Subject: No idea
Author:
Posted on: 2011-07-16 20:51:00 UTC
However, I think it would be hilarious for an agent to get one that was missing a few spells. Perhaps all of the spells that are generally used in combat.
-
Question about Muggle-use wands. by
on 2011-07-16 20:35:00 UTC
Reply
On the Wiki, it mentions that there are wands available for non-magical agents on Potterverse missions, containing pre-programmed spells. My question: does every wand contain the same spells, or is there some degree of customisability?
-
I did some research on this today. by
on 2011-07-17 19:57:00 UTC
Reply
I went through HFA with my search tool and pulled up every reference to the wands I could find, and have updated the wiki page accordingly, citing chapter sources so y'all can check.
http://ppc.wikia.com/wiki/Muggle-use_Wand
Now, if anyone knows where to find missions in which Muggle-use/HFA wands are definitely used, updating the article with those examples would be really awesome and helpful. {= D
~Neshomeh -
Cheers! And I'll have a look (nm) by
on 2011-07-18 03:33:00 UTC
Reply
-
I don't think it's ever been specified. by
on 2011-07-16 20:56:00 UTC
Reply
It might be wise to keep it that way. Just do whatever you need to do. {= )
Though, this probably goes without saying, but I'm sure they'd be limited to spells that actually appear in canon. That might be the only limit that matters.
~Neshomeh -
No idea by
on 2011-07-16 20:51:00 UTC
Reply
However, I think it would be hilarious for an agent to get one that was missing a few spells. Perhaps all of the spells that are generally used in combat.
-
Re: No idea by
on 2011-07-16 21:30:00 UTC
Reply
I have the impression that DoSAT are always handing out things that either malfunction at the most (least) fitting moment or doesn't quite do what they are supposed to, so a wand missing all the useful spell sounds like it would fit right in.
-
??? by
on 2011-07-17 17:42:00 UTC
Reply
I strongly disagree.
That makes no sense for the characterization of Makes-Things or Techno-Dann's agent self that they'd let DoSAT send out still-broken things or half-assed repairs, and I'd argue that by having that viewpoint and essentially using that in your own stuff, you're putting both of them out of character.
Especially Makes-Things, when you consider that we make a rather large deal of him. For example, from the wiki...
"Makes-Things' skill with machines and technology is nigh-on legendary in the PPC"
"Makes-Things invented most of the technology agents now take for granted, such as the remote activator, the combined CAD, and the DORKS, among others."
And in regards to Techno-Dann...
"Exactly how he distinguished himself enough to be warranted taking over the Department's second-highest spot is also unclear, but if it impressed the Flowers it had to be good."
As a general rule, people who are good at something know it, and they're going to have standards. Saying that DoSAT hands out broken stuff or 'does not work as intended' stuff is pretty much going against Makes-Things and Dann's stated characterizations, not to mention any other technician.
Narratively, I'm personally of the opinion that PPC tech breaks as much as it does because it's poorly maintained by the agents (When's the last time you ever saw an agent treating DoSAT tech with care or making sure everything was working right and up to snuff before they go into a mission?), and used in situations where it is the technological equivalent of staring into the sun for several minutes in the middle of summer with no cloudcover. (No, no, you do not need to point your Canon Analysis Device at Legolas when he's singing along to Nightwish and cutting his wrists and preparing to dye his hair raven black.) The Rule of Funny works better involving PPC tech when yes, it is a PICNIC (Problem In Chair, Not In Computer) scenario problem instead of putting that it was because people who are competent and know what they're doing are giving you crappy stuff because they can't fix it right.
I can't think of many spin-offs where it was clearly a user error than DoSAT mucking up, which is concerning. I can only think of one other than my own, which isn't really impressive. Chatvert has Kitty jump into an ocean with her CAD still on her (no prizes for guessing that it breaks), and has Alec purposefully point another at a massively OOC character to use it as a make-shift grenade. In my own, I have at least one case where July ends up playing hot potato with the CAD because it didn't occur to her to not point it at a normally god-level powered pokemon that has suddenly taken human form, wears anime style clothes looks like a bishonen, and is a woobie uke.
