Harry Potter Blaming Dumbledore or Mcgonagal for not noticing something wrong with Ginny

[Rising Dragon]

Chuck, all I "know" about you is that you are a little ball of rage who simply refuses to see characters in any way other than completely evil. It's a mistake on your part, and frankly, kinda pathetic.

 

[Chuckg]

In point of fact I am not saying that Dumbledore is evil, I am saying that he is incompetent at leadership and waaaaaaaaay too slow/reluctant to take action when action is necessary. I'll entirely grant that in canon, acts of deliberate evil(*) are few to nonexistent on his part. Acts of incompetence and negligence, however, are all over the damn place.

(*) This is a separate category from 'acts of calculated ruthlessness', which even some of Dumbledore's supporters have admitted -- in this thread -- are present in more than a few places. But, hey, war ain't beanbag. If he can be ruthless but effective, I'll tolerate it. Especially if its on Death Eaters, who totally have it coming. Its ruthlessness + wasted effort, or ruthlessness that wasn't even needed, or excess collateral damage (admittedly not a common problem for Dumbledore), that's a problem.

PS: Heated debate is one thing. Posts that are there solely to personally attack people are just wasted electrons.

 

[nixofcyzerra]

Ok, let's return to the original point, and flip it around. How about you show me, with reference to book, chapter and page number, that Sirius (prior to Halloween 1981) knew:

A: vital information that could have been damaging to the now-disbanded and defunct order if leaked to the Death Eaters (that said Death Eaters couldn't have already known or easily found out themselves,)

or:

B: incredibly advanced magic, the sort of thing that Voldemort himself would cast, that would allow him to put a curse on something like Voldemort did the Defense position?

Go on, I'll wait.

And, you go straight for the straw-man again.

I didn't say that Sirius actually did any of this, because, of course, Sirius was not actually the traitor.

So, of course, you just arrogantly demanded proof of something that you know not only didn't happen, but that I wasn't actually saying happened.

What was I saying? Why, that Dumbledore should have investigated this possibility because as far as Dumbledore knew at the time, it could have happened (which, y'know, it could have, had Sirius actually been the traitor)... and that if he'd done this, he would have, in the process, discovered that Sirius was actually innocent.

And that, of course, 'going back and investigating anything a suspected traitor actually touched in hindsight' is standard operating procedure for any competent organization.

Look, it's very simple. The books state that Dumbledore is intelligent and a relatively good leader. It's widely-held opinion in the books and word of JK has confirmed it in the past. Ergo, for you to claim otherwise, you have the onus of proof. You have to conclusively show that Dumbledore failed when someone else available could have succeeded. That's on you.

You're arguing that Dumbledore f'ed up in regards to the Sirius situation, and failed to reach a certain standard of competence. If you can't conclusively prove it, then you have to conclude that there were off-screen actions and circumstances that could give the illusion of incompetence from the limited view we have (i.e, almost 100% Harry's perspective.)

I have the easy job, as I'm arguing in the defense of canon. All I have to do is establish reasonable doubt in your arguments and point out potential holes in your theories. Which I'm doing.

Fact: Sirius resents Crouch Senior for failing to give him a trial.

Fact: Sirius shows no sign of blaming Dumbledore.

Fact: After Halloween of 1981, the Order of the Phoenix was temporarily disbanded due to the apparent lack of any further threat. Therefore, Dumbledore technically bears no responsibility for the actions or safety of the former members until the Order is reconvened 14 years later.

Conclusion: Dumbledore had no real responsibility in the Sirius Black case, and didn't fail to live up to any other responsibilities he did have in regards to Sirius.

Fact: According to Pottermore, a canonical source (deal with it,) the Council of Magical Law was the court which tried most Death Eaters, including Crouch Junior.

Conclusion: Sirius's fate was decided in the lower courts (Crouch chucked him into Azkaban without a trial,) and never actually reached the Wizengamot (and Dumbledore's desk.)

Fact: Dumbledore knew Snape was a spy (as he recruited him.)

Fact: Dumbledore presented evidence to the Council of Magical Law that Snape was a spy for him. There is no mention of Dumbledore just unilaterally Pardoning him.

Conclusion: The only way Dumbledore could have interfered in Sirius's trial is if he had evidence that Sirius was innocent, which he did not.

Supposition: Dumbledore had no desire to participate in the trial of someone who had apparently betrayed him when there was overwhelming evidence that said someone was guilty, and thus was not a member of the council that arranged or oversaw (or would have overseen) Sirius's trial. Ergo, Dumbledore actually wasn't even aware that Sirius didn't get a trial.

Now, either conclusively prove that Dumbledore had an obligation regarding Sirius and failed to live up to it, or conclusively disprove, or cast reasonable doubt upon, my supposition.

Oh, and while you're at it, how about you also cite some evidence that Dumbledore didn't look into [...]

You really are a total stranger to honest debate, aren't you?

Hint: if you're going to make claims about someone's alleged competence, you don't demand that other people prove that they didn't do things. You do the work to
prove that those characters did do things.

Well, no. I'm just poking holes in your arguments and casting reasonable doubt upon them. Part of my process for doing so is devising possible scenarios that could have potentially occured off-screen.

I don't have to prove that Dumbledore is competent. You have to prove that he's incompetent. Conclusively.

time-bombs that "Evil-Sirius" could have left ticking, through good old-fashioned detective work and magical analysis, rather than having to deal with Dementors and having to confront someone he trusted, in a prison like the one his former lover is in, who may or may not be proficient in Occulmency?

If I were Dumbledore, I wouldn't want to go to interrogate Sirius if there was a reasonable alternative.

And yet again you circle back to 'Dumbledore's desire to avoid anything that might be emotionally distressing is a valid excuse for Dumbledore not doing his work'.

Wow, Dumbledore really is a precious little snowflake in your world, isn't he? He's so sensitive and delicate! Its all right if he wraps himself up like Shinji-hedgehog and sits their avoiding any possibility of having to expose himself to things that might be harsh or awful!

Prove that it was his job, and also prove that if it was his job, that he failed to do it, by not even using an alternate method to going to Azkaban and interrogating Sirius.

Feh. What kind of a commander is this?

Dumbledore expects Harry to endure years of abuse at the hands of the Dursleys and eventually to die on cue. Dumbledore expects Snape to pretend to serve a man he hates, surrounded by the worst people on Earth, having to fake all of his behavior and pretend to love it. Dumbledore expects his Order members to face hardened killers who casually use the Unforgivables, who casually torture and murder. Dumbledore even expects some of his people to be outright suicide bombers. In short, Dumbledore expects the people under his command to go through a fucking shit ton of emotional and even physical pain, because that's what's needed to get the job done.

Not really fair if Dumbledore expects that much from everybody else, but keeps using the 'Oh, I couldn't do that! That would be emotionally distressing!' excuse for himself, isn't it? No. Its not fair at all.

Dumbledore thought that Harry was a dead man walking, and that there was no way to save him once Voldemort had returned, whether Harry be 14 or 40 when it happened, all the way up to the end of GoF. He placed Harry with the Dursleys so the blood protection would keep him alive until Harry was an adult in the Wizarding World. He seemed damn sure in the DH flashback that the only way for the Horcurx in Harry's head to be removed was for Harry to die, which implies he researched other options and didn't come up with anything. Pretty much the second he learns that Voldemort took Harry's blood and bound the two together further, he gets a "gleam of something like triumph" in his eyes (HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT I MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE TO ENSURE HARRY CAN SURVIVE ANOTHER AK GOTTA COME UP WITH A PLAN!)

Snape was the asshole who leaked half the prophecy and got James and Lily killed (and nearly got little baby Harry killed,) and then only seemed to care that Lily was gone. He admits that he begged LV to spare Lily, but didn't give a shit about an innocent 1 year-old baby dying just because he was the kid of his school rival.

21 year-old Snape was the pinnacle of douchebaggery. He was scum of the highest order. Why the hell should Dumbledore give a flying f*ck about Snape feeling bad? He straight up plans to use Snape as a tool against LV when he returns, and manipulates Snape into going along it through emotional blackmail.

It isn't until much later that Dumbledore starts to repect Snape ("Perhaps we sort too soon,") and perhaps even begins to regret that Severus is on such a self-destructive path and try to guide him away from it, to no avail.

And oh yeah, he's a magical prodigy, so there probably was.

So, immediately after you said 'Let's get back to showing proof!', you needed about five minute to segue into 'Hey, let's assume that Dumbledore can just do whatever he needs to do off-stage using magic that Rowling never wrote about because why not'.

*rolleyes*

Burden of proof is on you. I just have to posit reasonable alternative theories to cast doubt on your conclusions. Dumbledore is innocent (competent) until proven guilty (incompetent) by the prosecution (You.)

I also love how later on in your post you go on to argue 'Dumbledore is just a schoolteacher!' when *I* was going 'Man, Dumbledore knows entirely enough magic to solve /this/ problem here'. So, which is Dumbledore? The magical genius who can do whatever? Or the guy who's just a schoolteacher and can't be expected to do so much as dig up evidence of corruption at the Ministry? (And Ministry politicians are /not/, by and large, magical geniuses with awesome protections on their stuff. Just look at Umbridge.)

How about somewhere in the middle? An experienced wizard, a prodigy in Transfiguration, and knowledgeable in several rather obscure branches of magic, such as magic involving the mind and soul, self-sacrifice, and the protection that blood can provide.

He's not ignorant, but he's not someone who knows every spell on the planet and can do anything either.

Sirius blames himself first and foremost, but still resents Crouch for not giving him a trial, but doesn't resent Dumbledore. Judges don't send people to trial, they oversee trials.

*rolleyes*

Your basic ignorance of the law is an epic thing.

Hint: Who issues and signs arrest warrants? Judges. Who presides over arraignment hearings? Judges. Who do lawyers go to to apply for habeas corpus? Judges.

Oh. I wasn't aware that the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (or prior to 1995, the Lord Chancellor,) does that for every court case in Britain. Man, when does that guy find the time to eat? /Sarcasm.

So when someone brings them an arrest warrant they sign them. When a lawyer (or Solicitor or Barrister, as this is the UK we're talking about,) goes to a Judge with an application for Habeas corpus, they approve and grant them the writ. They don't track down someone who hasn't petitioned for one and throw it in their face.

Judges are entirely one of the two groups of people that decide whether or not something goes to trial, you idiot. The other people are, of course, prosecutors. But in the conventional Western legal system the prosecutor can't nol pros something without a judge's agreement. This also works in reverse, via habeas corpus, i.e., the demand of the judiciary system that someone be brought into court for a trial even if the cops & prosecutor want to keep him in pre-trial confinement forever. Not only is this exactly what Sirius needed, judges are precisely the people who issue this writ.

All true (except for me being an idiot. That part's a filthy, filthy lie.) But Dumbledore isn't the only Judge in Wizarding Britain.

tldr: your statement that 'judges don't send people to trial' is 200% backwards from the truth.

So yes. Assuming a system that even vaguely resembles British Common Law, then there are indeed two people to blame for Sirius' never getting a trial. One of them is the prosecutor (Barty Crouch Sr.) The other one is... the judge. (Albus Dumbledore). Sirius' ignorance of how the legal system works does nothing to change this.

"Albus Dumbledore, the only Judge in Wizarding Britain, died today after collapsing from over-exhaustion. If only our society could have more than a single Judge!"

Now, you can try to say that 'Magical Britain's legal system is different and doesn't involve the judge at any point in the arraignment process, it's all up to prosecutors'. I might even believe that... if you could show any canon for it... OH WAIT, Harry's underage magical trial. Only made possible because Dumbledore wasn't made Chief Warlock anymore... Fudge had to get him out of the way first before even trying to use the system to screw Harry.

And Dumbledore showed up and spiked the whole thing anyway, despite not being Chief Warlock anymore, simply because he's that good a lawyer whenever he actually tries to be!

You're using Harry's hearing as an example of how the Wizarding Justice system normally works? I... I... I have no words for how stupid that is.

Courtroom 10, which is where the Council of Magical Law and the Wizengamot both meet.

Those courtrooms haven't been used in years,' said Mr Weasley angrily. 'I can't think why they're doing it down there - unless - but no - '

'Of course they can,' said Dumbledore, inclining his head. 'And you certainly seem to be making many changes, Cornelius. Why, in the few short weeks since I was asked to leave the Wizengamot, it has already become the practice to hold a full criminal trial to deal with a simple matter of underage magic!'

Conclusion: Harry's trial is the first time that the full Wizengamot has convened in years.

Fudge acted as Chief Warlock in that trial. He convened the Wizengamot and appointed himself the Judge in Harry's hearing by it. Had Dumbledore not lost the Chief Warlock position, Fudge likely would have convened a lower court, which Dumbledore wouldn't have been able to preside over without accusations of bias. Dumbledore would likely have just ended up acting as a "witness for the defence" (not an actual Defence Counsel) for Harry anyway.

And Dumbledore's the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, which is Wizarding Britain's highest court of law. Whixh means that the only cases that end up there are the ones that lower Wizarding courts can't solve.

Annnnd, you're proven wrong in canon again! You can take an ordinary underage magic case -- something that doesn't even normally get a trial, but is heard in summary judgement by a juvenile welfare official -- all the way to the Wizengamot as your first stop, without any lower courts even touching this first. If you really want to. Because that's exactly what happened to Harry.

Seriously, now you're just saying stuff where the books openly say the opposite.

Do we know that "Fudge the Minister" didn't order Harry's case to be handled by the highest court, which "Fudge the temporary Chief Warlock" then presided over? Because I haven't seen any evidence that the Chief Warlock alone can just swan into any trial and go "Sup, bitches. Move over, this is Dumbledore's show now."

But O.K, let's assume without conclusive proof that Dumbledore could have "pulled a Fudge" and dragged Sirius's case all the way up to the full Wizengamot (or attempted to and discover that Sirius hadn't even received one.)

Why would he? What reason does he have to believe that the Council of Magical Law isn't handling Sirius's trial perfectly adequately?

And I know that there was never any mention of lower Wizarding courts in the books, but according to Pottermore

I said "books or go home". Gee, thanks for yet again doing whatever the hell you want to do. So much for arguing in good faith, huh?

Books, JK interviews and Pottermore are all equally canonical, provided that one doesn't contradict another. Film and Game adaptations are less, but can be considered canon if they don't contradict the books. That's, like, the most elementary rule when it comes to debating a work of fiction.

But even if we let that in, you still torpedo yourself right here...

Arthur was very surprised that Harry was being tried in Courtroom 10, which is where the Council of Magical Law and the Wizengamot both meet.

I find it hilarious that you yourself refer to the canon proof that any criminal manner can be taken directly to the Wizengamot and leapfrog any lower courts if they want it to be, while at the same time basing an argument on the assumption that it can't. Dude, seriously, you're beating yourself up again.

We don't know who can do it (Minister, Chief Warlock, or both,) and we don't know how it's done. You're basing conclusions on assumptions.

In the UK, Crown Prosecutors are the ones who arrange for accused to be put on trial. They're Britain's versions of District Attorneys. Crouch Senior was the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, and part of his duties must include being the Wizarding equivalent.

Yes. But if we're using UK law, then Crouch's actions are hideously illegal and only total negligence at the judicial level explains how he gets away with them. The Crown Prosecution Service cannot sentence someone to prison indefinitely without a trial... the only way "no trial" occurs by CPS fiat is if its accompanied by "and we're dropping the charges". Britain are the people who invented habeas corpus, dude. In the 17th century.

"The evidence is so obvious that there's no point in holding a trial" is only possible in British law when they're talking about 'it is so obvious this guy is INNOCENT'. There is no 'its so obvious this guy is guilty, skip the trial' provision. No matter how blatant the dude is, he gets a judge and a jury anyway. The jury might deliberate for all of ten days or ten seconds before reaching a verdict, but before that happens both sides have a chance to make their cases and present evidence and all.

Of course, there is no dispute that Crouch's actions are hilariously illegal.

All true, and I don't dispute it.

The dispute is over whether any of that negligence attaches to Dumbledore. And I say 'yes', because prosecutors can't put people in jail without at least one judge's cooperation, which means Crouch's bullshit is as much a failure of the judiciary as the prosecution service. And Dumbledore, as the highest official of that judiciary, ultimately bears responsibility.

Source? It's my understanding that Chief Justices are required to order inquiries and investigations into any miscarriages of justice that are brought to their attention, but they're not held personally responsible if one occurs.

At this point the question is 'Can Dumbledore legitimately plead that he did not know this was going on, because the case was not one with his personal attention?' And the answer is '... fuck no. While normally he doesn't handle every case, Sirius was not only a suspected Death Eater -- which were all cases Dumbledore sat on personally -- Sirius was also a member of the Order of the Phoenix, meaning he used to work for Dumbledore directly, and so Dumbledore has every reason to follow Sirius' case personally and with the greatest of interest'.

Or he could have just (quite reasonably) decided that, seeing as every other DE was getting a trial, that he wasn't required to have anything else to do with the trial of a guy who personally betrayed him. Expecting fellow professionals to be professional and carry out correct procedure isn't a failing, especially when the fellow professional in question has a flawless record. It was thought that Crouch might be the next Minister of Magic, remember? The man appeared to be very good at his job.

You might argue that this personal involvement would recuse Dumbledore from sitting on Sirius' judgement panel. You'd even be right there. However, you don't actually have to be the presiding judge to follow a case in progress, and to realize "hey, this guy isn't even GETTING a trial! somebody file a fucking writ of habeas corpus already!", as witness Dumbledore's pro bono publico lawyer performance at Harry's trial, when he wasn't even a judge anymore.

You also don't have to. Dumbledore had no requirement to follow Sirius's trial. Why would he? So he can hear "Evil-Sirius" brag about the look on James's face when he realised that his best friend and Secret Keeper had betrayed him? So he can be a victim of "Evil-Sirius's" vitriol as he talks about how he had Dumbledore completely fooled? So he can lambaste himself for not making different decisions during the whole Snape-Lupin Werewolf incident?

What reason did Dumbledore have to expose himself to that kind of potential pain? I mean, if he had a good reason, sure he should have sucked it up and tried to go, but as far as I can see, he didn't.

Then he acted as the defence in Snape's trial like he did in Harry's, temporarily forgoing his position as one of the judges to avoid any accusations of bias affecting the verdict.

And he could easily have done the same thing at Lucius' trial -- whether he was a judge or just an observer -- by volunteering to be a prosecution expert witness, thus destroying Lucius' whole perjury re: the Imperius, which Dumbledore knew was entirely false. But he doesn't.

This is entirely based on the precept that Legilimency is admissible in court, which you haven't conclusively proved.

What kind of judge sits there, watches a defendant lie his ass off, knows he's lying his ass off, and does absolutely nothing to prevent a blatant miscarriage of justice in his courtroom? A shitty one.

One that can't prove it.

And as I mentioned in my last post, there's no conclusive evidence that mind-reading is admissible in court.

Only if I accept your claim, which you entireyl failed to prove, that Dumbledore didn't use legilimency. (Hint: pensieve do not work that way!)

Fine, then show me a transcript of Dumbledore's appeal to the Ministry regarding Morfin's trial, as well as a copy of the legislation regarding use of Legilimancy and Pensieves in court. Oh, wait, you can't? Well, can you prove to me conclusively that either are allowed to be used in court via other sources? No? Oh well. I guess we'll have to use logic to conclude that they aren't eligible to be used in court, as otherwise far too many legal outcomes in the HP-verse make no sense. Like Fudge not ordering a Ministry Legilimens to mind-probe Harry and prove that he was lying about the Dementors (seeing as he did actually think that Harry was lying, as Umbridge sent them without his knowledge.)

Pensieve memories can be faked (Slughorn,) someone good enough at Occlumency can apparently use it to convince a Legilimens who's currently mind-probing them that they aren't lying (Snape and Voldemort,) and Occlumency can also beat Veritaserum (Pottermore/JK interview.)

I guess Wizarding Courts have to rely on testimony and evidence just like Muggle courts.

Except that Dumbledore isn't an Auror or a Hitwizard, which are the closest things to soldiers the Wizarding Worlds have, so really we should be judging him by the standards of a civilian

Dumbledore, of his own free will, chose to form a private army (the Order of the Phoenix) and appoint himself as the commander of it. Hey, guess the fuck what. At this point the "it's not my job!" defense doesn't apply, because Dumbledore chose to MAKE it his job. If you decide to start your own PMC, you get to be judged like any other military commander, because its your profession now!

As Dumbledore never received military training, and his Militia wasn't associated or linked to any military, I'm not sure you can accuse him of failing to live up to the standards of a military. You can express opinions of his command ability, but Dumbledore couldn't have been dragged before a military tribunal in canon (if anything he probably could have assembled a tribunal and court-martialed members of the Order if he wanted to.)

