ROTS CRL

[stripes]

I'll touch base with past command members and see what I can pull for you reference wise

[Balcony Brawler]

I'll touch base with past command members and see what I can pull for you reference wise

Much appreciated!

[JesterTDA]

I believe the inner robes and sashes are considered the same regardless of which movie version you're looking at. Not sure if there is behind the scenes images of them but tours traveling tours of original movie props were used to confirm the sash is my understanding.

[Silverback]

While I can appreciate your enthusiasm, the number of slits on the robes or the Episode 3 guard has been thoroughly researched for years and is not going to change. The CRL for the RoTS guard at present, minus some language clarifications, is set. There has been sufficient proof provided via various resources, the above photos just being small examples, to provide the proof of the 4 slits on the RoTS robes.

If you have questions regarding the construction of these robes, we are more than happy to help you in that quest.

If there is one thing i am its definatly enthusiastic and i also like to be clear and precise on all matters that i maybe looking into. So far in my opinion no one has shown me any reasonable proof to the crl's claim for the robes having four slits. The one picture above does not show it clearly (so that is dismissible) you say that this is just a small example so were can the rest of this large example be found.
i think the years of research that you mentioned was all based on the above photo and has been misinterpreted. Now that the crl has been set in stone and lots of people have built there costume to that spec a u'turn would make the organisation look a little bit foulish and im sure that would not be good for the detachment of 501st which claims to be the most accurate costume group in the world. So as you say nothing will change, people will still make four slit robes even if it may not be screen accurate (only in my opinion with what ive seen so far) but thats what will happen because the so called research that the crl criteria was based on tells them too.
If it isnt already clear i have strong feelings about this subject and knowing the truth. id love to be shown that im wrong with out any reasonable doubt, but its obvious ill not find the answers here with the tainted and misguided advice that can be found in the forcepike CRL.

[cjfrancese79]

I don't know what you're looking at. There is clearly a front and rear arm slit. Which makes 4 total arm slits.

[Silverback]

I don't know what you're looking at. There is clearly a front and rear arm slit. Which makes 4 total arm slits.

Right the front slits yes one either side I agree. The rear slits or lack of that you've highlighted, I'll start with the guard to the left, that is a fold no opening/slit if it was you'd see inner lining. The questionable visible slit on the guard on the right is infact the left arm and opening of the rear guard who is mostly covered from view by the front right guard. That is what I'm seeing plain to see if you look closely.

[Silverback]

Thanks for your reply at least you are trying to show me the way.

[stripes]

I don't know what you're looking at. There is clearly a front and rear arm slit. Which makes 4 total arm slits.

Right the front slits yes one either side I agree. The rear slits or lack of that you've highlighted, I'll start with the guard to the left, that is a fold no opening/slit if it was you'd see inner lining. The questionable visible slit on the guard on the right is infact the left arm and opening of the rear guard who is mostly covered from view by the front right guard. That is what I'm seeing plain to see if you look closely.

Since you are referring to a third guard that is not in this picture, your point is moot. You have just been given more than ample proof of the 4 slit configuration by an active member of this detachment. Many members of this detachment, past and present, have spent countless hours researching the costumes which we represent and have gathered the most accurate information possible for all costumes covered here. There is nothing wrong with being enthusiastic, but to disagree with the established system, without proof of it being incorrect, does nothing to help suggest that a change may be warranted.

As for the CRL's being set in stone, the CRL's are constantly evolving... when appropriate new information is discovered and presented for proper review. To suggest that this command team, or that this detachment is just sitting on the laurels of the past or that this detachment would look foolish for changing standards is grossly inaccurate.

I will ask you now to move on and accept the 4 slit configuration for the RoTS guard as proven above by CJ, and the CRL, or you will leave the command team no other alternative but to deal with matters in other ways.

