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

TC_Hazard · Jan 14, 2015

Spyth said:

Well, we do have Word of God saying world leader would benefit from his wisdom so... not really.

Keep in mind, he's the one who brought in all the other stuff as proof of Dumbledore's supposed incompetence.

Spyth · Jan 14, 2015

TC_Hazard said:

Just because they could benefit from his wisdom, does not make him a good military commander, that makes him a good advisor.

TC_Hazard · Jan 14, 2015

Spyth said:

Not really, no. Unless you want to argue the two things are entirely unrelated and that Dumbledore has no experience in leadership to speak of.

Chuckg · Jan 14, 2015

TC_Hazard said:

Actually, you can argue that. Just think of the long long list of good generals who then went on to become crappy politicians (Ulysses S. Grant comes to mind), and the list of experienced political leaders who haven't done well trying to micromanage their military. While some principles remain in common (such as administrative skills for large organizations), there is still a world of difference between being a politician and being a general. Its entirely possible to be good at the one type of leadership and suck balls at the other. So EVEN IF I accepted that Dumbledore was a great politician(*), still wouldn't mean he's a great general.

(*) Which is kinda hard to do when the guy got politically beat out by Fudge, who is an epic moron.

Or, fuck, you want another example of a wise man with a lot of advice for world leaders? The Dalai Lama. Doesn't mean he'd do any good running an army, would it? Spiritual leadership is not always political leadership is not always military leadership.

TC_Hazard · Jan 14, 2015

See, you keep doing that.

If your argument was something like 'Dumbledore could have done better', I'd say yeah sure.

You go so far the other way, it's just not possible to take you seriously though.

nixofcyzerra · Jan 14, 2015

Chuckg said:

I hope you realise that there's a big difference between "I wasn't actually completely perfect and was instead a flawed man who did his best" and "Oh, btw, I totally fucked everything up. EVERYTHING."

And Dumbledore having personal failings still doesn't make him a bad leader. Or are you saying there have never been great leaders who were terrible when it came to their personal lives?

It was still something he planned. When he says he wasn't sure, I'm pretty sure that he means that he didn't test it by going and finding another boy with a Horcrux stuck in his head and running simulations, not that he barely put any study into it all and just doodled it on a scrap of paper one day, and left it at that.

It doesn't mean that Dumbledore didn't instead intensely study the magic of the soul and the blood and finally come up with a hypothesis that luckily stood up to a live trial. It's just that he couldn't test it aside from under live conditions, due to only having the one test subject.

So you're arguing that Dumbledore was just really, really lucky? Even if that were true (and I'm not accepting that it is,) wasn't it Napoleon, who you're so fond of quoting, who said ""I do not want a good General, I want a lucky one?"

When asked the question "If you could pick anyone in the world to meet Dumbledore for a good, long chat, who would it be?," JK picked herself, because she really wants to meet him. That does not invalidate the fact that she almost picked a world leader, as she felt that they could benefit from Dumbledore's wisdom.

Conclusion 1 from this sentence: If it were possible, JK would really want to meet Dumbledore.

Conclusion 2 from this sentence: JK feels that world leaders could benefit from Dumbledore's wisdom. Ergo, Dumbledore is canonically wise enough on the subject of leadership that he could offer advise to national leaders. In other words, JK says: Dumbledore awesome at Leading.

Word of JK says that Dumbledore's a great leader. Dumbledore being a great leader is now canon, due to Word of God (in this case JK) being considered canon.

Now, either try to prove that canon is wrong by conclusively proving that Dumbledore was a bad leader through decisive evidence, or please stop posting on this topic.

Weeell, technically Dumbledore didn't lie in book 5. After all, in book 1, Harry asks:

and then in book 5, Dumbledore says:

Seeing as Harry never asks "So what's it going to take for Voldemort to finally kick the bucket?," in book 1, and in book 5 Dumbledore only basically says that he's going to answer the questions Harry did ask in book 1, he's technically not lied.

Seeing as my interpretation of Dumbledore saying "I'll tell you everything," is that he meant "I'll tell you everything I should have told you when you asked me those questions 4 years ago," based on both the immediately prior sentence, and what he says a little further down the page, the only way you can really claim that Dumbledore lied is if you think that he should have told Harry, when he was only 11 years old, that he'd one day have to die for Voldemort to truly pass on. And if you do think that Dumbledore should have done that, then Jesus Fuck, what's wrong with you, you sociopath?

Fine, then Dumbledore committed a lie of omission by not telling an 11-year old, and later a 15 year-old immediately after his Godfather died, that he'd one day have to martyr himself, with no chance of him surviving, unless Tom made some sort of colossal fuck-up. The Monster. /Sarcasm

Except that at that point Dumbledore had no way of knowing that Harry could just no-sell Voldemort's attempts to possess him. Of course Dumbledore is admitting that it was a stupid idea, and assigning almost all of the blame to himself, because he's judging himself with the benefit of hind-sight, with the new knowledge that Harry is possession-proof. Had he known that Harry was possession-proof, he would have taught Harry Occlumency himself (and likely done a much better job than Snape,) meaning that Harry would be able to protect the knowledge of the prophecy from Voldemort, and could be told about the orb in the DoM and warned that Voldemort would stop at nothing to get him there.

Or did you forget that Harry was warned several times that Voldemort was making him dream of that hallway for a reason, and had it pointed out to him by Hermione that Sirius being at the DoM made little sense and it could be a trap, right before they left? He was warned about the hallway. He just wasn't told the "Why" behind those warnings.

And now you're reduced to blaming Dumbledore for the failings of his subordinates! OK, hotshot, who, out of the people Dumbledore had access to, do you think would have made a better envoy the giants than the two half-giants, and would have been better at talking to the Werewolves than the actual Werewolf? I'm morbidly curious as to what your answer will be? Or will this be the 3rd question of mine you've ignored?

Harry knew that Hallway=Bad, and Hermione warned him it could be a trap. If Kreacher hasn't been a bastard (due to Sirius being a bastard to him,) or if Harry had taken 5 minutes to think of the mirror, Sirius wouldn't have died.

Harry: But sir, what do I have to do with it? Can't he just sneak one of his Death Eater's in if he can't do it himself?

Dumbledore: Uhhhh...

Voldemort: Oh yeah, I forgot I was totally gonna possess this kid and do my best to kill Albus or make him kill the brat himself. I'd best get on with that now that the two are in the same room together. Thanks for the reminder, Albus "Fumble-more!" *Insert Evil Laughter here*

Actually, no. See, I, unlike you apparently, can make the distinction between "the emotional trauma of not knowing if either you or your lover killed your sister, causing causing you to develop a pathological aversion to the root cause of the events that led to your sister's death, the conscious pursuit of power" and "not wanting to have to watch a man you trusted mock you for being foolish for doing so." In case you hadn't figured it out, the former is much more severe than the other, and so I didn't "group" them together in my mind.

Oh, and while we're back on the subject of Sirius's trial, do you have a counter for either my point that, judging by the conversation about Sirius in chapter 10 of PoA, Sirius was probably caught and sent to Azkaban while Dumbledore was making arrangements for Harry at Privet Drive, or my point that as Dumbledore isn't a member of the Wizarding equivalent of the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office, he shouldn't be expected to investigate Crouch for any sign of corruption?

'Cause I'm curious.

Citation that Arthur's Muggle Protection Act wasn't just to protect Muggles from potentially harmful magical artefacts. You know, seeing as Arthur worked in the Misuse of Muggle Artefacts Office.

It's just you seem to be claiming that Arthur Weasley single-handedly made it illegal to Muggle-borns to be treated differently than Purebloods under the law. Which, you know, makes no sense.

Well, no, because A; plenty of people note that Fudge isn't an amazing leader (like Hagrid in book 1,) and B; nobody who wasn't already in direct opposition to Dumbledore ever accused him of poor leadership.

And you notably failed to demonstrate that applying those tactics to the Ministry building would have been a smart move politically speaking.

Except I was using it as an example for Dumbledore's creativity and ability to think outside of the box. Not his tactical abilities. Or did you already forget about the part where I noted that three different sources, Forbes, Military.com, and FUCKING SUN TZU don't mention tactical ability in their list of qualities that a leader needs?

You are correct sir. Creativity is not necessarily a sign of good tactical ability. Now if only that was the point I was trying to make.

...No. Lily created a counter-charm through self-sacrifice that personally protected Harry from Voldemort. Dumbledore claim up with the clever idea of expanding this protection to an entire house by sending Harry to live with his aunt, and thus applying the protection to all who lived at Privet Drive. That is creative.

You know, this would actually go much faster if you could actually read what I write and not mis-interpret it.

Citation that Dumbledore acted that way to anyone but Harry and Snape. You do realise that both Harry and Snape were special cases, right?

Or it just means that Voldemort couldn't cast spells without a wand, and it's impossible for you to confound yourself so Quirrell couldn't do it? Or that, as the Mirror of Erised is supposed to reveal the "deepest, most desperate desire of our hearts," and thus can be said to have a much more powerful/deeper analysis ability than the Goblet of Fire (which can't differentiate between people who enter names and thus needs an Age Line to prevent under-age Wizards from entering,) just confounding the mirror wouldn't work?

Right, so rather than there being extenuating circumstances that we're unaware of that could explain what appears to be poor tactics on their part, obviously they're both idiots. Sounds Legit! /Sarcasm.

Oh, I didn't realise you had a perfect understanding of that charm and it's quirks. Seeing as you do, would you mind explaining why Dumbledore could be the secret keeper for #12, but James couldn't be the secret keeper for Godric's Hollow? Seeing as you understand every minute detail of how the charm works, and under what circumstances the charm can and can't work.

Except the mirror is canonically a perfect defence for the stone, and all the other traps were basically there as a bonus, and possibly just to prevent people who were trying to get the stone out of the mirror getting away before Dumbledore shows up to hand them their ass.

And we're back to traumatising a now-12 year-old by telling him that a piece of his parent's murderer's soul is stuck inside him (and that the only way he can get it out is by dying,) and removing your spy's only motivation to work for you and not instead commit suicide.

You did see my use of the word "innocents," right? Apparently not. Or are you a Snape apologist now? Is that it? Do you dream of Alan Rickman whispering sweet nothings into your ear?:snigger:

OK hotshot, show me a canon alternative method of removing a Horcrux from a human being without killing them. Or tell me a way that Albus could test any of his theories.

Except it was Dumbledore symbolically freeing Harry from his manipulations, and telling him that he had the freedom to choose whether to return to the world of the living to deal with Tom, and not instead take the train to where his parents, Sirius and Remus were waiting for him.

He takes pretty much the first chance he gets to give (or return) the power to control one's fate to Harry. Not to mention that he essentially started trying to figure out a way to cure Harry of a terminal disease, almost immediately after he realised that there was even the slightest hope (Tom took his blood! That moron's given me the chance to allow Harry to live long enough to vote!)

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, as Dumbledore is a big proponent of doing the right thing over the easy thing, and refusing the ministry position is the only canonical example of Dumbledore not following that creed that I can think of.

Actually, the "Discipline" Sun Tzu referred to in the qualities a leader must have (and not the qualities a leader must inspire in his subordinates) was Self-discipline, although Discipline is one of Sun Tzu's "The 5 Factors for Victory:"

So I'll guess I can accept your supposition that Dumbledore should have read some Sun Tzu. All those Christmas presents of books, and not only does he not get any thick, woollen socks, but he didn't get any military strategy people. Didn't anyone look at his Amazon wishlist?

Citation that there's any tactical classes anywhere in the Wizarding World even in Auror Training, or that there are even any books on tactics. Unless there are, the only way that Dumbledore could get any training is if it actually occurs to him to go and buy some military books (and seeing as he doesn't even like fighting, he's hardly going to read them for fun,) or some bright spark of a muggleborn who reads Tom Clancy novels buys him one.

...Damn it Hermione! *shakes fist*

Right, because ruling through fear and frequent application of torture is fantastic management strategy. /Sarcasm

Because expecting a society of superhumans who tend to develop unique fighting styles, and who start active service at 12, to follow standard military doctrine makes perfect sense. /Sarcasm reaching toxic levels.