(seeing as Judge, National Representative and Schoolteacher aren't military roles) who was the head of a voluntary Militia.

Militia commanders are commanders too, and expected to be either good enough to not lead their troops like idiots, or responsible enough to go 'holy shit, I'm getting my people mulched because I don't know what I'm doing, I'd better step back and let someone better take charge'.

You've yet to name someone who exists in canon who you think would have been a superior Commander, that Dumbledore could have ceded leadership of the OoTP to.

He wasn't a professional, he never claimed to be a professional, and if the professionals could have handled it, he would have left it to them.

So, your entire defense is based upon 'Dumbledore knew that someone had to be better than the Aurors and Hitwizards because they weren't up to the job', while you're simultaneously going 'But Dumbledore needs to be excused for not being as good as an Auror or Hitwizard, because he never had the training'. Both things you're saying at once?

That is the logical equivalent of an Escher drawing.

No, I'm saying: "Hypothetical Wizards/Witches who've been to an actual Military academy and have studied the art of war as a career" > Dumbledore > Hitwizards/Aurors. It's just there weren't any of the first group in canon.

PS: Dumbledore, unlike any other person in Magical Britain at the time Voldemort kicks off his first war, is a veteran of the war against Grindelwald. The guy who won the pivotal battle of that war, in fact. I actually do have a legitimate reason for expecting him to be at least as combat-experienced as anybody else in this fucking mess.

Except that Albus wasn't "General Dumbledore" in WW2, and didn't fight for most of it. He just tracked down Gellert right at the end, and kicked his ass in what people would call "the greatest wizarding duel of all time." That doesn't require the ability to command troups, that requires the ability to be a Beast of a Duellist.

So you know what? I revise my earlier statement. Dumbledore wasn't a General of an Army. He was the Commander of a Militia.

Wouldn't matter if he was the commander of a platoon, dude -- fuck, wouldn't matter if he was a squad leader. He fails basic military leadership principles at any level. (Such as, oh, loyalty up and loyalty down, contingency planning, not overextending your forces, reacting in a timely manner, proactive vs. reactive, identifying core objectives, the list goes on and on!)

Feel free to hold that opinion. I personally think that if someone does their best at something, and there wasn't anyone around who could have done a better job, then we shouldn't condemn them if they make some mistakes, as you weren't in their position and have an outside perspective that lets you see stuff that they, at the time, couldn't.

And I personally think that if somebody takes command during a war and makes avoidable mistakes that leave people dead on the ground, that dude should be cashiered, no matter what if hindsight, or couldn't have done a better job or he did his best. You know who else thinks so? The Army. And the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and even the Coast Guard.

War is hell, dude. And the judgement standards are harsh. In fact, you could say its the ultimate pass-fail exam.

First of all, I don't actually know whether leaders of Militias unaffiliated with any national/state Military can be tried under military law. Their (technically illegal due to being unsanctioned) Militia can be forcibly disbanded and they can be tried under civilian law, sure, but an amateur non-professional with no official military status being court-martialed? That doesn't sound right to me.

Two: In order for Dumbledore to be court-martialed, he would need to found guilty under military law. The military doesn't court-martial someone for failing a mission or completing a mission with unacceptable losses, if either the mission failure or the losses are deemed as either having been unavoidable, or it is concluded to be unreasonable to expect the subject of the hearing to have been able to avoid them, given his training. That said, you can judge Dumbledore, a man who is never shown to have received any form of Command or Tactical training, by the standards of a Military General, but as any Military Tribunal would take into account the factor of Hindsight bias, and the difficulty of the mission in question, you probably should too. Soldiers don't get court-martialed for failing a mission if the mission was completely FUBAR.

So is it unreasonable to expect Dumbledore to react to the standards of someone who has undergone Command/Tactical training and has superior intel, when the entire and complete particulars of the mission "defeat Voldemort" also aren't known?

In my opinion, yes.

O.K, first of all, here, because you apparently have no idea what a Straw Man Argument actually is, and you're just using it as some sort of Buzz word to make my points look weaker.

And now you're a blatant liar.

A straw man argument is, according to your own source...

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

This is exactly what you are doing every time you get on the 'Dumbledore can't stop being Chief Warlock!' train, when you know perfectly well I was never on the 'Dumbledore should quit being Chief Warlock' train, and am in fact saying the exact opposite.

I mean, that's entirely a straw man. That's the classic definition, in fact -- arguing back against a claim that your debate opponent never actually made.

So, having established you are a complete and total stranger to the truth or honesty, I have to ask myself, why am I even bothering to talk to you.

Except we're not two political opponents trying to score points on the other to look better to the public. I'm defending canon, which means that you present arguments that attempt to conclusively prove something, and I try to refute your arguments by poking holes in them.

Second of all, I'm not disputing the fact that of the 3 jobs Dumbledore held, the Chief Warlock position was the most important, and that that's the last one he should give up. I'm claiming that for two of his three jobs, there was no-one who would make a decent successor.

Solution is thus obvious -- dump the third.

As I've already mentioned, it's possible that this was unnecessary, a bad tactical decision, or not really feasible due to public opinion. Prove that it was none of those things.

So, same question, but for Supreme Mugwump instead of Chief Warlock. Who should Dumbledore have chosen to suggest to the Minister (or the Wizengamot) that they be the next appointed representative of the British Ministry of Magic, and worked to ensure that they were elected? Name someone.

Anybody with a pulse. Supreme Mugwump, as shown in the series, is clearly a job of total irrelevance to the plot. It never affects things either way. Unlike the Headmaster or Chief Warlock's positions, we don't see any junction points where intervention by this person could have decided a plot event. The ICW is 200% offstage to the entire thing and never shows up ever, either for good or ill.

You realise that just because things are happening off-stage doesn't mean they aren't important, right? And considering that Voldemort was a Dark Lord, and the last Dark Lord helped start WW2 in the HP-verse, I would think that maintaining the UK's diplomatic presence is actually damn important. Arguing that Dumbledore's work at the International Confederation of Wizards was irrelevant just because our main viewpoint is a school-boy with zero interest in international politics is somewhat foolish IMO.

And I would argue that if the ICW was so irrelevant, Dumbledore would have quit. Since he didn't, you'll have to conclusively prove that his international diplomatic work was useless and futile. Good luck with that.

For all we know, Dumbledore helped prevent trade with Foreign Wizarding Governments from being restricted, which would have had a catastrophic effect on the Wizarding Economy (the UK is an island nation after all.)

And so Dumbledore can let anybody who isn't Lucius Malfoy take that job over, because apparently all it does is waste his time. Fuck, put Elphias Doge in that thing, dude will rubber-stamp anything Dumbledore says and he seems to be mostly retired anyway. And I suppose a 'Special Advisor to the Wizengamot' is senior enough he can be plausibly nominated for this. But it doesn't have to be him... really, he can let Fudge have it for all we care. Hell, maybe that will actually help, by letting Fudge be kicked upstairs to where he can't fuck anything up.

Daily Prophet Headlines: "ICW sanctions UK, All members declare War/announce Trade embargoes; We're F*cked, Fudge blamed."

"French Veela and all Foreign Dark Creatures swear loyalty to You-Know-Who. Lucius Malfoy: I don't know what went wrong."

So really, the reasons that he placed Harry at the Dursleys are threefold, the first of which he mentioned in chapter 1 of Philsopher's stone. To stop Harry from growing up big-headed.

A job any family such as the Weasleys or the Tonkses could have managed. There was no need to deliberately place him into a cruel situation.

The Weasleys are poor Blood Traitors. Andromeda Tonks was disowned by her family. An extreme importance is placed on the sanctity of blood and blood relations in the HP-verse. It's possible that Wizarding Britain wouldn't accept the Boy-Who-Lived being raised by them, while they would his blood relatives (even if they were Muggles.)

Enter Lucius Malfoy, Philanthropist extraordinaire! "Despite having been a victim of You-Know-Who himself, being controlled by the Unforgivable Imperius Curse, Lucius has always felt a need for redemption, which he has expressed via his extremely generous donations to multiple charitable causes. However, Mr Malfoy feels that mere money cannot make up for the harm he unwillingly caused. Therefore, he has expressed a desire to raise Harry Potter, the Boy-Who-Lived, himself, feeling that helping the son of the last victims of You-Know-Who grow into a proud and respectable member of Wizarding society will help lay the demons that haunt him firmly to rest."

As I've said before, Lucius Malfoy is like Bruce Wayne in Gotham. In the eyes of the vast majority of the Wizarding British public, he can do no wrong. He's on the Hogwarts Board of Governers. He's trusted with having an important say in the lives of their children.

A situation, btw, which Dumbledore entirely knew about.

"You did not do as I asked. You have never treated Harry as a son. He has known nothing but neglect and often cruelty at your hands."
-- Half-Blood Prince

Except we don't know when he found this out. Before Harry arrived at Hogwarts? He says in OotP that he knew that he was condemning Harry to "ten dark and difficult years," but that doesn't necessarily mean that he knew they were abusive. What did Dumbledore even know about the Dursleys? He knew that Petunia desperately wanted to go to Hogwarts, and was bitter that she didn't get to go, and that McGonagall disapproved of them. Arabella Figg was assigned to keep watch, and knew that the Dursleys would never have let Harry come over to her house if they'd thought he enjoyed it.

So, basically, he knew they were dicks, and they wouldn't treat him as one of their own. That's enough for Harry's childhood to qualify as "dark and difficult." That doesn't mean that he knew they were abusive. I imagine the first time that Madame Pomfrey examined Harry could have been fairly enlightening, although possibly not even then, as Wizards are canonically much hardier than Muggles, and Harry canonically has never been shown to suffer from scars (inflicted by the Dursleys,) malnutrition, or stunted growth.

So maybe Dumbledore only realised in book 1 that the Dursleys were full-on abusive and not just emotionally neglectful, and by then Harry owned a wand and would only spend another 6 summers with the Dursleys. Dumbledore would probably consider the blood protection worth that.

The second, to make sure he didn't grow up as Harry Malfoy or Harry Fudge.

Back at the time Harry's custody decision was made, Fudge was a junior department head in Magical Catastrophes and Lucius Malfoy was a guy desperately bribing people to avoid going to Azkaban for life. Their rise to political power did not occur until later. And the people who were in office at the time, despite their own personal flaws, were still no friends of the Death Eaters.

Harry Bagnold or Harry Crouch, then. This is more nitpicking than anything else. Also, Dumbledore could have seen the way the wind was blowing politically and planned ahead.

And the third, the fact that Harry living with his relatives for 16 years means Voldemort can't touch him for 16 years

If Dumbledore isn't even sure Voldemort is alive, why does this matter? Or if Dumbledore is so sure of Tom's being alive that he will allow Harry to deliberately stay in an abusive situation because things are that desperate, how does any of Dumbledore's other inactions make sense?

This is the crux of the matter here. Keeping Harry at the Dursleys, given the abuse that Harry undergoes there and that Dumbledore by his own admission entirely knows about, is an act of desperation. It can only begin to be justified only if you absolutely believe as a fact that Voldemort is out there and will one day return.

Which means anything else Dumbledore does in the interim should also be judged on that basis, which means you forfeit the 'But Dumbledore didn't knooooooooooooow!' defense.

You can't have it both ways. Either Dumbledore deliberately kept a child in an abusive situation based merely on a theoretical possibility, OR Dumbledore was pretty damn sure that Tom would come back even before he could prove it absolutely.

And in either case, some of Dumbledore's decisions look very questionable. The only thing that changes is which decisions.

'You might ask - and with good reason - why it had to be so. Why could some wizarding family not have taken you in? Many would have done so more than gladly, would have been honoured and delighted to raise you as a son.

'My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but I realised. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large, angry, desperate and violent. And I had to make my decision, too, with regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone for ever? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure, too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you.

'I knew that Voldemort's knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive than any wizard alive. I knew that even my most complex and powerful protective spells and charms were unlikely to be invincible if he ever returned to full power.

'But I knew, too, where Voldemort was weak. And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. She gave you a lingering protection he never expected, a protection that flows in your veins to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative.'

Didn't want Bellatrix Lestrange (or any other, equally sadistic DE like Alecto Carrow) Crucio-ing little baby Harry's brains out.

Was confident that Voldemort might return (but didn't know for sure that LV wasn't just completely dead until Quirrell aftermath,) wasn't sure when Voldemort might return (Harry could have been a grown man with a family for all he knew.)

Super-magic blood protection prevents the former (if I had to guess the mechanics of it, I would guess that the Dark Mark essentially causes DE's to be considered extensions of LV, meaning the blood protection protects against them too. Albus probably tested it with Snape.)

Super-magic blood protection also ensures that Harry would be at least 17 before Voldemort can go after him (or it would if Tom hadn't taken Harry's blood.)

Explain to me where the book says that Dumbledore being a full-time Judge would allow him to root out corruption.

That is precisely what and how we've already been arguing about half the day yesterday. Not surprised you'd suddenly pretend to have amnesia about it now.

No, it's just you've yet to actually convince me with your arguments.

Actually, explain to me how being a Judge allows you to actively seek out corruption, instead of merely passing judgement on it when it appears before your court.

Well, for one thing, you become one of the people who can sign search warrants... which is a great way to help fight corruption if you happen to have friends and allies who are, oh, senior police investigators.

Oh, I see. Writing Writs is so difficult and time-consuming that he could never get it all done fast enough to still have no problem holding other positions. /Sarcasm.

If anything, you should be arguing that Dumbledore should have accepted the nominations to be the Minister of Magic (which he wouldn't because CHILDHOOD TRAUMA.)

Actually, that entirely would have helped too. Thank you for reminding me, I'd overlooked that. Yes, Dumbledore should entirely have done this.

And boo-hoo 'CHILDHOOD TRAUMA'. Yet again we're back to "Dumbledore is such an oh-so-special snowflake that his own emotions are more important than stepping up to serve his nation when it so desperately needs him". Fuck, YOU'RE the guy who keeps underlining that 'only Dumbledore could possibly do this job!' Dude, if I actually go along with that, then that means there is NO excuse for Dumbledore NOT doing the job! Yes, not even "CHILDHOOD TRAUMA!"

Note that I don't actually defend Dumbledore's decison to not take up the Minister role, just point out the canon reason why he didn't do it. I do actually think he should have manned up (possibly after getting some counselling first) and taken the Minister role, and then proceeded to completely clean up Wizarding Britain, making it as difficult as possible for Voldemort in the eventuality he returns.

No, but considering that it's the only canonical source we have for Dumbledore's "mad Warlocking skillz,"

... because the first four books, where we actually see Dumbledore's actions (or, rather, lack of action) as Chief Warlock, aren't canon?

Seriously?

Dude, in a contest of "show" vs. "tell", "show" wins every time. Sure, Elphias Doge (not even an omniscient third-person narrator, but an unreliable first person narrator) tells us that, in his opinion, Dumbledore was awesome. But when we read the books, we see very little -- if any -- of Dumbledore showing he was awesome. And all that awesome is about Dumbledore as a powerful wizard (which nobody disputes), and none of it is about Dumbledore as a leader or a politician.

Hell's bells, Dumbledore doesn't even get any muggleborn protection laws passed, despite being Chief Warlock. Arthur Weasley has to do that job, and he's just a minor sub-department head. Wow, Albus.

So no, we have canon. Its called 'the whole fucking plot'.

Add: Shit, in addition to everything else we already have, let's look at book 2. Fudge throws Hagrid's ass into Azkaban on zero evidence and with no trial, right in front of Dumbledore, and Dumbledore -- who is still the Chief Warlock this year -- leaves him there for six months. Dumbledore doesn't start any investigation, or demand that Hagrid get a hearing, or anything. He's able to bust the case vs. Harry open in a day because Harry is actually somebody who matters to Dumbledore's plan. But Hagrid? Nah, never mind that he's an innocent man who's served me loyally for years, I have no skin in this game, let him sit there.

Feh. Way to go, Dumbledore. Whenever prompt action is needed, you're there on the spot to do... absolutely nothing.

Also, when you only have direct one source about something, referring to it isn't "Cherry-picking."

When I have multiple books of sources and yuo focus on only one in-story newspaper article, it damn sure is.

A Direct source in Doge, a lack of critisism from Rita Skeeter (who doesn't appear to say anything about Dumbledore's actions as Chief Warlock) and Word of JK all trump your subjective opinion of canon, unless you can conclusively prove that they're wrong.

In case you're wondering, you haven't as of yet.

Also, Judges don't make laws. They pass them if there's enough support. Arthur helped write it, and tried to get it signed into law, which he did.

Nooo. Seeing as Lucius never ended up in court with Dumbledore presiding in any of the five books (unless it happened at the end of OoTP when Lucius was sentenced to Azakaban,) Lucius being free isn't an indication that Albus doesn't know how to Warlock like nothing you've ever seen before.

Harry proves that somebody senior in the government feels like, no matter how trivial the case is, so you're wrong yet again. Dumbledore could have handled that case, if he'd wanted to. But the entire criticism is "Dumbledore failed to take action when", and so, he didn't.

No, Harry's trial proves that a case can be taken to the entire Wizengamot anytime the Minister feels like it. You do know that the Prime Minister has way more power than the Lord Chief Justice, right?

*sings*Citation pleeeaaase!

"The books. As in, all of them". 'Dumbledore is never actually seen doing much in any of his positions' is all through them. We never see him actually do any Chief Warlocking, his Headmaster duties seem to revolve around being the guy who presides at feasts (I mean, God knows it doesn't seem to involve reviewing the staff's in-class performance and correcting irregularities *coughSnapecough*, maintaining high standards of curriculum in all classes *coughTrelawneycough*, or hiring and firing quality staff members *coughBinnscough*, three things you'd think would be on a busy headmaster's to-do list) and occasionally intervening to give Harry house points, and the ICW is totally absent from the plot.

So if you want to show me Dumbledore actually putting in a full days' work at all of them, well, to quote you, 'citation pleaaaaaaaaaase!'

So you're saying that the fact that Harry wasn't peering over Albus's shoulder while he worked proves that Albus didn't actually do anything?

Sounds Legit. /So much Sarcasm.

Except that Hermione was travelling back an hour at a time to attend extra classes, and wasn't allocating extra time for more meals and sleep. Dumbledore could spend a day working in the Headmaster's office (with meal breaks and sleep,) Time-Turn back a whole 24 hours the next day, spend a whole day working at the ICW, and then again at the Ministry. 3 full days for everybody else's one.

Citation pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaase!

Professor Saul Croaker: "As our investigations currently stand, the longest period that may be relived without the possibility of serious harm to the traveller or to time itself is around five hours. We have been able to encase single Hour-Reversal Charms, which are unstable and benefit from containment, in small, enchanted hour-glasses that may be worn around a witch or wizard's neck and revolved according to the number of hours the user wishes to relive." (Sourceottermore.)

So OK, he could only turn every five hours into ten. That's still enough that abuse of it could allow him to work three full-time jobs if he had to.

I'm not saying that he did do that, but he could, so

'I'm not going to say it happened except I will totally base an argument on that's what happened.'

Wow, you really want to be able to claim whatever you want without proving it, don't you.

Did you not notice the use of the word "could" in my sentence? You claim, with no evidence but your own opinions, that Dumbledore had a time managment problem, and I have provided a canonical solution for time management problems that Albus could potentially use if your supposition is correct, which it necessarily isn't.

So now please conclusively prove that Albus Dumbledore had time managment problems so bad that even being able to travel back in time 5 hours, almost 5 times a day (5x5 being 1 more than 24) wasn't enough to solve them.

All true. But Dumbledore didn't own the Ministry building

Irrelevant -- his only need is to destroy or steal the orb before Voldemort can (and leave a decoy behind), which means the only thing he needs to be is 'a guy who can do a B&E before the Death Eaters can'.

And if the Death Eaters can hack those alarms, Dumbledore definitely can -- he's better at magic than any of them. Or anyone.

Oh? Please provide evidence that shows he's better at disarming magical alarms than the Death Eaters, whom we barely know anything about.

While you're at it, seeing as you claim that Dumbledore is "best at Magic!," please cite evidence that he's a better Potioneer than Snape, or a better Curse-Breaker than Bill Weasley, or even a better Arithmancer than Septima Vector.

Dumbledore can't be good at everything, and expecting him to be is silly.

There's also that for years before OotP begins, he had legitimate access to the Ministry building, and at least some amount of favors to trade.

The DoM is a section of the Ministry of Magic that carries out confidential research. Most of its operations are carried out in total secrecy. Hardly any Ministry employees even have the faintest clue about what goes on there.

that's Bode and Croaker...they're Unspeakables...from the Department of Mysteries, top secret, no idea what they get up to..."

