It is based on how it has been used in this topic and Youtube comments. Only restated in a more definitive and clear manner as others where either unable to state them as effectively or unwilling to define what they meant. A construct of the community collective based on the discussions thus far.
In case it was missed, it was stated as, "So, let's establish the floor, shall we?" Not I, but the larger whole, as best as I as was able to understand from their positions. And thus allow them to correct it or decided if that is not the floor to be established.
It seems an accusatory tone is the most accepted one here, so very well. In reference to the bold, who are you accusing? Me or the argument/concept?
Yes, you are taking things out of context of what was said, both within the post itself and within the topic and discussion. Unless I otherwise explicit state something as my beliefs, thoughts, or opinion, never treat it as such. The argument and I are not one in the same, nor did I state it as my own. Though which ever you are attacking, neither I nor the argument is doing what you claimed.
You want my opinion, my argument? That was the conclusion, the ending two paragraphs where I very clearly claim it as my own.
In which nowhere do I claim or even indicate that I believe Greg does not have the ability to official decide canon in the matter of this contest were it to happen. If that were the case, surely it would have been included as reason for why I voted against such a contest. Yet based on the final sentence, it could be more inferred that I take Greg's word as canon.
The only other time I give my opinion in that post is an example of how I would feel about these missing visuals finally being given something. The MOCing perspective section to be specific, only in the first paragraph. The remaining portion goes back to articulating the collective thoughts thus far and trying to better present it.
You clearly take this entire thing as my beliefs, but even if that was the case you ignore the crucial ending sentence of the paragraph that has shaken you.
It is for neither. It only acknowledges that in a debate both could make good cases, yet then dismisses one side. That side dismissed being that Greg does not have authority over canon. And if the goal of mine, the post's collected community thoughts, or the argument's goal to just discredit him completely, why was it not a bigger deal? Why such a small focus, minor side comment?
Now then, if we look at the argument itself, it also does not try to discredit Greg. As previously explained, based on the definitions supplied, everything Greg has done for Bionicle from while it was active to after discontinuation was under proper authority. While it can be questioned, from the argument's perspective, if he still has permission to answer questions/give clarifications here on TTV, the argument can easily accept it as being proper given Greg's previous stipulations for being on sites. The only thing it questions is whether Greg has the power to make fan created content, as of right now, canon.
~mutters something about a typo and how there shouldn't be a space in the "anymore" there~
It does not question what was done in the past as it fits the definition of canon. But as of now, if his only authority is to answer questions, to give clarity, that is not the same thing as making fan content as official content. It does not seek to discredit, but ask if his word is still good in that specific area.
In which there is a very easy counter if it the goal is only for character visualizations. Because then it can be just frame around as someone asking Greg if this is what the character would look like and him saying yes. As far as the argument would be concerned, in that light, Greg is only giving clarification. And last it check, clarification is a definitive power he has left.
For whose who actually agree with the argument or think like the argument, I can't say if that would be enough for them. Just like the Lego Twitter account, it may be or may not, I don't know. I only proceeded to further represent the argument and concept to clarify its potential stance. I am so often a devil's advocate, he would who represent those silenced, dismissed, or unable to properly represent themselves.
All I can say is that you are very quick to become Greg's white knight as though protecting him from some vicious dragon. When in fact it much more like you're Don Quixote fighting a windmill in Greg's honor. You've gone against an illusionary foe, twisting and selective reading for reasons unknown. And ignored both the ending of the first reply to you as well as the reply to Var's, an attempt to move it back onto the primary topic.
I only reply and continue now in this instance to clear my name, since you seem to think me the villain. I am not someone who is here to destroy Greg, nor discredit everything he has done. After this, I will say no more on the matter for it has gone on long enough.