead of what barbaric actions players take

[terse sinew]

The person who replied said that MCD proves that piglins can build, but I clearly tagged that thread as base game

[grave hatch]

Because I like to theorize about stuff I know/care about, which for me is the base game

[terse sinew]

So there would still be problems

[vital nebula]

Yeah... thats something this server needs to address

[vestal copper]

But why not learn from the MCD counter arguments made by others ?

[vital nebula]

Like i said, the tags could be better. But its also the serious theorists wanting to share valid sources like i said

[vestal copper]

And then using that knowledge to make even better and more fun theories

[vital nebula]

Its about how you react when that happens

You can peacefully tell them you theorize for fun like how i recommend in the wall of text

Or embrace MCD, something i recommend even more due to the benefits it brings

[past hatch]

how does one "embrace mcd"

[terse sinew]

.....consider the story and lore?

[vital nebula]

By seeing what the game shows

[vital nebula]

Yeah

[terse sinew]

I'm not against MCD being canon in the Minecraft universe, I just simply haven't played it and know nothing about the game

[past hatch]

only lore i know is like
archie does the thing and chef vindicator

[terse sinew]

So I don't know what you're talking about when you use MCD as evidence

[vestal copper]

And we can try to "teach" you (slowly if you have time issues)

[vital nebula]

Thats another thing, having to look for info

[grave hatch]

Because I enjoy working from evidence I know/care abt, rather than speculating wildly (rather like you, just with a different baseline)

[vital nebula]

That is something we started looking into with Retro. A method for people to learn about MCD effectively should be made

[vestal copper]

Yeah, even for vanilia MC theories you need to do research

[vital nebula]

Also true

People are just familiar with MC already due to how popular it is

[terse sinew]

MCD is story based though, there is hours and hours of content talking about Orb of Dominance this and Illager empire that

[vestal copper]

(Which is a reason why I take the "people might have not enough time" argument not rlly serious)

[terse sinew]

Whereas with Minecraft is just "okay do what you want"

[vital nebula]

Yes, but one can still discover everything and use it for theories

[vestal copper]

All the cutscenes are around 30 min long

So you can learn the basics in 30 min

[vital nebula]

We looked into that like i said. Im going to see if i can work on a method

[terse sinew]

I watched some people play base MCD a few years agp, but the DCLs are entirely new to me

[vestal copper]

The more deep stuff are things like item descirptions, item locations, the diffrent mobs, level design and etc

[terse sinew]

I find that those kinds of things are often the ones that hold heavy lore implications

[vestal copper]

Not rlly, the general story is also lore heavy

[past hatch]

ok but like do you think theres acutally a statement about how villagers butcher animals and how they do it compared to how players do it

[vital nebula]

That has its disadvantages with the lore too. Having so many abiguity leaves an outsider clueless to where to begin and how to connect elements

[vestal copper]

No (to my knowledge)

We can only speculate in thiss case

[vital nebula]

We have almost nothing on the protagonist for example, even ignoring the avatar aspect

[terse sinew]

They have to sell you rabbit stew somehow

[past hatch]

ok so they snap chickens necks
pretty easy dont know what else theyd do

[vestal copper]

Also the void (a space between dimensions) is mostly mysterious and unknowen

[terse sinew]

On second thought they buy raw rabbit from you so --

[vital nebula]

Yeah, even MCD introduces elements that are shrouded in mystery

MCD opens more doors like i said

[past hatch]

butchers exist, they more than likely eat meat

[vestal copper]

Or the dimension we call "the nextworld", we can only speculate on that. The only infornation on it being that its a "new" dimension and that souls go into that dimension

[past hatch]

in fact, i personally think that may be why archers exist
you know, hunting

[terse sinew]

I'd argue that lower tier butchers buy raw meat from you, so it's not implausible that they can sell you cooked meat

[past hatch]

didnt do research though so its just a lil bit of fanfiction

[vestal copper]

The villagers have their own animals, so they probaly just breed and butcher them

[vital nebula]

Amazing how this thread is going into how villagers get meat somehow

[vestal copper]

Before yk, cooking and then selling or eating what they made

[vestal copper]

The threads purpose has now truly expiered

[vital nebula]

Yeah

I think we all agree on the same thing after i shared the wall of text

Which is good, its what i wanted to achieve

Now for the obligatory: I wonder what Retro thinks of the wall of text i wrote

[past hatch]

f

[vestal copper]