Even Arthur, a department head, hasn't got the foggiest clue as to what goes on there. The "Unspeakables" are called that becuase they're forbidden "from discussing their jobs or disclosing any information about their department, hence the name "Unspeakable."

Even the Chief Justice would probably have to recieve a special dispension from the Minister to speak to anyone from the DoM. And Albus probably wouldn't want Fudge (and Lucius through him) to have any knowledge that Albus has displayed any sort of interest in the Department.

Fuck, since his purpose, unlike the Death Eaters, is not harmful to Magical Britain, he could just ask the Unspeakables. Voldemort can't, he's the enemy. Dumbledore is not the enemy.

They probably would have let Dumbledore take Harry in to get it. Doesn't mean that they'll let him just swan off with it.

Remember:

HARRY POTTER: THE CHOSEN ONE?
Rumors continue to fly about the mysterious recent disturbance at the Ministry of Magic, during which He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was sighted once more.

"We're not allowed to talk about it, don't ask me anything" said one agitated Obliviator, who refused to give his name as he left the Ministry last night.

Nevertheless, highly placed sources within the Ministry have confirmed that the disturbance centered on the fabled Hall of Prophecy.

Though Ministry spokes wizards have hitherto refused even to confirm the existence of such a place, a growing number of the Wizarding community believe that the Death Eaters now serving sentences in Azkaban for trespass and attempted theft were attempting to steal a prophecy.

Unspeakable don't even want to admit this place exists. The only way that Dumbledore probably could have gotten into the DoM to destroy the prophecy orb is if he tells an Unspeakable that Voldemort's not dead. And he had no proof.

and thus couldn't act with impunity as a Site Security Manager could. Sturgis and Arthur weren't supposed to be there, and if they'd been caught by an employee that was neither a DE/Pureblood-supremacist or loyal to Dumbledore, they would have been questioned as to what they were doing there/escorted out/fired. Less people = less chance of being caught.

You do realize this is part of the point I'm making, right? Dumbledore cannot rationally expect to be able to guard the thing as it sits in the DoM, because his people have no legitimate access to the building. They're as much intruders as the DEs are.

So what should he do? Tell Fudge?

" Yo, Corny, FYI you might want to up the security around the DoM."

Fudge: "Why?"

Albus: "Well, Voldemort-"

Fudge: "Get out."

So, Dumbledore is in a situation where the DEs only have to be successful burglars once, but Dumbledore's people have to successfully sneak into the place every single night.

That is not a sustainable situation and it gives all the advantage to the enemy. As was repeatedly proven every time they easily took out one of his sentries. Or at the end, when they walked right into the DoM past NO Order guard on the last night of the plot, because you'd think whoever was teh Order guard on duty that night would have said something about Harry being there! Apparently, Dumbledore withdrew all his people after Arthur Weasley went down.

Uh:

Except if this goes wrong

There's a word for generals who never actually advance on the enemy because they're trying to guarantee nothing might go wrong. In fact, there's a phrase. It's called "command paralysis" and its one of the biggest flaws a commander can have.

War is a bunch of calculated risks, dude. If you can't deal with that, don't try to command anything.

Well, holy shit, Dumbledore's plan for the last lap of OotP was 'hey, let's just NOT guard it, and hope that Voldemort doesn't get it?'

... wow. Just wow. Every time I look more at Dumbledore's leadership and planning, it gets worse.

...And? What, should he just not even try? I mean, even if you fail, at least you tried and got some intel out of it.

The DE's couldn't conclusively know that Dumbledore could repeat the tactic

... just stop embarassing yourself.

Hint: If you find one enemy patrolling a particular place, and you know they haven't given up in the interim, you can reasonably expect to find another enemy there the next time you go there. So of COURSE you would be more on alert going back into there.

PS: If they think Dumbledore has changed his deployments, then that's only MORE reason for them to cast 'hominem revalio' on every single corner of the damn room, because they DON'T think they know where the new guy is. Won't they be surprised when they find out '... fuck, Dumbledore didn't even move him? Wow. Make it easy for us, why don't you Albus.'

Doesn't change the fact they need to do something.

If anything it's more a sign of Arthur's bravery for signing up for a job that's become much more dangerous. He's got guts (as Nagini could probably tell you.)

Nobody's questioning Arthur's bravery... just the competence of the guy who put him out there. I mean, one of the tragedies of war is when brave and good men march to their deaths at the hands of idiot commanders who didn't even need to waste their efforts like that.

There's no indication that Albus didn't explicitedly spell out the dangers, only for Arthur to agree to go the mission anyway, due to having the kind of giant brass balls that allowed him to sire seven children. He might not be as deadly with a wand as his wife apparently is, but he's still kind of a badass.

*sigh* Remember what Harry did all those times he was nearly caught under his cloak? He froze and tried to make as little noise as possible.

Yes, and remember that this is when Harry didn't know a silencing charm.

IDK, we have no idea how exactly Sturgis got Imperio'd, but it's probably 'cause he f'd up, not Albus. Maybe he didn't apply a silencing charm because he wasn't an Auror and thus didn't pass the Concealment and Disguise course that Tonks aced, and he's terribad at silent magic so he couldn't do it once Lucius showed up.

Actually, tell you what. Go find a tranparent piece of plastic/cloth, and then experiment to see A; how hard it is to throw it off and point a weapon at someone in one smooth motion, and B; how hard it is to grapple with someone while wearing it.

I don't need to experiment. I already have a canon example of an Invisibility Cloak ambush -- in OotP! The one Lucius and Bellatrix pull on Harry.

Didn't seem to hamper their style any. I guess Voldemort just trains his people better.

Beyond the Veil
Black shapes were emerging out of thin air all around them, blocking their way left and right; eyes glinted through slits in hoods, a dozen lit wand tips were pointing directly at their hearts; Ginny gave a gasp of horror.

I ain't seeing no Demiguise pelts.

So one guy couldn't even get through a door, and was caught and subdued by a security guard, and the other, an employee, fell victim to the spells on the Orb, and ended up in Saint Mungo's, all of his colleagues thinking that he'd just had an accident.

Why exactly would anyone feel that they need to up-grade the security?

You do realize that you just proved my point, right? The DoM visibly is complacent about their security. Even after they get intruders, they don't make any new efforts.

Because the single intruder they know about made almost no progress and was subdued by a night-watchman. If I find a guy trying to break into my house who's been stymied by the front gate, I'm not going to feel the need to change the locks on my front door.

So, if you can hack the existing door locks -- which Dumbledore can --

Please point me to the part in the books where Dumbledore was shown to be a Master Thief, capable of breaking into the most high-security locations. Tom's cave, with the blood thing? 'Cause that was more Tom being sadistic enough to make people cut themselves to gain entrance, and thinking an easily-healed cut would somehow slow his enemies down (IDK why, Tom's a weird guy.)

and if you're not worried about the shelf protections because you don't intend to actually use the orb, just smash it in place -- which Dumbledore would be -- then NOTHING stops you from doing whatever you feel like. Because they have no security beyond those and don't feel the need for any.

Except apparently those security spells are no joke. Maybe even Dumbledore couldn't bypass them, meaning that it would have to be Tom or Harry.

Which security spells, the one on the door or the one on the shelf? Lucius can probably get himself, Bellatrix, and an entire team past the door, so Dumbledore can as well.

And the ones on the shelf doesn't stop you from just smashing an orb with a stray spell, because Bellatrix does that, on-camera, in OotP.

Since Dumbledore only needs to destroy the orb, not pick it up and listen to it, *boom*!

Except that by OoTP he can't even get into the Ministry easily, let alone the DoM. He was a fugitive. If the DoM does have anything like the Thief's Waterfall, he'd be screwed.

As to prior to OoTP, I still think my "If Tom's obsessed with the Prophecy he's not murdering f*ck-tons of muggles" theory is correct, seeing as once learning the Prophecy is no longer an option for Tom, he proceeds to, you guessed it, murder a f*ck-ton of muggles (See chapter 1 of HBP.)

As to Albus not taking Harry into the DoM once Tom showed up possessing Quirrel, I guess the DoM might not want to let an 11 year-old in, and Albus doesn't want Harry wondering what the shiny orb is.

Except that A; the lobby might not have as high security as the rooms further in do, and B; any security measures would have been turned off by the DEs before Harry and co. arrived. So they would be able to hang around Disillusioned.

So, basically, even if there was this security measure, Dumbledore could get past it anyway, because the Death Eaters were able to and he's at least as good as any of them.

So, I'm right.

Citation that Dumbledore could teach a Master Class of Magical B&E, please.

Also, if Lucius placed Bode under the Imperius, what's stopping Malfoy from making Bode tell him exactly how to get into the DoM?

Prove she was as pure as the white snow. All we know about her is that she did her best to make sure Harry's trial was fair, and she was impressed that Harry could cast a corporeal Patronus.

Exactly. Everything we've ever heard or seen her do in canon is consistent with honesty and shows no corruption. So, by your standards of proof that you use for yourself all the time, I've already done my job. For you to claim that she is secretly corrupt, you must have...

*drum roll*

Citation pleaaaaaaaaaase!

And you don't.

Except you're not just claiming that she's innocent and uncorrupted enough to not let a schoolboy be expelled without justification, you're claiming that she's such a pinnacle of integrity that she's willing to risk her job to investigate her boss for evidence of corruption and abuse of power. That's two very different things. If she was that ethical, then why wasn't she willing to join the OotP, or liaise with them, just in case Tom Riddle had returned? Instead there's no indication that she wasn't directing the DLME's attempts to catch Dumbledore during the 2nd half of OotP.

Onus of proof rests on you. Prove it.

Actually, considering that she wasn't a member of the OotP, she probably didn't think that Voldemort had returned, and was shocked and horrified when he turned up to kill her.

Gee, if only somebody had sent his Order people to guard her house too. Or given her a warning. Or, fuck, I dunno, invited her to join the Order. I mean, shit, she was at least as qualified as Molly Weasley was, right? And its not like Dumbledore had any problem recruiting senior Aurors before.

Conclusive evidence that Dumbledore didn't do just that, please.

Harry's eyes were shut, and he didn't hear an Apparition crack or pop. So, uh, no he didn't.

Harry is also in agony from his scar and not alert to his surroundings. Remember, just a few pages later he doesn't hear Voldemort disapparate either when he leaves, for exactly the same reason.

You mean when he was possessed? That's entirely different from Harry just having scar pains. Either way, it doesn't really matter, as Albus was deep in the DoM when Harry ran after Bellatrix, and it's a perfectly logical assumption that you can't Disapparate from or Apparate to the bowels of the DoM, as otherwise, what's stopping the Order or Dumbledore from just warping in to back up Harry and co. instead of bursting through the door?

Continued in next post because I hit the word count limit.

 

[nixofcyzerra]

Part 2, continued from the immediately above post:

No, but it does lend strength to the argument that Dumbledore was the best of the possible options. The best of the options might not be especially impressive, but he's still the best choice.

Irrelevant. I'm arguing 'was he good enough', and saying that he was king of the stupids is only conceding 'no he was not'. Being the least failed is still the same thing as not being a success.

Would you rather have had the "Prince of the Stupids" in charge instead? Because that would almost definitely just result in more deaths. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.

Point. But the idea that Dumbledore can show up, and use the same tactics the DE used, and they wouldn't have some sort of counter, stretches my sense of credibility.

Actually, my point is that the guy on watch inside the Ministry can't expect reinforcements to show up quickly and effectively, given how far out on a limb he is. So, thanks for agreeing with me.

There's still House-elves, which apparently can't be blocked. So we're down to Lucius sending Dobby to Fudge or a DE-sympathetic contact in the Auror office, who immediately assigns a team of Aurors to Apparate over to Malfoy Manor and see what's going down.

That means that Dumbledore has to break through whatever defences Malfoy Manor has, and murder Lucius and Narcissa (who can probably put up at least a bit of a fight considering that Bellatrix deflected one of Albus's spells in OotP despite having only been out of Azakaban for a few months,) erase all of the evidence and leave before the Aurors arrive.

I just don't see it happening.

There's also a word for leaders who rush forward with plans that have a no guarantee of success, and a lot of potential things that could go wrong.

Yeah. "Leaders". Dude, no plan has any guarantee of success. Being in charge means having to take risks, and calculate risks, and weigh risks vs. other risks. But there is only one way to guarantee defeat in war, and that's to do nothing.

Risk is unavoidable. If war was perfectly safe, we wouldn't call it war, we'd call it "peace".

That doesn't mean you risk so much on a plan that has an unamazing chance of success. How is Dumbledore going to kill the philanthropist and personal good friend of Minister Fudge Lucius Malfoy and get away with it, even with Amelia Bones's help, when Lucius sends Dobby to Fudge with the message "Dumbledore's gone nuts and is trying to magically kick our door in, send help!"

Given that 'Dumbledore is afraid of power' is a character trait of his, I can entirely believe that he's so scared of maybe making a mistake that he never takes any risks and instead just sits and waits for things to happen to him. In fact, pretty much everything in the series supports this theory. Here's the thing -- this is bad leadership. Leaders who just sit and wait for the enemy to do all their moves first before they try and play catch-up are exercising 'command paralysis' and 'forfeiting the tactical initiative' and 'letting the enemy get inside their decision loop' and many other things, all of which add up to the same thing -- 'your leadership is failing'.

Finding terrorists is hard, even with a spy. Launching a full assault that allows you to capture some of the grunts and even a few of the inner circle is an accomplishment, true, but not so much when your spy either becomes useless or is tortured to death a few days later.

It's almost impossible for Dumbledore to have any initiative in this war, as he has to play defence. He has to protect people while Voldemort stays mobile, shows up to murder some peeps, and then vanishes into the wind.

Even if, as the next section goes over, Voldemort did take up residence in Malfoy Manor, stopping him from retreating is near impossible. I doubt that he can't dispel Anti-Apparation Jinxes, and even if Dumbledore produces one that he can't tear down, all he has to do is fight his way out of the side of the building that Dumbledore isn't on until he makes it out of the radius of the A-AJ. Plus, at some point he figures out how to fly without a broom, and I doubt the Aurors would have all brought Firebolts.

Really? You'd think that Narcissa would have mentioned it when visiting Spinner's Lance at the start of HBP.

Why should she? Snape already knows where Voldemort is, and its not something she's going to be talking about out loud while visiting a Muggle village. Narcissa might not be a genius, but she's not an idiot.

That can't be the reason, as they have no problem discussing all kinds of stuff there (except for the details of Tom's plan, as he forbade it,) like oh, I don't know, the fact that Draco has been assigned to do something at Hogwarts that he had almost no chance of accomplishing.

And why couldn't Bella have just visited the Manor for the lessons?

Sure, she might have, but when you're a wanted fugitive you want to move around as little as you need to, y'know? Its not a strong possibility.

But a wanted fugitive probably also doesn't want to stay in a house where her sister and nephew, who are both not wanted criminals, live. If anything, you'd expect Bellatrix to be in a hidden safe-house, that Draco regularly visits for Occlumency lessons (while regularly checking to ensure he hadn't been followed, as he was taught in preparation.)

Lucius sends Dobby directly to Fudge before Bones. Fudge tells Dobby to tell the Aurors, and then rushes down the office just in time to hear Amelia's words.

Did Fudge stop and grab a time-turner first? Because you just had him go from his office to Amelia's faster than a house-elf can teleport.

Also, I love how Fudge, the classic idiot Minister, suddenly morphed into a Littlefinger-esque master of political intrigue and clever traps. Seriously, what a fanfic!

OK, fine. Dobby just goes straight to Fudge and then leaves, and Fudge goes huffing and puffing down the Auror office, where he stands over Amelia's shoulder wringing his hands so she can't delay dispatching the Aurors. Unless Dumbledore is also the magical equivalent of Lupin the 3rd, and can dance through any magical security system with the greatest of ease (he breaks into Gringotts on his days off, just to stay in practise!,) I still doubt he'd be able to kill Lucius and Narcissa before the Aurors arrive.

So then he has to ensured that the Aurors will look the other way beforehand, and ensure that they won't blab/betray him/get drunk and start talking, and before you know it it's gotten so complex that something almost has to go wrong.

Also, Fudge immediately replying to Amelia was essentially a synopsis, to demonstrate that she could easily get caught after the fact. Unless you thought that Amelia actually would tell Dobby that she was washing her hair in that situation.

And Fudge isn't even portrayed to be a horribly incompetent politician in the books (unless you count owling the Chief Justice for advice,) just corrupt, and A; not able to outwit Albus, and B; terrified enough at the thought of LV returning that he goes into denial.

Keep in mind everyone thought Tom was dead, and then Harry suddenly shows up, dead body in tow, claiming that he's come back to life. And this is almost right after the Newspaper had an article where Harry was described as a disturbed, dangerous, attention seeker, including a quote from the son of his trusted advisor.

What does this mean, and how does someone display the results of a mind-probe in court?

Answer: "I used Legilimency to get it out of Morfin's brain and then put my own pensieve memory of doing so in the bowl."

Edit: re: 'huge stone bowl', now that I think about it, he could have put a memory in a vial and just carried it back to his office, yes. Of course, if you can pull pensieve memories out of someone's brain against their will like that, and have them put into the legal record, then you don't even need to use Legilimency in court to get evidence of someone's hidden thoughts into the record, which is all Dumbedore needs to do. So, different road, leads to the same destination, my point is made anyway.

Except that how are they supposed to ascertain that the memory is real, and not a fabrication or even a delusion?

Except Albus trusts Snape completely. He trusts Snape with Harry's head. It's possible that there were plenty of people in Dumbledore's circles that did know Occlumency, but he wasn't about to trust another person with Harry's brain when Snape already knows so much vital intel.

Yes, because Dumbledore doesn't trust his other Order members with Harry's life? Wow, why did he assign them to guard Harry's house then?

Snape's there, knows the art incredibly well seeing as he frequently lies to LV's face, Dumbledore can't teach Harry himself in case Harry suddenly comes down with a nasty case of possession, and all the other Order members probably have important jobs to be getting on with and aren't just sitting around twiddling his thumbs.

Plus Snape comes with a pre-made excuse (remedial Potions lessons.)

So I guess it's not that obscure. Slughorn, Draco, Sirius was thought to probably know it, Lupin lied to both Dumbledore and Snape in book 3, etc.

The Ministry also thought that Sirius was Voldemort's lieutenant. Of course they think he knows Occlumency. Voldemort could have taught him. Note that Voldemort's real lieutenant, Bellatrix, actually DOES know Occlumency.

Slughorn. He knows it and he's a retired teacher. If he knows it, it's probably not that rare or obscure.

Does Bagnold have records?

Records of political corruption are a very common thing, seeing as how pretty much every successful corruption investigation relies on finding them, so, yes, we can reasonably presume that she has records. For about the same reason we can reasonably presume that she eats food and goes to the bathroom.

So, records of what exactly? Bank statements? Do Gringott's even do those?

And you realise you're talking about Albus breaking into the home of the Minister of Magic and falsifying evidence, right? He's a Schoolteacher, not a Cat Burglar or a Forger!

He's also the greatest wizard alive and can do pretty much anything that's possible for magic to do, and make it look easy. 'Albus the humble schoolteacher' is a pose.

Citation please. No-one can be good at everything.

PS: Straw-man again. Nobody's talking about him falsifying evidence. Its real evidence -- the only thing he's lying about is exactly how he found out where the Minister was hiding it.

It's generating evidence like paperwork that isn't genuine. Even if it's 100% accurate, it's still technically forging evidence and a crime.

Plus, of course, in canon Dumbledore was totally willing to falsify evidence, or have his people to do so. And his people were able to do so, very competently. So I guess he IS a forger. Or at least, knows one.

You mean when Shacklebolt modified Marietta's memory? That would be more suppressing evidence than falsifying, and the alternative was Harry being expelled and bring an easy target for Death Eaters. To be frank, Harry's life was in the balance. Also, apparently you can only break Memory charms through torture (which kind of makes me wonder why they aren't used more.)

And what if Bagnold's defence demands that memories of finding the records be presented?

Since that'll only be legal the day after they make it mandatory to give Veritaserum to witnesses, what's the worry?

OK, what if Bagnold's defence simply claims that Dumbledore falsified the evidence, and he is asked by the court to prove he didn't?

 

[atlas_hugged]

Bringing it way back:

reckless disregard for safety of self or others; (Does fluffy wring a bell? TriWiz? etc etc)

Does this change at all in a society where reckless abandon is the norm? I don't know if we can count this against dumbledore, when most adult wizards seemed to be this way.

 

[Chuckg]

Look, it's very simple. The books state that Dumbledore is intelligent and a relatively good leader.

No, they don't. Characters within the books state that, in their opinion, Dumbledore is intelligent and a very good leader. That is your failing. You are not drawing the distinction between authorial voice and character voice.