This probably seems to be from out of left field, but I've noticed this viewpoint show up more and more and it's somewhat alarming.
The idea that it's DoSAT that is the reason that your stuff always breaks, not what your agents doing with it, and that -with the suggestion that it's always them- they're so incompetent they can't even do the job that they're assigned to do, is practically a Suvian one. It's something we see in Suefic all the time. The Sue can't do anything wrong or break anything, so if something does go wrong, it's because of background character X or background item Z. -
Re: ??? by
on 2011-07-17 19:19:00 UTC
Reply
Personally I consider borked equipment a time-honoured tradition in the PPC, dating back to Jay and Acacia.
Of course it shouldn't be used in every mission, but no plot device should be used that way. If you have a faulty RA in every mission, it doesn't make it any better that it is always because the agents are morons who break it.
I don't see why saying that there are equipment malfunctions would somehow be an insult to Make-Things or Techno-Dann's skills. It might as well be because DoSAT are overworked and understaffed - like every other department in the PPC - or because a lot of the gadgets are experimental and have to do with things that are in fact physically impossible.
Anyway, isn't it equally suvian to say that nearly everything Make-Things and Techno-Dann make is faultless and that the agents are just to stupid to use it properly? Even the Large Hadron Collider malfunctioned and it was built by some of the world's greatest minds. The Doctor is smarter than all the worlds greatest minds and he has a broken chameleon circuit on the TARDIS and leaves the brakes on when he starts it.
"No, no, you do not need to point your Canon Analysis Device at Legolas when he's singing along to Nightwish and cutting his wrists and preparing to dye his hair raven black." Well, actually, you do. You need to know whether you are dealing with a character replacement. -
Hm.... by
on 2011-07-17 23:05:00 UTC
Reply
I would like to point out that in the cases I did point out how the agents broke or otherwise made their equipment malfunction it was not a case of 'user was a moron'. One accidental, one was from mindless habit, and one was a case of being smart in how to make use of something they knew was going to happen. Hard use in harsh environments typically results in a short lifespan for most delicate equipment, which PPC tech from DoSAT certainly qualifies as. Nowhere did I make outright statement or suggestion that field agents are idiots when it comes to their equipment.
Things can and do break down; it's when you make statements like 'DoSAT are always handing out things that either malfunction at the most (least) fitting moment or doesn't quite do what they are supposed to' where you're making a large presumption in regards to their ability to process their work. There is, like Dann pointed out, a difference between 'always handing out things that break' and 'things sometimes break'. Even if you're overworked, to make the sort of mistake of having nearly everything that goes out leave in a state where it's already malfunctioning is massively incompetent. Nowhere did I say or make the allegation that Dann or Makes-Things process and send everything out perfectly. Again, I did not call agents stupid, or say that the fault must lie entirely with them. Equipment does fail, especially in harsh conditions.
Continuing making allegations as to things that I have said doesn't work, when I've pointedly indicated otherwise.
And, in recourse to what you said to Dann, when you say something, you need to be willing to back it up. You could have simply said you were exaggerating in your initial reply to me instead of posting what you had. Blanket statements make for weak discussions and arguments, especially when it results in requiring you to use various fallacies to further your own point. -
Sigh ... by
on 2011-07-18 00:03:00 UTC
Reply
And nowhere in my original post did I say that Techno-Dann and Make-Things are incompetent and yet that is what you accused me of saying, and that was what I was replying to.
But you know what? Never mind. If you can't see the difference between making an offhand remark in a thread about Muggle-wands and ... I dunno ... editing the wiki to say that Make-Things is an idiot, and don't realize that a statement like "all ___ are always ___, (for example "all men spoke of his prowess"), probably aren't meant to be taken literally, I really can't see us getting anywhere with this conversation, which anyway is less of a conversation and more of a old boarder using her extensive and slightly pompous vocabulary to beat up a new one who made an unforgivable remark, which she has already noted was an exaggeration.