I am not one for quickly banning people on these forums (truth be told, I haven't banned a single user in 3 years), but I will warn you now, you are at the line on what I will consider to be acceptable behaviour on the forums. You have outright argued with and borderline slandered, not only myself, but other members of this command staff, and approved members of this detachment in this thread with some of your comments (to quote "tainted and misguided advise"). Your choice of words has been beyond poor in my opinion, and borderline on trolling. I will be utterly clear and concise on this.... This behaviour IS NOT tolerated on these forums.

I leave the choice to you on how you will proceed from here as your actions will dictate how this situation is handled.

[Ackredies]

Ok everyone time to calm down. Jason is a new member to the game and is very enthusiastic and while he may use some terminology or words here I can assure you I know him personally and he does NOT mean it to come across personally or rude, even if it sounds like it.

I have to agree that I agree that the rots guard is definitely only two slit and that there is no evidence for four slit and that the CRL is wrong.

As we are all always striving for accuracy I have raised in the past that we need to provide evidence for two or four and as it stands the only evidence is for two and the four slit is inconclusive at best.

We should as a detachment look into this anew and work together to establish what is correct.
Please contact me directly to see how we can work together and openly share our evidence.

We are all civil and grown up so let's talk as this is all Jason wanted to do in the first place and as he is new doesn't know how some things can come across on the forums and am sure he will apologise.

We need as many guards to protect our emperor lets not lose another to the squall.

Scott

[stripes]

Ok everyone time to calm down. Jason is a new member to the game and is very enthusiastic and while he may use some terminology or words here I can assure you I know him personally and he does NOT mean it to come across personally or rude, even if it sounds like it.

I have to agree that I agree that the rots guard is definitely only two slit and that there is no evidence for four slit and that the CRL is wrong.

As we are all always striving for accuracy I have raised in the past that we need to provide evidence for two or four and as it stands the only evidence is for two and the four slit is inconclusive at best.

We should as a detachment look into this anew and work together to establish what is correct.
Please contact me directly to see how we can work together and openly share our evidence.

We are all civil and grown up so let's talk as this is all Jason wanted to do in the first place and as he is new doesn't know how some things can come across on the forums and am sure he will apologise.

We need as many guards to protect our emperor lets not lose another to the squall.

Scott

Scott,

Thank you for being level headed as I have tried to be. At present, the past research that has been completed by past members of command (most of which are still around the detachment in some way or another) and other members of the detachment has yet to be refuted by any evidence that the RoTS guard should only have 2 arm slits. If anything, I have seen more references that show the RoTS guard as having 4 slits than not. As such, until evidence can be provided that a change should be made to the CRL, with proof for why they change should be made... the CRL as it stands is set. The CRL's are not based on personal opinions, but photographic evidence.

I am not above changing the CRL's for more accuracy, but I do want proof that there is a reason for doing so, and not just a "I don't believe there was enough done in the past" or a "I don't believe there is enough evidence to support the current CRL" reason. I will admit that I haven't been around right from day 1, but I have been around long enough to know how much work has gone into the CRL process. If you have proof, photographic evidence, that clearly shows that the CRL is wrong, then please present it for review. If you do not have this evidence, then the research done by past command teams will be left as is and no changes will be made until clear proof of the CRL's being incorrect can be provided. Also, as I have been around for a substantial time (I can remember when we were still forcepike.com), I can honestly state that I have never seen anyone argue this point on the 2 vs 4 slit robes since the decision was made when the CRL's were being implemented over 5 years ago now.

The CRL's are constantly being looked at and upgraded whenever new evidence is provided as proof for changes. As perfect examples of this, the visor for all guards was proven to be red, not black late last year and we have re-written the CRL to reflect this. Also, there has recently been a new discovery for all shadow guard shoulder bells with detail that had not previously been seen. This will also be included in the updated CRL for them and will be a required piece of detailing. I don't disagree that we want to all have accurate costumes, I merely ask that proof be provided for reasons on making changes to the CRLs for increased accuracy, rather than making a rash decision.

While I am sure that the comments made previously by Jason weren't intended to be rude, this can serve as a reminder to everyone, that writen text has no tone and will always be taken literally when read. Please be careful in your wording choices to avoid possible conflicts.