In case you haven't noticed, Rowling has a lot of her characters believe things that turn out not to actually be true.

It's widely-held opinion in the books and word of JK has confirmed it in the past.

No she hasn't. The only thing I remember her saying is that Dumbledore was an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable wizard, skilled in many forms of magic and languages.

Which is the truth and I haven't denied it. Magically, the dude is shit hot.

However, that has nothing to do with his leadership skills. The world is full of people who are book-smart, but not wise. Dumbledore's one of them.

Ergo, for you to claim otherwise, you have the onus of proof. You have to conclusively show that Dumbledore failed when someone else available could have succeeded.

Oh, I've proven it repeatedly. I've entirely suggested simple and effective courses of action.

You've ignored them, twisted them all out of shape into arguments unrecognizable to their original poster, made up legions of things totally not in canon to 'explain' why they wouldn't work, and in general argued in bad faith.

But that doesn't change the fact I made them, they exist, and you have never logically refuted them.

You're arguing that Dumbledore f'ed up in regards to the Sirius situation

Yup!

and failed to reach a certain standard of competence.

The basics of good combat command are known to anybody with any real military training at all, and Dumbledore's behavior doesn't qualify as any of them. He's purely reactive in posture, he's paralyzed by even the slightest amount of risk, he routinely asks his people to undergo ordeals and stresses that he himself shrinks away from, and over and over he's placed his people into situations where he could not effectively support them and only pure luck, miracles, or the heroic efforts of other people that he didn't plan on, saved their lives.

Also, the casualty rate among his troops is so fearfully high that you'd have a statistically better chance of living in the Soviet army minefield-clearing teams. Of World War II.

So, yeah. I have 'proved' all of the above because they all actually happened in the books. Those Order members are canonically dead, those other ones were all fucked up, and you yourself have already agreed that Dumbledore backed away from a lot of things that might have worked better to spare himself "EMOTIONAL TRAUMA", or because of risks.

I have the easy job, as I'm arguing in the defense of canon.

*dies laughing*

Is that why you wrote more fanon than any two of me put together?

Fact: Sirius resents Crouch Senior for failing to give him a trial.

Fact: Sirius shows no sign of blaming Dumbledore.

Fact: All this proves is that Sirius doesn't blame Dumbledore, not that Dumbledore is innocent. Since Sirius already has a character trait of not thinking things through and having blind faith in his friends, this proves nothing except that Sirius is not 100% infallible either.

I mean, your entire logic relies on the part where the amount of blame someone gets publicly and the actual degree of their guilt or innocence are always one and the same.

In Magical Britain, where that is epically not true.

Fact: After Halloween of 1981, the Order of the Phoenix was temporarily disbanded due to the apparent lack of any further threat.

"Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters — and many of them are almost as terrible as he — were still at large, angry, desperate, and violent. And I had to make my decision too with regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone forever? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty, or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you."

(emphasis mine)

-- Albus Dumbledore

This is Albus Dumbledore, saying out loud that even as far back as mere hours after Voldemort's death, he was already certain that Voldemort would return. That he was sure Voldemort would do so.

So...

Fact: Albus Dumbledore disbanded the Order of the Phoenix at a time when he was still sure that Voldemort's threat had not been permanently dealt with.

I think we just got somemore of that canon proof of Albus making dumb decisions that you wanted, dude.

Fact: According to Pottermore, a canonical source (deal with it,) the Council of Magical Law was the court which tried most Death Eaters, including Crouch Junior.

Fact: According to Goblet of Fire (an even more canonical source), Albus Dumbledore was in that court too. Because there he is, sitting right there in the pensieve memory, participating in Death Eater trials in multiple roles. As judge for some, as observer for others, giving expert witness testimony for yet others...

Conclusion: Sirius's fate was decided in the lower courts (Crouch chucked him into Azkaban without a trial,) and never actually reached the Wizengamot (and Dumbledore's desk.)

Conclusion: You're ignoring basic canon.

Supposition: Dumbledore had no desire to participate in the trial of someone who had apparently betrayed him when there was overwhelming evidence that said someone was guilty, and thus was not a member of the council that arranged or oversaw (or would have overseen) Sirius's trial. Ergo, Dumbledore actually wasn't even aware that Sirius didn't get a trial.

Corollary: This supposition would make Dumbledore ignorant of the goings-on of his own court system, which he is a senior official of, which is itself a failure of responsibility.

Now, either conclusively prove that Dumbledore had an obligation regarding Sirius and failed to live up to it

As a judge, he has an obligation under habeas corpus to ensure that any man accused of a crime either receives a fair trial for that crime, or is otherwise released or plea-bargained or etc. under due process of law. That's the British Common Law as it dates back to fucking 1640... which, you will note, predates the Statute of Secrecy, which is the date that the wizarding legal system diverged from the muggle.

So, since Sirius did not get a trial, therefore habeas corpus was violated, and both Barty Sr. and any judge who was aware of this having happened at all is guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.

PS: Habeas corpus was also violated for Hagrid, right in front of Dumbledore, and he did nothing.

or conclusively disprove, or cast reasonable doubt upon, my supposition.

I already have, and just did again, but I'm sure you're going to ignore something as basic as the Common Law.

Well, no. I'm just poking holes in your arguments and casting reasonable doubt upon them.

So, basically, one standard of evidence for me and a completely different one for thee.

Part of my process for doing so is devising possible scenarios that could have potentially occured off-screen.

IOW, you get to make up whatever you want and I have to prove it didn't happen, but I don't get to speculate on anything without first proving it 200%.

Wow, blatant double standard there.

Y'know what? I don't think its even worth responding to the rest of your stuff line-by-line, its just more repetitions of the same. Especially not since you went on and on for two whole posts, which means I really need to start cutting this for length before it explodes.

So, let's start summarizing...

* 'Dumbledore doesn't do it for every case, so why should he know about Sirius' case!'

Gee, I dunno, how's about the part where Dumbledore's testimony was the main thing that got Sirius arrested in the first place? After all, Dumbledore is the guy who said that Sirius was the Secret-Keeper.

"An immensely complex spell," he said squeakily, "involving the magical concealment of a secret inside a single, living soul. The information is hidden inside the chosen person, or Secret-Keeper, and is henceforth impossible to find — unless, of course, the Secret-Keeper chooses to divulge it. As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who could search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their sitting-room window!"

"So Black was the Potters’ Secret-Keeper?" whispered Madam Rosmerta.

"Naturally," said Professor McGonagall. "James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were, that Black was planning to go into hiding himself . . . and yet, Dumbledore remained worried. I remember him offering to be the Potters’ Secret-Keeper himself."

-- Prisoner of Azkaban

Of course, James was giving Dumbledore the cover story, not the real one. But the point is, Dumbledore is the person who fingered Sirius Black as the Secret-Keeper.

So, if Dumbledore was involved enough in the case to be the guy tipping the Aurors off that Sirius was the person who needed to be arrested, then how the shitting FUCK can anyone seriously claim that Dumbledore was ignorant of Sirius' never actually getting a trial. Dumbledore's the guy who first put out the warrant! What, does he just arraign people and then stop paying attention to whether or not a trial phase actually exists? This is epic judge fail!

The simple knowledge that 'Sirius never had a trial' should have motivated Dumbledore to go get him one, regardless of whether he thought he was guilty or not, because 'everyone gets their chance in court' is a basic duty of any judge ever in any vaguely British law system.

That's all I need.

* You claim that the plan has an 'unamazing' chance of success. You haven't actually shown anything of the kind, given that all your failure scenarios rely on people being far more competent than they've ever shown in canon, abusing coincidence to a ludicrous degree, and in one hilarious instance, actually violating linear time. You need to do more work before you can claim this one as a fact.

PS: You also face the obstacle that this exact same general plan was successfully used in the canon background multiple times -- by the Death Eaters. After all, I based the whole thing on the classic Death Eater home invasion tactic from the first war in the first place. If it's so 'unamazing', how did they pull it off so many times? Are Death Eaters just that much smarter than everyone else? I think not!

* Oh, BTW, Dobby doesn't even work for Lucius after book 2. But OK, fine, we'll say Lucius got himself another house elf. He can afford it, and he damn sure ain't gonna clean his own house.

But hey, I know! We can ask Dobby to go block that house-elf and slow him down! I'm sure he'd be up for that.

Shit, Hogwarts has a few hundred house elves that work for Dumbledore. Man, that Malfoy house-elf is gonna get dogpiled.

* Elphias Doge's obituary for Dumbledore -- you know, the guy who you used as an absolute source when it was convenient for you over things as abstract as 'Dumbledore's entire career', but who is probably going to mysteriously be not good enough when I use him for something as simple as 'Dumbledore's magical history' -- says that Dumbledore conducted brilliant and groundbreaking research in multiple fields of magic, including transfiguration, potions, charms, and alchemy. From the books themselves we have his accomplishments in DADA, given that he defeated Grindelwald and made Voldemort flee to avoid defeat repeatedly. He also demonstrated brilliance beyond anyone else in mind magic, was able to understand Parseltongue and Mermish despite not being a Parseltongue, and pretty much showed that he was kick-ass in any form of magic he attempted.

So yes, the claim 'Dumbledore is a goddamn fucking archmage that can do pretty much anything known with magic' is kinda well sourced.

Shit, we've got an even firmer testimony. We know how brilliant Tom Riddle is, right? How much rare and hidden magic of all kinds he knows? Well, Dumbledore's the guy who's better than Tom at magic, to the point where he's the only one Tom ever feared. That's also canon.

So yeah, I think asking me to prove that Dumbledore is an awesomely talented and knowledgeable wizard is kinda not necessary.

* Occlumency is a magical art based on controlling your emotions. More than any other teacher in Hogwarts or any other member of the Order, Snape pisses off Harry just by being in the room -- and likewise, Harry pisses off Snape. Assigning the two people who hate each other the most to work on a joint project involving mastering emotional control is about as smart as assigning Bellatrix Lestrange to work in an orphanage for muggleborns.

Speaking of Bellatrix, I find it hilarious that she can teach Draco Malfoy enough Occlumency to block out Snape in only two months, but Snape can't teach Harry a single damn thing in six months. When neither Draco or Bellatrix are exactly poster children for emotional control, being a temper-tantrum throwing spoiled brat and a psychopathic madwoman respectively. Either Draco is so awesome and Harry is so stupid (I think not), or else Snape's really not that good at teaching Occlumency, even if he's awesome at doing Occlumency.

Which is kinda like Snape and Potions, for that matter. Shit-hot at knowing his potions... not so good at actually communicating that knowledge to students. (Slughorn's NEWT class had 12 people in it. 12. Out of Harry's entire year, only twelve people made EE or better on their Potions OWLs... and fuck, at least three of them (the Trio) only passed because of Hermione's tutoring, because Lord knows Snape didn't give them any help. That doesn't look good at all.)

* re: Marietta -- yeah, there's the thing, I mentioned that. Dumbledore is provably willing to bend a shit ton of rules to keep Harry from being arrested, interfere in any # of trials, tamper with any amount of evidence. If it's Harry. But he doesn't do anything remotely resembling that for anybody else who works for him. Not Hagrid. (Who, unlike Sirius, he KNEW was innocent.) Not anyone.

Does Dumbledore only care about his people based on how much use they are to his plans, and not about 'well, they were loyal to me so I owe them back, even if there's nothing in it for me'? Wow, that's cold, Albus. Ice cold.

* Slughorn also knows about Horcruxes. He's the guy who taught Tom about them in the first place. Horcruxes are the rarest form of Dark magick ever. Even fucking Dumbledore had to study up on Horcruxes specially before he could analyze them. So yeah, Slughorn knowing Occlumency doesn't prove that its common knowledge. Slughorn, in canon, has a fuckton of UN-common knowledge about the Dark Arts and other stuff.

In fact, 'the only people who know Occlumency were wizards known for researching really obscure shit, or people who were taught by such wizards', is a recurring pattern. Dumbledore, one of the world's greatest living magical researchers in his time, knew Occlumency and taught Snape. Tom, the guy only slightly less awesome of a wizard behind Dumbledore, knew Occlumency and taught Bellatrix, who taught Draco. And I dunno who the hell Slughorn learned from but he was also into researching seriously obscure shit at one time, so, pattern consistent.

* Kinda hard to go with the 'those records are false!' claim when they are actually in her handwriting, and could be confirmed by, oh, checking her bank statements. Or questioning the person who paid her the bribes. I mean, Dumbledore actually has physical evidence there in his hand, and all she'd have is 'I claim that this is all fake! Who are you going to believe, me, or the testimony of two famous Aurors and the Defeater of Grindelwald?'

 

[Chuckg]

Does this change at all in a society where reckless abandon is the norm? I don't know if we can count this against dumbledore, when most adult wizards seemed to be this way.

My take is that saying that someone's behavior is awful because of culture doesn't actually change that his behavior is awful, it just gives a different reason for being awful.

Add: Also, old and mature adults have less ability to use 'my culture told me to!' as an excuse for bad behavior than children do. Children, after all, are only old enough to know what they've been taught. Its grown-ups who are supposed to have, y'know, grown up, and started having independent thoughts and be able to overcome early conditioning and look at things with a wider, more worldly viewpoint. And elders like Dumbledore are supposed to have more life experience and perspective even than young adults...

I mean, a fictional alien might come from a culture where he's been raised to believe that eating people is perfectly normal behavior, but that don't change the part where if he walks around mainstream 21st century Earth eating people he's going to run into a LOT of social disapproval.

 

[Altered Nova]

Aren't wizards, like, way tougher than normal humans are, and tend to instinctively protect themselves from non-magical harm with magic? I mean, Neville's family dropped him out a window as a toddler and he bounced! It could be that many of those things that we would classify as "reckless disregard for the safety of others" aren't actually particularly reckless or unsafe to witches and wizards.

 

[Cynical Kyle]

Aren't wizards, like, way tougher than normal humans are, and tend to instinctively protect themselves from non-magical harm with magic? I mean, Neville's family dropped him out a window as a toddler and he bounced! It could be that many of those things that we would classify as "reckless disregard for the safety of others" aren't actually particularly reckless or unsafe to witches and wizards.

Pretty much this. Even Hagrid laughs at the absurdity of Potters dying in car crash, and Quidditch isn't too easy on the body either since it involves getting hit by cannonballs flying at high speeds and they regularly re-attach split limbs from teleportation accidents in addition to vastly greater longevity.

While I share your views about cultural relativism in real life Chuck, I tend to give more leeway in fictional settings where they have access to things we don't. Technology shapes cultural norms (mobile phones bringing in the idea of constant availability, recent stigma associated with not using popular social media services like facebook) so something as versatile as magic is bound to create immense differences.

You also shouldn't minmax the setting too much as at it's heart it's pretty light-hearted children's story turned into teen fantasy. Any OWL's student that knows Apparation, Notice-me-not/Disillusionment and some clever transfigurations or flat-out magical poisons could become immensely destructive bio-terrorist by ruining water supplies of major cities. Is every villain in the setting hopelessly incompetent for not thinking about that? Rowling's writing is like swiss cheese: you should be able to enjoy it despite the vast number of holes involved. I'm pretty sure that cases could be made for every character in the book for several standards of incompetency and banal evils if you're willing to ignore spirit of the books and interpret their written words as zealously as fundamentalists do to their sacred texts. But is there really point in that?

 

[Ashaman]

Which is kinda like Snape and Potions, for that matter. Shit-hot at knowing his potions... not so good at actually communicating that knowledge to students. (Slughorn's NEWT class had 12 people in it. 12. Out of Harry's entire year, only twelve people made EE or better on their Potions OWLs... and fuck, at least three of them (the Trio) only passed because of Hermione's tutoring, because Lord knows Snape didn't give them any help. That doesn't look good at all.)

12 out of about 40, which is better than one in 4.

Of course, this is ignoring that these are electives. Harry and Ron wanted to take Potions because its a requirement for their wanted career path.

While I am sure some people who wanted to continue it didn't make the grade, its equally possible people did make the grade but chose not to continue with it.

Hate Snape all you want, but there is no actual empirical evidance in the books that he's a shit teacher.

 

[Shirotsume]

Are you fucking kidding me Ashaman. Do the words 'I see no difference' have any meaning to you?

Snape should have been shitcanned the fucking second he couldn't get over his daddy issues. Another problem to lay at Dumbledore's feet.

 

[TC_Hazard]

Hate Snape all you want, but there is no actual empirical evidance in the books that he's a shit teacher.

Actually, we know at least Neville is utterly shit at potions because Snape scares the crap out of him. I'm pretty sure we get at least one quote where it turns out he does well enough if Snape isn't in the same room.

Edit:

As an aside, it should be added Snape only took Os to his NEWT class. Harry only got in because Slughorn only required EE which means the actual number of people who would have gotten to Snape's NEWT class is... considerably less than the 12 Slughorn took in. Assuming Hermione had a O (Pretty sure she did), she'd have been the only Gryffindor to get in in her year.

 

[Chuckg]

While I share your views about cultural relativism in real life Chuck, I tend to give more leeway in fictional settings where they have access to things we don't. Technology shapes cultural norms (mobile phones bringing in the idea of constant availability, recent stigma associated with not using popular social media services like facebook) so something as versatile as magic is bound to create immense differences.

I might point out that one of the cultural norms that visibly *isn't* affected by technology is willingness to suffer personal injury. We can heal lots of wounds that would result in certain death by infection in earlier centuries, but people are no less upset about being shot or stabbed in the 21st century than they were in the 16th.

Lots of things change with culture. "How much pain hurts" ain't one of them. And wizards do suffer pain trauma just like normal people to (just ask the Longbottoms -- if you can), they just recover from it faster. Yeah, well, 'I'll get out of the hospital from it faster' doesn't change 'but right now JESUS FUCK AAGGGGGHHHH'. Wizards die slower, and heal faster, but neither of those changes that what's painful to me is equally as painful to thee... and its the pain that is the most immediate concern re: "how much do I want to jam my hand into this"?

I mean, shit, dude, have you ever actually broken a bone? I have, and I don't care if you could heal it with a magic wand in three minutes instead of the three weeks I spent in a cast. I would still NEVER want to go through that shit again if I didn't have to. Because it wasn't the three weeks in the cast that was the worst part -- that was just tedious. The worst part was the three minutes right after I broke the fucking thing because JESUS CHRIST AGONY AGONY AGONY.

So yeah, I've never bought 'magical healing means they wouldn't care'. Not everybody gets hurt right in front of Madam Pomfrey, and the wait for the first aid to arrive and the painkillers to kick in can be a goddamn eternity sometimes.

You also shouldn't minmax the setting too much as at it's heart it's pretty light-hearted children's story turned into teen fantasy.

Eh, no. It becomes pretty goddamn grim adult fantasy starting around OotP. I mean, fuck, people die all over, people get tortured, book 7 has people being put into death camps... it about as 'teen fantasy' as the Diary of Anne Frank up in this piece.

Any OWL's student that knows Apparation, Notice-me-not/Disillusionment and some clever transfigurations or flat-out magical poisons could become immensely destructive bio-terrorist by ruining water supplies of major cities. Is every villain in the setting hopelessly incompetent for not thinking about that?

If their goal is 'destroy the non-magical world', then yes, because by definition competence is "how successfully you can apply available resources towards success in your chosen goal". Anybody who walks right past an easy way to accomplish their goal to take a much harder or more complicated way, if the other way would work at least as well and be far less involved to accomplish, is not competent by definition.

If their goal is something else, then no, because how easily they can fuck up Muggles is not relevant to their progress if their goal is, oh, taking over wizarding society or something.

It's like, if my goal is to destroy a city, and I have a nuclear bomb, and I have nothing else stopping me from using it, then I'm an idiot for not just dropping the bomb. But if my goal is to, oh, conquer a city, then I can have all the nukes in the world and it still doesn't matter -- I can't conquer a radioactive crater, so, I'm not incompetent for not using my nukes. I need to raise an army, not get a bomb. And If my goal isn't destruction or conquest, but something else entirely, then armies and bombs are irrelevant to me and I need to focus my efforts on, well, whatever it is I *am* trying to do.

tldr; 'Are you competent at what you are doing' depends on 'so, what ARE you doing?'.

Rowling's writing is like swiss cheese: you should be able to enjoy it despite the vast number of holes involved.

Sure, if you want. And I am enormously grateful that you at least admit that there's a vast # of holes involved... because the average HP fan arguments that I get into, the opposing side is so desperately (and angrily) shouting at me that the writing has no holes.

Which, ahahahahahahahahahaha, no.

I'm a lot more forgiving if someone goes 'I acknowledge this thing's flaws but I still like it' than I am if I run into 'shut up shut up SHUT UP IT HAS NO FLAWS IT IS PERFECT AND TOTALLY MAKES SENSE HOW DARE YOU'.