I am terribly sorry that I joined the PPC for the fun and not to have long discussions about FN and the human rights of Mary Sues. You have thoroughly put me in my place and I will forever be aware that Olaf Quimby II is watching my posts, ready to strike down if I try any more descriptive writing.
PS. For someone who takes a perceived slight so serious, you sure make some pretty offensive blanket statements yourself. The difference between you and me, are my ability to say to myself "Nah, she probably didn't mean it in that horrible way it came out." You should try it, once in a while. ^^ -
Okay, that's enough. by
on 2011-07-18 01:56:00 UTC
Reply
Personal attacks are not okay. These include "you" statements directed at the other party or their behavior, and also casting exaggerated aspersions on the character of the other party.
Eileen, there's no call to drag in issues that have no bearing on this topic, such as what other Boarders like to discuss on the Board. Serious discussion is encouraged here, too. There's also no call for the extreme sarcasm.
July, responding to a one-liner with an essay or two on why it was wrong is an escalation of conflict. I can understand why Eileen feels like she's being put in her place. In the future, try not to escalate things by using more words than you need to state your opinion.
If we can all agree that the device of tech breaking down for various reasons is funny, provided it's not overused, I think we can move on.
~Neshomeh and Phobos -
Re: Okay, that's enough. by
on 2011-07-18 18:55:00 UTC
Reply
I don't see the issue with her post. I think she said she had it beta'd by a bunch of people other than me, too, and it never even occurred to me (and likely none of the betas) that the length of it would be a negative (as long as it's not War and Peace).
Especially in light of how recently July's had to fend of all kinds of arguments because people have misunderstood her meaning. Resorting to absolute clarity with a nuanced post seems a good way to counter that.
Or was that just so that there'd be an appearance of a two-sided and thus impartial intervention instead of a one-sided and thus partial one? Because I have to do that sometimes too. -
From where I sit... by
on 2011-07-19 01:01:00 UTC
Reply
I honestly saw the issues I mentioned. I like to think I'm not the sort of person to make things up to appear fair... because that wouldn't be fair.
Betas take note: communication is as much about what we don't say as what we do. Note all the accusations on both sides about not sticking to the literal meaning of every word. Unfortunately, literal definitions aren't always how we communicate. Everything is nuanced, and the more complicated and long the communication gets, the easier it becomes for both sides to make mistakes. For example, the "you" statements I mentioned. Whatever the intention, "you" statements make the argument about the other person, not their ideas, and it's a really quick way to put the other person on the defensive. At all costs avoid the word "you" in a debate. Avoid even a general "you" if there's any chance it could be misunderstood.
Let me restate July's original point in a quick, neutral way:
"I don't think Dann and Makes-Things deliberately send out things that don't work or break easily; it doesn't seem to fit their characters. Agents have a tendency not to treat their gear very well, and DoSAT is as overworked and underpaid as the rest of the PPC. I think they do the best they can, which is pretty good if their fame is anything to go by. Plus, it's funnier if the agents bring their difficulties on themselves."
See what I mean?
~Neshomeh -
Re: From where I sit... by
on 2011-07-19 15:52:00 UTC
Reply
Context is important: not just what is said, but who says it and when. I am not entirely convinced a terse response from July would've worked equally well as a thought-out, written-out post.
I am growing worried that the issue is not what July said, but that July said something in the first place; and now that she did her best to avoid misunderstandings, and such things that she is sometimes accused of, she somehow managed to run into yet another Wrong Thing To Do.