Except that A; lack of tactical ability isn't an indication of lack of actual intelligence, and B; as I, Forbes, Military.com, and Sun Tzu have already pointed out, tactical ability isn't the even in the top 5 of most important traits in a leader.

But, hey, I guess you know better than those guys! /Levels of sarcasm have reached a point where it's causing me physical pain.

Well, actually you would have to prove that Dumbledore didn't include anyone in the day-to-day planning of the order, and didn't include Snape's input in all of his plans bar the whole "Harrycrux bit." You know, onus of proof still being on you and all that.

Huh. Fair enough.

For the last time, I don't have to prove that any of my suggestions actually did happen in canon. I present them as potential "plugs" for what you claim are "plot holes," and then you have to disprove them. If you can't, then you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dumbledore was incompetent, and your hypothesis is rejected.

So now McGonagall, who barely knows Harry at this point, is suppose to explain to Harry how a complex magical object works and that said complex magical object in involved in the defences around the stone, and also predict that Harry, an 11 year-old child, would try to prevent any attempted thefts that couldn't have succeeded by going for the stone himself even after being told "Look kid, some of the best and brightest of the Wizarding World designed this sh*t. No single wizard is going to get past."

Should she have given him a guided tour, too?

Keep in mind that A:

Quirrellmort has to get Hagrid drunk just for the secret of how to get past Fluffy. The so-called "Darkest Dark Lord evar!" is reduced to buying Hagrid enough pints that his lips start to loosen. I mean, really? That's got to be a new low for Tom.

And B:

In order to get past the Stone's defences, you'd have to be able to wrangle (or KO) Fluffy, a cerburus, which Quirrellmort wasn't up to handling and needed drunken advice from Hagrid to pull off, escape some Devil's Snare (that would probably have restricted the trio's wand-arms if they hadn't been so damn small at the time,) get on a broom and show some seeker-level skill at catching a key, outplay a very talented giant-sized enchanted Wizarding Chess Set that'll knock you the f*ck out if the piece you're standing in for gets taken, punch-out a troll, and then beat a logic puzzle. And then you're stuck with the Mirror of Erised.

It's only plot-convenience that means that the trio were almost perfectly suited for beating the defences. They're like a natural counter. I'm honestly not sure that any of the Hogwarts staff (aside from Dumbledore) could pull it off solo. I mean, Snape's a capable wizard, and he didn't get past Fluffy.

Citation that McGonagall didn't already know exactly how the mirror worked and just didn't feel like explaining it to Harry, a 11 year-old first-year student.

*groan* But we've already discussed how him moving it or denying it might not be an option! And you still haven't replied to my point that Bode might have spilled his guts to Malfoy about the defences surrounding the DoM while under the Imperius, allowing the DE's to just swan in, which Dumbledore wouldn't have been able to do at any point prior to this.

Except that sometimes delaying a battle until you have a better chance of winning is also good strategy.

The only reason you have provided for me to think that Voldemort took up residence in a fixed location after OoTP, and not instead after Dumbledore died, is that Bella gave Draco Occlumency lessons. I then pointed out that Dracro could have regularly visited her safe house (or even temporarily moved in, I guess) instead, to which you didn't reply.

So citation that Voldemort was chillin' at Malfoy Manor during HBP.

The order failed to overcome and rally against a sudden sneak attack lead by Voldemort himself. Pathetic. /Sarcasm.

Do Commanders of sanctioned Militia even have a legal responsibility to train their troops, and wouldn't their Hogwarts DADA lessons (I know, I know,) count as learning to handle a deadly weapon? I mean, Wizarding society is an armed society. Plus, well, Citation that Moody, Shacklebolt and Tonks weren't teaching them the odd trick every once in a while, I guess. Don't really care about that one.

Wait, I forget: Don't the DE's also have a significant numbers advantage? Not to mention the fact that Dumbledore's Order should have just been support for the Aurors, instead of having to work around them. So, fuck Fudge, basically.

But there's a difference between risking one or two guys on a infiltration/surveillance mission, and risking the entirety of your forces on an all-out assault where the possibility of success is unknown. I was arguing that Dumbledore was willing to let members volunteer for a risky mission where, despite the danger, it has to be done, but not willing to risk it all by "going all in," to use a Poker Metaphor.

There's a difference between being "sure" of something "I was sure that that horse was a winner," "I had a Full House! It was a sure thing!," and knowing incontrovertibly that something's going to happen (by having proof.) I apologise if I didn't make the distinction clear.

Can you actually list some of the others? Because I was doing my best to ensure my fanon (plot-hole plugs) "fit" the canon we know of and didn't directly contradict it.

How so? I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to.

Again, how so? I'm mystified.

Tv Tropes said:

If you disagree on such a basic concept as whether JK's interviews and supplemental material like Pottermore is counted as canon, even when JK herself has declared it so, then why are we even arguing? We're never going to reach any form of solution or compromise, and might as well just agree to disagree.

I mean, do you even think that Dumbledore is gay? 'Cause that was only revealed in the interviews, but it has a massive influence on the interpretation of the relationship, platonic or otherwise, between Dumbledore and Grindelweld.

It may seem illogical, but all you're doing is pointing out plug holes, which, if they cannot be explained within reasonable doubt, mean that Dumbledore wasn't a good leader. All I'm doing is pointing out ways that the plot-holes could be filled. They might not have actually been filled that way, but all I need to do is illustrate the possibility that they could be filled.

*shrugs* That's just how it works, when you're defending the Author's intended portrayal of a character.

Chuckg said:

Well-

...

*considers the point further*

Shit, that's actually a damn good point. That said, the battle of the Wizarding World was also an ideological war, with Light vs. Dark, and "Importance of Blood-purity" vs. "Choices define us far more than our circumstances of birth."

And if I were fighting an ideological war, and I had the opportunity to have the Dalai Lama as a leader who has important input into the decisions made by the command of my side, I'd take him up on that in a heartbeat. The dude's wise as hell, and he's basically made of awesome. My troop's morale would hit the F'ing roof if I had him at my command table.

Also, does your lack of response on several of my points mean you've concluded that Legilimency is likely not admissible in court, that Dumbledore not being a member of the Wizarding JCIO means that it wasn't his responsibility to investigate Crouch, and that finding financial records of personal, private transactions in the Wizarding World is nigh-impossible due to Gringott's apparently not providing bank statements?

TC_Hazard · Jan 14, 2015

nixofcyzerra said:

Not really, since the quote refers to Dumbledore's ability to advice world leaders (who are usually political and military leaders at the same time). Dumbledore is also both types, having a political importance and leading his own band of vigilantes.

So there being people who are good at one thing but not at the other doesn't really factor into it. It may be true, but it's irrelevant from the get-go.

nixofcyzerra · Jan 15, 2015

TC_Hazard said:

Oh yeah, that's right. The US president is also the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and holds the ultimate authority. Generals would be the ones who actually advise him.

So JK saying that Dumbledore would have plenty of advice for World Leaders that they should listen to actually sort of implies that Dumbledore's a good enough General to be worthy of advising a President when their country's at war (although the question remains as to whether Albus's a bad enough dude to rescue them.)

Chuckg · Jan 15, 2015

Fucking hell I had a whole answer typed out and then the browser crashed and I lost everything.

OK, let's try this again. Its going to be shorter this time.

nixofcyzerra said:

OK, first off, if its not on the page I don't want to hear it. All of your 'I'm pretty sures' and 'it might' and 'maybes' are fanon.

You claim to be the defender of canon. Canon is not the stuff that you wrote. Canon is the stuff that Rowling wrote. If it didn't come from her, it ain't fucking canon. Yes, even if its your 'interpretations' of the 'obvious'.

Yes. This is indeed exactly what I am saying. Dumbledore was just really, really, really, really, really, really, really, incredibly fucking lucky.

Notice that this means Napoleon is putting "good general" and "lucky general" into two separate categories. Which they are.

Technically he didn't lie? Ah, so, more Jedi Truth then?

Is precisely that -- your interpretation. Not Rowling's canon. Your. Interpretation.

I don't see your name on these books as co-author. So, your interpretation is not Word of God.

Completely irrelevant. Dumbledore's only reason for not telling Harry stuff is 'Voldemort might hear this!'

That reason obviously doesn't apply if you're only talking about stuff that Voldemort already knows, because then it doesn't matter if he hears it.

List Of Some Things Voldemort Already Knows:

* There is a prophecy in the Department of Mysteries.
* I want to trick Harry Potter into going there and getting it for me.
* Dumbledore doesn't want that to happen.
* I can send fake visions to Harry Potter.

So, nothing stops Dumbledore from talking about any of this at any time. Voldemort could possess Harry all he wants, he's not going to find out anything new here.

And Snape, for all his ranting and raving, never stops to mention the most important part -- that the visions can be faked as well as real. That is the critical piece of knowledge that Harry lacked, and the one that, if he'd had it, wouldn't have followed the vision to the DoM.

Of course, its also a piece of knowledge Tom had all along, so risking him overhearing this? Zero risk.

From Snape, who Harry doesn't entirely trust, and Dumbledore knows that Harry doesn't trust. This is another problem with picking Snape to be Harry's teacher. Information that comes through Snape is something Harry's not going to believe. If the information had come directly from Dumbledore, of course Harry would have trusted him.

I might point out that Harry tried to check on Sirius' whereabouts before leaving Hogwarts, and only left after Kreacher had told him Sirius was gone.

Of course, Kreacher was lying, but apparently Miss SPEW didn't know that house-elves can lie if they're not talking to their masters.

Which is why, of course, he didn't heed the warnings. If you don't tell people why things are important, then sometimes they won't realize why things are important. That's basic communication. And that's what Dumbledore failed to do.

That is how the military works, dude. Commanders are responsible for when their troops fuck up. This is why when a bunch of privates and a sergeant fucked around with prisoners at Abu Ghraib, it wasn't just the privates and the sergeant that got court-martialle, but in addition about half a dozen officers got relieved and a brigadier general ended up having to take early retirement.

So, yeah, the simple fact that you're actually surprised I said this only highlights that you don't know even the simplest things about military leadership.

Yeah, its not fun being an officer sometimes.

My answer is, 'the operation had such a low chance of success Dumbledore shouldn't have sent anybody, because it was just a waste of their time and exposed them to potential risks for no gain'.

Y'know, like a couple other things Dumbledore did. This is in fact a consistent habit of his -- sticking people out on the sharp end and not getting any useful accomplishments back in return.

Not much commander chops there.

Albus: "Stupefy."
Tom: "Shit, I forgot that Dumbledore was expecting me to do this and that I can't beat the dude in a straight-up fight. You had your wand out under the desk the whole time, didn't you Albus."
Albus: "Next time you want to try a surprise attack, Tom, how's about you actually make it a surprise? I mean, you KNEW I was expecting this. I'd just TOLD Harry I was afraid you were in his head. Of course I'm not going to talk to him without precautions, I'm the fanon Dumbledore who actually has common sense."
Tom: "So THAT was my problem! I was expecting the OTHER guy!"
Albus: "Canon Dumbledore? Hah, no wonder you thought you could just walk in here."

So, your excuse in the Sirius case was that Dumbledore would flee even a SMALLER emotional trauma. One that's even relatively INSIGNIFICANT compared to his issues about Ariana's death.

... OK, if you say so, but that only makes Dumbledore look worse.

Like I said, if we go with this theory it only makes Dumbledore look even worse. Like, totally neurotic. Like, how can we expect him to command any kind of war if he flakes out like this whenever.

Yes. According to the conversation in chapter 10, Sirius doesn't confront Pettigrew and get caught by the Ministry until the day AFTER Hagrid takes Harry to Privet Drive, meaning those arrangements are already done.

Remember, Hagrid meets Sirius at Godric's Hollow, borrows his motorcyle, and uses it to fly straight to Dumbledore. Sirius then goes off after Pettigrew, and catches up to him "the next day" according to Madam Rosmerta when she and Fudge are talking about it.

So, there's your cite.

Shit, let's start keeping score every time you and canon disagree on something.

Canon 1, nixof 0.

Irrelevant. It is the duty of any citizen to report a serious crime that he knoss happened. This duty is only stronger if that citizen is also an officer of the court or a judge. What you're doing is the equivalent of claiming 'because Dumbledore specifically wasn't in Internal Affairs, its OK he walked right past that dirty cop'. That is not how it works in real-world law enforcement, m'man.

