33 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Pariah Devalis, on 12 May 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

Actually, sounds to me like you took my basic argument "stating that a sarna source is wrong and that you need the source material (ie: paper materials including Era reports and TROs) on hand and be able to point to them at the drop of a pen or else you should offer nothing to the conversation" is a bullshit argument and one that is correctable by anyone who has the actual material to correct Sarna with," and converted it into a perceived personal attack.

At which point, you not only missed the point of the statement, but let your emotions flavor both your replies to me, in which case as far as an argument is concerned you make yourself lose. Arguments are based on logic, not emotion. Emotion that, in this case, was totally unfounded.

If that is not clear enough for you, then maybe I should break this sucker down line by line. Try to follow.

-

Person has source material (in paper).

Person proclaims that Sarna, the single most readily available, public access source of Battletech material, to be an invalid source.

If sarna is invalid, only official publications in paper print (or digital copy thereof) are valid.

Argument made by anyone must be backed up by evidence to support their claim, but person (I have been using "you" as, quite honestly, it flows better) has decreed that only the either out of print or non-free sources of lore may be considered as valid, otherwise the argument is invalid.

This means that either you have the paper (which some either cannot get or will not spend money on for internet arguments), or you have no argument and you have no right to offer an argument.

-


That, my friend, is bull, especially because while I am sure 23.775% of statistics are made up on the spot the same can be said about your assumptions about Sarna's material. Probably closer to 90% of Sarna is accurate where the lore really matters. We are not talking weapon damage values, ranges, table top rules, or what not. We are talking lore, 100% of the official material which is generated by the Battletech/Mechwarrior novels, TROs, Era Reports, and Battlecorps.

This material is what is copied into Sarna. Minor pre-school level dot connecting might happen in the SUPERMEGA articles, but for the sake of the topic OF THIS FORUM SUBJECT, we are talking about the Direwolf and it, originally, being a Wolf design was claimed as not the case before the proclamation of no-sarna was uttered. Which was wrong. Which was refuted with a Sarna link. Which was met with "I just said Sarna is not a good source!" AKA, "you do not have the source material, shut up."

But, turns out, Sarna was right. Why? Because it was a reliable source. Despite the proclamation. It proves its own fallacy.

Meanwhile, this all ignores that you, your friends, or a complete stranger who actually does have the source material is totally and 100% free to go onto Sarna if something seems amiss, doublecheck the material you or they have, and correct it so that Sarna is even closer to accurate.

Sarna is a product of community input. If it is not 100% accurate than the onus of making it so lies squarely on the shoulders of those with the resources to do so. This nugget of hilarity is what really grinds my gears about the prior statement that "Sarna should not be used as a source." If it is not accurate, the only people who are to be blamed are the community members that refused to make it accurate (aka: the ones with the paper material), and no one else.

Is that absolutely, perfectly clear?

I have a huge problem with the argument. I have no personal care either way for you.

Not only does this have nothing to do with the original point, it completely over looks the obvious fallacy as (presumably) it doesn't suit your argument. The original point was not who designed the Direwolf, but where Canon sources of mech manufacturing can be reviewed.

You're arguing that Sarna can be relied upon as a representation of Canon. That's just simply incorrect. The BTU owners have disavowed Sarna as a source of canon and regardless of what you may or may not think about the quality of Sarna, IT IS NOT A CANON SOURCE. That's it, end of story. There is no if, but, or maybe, it simply IS NOT A CANON SOURCE.

Now lets look at your argument that you're right and I'm wrong on the subsequent point. I am quite happy to concede that the Direwolf was designed by Clan Wolf, it wasn't in my TRO3050 who did, I did say I might have the names around the wrong way and I couldn't remember the Battlemech where the reference was to recheck that.

Now you can freely admit that the Sarna page in reference has at least 2 errors on the subject matter of the OP. The Sarna page quite clearly states that the Direwolf is manufactured at Huntress and Outreach as well as Strana Mechty which on the relevant pages for Huntress and Outreach, is incorrect. Indeed, even the TRO InRev quoted reads that it is produced on Strana Mechty. So a reader of Sarna will get the impression that the Direwolf is produced at 2 locations which is not supported by canon. It also quite possible that a reader of Sarna might come to the conclusion that the Direwolf is manufactured in the Inner Sphere, cause that what it says (Outreach being only a little removed from Terra)

Is it hard for you to concede that? That actually indeed, this Sarna page source on this subject has at least 2 possible errors to Canon. Will you concede it, CAUSE THAT'S THE POINT HERE. That Sarna has many errors and needs to be treated with CARE.

