Starfleet Jedi

I formally challenge Jedi Master Spock to a duel on the subject of 40K vs BTech. New thread, same general subject, new scenario picked by a third party, one argument a day and handled by email so its on completely neutral ground. Results posted on SDN and this forum so that it can be commented on.

Accept or slither off like a coward.

• If I would be Jedi Master Spock, your last sentence would be enough reason for me to not accept your challenge on principle.
  
  I would interpret that sentence as a pathetic attempt to influence my decision by attacking my honour respectively by saying, that if I would not accept your challenge, I would be regarded as a coward.
  
  And surly, that's what you would claim, if I wouldn't accept your challenge.
  
  But I would also know, that the acceptation of your challenge could also be regarded not only as a sign that I would not have rumbled your pathetic attempt but also as a sign of low self-esteem. It could be interpreted as a sign, that I'm in need of a proof, that I'm not a coward.
  
  Regardless what I would do, it could be interpreted to my disadvantage.
  
  But I would know, that I have to prove nothing and that only idiots would think, that I would be a coward, if I wouldn't accept your challenge and I couldn't care less for their opinions.
  
  Intelligent people on the other sider could interpret the refusal to accept your challenge as a sign of sovereignty and self-assuredness.
  
  Therefore the most sensibly decision would seem to me to not accept your challenge until you would challenge me with the due respect. But after your insulting challenge, that is not something you could do in the near future.

But that's only my opinion and one could interpret this post also as an attempt to influence Jedi Master Spocks decision. That was not my intention. I merely wanted to say, that your challenge is an insult and that I would never accept it. But Jedi Master Spock has to do what he thinks, is right.

If I were Jedi Master Spock, I would probably disagree with you. Firstly; I wouldn't have been so fucking stupid as to argue against the Imperium of Man with a force that is perhaps the second weakest in science fiction and fantasy as I've lost before I even begin otherwise. Secondly; I would probably accept the challenge more readily out of what personal pride I have. And thirdly; upon accepting such a challenge, I would make damn sure that I won it, and that I hadn't just been arguing a pointless, baseless argument.

Who is like God arbour wrote:If I would be Jedi Master Spock, your last sentence would be enough reason for me to not accept your challenge on principle.

Were it me, then I wouldn't take too much of an issue with the name calling. It is, after all, a two-edged sword so to speak. On the one hand, you might hope to impress someone with a display of... bravery? Actually I never really could understand what's supposed to be so impressive with flaming and stuff, but it's rather clear that some people are impressed by it and that quite often a witty flame is far better then an actual argument. I guess it makes you tough on the internet. But on the other hand, it also shows a clear and heavy emotional investment in the debate by one side even before the debate kicks off. And this is never good.

But it's all rather futile isn't it? This is hardly a debate by any standards, since there's no neutral party involved. The peanut gallery on SDN has already decided that JMS lost the debate, even though it hasn't even started, and I very much doubt that the peanut gallery on this site will be any better.

In any case, I'm hoping it will come to a debate, as I've never actually seen Thanatos debate before for any lengthy period of time. It'll be interesting to see how good he actually is, and how good he is with numbers.

But that's another problem I think. Neither side will consider this a duel. SDN will insinuate that JMS has had help (in fact they’ve already done it). And people here will claim that Thanatos has had help. I guess SFJ has a stronger base here though, since no one here is really that invested in a WH40K vs. BT thread, while there are most certainly people on SDN who are.

What I'm looking forward to most, as always, are the comments on SDN. Already the "physics incompetence" comments are somewhat giggle inducing. There's one thing you don't want to do in a debate, and that's start believing your own propaganda, so to speak. It'll come crashing down hard if you do.

If I were JMS I'd just grab my MP3 player, a glass of Martini with some ice cubes and go sit outside, cause it's frakin' hot and beautiful.

Other than that, again, I reiterate my will to know why this exchange is not deemed worth Spacebattles.com while Thanatos is a moderator over there, and "just" a (fresh?) member over SDN.

Who is like God arbour wrote: But that's only my opinion and one could interpret this post also as an attempt to influence Jedi Master Spocks decision. That was not my intention. I merely wanted to say, that your challenge is an insult and that I would never accept it. But Jedi Master Spock has to do what he thinks, is right.

The challenge is indeed phrased as an insult. Accordingly, I am warning you, Thanatos, that flames are against the forum rules here. Your lack of respect for such forum rules reflects poorly on SB.com's decision to retain you as a moderator in charge of enforcing similar rules on SB.com.

Thanatos wrote:I formally challenge Jedi Master Spock to a duel on the subject of 40K vs BTech. New thread, same general subject, new scenario picked by a third party, one argument a day and handled by email so its on completely neutral ground. Results posted on SDN and this forum so that it can be commented on.

By a neutral third party? I'll warn you that depending on the scenario, we may not even disagree substantially. And who would this third party be? I suggest that we settle precisely what the scenario should be, in conjunction with third parties if necessaries, before even starting the debate. We need not even have a scenario, simply a specific topic with clearly outlined disagreement.

