www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH6r...

regardless, it is that the exercise has excised by grumbling and that was my main purpose in composing this to begin with

hmm. i formatted/organized this poorly, with too many wandering thoughts and subclauses. i would blame the format of the medium i'm posting this on, but it's clearly also my fault as composer of the message. i think somewhere in here i've made some claims though or made my point

clearly, there is an issue of knowledge production in the fnaf community where power trumps accuracy of information. i take from this that fnaf theorizing is not actually about logic solving and is instead about the metanarratives of the community of theorization (it is about the fun factor)

years and years ago. okay, that's cool. but the implication that follows from this is that the community should have seized upon this back then once we were hit with the correct information. but they did not. this claim remained minor until it was rearticulated by a larger figure in the community

HD's logbook name solution video is another case where the fnaf community is retrospectively made out to be some kind of monolith -- or near enough like it. by which i mean, it is revealed at some point that this solution of "DAVE" was previously arrived at on reddit by some random person-

the video endorses HyperDroid's logbook theory which I find as another good example of this. (that i still call fnaf 4 daytime minigame player character "crying child" is unrelated to my issues with the faults i take with HyperDroid's argumentation in the video in question)

puts forth and subsequently really throws themself behind. okay, sure i guess. anyways, what i mean to trace with this is that retrospective theories are highly prone to producing historic revisionism in all types of ways

or, at least, if you mean for this to not be something that revokes or contests your base claim of, the solution must be (contemporaneously) wholly novel, then you would be benefitted from clarifying that it is that you're talking about novelty with respect to a theorized statement that someone-

the video is trying to salvage this by saying that, well MatPat never stuck to this position, which is fair, but at the same time, ideas are formulated and moved past in the community with such volatility i'm not sure that this is necessarily that useful to claim

except, right at the end of the video, this claim is revoked by the video itself when he inserts a clip of MatPat coming to this conclusion already way back in the original post-fnaf 4 'why would tiny toy chica be missing her beak?' theorizing stream

one of the base principles set forth in this video is that the solution has to be something no one previously came to, to which the answer is posited that the brother in daytime fnaf 4 minigame gameplay is the player character in all 4 games and inside the box is his foxy mask

sometimes these goals align (as has been the case with GodDavid industrial complex -- a force that has been able to capture many disparate strains of the community toward advancing its claims and narratives) but often there are competing interests