Reverse/remove automatic canonity

[Marlon P.]

In 2016 when I was loremaster I implemented the policy on automatic canonity for (mostly human) backgrounds. Anything you made that didn't get a complaint lodged about it was automatically canon.

https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/4263-automatic-canonity-human-space-guideline/

It was contentious back then and the culture has shifted further away from being fine with this kind of improvisation. It's also called "headcanon" now, which is technically inaccurate in usage and it's pretty loaded if you ask me, but I'll be using it from now on without further comment for clarity in communication.

I have conversations about auto-canonity in the discord sometimes and I get wildly different responses from players and staff when I pose questions about automatic canonity. Usually what happens is a group of people say it's fine to have headcanon faction as your origin while at the same time saying it makes your RP harder, another signalling it's various levels of improper, then someone saying no one said the latter and implying I'm being hysterical or whatever.

With the widespread retcons going on to bring the lore in line with the current lore administration's expectations, and the frequent farcas that result from changing existing places like cities that rely on headcanon because they don't have a lot of explicit structure to them, and the loremaster has explicitly mentioned a dislike of headcanon that conflicts with what's established.

My suggestion is an explicit reversal of the automatic canonity guideline. It should be communicated that:

Character backgrounds that rely on headcanon are subordinate to established lore and no longer share equal weight from the loremaster. Headcanon is not automatically canon.

This will align the loremasters (as I've seen it) views and expectations.

[KingOfThePing]

I think the biggest change is from back then and now is that there were a lot, lot, lot more "blank spaces" in lore. Frontier Alliance was basically an "anything goes" background drop (and I loved it), just as an example. 

 

Things have changed a lot since then and I agree that it is probably causing more and more problems the longer we wait. I agree with you that something has to be done about this ruling.

[DeadLantern]

Does this really cause any problems, in game or out of the game? The people's opinion on headcanon is just that, an opinion. It is not going to stop it or even encourage it. Does having your own faction or your own planet really require such a hard ruling? From my point of view, it really does not matter, and I honestly was not even aware of this "automatic canonicity" ruling. I think letting people do what they want is fine and there hasn't been issues spurred by the issue of player-made unofficial things vs official things.

Headcanon is already subordinate to establish lore. I can not "headcanon" that Moghes is currently a paradise. I can not "headcanon" that the Sol breakup did not happen. Headcanon is always smaller than that, and it does not really interfere with established lore--at least, it should not. If your headcanon interferes with established lore, then it's not really headcanon, it's just not following the lore.

[Caelphon]

3 hours ago, Marlon P. said:

dislike of headcanon that conflicts with what's established.

Yes, because that makes it lore-breaking and it doesn’t have a place within our setting. Saying you’re the Lord of a city in Moghes (when there is already a pre-established Lord) is in direct contradiction to the Lore. Headcanon that contradicts with existing lore isn’t abiding by the rules. 

3 hours ago, Marlon P. said:

Character backgrounds that rely on headcanon are subordinate to established lore and no longer share equal weight from the loremaster. Headcanon is not automatically canon.

They would have always been subordinate to established lore. Issues began when people believed their headcanon to be equal or above that of established lore. Established lore comes before anything, and anything contradicting it is null and void. Contradictions on the wiki are dealt with ASAP due to this. 

[Caelphon]

Just now, DeadLantern said:

If your headcanon interferes with established lore, then it's not really headcanon, it's just not following the lore.

I agree entirely with Deadlantern.

[Marlon P.]

This is why i suggested a clarification, written in Caelphons own words; the current policy doesn't describe the situation he intends and enforces. The post for auto canonity uses pretty sweeping and blanket statements about it. Unless someone complained (that youre lord of a city) your world/backstory existed with just as much weight as anything a lorewriter created.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Marlon P.

[DeadLantern]

I would then just delete this auto-canon post that is pinned in the lore canonization thread. As said before, the rules on headcanon speak for themselves, and so having no policy is the same as having clarified policy. I don't think anyone is assuming that their headcanon invalidates actual canon.

 

[Kintsugi]

11 minutes ago, DeadLantern said:

I would then just delete this auto-canon post that is pinned in the lore canonization thread.

Going to have to second this course of action. I won't repeat my thoughts on headcanon but I will say that we should avoid the image of encouraging it as something for the playerbase to make use of (while we also shouldn't outright ban it, either). Get rid of the thread. In my opinion, the policy should be that headcanon is allowed, but inadvisable for anything but small-scale blank-filling within the context of the lore as a whole, and not permitted when lore goes beyond minor-planet scale, and especially not permitted when it contradicts the real lore in any way, shape, or form. I'm probably on the extreme end of "headcanon is bad", but I think generally speaking that this policy as I've outlined is for the best.

[Marlon P.]

I hope the policy is replaced with a clarification. Just deleting a 6 year old policy and enforcing a new one without communicate the new one would be a pain. Communication is always good.

7 hours ago, DeadLantern said:

I would then just delete this auto-canon pos