Of course, this is Wizarding Britain, which has an infamous amount of political corruption.

Of course, that by itself only reflects poorly on the seniormost officials of this establishment, who you think -- if they were honest and hardworking -- would be doing their best to try and cut down on this corruption wherever they found it.

So, either Dumbledore didn't try, or else he tried his best but even his best efforts produced zero results. That's a debate between "lazy" and "incompetent" as competing theories, and since Dumbledore looks bad in either one, I'm not even worried about nailing down the difference.

Well, as I just pointed out, either he wasn't working that tirelessly, or alternately that the "best of his ability" is still pretty miniscule. Because, man, the wizarding government is seven shades of fucked up. Bribes, corruption, total lack of respect for habeas corpus, miscarriages of justice all over the place, and Death Eaters as senior ministry advisors... ugh! Dumbledore, can't you clean up any of this mess?

"Best of his ability", huh? Doesn't look like it. But even if it is... well, shit. If that's really your best, Albus, you're still not very good.

Wait, did you just say that its possible for a Potterverse character's opinion about Dumbledore's leadership skills to be wrong, if they have a personal bias?

Well, shit, then we can ignore anything Elphias Doge says about how Dumbledore is awesome, too. He's one of Dumbledore's best friends! He's just as biased in favor of Albus as the Death Eaters are biased against.

Canon 2, nixof 0.

Thinking outside the box is only useful if thinking outside the box produces results. Otherwise its just another way of saying wasted effort.

We're doing that thing again where you only quote the parts that agree with you. Because you have obviously overlooked a lot of FUCKING SUN TZU.

From now on, please stop saying that Sun Tzu didn't think tactics or stategy were important. His entire treatise is based on strategy and how to make it. I mean, fuck, what do you think "The Art of War" refers to, painting flags?

So, why are you talking about it in a discussion of whether Dumbledore is a good tactician or not?

If only the points you were trying to make had anything to do with the points I was trying to make, indeed.

Yes, and, this wasn't good enough by itself why?

Yes, and its also pointless, as its only benefit is to protect three more Muggles... who wouldn't have needed ANY protection if Harry hadn't come to live there.

Think about it. Did Voldemort even know who Lily Evans was related to, and did he even care? The only reason he ever went to Privet Drive at all is because it was where Harry was living. If Harry had never gone there, the Dursleys would never have been in danger. I mean, fuck, they survived the 11 years of the first Wizarding War without any problems, and for at least 3 of those Lily Evans was a member of the Order of the Phoenix. And Severus Snape, the Death Eater who knew all about Lily's family, was still loyal to Voldemort then. If they weren't targeted back then, why the hell should Dumbledore have ever thought they'd suddenly be targeted now? He's the one who MADE them targets, BECAUSE he sent Harry there!

Look, Petunia Dursley is a child-abusing half-wit that I hate with an endless disgust, and God knows Dumbledore being a dick is no excuse for taking it out on a defenseless child so may she burn in hell for eternity, but she was still right about one thing. Dumbledore really did do a gigantic dick move when he dumped Harry on them.

So... yeah, not seeing the brilliance here. Or the benevolence, for that matter. Sure, it was creative, but creativity at being a dick is not a virtue.

And it would go at warp speed if you could give J.K. Rowling the same courtesy.

I love how first its all 'Harry was a special case!', and then I point out Snape, and now its 'Harry and Snape were both special cases!' If I find a third, will there suddenly be three special cases?

BTW, I can find a third and a fourth. Ron and Hermione. Dumbledore left the entire Horcrux Hunt team hanging in the wind when he could have found much less ambiguous ways to communicate things to them. The simplest way simply being to give them a note, or the fucking Sword of Gryffindor, right before he died. Or, y'know, instead of just leaving a cryptic symbol in the diary and a surly painting of a dead headmaster that only spoke up when it felt like it, he could have written it all down in a note that would only appear if the person reading it swore they were solemnly up to no good or something.

And what would Dumbledore's plan have been if Snape hadn't lived long to pass his dying memories on to Harry? Harry was only extreeeeeeeemely lucky he was actually there to see Snape off. One minute later showing up and Snape's a corpse and Harry dunno shit, and so misses the last vital clue, and oh shit last Horcrux never gets destroyed and WHOLE WIZARDING WORLD BE FUCKED.

Yeah, Dumbledore's ability to communicate things to his subordinates had some serious flaws all down the line.

Voldemort was doing advanced wandless magic even before Dumbledore showed up with his Hogwarts letter, remember?

Canon 3, nixof 0.

A soul fragment of Voldemort possessing someone else is still separate from that person, and can still confund that person, manipulate their mind, and affect their memory. See "Diary-Tom and Ginny Weasley".

Canon 4, nixof 0.

Since I was talking about confunding the guy standing in front of the mirror, and not the mirror itself, you're doing that thing where you answer an argument I never actually made again.

Irrelevant bullshit 1, nixof 0.

Occam's Razor says that if you have two competing theories, and one of them requires you to assume that a lot of things allegedly happened behind the scenes that you were unaware of, and the other one requires you to make one simple assumption only, you go with the second one.

So, yeah, totally legit.

Watsonian Explanation: James got so caught up in playing a clever shell game with Sirius and Peter that he forgot the simplest way of doing things. Which would be totally in-character for James, to skip "what would be common sense" in favor of "what would be the best prank".

Doylist Explanation: Plot hole.

I might point out that in this instance, it is your responsibility to prove that a Fidelius Charm wouldn't work for hiding the Philosopher's Stone, because all the canon we have about it is that it can hide things really well. Rowling never actually goes into any limitations it has, except for 'You must have a Secret-Keeper' and 'if the original caster dies, everybody who was told the secret is now a Secret-Keeper'.

A perfect defense is one that never fails. The defense did fail, as soon as Harry was put in front of it.

Canon 5, nixof 0.

Except that in canon, Voldemort did escape before Dumbledore showed up to hand him his ass.

Canon 6, nixof 0.

Saying "Yeah, Dumbledore told Harry Jedi Truth but it was justified!" still admits that he DID tell Harry Jedi Truth, which is the point I was making.

Wait, are you saying that its OK for Dumbledore to set Snape up to die because in a just world, Snape would have been given a death sentence for all of his crimes in Voldemort's service before his defection?

... you know what? You're absolutely right. Dumbledore is totally justified in setting up Snape to die here. Thank you for pointing that out.

Canon 6, nixof 1.

Grab a Death Eater, grab a Horcrux, allow the Horcrux to possess the Death Eater (after first, y'know, making sure the Death Eater can't escape... I hear that vanishing the bones from a guy's arms and legs is in vogue this time of year), and shazam, you now have a guy to test all your Horcrux-removing strategies on. If he dies? Welp, go get another Death Eater. Its not like there's a shortage.

I mean, like you just pointed out with Snape and I agreed, fuck them, they've totally it coming.

Pretty soon you'll solve that Horcrux-removal problem. After all, all you need is enough lab rats.

Speaking of rats, anybody seen Wormtail lately? Heh heh heh.

And we're doing the thing where you make up whatever interpretation of a scene you want, even if its not anything Rowling ever actually wrote, and then demand I treat it like Word of God.

I would sooner smooch a Dementor. With tongue.

Telling a guy that he has the option of choosing death or life, when I'm the guy who set him up for his near-death experience in the first place, is about as generous as telling a guy he has the option of getting his wallet back or letting me keep it, right after I just mugged him of his wallet.

Fuck, its about as generous as giving a child his own property back after borrowing it without asking for 11 years, and then claiming its a Christmas present from you. Not that Dumbledore ever did anything like that.

... how'd this invisibility cloak get here?

Well, the first chance he gets after he's already finished using Harry for all of his own purposes, which means that yet again, its not really that generous at all. That's like me going 'Here, you can generously have your Xbox back, now that I've finished playing all your games before you even got a chance to open the packages.'

He took 17 years of Harry's life. He doesn't deserve a thank-you note just because he didn't try to take the next 90.

Yeah, said cure being 'I will set you up to be murdered by the Dark Lord, let's hope your death is only temporary'.

Also, the "cure" is something that landed on Harry by pure luck at the age of 14, and that Dumbledore could not possibly have seen coming. Meaning that for the first 14 years of Harry's life, Dumbledore's plan was for Harry to die with NO cure.

Albus Dumbledore: Cold As Ice.

He does preach it, but does he practice it? Not as often as he should have.

Right Thing: The people I placed Harry with are abusing him. I should go there and make it plain that I am keeping an eye on them and that if they don't shape up, I will do everything I can short of actually taking their children away
Easy Thing: But its a lot easier just to never confront them at all. Maybe I can send a howler. Once. After 15 years of nothing.

Right Thing: Hagrid is innocent, I should do what it takes to get him a fair trial.
Easy Thing: Don't politically challenge the Minister

Right Thing: Even though I sincerely believed otherwise for 14 years, I have just found that Sirius actually was innocent. I should find some way to clear his name.
Easy Thing: But I got other shit to work on, Sirius can just wait. Its not like he'll die or anything before I finally get around to it.

Right Thing: Severus Snape isn't happy teaching, isn't very good at teaching, and is making most of his students miserable. As an experienced educator who is also a genius, I am uniquely well-equipped to understand the problems that a genius can have in trying to explain things to people who aren't geniuses, and should probably guide and mentor Snape through the same learning process I went through to become the very highly regarded teacher that I was during my own classroom days. I should also make it plain that certain standards of good manners are expected from Hogwarts staff, so that the students are harassed less.
Easy Thing: Or I could just sit back and watch.

Right Thing: The government is full of corruption. As a senior, if not the seniormost, official in the judiciary, I should do anything within my power to reduce the influence of the Death Eaters upon the lawful democratic process.
Easy Thing: Apparently, 'anything within my power' is 'virtually indistinguishable from nothing'.

The list goes on and on.

And also something he emphasized very highly elsewhere in his Art of War, if you've read it. The whole section on the concubine training alone, eeesh!

Don't be so pureblood! What, Albus Dumbledore, the great egalitarian, son of a Muggle-Born mother, can't think to go into a muggle bookstore every now and then? Does he have no interest in learning the ways of the neighboring culture? Especially when so many of his students are new immigrants from that culture?

Hermione isn't even the first brilliant muggleborn he's known. Apparently he paid no attention to Lily Evans, either!

I didn't say he was perfect, but the Death Eaters did still seem to be somewhat more organized than the Order of the Phoenix was, and much better disciplined.

Which is kinda sad when you think about it. I mean, fuck, when you're applying the descriptor "better disciplined" to any organization that includes Bellatrix Lestrange and Fenrir Greyback, the people you're comparing them to must really really really suck at it.

................ you do realize that's what he meant when he was listing Intelligence, right?

And, um, no. That's Russell's Teapot territory, what you're doing.

If you want to say something happened in canon, you have to be able to show where it happened in canon. Saying 'well, it happened off-stage', and then demanding someone else prove it DIDN'T happen offstage, is a gaping logical fallacy.

So fuck that and fuck your teapot too. Books or go home!

Yes, you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Too long to quote here, just read it.

OR she could have just said:

"It is a trap. We want him to go there. Then we will catch him. You do not need to help."

Shazam, I just explained everything the 11-year-old needs to know, and I was able to use all one-syllable words. Even Harry Potter ain't gonna misunderstand this.

Remember back when I was pointing out that Albus and Tom were having a stupid contest, and they were pretty much neck-and-neck all the way down?

This is another one of those things supporting that theory. Because, yeah, you could write an essay on the dumb shit going on in Philosopher's Stone. On both sides.

Gee, if only there was this giant basilisk he could have gone and asked in Parseltongue to help eat the cerberus for him or something.

Seriously, Tom was not impressing anybody that year.

All of which, in canon, he clearly had problem no doing, seeing as how he'd waltzed that far without breathing hard.

Canon 7, nixof 1.

Which he got Harry to hack for him and only lost the Stone because of blood protections he didn't know about.

And you can't say 'All according to Dumbledore's plan' because I think Dumbledore's plan wasn't for Harry to be anywhere near there. (And if it was, well, holy shit, ruthless motherfucker much, Albus? He's eleven years old! Wait until he's older before throwing him in the fucking Thunderdome with the Dark Lord, why don't you!)

