Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-6512-20150908154921/@comment-1672596-20150909231123

Guygombaa wrote:
 * A wild stranger appears*

Weedle, you have done little very explanation as to why anything you say is correct, I.E this statement: " It actually was a relevant analogy."

The number one rule of any discussion/argument/whateveryouwanttocallthis is to explain why something is, not just that it is.

The actual problem, from what I understand, ahving read all of this thread, is bloating. What you described in your Bulbapedia example was not a small detail, as it is the identity of characters relevant to the plot. Personality is interpretation, tone does infer some meaning, but that meaning can still change from person to person. If I say 'I don't like you' in a neutral tone, you could take it aggressively. But maybe I know somebody called Yuu and am just making a statement. Not the best example, but it makes my point.

Now, I've forgotten what I was saying, so I'll leave it there. Okay, to explain how that Star Wars example was relevant: Grand Moff Tarkin and Admiral Motti basically dismissed the fact that the Death Star might actually have a weakness, citing that it was a minor detail, and felt its firepower would have been more than enough to crush the Rebellion, also underestimating the snubfighters even when it became clear that the weapons they were using were not going to be very effective against them. They considered all those to be small, irrelevant details, which is ultimately how they ended up losing the battle with their lives. It was relevant because the people on here are saying we cannot include small details because they aren't needed, and I'm unwilling to make the same kind of mistake Tarkin and Motti did regarding how they ignored details that they considered irrelevant.