unforum

[Dorkmaster]

Definition of Spec/Wild Spec

[yanka]

I, for one, do not see any reason for this to be implemented, nor do I see how the implementation of this could possibly work.

The tags are there solely for the purpose of making browsing the forum easier (for example, if someone opens an "Updates" forum, the tags enable him/her to skip over topics tagged as "humor" or "off-topic").

Next, who would be the judge of what's to be tagged as "wild spec" as opposed to "wild wild spec"? What may be a wild wild wild spec to you might seem like a very reasonable, logical conclusion to me (i.e. not "wild" at all).

Finally, what would such tag differentiation achieve? We are not trying to rate theories/speculations here - the tagging system, again, is there so that a person could keep up with updates more efficiently (by selecting to view threads tagged only as "updates" or "meta", for example). If someone wants to be on top of the current speculations, he/she will decide for themselves what is reasonable and what is "wild", but only after he/she reads all/most of the [spec] threads.

P.S. I may stand alone on this issue, but I am getting kind of weary of seeing all the Halo-related spec being so fervently put down. This game obviously includes at least some concepts from the Halo universe. If it wasn't for the Halo fans tirelessly explaining the workings of this universe on the forum, I would still be trying to figure out what "glassing" means, wth is "Reach" and what "ONI" stands for. If people want to be able to make tighter parallels between Halo characters or storyline or whatever, really, I think they should be able to do it without having to discriminate themselves as "wild speculators". It is my job to weed out that which I find relevant.

[Dorkmaster]

I completely understand your viewpoint, and I agree, this may be splitting hairs way too much, but...

I think the value of such a distinction is not in the putting down of any spec, as I am trying to say, but that one type of spec is based on textual or interactive evidence directly from the game itself, and the wild spec would be based on out of game information.

For example, in ILB:

If I speculated that Aunt Margaret went to China with dana, and posted reasons for that theory, it could be a very sound theory, based on a well thought through and logical argument, but with no real evidence in game. This would be a "Wild Spec" by my definition. (Not meaning there's no truth, but it's not based on game evidence, but it is by logical extension)

However, if I speculated that Melissa could be the Operator and vice-versa, then that's a spec, because we have a similar M.O. in where we found that info and it's based on actual quotations in-game. (Operator used text directly on pages, and so were those websites that gave us the "melissa" monologue).

You get it? Again, you may disagree, but I'm just thinking this would give us some clarification when entering a thread, if something is reliable, or just a good theory, right off the bat. (For example, all of last week, this would have been useful, since there was almost entirely Wild Spec going around. I personally would have still read and thoughtfully considered all spec, but would have liked to have been able to tell before delving into a theory, whether it was based on in game info, or just speculation.