Canon 8, nixof 1.

I certainly hope it was plot-convenience, because the alternative is assuming that Dumbledore was ruthless on a level that was mind boggling, and even I don't want to go that far.

Snape got distracted and made a mistake. I mean, he had to know how to get past Fluffy, he helped set up the traps! Which means at minimum, he had to be there once when Hagrid helped him get past Fluffy, so he could go set up his own. I'm sure its kinda hard to miss a half-giant singing.

You could call it either way, Rowling never tells us enough to know for sure, but all that does is put the failure of communication on McGonagall, it doesn't change the part where there was one.

But we're discussing Dumbledore's failures, not the failures of everyone in the world, so, fine, score this one as a 'maybe, maybe not'.

If by "discussed" you mean "you came up with a ton of theories that were never mentioned in canon as to why it was allegedly possible, some of which were even contradicted by canon, and then you demanded I treat it all as canon and refused to listen to me when I said no way I would do that because you don't get to make stuff up just because you want to", then yes, we discussed it.

Otherwise, no.

As soon as you used the word "might" you left canon behind, and thus left all my interest behind with it.

Yes, and delaying a battle until after you're dead, your enemy has taken over the entire country, and your successor has to fight a desperate battle against worst odds and survive only on a miracle and get most of his people killed in the process?

That's NOT a good strategy.

There's also that Voldemort has a choice of living in a decaying shack owned by his dead father, whose very memory he hates, or of living in the most luxurious mansion in Magical Britain, and which one do you think he's going to choose? The only reason he didn't go there in book 4 is he didn't trust Malfoy to take care of him while he was still a weakened homonculous. He gets his strength back and can push Malfoy around, he's gonna help himself to the good stuff all he wants, 'cause he's the Dark Lord.

Um, yeah, I did say I was summarizing, y'know. Posts were getting too long.

I was 'filling in the blanks', like you love to do. *g*

But, OK, fine, Voldemort is staying somewhere else. Snape just tells the Order to go there. After all, he knows where Voldemort is. Indeed, the beginning of HBP has Snape telling Bellatrix that the Dark Lord has told Snape more about his upcoming plans than he's told even her. *g*

And if its not at Malfoy Manor, they don't even have to worry about aurors. Its not like a call for help from a Muggle mansion that's supposed to be deserted is going to be taken seriously.

When they knew Voldemort was coming six weeks in advance. I mean, fuckin' seriously, if you know the date your enemy will be attacking six damn weeks in advance and are still taken by surprise, you suck. Does the Order of the Phoenix ride into battle in a fucking clown car? I swear to God, they're worse than F Troop.

What's pathetic is that they sent Harry back to the Dursley's house in the first place.

Think about it. The only reason to send Harry back there is to recharge the blood protections for the next year. But the blood protections expire at the end of that summer. There is no 'next year' to recharge them FOR!

They could have just portkeyed Harry straight from the front gate of Hogwarts at end of term directly to whatever Order safe house they were going to use, after having quietly slipped the Dursleys out the day before. Shazam. Voldemort spends six weeks waiting for Harry's birthday, triumphantly arrives at an empty house, and is left sucking his wand because he has no idea where on God's green Earth Harry Potter is now.

Also, nobody dies.

Sun Tzu has a few quotes about fighting battles when you don't need to. Short version: he's down on it.

No, its just something they need to do if they don't enjoy the taste of failure.

DADA? Which is consistently the worst taught class at Hogwarts? They averaged what, two years out of seven that they actually had a teacher who knew what he was doing? Three?

Anybody who relies on DADA alone to get them fighting fit is insane. I mean, fuck, that was the entire reason Harry formed Dumbledore's Army. BECAUSE he knew that the DADA classes weren't getting the job done, and that if he wanted the kids to know how to survive, he'd have to fucking train them himself.

Hey, Albus. The 15-year-old kid is a better militia commander than you are. And still he's actually not that good at it, he's just not as bad as you.

They're not all staying in the same house. Indeed, that's another reason to start doing Death Eater home invasions, instead of waiting for them to all come at Hogwarts in a siege. When the enemy outnumbers you, YOU should be the one doing guerrilla raids, not sitting back and waiting for the enemy's raids. The entire point of guerrilla raids is that it lets you keep up a fight even when you're outnumbered, because since you are picking the time you attack you can wait until you catch a smaller group of enemy by themselves and then throw your team at it, thus allowing you to have local force superiority in each individual battle even if you are outnumbered in absolute terms. Or: Asymmetric Warfare 101, something else you visibly know nothing about. (Hint: The entire point is that its how a smaller group makes war on a bigger one without getting mulched. That's the "asymmetric" part.)

But the one thing you don't do in asymmetric warfare? Wait for the enemy to come attack you in your base. Because, natch, that just yields the advantage to the enemy, as it gives him time to assemble his whole team together and come at you in force.

... wow, apparentely both Albus and Tom were fighting the war entirely damn backasswards from how they should have been, given their circumstances. Welp, that definitely goes along with my 'they both kinda suck at this, one just sucks marginally less' theory.

Well, yes, but when something goes wrong, the bad leader sits and sucks his thumb, and the good leader does his best to work around it.

You're talking about something else than I was talking about, again. Hint: home invasions? Who's going to raid who when?

So, canon is sacred and not to be questioned -- unless you're asking the questions.

For a guy who claims to defend canon so much, you sure don't want to listen to it.

You think your "plot-hole plugs" are as good as canon, and that nobody can argue with them unless they can prove them wrong with canon.

They're not. They're just fanwank. And the burden of proof for them is on you, not your opponent.

And I'll keep saying it.

Because it genuinely is.

And quoting canon in multiple places. That's bit more than just going 'plot hole'. That's going 'the plot actually did say something about that, and this is what it said'.

Well, if we're going to discuss Dumbledore's qualities as a spiritual leader, I'll agree that he's not too awful there.

Still doesn't stop him from being a military disaster, though.

Oh, if only he'd left someone handle the war side of things for them, and actually listened to them.

But, that never happened in canon.

Well, yes. But that still makes him the general's advisor, and not the general himself, as was pointed out.

Nope. It means you ignored me when I said yesterday that if I didn't answer a point of yours it didn't mean I was conceding the point, it only meant that I'd lost patience with your fanwanking and didn't want to bother. I mean, fuck, these posts are getting to be encyclopedia sized as is. I don't start trimming for length somewhere, I won't have time to go to work or sleep.

Chuckg · Jan 15, 2015

nixofcyzerra said:

Well, yes. However, the last time we had a President actually try to exercise battlefield command was (correction) President James Madison during the War of 1812, when the British army was sacking Washington DC. And Madison had actually been a militia officer during the Revolutionary War so he had at least some idea of what he was doing. And even then, that was because shit was all fucked up during an emergency with the British Army actually in Washington DC, and the instant he got his army regrouped he handed day-to-day command back to the professionals.

Future Presidents have stuck to telling the military what they want done and letting the generals figure out all the strategy of how to do it, or relieving them when the generals tried to do their own goals instead of what the government wanted done. *coughMacArthurcough* At least, the ones who have succeeded have.

We did have Presidents who actually tried to micromanage their generals and not only set goals, but also dictate strategy and tactics directly. Most of the wars they got in, they lost. I'm sure you've heard of at least one of them. It was called Vietnam.

Sooo... yeah, good politicians are not always good warleaders, and vice versa. Even in systems where the Commander-In-Chief is ultimately a civilian.

Nope.

TC_Hazard · Jan 15, 2015

nixofcyzerra said:

He'd rescue him, then kidnap him again. The convince him to kill himself in a plot to stop the terrorists.

While chewing a lemon drop.

Chuckg · Jan 15, 2015

Agh, I missed this yesterday. Welp, let's get on it.

Recap: This is the one where we are discussing the merits of a hypothetical alternate strategy that did not happen in canon, but I think would have worked better than some of the things they actually did try in canon.

nixofcyzerra said:

Of course he does. What's he going to do about it? He can't call the Aurors and say that he had an alibi, and having Lucius do it is sorta pointless because in canon, Fudge stopped believing anything Lucius said the instant Voldemort revealed himself at the Ministry.

Why didn't they do this after the real Voldemort sighting in the Ministry?

Oh, right, because it wouldn't have worked. Once a crowd of wizards actually saw Voldemort in the flesh, public opinion did a 180 right on the spot.

Seeing "Voldemort" should have the exact same effect, unless Tonks fucks up and forgets to change her hair from being pink or something.

The problem with this theory is that in canon -- you know, that thing you allegedly defend -- all it took for Fudge to change his mind on the Voldemort issue was actually seeing -- fuck, glimpsing -- Voldemort in the flesh during an attack. That's what he actually did in OotP, which is canon.

So, as soon as he sees "Voldemort" in this example, why doesn't he do the same thing? It's not like he has the skills to tell a real one from a fake one, especially seeing as how he's never actually met the real Voldemort before.

If the largest obstacle to this plan is 'getting a lie past Fudge', then I think this plan is about as easy as gravity. Its not like Fudge isn't hugely fucking gullible.

By this same logic, Dumbledore in canon should have had to prove that he didn't arrange for the DoM fight.

Except he didn't. Voldemort gets seen by witnesses once, and BAM, everybody forgives Dumbledore instantly and believes Voldemort is back and reinstates Dumbledore to all his positions and boom.

So, basically, your theory is all 'What if the wizards suddenly act 180 degrees opposite from the way they did in canon when an extremely similar situation occurred'.

Well, yeah, that's because when you're faking being dead, anyone not on your side seeing you alive again -- anywhere -- blows the whole deal and your deception collapse.

Oh wait. That's exactly what I'm doing to Voldemort here.

No, it wouldn't have. But of course, Crouch believed it so much that he didn't think Sirius even needed a trial.

Which is my point. Its not really that hard to fake out a crowd of wizards, if you have even basic competence at stage-managing. They'll all believe it so hard they won't even do the simplest double checks.

So, basically, canon is SUPER IMPORTANT, except when it doesn't do what YOU want the plot to be, and then its WE CAN'T THINK ABOUT IT.

Ahahahahahahahaha. *snort* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You're starting to realize that Rowling's plots aren't exactly the best put-together things in the world, aren't you.

Seriously, its an extremely interesting setting, with tons of potential, which is why I read it, talk about it, read the fanfic, and talk about the fanfic.

But plot-wise? Its... really sloppy.

In fact, this is one of the main reasons why I assume that Dumbledore, and many other wizards along with him, are actually kinda stupid. Because that's the only way the plot actually isn't full of holes.

After all, one of the valid in-story reasons for 'why did this character walk right past this obvious way to solve his problem?' is 'because that character is thick as two bricks', and, well, welcome to Magical Britain, The Land That Common Sense Forgot.

Because she adds credibility to the idea that that other guy is Voldemort, of course. Only the real Voldemort could possibly command the loyalty of Bellatrix Lestrange!

Because he didn't want to know, of course. That's also why they had to slap Fudge in the face with seeing Voldemort directly with his own two eyes before he'd finally get off his ass. Because Fudge was deliberately NOT investigating.

Asking 'why didn't Fudge use this method of investigation' requires assuming that Fudge was even interested in TRYING to investigate in the first place. Hint: In canon, he wasn't.

Because it doesn't matter if he did or not, as even if your theory is correct, your argument is still based on the assumption 'Dumbledore, aka the great Legilimencer in the world, also couldn't go get information from an Unspeakable if he needed to'. He wouldn't even need to let the guy know he was doing it, unless all Unspeakables are also Occlumens, and hey, guess what canon never says.

Add: Or, y'know, spike the guy's tea with some veritaserum, then Obliviate him after you're done so he doesn't call the Aurors or anything. Hey, does Dumbledore know anybody who can make veritaserum, or who knows memory charms? There's lots more ways to get info from someone than just an Imperius. In fact, does anybody in canon ever actually use an Imperius to make people tell them things, as opposed to making them do things?

nixofcyzerra · Jan 15, 2015

I've elected to not respond to some of your arguments, Chuckg, which I'd normally consider being both quite rude, and something that could be taken as an admission that it was my ability to respond to your arguments that had been compromised rather than my desire to.