Lol

[vestal copper]

@gaunt sigil read or face revolution

[vital nebula]

My takeaway from this thread is that we need to improve two things:

• Tags
• People's access to information from spinoffs

[vital nebula]

[vestal copper]

(Me after breaking rules again: finaly, ineer peace)

[vital nebula]

Lol

[vital nebula]

People also need to agree with what i shared, but that is already the case (at least from what we've seen in the thread)

[past hatch]

so can we keep the headcanons tag so i can make another useless kat illager thread

[vital nebula]

Yes

[past hatch]

ye

[vital nebula]

We could rename it to "Fanon" so it covers more ground, but it already works so it can be kept

[past hatch]

now i can yell into the void

[vital nebula]

We should have tags for ways of theorizing instead of sources. The ways of theorizing indicate if people will use multiple sources or not

You wont see someone that uses MCD but not MC, MCL but not MCD, etc anyway

[past hatch]

how much lore can we even take from MCL

[vital nebula]

A good portion

[terse sinew]

"Base game only" or "all sources," maybe

[past hatch]

i mean do we even know that it happened

am i missing new stuff or somthing

[vital nebula]

Retro has always been against that lmao

[terse sinew]

Devs say it is canon

[past hatch]

like all of it

[terse sinew]

How do you mean?

[past hatch]

it happened just like that?

[vital nebula]

Idk why, but he always feels the need to put the spinoffs as the other stuff

[past hatch]

i got the feeling it was like a tale whos vaildity was shaky at best

like a tale about a grand war between like
i dunno dragons and unicorns but its acutally a retelling of ww2 or somthing

[vital nebula]

We have always shared the idea of making a "base game only channel", but he always goes like "No! It has to be a MCD channel!". Azul/Audrey Enjoyer even made an entire document explaining why a "base game only" channel is a better idea lol

[vital nebula]

Some things are exaggerated, but others are the truth

Those truths are mostly things that we see evidence of in the other games

For example, the piglins being so advanced and having a collpase is truth, since we see remains of their advancements in MCD

A piglin weapon from MCD is even seen in MCL, being wielded by one of the horde leaders

[past hatch]

i mean yea but we kinda knew that already, this just sorta backs it up

[vital nebula]

Yeah

[past hatch]

while also probably exaggerating it

[vital nebula]

Also yes

[past hatch]

man i was kinda treating it like the warriors folktales

ok a little more truthful than those

[vital nebula]

Things like them attacking each other is likely exaggerated

Making them more barbarian than how they are in the other games

The art style is also likely a legend thing, to capture the mythical and fantasy feeling of a legend being told as a bedtime story

[gaunt sigil]

I think you can use whatever sources you like when theorizing

I see nothing wrong with using MCD and all of that

Clearly it has been a very successful strategy for many theories. I love reading all of the awesome things people have done using it

I only have issues with requiring theories to follow a certain philosophy. I still believe that having separate channels for different philosophies would cause more issues than it would solve

[vestal copper]

Important question, have you read mine too ?

(Very important lol)

[gaunt sigil]

I’m ashamed to say that a lot of them blend together and I can’t always recall who made what theory

[vital nebula]

I agree if its theorizing for fun. However, we discussed how there are two mayor ways people use sources: either all of them or only MC

[vestal copper]

The wither being an "entity" theory, the ender dragon being an "entity" theory and my hypothesis on the undead in the ow

[vital nebula]

These ways can be seperated in for fun and serious theorizing like how i said in the wall of text. So i think tags should be changed to these ways of theorizing. It would also make it much clearer when people dont want other sources in the thread

[vestal copper]

Thats the only 2 theories and hypothesis I wrote down somewhere and made public here (recently)

[gaunt sigil]

What’s wrong with the current system where you select all of the sources you’re using?