... sorry, Lord Raine flashback. But yeah, you get what I mean.

I'm pretty sure that cases could be made for every character in the book for several standards of incompetency and banal evils if you're willing to ignore spirit of the books and interpret their written words as zealously as fundamentalists do to their sacred texts.

... ok, now you're starting to backslide here. And we were doing so well.

 

[Chuckg]

12 out of about 40, which is better than one in 4.

And that's after Slughorn lowered the grade from 'O only' to 'O and EE'. Snape's own NEWT class would have been even smaller. And probably all Slytherin, with maybe a couple of token Ravenclaws.

Of course, this is ignoring that these are electives.

Actually, it isn't. If you're going to go with the theory that a lot more people could have gotten into NEWT Potions than actually wanted to, all you've said is "Snape is really good at killing interest in his chosen subject"... because that's what it would mean, that a lot of people dropped out of Potions class the instant it stopped being mandatory. As compared to, oh, McGonagall, who had people like Neville begging to get into their NEWT class even when they didn't have the grades to qualify.

Which again is not a sign of a good teacher, if people are that desperate to get out of the subject. (And then they come back and find out he's teaching DADA now. I'm sure they were epically thrilled.)

Hate Snape all you want, but there is no actual empirical evidance in the books that he's a shit teacher.

Dude, Snape in the books -- on-camera and explicitly in canon -- has been seen:

* Personally insulting and harassing students because he didn't like who their parents were
* Deliberately destroying a student's work and then claiming he didn't turn it in, so he could flunk him
* Taking a student's personal property by claiming that it violated a school rule that didn't even exist, and never giving it back
* Watching a student seriously injure himself in class and not even bothering to take the kid to the nurse's office, but instead sending him off with another first-year student -- who would barely even know where the nurse's office was, this being their first week of classes in Hogwarts -- to get there on their own. (This is particularly bad because in a later book Snape watched a student suffer a far more minor injury, but was very careful to walk that kid to the nurse's office himself. Of course, /that/ kid was a Slytherin. Oh yeah, and at the same time he left another hexed student behind. But that was a Gryffindor. Bleargh.)
* Choosing to allow some students to be late to class without an authorized absence or a written note from a staff member, while punishing other students for being late to class even /with/ a written note from another teacher.

Any ONE of these can get a teacher fired in any normal school system that is not corrupt. Snape does ALL of these, ALL THE TIME, and nothing.

We not only have empirical evidence that the guy is a shit teacher, we have empirical evidence of him committing things that are actually violations of real-world academic ethics, and not just poor classroom performance.

Of course, its pretty obvious that the educational system of Magical Britain doesn't remotely share the same ethical standards that a real-world school system would, but that just goes in the column of 'Snape is getting away with bad shit', not 'Bad shit isn't actually bad'.

 

[TC_Hazard]

Aren't wizards, like, way tougher than normal humans are, and tend to instinctively protect themselves from non-magical harm with magic? I mean, Neville's family dropped him out a window as a toddler and he bounced! It could be that many of those things that we would classify as "reckless disregard for the safety of others" aren't actually particularly reckless or unsafe to witches and wizards.

Well, that and, by canon, many wizards don't do common sense.

I mean, the school is called Hogwarts of all things.

There is an inherent and intended element of silliness in the wizard world.

 

[Chuckg]

Well, that and, by canon, many wizards don't do common sense.

Dear God, ain't that the truth.

There is an inherent and intended element of silliness in the wizard world.

I prefer the term "stupidity" in this instance. Silliness often requires intelligence and forethought to pull off properly -- just ask a circus clown.

 

[nixofcyzerra]

Look, it's very simple. The books state that Dumbledore is intelligent and a relatively good leader.

No, they don't. Characters within the books state that, in their opinion, Dumbledore is intelligent and a very good leader. That is your failing. You are not drawing the distinction between authorial voice and character voice.

In case you haven't noticed, Rowling has a lot of her characters believe things that turn out not to actually be true.

So now you're claiming that every single non-antagonistic character in the entire series was wrong about Dumbledore, and that JK wrote it that way intentionally.

I have no words.

It's widely-held opinion in the books and word of JK has confirmed it in the past.

No she hasn't. The only thing I remember her saying is that Dumbledore was an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable wizard, skilled in many forms of magic and languages.

JK on Dumbledore:

"If I could choose to introduce anyone in the world to Dumbledore for a good, long chat -- it's a difficult question and I have mulled it over at length. I have considered world leaders, who may benefit from some of his calm wisdom..."

JK flat-out states that Dumbledore's leadership skills are good enough that real-life world leaders could benefit from his advice.

Which is the truth and I haven't denied it. Magically, the dude is shit hot.

However, that has nothing to do with his leadership skills. The world is full of people who are book-smart, but not wise. Dumbledore's one of them.

OK, let's talk about what makes a good leader. Actually, let's see what ten qualities Forbes Magazine claims makes a good leader:

Honesty, Ability to Delegate, Communication, Sense of Humor, Confidence, Commitment, Positive Attitude, Creativity, Intuition, and Ability to Inspire

But, hey, what does Forbes, a magazine that publishes articles about, finance, industry, investing, and marketing know about war?

There are dozens of personal traits that can affect leadership and some, namely integrity and character, that are absolute. But in my years of experience, I have observed that the ways leaders develop and deploy the eight know-hows are especially influenced by a handful of them: ambition, drive and tenacity, self-confidence, psychological openness, realism and an insatiable appetite for learning.

Wisdom
Credibility
Benevolence
Courage
Discipline

...Apparently a lot!

We've been discussing Dumbedore's strategic and tactical abilities, or, as you argue, their lack thereof, but strategic abilities aren't even a strict requirement in leadership, if a leader has a subordinate with excellent strategic/tactical abilities.

Tell you what, let's take another example of a leader, from a manga, Uzumaki Naruto. He's become Hokage by the last chapter. However, although he's displayed impressive tactical ability by developing unorthodox plans mid-fight, he's never been shown to be a strategic mastermind. But that doesn't matter, because one of his Advisers, Nara Shikamaru, had been shown to be a Ninja Sun Tzu himself, having a record of coming up with masterful strategies and tactics based on limited information.

The most important trait a leader must have is the ability to inspire people and win their loyalty. Naruto's got so much charisma he sometimes sweats the excess out his pores, and as long as he's willing to listen to those who have superior strategic ability, and well, others in general, he'll be a fantastic Hokage.

So, how good was Dumbledore's ability to inspire people and earn their loyalty again? Oh, yeah, that's right, frigging amazing.

Ergo, for you to claim otherwise, you have the onus of proof. You have to conclusively show that Dumbledore failed when someone else available could have succeeded.

Oh, I've proven it repeatedly. I've entirely suggested simple and effective courses of action.

Uh, no you haven't. Not the second part. You've just talked about how you would do better. Which kind of makes you a REMF.

You've ignored them, twisted them all out of shape into arguments unrecognizable to their original poster, made up legions of things totally not in canon to 'explain' why they wouldn't work, and in general argued in bad faith.

But that doesn't change the fact I made them, they exist, and you have never logically refuted them.

I spent, like, 80% of my last (double) post asking you to provide conclusive proof for your arguments. And instead, you're just claiming that my arguments were poor. I'm starting to find it more and more amusing that you were the one to accuse me of having no idea how to debate.

You're arguing that Dumbledore f'ed up in regards to the Sirius situation

Yup!

and failed to reach a certain standard of competence.

The basics of good combat command are known to anybody with any real military training at all, and Dumbledore's behavior doesn't qualify as any of them. He's purely reactive in posture, he's paralyzed by even the slightest amount of risk, he routinely asks his people to undergo ordeals and stresses that he himself shrinks away from, and over and over he's placed his people into situations where he could not effectively support them and only pure luck, miracles, or the heroic efforts of other people that he didn't plan on, saved their lives.

Also, the casualty rate among his troops is so fearfully high that you'd have a statistically better chance of living in the Soviet army minefield-clearing teams. Of World War II.

So, yeah. I have 'proved' all of the above because they all actually happened in the books. Those Order members are canonically dead, those other ones were all fucked up, and you yourself have already agreed that Dumbledore backed away from a lot of things that might have worked better to spare himself "EMOTIONAL TRAUMA", or because of risks.

It's damn near impossible to be proactive when fighting terrorists, which, considering the problems the real world has had in the recent past, I would think you would be aware of. Please cite how Dumbledore is paralysed by risk, when you yourself earlier argued about Dumbledore sending Arthur Weasley to guard the DoM entrance was too risky, and Dumbledore went on at least one solo mission to retrieve a Horcux, and only took Harry as back-up on another. Also, as you yourself said, "War is hell." Sometimes you have to send your men on dangerous missions.

I have the easy job, as I'm arguing in the defense of canon.

*dies laughing*

Is that why you wrote more fanon than any two of me put together?

Well, yeah. The very definition of fanon is "a set of theories based on material which, while they generally seem to be the "obvious" or "only" interpretation of canonical fact, are not actually part of the canon."

I can throw as much fanon as I want at you, to explain what appear to be plot holes, in order to resolve anything that can be seen as a contradiction between the Dumbledore's characterisation and his actions.

I don't have to prove anything. I just have disprove or throw reasonable doubt on your theories.

Fact: Sirius resents Crouch Senior for failing to give him a trial.

Fact: Sirius shows no sign of blaming Dumbledore.

Fact: All this proves is that Sirius doesn't blame Dumbledore, not that Dumbledore is innocent. Since Sirius already has a character trait of not thinking things through and having blind faith in his friends, this proves nothing except that Sirius is not 100% infallible either.

So your argument is now that Sirius is so dumb that, despite having almost 3 years (start of book 3 to end of book 5) to think about it, he doesn't realise that he should blame Dumbledore, instead of him actually being aware that he shouldn't really blame Dumbledore? Based on the fact that he gets emotional when people he cares about are in danger and he trusts his friends (except Lupin that one time, remember?)

That's just... wow.

Fact: After Halloween of 1981, the Order of the Phoenix was temporarily disbanded due to the apparent lack of any further threat.

"Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters — and many of them are almost as terrible as he — were still at large, angry, desperate, and violent. And I had to make my decision too with regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone forever? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty, or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you."

(emphasis mine)

-- Albus Dumbledore

This is Albus Dumbledore, saying out loud that even as far back as mere hours after Voldemort's death, he was already certain that Voldemort would return. That he was sure Voldemort would do so.

So...

Fact: Albus Dumbledore disbanded the Order of the Phoenix at a time when he was still sure that Voldemort's threat had not been permanently dealt with.

I think we just got somemore of that canon proof of Albus making dumb decisions that you wanted, dude.

HE HAD NO PROOF! Voldemort was in a house that blew the FUCK up. In book 1, wizards are parting in the streets and are apparently coming dangerously close to breaking the Statute of Secrecy. How exactly is Dumbledore supposed to keep the OotP together based on what's currently nothing more than a hunch to him?

Fact: According to Pottermore, a canonical source (deal with it,) the Council of Magical Law was the court which tried most Death Eaters, including Crouch Junior.

Fact: According to Goblet of Fire (an even more canonical source), Albus Dumbledore was in that court too. Because there he is, sitting right there in the pensieve memory, participating in Death Eater trials in multiple roles. As judge for some, as observer for others, giving expert witness testimony for yet others...

Fact: We never see the circumstances surrounding Sirius's initial detainment and trial or lack thereof.

In fact, considering that Sirius's confrontation with Peter happened between the late night of October 31st, 1981, and the early morning of November 1st, 1981, it's quite probable that we know where Dumbledore was while Sirius was being immediately thrown into Azkaban without a trial: AT PRIVET DRIVE WAITING FOR HAGRID TO BRING HARRY!

Conclusion: Sirius's fate was decided in the lower courts (Crouch chucked him into Azkaban without a trial,) and never actually reached the Wizengamot (and Dumbledore's desk.)

Conclusion: You're ignoring basic canon.

No I aint. You're assuming that Dumbledore being a member of the residing body in the only DE trials we know about means that he was in every trial. There is no evidence that suggests he was.

Supposition: Dumbledore had no desire to participate in the trial of someone who had apparently betrayed him when there was overwhelming evidence that said someone was guilty, and thus was not a member of the council that arranged or oversaw (or would have overseen) Sirius's trial. Ergo, Dumbledore actually wasn't even aware that Sirius didn't get a trial.

Corollary: This supposition would make Dumbledore ignorant of the goings-on of his own court system, which he is a senior official of, which is itself a failure of responsibility.

IT'S NOT HIS COURT SYSTEM! HE'S JUST THE CHIEF JUSTICE! That doesn't make him responsible for every single trial!

Representing the views of the judiciary of England and Wales to Parliament and Government.

The welfare, training and guidance of the judiciary of England and Wales. The Lord Chief Justice discusses with Government the provision of resources for the judiciary, which are allotted by the Lord Chancellor.

The deployment of judges and allocation of work in courts in England and Wales.

While he has other duties, it doesn't include investigating potentially corrupt judges. That would be the domain of the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office (JCIO) (formerly the Office for Judicial Complaints.) Dumbledore is the Chief Justice, not the Judge version of Internal Affairs.

Now, either conclusively prove that Dumbledore had an obligation regarding Sirius and failed to live up to it

As a judge, he has an obligation under habeas corpus to ensure that any man accused of a crime either receives a fair trial for that crime, or is otherwise released or plea-bargained or etc. under due process of law. That's the British Common Law as it dates back to fucking 1640... which, you will note, predates the Statute of Secrecy, which is the date that the wizarding legal system diverged from the muggle.

So, since Sirius did not get a trial, therefore habeas corpus was violated, and both Barty Sr. and any judge who was aware of this having happened at all is guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.

But it's not his job to investigate, it's his job to "ensure that any man accused of a crime either receives a fair trial for that crime, or is otherwise released or plea-bargained or etc. under due process of law," once evidence of someone having not undergone that process is brought to his attention. If it isn't brought to his attention, he's not legally culpable.

PS: Habeas corpus was also violated for Hagrid, right in front of Dumbledore, and he did nothing.

Disprove that the Minister of Magic has the authority to detain someone without trial.

Well, no. I'm just poking holes in your arguments and casting reasonable doubt upon them.

So, basically, one standard of evidence for me and a completely different one for thee.

Yes. Because you're trying to prove something that goes against canon, and I'm merely trying to invalidate your arguments.

Part of my process for doing so is devising possible scenarios that could have potentially occured off-screen.

IOW, you get to make up whatever you want and I have to prove it didn't happen, but I don't get to speculate on anything without first proving it 200%.

Again, yes. If I want to, I can claim that two years before the events of Philsopher's Stone occurred, the Archangel Metatron descended upon the Earth in front of Dumbledore, and, in his role as "The Voice of God," proclaimed that Albus Dumbledore was the greatest Wizard, Politician, Ballroom Dancer, and Lover that the world had ever known, and then proceeded to compliment Snape's jawline before returning to the heavens.

And all you could do is either search the books for conclusive proof that that didn't happen, or do your best to point out how unlikely it is that it happened, due to there not being a precedent for Angels descending upon the Earth in the HP-verse, and any other logical reasons you can think of. Which, admittedly, you'd probably be able to do pretty easily, because, "Angels? Come on. How unlikely is that without proof?"

That's what happens when you argue against canon. You've got the deck stacked against you.

* 'Dumbledore doesn't do it for every case, so why should he know about Sirius' case!'

Gee, I dunno, how's about the part where Dumbledore's testimony was the main thing that got Sirius arrested in the first place? After all, Dumbledore is the guy who said that Sirius was the Secret-Keeper.

And not the fact that Sirius was found in the middle of an exploded street cackling, with a bloody finger that belonged to another of his friends? Nah, without Dumbledore's statement, they would've just ignored that!

*Snipped PoA quote*

Of course, James was giving Dumbledore the cover story, not the real one. But the point is, Dumbledore is the person who fingered Sirius Black as the Secret-Keeper.

So, if Dumbledore was involved enough in the case to be the guy tipping the Aurors off that Sirius was the person who needed to be arrested, then how the shitting FUCK can anyone seriously claim that Dumbledore was ignorant of Sirius' never actually getting a trial. Dumbledore's the guy who first put out the warrant! What, does he just arraign people and then stop paying attention to whether or not a trial phase actually exists? This is epic judge fail!

The simple knowledge that 'Sirius never had a trial' should have motivated Dumbledore to go get him one, regardless of whether he thought he was guilty or not, because 'everyone gets their chance in court' is a basic duty of any judge ever in any vaguely British law system.

The fact that Dumbledore testified to the ministry doesn't mean that Dumbledore did so in the same room as Sirius. He probably just gave an Affidavit, and then got on with all the other sh*t he had to be getting on with.

* You claim that the plan has an 'unamazing' chance of success. You haven't actually shown anything of the kind, given that all your failure scenarios rely on people being far more competent than they've ever shown in canon, abusing coincidence to a ludicrous degree, and in one hilarious instance, actually violating linear time. You need to do more work before you can claim this one as a fact.

Yes, because we frequently see people at their very best professionally in canon, and should definitely take their performance as a baseline.

PS: You also face the obstacle that this exact same general plan was successfully used in the canon background multiple times -- by the Death Eaters. After all, I based the whole thing on the classic Death Eater home invasion tactic from the first war in the first place. If it's so 'unamazing', how did they pull it off so many times? Are Death Eaters just that much smarter than everyone else? I think not!

...Because none of the DE's targets had a direct line to the Minister? ...Duh?

Oh, BTW, Dobby doesn't even work for Lucius after book 2. But OK, fine, we'll say Lucius got himself another house elf. He can afford it, and he damn sure ain't gonna clean his own house.

But hey, I know! We can ask Dobby to go block that house-elf and slow him down! I'm sure he'd be up for that.

Shit, Hogwarts has a few hundred house elves that work for Dumbledore. Man, that Malfoy house-elf is gonna get dogpiled.

Please give me the source for either this incredible display of House-elf on House-elf combat (as it sounds like it would be fun to read,) or your knowledge of the mechanics of how House-elf Apparation works (as I'd be very interested in reading that.)

Seeing as I can only think of one example:

Two house-elves were rolling around on the floor in the middle of the dormitory, one wearing a shrunken maroon jumper and several woolly hats, the other, a filthy old rag strung over his hips like a loincloth. Then there was another loud bang, and Peeves the Poltergeist appeared in midair above the wrestling elves.

"I was watching that, Potty!" he told Harry indignantly, pointing at the fight below, before letting out a loud cackle. "Look at the ickle creatures squabbling, bitey bitey, punchy punchy —"

"Kreacher will not insult Harry Potter in front of Dobby, no he won't, or Dobby will shut Kreacher's mouth for him!" cried Dobby in a high-pitched voice.

"— kicky, scratchy!" cried Peeves happily, now pelting bits of' chalk at the elves to enrage them further. "Tweaky, pokey!"

"Kreacher will say what he likes about his master, oh yes, and what a master he is, filthy friend of Mudbloods, oh, what would poor Kreacher's mistress say — ?"

Exactly what Kreacher's mistress would have said they did not find out, for at that moment Dobby sank his knobbly little fist into Kreacher’s mouth and knocked out half of his teeth. Harry and Ron both leapt out of their beds and wrenched the two elves apart, though they continued to try and kick and punch each other, egged on by Peeves, who swooped around the lamp squealing, "Stick your fingers up his nosey, draw his cork and pull his earsies —"

Right, because a brawl like this (minus the poltergeist) happening in the middle of the Minister's office wouldn't be suspicious at all. /So much sarcasm.

* Elphias Doge's obituary for Dumbledore -- you know, the guy who you used as an absolute source when it was convenient for you over things as abstract as 'Dumbledore's entire career', but who is probably going to mysteriously be not good enough when I use him for something as simple as 'Dumbledore's magical history' -- says that Dumbledore conducted brilliant and groundbreaking research in multiple fields of magic, including transfiguration, potions, charms, and alchemy. From the books themselves we have his accomplishments in DADA, given that he defeated Grindelwald and made Voldemort flee to avoid defeat repeatedly. He also demonstrated brilliance beyond anyone else in mind magic, was able to understand Parseltongue and Mermish despite not being a Parseltongue, and pretty much showed that he was kick-ass in any form of magic he attempted.

So yes, the claim 'Dumbledore is a goddamn fucking archmage that can do pretty much anything known with magic' is kinda well sourced.

So he's good at Duelling, Transfiguration, Potions, Charms, Alchemy, and magic of the mind and soul, and magic that involves love and blood. And good at languages.

This doesn't imply that he's Magic Carmen Sandiago. Also, way to totally not reply to my question as to how we don't know that, when Bode was placed under the Imperius, he didn't spill all the "passwords" and details of the DoM defences so the DE's could just waltz in the front door.