However, seeing as you did it first, I might as well just go for it.

Chuckg said:

Except that people's words can actually sometimes be up to interpretation, at least when it comes to fine distinctions, and sometimes you have to infer exactly what someone means from the context. Can you look at what's written and conclusively prove your assertion that "Dumbledore definitely meant this?"

No it was also "I don't want to tell a 15 year-old that he's going to have to kill or be killed," and "even if I tell Harry only the bare minimum of information, he's still both curious as f*ck and in the past four years has repeatedly shown the ability to find information and figure stuff out. If I give him an inch, he could take a mile. Best not risk it."

Citation that Dumbledore actually knew for a fact that Voldemort was capable of transmitting actual fake visions, seeing as during Harry's and Dumbledore's conversation at the end of OotP, he only says:

Examples of the bolded part would be the flashes of emotion that Harry occasionally felt, such as the surge of joy harry feels after the Azkaban break-out, as well as the uncharacteristic thoughts that would suddenly come to him, such as the "dormant snake" mentioned.

Dumbledore never actually says "I knew that Voldemort could send you artificial, fabricated versions of the type of visions you've occasionally had since shortly before the start of your fourth year," and I'm not seeing anything that proves that he did know.

There is a world of difference between a superior officer being unaware that the men under his command were torturing prisoners, and a superior officer being held responsible for his subordinates failing a mission that was never certain to succeed.

You do realise that this is a perfect example of a Straw Man argument, right?

So when I say that Dumbledore shouldn't order a mission because it's too risky for too little potential gain (or too little chance of gaining significant potential gain) he's inflicted with command paralysis, but when you say that Dumbledore shouldn't have sent anybody on a particular mission, for the same damn reasons, it's good tactical sense?:huh:

And attempting to deny Voldemort alliances with the Giants and Werewolves is in no way a waste of time. If Hagrid had succeeded, then that Brock-dale Bridge wouldn't have "worn out" and there wouldn't have been that "hurricane." You know, the stuff mentioned at the start of HBP?

Right. That's why, during the DoM duel, "For the first time, Dumbledore sounded frightened." Because he knew he could just stun Harry.

Not because Dumbledore's and Voldemort's duelling abilities are damn close, Harry has great reflexes, and Tom not having to care about potential damage done to his body (due to it not actually being his,) and Albus having to hold back due to not wanting to hurt Harry, are actually massive advantages.

If Harry hadn't suddenly turned out to be possession-proof, Voldemort would have either killed Dumbledore while possessing Harry, right there in the atrium (and while the Minister was watching to boot,) or much more likely, forced Dumbledore to kill Harry simply by making Albus go all out to defend himself and blocking any attempts Dumbledore makes to subdue "VoldeHarry."

Or are you saying that it's just as easy for a Police Officer to arrest someone as it is for them to just shoot them?

That's not a fight Dumbledore wants, or should want to have. At all.

No, that he wouldn't rush in to face any emotional trauma when he doesn't see the need to. Who would?

Except that Harry doesn't arrive at the Dursley's until more than 24 hours after James and Lily were killed, late in the evening of November 1st. The "missing 24 hours" has been discussed since, like, book 2.

Which means that if Sirius was caught during the afternoon of November 1st, he could have been in Azkaban by the time Dumbledore's done securing Harry.

Oh, wow. If only I had been arguing this whole time that Dumbledore had no idea that Sirius hadn't had a trial until at least PoA. Oh wait, I fucking have.

Incidentally, if it is illegal to sentence someone to prison/execution in Wizarding Britain without a trial, how do you explain the fact that Fudge was able to immediately have Barty Crouch Junior kissed by a Dementor without any form of trial, and was never shown to face any sort of consequences for it, despite Dumbledore and McGonagall being visibly horrified by it?

So yeah, apparently the Minister of Magic can just throw anyone into prison or execute someone without a trial, as long as he's not going to get crucified in the court of public opinion for it.

Or will this be another point I make that you decide not to answer, not because you're conceding the point, but because you've "lost patience with my 'fanwanking' and don't want to bother?" -_-

So now you're claiming that Dumbledore's either responsible for all corruption in the Wizarding Government, or he's a failure for not single-handedly cleaning it up?

You do remember when you were accusing me of Straw-manning, right?

You do realise that that if you apply this opinion, i.e, "only results count," universally, that you're essentially calling every single leader in history who ever ordered a creative tactic to be carried out but still ultimately lost idiots, right? So if any of, say, these tactics (or these or these) had failed, then the people who devised them were idiots and not simply unlucky.

Except that Sun Tzu made the distinction between "General" and "Leader." One of the Key Points of "The Art of War" is the proper relationship between the Ruler and the General. Sun Tzu holds the ruler should not interfere in military affairs, which is fair. However, he doesn't explain what to do if the Ruler can't find a General that has superior tactical abilities to him, which is the situation Dumbledore seems to have found himself in in canon. Seeing as you've still not given a name of a canon "Light-side" character that actually has superior tactical ability to Albus.

I've been arguing that Dumbledore is a good leader, while all you're doing is arguing that he's a bad general. And almost all of the quotes of Sun Tzu you've just posted refer to the use of strategy that Sun Tzu says should be the General's domain.

And, once again, before you start that particular argument yet again, you can't blame Dumbledore for not being a tactical mastermind. You could blame him for not ceding leadership of the OotP to someone with superior tactical abilities, but you haven't named someone who both possessed such abilities and that Albus actually had access to.

I'm not. I'm taking about it in a discussion of whether Dumbledore is a good leader or not.

Because Voldemort could still drop a house on him Wizard of Oz style? Whereas Harry being at Privet Drive meant that not only could Tom not touch Harry or hurt him with spells, but that Tom couldn't even go anywhere near Privet Drive until Harry was 17? Or how about the fact that Privet Drive was still Voldemort-proof even after Tom took Harry's blood?

Right, obviously Dumbledore should tell Ron and Hermione things and then make them promise not to tell Harry. That would have worked out perfectly. /Sarcasm.

And did you forget that Dumbledore tried to leave Harry the Sword of Gryffindor in his will, only for Scrimgeour to f*ck it up? Except that it was only a replica, 'cause Dumbledore totally saw that sh*t coming? And so came up with the alternate strategy of having Snape deliver it via "Doe Patronus" beacon?

Anything that he willed to the trio would have been given a thorough examination by the Ministry. Do Not Want!

And as for "right before he died," you do realise that he was caught off-guard by Malfoy getting all those DE's into the castle, right? He didn't expect to die that day.

Except that even if Harry hadn't got Snape's memories, Harry and his saving people thing still would have gone to throw himself on Tom's wand (Ugh, bad mental image.) He just would have been a lot more surprised during the explanation at the "Train Station."

Fine, then allow me to revise the wording of "without a wand" to "while stuck as a leech on the back of someone's head." I figured that you'd be smart enough to realise that young Tom casting wandless magic and Voldemort on the back of Quirrell's head not casting wandless magic are different enough that directly comparing the two is pointless, but I guess I was wrong.

Non-existent citation that Voldemort inhabiting the back of Quirrell's head works in any way at all similar to the young Tom Riddle Horcrux possessing Ginny, please. Because I must have missed the scene where 17 year-old Tom's face was growing beneath Ginny's hairline.

I know, I was answering the potential question "Why didn't Quirrellmort just confound the mirror?" before it was brought up. Which, seeing as I had already provided answers to the question you actually asked, is completely acceptable.

Is your go-to answer for every unanswered question in this book: "X was an idiot?"

Wow, if only there was some way to kind of way to fill those holes. Some sort of "theories" that, although seeming to be the "obvious" or "only" interpretation of canonical facts, aren't actually part of the canon, but still prove that logical potential explanations for the plot holes can be thought up, thus invalidating just calling something a "plot hole," or "a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that creates a paradox in the story that cannot be reconciled with any explanation." (Source of last quote: Wikipedia.)

Some sort of "fan canon." If only... -_-

Uh, no. Still not my responsibility. Potential "plot hole:" (see definition above) Dumbledore didn't use the Fidelius Charm to hide the stone.

Potential explanation for potential "plot hole" that makes said "plot hole" no longer a "plot hole" if said explanation makes sense: The Fidelius charm couldn't be used to hide the stone and Dumbledore (and Flitwick who knew about the charm, and Flamel, who's had over 600 years of protecting the stone to figure out ways to protect it) isn't (aren't) an idiot (idiots) for not realising that.

So now you prove that the explanation that I provided doesn't or can't "fill the plot hole and make it no longer a plot hole." In other words, conclusively prove that the Fidelius Charm could have been used to protect the Stone.

...Good luck with that!

*sigh* Canonically a perfect defence against any who would wish to take the stone for personal profit, whether it be direct (using the Stone for major cash dollah/immortality) or indirect (wanting to give the stone to someone so they'll reward you.)

If Harry had been motivated by thoughts of glory (being known as the guy who protected the stone from the forces of darkness,) or even just was doing it to get a pat on the head from Dumbledore, he wouldn't have been able to get the Stone out of the Mirror.

Logic/Reading Comprehension: 20 billion, Chuckg: 0.

:huh:...As a Wraith/Bodiless Spirit.

I seriously have to ask, are you trolling me by being this obtuse intentionally?

And Dumbledore first gets his hands on a legitimate Horcrux that hadn't already been destroyed (the diary) when?

That's right, just before he died. Oh wait, that one was a fake too!

There isn't a face-palm gif in existence that expresses the sheer level of exasperation I'm feeling right now.

Yeah, except that canonically the only other methods we've seen of destroying a Horcrux are Basilisk venom and Fiendfyre.

Seeing as Harry actually got poisoned by Basilisk venom and precisely jack happened to his Horcrux scar (although a well-written AU where that happened would be fantastic to read, as Dumbledore's game plan would entirely change once Harry doesn't have to die in order for Voldemort to,) are you now going to suggest that Dumbledore should have tried to figure out a way for Harry to survive getting his head fried off by Fiendfyre?

No? Oh. Guess Albus had better get back to the "make sure the next AK Harry's hit with is by Voldemort, ensuring that their strengthened bond allows Harry to survive, and also granting the entire Wizarding World a version of Lily's protection" plan then.

...No sh*t, Sherlock. I haven't disputed that. He couldn't save Harry, and instead did his best to ensure Harry's death would mean as much as possible (protection from Voldemort for everyone.) Then the moment the situation changes and he can save Harry, he incorporates it into the plan.

I suppose he could have placed Harry's life above the safety of the entire Wizarding World. Because that's definitely what a leader of men should do. /Sarcasm.

Chuckg is preaching to the f'ing choir. Let's see how long it takes him to notice!

Prove that Dumbledore knew prior to Philsopher's Stone. Also prove that after PS that exposing Harry's summers to constant threat of DE attacks is better than only receiving the bare minimum of care from the Dursley's.

Judging by Barty Junior receiving the Dementor's Kiss without any sort of a trial, apparently the Minister can execute people on the spot if he really wants to. Prove that Dumbledore could undertake any official action that would free Hagrid from being temporarily remanded.

Dumbledore: "If only I had some of that pesky 'evidence.' Like if Pettigrew hadn't escaped. Then I'd have Sirius declared innocent in two shakes of a Hippogriff's tail."

Oh, and Chuckg? If you're going to start claiming that Pensieve memories/Testimony of Legilimency/Veritaserum are admissible in court, you'd best explain why Fudge didn't order Legilimency used on Harry during his trial in Book 5 first. Just saying.

Citation that without Dumbledore's efforts the Ministry wouldn't have practically looked like it did in Book 7, all the way back in book 1. Or did you forget just how quickly the Ministry went to sh*t once Dumbledore died? Keep in mind that there weren't that many Death Eaters in Ministry positions in book 7. Yaxley was DLME head, and there were a couple of others, but that's it. Just having Pius Thicknesse under the Imperius Curse allowed all kinds of stuff to happen. Umbridge was in charge of the Muggle-Born Registration Commission. Not a DE, Umbridge.

Add this to the fact that apparently Dumbledore had no allies amongst the Wizengamot during Harry's trial, and this pretty much implies that the Ministry was a "hive of scum and villainy" going back for years.

And Dumbledore, alone, with apparently only one minor department head, Arthur Weasley, as an ally, is supposed to clean this sh*t up?

