Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[Obelisk Kai]

Sources that you then twist to say what you want and evidence that you interpret in your way ... you aren't different than the Pro-Helfer.

Not really, at least I have sources to apparently 'twist'.

Pro High Elfers can't twist sources because they've no sources.

[FlubberPuddy]

Nothing they have ever said is backed up by word of god opinion, in game lore or anything substantial.

Damn....another poor soul lost to ignorance.

I guess Silver Covenant and various other Alliance High Elves don't exist to Obelisk.

Chris Metzen also referred to Alliance High Elves during a Blizzcon presentation during WoD time and talking about the old Alliance of Lordaeron. This comes so many years after his response on Blood Elves being their take on High Elves.

So we have 1 instance of Chris Metzen saying the Blood Elf thing then 1 instance of Chris Metzen looking for Alliance High Elf fans in the crowd.

We have 1 instance of Ion saying High Elves are possible when speaking of Sub Races then 2 instances of Ion saying no plans right now for High Elves just after Void Elf release (no shit).

The "word of god opinion" is as flippy floppy as any opinion pertaining to future additions to the game.

Then the "anything substantial" when Alliance High Elves have been in more main screen Alliance scenarios than other already playable races like Gnomes and Worgen.

Nice blind eyes

[Darththeo]

Not really, at least I have sources to apparently 'twist'.

Pro High Elfers can't twist sources because they've no sources.

And so do Pro-Helfers, but just like them, you don't accept those as sources. I have seen your arguments. I argue with you because I disagree with your stance, that doesn't mean I hold an opposing view. If you can't understand something that simple, how can you possibly understand the lore of a game?

[Aldo Hawk]

And your response 'Cancer is too much, crippling depression instead!'.

Why suddenly are you so conveniently sensible?

[Obelisk Kai]

And so do Pro-Helfers, but just like them, you don't accept those as sources. I have seen your arguments. I argue with you because I disagree with your stance, that doesn't mean I hold an opposing view. If you can't understand something that simple, how can you possibly understand the lore of a game?

Pro High Elf sources?

I remember the time they worked themselves into a lather because Jeremy Feasal cracked a small, inoffensive joke about playable Alliance High Elves during an interview.

Or how about when a Blizzard employee in a personal capacity liked a tweet regarding playable Alliance High Elves.

Or when the community managers, in the course of managing communities, posted in one of the official threads in an attempt to corral feedback in one place.

That's the sort of thing you are trying to critique me over? Because I don't accept those as real sources?

If the pro High Elf community had anything of substance to argue with other than the fact that they really, really want this then they wouldn't be going around getting themselves excited over meaningless gestures such as the ones I've listed.

They have a desire. That's fine to have. But they do NOT have an argument. Not the way the game is currently constituted.

- - - Updated - - -

Why suddenly are you so conveniently sensible?

I'm sorry, have I ever wished for your death or any other sort of terrible real life ailment to be inflicted upon you as a result of this debate?

No?

That's because anyone doing so has gone way over the line.

And trying to evade responsibility for an unwarranted comment with weak whataboutery is pitiful.

[Darththeo]

But they do NOT have an argument. Not the way the game is currently constituted.

And the same can be said for the Anti-Helfer ... just because you "think" you have an argument or you "think" you have evidence doesn't mean you do. You aren't more correct than they are, but you assert without evidence you are because in your mind you are right. The evidence for Pro-Helfer have been posted and you waved it aside because your evidence was better.

[Obelisk Kai]

And the same can be said for the Anti-Helfer ... just because you "think" you have an argument or you "think" you have evidence doesn't mean you do. You aren't more correct than they are, but you assert without evidence you are because in your mind you are right. The evidence for Pro-Helfer have been posted and you waved it aside because your evidence was better.

No, it really can't be said of an Anti Helfer.

Forcing an equivalence to justify your rhetoric is not how this works. When I say I have evidence, I have actual evidence. I have interviews. I have lore. I have in game occurrences.

This is not a level debating field. The Anti High Elf position is qualitatively and substantively superior to the pro High Elf position in every single way in terms of debate. The number of pro High Elfers I have seen reduced ultimately to 'Blizzard can change it if they want to' as their final point is quite large. That last part is true of course, but it is the position of someone who has nothing else to offer.

I mean take your response here. My full quote listed all the 'sources' I recall pro High Elfers relying upon. You cut them all out.

Did you defend them? No.

Did you attempt to provide other sources? No.

You simply went with false equivalence without evidence.

[Aldo Hawk]

I'm sorry, have I ever wished for your death or any other sort of terrible real life ailment to be inflicted upon you as a result of this debate?

No?

That's because anyone doing so has gone way over the line.

And trying to evade responsibility for an unwarranted comment with weak whataboutery is pitiful.

May be unwarranted, but was nothing more than 'whataboutery'. That's the truth.