Shit, we've got an even firmer testimony. We know how brilliant Tom Riddle is, right? How much rare and hidden magic of all kinds he knows? Well, Dumbledore's the guy who's better than Tom at magic, to the point where he's the only one Tom ever feared. That's also canon.

So yeah, I think asking me to prove that Dumbledore is an awesomely talented and knowledgeable wizard is kinda not necessary.

So now Tom has displayed incredible infiltration abilities (that don't involve possession.) Well, I guess that's a more logical assumption to make, but still, when was this exactly?

* Occlumency is a magical art based on controlling your emotions. More than any other teacher in Hogwarts or any other member of the Order, Snape pisses off Harry just by being in the room -- and likewise, Harry pisses off Snape. Assigning the two people who hate each other the most to work on a joint project involving mastering emotional control is about as smart as assigning Bellatrix Lestrange to work in an orphanage for muggleborns.

Speaking of Bellatrix, I find it hilarious that she can teach Draco Malfoy enough Occlumency to block out Snape in only two months, but Snape can't teach Harry a single damn thing in six months. When neither Draco or Bellatrix are exactly poster children for emotional control, being a temper-tantrum throwing spoiled brat and a psychopathic madwoman respectively. Either Draco is so awesome and Harry is so stupid (I think not), or else Snape's really not that good at teaching Occlumency, even if he's awesome at doing Occlumency.

I'm not even sure why we're arguing this topic when we've drifted from the original point, but whatever. Just because Snape and Harry can't get on doesn't necessarily mean that Snape is the worst choice for Occlumency for Harry. It's even possible that a person who pisses you off is the best kind of teacher for the mind-arts, as it forces you to learn how to control your emotions faster. Hell, it could probably even be called advanced Occlumency training for Snape, as it would force Snape to learn even better emotional self-control.

Also, you can't use claim that Harry's lack of results demonstrates Snape's inability to teach the subject, as A; Harry's lessons only began in January and ended just before the Easter break, so it was only a single term of weekly lessons, and B; in that time Harry did demonstrate the ability to deflect a direct probe from Snape, albeit with a Shield Charm. It's possible that if Snape hadn't been a dumb-ass and left that Pensieve out in full view of Harry, who he knows isn't being told anything and is frustrated because of it, that the lessons would have continued and Harry might have gained a greater proficiency in Occlumency.

But this has nothing to do with the fact that bringing in an outside tutor wouldn't have been seen as absolutely necessary by Dumbledore until Snape stopped the lessons, and by the time that happened, Dumbledore had already been forced from the castle.

* re: Marietta -- yeah, there's the thing, I mentioned that. Dumbledore is provably willing to bend a shit ton of rules to keep Harry from being arrested, interfere in any # of trials, tamper with any amount of evidence. If it's Harry. But he doesn't do anything remotely resembling that for anybody else who works for him. Not Hagrid. (Who, unlike Sirius, he KNEW was innocent.) Not anyone.

Dumbledore took a risk that could have easily back-fired if Dawlish had caught what Shacklebolt did. It's not the same situation as Hagrid, who was detained by the Minister. What was he supposed to do in Hagrid's case, modify Fudge's memory and tell Hagrid to flee? Great, his Gamekeeper and Keeper of Keys and Grounds is now a fugitive and technically guilty of evading arrest on foot/obstructing justice/resisting arrest. What an improvement!

Does Dumbledore only care about his people based on how much use they are to his plans, and not about 'well, they were loyal to me so I owe them back, even if there's nothing in it for me'? Wow, that's cold, Albus. Ice cold.

When they're as utter Bastards as Snape initially was, yes. Why should Dumbledore feel like he owes loyalty to 21 year-old Snape, the douchiest of douches?

* Slughorn also knows about Horcruxes. He's the guy who taught Tom about them in the first place. Horcruxes are the rarest form of Dark magick ever. Even fucking Dumbledore had to study up on Horcruxes specially before he could analyze them. So yeah, Slughorn knowing Occlumency doesn't prove that its common knowledge. Slughorn, in canon, has a fuckton of UN-common knowledge about the Dark Arts and other stuff.

In fact, 'the only people who know Occlumency were wizards known for researching really obscure shit, or people who were taught by such wizards', is a recurring pattern. Dumbledore, one of the world's greatest living magical researchers in his time, knew Occlumency and taught Snape. Tom, the guy only slightly less awesome of a wizard behind Dumbledore, knew Occlumency and taught Bellatrix, who taught Draco. And I dunno who the hell Slughorn learned from but he was also into researching seriously obscure shit at one time, so, pattern consistent.

Point, but it doesn't change the fact that there's no conclusive evidence that Legilimency is admissible in court. And you still haven't answered my question of, if it is legal, why Fudge didn't order a "Ministry Legilimens" to mind-probe Harry and "prove" that he was lying about the Dementors (and then be unpleasantly surprised when it's discovered that Harry was actually telling the truth.)

* Kinda hard to go with the 'those records are false!' claim when they are actually in her handwriting, and could be confirmed by, oh, checking her bank statements.

You mean those non-existent Gringott's statements that have never shown up in canon?

Or questioning the person who paid her the bribes.

Lucius Malfoy/Random DE. "I have no idea what Dumbledore is talking about, your honour. I've never spoken to Minister Bagnold on any other topic than my philanthropic contributions to charitable causes."

I mean, Dumbledore actually has physical evidence there in his hand, and all she'd have is 'I claim that this is all fake! Who are you going to believe, me, or the testimony of two famous Aurors and the Defeater of Grindelwald?'

Except that legally the onus of proof still falls upon Dumbledore, meaning that he not only has to prove conclusively that Bagnold is guilty, but also that his evidence is genuine and hadn't been falsified in any way.

 

[Chuckg]

So now you're claiming that every single non-antagonistic character in the entire series was wrong about Dumbledore, and that JK wrote it that way intentionally.

Why not? That's the exact same thing she did with Snape after he killed Dumbledore. No one in the story believed that Snape was anything but Voldemort's loyal man (including Voldemort)... but at the end of the book, we find out that nope, he was Dumbledore's guy.

Hey, and remember how everybody in the world kept saying that Sirius Black betrayed the Potters, until we find out that wasn't true either?

Fuck, everybody in the books believes that Dumbledore was trying to save Harry's life, until the end of DH reveals that no, Dumbledore was actually setting Harry up to die, but only in a very specific way.

Dude, Harry Potter could easily be retitled 'The Series Where Everything You Thought You Knew Was Wrong'.

So... yes, I entirely believe that Dumbledore had the entire cast believing in his awesome leadership right up until the day he died, despite never actually showing any. If anything has been consistent in Rowling's vision of the wizarding world, its that "public reputation does not always match reality".

It's widely-held opinion in the books and word of JK has confirmed it in the past.

No she hasn't. The only thing I remember her saying is that Dumbledore was an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable wizard, skilled in many forms of magic and languages.

JK on Dumbledore:

"If I could choose to introduce anyone in the world to Dumbledore for a good, long chat -- it's a difficult question and I have mulled it over at length. I have considered world leaders, who may benefit from some of his calm wisdom..."

You deliberately 'forgot' to finish the quote.

"... but finally decided there's really only one person who should meet Dumbledore and I think that's me."

So, nice job lying to us again there, poindexter. You know what its called when you deliberately snip someone's quote so that it looks like they're saying something exactly opposite from what they were really saying.

Add: And ON TOP of this, you're also making the mistaken assumption that J.K. Rowling is herself an expert on world political leadership. Um, last I checked, she was a retired English teacher who wrote fantasy novels. I'll gladly accept her as an expert on "how to make a fuckton of money writing books", because her resume is more than living proof of that. As a definitive authority on international relations and political science, however... ehhhhh, not so much.

On the other hand, the leadership manuals I /am/ using for my judgements about leadership were written by four-star generals and presidents and suchlike, so they're more likely to know about that kind of thing.

Honesty

Well, Dumbledore deliberately withholds information from his whole people all throughout the series, even when he's promised to 'tell them everything' (see: Harry at the end of OotP, where Dumbledore still doesn't tell him the whole truth), so he totally fails on this one.

Ability to Delegate

With one exception -- Snape -- Dumbledore hardly ever delegates any of his responsibilities to anyone. Shit, the dude worked three jobs simultaneously rather than delegate any of them. And of course, the Order's leadership pretty much falls apart entirely after he dies, with the Order spending most of that year split up and doing nothing and leaving the Trio to do it all on their own.

Communication

Epic fail.. Getting answers out of Dumbledore was like pulling hens' teeth. Shit, Sirius dies precisely because Dumbledore doesn't communicate on even a basic level with Harry all that year, and Dumbledore himself admits this.

Sense of Humor, Confidence

These things he has, yes. However, its not enough by itself.

Commitment

Dumbledore's "EMOTIONAL TRAUMA", according to you, is the reason why he holds back from doing several things that could have helped a great deal. So, not so good on this one.

Positive Attitude

This one he's got.

Creativity

Magically, yes. Tactics-wise, no... Dumbledore, throughout the entire series, really doesn't have any combat tactics besides a simple 'set out a decoy here', or 'have some guys rush over there'. Shit, dude, any PFC knows both of those.

Intuition

Can't take this one away from him, no, his luck at pure wild-ass guessing is the only thing that gets Harry through Deathly Hallows alive.

and Ability to Inspire

He's got that, yes.

Unfortunately, the things he doesn't have means that he's a guy who is confidently, inspiringly, and with a positive attitude... .leading you in not necessarily the smartest direction, on a plan inspired largely by wild-ass guessing, under circumstances where he's not sharing information with you, micromanaging, and not communicating well.

Which is really painful for the troops following that guy, let me tell you.

So, yeah, Forbes got it largely right. What you're getting wrong is how much of their list Dumbledore doesn't qualify for.

Wisdom

Ugh. Dumbledore is the living example of "Even great wizards don't have an ounce of logic". Hermione was wiser than this guy when she was 11 years old, and yes, I'm talking about the same girl who came up with stuff like SPEW. That's bad.

Credibility

Dumbledore uses more 'Jedi Truth' than the original master, Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Benevolence

As already admitted by you, Dumbledore is willing to be amazingly ruthless if he feels it necessary to serve his ends, to the point of employing suicide bombers.

Courage

Which kind, physical or emotional? Dumbledore has the first in spades. The second... um, deliberately shrinking back from power, even when its needed, because of "EMOTIONAL TRAUMA" is a failure of emotional courage.

Discipline

The Order of the Phoenix had about as much discipline as a herd of cats. Shit, I have -- literally -- seen Cub Scout troops with better organization.

And man, let's not even talk about the school that he runs. Students hexing each other in the hallways, racial hate gangs openly recruiting and operating among the student body, on-campus murder attempts and nobody even being expelled... multiple times in multiple years! To quote the Honest Trailers guys, "Dear God, how have they not closed this school down yet?!?" There are inner-city schools with better student discipline than Hogwarts, and I'm talking about the places where they needed to put metal detectors in the lobby.

We've been discussing Dumbedore's strategic and tactical abilities, or, as you argue, their lack thereof, but strategic abilities aren't even a strict requirement in leadership, if a leader has a subordinate with excellent strategic/tactical abilities.

And who, exactly, on the Order of the Phoenix had those? As you pointed out, it wasn't Moody. It definitely wasn't McGonagall. It might have been Snape, except nobody else was letting Snape lead them anywhere or obeying anything he said, so, he's hardly a candidate for second-in-command. Neither was it Sirius "Leeeeeeroy Jennnnnnnnkins!" Black, dear God no.

I mean, there is no tactical deputy on the Order of the Phoenix. There isn't even a clear chain of command. It's 'Dumbledore tells everyone else what to do, and in Dumbledore's absence, we all just... kinda stand around and organize nothing'. For fuck's sake, Dumbledore's Army had a better organized chain of command than that -- in Harry's absence, Neville stepped up and took over and kept everything together. That's better than the Order was doing that same year, what with them all split up and doing nothing because Dumbledore wasn't around to give orders anymore. The one time anybody tries that for the Order -- Moody in the 'Seven Potters' scene -- his plan needs about five minutes to fall apart like a house of cards, he ends up getting wasted, and everybody else ends up split up all over hell's half acre and surviving only on pure luck, and they never regroup entirely until Harry calls all the banners in for the Battle of Hogwarts.

So, Dumbledore's organization literally had less organization than a pack of 17-year-olds trying to do the same job with less training and experience.

Yeah. Leadership, this ain't. In fact, this is a clear failure of that Delegation thing you were talking about earlier.

Tell you what, let's take another example of a leader, from a manga, Uzumaki Naruto.

... you're going to try and argue about real-world military leadership standards using Naruto?

Now *I* am the one who lacks words. I also lack any desire to even touch this. So, let's move on.

The most important trait a leader must have is the ability to inspire people and win their loyalty.

"Most important" trait, not "only" trait. I mean, note that one of the grand champions in all of history re: inspiring people and winning their loyalty was this Austrian guy who used to run Germany. But he is also one of the lousier strategists known to history (invading Russia? In the winter? Whadda maroon!), and that's why he lost.

So, y'know, yes, leaders need to inspire their people. However, they also have to outsmart the enemy. Otherwise, you have marched, with all the inspiration in the world, to your painful defeat.

History is full of a lot of really inspiring and charismatic losers, m'man.

You've ignored them, twisted them all out of shape into arguments unrecognizable to their original poster, made up legions of things totally not in canon to 'explain' why they wouldn't work, and in general argued in bad faith.

But that doesn't change the fact I made them, they exist, and you have never logically refuted them.

I spent, like, 80% of my last (double) post asking you to provide conclusive proof for your arguments.

Which I did in several places that you just mysteriously ignored now.

On top of pointing out that in many places the burden of proof is actually on you, and you failed to meet it.

It's damn near impossible to be proactive when fighting terrorists,

Yes, its not like Dumbledore knew months in advance where and what the guy was going to hit next and had opportunities to lay traps or anything. OH WAIT, the plots of at least two books are built on EXACTLY THIS. Its just, Dumbledore's attempts at traps were so weaksauce that the bad guy waltzed right through it.

To name just one example.

Plus, y'know, Dumbledore has an inside guy high-up in the terrorist organization. He knows where their secret HQ is and when and where there meetings are. He never actually uses this information to plan a counter-attack

which, considering the problems the real world has had in the recent past, I would think you would be aware of.

Well, if we'd had a double agent in Osama bin Laden's inner circle, who knew exactly where he was hiding for years, and still never captured the guy despite that, THEN I'd say we were as incompetent as Dumbledore.

Oh wait. As soon as we found and flipped someone who knew where he was (and that wasn't even a willing double agent like Snape, just one of his couriers who knew where the messages went and eventually told us after being interrogated for a while), we had that dude dead and smoked inside of a year. Welp, there ya go. It was just getting that inside information that took us so long. OBL had to hide where he was from most of his own organization to escape us for as long as he did, and communicate only through lots of couriers and cutouts. Voldemort held huge meetings with all of his DEs in the same room as a regular thing, and one of those guys worked for Dumbledore. Dumbledore STARTED OUT with that kind of advantage that the CIA spent years bleeding out to even begin to get on OBL, and still never closed the deal on Tom as long as he was alive.

Sure, the 11 years of the first war nobody really holds against Dumbledore's leadreship, because Snape wasn't a double agent then and so Tom really was that hard to find. Most of my criticisms have focused on the second war for precisely that reason.

So yes, inviting comparisions to the real-world fight vs. a terrorist mastermind only makes Dumbledore look like an even bigger doof.

Please cite how Dumbledore is paralysed by risk

YOU did, when you were all 'despite knowing where Tom was hiding he didn't want to attack the place because it might possibly have gone wrong'. I mean, seriously, you're asking me to prove a point that you already conceded. That's just silly.

I can throw as much fanon as I want at you, to explain what appear to be plot holes, in order to resolve anything that can be seen as a contradiction between the Dumbledore's characterisation and his actions.

So, to sum up:

* You can say anything you want without having to prove it with canon

* I can't say anything to disagree with you without quoting directly from canon (and even when I do do that, you just skip over it. For just one example, witness the part where I found the canon proof that Dumbledore totally did believe Tom was coming back, right from the getgo, when you'd based a huge chunk of your argument on the exact opposite assumption, and how that entire topic just mysteriously... went away... immediately afterwards).

This is because you've already assumed that you're right, and therefore any contradiction between the actual facts on the ground and your own assumptions must be because of invisible things going on in the background that Rowling never wrote about, and its your job to make them up.

As opposed to, oh, the possibility that one of your intitial assumptions might be wrong.

Basically, you are saying that you have the right to change canon facts to fit your theories, while I don't.

Dear sir, please look up something called 'the scientific method'. Hint: that's where theories are revised to fit facts, not the other way around.

And until you can do the basic courtesy of keeping yourself playing by the same rules you want your opponent to play by, there is no point in even continuing this.

Add: But one thing I have to reply to simply because its that fucking funny.

Lucius Malfoy/Random DE. "I have no idea what Dumbledore is talking about, your honour. I've never spoken to Minister Bagnold on any other topic than my philanthropic contributions to charitable causes."

"Your honor, I have no idea why anybody would accuse me of slipping the Minister a pile of money! I've only met the Minister on these occasions where I was busy handing her this pile of money! Because, of course, never in the history of the world has a bribe been covered by claiming to be a philanthropic donation to a politician's pet charity. Not ever! Furthermore, never have I been the personal recipient of any kind of benefit, largesse, or forgiveness from the government! Except that one time I was pardoned for mass murder, treason, and attempting to overthrow the government, because I claimed being under a magic spell and the Minister just took my word for it without any further evidence. But this was a purely coincidental thing that had nothing to do with my generous donation shortly afterwards."

Dude, are you trying to write Harry Potter, or write the lost Monty Python sketch?

 

[Chuckg]

Oh, and I just remembered another obvious strategy Dumbledore had overlooked. This one isn't mine, but from a fanfic.

Year 5:

"Well, shit. Nobody believes Voldemort is alive and I'm in political disgrace."
"Yeah, if only Voldemort was dumb enough to openly expose himself before a crowd of witnesses."
"... hey, Tonks, how good is your Voldemort impression?"
"I've never even seen the guy!"
"I have a pensieve collection of like zillions of hours of Voldemort footage. Start studying."
"OK, that might work, but how do we fake the rest of the Death Eaters?"
"They're guys in hoods and masks! We can just fake up some Death Eater costumes and use anyone! Hey, Sirius, how'd you like to pretend to be a Death Eater for a day?"
"Pretend to? Everybody in Magical Britain besides us thinks I really am one! I could show up with my mask OFF and it would work! In fact, I think I'll do that! Talk about a Marauder-class prank!"
"OK, so 'Voldemort' and his infamous lieutenant, Sirius Black, are going to show up in...?'
"Diagon Alley. Where they will announce his triumphant return with a huge terrorist attack!"
"But we don't want to actually hurt anybody!"
"Of course not. We're just going to do some property damage and make a big noise."
"A Death Eater attack that doesn't actually kill anybody won't be very convincing."
"Oh well, that's the thing. They'll TRY to kill people, but due to the lucky coindidence of Albus Dumbledore himself being there to do some grocery shopping, he will of course step up and save the day and force Voldemort to retreat, before he can actually hurt someone."
"Make sure that Kingsley is the Auror on-shift for Diagon Alley that day, though. It would be bad if the responding Auror actually showed up in time and then got lucky and hit 'Voldemort' in the head or anything."
"Kingsley as part of the stage-managing, check."
"Hey, Fred, George, do you think you can make a gag wand that shoots a green beam so it looks like a fake Killing Curse? I'll throw a couple of those at Dumbledore and he can block them with a stone wall or something, like he's famous for doing."
"Totally!"

And so, 'Voldemort' and Sirius Black did a terror raid in Diagon Alley, but escaped when driven off by Albus Dumbledore, and everybody in Magical Britain went 'OMG Voldemort is alive!' months early and ruined Tom's entire plan.

Because what the fuck is Tom going to do, call the Auror office and say no, that wasn't him, he had an alibi? Kinda spoils the whole "pretending to be dead" gag anyway.

And its not like its that hard in Harry Potter to convince a crowd of people that they've seen something when it was actually something else, with a little stage-managing. Pettigrew managed it just by cutting off his finger and blowing a big hole in the asphalt. Another consistent theme in these books is that wizards are sorta gullible.

You'd think a guy willing to memory charm a 15-year-old girl would be willing to just do a little prank... kinda tough on Sirius, admitted, but hey, 'Voldemort' could always brag about how he'd put Sirius under the Imperius Curse. *g*

Add: Shit, now that I think about it, he could just memory charm a few people into thinking they'd seen Voldemort. Such as, oh, Umbridge. Or Fudge. *g*

Add: Or, for that matter, do the fake attack but send Dobby out to swipe some Lucius hairs to make a batch of Polyjucie with, so people see 'Voldemort' and 'Lucius Malfoy' doing the raid. Lucius' mask falls off halfway through when somebody's 'lucky shot' knocks it off. And yeah, you certainly can't steal any Voldemort hairs -- in addition to everything else wrong with that, he's fucking bald -- but that's what Tonks is there for.