That seems "a little unreasonable" in the same way that Vernon Dursley is "a little overweight."

Point, although as I mentioned in other arguments, was there a significant reason for this to occur to him? Were the losses of the 1st Wizarding War easily avoidable if Dumbledore had studied military tactics a little more? Or are losses basically unavoidable in a war where you're fighting terrorists?

Sirius Black said:

Voldemort would have won the first war if it wasn't for Harry. So if Voldemort canonically kicked the Ministry's (and Auror's) collective ass then, why are we supposed to expect Dumbledore to be able to lead the "OotP 2.0" to triumph?

Keep in mind that a Militia in a country that already has a standing military force is only really expected to support the actual Military by taking on less vital roles, and would only actually be called up to active service in the absolute direst of circumstances. Like, for example, the Home Guard, which existed from 1940 to 1944 and 1951 to 1957. So the "OotP 1.0" would really only have been created to support the Aurors.

It isn't until after Fudge has denied Voldemort's return (and thus the mobilisation of the Aurors) that we even see actual Aurors like Shacklebolt and Tonks show up as Order members. They were identified as Aurors who believed Dumbledore when he said Voldemort was back, and then recruited as part of Dumbledore's attempt to convert the OotP from a support-based organisation to a "Special Op's" organisation, that had missions such as protecting resources vital to the war effort (Harry) and trying to deny Voldemort resources through diplomacy (envoys to Giants and Werewolves.)

Have you ever seen an episode of an old British show called "Dad's Army?" Because you're basically arguing that Dumbledore should have fought Terrorists (the Death Eater's) with the magical equivalent of those guys. Or if he used the D.A, the magical equivalent of the Cub Scouts.

Except that comparing a terrorist organisation that utilises torture to maintain discipline to the magical equivalent of the Home Service Force (which has a training obligation of only 4-5 weekends per year) is actually really unfair.

*sigh* No it doesn't.

You're the one making the "positive affirmation" (trying to prove that Dumbledore is a bad leader.) Ergo, onus of proof resides on you.

And if that's not enough, from here:

Technically speaking, for an Atheist to disprove anything in the bible, they have to bear the Onus of Proof. They would offer the presupposition is that there is no God, and would have to prove it.

While I am in no way particularly religious (agnostic, if anyone cares,) the concept remains the same: You are trying to prove a supposition that goes directly against the canon that is JK's books and other official, canonical supplemental materials such as interviews and Pottermore. Ergo, the burden/onus of proof lays on you. Period. If I suggest any form of counter argument, you're the one who has to disprove it (or at least cause it to be considered unlikely beyond reasonable doubt.) Period.

I don't have to prove Jack. PERIOD!

I'm pretty sure that you're now bringing up the fanon that the Stone was a trap for Voldemort. There's a difference between a store having a security gate that drops down once an alarm is tripped so the attempted thief can't quickly run out the door, and said store specifically setting out to trap potential thieves for the lulz.

Or it's just evidence that Fluffy = "Bestest Guard Dog Evar!" Which, seeing as Fluffy's a Cerberus, makes sense.

Citation that the Basilisk wouldn't just have eaten Quirrellmort, and/or citation that Quirrellmort can move a, what, 60 foot, Basilisk up to the 3rd floor without being noticed by teachers, students, portraits, House-elves or ghosts. And I know the basilisk moved through the pipes, but I didn't see no sink or toilet in Fluffy's room.

And how long did it take him? How much of a lead did Quirrellmort have on the trio, when they only set off after everyone else went to bed? An hour? Two?

So you're admitting that Quirrelmort couldn't have hacked the Mirror if Harry hadn't shown up to effectively do it for him?

Uh, no. Even if the Stone was an actual "lure them inside" trap for Tom (which canon has never confirmed,) then Dumbledore's plan would have involved arriving to see Quirrellmort poking the mirror with a stick, and then proceeding to hand him his ass. On a silver platter. If the Stone was a trap (still not saying it was,) then Harry F'ed it up (or would have if it was an actual trap.)

Citation that Snape was present when Fluffy was brought in, and knew how to get past all of the defences. Actually, wouldn't it make sense for the innermost defences to be set up first? So considering that Snape's logic puzzle was the penultimate defense, he should know less about the defences than the other staff (except Albus) do!

I really can't endorse the idea that McGonagall should have explained the workings of the defences surrounding the stone to three 11 year-olds. I can endorse the idea that she should have listened to the trio (if only to find out how they knew about the Stone in the first place!) Unfortunately, if she had listened, what would the trio have told her?:

See my above references on the definition of "Plot Holes" and "how I can too make stuff (theories) up if I want to and you can't do sh*t about it," and cite which theories that I postulated actually contradict canon ('cause I had a look and can't see any.)

Otherwise, no.

Except that you can't do that without abandoning your attempts to conclusively prove that canon is wrong. You have to disprove any theory I come up with, or show it as being completely illogical and improbable.

Wizarding tents. One of them at the World Cup was an extravagant silk palace surrounded by live peacocks. Your argument is invalid.

...Would you care to respond now?

Except that I can, due to being the one defending canon, and you can't, due to you being the one attempting to conclusively disprove canon.

So, sucks to be you, I guess.

OK, so Snape tells Albus that Voldemort's planted his bitchin' magical tent (and Jesus that sounds dirty) in some field somewhere, or somewhere where Dumbledore never would have been able to track him down normally.

So Dumbledore takes his Magical Home Service Force (with a couple of extra "heavys" that he was able to convince to join,) that although legal in the 1st war, is currently unsanctioned due to the Minister refusing to recognise Voldemort's return, to attack Voldemort while he's just chillin' out in his crib.

So it's Albus vs. Tom, where neither of them really knows who the winner's going to be, and a group of hardened Terrorists... vs Magical "Dad's Army," a couple of actual soldiers, and a retired Badass (Moody.)

...Place your bets, people! Â£50 says the DE's literally have the Order's guts for garters! Bella seems like she'd be up for that kind of freaky sh*t.

On second thoughts, I can't actually defend this. Because even though:

the Imperius'd Pius Thicknesse made it an imprisonable offence to connect Privet Drive to the Floo Network, or to place a Portkey there, or even to Apparate in or out,
the Trace was in effect, so if Harry or anyone around him cast a spell to get him out of there, Thicknesse, and thus the DE's, would know about it straight away,
the Order was moving Harry on the 27th July, 4 days before the Blood Protection was supposed to end,
the Order was relying on the "7 Potters" plan, a plan that they thought Mundungus Fletcher(!) had come up with after Snape's betrayal, to confuse and disorientate the DE's, and were caught off-guard when it stopped working after Harry cast his "trademark" Disarming charm,

...Dobby or Kreacher could have just taken Harry to the Tonk's place.

House-elves: Hax. Wizards not abusing the hell out of this: Stupid.

I guess this means that Dumbledore was just so much better at tactics compared to the rest of the Order that they were lost without him.

So Dumbledore is supposed to turn his "Dad's Army"-esque Order into a fighting force that can defeat Death Eaters in a couple of months?

I think we're edging back into "Blame Dumbledore for not being a miracle worker" territory.

*sigh*

He's willing to let members of the Order volunteer for a dangerous mission (guard the DoM door) because it had to be done, but wouldn't be willing to send the entirety of the Order on an all-out assault, as the potential risk is too great. Willing to risk the former, but not the latter.

And even if all the DE's are living seperately at this point, if Albus takes the entire Order to assualt one guy's house, then all the other DE's will elect to stick together because of safety in numbers. Meaning that the second time Dumbledore tries this strategy it'll erupt into a full-out battle where it's the Order (that primarily consists of non-combatants) vs Hardened Terrorists.

So one DE taken down in exchange for severe escalation. Doesn't seem like a good trade, does it?

Look, the only way that anyone can be absolutely completely 100% sure about something is if they have proof, right? So the only way that Dumbledore could be 100% certain that Voldemort would return is if he had proof. Seeing as he says that he didn't during HBP:

when he told Snape that he was "sure that Voldemort would return," he must have meant "sure," in the "extremely good guess I'm 99.9% sure my guesses are really very good" sense.

First of all, see my above linked sources on where the burden of proof lies in debates.

Second of all:

"Fan Wank" article on TV Tropes said:

Seeing as I'm not trying to "fix" canon by changing something wrong with it, and instead arguing there's nothing wrong with it in the first place, I cannot be participating in Fan Wank.

I could argue that you technically are by insisting that Dumbledore should have transformed himself into Magical George S. Patton.

These two individuals have spent far more effort considering this question than I currently care to.

However, in just about every fandom, the vast majority of fans tend to consider supplemental materials like interviews and Pottermore canon. Word of God is a trope for a reason. In the second of the two articles I linked, someone, who apparently like yourself (thanks for clarifying that so early on, btw<_<) considers only the 7 books canon, admits that:

So, yeah. If you really only do think that the 7 books are canon, then I seriously wish that you had told me at the beginning of this argument, as I would never have even bothered to participate had I known.

Also, thanks for not answering this:

If you had, we could have clarified this a bit sooner.

FOR THE LAST TIME, WHO? WHO IS THIS TACTICAL MASTERMIND THAT DUMBLEDORE SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO MORE? MICHAEL McDOESN'T-EXIST?

Chuckg said:

Voldemort sends a random DE to random Ministry worker #842, and confounds him into accusing Dumbledore of faking the attack.

Because Dumbledore would be able to prove that he didn't, unlike if he had actually orchestrated the attack. Then public opinion does another 180, so Albus ends up right back where he started, but worse, because now there's "proof" that he's been lying about Tom's return.

Duh.

Yes... and if someone had had the bright idea to accuse Dumbledore of faking the Voldemort, we would have had this annoying sub-plot until Dumbledore proved his innocence.

Because the prophecy was smashed. Voldemort didn't want people denying his return anymore, he wanted to murder some peeps.

Again, it's possible it could have happened, thus annoying, tedious sub-plot, but Voldemort wanted to murder people and have people covering under their beds. Prophecy's gone. He can't get his hands on it anymore.

Not even the "late" Voldemort's number one guy, Sirius Black? That f*cker basically lied to the guy he called his best friend for a decade! The man's got ice-water in his veins. He's Hardcore!

Except that Fudge also wanted to discredit Harry/Albus, because he thought Albus was trying to inspire a panic so he could "finally take the minister position like he always wanted!"

Hence the smear campaign.

Fasted way to silence Harry/Albus: Prove they're full of sh*t. Fastest way to do that: produce iron-clad proof that they're full of sh*t. Ministry Legilimans reading Harry's mind and finding "Oh look, he's full of Sh*t:" fastest way to do that.

But he didn't. Because he couldn't. Nothing that Fudge did in book 5 was technically illegal. Violated the spirit of the law so hard I'm surprised it didn't conceive, but he did follow the letter of the law. Ergo: Evidence or Testimony gathered via Legilimency is inadmissible in court.

And you're assuming that the top-secret government think-tank doesn't have procedures for this sort of thing in place, just because they don't have procedures in place for an Unforgivable Curse.

H-Man · Jan 15, 2015

Wait, about the Crouch thing, wasn't the Dementor acting on its own before Fudge could even order it?

Though I assume it could've been ready to do the same to Sirius if he had been found and Fudge would get no less than a pat on the head from everyone at large still afraid of him.

nixofcyzerra · Jan 16, 2015

When we told Mr. Fudge that we had caught the Death Eater responsible for tonight's events," said Snape, in a low voice; he seemed to feel his personal safety was in question. He insisted on summoning a dementor to accompany him into the castle. He brought it up to the office where Barty Crouch -"

"I told him you would not agree, Dumbledore!" McGonagall fumed. "I told him you would never allow dementors to set foot inside the castle, but -"

"My dear woman!" roared Fudge, who likewise looked angrier than Harry had ever seen him, "as Minister of Magic, it is my decision whether I wish to bring protection with me when interviewing a possibly dangerous -"

But Professor McGonagall's voice drowned Fudge's.

"The moment that - that thing entered the room," she screamed, pointing at Fudge, trembling all over, "it swooped down on Crouch and - and -"

Harry felt a chill in his stomach as Professor McGonagall struggled to find words to describe what had happened. He did not need her to finish her sentence. He knew what the dementor must have done. It had administered its fatal kiss to Barty Crouch. It had sucked his soul out through his mouth. He was worse than dead.

