 Is "Canon" a live-wire word?, Do you hate it as much as I do? |
  |
 Feb 16 2005, 04:57 AM
Post
#26
|
|||||
|
Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775  |
No, Little Bill's use of canon as a noun is not incorrect, though usually there is a definite article accompanying. In fact, it's just an idiosyncrasy of this boards to use it always as an adjective (or, I guess if you want to be liberal about canon being blown out of proportion, a state of being), which is actually not strictly proper, as their is no adjective form of the word. Anyway, I have to actually agree with Bill that in my time here, I've seen canon given an undue weight and authority around here, and, more specifically, a perhaps a vaguely offensive authority it never deserved. So, yes, it is a bit loaded as there tends to be a little baggage trailing along, but I don't feel this is an issue of semantics, and I think the concept would tag along whether you say "canon" or "in the books" or whatever suitable replacement you prefer, and I don't think it's necessarily as significant as the first post makes it out to be. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Feb 16 2005, 05:02 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
There is a slight difference I see. There may be some books that are not canon. I don’t know about SR but in D&D 3.0 & 3.5 “in the books” is much les specific than “canon”
Its other advantage is that it is les typing than “as stated in the rule books”. This may indicate that we are lazy but if we where not then why would CC be more common on the boards than canon companion. Some people tae it to seriously but you will find extremists in every grouping of people and it can be hard to impart feelings into text accurately (hence the CAPS) sometimes people want to express a sentiment between normal and shouting strength and people read it wrong. this is the WWW, confusion hapons. Edward |
|
|
|
|
Feb 16 2005, 05:02 AM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,129 Joined: 11-June 03 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 4,712 |
No, technically, that's not the correct way to use the word. The definition of the word, as it matters to this thread's use of the word, is as follows:
So to say, "that's not in canon" would translate to "that's not in an accepted principle or rule." One should say, "that's not canon." This would imply "that's not an accepted principle or rule." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2005, 05:29 AM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 30-May 03 From: Tulsa, OK Member No.: 4,652 |
Just to clarify Crimson Jack's definition, I think these entries from Webster's clarify the usage here a little better.
Obviously, I don't have a problem with the term, and think it's a very good word to use as it specifies a certain specific group of books and rules in which to use as a frame of reference. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2005, 05:34 AM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 349 Joined: 28-January 05 From: Phoenix, Arizona Member No.: 7,030 |
Actually I'm reminded of an Ex Vice President.
canon, written upon and published in the books and followed by others cannon, prep the fuse, pack it full of gunpowder, add a cannon ball or anything else metallic you wouldn't mind being rid of, point at target, light fuse... no more target. same difference to me. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 16 2005, 07:43 AM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
hahahahahahahahahahaha |
||
|
|
|
||
 Feb 16 2005, 01:09 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
It's for winners Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 523 Joined: 8-February 05 From: Wiltshire with da shooty stuff Member No.: 7,067 |
:D
Well i dont mind peeps useing it but......... it would be nice for the more experienced players to say where in canon the information they are talking about is! would make looking it up alot easyer! torz x |
|
|
|
|
Feb 16 2005, 01:11 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
It's merely a very convenient word for expressing the concept "the common base upon which each of us have built our widely divergent philosophies upon". Nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16 2005, 01:12 PM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
In other words, you want us to start citing Chapter and Verse? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2005, 01:33 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
It's for winners Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 523 Joined: 8-February 05 From: Wiltshire with da shooty stuff Member No.: 7,067 |
;)
no no no! you have me wrong i mean if it is a particulary hotly debated topic it would be good to have a section to refer to, i mean i can reed but it is alot to take in when you are trying to find something specific! torz x |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2005, 02:39 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
You know, a cannon made to the exact specifications of how a cannon should be made would be a canon cannon, which absolutely rocks.
I like the word. It gets the point across quickly and susinctly. JaronK |
|
|
|
|
Feb 16 2005, 04:12 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
In the earliest edition of Shadowrun, questioning authority was a common and accepted practice. Shadowrun players (and roleplayers in general) tend to carry on this fine tradition.
