Star Wars Moderator
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Brickdoctor

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    California, USA
  • Interests


  • Country
    California, USA
  • Special Tags 1
  • Special Tags 2
  • Special Tags 3
  • Special Tags 4
  • Special Tags 5
  • Country flag

Recent Profile Visitors

8651 profile views
  1. After retconning in the old canon, you could make the argument that it's the same in the case of the Death Stars. In the old canon, it's kind of ambiguous how intentional an oversight the exhaust port was, and the first one might still be destroyed regardless of arrogance towards underlings, but it could've taken Yavin IV with it if Graneet had pulled the lever faster instead of feeling guilty about Alderaan. It's a bit of a stretch to directly blame the destruction of the second Death Star on intentional insubordination (ignoring the technicality that, yes, the entire Rebellion was intentional insubordination), but as Luke says: "Your overconfidence is your weakness." Vader turned on Palpatine, and Pellaeon speculates that the Emperor had to have been doing some form of battle meditation; confusion following his death was the only way the Rebels could get past the sector fleet.
  2. Whoever's been editing together the music for the trailers in the past couple years is doing an incredible job.
  3. I can't imagine Star Wars would've been nearly as successful if it had been "spies in space" instead of "classic hero's journey with swords and magic in space." Taken with a grain of salt, of course, since I wasn't alive in 1977. Even in the other OT and PT movies, the subplot of stealing the details to either Death Star doesn't really impact the main characters' story arcs that much, and I think it was better left as a background detail. Which is not to say I'm not glad they're making a movie about it now! It just wasn't appropriate before.
  4. Yeah, same here. I got the payment to go through using PayPal (which sent an email confirming the transaction), and the order's listed as "In process" now.
  5. Sure.
  6. In North America, it's usually midnight Eastern Time. Not sure which timezone(s) are used for the European sites.
  7. Done.
  8. Indeed. We're not trying to take some sort of stand for or against this info embargo. Truthfully, we've never discussed what we'd do if we were asked to take down all of the lists and info and discussion, because we've simply never been asked.
  9. I'd rather risk people not expressing agreement because there isn't a 'like' button than have people not write a more detailed comment because there is a 'like' button. You can change your timezone in your profile settings; I just set mine to the zone an hour behind mine.
  10. This is an update to the software that runs the board; the organization of the forums and topics that already exist on top of that should be unchanged.
  11. Please don't use EB to ask to be shown leaked and confidential images.
  12. Oh, and to add to my previous post, in case it wasn't clear, I concur that this promo deserves its own topic, as Lobot has said.
  13. Let me first address the general case, then this particular case: Not entirely; the rumor topics are intended for anything regarding the year's set rumors and discussion, though we're usually pretty lenient when it comes to certain tangential discussions such as early reviews and availability. Promotions are kind of a gray area, especially if they involve new releases. In general, larger promotions (such as this one or May the 4th) are fine as their own topic, and a safe bet would be the set availability topic or even general questions. In this case, I'd say that it's fine to discuss the promotion here, just try to keep it relevant to the 2016 releases. Yes, it isn't strictly on topic, and I can see ways it might lead to serious derailing of the topic, and it'd be a different story if this promotion was just a sale without the minifig or if it didn't coincide with the release of new sets, but I'm not terribly concerned in this particular case. We'll move posts if they stray too far.
  14. No, it's not. This is Star Wars rumors. The merits of asking fan sites to remove information aren't rumors, and discussion of them is not discussion about rumors. Even your own reasoning illustrates that it isn't appropriate for this topic: if the goal is to show companies that it's absurd, then it should probably be posted in the forum specifically for the community relations with TLG -- The Embassy. Then don't post. If you have nothing relevant to say, you don't have some sort of obligation to say something. "There's nothing else to discuss" is never a valid excuse for going off topic. No, seriously, the problem is that the debate about embargoes doesn't belong in this topic. If anyone disagrees, they're welcome to send me a PM (or any of the other staff, if you think going behind my back or over my head will help...), but while I respect your opinion and appreciate your input, this is not up for debate in this topic. Go for it. If you want to create a new site where you can post all the leaks you want and ignore anything TLG says to you, go ahead. EB isn't that site. We haven't built our reputation on sketchy rumors and lax guidelines for many years, and if TLG makes a reasonable request for help, we're going to do the best we can. Which, again, they haven't, in this case. This reported new embargo hasn't been officially communicated to EB in any way. I would imagine that any set list embargo would be coming from Disney or Lucasfilm, not from TLG, and the goal would be to prevent spoiling the movie plot, not to prevent clone companies from beating TLG to market.