I don't mind people poking at the theories, expanding on them, finding problems with them, etc. if it interests them and they do so respectfully. It bothers me not at all if it's posted on a wiki/etc.
Your eagerness to attack it, however, along with your phrasing, did put me a bit on the defensive. I will point out that you often speak of your own hypotheses as if they are canon, even if you do not believe they are canon. This makes me wary. I am open to discuss my ideas, certainly, but having my thoughts treated as if they were a condemned building in need of demolition would not, to me, be particularly fun. It's likely just a matter of semantics, and I misread your eagerness. It's easy to do so on the Internet.
That said, I don't have any hard feelings etc. You've come up with some amazing ideas since I popped back into the thread after I beat the game. I don't agree with all of them, but they're usually interesting.
I am eager. I don't deny that at all. The disconnect is interpreting that eagerness as "Yay! I get to smash somebody's carefully thought out idea to make them feel terrible!" instead of what it actually is: "Yay! New and interesting idea! I’m going to throw all the logic and counter-evidence I possibly can at this thing, and if it’s still standing at the end, maybe it’s solid enough for us to use as foundation!"
That core process is how we start to build the larger picture. Everything we post here is theory. Nothing is Law. Since our pool of evidence is limited, it's entirely possible for us to come up with ideas that are plausible but don’t reflect how Gaider’s actual world works. Still, if we start to use these solid pieces to build on, extrapolating further ideas using them as our basis, we should eventually spot the kinds of inconsistencies and counter-evidence that force us to re-examine the bad ones and discard them.
I certainly don’t intend to present anything I’ve posted as being The Truth. I feel pretty strongly that some pieces are solid enough to justify working from in the absence of counter-theory, like Triad Fission and Choice magic. But it's all still just theory, and if it's come off as more, I apologize. I’ve been really wrong about things. There was a time when I thought Solas might have been single-handedly responsible for raising the veil with the power of “his” orb.
.... =w=
So terrible. Huge logical flaws. Massive counter-evidence. Discarded. I also originally thought he left at the end of the game because he'd given up trying to salvage the modern world, not the inverse. Again: theory held until convincingly counter-indicated, then immediately discarded.
At the end of the day, all I’m interested in is building a big picture of the DA universe that's as close to what Gaider has in mind as we can get using logic and the evidence we're given in game. I don’t care whose ideas we build on. I certainly don’t care about credit, bragging rights, or internet cookies. The Makers are the only ones who can confirm any of these theories as Law, and they’re not hanging out here.
We're all on the same team, with the same objective: we want to understand how the world works, what Solas' place is in it, and what that might be able to tell us about the future of the game. The whole collaborative theory/evaluation/counter theory process is the best way to get there, but it relies on people understanding that doing our best to tear apart a theory is is very different from attacking the theorist.
That said, I respect the boundaries of anyone who just wants to present their thoughts, which is why I asked. Knowing exactly where people stand on the issue could save a lot of bruised feelings in the long run.