Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nicoletta Mithra]

If I remember correctly, the PF on translators states clearly that there is no universal language. Also, it'd be a bit weird if an universal translator translates names of persons into names of other persons. Also, this can esialy lead to even greater confusion, if someone says 'the Gallente philosopher Immanuel Kant' and somoene else 'the Amarr philosopher Immanuel Kant'...

[Makkal]

That reminds me of a conversation on the IGS where one person claimed there was a mythical figured named Batman, a Minmatar who beat up rich Amarr Holders, and someone else said Batman was a wealthy Holder who beat up rebellious Minmatar slaves.

In general, I'd suggest not saying Kent was a Minmatar or Amarr, but simply a possibly fictional (like Homer) figure that's come down through the ages.

[Myyona]

If I remember correctly, the PF on translators states clearly that there is no universal language. Also, it'd be a bit weird if an universal translator translates names of persons into names of other persons. Also, this can esialy lead to even greater confusion, if someone says 'the Gallente philosopher Immanuel Kant' and somoene else 'the Amarr philosopher Immanuel Kant'...

'the Gallente philosopher Immanuel Kant' and 'the Amarr philosopher Immanuel Kant' are two different persons but with very close philosophical views that they share with the real Immanuel Kant. The finer details are always up for discussion anyhow. It really is not that difficult.

Often the discussion would be Immanuel Kant in a Gallente context and Immanuel Kant in an Amarr context too, so it would make good sense if they were two different persons.

[Gwen Ikiryo]

I hope it's not rude to say that if I ever saw an actual arguement, completely IC, in the Summit about which civilization Immanuel Kant was from, the level of setting-streching would probably cross the line from unimmersive to incredibly funny.

Though in all honesty, I don't think people should really be citing historical figures at all. One can certainly contrive it it being an "approximation" by the translator easily enough, but in a meta-sense, it still totally drags me out of the game world and back into the real one.

I mean, my character might not see the reference, but I do.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I agree in a way with Gwen here. I don't see how saying that "the Gallente philosopher Immanuel Kant who held the view..." is in some way superior to simply saying "the Gallente philosopher who held the view..." or even more simply "the philosopher(s) who held the view...", especially as we'd otherwise always have an Amarrian, Matari, Caldari, and Gallente I. Kant, not to speak of the Achuran, Intaki, Khanid, etc. I. Kants.

Giving the name is, in the context of a game, merely trying to lend oneself credibility by invoking authority and as that'd be an RL authority that's invoked, it's - to me - clearly unimmersive and breaking suspension of disbelief. If you really want to play by modern citation conventions make up a name and ascribe to him as citation a paraphrase of the philosopher's position/argument in question. As this is clearly a game, it's not as if somone will sue you for plagiarizing.

[Morwen Lagann]

I think this all gets back to an earlier comment made in the thread.

It's one thing to use the word "Kantian" as it is used today, to describe something similar to or derived from his philosophies.

It is another entirely to directly quote or refer to Kant himself.

[Myyona]

I think we can easily agree on that, Morwen.

[Morwen Lagann]

That reminds me of a conversation on the IGS where one person claimed there was a mythical figured named Batman, a Minmatar who beat up rich Amarr Holders, and someone else said Batman was a wealthy Holder who beat up rebellious Minmatar slaves.

There is only one Batman in New Eden, and his name is Aritcio Kor-Azor. (His wannabe sidekick we all know by the name Aldrith Shutaq.)

[Saikoyu]

My two cents.

On things, I think its perfectly acceptable to use a common name like apples or oranges.  I know of a few Sci-fi settings that actually make a point of pointing out that just because you call something an apple or orange, doesn't mean that its a terran apple or orange.  It might just be something that kinda looks like it, and so it got named that.  On, in the case of animals, maybe it acts like a mouse, so we call it a mouse, even thought it doesn't look anything like a mouse. 

Same thing with proper names of things, like Ohm's law.  The characters might not know who Ohm is, but its possible that we would still call it Ohm's law.  And I can see all the empires trying to claim the mysterious Ohm was one of their's even though no one really knows if you wanted to carry it that far.  On the other hand, you cvan call it Ohm's law just so that everyone knows what you are talking about.  Inventing new terms for everything only works if everyone has the same rules book, which would be pretty hard outside of a select group.

On current day people, vague is best I think.  We are talking about a length of time where something like wolves or the Earth itself is a myth.  You might be able to sell me on someone like Jesus being known about in some sense, or Muhammad, given the shear number of people currently who know about them, but I would bet that only the barest facts would be known, and the rest would be made up by later generations.  Thinking that even a famous political figure would be known at all is stretching it in my mind.  I think of it like this, what do we know today about the first civilizations?  We know they existed, we know a bit about some of the big rulers, and maybe a bit about daily life, but we don't know much beyond that, and most of that is because we found ruins and other leavings.  Deprived of that, we really know nothing much.  So, I wouldn't expect any character in EvE several thousand years in the future from us to know much either. 

On the other hand, I regurarly break this naming my ships things like Cortana (the sword, not the AI) which proibably wouldn't be known either.  So there you go.  I guess it really boils down to, if its just for fun (ship names) why not.  It your basing a major part of your RP off it and expect others to go along with it, maybe you shoudl think again. 

As usual, IMHO.