Also, I am not sure how the original point can be made "neutrally" in any way - surely taking the stance of "well, Dann and Makes-Things actually don't do shoddy work" is not neutral. In fact trying to go for neutrality would just result in a vacillating, fruitless exchange of platitudes (which seems to be some people's definition of "no drama", in fact). -
I think it's possible to be neutral. Can this stop, now? by
on 2011-07-20 05:27:00 UTC
Reply
At least when we're talking about fictional characters - saying the real Dann does shoddy work can't be taken nicely, but when we're talking about people within the written world, it seems possible to debate them relatively objectively.
Not to say it isn't always good to frame such things with "I think", of course.
I certainly agree that context is important, particularly on a communication platform like the Board. However, what you said about July being accused of doing Wrong Things so easily worries me, because that's definitely not in the spirit of the PPC, nor acceptable on the Board. I don't think it actually happened, and I think a lot of the fuss here has more to do with misunderstandings over the intention behind what someone said, with people feeling attacked due to the tone of posts even if they weren't meant that way, but let's all be careful, shall we?
That said, this looks like it's edging towards a different potentially nasty argument, and I think we'd all like to avoid that, so I suggest that this discussion end here, unless someone has something specific that needs to be said or answered, and everyone involved feels sure they can keep it entirely objective. -
Sorry about this ... by
on 2011-07-18 08:30:00 UTC
Reply
It won't happen again.
-
Supporting Neshomeh by
on 2011-07-18 03:42:00 UTC
Reply
Agreeing that it's funny to have tech gadgets break down sometimes but not too much - and without blanket blame, as Dann says - seems like the best choice. Let's just stick with that and not try to nail everything down so fussily.
-
It's a question of perspective... by
on 2011-07-17 20:15:00 UTC
Reply
There's a huge difference between "there are equipment malfunctions" and "DoSAT are always handing out things that either malfunction at the most (least) fitting moment or doesn't quite do what they are supposed to". The first is to be expected - nothing is perfect, especially not technology. The second is implying that the people who built the technology are incompetent. Please tell me you can appreciate the difference between those two.
-
It was an exaggeration by
on 2011-07-17 21:06:00 UTC
Reply
I know that the equipment works like it is supposed to almost all the time.
-
Also, we're not responsible for the Muggle-use wands. (nm) by
on 2011-07-17 20:17:00 UTC
Reply
-
I think Muggle-Use Wands come from HFA, like Bleepstuff. (nm) by
on 2011-07-17 00:49:00 UTC
Reply
-
Re: I think Muggle-Use Wands come from HFA, like Bleepstuff. by
on 2011-07-17 08:22:00 UTC
Reply
They originate there, but the spells contained in the wands used by agents are apparently not the same as in the ones used by students at HFA, so the agents' wands might still have been made or at least tweaked by DoSAT, in which case some of them are probably borked.
If I'm wrong and all the wands are made at HFA, it isn't to much of a stretch to imagine that there is a mix-up and some agents end up with the wands meant for students, which only contains usele... spells which need more creativity to use in missions. -
From a meta perspective, I think you're absolutely right by
on 2011-07-17 09:08:00 UTC
Reply
From an in-universe perspective... I can't remember. But it makes sense that HFA is the source, though I imagine they'd provide something more useful to agent than to the students they can't trust.
Either way, I love the idea that they are sometimes missing crucial spells. That'd be hillarious :) -
Here's the thing... by
on 2011-07-16 23:18:00 UTC
Reply
I never said anything about useful spells. I am a big believer that every spell is useful for more than just the one thing that everyone uses it for. You just have to be creative.
-
I am reminded of... by
on 2011-07-17 08:20:00 UTC
Reply
... the A/V Division missions, where they took down 'Sues using things like microphones and speakers. Creativity is pretty awesome.
hS -
Re: No idea by
on 2011-07-16 20:53:00 UTC
Reply
Definitely stealing that idea.
-
By all means. by
on 2011-07-16 21:06:00 UTC
Reply
The only agent I have that will be doing much in HP-verse is a wizard from that world. She doesn't need a Muggle-Use Wand. Go ahead and use that idea if you like.