Add: For that matter, if this is during the period of time after the Azkaban escape, they have someone who can do a Bellatrix Lestrange impersonation without polyjuice -- Tonks' mom, Andromeda. Those two look so much alike that Harry had trouble telling them apart in DH.

 

[nixofcyzerra]

So now you're claiming that every single non-antagonistic character in the entire series was wrong about Dumbledore, and that JK wrote it that way intentionally.

Why not? That's the exact same thing she did with Snape after he killed Dumbledore. No one in the story believed that Snape was anything but Voldemort's loyal man (including Voldemort)... but at the end of the book, we find out that nope, he was Dumbledore's guy.

Hey, and remember how everybody in the world kept saying that Sirius Black betrayed the Potters, until we find out that wasn't true either?

Fuck, everybody in the books believes that Dumbledore was trying to save Harry's life, until the end of DH reveals that no, Dumbledore was actually setting Harry up to die, but only in a very specific way.

Dude, Harry Potter could easily be retitled 'The Series Where Everything You Thought You Knew Was Wrong'.

So... yes, I entirely believe that Dumbledore had the entire cast believing in his awesome leadership right up until the day he died, despite never actually showing any. If anything has been consistent in Rowling's vision of the wizarding world, its that "public reputation does not always match reality".

Except there were moments of revelation for Sirius, Snape and Dumbledore's plans for Harry. There was no "Dumbldore was secretly a bad leader" revelation in the books. If anything, there was a "Dumbledore was an awesome leader" revelation right at the end of DH, what with the "Everybody gets blood protection without Harry staying dead" strategy being revealed, when throughout DH everybody was doubting Dumbledore for not telling Harry anything useful before he died.

It's widely-held opinion in the books and word of JK has confirmed it in the past.

No she hasn't. The only thing I remember her saying is that Dumbledore was an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable wizard, skilled in many forms of magic and languages.

JK on Dumbledore:

"If I could choose to introduce anyone in the world to Dumbledore for a good, long chat -- it's a difficult question and I have mulled it over at length. I have considered world leaders, who may benefit from some of his calm wisdom..."

You deliberately 'forgot' to finish the quote.

"... but finally decided there's really only one person who should meet Dumbledore and I think that's me."

So, nice job lying to us again there, poindexter. You know what its called when you deliberately snip someone's quote so that it looks like they're saying something exactly opposite from what they were really saying.

You hypocrisy is galling, seeing as if you add the next paragraph you get:

Rowling was asked who she would introduce Dumbledore to if she could choose anyone in the world.

'I'm afraid I'm going to be very selfish, and if anyone gets a shot, it's me,' she said.

'It's a difficult question and I have mulled it over at length, and I've considered world leaders who may benefit from some of his calm wisdom, but finally decided there's really only one person who should meet Dumbledore and I think that's me - because, of all the other characters in the Harry Potter series, he's the one I miss the most.'

Rowling didn't not choose to go with a World Leader because she changed her mind and decided that Dumbledore didn't actually have something to offer them, she chose herself over them because she could only pick one, and she'd really want to meet Dumbledore if she could.

I snipped the quote because Rowling wanting to meet Dumbledore has nothing to do with the fact that she thinks Dumbledore could be of benefit to world leaders when it comes to leadership advice.

Learn to read, fuckwit.

Honesty

Well, Dumbledore deliberately withholds information from his whole people all throughout the series, even when he's promised to 'tell them everything' (see: Harry at the end of OotP, where Dumbledore still doesn't tell him the whole truth), so he totally fails on this one.

And I suppose Generals (or Commanders) tell Privates everything. Saying that he kept secrets from Harry when it was motivated by Dumbledore thinking that it was for Harry's own good isn't a very good example. Throughout OotP, the Order apparently knew that they were guarding a Prophecy, and agreed that they shouldn't tell Harry that it existed.

Ability to Delegate

With one exception -- Snape -- Dumbledore hardly ever delegates any of his responsibilities to anyone. Shit, the dude worked three jobs simultaneously rather than delegate any of them. And of course, the Order's leadership pretty much falls apart entirely after he dies, with the Order spending most of that year split up and doing nothing and leaving the Trio to do it all on their own.

Hagrid and Maxine off to see the Giants. Lupin, talking to werewolves. All the jobs he assigned in the last chapter of GoF. What he tried to get Fudge to do. Etcetera, etcetera. And we've gone over and over the potential reasons why Dumbledore could work three jobs without issue, so I'm not going to regurgitate it here.

Communication

Epic fail.. Getting answers out of Dumbledore was like pulling hens' teeth. Shit, Sirius dies precisely because Dumbledore doesn't communicate on even a basic level with Harry all that year, and Dumbledore himself admits this.

It was like pulling teeth for Harry to get anything out of Dumbledore, due to Albus not thinking that telling a schoolboy that he's a dead man walking is a good idea. And Albus was worried that Tom would possess Harry if he spoke to him at all that year. Note that in HBP, when Harry's proven that Tom can't stand being in Harry's head due to him being a pure loving soul, Albus is actually quite free with info, with the exception of the Deathly Hallows and the "Harry must sacrifice himself thing."

Oh, and Citation that Dumbledore kept anything but those last two points from the senior Order members after the OotP was reconvened.

Commitment

Dumbledore's "EMOTIONAL TRAUMA", according to you, is the reason why he holds back from doing several things that could have helped a great deal. So, not so good on this one.

Taking on the Minister positon only, and that doesn't mean that Dumbledore didn't work tirelessly and endlessly, to the best of his ability, for the betterment of Wizardkind. You know, like it said he did in canon. Doge's speech might have been bias, but it's still more canonical than your opinions.

Creativity

Magically, yes. Tactics-wise, no... Dumbledore, throughout the entire series, really doesn't have any combat tactics besides a simple 'set out a decoy here', or 'have some guys rush over there'. Shit, dude, any PFC knows both of those.

And we've already had the tactics discussion. Dumbledore did come up with some pretty creative ideas (talking to Werewolves and Giants is damn creative by the standards of Wizarding society,) plus the whole blood protection being applied to Privet Drive is a creative application of Lily's sacrifice magic.

Unfortunately, the things he doesn't have means that he's a guy who is confidently, inspiringly, and with a positive attitude... .leading you in not necessarily the smartest direction, on a plan inspired largely by wild-ass guessing, under circumstances where he's not sharing information with you, micromanaging, and not communicating well.

Which is really painful for the troops following that guy, let me tell you.

Citations for.. all of the latter half of that sentence.

So, yeah, Forbes got it largely right. What you're getting wrong is how much of their list Dumbledore doesn't qualify for.

Wisdom

Ugh. Dumbledore is the living example of "Even great wizards don't have an ounce of logic". Hermione was wiser than this guy when she was 11 years old.

You realise that hiding the stone in the Mirror of Erised is essentially a logic puzzle, right? Only one who didn't want to profit from the stone could get it.

Credibility

Dumbledore uses more 'Jedi Truth' than the original master, Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Uh, no. Obi-Wan told Luke the truth "from a certain point of view," while Dumbledore straight-up told Harry at the end of book 1 that he was keeping secrets, was keeping them for a good reason, and would tell him one day. Which he did, either directly (conversation at the end of OotP,) or indirectly (through Snape's memories.)

Benevolence

As already admitted by you, Dumbledore is willing to be amazingly ruthless if he feels it necessary to serve his ends, to the point of employing suicide bombers.

That doesn't mean that he was willing to send innocents to their death unless given no choice, and once given an option to avoid it (Tom taking Harry's blood,) he immediately set out to construct an elaborate plan so the circumstances would allow for Harry to both gift the entire Wizarding World with a version of the sacrificial protection, and come back to life after doing so.

Oh, and then he told Harry it was his choice over whether to return to life or not. That's kinda benevolent.

Courage

Which kind, physical or emotional? Dumbledore has the first in spades. The second... um, deliberately shrinking back from power, even when its needed, because of "EMOTIONAL TRAUMA" is a failure of emotional courage.

As I've already mentioned, I do think Dumbledore should have got some therapy and become Minister. There's a reason he praises Harry as being far more courageous than him. That said, the man didn't fear death at all. Next great adventure, and all that.

Discipline

The Order of the Phoenix had about as much discipline as a herd of cats. Shit, I have -- literally -- seen Cub Scout troops with better organization.

But Dumbledore did have excellent self-discipline, which is what is being referred to.

We've been discussing Dumbedore's strategic and tactical abilities, or, as you argue, their lack thereof, but strategic abilities aren't even a strict requirement in leadership, if a leader has a subordinate with excellent strategic/tactical abilities.

And who, exactly, on the Order of the Phoenix had those? As you pointed out, it wasn't Moody. It definitely wasn't McGonagall. It might have been Snape, except nobody else was letting Snape lead them anywhere or obeying anything he said, so, he's hardly a candidate for second-in-command. Neither was it Sirius "Leeeeeeroy Jennnnnnnnkins!" Black, dear God no.

I mean, there is no tactical deputy on the Order of the Phoenix. There isn't even a clear chain of command. It's 'Dumbledore tells everyone else what to do, and in Dumbledore's absence, we all just... kinda stand around and organize nothing'. For fuck's sake, Dumbledore's Army had a better organized chain of command than that -- in Harry's absence, Neville stepped up and took over and kept everything together. That's better than the Order was doing that same year, what with them all split up and doing nothing because Dumbledore wasn't around to give orders anymore.

Dumbledore's organization literally had less organization than a pack of 17-year-olds trying to do the same job with less training and experience.

Yeah. Leadership, this ain't. In fact, this is a clear failure of that Delegation thing you were talking about earlier.

Well, as I said, it's not Dumbledore's fault that he wasn't born with natural aptitude for military-grade tactics, nor is it his fault that apparently no-one else in the Wizarding World was.

Tell you what, let's take another example of a leader, from a manga, Uzumaki Naruto.

... you're going to try and argue about real-world military leadership standards using Naruto?

Now *I* am the one who lacks words. I also lack any desire to even touch this. So, let's move on.

As an relatively recent example of a fictional charismatic leader, who has subordinates he can rely on for superior tactical analysis, yes. But fine, it was just an example anyway. There have been plenty of leaders throughout history who weren't tactical genii, but were charismatic as hell and could inspire their followers.

The most important trait a leader must have is the ability to inspire people and win their loyalty.

"Most important" trait, not "only" trait. I mean, note that one of the grand champions in all of history re: inspiring people and winning their loyalty was this Austrian guy who used to run Germany. But he is also one of the lousier strategists known to history (invading Russia? In the winter? Whadda maroon!), and that's why he lost.

So, y'know, yes, leaders need to inspire their people. However, they also have to outsmart the enemy. Otherwise, you have marched, with all the inspiration in the world, to your painful defeat.

And if Hitler had had a decent strategic/tactical advisor and listened to him, we'd probably all be speaking German right now. That's my whole point. Also, does this count as invoking Godwin's law? You brought up Hitler as a contrast to Dumbledore, but didn't actually directly compare the two. Hmm.

You've ignored them, twisted them all out of shape into arguments unrecognizable to their original poster, made up legions of things totally not in canon to 'explain' why they wouldn't work, and in general argued in bad faith.

But that doesn't change the fact I made them, they exist, and you have never logically refuted them.

I spent, like, 80% of my last (double) post asking you to provide conclusive proof for your arguments.

Which I did in several places that you just mysteriously ignored now.

On top of pointing out that in many places the burden of proof is actually on you, and you failed to meet it.

I'm defending canon. I never have to worry about bearing the burden of proof. You do.

It's damn near impossible to be proactive when fighting terrorists,

Yes, its not like Dumbledore knew months in advance where and what the guy was going to hit next and had opportunities to lay traps or anything. OH WAIT, the plots of at least two books are built on EXACTLY THIS. Its just, Dumbledore's attempts at traps were so weaksauce that the bad guy waltzed right through it.

To name just one example.

Plus, y'know, Dumbledore has an inside guy high-up in the terrorist organization. He knows where their secret HQ is and when and where there meetings are. He never actually uses this information to plan a counter-attack.

The Mirror would have stymied Quirrell until Dumbledore showed up, if Harry hadn't butted in. He couldn't lay good traps in the DoM without the Ministy's support, which he didn't have.

And we've already discussed possible reasons why Dumbledore didn't launch a full assault. Oh, and what if the assault failed and Dumbledore/the Order lost? You just dissed the hell out of the Order a little while ago, so why exactly are you now saying that Dumbledore should trust their combat abilities? And he didn't have and couldn't get Auror support, thanks to Fudge.

which, considering the problems the real world has had in the recent past, I would think you would be aware of.

Well, if we'd had a double agent in Osama bin Laden's inner circle, who knew exactly where he was hiding for years, and still never captured the guy despite that, THEN I'd say we were as incompetent as Dumbledore.

Oh wait. As soon as we found and flipped someone who knew where he was, we had that dude dead and smoked inside of a year. Welp, there ya go. It was just getting that inside information that took us so long. Dumbledore STARTED OUT with that kind of advantage, and still never closed the deal as long as he was alive.

Because he didn't have the sheer fire-power of the US military as a resource. He had, as you've pointed out, a not especially effective Order.

Please cite how Dumbledore is paralysed by risk

YOU did, when you were all 'despite knowing where Tom was hiding he didn't want to attack the place because it might possibly have gone wrong'. I mean, seriously, you're asking me to prove a point that you already conceded. That's just silly.

There's a difference between "paralysed by risk" and cautious. I claim he's the latter, while you claim he's the former. So Citation please.

I can throw as much fanon as I want at you, to explain what appear to be plot holes, in order to resolve anything that can be seen as a contradiction between the Dumbledore's characterisation and his actions.

So, to sum up:

* You can say anything you want without having to prove it with canon

* I can't say anything to disagree with you without absolute canon.

Yes. Because canon's there, and I don't disagree with it. You do, and are trying to prove that it's wrong. That means you have to prove it's wrong, and all I have to do is disprove the validity of your arguments, and one method of doing that is suggesting logical theories that resolve any plot holes (fanon.) That's how defending the canon of something works.

This is because you've already assumed that you're right, and therefore any contradiction between the actual facts on the ground and your own assumptions must be because of invisible things going on in the background that Rowling never wrote about, and its your job to make them up.

No, I'm assuming that canon is right. Because it's canon.

As opposed to, oh, the possibility that one of your initial assumptions might be wrong.

Basically, you are saying that you have the right to change canon facts to fit your theories, while I don't.

Except I'm not saying that things in canon that definitely did happen didn't, or things that definitely didn't happen did. I suggesting things that might or might not have happened, or might or might not have been able to happen, as potential explanations for why canon sometimes seems to give the impression that something that is canonically true (Dumbledore=froody dude) actually isn't.

Dear sir, please look up something called 'the scientific method'. Hint: that's where theories are revised to fit facts, not the other way around.

And until you can do the basic courtesy of keeping yourself playing by the same rules you want your opponent to play by, there is no point in even continuing this.

I know what the Scientific method is, but it doesn't apply when you're trying to shoot holes in the "anti-canon" theories of someone else. In trials, Defence Attorney's don't follow the scientific method. They just try to cast reasonable doubt on the Prosecution's arguments.

It's not the Defence's (me) fault that the Prosecution (you) hasn't been able to prove to the court, without a shadow of a doubt, that the defendant (Albus) is guilty of the crime of incompetence, and/or failing to cede his command roles to someone who was supposedly more competent (person you've yet to name.)

Add: But one thing I have to reply to simply because its that fucking funny.

Lucius Malfoy/Random DE. "I have no idea what Dumbledore is talking about, your honour. I've never spoken to Minister Bagnold on any other topic than my philanthropic contributions to charitable causes."

"Your honor, I have no idea why anybody would accuse me of slipping the Minister a pile of money! I've only met the Minister on these occasions where I was busy handing her this pile of money! Because, of course, never in the history of the world has a bribe been covered by claiming to be a philanthropic donation to a politician's pet charity. Not ever!"

Except there's no photograph of Malfoy handing Bagnold a big pile of money. And although in the past certain disreputable people have committed the crime of bribery under the guise of charitable donations, accusing Lucius Malfoy of doing such, without any proof whatsoever, is slander good sir, and Minister Fudge won't stand for it!

Dude, are you trying to write Harry Potter, or write the lost Monty Python sketch?

Well, I do have a drabble where Harry stops off at the Department of Silly Walks on his way to Courtroom 10, and Dumbledore tries to return his dead Phoenix to the shop he brought it from, but no, not at the moment.

Oh, and I just remembered another obvious strategy Dumbledore had overlooked. This one isn't mine, but from a fanfic.

Year 5:

"Well, shit. Nobody believes Voldemort is alive and I'm in political disgrace."
"Yeah, if only Voldemort was dumb enough to openly expose himself before a crowd of witnesses."
"... hey, Tonks, how good is your Voldemort impression?"
"I've never even seen the guy!"
"I have a pensieve collection of like zillions of hours of Voldemort footage. Start studying."
"OK, that might work, but how do we fake the rest of the Death Eaters?"
"They're guys in hoods and masks! We can just fake up some Death Eater costumes and use anyone! Hey, Sirius, how'd you like to pretend to be a Death Eater for a day?"
"Pretend to? Everybody in Magical Britain besides us thinks I really am one! I could show up with my mask OFF and it would work! In fact, I think I'll do that! Talk about a Marauder-class prank!"
"OK, so 'Voldemort' and his infamous lieutenant, Sirius Black, are going to show up in...?'
"Diagon Alley. Where they will announce his triumphant return with a huge terrorist attack!"
"But we don't want to actually hurt anybody!"
"Of course not. We're just going to do some property damage and make a big noise."
"A Death Eater attack that doesn't actually kill anybody won't be very convincing."
"Oh well, that's the thing. They'll TRY to kill people, but due to the lucky coindidence of Albus Dumbledore himself being there to do some grocery shopping, he will of course step up and save the day and force Voldemort to retreat, before he can actually hurt someone."
"Make sure that Kingsley is the Auror on-shift for Diagon Alley that day, though. It would be bad if the responding Auror actually showed up in time and then got lucky and hit 'Voldemort' in the head or anything."
"Kingsley as part of the stage-managing, check."
"Hey, Fred, George, do you think you can make a gag wand that shoots a green beam so it looks like a fake Killing Curse? I'll throw a couple of those at Dumbledore and he can block them with a stone wall or something, like he's famous for doing."
"Totally!"

Except there's just one problem. Voldemort knows for sure that the attack is fake. So all he has to do is have one his followers either directly accuse Dumbledore of faking the attack (which he did!) in order to promote hysteria and inspire a panic for his own sinister ends, (or even just have anyone suggest to a Ministry worker that the attack was fake so that they accuse him.) Fudge, of course, leaps on the idea like a starving wolf leaps on a steak.

Then Dumbledore has to prove that he didn't arrange for it (which he can't, seeing as he did,) and then he'd never be able to convince people that Voldemort really is back. It's a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario.

And its not like its that hard in Harry Potter to convince a crowd of people that they've seen something when it was actually something else, with a little stage-managing. Pettigrew managed it just by cutting off his finger and blowing a big hole in the asphalt. Another consistent theme in these books is that wizards are sorta gullible.

And then hide as a rat for over a decade. And it would't have worked for long if Crouch had given Sirius a trial. Pettigrew got super lucky.

Add: Shit, now that I think about it, he could just memory charm a few people into thinking they'd seen Voldemort. Such as, oh, Umbridge. Or Fudge. *g*

Memory Charms are such a huge plot-hole that we can't think about them and how useful they'd be almost all the time, or the whole plot will fall apart. They're just that hax. It's turtles all the way down, Chuck!

Add: For that matter, if this is during the period of time after the Azkaban escape, they have someone who can do a Bellatrix Lestrange impersonation without polyjuice -- Tonks' mom, Andromeda. Those two look so much alike that Harry had trouble telling them apart in DH.

Why bother? They already knew Bellatrix had escaped, thanks to that dastardly Sirius Black, the cur!


Edit: Still waiting for answers to the questions about why Fudge didn't order Legilimency used on Harry if it's legal, and why Bode couldn't have spilled his guts to Malfoy about the DoM defences while under the Imperius.

 

[Chuckg]

Except there were moments of revelation for Sirius, Snape and Dumbledore's plans for Harry. There was no "Dumbldore was secretly a bad leader" revelation in the books.