ERGO: My original point is that the Sarna can be a good source on Mech manufacturing centres, but needs to be treated with CARE still stands, it has after all your words still proven to be the case.

Why are you so angry that I state the bleeding obvious? That Sarna is not Canon, is a Wiki authored by many and while it's a good read and can give insights, it needs to be treated with care when presenting as Canon. I'm far from against Sarna, in my first post I actually endorsed using it as a starting point.

I can see you have a problem with the argument, you're obviously taking it personally. I'm sorry that you do but it really isn't open to debate. Sarna is NOT canon and should be treated with care if the goal is to represent it as canon. If you read that statement of fact as some sort of elitist personal insinuation, that's on you.

If you think Sarna is 90% accurate them I have to assume you have a lot of Source books to compare it to (cause otherwise, how would you know) so I guess you're one of those people who should be spending your time contributing to the Sarna resource?

You knock yourself out. In my experience it only takes a few months for it to get re edited to another fanboy fantasy but if you think it's worth the effort, you go for it. Clearly you have some passion for the subject.

So let me summarise in reply

Sarna is not Canon, that's a fact (check the link below)
Sarna can be a good source, but needs to be treated with care if you are making Canon representations.

Is that clear enough for you?

I'd like here to just as dismissive of you as you closed your post but I can't quite sink that low.

Good Luck to you.

[Pariah Devalis]

So... you still missed the crux of my point.

Errors exist. I never said they do not. 90% ok, possibly off a bit. But 60%? Hardly.

Two errors on that page that you identified? Fantastic! Why not fix them then since you obviously identified them? Of course, two errors on a page with a near direct copy paste of the mech's official lore background, a near direct copy paste of each and every single one of the mech's cannon (and "hero") variants, correct battle values for the mech for each and every one of the variants, and correct C-Bill cost for the Prime configuration is actually pretty impressive. That is, what, 15 variants, 15 sets of loadouts, 15 sets of battle values in both the BV1 and BV2 system, plus the lore? That page is still well over 90% correct.

My point, regardless of whatever extended conversation you were having before hand, was someone gave the copy pasta of the official mech history which, because it was on Sarna, was IMMEDIATELY DISCOUNTED solely on the basis of it being linked to the Sarna article. I point to this as it is a clear case of discounting Sarna to your own argument's benefit without exploring if it is even a fair rebuttal.

While Sarna itself might not be "canon," it directly refers to cannon. It directly copies from canon sources. Hell, there is even a list of sources at the bottom of most pages if you feel so inclined. The material in question was a direct take from canon, as are all the mech history sections in Sarna, to the best of my knowledge. That makes that part of Sarna perfectly referenceable.

Fact checking is a hell of a lot easier when you do have the source material. Instead of going "hm, this is counter to my previous held impressions, let me look it up in the source material" you outright said "nope." That is bad practice and excludes anyone who does not have the source material on hand when it comes to defending an argument. The auto-exclusion of Sarna, regardless of the validity of the subject it is in reference to, regardless if it is, in actuality, right or wrong, without even a cursory fact checking, makes argument impossible for a huge, huge portion of the community.

That is simply unacceptable.

As I said, the onus of correcting is on those who have the resources to do so.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 12 May 2014 - 07:59 PM.

[Dyson Ring]

Regarding the Sarna page about the Dire Wolf manufacturing sites, Sarna is 100% correct.

The problem is that due to there being 3 different versions of the TRO: 3050, the information that is being given is mostly from the Upgrade version, not the original or Revised versions.

The Upgrade version of the TRO: 3050 is set as being published in 3071, after the Great Refusal, when there is no site for manufacturing the Dire Wolf on Huntress anymore. Furthermore, the information given for manufacturing sites lists the Clan sites only, not any other factions factories for producing that 'Mech.

That's how I see it, personally.

[Craig Steele]

Pariah Devalis, on 12 May 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

So... you still missed the crux of my point.

Errors exist. I never said they do not. 90% ok, possibly off a bit. But 60%? Hardly.

Two errors on that page that you identified? Fantastic! Why not fix them then since you obviously identified them? Of course, two errors on a page with a near direct copy paste of the mech's official lore background, a near direct copy paste of each and every single one of the mech's cannon (and "hero") variants, correct battle values for the mech for each and every one of the variants, and correct C-Bill cost for the Prime configuration is actually pretty impressive. That is, what, 15 variants, 15 sets of loadouts, 15 sets of battle values in both the BV1 and BV2 system, plus the lore? That page is still well over 90% correct.