The tendancy toward the term "canon" is mostly, in my experience, a result of having to deal with a number of different Shadowrun games, and needing a common frame of reference. Whether you just haven't gotten to a major plot device, or you never read a given book and continued playing without it, or whether you changed major elements of the setting to suit your whims or specific idea of the game you want to play; you've wandered away from the common reference material that everyone (theoretically) has access to. This also applies to rules, where House Rules and (for reasons I cannot imagine) conversions to other systems may make conversations a tad chaotic if there is no common ground. Naturally, even with canon, interpretations differ. Which is as it should be. JaronK: Actually, I think that would be the canon cannon according to the cannon canon. But I digress. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 16 2005, 04:58 PM
Post
#38
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,032 Joined: 6-August 04 Member No.: 6,543 |
Little Bill, how would you feel if I said Hitler was a hero? Or that FDR was a tyrant? Because if you go back long enough and use the meanings of those words as they either used to be use or fist meant. Then Hitler was indeed a man who did a great many things things that few people could have or have done. There he is a hero. FDR, was a strong leader who used his will to get things done. There he is a Tyrant. Words have meaning, but those meanings are not set in stone. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2005, 05:39 PM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: 24-September 02 From: Centerville, UT Member No.: 3,307 |
I would say that while you may be technically correct in your use of those terms for Hitler and FDR that you are probably not using the best terms to communicate your actual opinion. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2005, 05:40 PM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
Bored eh? Some people say RAW instead of canon, but who really cares? It's communicating a concept so we don't have to say something like, "Well there's nothing the current SR version of sourcebooks that says...." Get over it chummer. :cyber: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2005, 07:17 PM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I suppose a canon cannon WOULD get the point across rather quickly, although 'succint' isn't the second word that comes to mind. Perhaps 'messy' is more appropriate. As an added plus, it would be quite difficult to create an effective counterpoint (after all, non-canon cannons simply don't have the same bang). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2005, 09:37 PM
Post
#42
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,032 Joined: 6-August 04 Member No.: 6,543 |
And why do you say that? Both uses of the words tyrant and hero are true. Just as true as canon is true when talking of the rules, laws and setting of a game world. If you will change the meaning of hero and tyrant, why is canon so special of a word to you? And as for the terms. You can find people who will say Hitler is a hero,or FDR is tyrant and mean them in the modern meanings. I am not one of them, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 16 2005, 10:15 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 26-March 03 Member No.: 4,336 |
in the beginning, god rolled a 20. and there was light!
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16 2005, 10:39 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: 24-September 02 From: Centerville, UT Member No.: 3,307 |
If your goal is communication, you are usually better off using words as they are commonly used, rather than as they may be used for someone who is familiar with the 3rd or 4th definitions in the dictionary.
If your goal is to show off how smart you are, then by all means use the more obscure definitions and argue about the technical meaning of individual words - none of that will help you communicate anything meaningful, however, other than that you're a bit full of yourself. That is why I said using Hero for Hitler and Tyrant for FDR probably aren't the best choices, unless you are a neo-Nazi and intend their common meanings. The common meaning of "canon" to my mind is "scripture", and calling a role playing game scripture is in my view either disparaging of scripture or giving too much weight to what is, after all, only a game. Now technically the use of "canon" as it appears in these forums is (for the most part) a correct modern usage - I do not dispute that - I merely wondered if anyone else was bothered about the more common meaning of canon. Apparently no one else is, so carry on guys. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 16 2005, 10:42 PM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
fire your canon cannons at Sammiel!! :wobble: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2005, 11:12 PM
Post
#46
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
May I remind you of the common usage of the word "run"? ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2005, 11:38 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
okay, enough of these semantics. let's get back to the original topic, which is... oh, right. carry on.
|
|
|
|
 Feb 16 2005, 11:43 PM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 26-March 03 Member No.: 4,336 |
yeah, how dare I bring up that game. should be something like, God used his pre-nerf chipjack expert driver with a heap of taskpool and there was light! I wonder how much a rating 6 'Creation ex Nihilo' chip would cost. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 16 2005, 11:59 PM
Post
#49
|
|||||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
I shall smite thee with my +5 vorpal Force 6 Greatest Rune Weapon Focus! :eek: Got to sit down... Too many game systems at a go... By the way, you forgot His Enhanced Articulation. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 17 2005, 12:09 AM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
:D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 11th March 2025 - 12:01 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.