"By all accounts, he is no loss!" blustered Fudge. "It seems he has been responsible for several deaths'."

"But he cannot now give testimony, Cornelius," said Dumbledore. He was staring hard at Fudge, as though seeing him plainly for the first time. "He cannot give evidence about why he killed those people."

"Why he killed them? Well, that's no mystery, is it?" blustered Fudge. "He was a raving lunatic! From what Minerva and Severus have told me, he seems to have thought he was doing it all on You-Know-Who's instructions!"

Huh. So it did. Still doesn't change the fact that Barty didn't get a trial for the crimes he had committed since escaping Azkaban, and neither Fudge nor his Dementor Bodyguard (WTF?) faced any consequences for doing so.

Or maybe Fudge had to pay a fine. /Deadpan

TC_Hazard · Jan 16, 2015

H-Man said:

Yep. Not reliable creatures those Dementors.

Honestly, I have no idea how on earth wizards got Dementors to work for them in the first place.

Like, is there a guy who speaks Dementor out there to handle negotiations?

Chuckg · Jan 16, 2015

nixofcyzerra said:

And of course you are never wrong about an interpretation ever. Any interpretation you make should be uncritically accepted. /sarcasm

Sir, in case you have not yet grasped it, I do not agree with you that your interpretations accurately reflect the author's intent. And one of the primary reasons I do not agree is because your interpretations require making so many assumptions about things that allegedly happened offstage, to the point where you are essentially writing your own fanfic between Rowling's lines and then claiming that this is canon proof.

So, basically, you're right because you think you're right.

Uh-huh.

He doesn't have to get into that in order to tell Harry a simple 'Stay the hell away from the Department of Mysteries, even if Voldemort sends you a vision saying you totally need to go there. The vision can be faked.'

Yes, because of course the best way to keep a curious teenager from trying to figure out on his own what is going on is to deliberately deny him any information about what is going on! Because that worked so well for keeping Harry's curiosity down the previous four years in a row that Dumbledore tried this strategy. Not telling Harry anything totally kept him from trying to do his own efforts to dig deeper. /sarcasm

Ever heard the one about how insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result each time? Yeah, well, by that definition Dumbledore's behavior here is bugshit insane.

BTW, I'll notice that this is the point in the story where Dumbledore actually did start telling Harry at least some things at the beginning of the year instead of his usual 'nothing until the very end of the year, after shit's already all blown up', witness all those home movies of Voldemort he was showing next year and all. Apparently even Dumbledore has at least a partial capacity to learn from his mistakes. Pity Sirius had to die first before he finally started to clue in, but, I guess better late than never.

And I still love how Dumbledore can actually say in plain English 'Harry, if I'd told you this piece of information like I should have, shit wouldn't have gone all fucked up', and you're still coming up with "interpretation" that 'proves' that canon really says 'Dumbledore shouldn't have told Harry'. You are so stubborn that your interpretations are always perfect that you're actually denying the plain text 180 degrees out.

So, Dumbledore knew at least from the time Harry had the vision of Arthur Weasley being bitten. Which was before mid-term.

[/quote]
Also this part, yes. 'Manipulate and misdirect'. The hell do you think he's referring to? Wait, don't answer that, I don't even want more of your "interpretations", they make my damn head ache with how twisted they are.

So, he can't talk to Harry about anything Voldemort doesn't already know, check.

Of course, Voldemort already knows what his own plan is, so Dumbledore could talk about that all day if he wanted to. He just can't talk about his OWN plans... but he doesn't need to here.

Or, for that matter, if Dumbledore is afraid of any face-to-face conversation with Harry at all, he could just give the information to anybody else Harry trusts -- such as, oh Sirius -- and ask them to tell Harry. Harry would listen to Sirius, too... and Voldemort already knows Sirius Black is Harry's godfather, because Bellatrix knows. (She taunted Harry with it, remember?)

Instead, Dumbledore chooses to use Snape, and only Snape, as his information conduit to Harry this year about what the visions mean. Snape, the one guy in the Order above anybody else that Harry is most likely to blow off, or think is lying to him. Shit, OotP is the book where Harry says flat-out that he thinks Snape is really working for Voldemort.

Yeah, brilliant plan there, Albus. Not.

I honestly don't think it would matter if he did, because you'd still find some crazy 'interpretation' of his words to allegedly explain why he didn't really mean what he said.

After all, Dumbledore can say...

And yet here you are, still claiming that Dumbledore shouldn't be blamed for not telling Harry. When even Dumbledore is saying 'Blame me! Blame me! I should have told Harry!'

Basically, if the text isn't good enough for you, and you're so in love with your own interpretations that you hold them as superior to Rowling's own opinion, you're whacked in the wigwam.

On the morning of D-Day, General Eisenhower had a piece of paper in his pocket. Written on it was the speech he intended to give to the press if the invasion had failed.

This is how a real military leader behaves when an operation under his command fails because he misjudged a risk, even if only in hindsight. Fortunately for Eisenhower, D-Day didn't fail, and so this communique went into the archives filed under 'shit that we never actually needed to use'.

So go ahead, tell me Eisenhower dunno about leadership. I'm waiting.

... um, no, because a straw man is when you deliberately misquote the other guy, and I wasn't even quoting you, I was using Abu Ghraib as one of my own examples, so what the fuck are you even saying.

Dude, seriously, do you know anything? I mean, do you even read English? Or do you type your posts with voice recognition software because you can't find the keys? I cannot recall the last time I met someone who was so stubbornly blind even to the basics.

Eh, no. Command paralysis is when the risk-vs-reward calculation is in your favor, but you still don't go, because even the slightest risk bugs you.

Like with 'He can't attack the house because it might possibly fail'. Well, yeah. Anything might possibly fail. Refusing to attack because there's a tiny possibility of failure is paralysis.

Refusing to attack because there's a tiny possibility of SUCCESS, on the other hand, is only common fucking sense.

That's what "calculated risk" means, after all. You calculate the amount of risk, and then you decide if it's worth it. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The difference is 'how much risk' vs. 'how much reward'.

And if it's virtually all risk, and virtually no reward, then hell no, you shouldn't go.

Yes. Behold one of the mystifying things about war, that some plans have better odds than other plans, and that a whole chunk of good strategy is about knowing which one is which.

It is if you have no real hope of success. I mean, an attack that's doomed to fail is a waste of men. Attack somewhere else, right?

And the efforts pretty much ARE doomed to fail. I mean, what the fuck can Dumbledore offer the werewolves? 'Hey, if you fight for me then the status quo will continue! You know, the status quo under which you're totally fucked and everybody hates you and discriminates against you. I mean, look at Remus, my own token werewolf among the order. He's all starving and shabby and can't get an honest job anywhere in the wizarding world. Don't you totally want his life?'

Voldemort, meanwhile, is saying 'Fight for me and after I conquer the world, you guys will be my enforcers and able to rip shit up as you please. As an example, look at my lieutenant here, Fenrir Greyback. Motherfucker is living large, going where he wants, taking what he wants.'

Yeah, it is such a mystery why the werewolves took Voldemort's offer instead. *eyeroll*

Now, if Dumbledore had been offering the werewolves something like 'Hey, don't fight for Voldemort and I will get you guys an equal rights amendment in the Wizengamot or something', then that migth have been better odds. It's just, I don't remember the part where Rowling actually said that was happening. And yes, I know you just immediately came up with a theory of 'clearly, that's what Dumbledore was REALLY doing, even if the books didn't mention it!' So let me tell you in advance -- if the book doesn't actually SAY it happened, then you can't say that its canon.

The book says. Not you say. The book. You know, the thing that is not the voices in your head.

And the giants, of course, are even worse. I mean, at least werewolves are rational creatures (in humanform, anyway). They have the brains of people and you can negotiate with them like people. Full-blood giants, on the other hand, are barely able to talk, and believe in a purely savage culture that only respects strength and aggression. I... don't really see where there's any room to convince them to come join the Light Side. Dumbledore did get lucky in that the Gurg was so savage that he killed the Death Eater envoy too, but that wasn't anything Hagrid did, that was just luck.

But as I said, Dumbledore IS very lucky a lot of times.

Yeah, and if the Powerball ticket in my wallet hits its number tomorrow, then I will be a multimillionaire. However, this does not change the fact that the odds of that ticket hitting the grand prize are approximately 1 out of 175 million. The only reason it was worth buying the ticket at all is because the worst-case scenario is that I'm out two bucks, which is so trivial a loss to me that its actually worth the odds to risk it. I mean, I can spare two bucks without hurting.

OTOH, if the worst-case scenario was something like 'I waste months of my time on a trip to a foreign country and run a high risk of being beaten to death', then the odds are nowhere near remotely fucking worth it, because I will be hurting A LOT if I don't win. And I wouldn't even try to go near those kinds of risks unless the odds of success were, like, at least somewhere above break-even.

tldr: It takes more than just saying 'If this million-to-one chance pays off, I'm set, so I should totally take the chance no matter what!' That's the same sort of logic that leads millions of gamblers to go broke in Vegas every year.

And that's just losing your money. The same sort of foolish gambling in war can lose you your ass. Or a whole lot of other people's asses.

I'm starting to understand why you think Dumbledore is such a good general, and that's because you and him share a tactical brain.

A really not-good one.

Tom's current body isn't his, either. It's a synthetic one made out of his dad's bone and Wormtail's hand.

So, 'Voldemort wouldn't have to hold back in Harry's body' is not convincing logic. Voldemort wouldn't have to hold back anyway. That's the entire point of his horcruxes -- so he can come back even after he's killed.

I mean, like, wow, that's only what the whole series is about. How could you miss it?

This would be more of a factor if Dumbledore had ever actually aimed a killing shot at Voldemort in their fight just earlier -- which if I remember correctly he did not, because Dumbledore doesn't like to kill people.

So, yeah, not seeing much difference. In both instances Tom can fight to the death (because he can come back from death), and in neither instance is Albus using anything worse than a stunner.

Harry is a LITTLE more disposable than his own body, yes, but not to the degree its a total game-breaker.

Now, possessing Harry IS a worrisome thing in that Voldemort might try to hurt Harry's brain while he's in there, yeah. But Voldemort could potentially do that at any time, whether Dumbledore told Harry stuff or not, so, null factor.

Voldemort's plan was actually...

... that.

Of course, this requires Albus to actually shoot to kill on Harrymort more than Albus ever shot to kill on regular Voldemort, so, I honestly don't see what Tom was thinking here. Dumbledore isn't even willing to shoot to kill Voldemort when he's in his OWN body, so he'll suddenly do it to HARRY's body? Um, Tom, you do realize that makes no fucking sense, right? And... no, no you don't.

Then again, Tom DOES make almost as many dumb plans as Dumbledore does, so, I suppose Tom just missed the obvious.

Again.

He does that, y'know.

Because Dumbledore hadn't just knocked regular Voldemort right onto the ropes...

If the policeman has a magic wand that shoots stunning spells, then yes. If you can hit someone with a lethal curse, you can hit them with a stunner. If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball! *ahem*

The day they give cops phasers that can shoot to stun, police rules of engagement will get a LOT stricter about when you're allowed to shoot to kill. However, that day is not today, because tasers are nowhere near as good as bullets yet.

Wands, otoh, are different.

Yes, because there's absolutely no need to interrogate "Voldemort's #1 lieutenant" for any information.

/sarcasm

And clearly Barty Crouch wasn't doing any interrogating, he just threw Sirius in jail right away. Honestly, it isn't just Dumbledore's behavior I wonder about here. NO ONE in the entire fucking DMLE thought that this case was worthy of further investigation?

Y'see, in the real world, when they the guy you think is the big terrorist mastermind's #2 guy, the authorities get interested in this kind of guy. They take the guy to the Secure Undisclosed Location and interrogate the dude until he's confessing all the way back to about how he cheated on his third-grade math test. Sometimes the interrogation methods involve things not entirely legal, even.

But no! They catch what they think is High Value Target #2, and they don't so much as give him a basic question-and-answer series before tossing him in the hole and throwing away the key. Fuckin' wizards are all fuckin' morons, with Dumbledore as moron-in-chief.