Yes there was, and it was called the "King's Cross Station" chapter of Deathly Hallows. You know, the chapter where Dumbledore reveals to Harry that contrary to Harry's and everybody else's belief in Dumbledore as an all-wise mentor figure of unshakeable moral fiber, a true pinnacle of all that is Light in wizards, Dumbledore was actually a deeply conflicted man who has struggled with greed, powerlust, and ambition, who at one point was the willing co-conspirator of the Dark Lord Grindelwald, accidentally got his sister killed through his own arrogant stupidity, and to the very day of his death feared actually being put in charge of anything because he had that much doubt in his own ability to wield power responsibly? In other words, that a whole lot of what Rita Skeeter wrote about him in her biography, that everybody thought was muckraking bullshit, was actually TRUE? Dude, now that WAS a revelation.

If anything, there was a "Dumbledore was an awesome leader" revelation right at the end of DH, what with the "Everybody gets blood protection without Harry staying dead" strategy being revealed, when throughout DH everybody was doubting Dumbledore for not telling Harry anything useful before he died.

And Dumbledore himself, in this scene, confesses that this happened because he made a lucky guess, not because it was anything he was planning on for sure. So... what the hell are you talking about?

You really do live in your own separate idea of reality if you think that the scene that above all else has Dumbledore admitting that he's hardly the stuff of which great leaders are made, is actually the scene that allegedly proves Dumbledore is a great leader.

Rowling didn't not choose to go with a World Leader because she changed her mind and decided that Dumbledore didn't actually have something to offer them, she chose herself over them because she could only pick one, and she'd really want to meet Dumbledore if she could.

Exactly. Her entire thing was not her talking about 'was Dumbledore a good leader', it was her talking about 'I'd personally really like to meet Dumbledore'.

I honestly wonder how the hell we can both read the same exact words but you come up with such different meanings. Especially when all I'm doing is taking the woman's words at their face value.

Learn to read, fuckwit.

Projection much?

And I suppose Generals tell Privates everything.

A good general does not say 'Private, I'm going to tell you everything', and then still not tell him everything. He is honest and goes 'Private, I can't tell you everything'.

That's exactly why I said Dumbledore wasn't honest here.

You are correct in that Dumbledore did do this in book 1. You might have noticed that I was complaining about his behavior in book 5 here.

Saying that he kept secrets from Harry when it was motivated by Dumbledore thinking that it was for Harry's own good isn't a very good example.

Lying to Harry for his own good is still lying, and therefore, still a failure of honesty. Especially when the military is very up-front about telling you when shit is beyond your security clearance, but Dumbledore isn't.

Throughout OotP, the Order apparently knew that they were guarding a Prophecy, and agreed that they shouldn't tell Harry that it existed.

A decision that even Dumbledore himself admits at the end was a stupid idea and the main reason Sirius got killed. That's why I listed it under failures of communication.

Hagrid and Maxine off to see the Giants. Lupin, talking to werewolves. All the jobs he assigned in the last chapter of GoF.

And both missions failed, remember? The giants didn't ally with Hagrid, and the werewolves went to Voldemort. Yeah, you're really proving how good Dumbledore is at delegating things here. Not.

It was like pulling teeth for Harry to get anything out of Dumbledore, due to Albus not thinking that telling a schoolboy that he's a dead man walking is a good idea.

That has nothing to do with not telling him the lack of knowledge that got Sirius killed -- specifically, the part about where Voldemort wanted to lure Harry to the DoM and would be willing to send him fake visions to do so, so, Harry should never go there. Albus can get into that without even mentioning the Prophecy. But he doesn't. And Sirius dies because he doesn't. AND ALBUS HIMSELF ADMITS THIS.

Dude, you are claiming Dumbledore is innocent of something that Dumbledore himself, in canon, has pled guilty on. You are so lost.

Add: And no, not even 'Voldemort in Harry's mind!' covers this. I mean, just look at this hypothetical:

Dumbledore: "Harry, I have received disturbing news. There is a Prophecy in the Department of Mysteries that Voldemort wants desperately. However, he cannot do it himself. He needs you to do it for him, due to protections placed on it."
Harry: "But why?"
Voldemort (listening in): "Yes! Yes! Ask him questions! Find out more stuff!"
Dumbledore: "Do you remember the part where I told you that Voldemort might be listening in on you? I'm going to tell you what I can, but please don't ask me for further information. I can only tell you what I know that Voldemort already knows."
Voldemort (listening in): "Wow, I'm overhearing so much top-secret stuff! Such as, oh, WHAT MY OWN PLAN IS. Shit, I already KNEW that. It is, after all, MY PLAN."
Dumbledore: "To get back on topic, Voldemort wants inside the Department of Mysteries, using you. He will try to decoy you into going there, perhaps by showing you visions or sending you false messages through the link he was with you."
Voldemort (listening in): "Still waiting for the part where I learn anything new, Albus! I mean, so far all I've heard is that you know I want the Prophecy, and you don't want me to have it. Well, fucking DUH."
Dumbledore: "So please, just let us continue guarding the Prophecy, and don't try to help yourself, even if you totally think that you're helping."
Voldemort (still listening): "Wait! That's new! The Order has guards on the Prophecy. OH WAIT, LUCIUS ALREADY TOLD ME ABOUT THIS PART."
Dumbledore: "And now, because Voldemort might overhear what I am saying to you through the link, we must go back to not communicating at all. I only shared this much because its matters that Voldemort already knows and its important for you to be warned."
Voldemort: "Fucking great. Not only is listening in on the brainwaves of this damn kid not getting me any useful info, I just found out that Dumbledore's going to stuff him in a bubble where he'll never hear a thing and leave him there. Why am I even wasting my time on this? Screw it. Bellatrix! Get your ass over here and let's get back to planning how we're going to get into the Ministry again!"

Taking on the Minister positon only

Liar. It was also the excuse you used for him not following up on the Sirius case.

and that doesn't mean that Dumbledore didn't work tirelessly and endlessly, to the best of his ability, for the betterment of Wizardkind.

Is that why Arthur Weasley had to come up with the idea of 'hey, let's put in some legal protections for muggleborns?' Apparently Dumbledore, in his "tireless and endless" crusade for the betterment of wizardkind, never actually got around to the idea of 'perhaps we should actually have some kind of basic civil rights law requiring equal treatment of people despite different racial background. You know, like the muggle world came up with decades ago'.

but it's still more canonical than your opinions.

By that exact same logic Fudge is also a brilliant leader in canon, because Umbridge said so once.

... yeah, I think not.

And we've already had the tactics discussion.

During which you showed quite openly that your knowledge of tactics could be carved on the head of a pin. With a chainsaw. Seriously, you couldn't even get Route Ambush 101 right.

Dumbledore did come up with some pretty creative ideas (talking to Werewolves and Giants is damn creative by the standards of Wizarding society,)

I love how you try to hold up a whole list of missions that FAILED as proof Dumbledore is a GOOD tactician.

That is not how it works.

plus the whole blood protection being applied to Privet Drive is a creative application of Lily's sacrifice magic.

And now you're giving him credit for someone else's work! If I were Lily Potter, I'd be insulted.

Citations for.. all of the latter half of that sentence.

Dumbledore's confessions of failure to Harry at the end of OotP and DH.

You realise that hiding the stone in the Mirror of Erised is essentially a logic puzzle, right? Only one who didn't want to profit from the stone could get it.

I'd be more impressed if it wasn't for the fact that a security puzzle that relies on a person being in a specific frame of mind is useless in a world where the Confundus Charm exists, because you can temporarily make anyone believe damn near anything with that one. That Voldemort didn't think to simply Confundus Quirrell into temporarily forgetting he wanted to use the Stone is only proof that Tom Riddle isn't really that much better at tactics than Dumbledore is.

Which he isn't. The entire series is a giant chess match between two strategic imbeciles. Another subtitle for this series could be "The Quest For The Idiot Ball: Two Archmages Enter, One Archmage Leaves". One of them just ended up luckier than the other one. Oh yeah, and also had Harry Potter to do more of their work for them.

PS: Any lock that can be hacked by an 11-year-old child operating on pure luck? Not too awesome a lock.

PPS: You know what would have worked better for hiding that stone? THE FIDELIUS CHARM.

PPPS: And then you make a decoy Stone and put it somewhere with better traps. Perhaps something where he thinks its making Elixir of Life for him, and he drinks it, and it turns out to be Draught of Living Death? Gee, if Dumbledore only knew someone who was a Transfiguration genius and a master Alchemist.

Oh wait. He does. The guy in his mirror.

Uh, no. Obi-Wan told Luke the truth "from a certain point of view," while Dumbledore straight-up told Harry at the end of book 1 that he was keeping secrets, was keeping them for a good reason, and would tell him one day.

And then in book 2 he tells Harry 'Voldemort transferred a piece of his power to you', instead of the more truthful 'There is a piece of Voldemort's soul stuck in your head and you are the seventh Horcrux', which is a CLASSIC Obi-Wan. And then there's the whole deal with the Prophecy. And fuck, it isn't just Harry he pulled this one. Try asking Snape how he felt about the revelation 'Oh yeah ,that kid I made you swear a vow to keep alive? I'm actually planning to have him die'. Snape was fucking PISSED at that one, as I recall.

So, yeah, Dumbledore is more than willing to tell you the truth... from a certain point of view.

That doesn't mean that he was willing to send innocents to their death unless given no choice

Severus Snape says "Hi." He might or might not have had no choice in Harry's case, but there wasn't no Horcrux in Snape's head.

And once given an option to avoid it (Tom taking Harry's blood,) he immediately set out to construct an elaborate plan

"You knew all this?"

"I guessed. But my guesses have usually been good."

... not really a plan, here. More like a goal. Or a hope.

And, well, goals and hopes are nice, but they aren't plans.

"Hope is not a valid course of action." -- US Army National Training Center. You're supposed to have more of a strategy than just hope for the best. You're also supposed to know how you're going to get there, instead of trusting to luck.

Oh, and then he told Harry it was his choice over whether to return to life or not. That's kinda benevolent.

... 'Hey, Harry, I set you up to die, but I will generously allow you the option to stay dead if you want.'

That's benevolence? That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

As I've already mentioned, I do think Dumbledore should have got some therapy and become Minister. There's a reason he praises Harry as being far more courageous than him. That said, the man didn't fear death at all. Next great adventure, and all that.

As I said, Dumbledore's physical courage -- courage in the face of physical danger and risk of death , to be specific -- is beyond question.

His emotional courage, or moral courage as its sometimes called, however, is very lacking.

But Dumbledore did have excellent self-discipline, which is what is being referred to.

Incorrect. One of the primary duties of a leader, especially a military-type leader, is to maintain good order and discipline among their organizations. That's what the word 'organization' means, after all -- organized.

Well, as I said, it's not Dumbledore's fault that he wasn't born with natural aptitude for military-grade tactics

Virtually no military officer is. Natural military genius is a thing you only see once or twice in a generation. The rest of them learn how, by actually working and studying.

And, y'know, its not like Dumbledore can't read a fucking book every now and then. Even just knowing some of the BASICS might have helped.

Also, a guy who wants to have a job, but not actually study for how to do that job? Not very sympathetic to me. They made ME study and pass exams before giving me my promotion, why the fuck does he get to promote himself to commanding officer without learning anything?

, nor is it his fault that apparently no-one else in the Wizarding World was.

Actually, hilariously, you know who actually did seem to have one?

Tom Riddle. Because while his strategy is fucking abysmal, dear God is it ever, his organization actually works fairly well. There's a clear chain of command, and he found and trained at least reasonably competent lieutenants to keep shit organized when he wasn't personally available. He might not be any kind of great tactical shakes, but at least he's a halfway decent administrator, which is halfway more than Dumbledore's ever visibly managed.

So, no, its not a thing entirely unknown even among wizrards.

As an relatively recent example of a fictional charismatic leader, who has subordinates he can rely on for superior tactical analysis, yes. But fine, it was just an example anyway.

From a manga series whose grasp on military reality is so epically thin that it makes J.K. Rowling look like Tom Clancy? Yeah, its an example I'm not touching at all, because seriously, I can point to episodes of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic that know at least slightly more about military leadership than Kishimoto did. I am not even being sarcastic.

There have been plenty of leaders throughout history who weren't tactical genii, but were charismatic as hell and could inspire their followers.

Indeed there are. I already named one, but his win-loss record was somewhat less than awesome.

PS: That guy actually did have some of the greatest strategists ever known, like Rommel, working for him. He still managed to lose. There really is no substitute for a leader who knows what he's doing. He doesn't have to be the SMARTEST guy, but he still has to be a SMART guy.

A dumb boss who is propped up by smart subordinates can succeed for a while, but eventually they will get outperformed. Just look around you. Shit, you probably work in an office like that for your day job. *g*

And if Hitler had had a decent strategic/tactical advisor

He did. He had most of them. Some of the greatest military minds of that age were all his generals.

and listened to him

A rare moment of agreement between us!

Of course, now you have to point out where in the series we actually see Dumbledore letting someone else compose his plans for him, and listening to them.

Because I damn sure don't remember that happening. Anywhere.

Also, does this count as invoking Godwin's law?

No, that's only if I call you a Nazi. Talking about the Nazis as a historical example is valid -- they are, after all, a significant part of real-world history.

I'm defending canon. I never have to worry about bearing the burden of proof.

Of course you do. For one thing, you bear the burden of proof of showing that your claims actually are IN canon, a place you have failed on several times.

The Mirror would have stymied Quirrell until Dumbledore showed up, if Harry hadn't butted in.

Wow, perhaps he should have told McGonagall that was actually his plan, so that when Harry came around and tried to warn her that the Stone was going to be stolen, she could have reassured him that this was intended. Then Harry would have felt no need to try and do what he thought was the right thing.

Failure of Communication, again! Y'know, this is actually not unknown in real-world military history -- you come up with a clever idea, but you don't let your allies know about it, so they do something that ruins your idea because they didn't know you were counting on something in the area and thought they were helping.

This is one of the reasons why communication is such a thing. Sure, you have to keep shit secret, but if you make everybody work blind and out of touch then you're going to get friendly fire incidents.

He couldn't lay good traps in the DoM without the Ministy's support, which he didn't have.

Which is why its poor strategy to bet all his chips on guarding the thing in the Ministry. He should either move it or deny it to the enemy, if he cannot lay good traps in place.

Oh, and what if the assault failed and Dumbledore/the Order lost?

By that same logic, Harry should never have attempted to fight the Battle of Hogwarts.

Dude, sometimes you just have to suit up and fight the damn battle. And if you lose, you lose.

This is why its better to be sneak attacking the enemy when he thinks he's safe, instead of waiting for the enemy to come and besiege you. Helps your odds as much as it may.

Add: Not that Harry's performance at the Battle of Hogwarts was anything earthshaking in the field of military command either, but I've never argued that Harry was a genius.

You just dissed the hell out of the Order a little while ago

And was 100% backed up by canon in so doing, because the opening sequence of DH is nothing if not a total rout for the Light Side. Poorly planned, badly managed, ended in death and confusion, and Harry survived only on pure luck and 'wandlore' plot device.

so why exactly are you now saying that Dumbledore should trust their combat abilities?

"There are no bad regiments, only bad colonels." -- Napoleon, A Guy Who Knew Something About Military Leadership

Or: If the Order is a bunch of poorly trained, disorganized stumblebums, who's fault is that? Um... the guy in charge of commanding them, who brought them all together in the first place? Y'know, last time I checked it was the CO who bore final responsibility for making sure his troops kept trained and in practice. Combat readiness is a commander's responsibility.

So, if you concede that the Order lacked sufficient combat readiness to actually be useful in a battle vs. Death Eaters, well, fuck, that's Dumbledore as bad leadership right there, all by itself. The only excuse would be if he had no time to finish basic training, but for fuck's sake, many of his people are veterans of the first war and most of the rest are trained Aurors. They're already supposed to HAVE training. What they need is ORGANIZATION and LEADERSHIP, and... well... um... yeah, that's the problem.

There's a difference between "paralysed by risk" and cautious. I claim he's the latter, while you claim he's the former. So Citation please.

How can you simultaneously claim he's just cautious while at the same time talking about how willing he is to take risks? You're making two arguments at once.

My argument is that Dumbledore is very poor at realistically judging risks (hence excess timidity where boldness is called for, and excess boldness where caution is called for), which is at least consistent. In both cases, Dumbledore is screwing up because he can't tell the difference between a big risk and a small one. You, OTOH, are not consistent, in that you are at one point saying 'no, Dumbledore is totally bold!', while at the same time saying 'no, Dumbledore is historically cautious!'

I will admit I could have been clearer that I was talking about poor judgement in general than passivity in specificness, with passivity merely as the primary and not the only example, so, fine, we'll call it a draw on this one. But for the record and from now on, when I complain about Dumbledore's poor skills at risk assessment and evaluation, I mean across the board, up and down.

Yes. Because canon's there, and I don't disagree with it.

Except when you totally disagree with it, and then pretend you're not.

Such as "Dumbledore wasn't sure Voldemort would return". Oh wait. He was. He said so in plain English. That's the canon, and what you're saying is.... not canon.

That's just ONE example.

That's how defending the canon of something works.

Step one of defending canon is to know what canon actually does say, and doesn't say.

You're sorta thin on that.

No, I'm assuming that canon is right. Because it's canon.

The problem isn't that canon isn't canon. The problem is that some things you THINK are canon are not actually canon.

Or, as Secretary Rumsfeld put it, its not what you don't know that kills you. Its what you think you know that turns out to be not actually so.

Except I'm not saying that things in canon that definitely did happen didn't, or things that definitely didn't happen did. I suggesting things that might or might not have happened, or

or blah blah blah.

I said at the beginning of this argument, "books or go home". Your fanon is no more sacred than anybody else's fanon.

Also, defending canon by making up whatever fanon you feel like? Is about as logical as fucking for virginity.

 

[TC_Hazard]

Yeah, I got to agree with nixofcyzerra here. Dumbledore is not perfect but he's also from from being as incompetent.

 

[Chuckg]

Yeah, I got to agree with nixofcyzerra here. Dumbledore is not perfect but he's also from from being as incompetent.

Despite the part where I've asked multiple times for people to give me examples of this competence, and the only things they can come up with are things that:

* In canon, were actually FAILED missions (giants, werewolves, et al)
* In canon, things Dumbledore confessed he was GUESSING on (Harry's blood, not dying when Voldemort AK'ed him, etc.)

It definitely wasn't in putting together an organized or well-disciplined army (fuck, nixofcyzerra, Dumbledore's main defender, just got through telling me that Dumbledore couldn't have led them in an attack on Malfoy Manor because they weren't ready to fight that kind of straight-up battle), in coordinating multiple far-flung objectives simultaneously (witness the list of times when the left hand doesn't even know what the right hand is doing, to the point where Harry's stumbling in actually fucks shit up even more), or in keeping his people alive through danger (witness the Order's really high casualty rate).

So, yes, lots of people SAY Dumbledore is competent. But that's "tell". Where's the "show"?

Competent at magic, yes, nobody questions this. Competent at leadership... ummm... Dumbledore has exactly as much leadership chops as Fudge does. (Both of them have a career suck-up willing to loudly announce that they're the bestest leader in the world -- Elphias Doge for Dumbledore, Dolores Umbridge for Fudge. Both of them have long peacetime careers in politics where nothing much happened. Both of them had their administrations fall to shit the first year the war actually started. Wow, there's a lot of common ground here!) But, y'know, that's not really what you'd call the best proof by itself.

This is Harry Potter, where nobody's reputation actually matches their reality. Hell, its Rowling's consistent theme, the dichotomy between truth and illusion. Voldemort's whole pose as the pureblood supremacist, when he's actually a half-blood. Everybody believing Harry is the Boy-Who-Lived, Magical Superhero, when above all else he wants to be seen as "just Harry". Lucius Malfoy, widely believed to be a pillar of the community, actually one of the planet's biggest scumbags. Severus Snape... hoo lordy, he's a whole new level all by himself! Etc, etc, etc, etc. Pretty much everybody has the them they show the world, and its different from the them they actually are, and sometimes even different from the them they show themselves, but now I'm starting to go Evangelion so I'll stop.

 

[TC_Hazard]

Despite the part where I've asked multiple times for people to give me examples of this competence, and the only things they can come up with are things that:

His plan worked.

That's competent enough.

You, on the other hand, need to rewrite canon and contradict WoG to support your theory. It's a position too extreme to take with any degree of seriousness to be honest.

 

[Spyth]

I think the people here seem to forget what Chuckg is actually trying to disprove here:

I think Dumbledore is still willing to make sacrifices, but an important point is that he doesn't want to sacrifice anyone if he can.

Picture Dumbledore as a Military commander. It fits him shockingly well.

He basically was. The Order of a Phoenix was a Militia (a military or other fighting force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency,) and Dumbledore was its General, even if he never used the title.