My point, regardless of whatever extended conversation you were having before hand, was someone gave the copy pasta of the official mech history which, because it was on Sarna, was IMMEDIATELY DISCOUNTED solely on the basis of it being linked to the Sarna article. I point to this as it is a clear case of discounting Sarna to your own argument's benefit without exploring if it is even a fair rebuttal.

Fact checking is a hell of a lot easier when you do have the source material. Instead of going "hm, this is counter to my previous held impressions, let me look it up in the source material" you outright said "nope." That is bad practice and excludes anyone who does not have the source material on hand when it comes to defending an argument. The auto-exclusion of Sarna, regardless of the validity of the subject it is in reference to, regardless if it is, in actuality, right or wrong, without even a cursory fact checking, makes argument impossible for a huge, huge portion of the community.

That is simply unacceptable.

As I said, the onus of correcting is on those who have the resources to do so.

Fact is, you mis represent what the post was to suit the argument you wanted to make.

My observation was that someone was using a source I just identifed as prone to error to dispute a statement. The implication being that disputing a statement on that basis is just as flawed. Stop representing what you think I said and read the post. Here it is btw.

Craig Steele, on 12 May 2014 - 04:44 AM, said:

lol, so you're telling me that Sarna is correct in a thread by quoting Sarna right after I have just said that Sarna is not canon?

OK

I got nothing else then

Except that Sarna is not canon and while it might be an entertaining read, it cannot be relied upon.

PS, sources of canon are detailed in my signature below.

Did I say in there that he was wrong? Did I say that I was right? Did I bang on about the point I had already made being that Huntress does not have a Direwolf Manufacturing centre although the Direwolf page says it does? I don't dismiss his argument, nor do reassert my recollection of the Direwolf design is correct.

I simply point out the same thing I point out to you, that Sarna is not canon and full of errors. That's a fact, you might not like it but it still is the fact. You however, take the thread in a whole new direction and I quote you here "regardless of whatever extended conversation you were having before hand" to launch into your passionate arguement which has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

Your point is that Sarna should be a canon source as it's easily accessiable for everyone which ignores the commercial reality of the BTU guys wanting to make a profit off their IP and the realities of copyright law. You're never going to get it your way and the sooner you embrace that the source is not canon and has flaws the better.

Your point is to bang on about people not updating Sarna, and hijacking this thread with your beliefs is probably uncalled for. Basically what you're saying is you don't have the books, nor are prepared to pay for them but you want the full canon understanding because you love the IP. You're putting the responsibility on everyone else to give you what you want with their time, effort and money so you can enjoy it for free. And you represent anyone as disputing this as being "elitist".

That's about right yes? Now I know that will be a popular view so you'll probably get a few likes, but it's not really anything to do with the OP.

I know for myself, I am more than happy to share what Canon I have in response to direct questions, but I'm not going to police the Sarna, they have mods for that already. Still doesn't change that Sarna is not canon.

But lets be clear.

The OP wanted to know where he could find sources of Omnimech manufacturer.

I said that Sarna is a good place to start but has errors, used a page as an example (because I knew that Huntress was not recorded in Sarna as a manufacturer of Direwolves because of some stuff I have been doing of SJ)

Others post that Sarna is a good source because the Direwolf was indeed designed by Clan Wolf as shown in Canon, completely overlooking the fact that my point is the page has errors and needs to be treated with care.

And indeed, the Sarna Direwolf page does have errors it would appear. Check Huntress, is Direwolf a chassis manufactured? Check Outreach and ask the same question. So if you accept that the Direwolf page is 100% accurate (although it's not, especially in this case the paragraphs that do not have a source), there are 2 other pages (Huntress and Outreach) that are inaccurate. According to my maths, thats about 33% accuracy on this subject although I'd probably nudge that up given some of the content on those pages is correct.

I get how being right and all is satisfying, but arguing for the sake of arguing is just pointless.

If you want to start a thread about the validity of Sarna as a Canon source, knock yourself out. I have never said Sarna is not a source, just that it's not a Canon source. If you use Sarna to link back to and check the Canon publications, then you have a canon argument. If you cut and paste someone's fantasy and represent that as Canon, then you're open to ridicule.

[BLOOD WOLF]

It is important to note that Sarna does give referneces at the bottom of page for whatever your looking at. The information came from somewhere. It is possible that things can get mixed up, as with our universe and the BT universe, mistakes can be made. Just double check your sources.

