Saint-bump again. Come on guys, I'm looking on the rest of #lore and there's no way you guys don't have questions with what I'm seeing!
English
-
I think you guys are doing a good thing, but you should peer review the posts or be open to corrections. Every post I've read either has speculation that presents itself as fact, or just has glaring errors that the author of the post refuses to acknowledge. In my opinion, if you're attempting to create a Master Lore Library, don't speculate, and use peer review to ensure accuracy. It should include confirmed Lore, and be a way to make the Lore more accessible, but not take creative license and present itself as factual, because then people believe it, but they're just believing an editorialized presentation.
-
Mind giving a few examples?
-
Hunter General Lore, Ace of Spades, Vision 47... I can provide a more detailed response on my laptop, and after reading a few more I admit I was exaggerating with "every one I read..." as a lot of them stick to an academic formula for referencing information even if they are presented in summary rather than quote/analysis/quote/analysis (which is the widely accepted standard) and these are great. Saint 14 had a response someone in "Which faction is right, lore wise?" that clearly referenced lore from an unbiased perspective and there's clearly members with vast knowledge and keen intellect at work. I'm just saying, Pahanin's last name is not Errata, there are Spades on the Ace of Spades, not Aces of Spades on the Ace of Spades, and while Ruin Tree does great work, there are no queens in Vision 47. Connecting Toland's Visions to Osiris' is speculation (and the First is probably Guardians, not the Darkness, but that's my speculation)...
-
[quote]Come on guys, I'm looking on the rest of #lore and there's no way you guys don't have questions with what I'm seeing![/quote]