If you are going to twist that and play the victim again please don't even answer me, i have had enought of your argumentative ways, it's completely disgusting to argue against you, that may be a hint on why that guy referred to you in those manners, don't you think? Twisting the contexts and meanings to your own advantage is what makes people hate you, because nothing can be done with you that way, do you get that?

PD: This does not even change the fact that i didn't like him saying that you should get cancer.

[Obelisk Kai]

May be unwarranted, but was nothing more than 'whataboutery'. That's the truth.

If you are going to twist that and play the victim again please don't even answer me, i have had enought of your argumentative ways, it's completely disgusting to argue against you, that may be a hint on why that guy referred to you in those manners, don't you think? Twisting the contexts and meanings to your own advantage is what makes people hate you, because nothing can be done with you that way, do you get that?

I don't have to play the victim. Someone publicly wished for me to die horribly of cancer because I disagree with him on a video game, and your response 'calling him out on it' was 'the depression he'll get when we win will be enough'. If anyone is playing the victim here, it seems to be yourself for being challenged.

So, I am twisting nothing. The evidence, and again I have evidence it seems, is there on twitter for all to see until you or they decide to delete or edit it.

If people hate me, that is their problem and proves that they are far too invested in this topic to think straight.

[Aldo Hawk]

I don't have to play the victim. Someone publicly wished for me to die horribly of cancer because I disagree with him on a video game, and your response 'calling him out on it' was 'the depression he'll get when we win will be enough'. If anyone is playing the victim here, it seems to be yourself for being challenged.

So, I am twisting nothing. The evidence, and again I have evidence it seems, is there on twitter for all to see until you or they decide to delete or edit it.

If people hate me, that is their problem and proves that they are far too invested in this topic to think straight.

So you are being conveniently sensitive.

[Obelisk Kai]

So you are being conveniently sensitive.

Which again seems to be an attempt by yourself to deflect attention from your own comments. I do not appreciate someone wishing for my death believe it or not or actively suggesting other bad things to happen to me in real life.

[Darththeo]

No, it really can't be said of an Anti Helfer.

Forcing an equivalence to justify your rhetoric is not how this works. When I say I have evidence, I have actual evidence. I have interviews. I have lore. I have in game occurrences.

This is not a level debating field. The Anti High Elf position is qualitatively and substantively superior to the pro High Elf position in every single way in terms of debate. The number of pro High Elfers I have seen reduced ultimately to 'Blizzard can change it if they want to' as their final point is quite large. That last part is true of course, but it is the position of someone who has nothing else to offer.

I mean take your response here. My full quote listed all the 'sources' I recall pro High Elfers relying upon. You cut them all out.

Did you defend them? No.

Did you attempt to provide other sources? No.

You simply went with false equivalence without evidence.

It isn't false just because you blind yourself to reality. Yes, you take lore and interview but you overlay your opinion over them and use that as your evidence.

[Aldo Hawk]

Which again seems to be an attempt by yourself to deflect attention from your own comments. I do not appreciate someone wishing for my death believe it or not or actively suggesting other bad things to happen to me in real life.

I'm not deflecting any attention, i made a joke with crippling depression for chilling out the place while saying that desiring cancer is not right, is there anything that confuses you?

The context is someone calling for you to get cancer and me saying to not desire that to you, that you will hurt yourself with crippling depression (which is an internet common joke) if things goes against what you expected.

The pity thing is you explaining that you are not going to get crippling depression by HE getting added, that's the fun thing, that no one truly expects it to happen (it's just a ridiculous statement by itself).

Don't get me wrong, i didn't tried to defend you (i didn't even knew you were going to see it), i tried to chill the ambience.

[Zulkhan]

Watch out - you may get infracted for such offensive rhetoric

It seems someone's desperate to make this thread look like more than what effectively is, namely a convenient single channel where to lead this pointless debate so that it'll not randomly spread around with the usual invasion of multiple threads. Guess we can call it a way to "advertise" the thread and be sure people will keep posting here and just here.

You are clueless if you are being serious.

Indeed, the other person definitely appreciated your "figure of speech".

[Aldo Hawk]

IIndeed, the other person definitely appreciated your "figure of speech".

Of course the other person 'appreciated it', it was meant to be offensive as a response to the totally blind answers i were receiving.

[Obelisk Kai]

It isn't false just because you blind yourself to reality. Yes, you take lore and interview but you overlay your opinion over them and use that as your evidence.

Yes, the equivalence is false.

The pro High Elf side can't match the anti High Elf argument because that argument isn't subjective as theirs is, it is objective, based on available facts and information.

Again and again, pro High Elfer after High Elfer is challenged to provide evidence on par with our own to refute it and time after time they fail, usually because they attack the evidence on offer without offering any of their own. Which is hardly surprising after all, they have no evidence to offer so all they can do is attack the mountains of evidence arrayed in opposition.

I have listed the 'sources' the pro High Elfers have used in the past six months to back up their cause. I note that you haven't bothered to defend them or even respond to my mentioning of them. In truth, I do not blame you. It is impossible to defend the indefensible and you shouldn't waste your time trying.