• ↑ ^{1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5} Combat Operations, p. 108
  
• ↑ ^{2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10} Technical Readout: 3050 Upgrade, pp. 144-145, "Dire Wolf OmniMech Profile"
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 147
  
• ↑ ^{4.0 4.1 4.2} Technical Readout: 3050, pp. 42-43, "Dire Wolf OmniMech Profile"
  
• ↑ ^{5.0 5.1 5.2} Technical Readout: 3050 Revised, pp. 40-41, "Dire Wolf OmniMech Profile"
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 110
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 148
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 149
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: Upgrades, p. 157
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 150
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 151
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3145 New Tech, New Upgrades, p. 194
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3060, p. 238
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 152
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3060, p. 241
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 153
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3085 Unabridged — Old is the New New, p. 150
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 154
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 155
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3060, p. 239
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 156
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3060, p. 240
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 157
  
• ↑ Operation Audacity, p. 193
  
• ↑ Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League), p. 158
  
• ↑ Blood Legacy, pp. 185-197
  
• ↑ Technical Readout: 3060, p. 128

[edit] Bibliography

• Blood Legacy (Novel)
  
• Combat Operations
  
• Operation Audacity (Novel)
  
• Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrades Unabridged (Clan & Star League)
  
• Record Sheets: 3060
  
• Record Sheets: 3085 Unabridged — Old is the New New
  
• Record Sheets: Upgrades
  
• Technical Readout: 3050
  
• Technical Readout: 3050 Revised
  
• Technical Readout: 3050 Upgrade
  
• Technical Readout: 3060
  
• Record Sheets: 3145 New Tech, New Upgrades

Everything on there came from references, I do not know if all those are Canon. Whenever something is backed by refernces it is strong data. Also you can double check too see if they are correct.


Dont know what the argument is but i just wanted to point out sarna's references in which it was made.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 12 May 2014 - 08:54 PM.

[Craig Steele]

BLOOD WOLF, on 12 May 2014 - 08:48 PM, said:

It is important to note that Sarna does give referneces at the bottom of page for whatever your looking at. The information came from somewhere. It is possible that things can get mixed up, as with our universe and the BT universe, mistakes can be made. Just double check your sources.

*snip*
Everything on there came from referneces, I do not know if all those are Canon. Whenever something is backed by refernces it is strong data. Also you can doublecheck too see if they are correct.


Dont know what the argument is but i just wanted to point out sarna's references in which it was made.

It does, the only issue is that the sources are only on specific content (as would be expected) and not everything can be linked back to a canon source.

Some of those sections are correct reflections of canon and simply incorrectly source referenced, but many are 'embellishments' or fan boy creations. For example, there are some (not all) Merc Units where you will see names of commanders that are not recorded in BTU, they are RP characters that someone wanted to record themselves for prosterity.

So sure, if the page content is linked to a canon source, and that source checks out then it absolutely is a useful tool. This is the case with most of the source references in my expeirence although there are a good percentage of errors. This can often be due to a subsequent canon source publication.

If you're cutting and pasting parts of Sarna especially the unsourced stuff, and representing it as Canon, then you're open to making errors.

[BLOOD WOLF]

I agree, and well said.

[Dyson Ring]

I know that I'm repeating myself, but the Sarna.net page for the Dire Wolf manufacturing sites is 100% correct.

The reason that the Dire Wolf is not listed as being produced on Huntress or Outreach on those worlds pages is because the data is set after the Great Refusal (Huntress) or During/After the Jihad (Outreach).

[Jaroth Corbett]

Craig Steele, on 12 May 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

Fact is, you mis represent what the post was to suit the argument you wanted to make.

My observation was that someone was using a source I just identifed as prone to error to dispute a statement. The implication being that disputing a statement on that basis is just as flawed. Stop representing what you think I said and read the post. Here it is btw.



Did I say in there that he was wrong? Did I say that I was right? Did I bang on about the point I had already made being that Huntress does not have a Direwolf Manufacturing centre although the Direwolf page says it does? I don't dismiss his argument, nor do reassert my recollection of the Direwolf design is correct.

I simply point out the same thing I point out to you, that Sarna is not canon and full of errors. That's a fact, you might not like it but it still is the fact. You however, take the thread in a whole new direction and I quote you here "regardless of whatever extended conversation you were having before hand" to launch into your passionate arguement which has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

Your point is that Sarna should be a canon source as it's easily accessiable for everyone which ignores the commercial reality of the BTU guys wanting to make a profit off their IP and the realities of copyright law. You're never going to get it your way and the sooner you embrace that the source is not canon and has flaws the better.