If we are missing tags I can add them

[vestal copper]

You can just nitpick and prevent your theory from beeing disproven with counterarguments based on evidence from sources you dont accept

In the case of somebody who does it for fun its not a problem, but in the case for somebody who is "serious" theorist its a big problem

[vital nebula]

Its a common thing that someone puts only the "base game" tag but then someone else will bring up MCD. The thing is that the creator of the forum will either embrace MCD or deny it, it becomes a grey area where its becomes unclear if the tag denies the application of other sources or not. Tags for things like MCL are also missing

[gaunt sigil]

So if you’re a serious theorist just select all the sources

I can add MCL tags for sure

[vestal copper]

Well and then there is me, somebody who knows the meaning of the tags but just is like "haha, time to break rules lol"

[vital nebula]

We also have the "headcanon" tag, which people like Seal argue is equal to theorizing with the base game only due to not using all the canon sources. Sometimes people will put both the "theory" and "headcanon" tag, making it confusing what the thread is actually doing

[gaunt sigil]

This is the crux of all of this - everyone has a different definition for everything

As a server owner, I need to find the scheme that accommodates the most people

[vital nebula]

Or, you could clarify what the defintion or perspective is approached on this server

[vestal copper]

Ehm

He did do that

[sage creek]

Sounds good to me

[gaunt sigil]

to me, these guidelines strike a pretty neutral balance that accommodates both sides of the debate

[vital nebula]

Oh wait, the description of the channel

[vital nebula]

Wait, what?

[gaunt sigil]

Of course, we can add the missing tags

that is my mistake

[vital nebula]

This is like a fuse of both perspectives

[vestal copper]

The thing is, almost nobody has probaly read it

[vital nebula]

Yeah, thats another thing

[vestal copper]

And 95% probaly dont remember it

[gaunt sigil]

then that is a moderation issue which we shall deal with in the staff channels, not here

but in terms of what the channel is, I really do think these guidelines give a pretty good balance of both sides of the debate

[vital nebula]

Wait, so you could have an MCD headcanon and use both tags. But why is headcanon marked as a "less serious theory" if thats the intention?

[vestal copper]

Wait, it litterly says what I have been saying

Serious theories are theories, less serious theories are headcanons

[gaunt sigil]

i actually agree that headcanon and theory don't make sense to be used together. maybe this should be clarified

[gaunt sigil]

the difference is you say that a base-game only theory cannot be "serious"

[vestal copper]

But alot of people who make less serious theories have sued the theory tag

Which lead to the creation of thiss thread

(And their [hostile] rejection of MCD and etc)

[past hatch]

hey, you've been hostile to an extent in this thread

[terse sinew]

Valentino literally said both are theories

[vestal copper]

Ik

But RGNs guidelines say kinda something else

[terse sinew]

And he has also said that the tags are outdated

[gaunt sigil]

We are refining the guidelines. Stay tuned for an update post

[terse sinew]

Will it be in announcements?

[gaunt sigil]

Possibly, but there will definitely be a pinned post in #1019925609960439819 explaining how to use the channel. one issue is that the guidelines are too hidden, and we want to make it more clear

[past hatch]

Glad we are getting the "pls don't hurt me theorists" update

[vital nebula]

Dont worry, we dont bite

You can trust us 👍

[past hatch]

indeed...

[vestal copper]

We just like to break rule 6 lol

[past hatch]

you see that's why I'm afraid of the theory chats

[vestal copper]

Stalin

[vestal copper]

Funfact: I had to look up which rule it was. I would have written rule 7, if I wouldnt have done it

[vital nebula]

[cedar dove]

MCL looks funny

[vestal copper]

What is MCL ?

[cedar dove]

Legends

[vestal copper]

The 3rd or 4th ?

[past hatch]

Anything that isn't the dirt block looks funny

[vital nebula]

4th

[vestal copper]

Seriously

[past hatch]

I don't like any of the spinoff blocks

[cedar dove]

Legends hold great power

[vestal copper]

Let me guess, 3rd is MCE ?

[cedar dove]

I like them

yup

[vital nebula]

Yes

[vital nebula]

Same

[gaunt sigil]

#1082053843677880410

This is what the staff team and I came up with to clarify the way #1019925609960439819 works

this should clear up some confusion

[vital nebula]

👍

[past hatch]

Ye

[uneven briar]

Awesome

[ocean junco]

deleted channel

[wanton pier]

Hello?

[reef fossil]

This thread is over 1k messages, is there anyone that could summerise what happened?

[vestal copper]

Why is thiss alive

[reef fossil]

What lore does minecraft earth have?

[vestal copper]

The mobs

[reef fossil]

I didn't play it much, what's different about the mobs?

[vestal copper]

There are more kinds of mobs, like the furnace golem