Anybody who actually knows anything about fighting an evil terrorist group above the kindergarten level?

Citation please. As far as I know, the missing 24 hours is a fanfic invention by people who like Evil Dumbledore conspiracy theories.

And hey, I like Evil Dumbledore conspiracy theory fanfic, even, but that's FANFIC, not canon. The canon is much more likely that Dumbledore entirely meant well but was kinda, ummm... tactically sub-optimal, is a polite way to put it.

Where exactly in book 2 does it say the exact date Harry was left at the Dursleys? All I've got is the part where it says 'eleven years before, Harry was left at the Dursleys'... but the chapter in question (chapter 1) is set on July 31st, and obviously Harry wasn't left at the Dursleys on July 31st, 1981 so, they mean approximately eleven years, not exactly eleven years.

So, obviously I've missed something and need your help. Such as, oh, telling me what chapter it's in.

Y'know, even if I turned around and agreed with you here, Dumbledore is STILL on the hook for not doing anything about it in the two years between the end of PoA and Sirius' death.

Not that I'm agreeing with you here just yet. Seriously, how could Dumbledore NOT know? Trials are things that go in the public record, dude. And you think the chief judge would actually look at the trial docket every now and then. No entry existing for "Sirius Black" should be conspicuous by its absence, given that Dumbledore TOTALLY knows that Sirius was arrested. 'Wait, I know he was arrested, but no trial date was ever set? The fuck is this shit?'

Because apparently, the standard procedure is that anybody escaping from Azkaban is to be attacked on sight by Dementors. Witness the whole 'kill on sight' order for Sirius in book 3, that even Dumbledore had to agree was legal, because he couldn't even get the Dementors removed from around the school -- and Dumbledore definitely didn't want them there. And if that kill-on-sight order for Sirius was illegal, that would be the perfect excuse to get the Dementors removed. But he didn't. THIS "interpretation" I will actually accept as making sense, because all it requires me to do is go 'Nothing was going on here that I didn't know about'.

And Barty Jr. HAD escaped from Azkaban, remember. And unlike Sirius, had actually had a trial first to legally put him in Azkaban.

Plus, didn't the Dementor sort of jump the gun on its own, anyway?

If this is true -- if the government really can kill people without a trial just because they feel like it, and its legal -- then Dumbledore is the chief judge of a horrible dictatorship and I have a new reason to be horrified at his lack of character, that he would willingly join and help lead an organization so lost to basic decency.

Although that does at least get him off the hook for 'no trials', yes. However, given that it puts him ON the hook for willingly joining a dictatorial government, that's not a good trade.

Dude, you really need to learn not to spike the football until after the referee says its a touchdown. Because this is like the eighth incomplete pass you've thought was a successful catch. *g*

Well, at least I'd like to know if he was able to clean up ANY of it. Because so far, the more we look at it, the more full of corruption it seems. I mean, fuck, how many NON-corrupt people do we see in the magical government? Amelia Bones and Arthur Weasley? One of them runs a minor nearly irrelevant department, and the other one gets killed and replaced with a Death Eater puppet. Wow, what a horrible score.

Fuck, even the games referees are corrupt, witness Ludo Bagman and his illegal gambling and point-shaving. And the underage magic people are corrupt, witness Edgecombe. And the...

... oh God, it really is that bad all over, and Dumbledore's a powerless figurehead at best. Fuck. Now you're making me depressed just thinking about it.

OK, I guess Dumbledore is trying to the best of his ability. It's just, the best of his ability is still hopeless.

That's... really not a good thing.

If they had failed, the history books would indeed totally be calling them idiots.

Military historians are harsh, harsh people dude. If you succeed, you're awesome. If you fail, you're a goat. Its a very pass-fail business. Very very seldom do they go 'Yeah, he lost big, but he was still awesome for trying so hard!' And even then it usually has to be something like the Alamo or Thermopylae, where the reason they lost is because they were outnumbered a zillion to fucking one and not even Captain America could have won that thing, not because a decision went one way instead of the other.

In case you haven't noticed, war is not exactly overburdened with fairness.

OK, if you're saying that, then this entire discussion has been a giant waste of time from the beginning, because I started out talking about how Dumbledore was not a good general. So, if 'General' and 'Leader' really are separate categories, then all your arguments were off-topic.

Congratulations! You have wasted pages and pages of effort arguing something different than what I was actually arguing about.

Again.

Hrm, I'm honestly not sure if I should get upset at your total waste of time, or if I should go 'But you're misinterpreting Sun Tzu', which would mean the discussion actually is still on-topic, but only accidentally.

*shrugs*

Eh, fuck it.

[snip]

Well, in canon they clearly have no procedures for changing the locks even after they KNOW the information has been compromised to the enemy, because Rookwood was able to tell Voldemort about how the shelf security worked despite the fact that:

* Rookwood hadn't been an Unspeakable for fifteen years
* Rookwood had been in fucking Azkaban for fifteen years
* The Unspeakables knew that Rookwood had defected to Voldemort at least fifteen years ago

and yet...

* In all that time, they still didn't change anything about how the shelves worked. Or anything else Rookwood had worked on.

So, yeah, I really doubt the Unspeakables are worried about information leaks with all kinds of secret procedures to stop them. Because even when they KNOW they have an information leak, they STILL don't do anything.

Add: Seriously, don't even change the locks after a known traitor and fifteen years? Man, WHAT. One of the things I do for a living is IT, so I've actually had the basic security training. 'Never changes passwords even after an employee is fired' is like on the top ten list of stupidest things a sysadmin can do, ever.

Shirotsume · Jan 16, 2015

Can we all just take a moment to appreciate the sheer fucking absurdity of the posts in this topic.

nixofcyzerra · Jan 16, 2015

*Chuckg once again completely fails to respond to any of Nixofcyzerra's stronger points, instead only focusing on the weaker, more subjective areas that are more open to interpretation.*

*Chuckg once again fails to acknowledge that the onus of proof rests upon him and Nixofcyzerra is allowed to come up with any fanon he likes to "fill" plot-holes as long as they don't directly contradict canon, and that disproving or casting doubt on those theories is Chuckg's job, even when Nixofcyzerra provided sources that explain how debating actually works.*

*Chuckg fails to provide Nixofcyzerra with examples of theories that Nixofcyzerra came up with that do directly contradict canon, even after Nixofcyzerra asks Chuckg to. Twice.*

*Chuckg once again fails to clarify his position on whether he disavows all supplemental material as non-canon, or just cherry-picks the stuff he likes (e.g. doesn't seem to want to admit whether he thinks Dumbledore is gay or not.)*

*Chuckg's last post practically spends more time insulting Nixofcyzerra's grasp of military tactics than actually countering Nixofcyzerra's points. Chuckg also continues to try to shift the topic of the debate to whether Albus Dumbledore was a good tactician, rather than remaining on the actual debate topic of whether Dumbledore was a good leader, the actual debate topic that Chuckg had already acknowledged by arguing against.*

*Chuckg continues to claim that Dumbledore should have ceded leadership of the Order of the Phoenix to a more able tactician, and fails to respond to Nixofcyzerra's frequent prompting to suggest a more able tactician, or prove that one that Albus had access to even existed.*

Supposition: Chuckg is worst at debating (Oh look! The first supposition I've made in this thread that I actually bear the onus to prove!)

Source: This whole Goddamn thread.

Shirotsume said:

I actually just did right before I saw your post. Dear lord this has been a serious mis-use of my time, and I don't plan to waste any more of it with it.

Although I suppose the debate actually was good for something, seeing as now I have a greater understanding of the duties of the Chief Justice (and thus the Chief Warlock,) meaning that I finally have a legitimate reason to scorn all those Independant!Harry fics where Dumbledore is relentlessly bashed for not doing things that Wizarding Chief Justices shouldn't be held responsible for.

Rising Dragon · Jan 16, 2015

I'm kinda amazed and saddened this is still going on. Why won't Chuck just answer the fucking question of who Dumbledore should've ceded his "military authority" or whatever the fuck-all he wants to call it?

Chuckg · Jan 16, 2015

nixofcyzerra said:

Because Nixofcyzerra is living in a fantasy world where he totally ignores that he, nixof, actually does bear the burden of proof for his own claims, and that its not Chuckg's responsibility to make both sides of the argument for him.

PS, I was the one who provided sources that explain how debating actually works. Here they are again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Notice that what you're doing with 'If I'm making it up to fill a plot hole, then its right' is directly against these.

I mean, seriously, you're actually saying that the burden of proof is never on you and its always on the other guy. The Internet does not work that way.

Except that I did. You just ignored every single time I did. (Such as, oh, 'Dumbledore wasn't sure Voldemort was still alive', oh, wait, yes he was.) In fact, towards the end of this thread, you didn't even pretend that you weren't feeling free to ignore anything you felt like.

At least I only ignored shit where you were repeating yourself and we'd already talked about it at least once and I didn't want to talk about it again. And where I accidentally didn't, I went back and tried to fill in.

Well, in the post you are replying to I spent I think around ten paragraphs talking about tactics, and maybe two or three lines where I insulted your lack of tactics, but yes, that's 'practically the same'. *rolleyes*

Y'all need to work on your math more.

Does Albus Dumbledore live on the planet Earth? Then its full of professional tacticians.

... I mean, the guy doing strategy suggestions doesn't have to be a wizard, he just has to know about wizards. He's an advisor, not a point man. Its kind like how the general doesn't actually have to be the best rifle shot in his own army, he has people to pull triggers for him. His job is to figure out where and how those people are best deployed. I mean, fuck, one of history's best tank commanders, Rommel, never actually drove a tank in his life that I know about. He was an infantry officer all through his career, until they gave him command of a panzer division, and he did all his commanding of that division from the division HQ, not the seat of a tank. But, he knew about tanks, or, more accurately, he knew about tank battles.

Likewise, an experienced tactician could have done a lot to help the Order if he was simply learned about magic, even if he himself wasn't able to do magic.

That potentially opens up the field to muggleborns, squibs, muggle family members of wizards... y'know, all the people who are inside the Statute of Secrecy already. Or, alternately, he could go ask the Muggle Prime Minister, who already knows about the wizarding world, if he knows anybody who might possibly have relevant professional experience.

In extremis, he might even, gasp, bend the Statute a little. (I mean its not as if the Order of the Phoenix wasn't already an outlaw vigilante group...)

Y'know, if we want to speculate.

Oh, and to answer the question of 'well, what if they don't know enough about magic already to make intelligent suggestions?', I answer back 'Yes, if Albus only knew anybody who was good at teaching.'

I mean, we already know that non-wizrads who are given a good briefing about the magical world can still make at least some useful suggestions -- that's what we've been doing.

tldr; Try to imagine how you'd have reacted if I'd come in saying that all I was doing was filling plot holes, and so I didn't have to prove anything, and you had to prove everything.

Yeah. Now do you get why I don't accept it coming from you?

Christopher Robin · Jan 16, 2015

My God, it's full of idiots!

Cynical Kyle · Jan 16, 2015

Christopher Robin said:

This brings back memories of time when Raine was still active poster.

Chuckg · Jan 16, 2015

Depending on which one of us you're talking about I find that either 100% true or the most ironic statement ever, given that one of the things Raine was most infamous for was the whole 'I don't have to prove that I'm right, you have to prove that I'm wrong' routine. *g*

Or, for that matter, the whole 'I know better than canon about anyone, so even if you're actually quoting the books back to me and they don't agree with what I'm saying that only means everybody else interpreted them wrong' routine.

Add: And most especially was he famous for rabidly defending everything Dumbledore ever did and calling any attempt to criticize it nonsense, Dumbledore was the bestest guy ever and made no mistakes, and anybody attempting to say that he did had to be automatically wrong and an awful person.

Really, I used to be one of the people who went head-to-head with Raine the most back in the day. (And I definitely find it... something, that I can return after several years' absence and it feels like I never left, only the names have changed. Man, you'd think for people who are so glad LR finally went somewhere else, they wouldn't then do their best to fill in his gap.)

H-Man · Jan 16, 2015

You're not making yourself look much better if you ask me.

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

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Random phantom.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not The Goddamn @dmin

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Random phantom.