Your point is to bang on about people not updating Sarna, and hijacking this thread with your beliefs is probably uncalled for. Basically what you're saying is you don't have the books, nor are prepared to pay for them but you want the full canon understanding because you love the IP. You're putting the responsibility on everyone else to give you what you want with their time, effort and money so you can enjoy it for free. And you represent anyone as disputing this as being "elitist".

That's about right yes? Now I know that will be a popular view so you'll probably get a few likes, but it's not really anything to do with the OP.

I know for myself, I am more than happy to share what Canon I have in response to direct questions, but I'm not going to police the Sarna, they have mods for that already. Still doesn't change that Sarna is not canon.

But lets be clear.

The OP wanted to know where he could find sources of Omnimech manufacturer.

I said that Sarna is a good place to start but has errors, used a page as an example (because I knew that Huntress was not recorded in Sarna as a manufacturer of Direwolves because of some stuff I have been doing of SJ)

Others post that Sarna is a good source because the Direwolf was indeed designed by Clan Wolf as shown in Canon, completely overlooking the fact that my point is the page has errors and needs to be treated with care.

And indeed, the Sarna Direwolf page does have errors it would appear. Check Huntress, is Direwolf a chassis manufactured? Check Outreach and ask the same question. So if you accept that the Direwolf page is 100% accurate (although it's not, especially in this case the paragraphs that do not have a source), there are 2 other pages (Huntress and Outreach) that are inaccurate. According to my maths, thats about 33% accuracy on this subject although I'd probably nudge that up given some of the content on those pages is correct.

I get how being right and all is satisfying, but arguing for the sake of arguing is just pointless.

If you want to start a thread about the validity of Sarna as a Canon source, knock yourself out. I have never said Sarna is not a source, just that it's not a Canon source. If you use Sarna to link back to and check the Canon publications, then you have a canon argument. If you cut and paste someone's fantasy and represent that as Canon, then you're open to ridicule.

I have said it MANY times on this forum & others, I wipe my ass with Sarna. I have had bad past experiences where their text was either inaccurate, incomplete or just had no source to back up what they said. I cannot speak for the present, but I will NEVER trust Sarna. I have the sourcebooks, manuals & novels etc. to get my info from.

[Craig Steele]

Jaroth Corbett, on 12 May 2014 - 09:24 PM, said:

I have said it MANY times on this forum & others, I wipe my ass with Sarna. I have had bad past experiences where their text was either inaccurate, incomplete or just had no source to back up what they said. I cannot speak for the present, but I will NEVER trust Sarna. I have the sourcebooks, manuals & novels etc. to get my info from.

It's not terrible, but it's not Canon. It's OK for immersion on some things.

Say Jaroth, can you maybe help me with a question. I posted in House Liao about Kai Allard Liao and his timeline. Can you maybe have a look and see if you can help?

[Jaroth Corbett]

Sorry if it is not concerning the Clans, I must decline. I can guide you where to go though.

[Uncle Totty]

Craig Steele, on 12 May 2014 - 04:44 AM, said:

lol, so you're telling me that Sarna is correct in a thread by quoting Sarna right after I have just said that Sarna is not canon?

OK

I got nothing else then

Except that Sarna is not canon and while it might be an entertaining read, it cannot be relied upon.

PS, sources of canon are detailed in my signature below.

Funny, YOU are not on that list. Everything you say on canon must be wrong then.

[Craig Steele]

Nathan K, on 13 May 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

Funny, YOU are not on that list. Everything you say on canon must be wrong then.

I guess it comes down to whether you check your sources then.

If you want to know the Canon but can't be bothered to buy / find / research the canon then you have to get it from somewhere don't you? But if you get it from Sarna you are going to be left short when a fair bit when talking to someone who could be bothered to find / buy / research.

Craig Steele, on 12 May 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

I know for myself, I am more than happy to share what Canon I have in response to direct questions, but I'm not going to police the Sarna, they have mods for that already. Still doesn't change that Sarna is not canon.

[Uncle Totty]

Craig Steele, on 13 May 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

I guess it comes down to whether you check your sources then.

If you want to know the Canon but can't be bothered to buy / find / research the canon then you have to get it from somewhere don't you? But if you get it from Sarna you are going to be left short when a fair bit when talking to someone who could be bothered to find / buy / research.

...then chops it up and distorts it to make support what they want.

Edit: Damn, feeding the troll again.

Edited by Nathan K, 22 May 2014 - 09:39 AM.