?

Log in

Dureena's put-upon people. Theories? - The Crusade Fandom Community

Mar. 14th, 2006

01:14 am - Dureena's put-upon people. Theories?

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

So over on the Lurker's Guide, one of the things that was brought up occasionally in the "questions" section of the Crusade eps was "Why was Dureena's race so targeted by the Shadows?" As in, not only was her planet destroyed by a planet-killer--that happened to a lot of people, after all--but they also got creamed when helping to settle that colony on Theta 49. Of course, it could just be coincidence... or a sign of something deeper.

I have my own ideas, but I'm hoping to spark some discussion here. Conspiracy theories, anyone?

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:zac_allan
Date:March 14th, 2006 12:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)
well...
(Reply) (Thread)
(Screened comment)
[User Picture]
From:milkshake_b
Date:March 14th, 2006 06:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Your post has been screened. Please refer to the spoiler policy in the community userinfo and repost following those guidelines.



Also, on a more personal note, when you do repost, I'd kill for a source on this information you're spouting as fact, because while I'd heard of the sword, and of course that bit about the Mages' origins has come up several times, I can't for the life of me figure out where you're coming up with the rest of it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omahastar
Date:March 14th, 2006 06:45 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Screened? For a series that's been off the air for over 5 years?

"when you do repost" ... Naw. This was my contribution, and it obviously isn't welcome here, so I'm going to take my ball and go home.

Good luck with your community. I hope you get over yourself and allow people to post.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:milkshake_b
Date:March 14th, 2006 07:06 pm (UTC)
(Link)
All right, to reiterate for anyone else who comes across this and would like to be a member of our community.

The rules have the following spoiler policy:

"Spoiler-cuts or warnings are not required for any of the aired episodes; we're going to assume if you're here, you've seen all of them. Spoiler cuts are required for discussing specific details of the unproduced episodes, any of the books, or future developments of the series. When commenting on an already spoiler-cut post, spoiler-warnings are required if you're discussing something not warned for in the original post: for example, discussing the books when commenting on a post about the unfilmed scripts."

It is your responsibility to read the rules, which isn't difficult, as they are contained in the userinfo under the header "Rules". If you have an objection to those rules you may take it up with me, but by joining, you are obligated to obey them, even if you disagree with their necessity.

The screened comment in question contained extensive spoilers for a number of unproduced scripts, including several that were never made available online.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:milkshake_b
Date:March 14th, 2006 07:08 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm inclined myself to think it's not coincidence; most things in the series that started out looking that way seemed to be heading towards not being so. Unfortunately, with the scanty information we got, I can't even begin to speculate; I wish the above poster had been more mature about the whole thing so we could have found the sources of the information she was giving, because they're nothing I ever encountered, which makes it rather hard to determine the likelihood of that being the reason behind everything.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omahastar
Date:March 14th, 2006 07:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
"She"? Gods, you can't even get gender correct. Is there anything you can do right?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:hannahrorlove
Date:March 14th, 2006 07:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The majority of fandom users of LiveJournal are female, enough so that it is safe to use that as the default gender. Given that you have not given any indication of your gender in your userinfo, username, or journal content, I do not think this is something that deserves rudeness or deep offense.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:milkshake_b
Date:March 14th, 2006 07:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yes. I can do what I should have done in the first place, and ban you.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:milkshake_b
Date:March 14th, 2006 09:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well, now that that's, err... off this community, at least, here's a question for the next few people who read this post: do you think this discussion is salvageable? If so, how? It was a valid point and question and I'd be willing to screen this whole mess if it might help things continue moving.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:aris_tgd
Date:March 14th, 2006 09:43 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Woah, woah, woah.

I leave this thread alone for five minutes and someone gets banned for complaining about spoiler-cuts. Don't you think this might have been solved in another way than banning? I mean, I realize that tempers were running hot, but as a mod aren't you supposed to be a little more temperate about that sort of thing?

I mean, this whole thing could probably have been solved if we'd put a "Possible spoilers for the books and unpublished scripts" in the original post. I don't mind. Or maybe we could even, y'know, ask what percentage of people in this community have read the books or seen the unpublished scritps or mind being spoiled. That should at least give us a guide as to how many posts we should make spoiler-free and how many we could make spoilers-in-comments.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:milkshake_b
Date:March 14th, 2006 10:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Firstly, the user in question wasn't banned for "complaining about spoilercuts". His/her original comment was screened for breaking the community rules about spoilers, which are clearly defined in the userinfo and have been since before I publicly released this comm. Specifically, they posted spoilers about unproduced scripts and future developments in the series, not spoilers for the series itself, which are permitted by those rules.

They were banned because they reacted to that enforcement of the community rules with multiple abusive comments--one has been deleted--after they said they were leaving. "Don't flame, don't troll" is also in the rules, and that is a lot more important to the community than the details of spoilercut policy. Given that they followed me back to my personal journal and left a particularly nasty flame there, I think it's safe to say trolling was their plan of action.

For two, as I pointed out in an earlier thread on this post, yes we can discuss the rules about spoiler cuts, as long as flaming or trolling aren't involved, but a the moment these are the rules, which you agreed to when you joined.

I tried to be polite about this in my initial screen--a simple reminder that we have a spoiler policy, and a request for reposting in compliance with that. I hoped it would resolve in a friendly manner, and I also thought knowing where they got their extra information from would have been good for all involved.

Unfortunately, that was not the response I received, and given the nature of what they said to me in my own journal--you are welcome to go and look yourself if you don't believe me; it's on the latest post--I am disinclined to think banning them was anything less than a necessity.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:aris_tgd
Date:March 15th, 2006 02:05 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm just concerned that the first post in this comm--and yes, I'm concerned because it's my post, too--that was actually, y'know, about the show turned immediately into an argument about permissable spoilers and wound up with a ban.

I think the extra information came from JMS' commentary, which is only on the initial pressing of the DVDs because it was modified in direct violation of his agreement with WB.

If not there, I know the Crusade writer's bible was for sale for a while.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)