But it does highlight my central point this evening. That the pro High Elf community argument can really be summed as follows.

'We want Alliance High Elves, they don't make sense within the game right now, Blizzard please change your game'.

[Darththeo]

Yes, the equivalence is false.

The pro High Elf side can't match the anti High Elf argument because that argument isn't subjective as theirs is, it is objective, based on available facts and information.

Again and again, pro High Elfer after High Elfer is challenged to provide evidence on par with our own to refute it and time after time they fail, usually because they attack the evidence on offer without offering any of their own. Which is hardly surprising after all, they have no evidence to offer so all they can do is attack the mountains of evidence arrayed in opposition.

I have listed the 'sources' the pro High Elfers have used in the past six months to back up their cause. I note that you haven't bothered to defend them or even respond to my mentioning of them. In truth, I do not blame you. It is impossible to defend the indefensible and you shouldn't waste your time trying.

But it does highlight my central point this evening. That the pro High Elf community argument can really be summed as follows.

'We want Alliance High Elves, they don't make sense within the game right now, Blizzard please change your game'.

Translation: I have no argument so I'll repeat myself until you accept my brilliance as fact.

I have seen both arguments, they are akin. It is just you are just so Anti-Helfer you cannot accept any argument for them. There is no false equivalence because it is a true equivalence. There is lore evidence and quotes that support the possibility of them being playable, it's how the person chooses to view the evidence. It's only your side that asserts there evidence is the sole evidence.

[Obelisk Kai]

Translation: I have no argument so I'll repeat myself until you accept my brilliance as fact.

I have seen both arguments, they are akin. It is just you are just so Anti-Helfer you cannot accept any argument for them. There is no false equivalence because it is a true equivalence. There is lore evidence and quotes that support the possibility of them being playable, it's how the person chooses to view the evidence. It's only your side that asserts there evidence is the sole evidence.

No it is not. This is not like a debate over the last Star Wars movie, where everyone has a subjective opinion and every opinion is valid because they are just that, opinions.

There is actually an objective answer to this debate. It is one rooted in evidence and information that is available to everyone. To reach a pro High Elf position, you must choose to ignore everything that has been said on the topic either in game or out of game.

I refuse to acknowledge the pro High Elf position, a position demonstrably based on denial of lore, word of god and other sources as being equal to an Anti High Elf position strongly rooted in evidence.

The entire pro High Elf position is a plea for Blizzard to retcon their own game. You want more proof of that? Look at Traycor's work at the beginning of this thread, an attempt to make High Elves into something they are not. What is all that but a (failed) attempt to convince Blizzard that an out of the blue retcon could work. Everything put forward by the pro High Elf position, the 'arguments' are just a variety of fanfictions put forward to demonstrate the possibility of a retcon, which of course the pro High Elf community always applaud as being visionary or as being 'proof' when they are nothing of the sort.

So, big surprise, I don't respect the pro High Elf position as an argument because it isn't one, or at least not one that is supported by a framework of evidence in support of it. It's a desire, it is pure id. Far more understandable when viewed as such.

[Darththeo]

No it is not. This is not like a debate over the last Star Wars movie, where everyone has a subjective opinion and every opinion is valid because they are just that, opinions.

There is actually an objective answer to this debate. It is one rooted in evidence and information that is available to everyone. To reach a pro High Elf position, you must choose to ignore everything that has been said on the topic either in game or out of game.

I refuse to acknowledge the pro High Elf position, a position demonstrably based on denial of lore, word of god and other sources as being equal to an Anti High Elf position strongly rooted in evidence.

The entire pro High Elf position is a plea for Blizzard to retcon their own game. You want more proof of that? Look at Traycor's work at the beginning of this thread, an attempt to make High Elves into something they are not. What is all that but a (failed) attempt to convince Blizzard that an out of the blue retcon could work. Everything put forward by the pro High Elf position, the 'arguments' are just a variety of fanfictions put forward to demonstrate the possibility of a retcon, which of course the pro High Elf community always applaud as being visionary or as being 'proof' when they are nothing of the sort.

So, big surprise, I don't respect the pro High Elf position as an argument because it isn't one, or at least not one that is supported by a framework of evidence in support of it. It's a desire, it is pure id. Far more understandable when viewed as such.

There is no objective answer in a debate that is 100% subjective. This debate has never been for an objective answer. It's one side arguing for what they want and another side telling them they are wrong. This debate is subjective.

This post literally proves you don't care for debate. You just admitted you are here to troll. Good day sir, you lose.

[Zulkhan]

Of course the other person 'appreciated it', it was meant to be offensive as a response to the totally blind answers i were receiving.

Besides the fact that I've surely witnessed more blindness in you than the poster you were arguing with, he didn't appreciate it since he legitimately claimed of having a civil discussion, one you derailed with a tasteless offensive response.