I also question the pacing. One argument per day is not always feasible for an e-mail debate, especially when someone asks for a source to back up a contention. For example, it will probably be difficult for me to produce more than a handful of additional BT and WH40K quotes until early next week, so if challenged on an issue I do not already have quotes for, it may take a few days to round one up. In the thread in which I have been debating Thanatos, he has displayed similar greater-than-day delays in providing actual quotes; I would rather wait a week for him to adequately back up his claim than spend a week repeatedly demanding he provide evidence. It is also necessary, I believe, to set a volume and/or post count limit for ending the debate, that the debate not go on indefinitely.

Regarding standards of evidence, I would like to see actual quotes used, rather than vague second-hand references that "something like X" happened. As I have noted previously, there tends to be drift in such references - for example, the "over 25,000 Star Destroyers" reference from the Thrawn Trilogy has been claimed to give "about 25,000 ISD-IIs" in the Imperial navy. Such vague references may be par for the course on SB.com, but I consider it a terribly sloppy practice.

As I have stated previously, I am quite willing to engage in an individual debate with others; in fact, I have been considering creating a specific venue for such debates, should there be sufficient demand. I am quite willing to create such a venue on an experimental basis, and if you were to post directly there, the peanut gallery would get to read your arguments substantially earlier.

I see no reason to call it an "e-mail debate" when you plan on having every installment of the debate posted publicly in multiple locations with every step.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:If I were JMS I'd just grab my MP3 player, a glass of Martini with some ice cubes and go sit outside, cause it's frakin' hot and beautiful.

Other than that, again, I reiterate my will to know why this exchange is not deemed worth Spacebattles.com while Thanatos is a moderator over there, and "just" a (fresh?) member over SDN.

I believe l33telboi has the correct reason for not posting the debate on SB.com - namely, the rule about "affairs of other boards do not concern us."

As far as him wanting to post the debate on SDN as a "fresh" member, I am unsurprised to find that he would want a cheering section and help with research and analysis.

However, I think that Mr. Oragahn is correct to bring up the question "What about SB.com?" I am sure many SB.com members would be quite interested in the debate topic - perhaps more than on SDN - and surely there are also members interested in one of their VS debate moderators losing terribly.

Narsil wrote:If I were Jedi Master Spock, I would probably disagree with you. Firstly; I wouldn't have been so fucking stupid as to argue against the Imperium of Man with a force that is perhaps the second weakest in science fiction and fantasy as I've lost before I even begin otherwise. Secondly; I would probably accept the challenge more readily out of what personal pride I have. And thirdly; upon accepting such a challenge, I would make damn sure that I won it, and that I hadn't just been arguing a pointless, baseless argument.

Different science fiction universes have different strengths and weaknesses. The Imperium Warhammer 40,000 has individually powerful ships, but strategically poor FTL use and terrible internal organization.

The BTverse has, I believe, terribly underdeveloped space forces.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Considering this, posting the outcome of JMS and Than's exchange would fit with that precedent.

I dunno. I doubt it will work, because it quite clearly violates the spirit of why the "other boards do not concern us" rule was put in place in the first place. To avoid open flamewars between forums and keeping things moderately civil.

Up to the powers that be, of course.

The challenge is indeed phrased as an insult.

Its only an insult if you puss out and doesn't even that big of an insult. Details can be worked out later, right now either accept or don't.

Your lack of respect for such forum rules reflects poorly on SB.com's decision to retain you as a moderator in charge of enforcing similar rules on SB.com.

SB.com has a much higher lower limit on Flaming. We're not so tight assed that we feel that we need to project a false, smug aura of politeness and ban all insults. Just ask Ripmax, if you had a dollar for every time he was called an idiot, you could pay for bandwidth to the end of time.

But we're getting off topic: Accept or Decline. Details are worked out afterwards.

To avoid open flamewars between forums and keeping things moderately civil.

Mr Oragahn has just recently been banned for starting precisely that, actually.

I agree with Thanatos that things have gotten at least partially off-topic. To continue discussion of the "other sites' business" policy and enforcement of the flaming rule on SB, go here. I think there are questions worth bringing up regarding the OSB/lflaming rules as enforced on SB.

I do feel, however, that it is an issue worth bringing up. While I may not have a personal stake in the posting rules at SB, I do feel that SB residents ought to be able to publicly discuss on their own forum a public VS debate involving one of their moderators.

Thanatos wrote:Its only an insult if you puss out and doesn't even that big of an insult.

I recommend you apply the following tests:

Is it rude?
Does it seem like something that is said primarily to get an emotional reaction?
Does it fail to contribute anything meaningful to discussion?

If the answer to any of those three tests is "yes," the sentence is one you can (and should) cut from your post.

Details can be worked out later, right now either accept or don't.

As stated above, I am willing to debate you on an individual basis. See and read above post to start working out details; there are obviously a couple issues worth raising beforehand.

As stated above, I am willing to debate you on an individual basis.

I'll have to take that as an affirmative.

The format needs to get knocked out first before any scenario. I acquiesce to the point about delays in posting and instead propose that it be done in open ended rounds with a maximum delay of 7 days between emailed responses. This gives leeway for personal engagements and research while keeping it to a maximum schedule. I also proposed a delayed start after all details are finalized to give each side research time. I prefer a 5-10 round limit.

Given the more open ended schedule, I would then propose that the posting of responses be delayed by two rounds.

For format, I prefer the format of simultaneous answer with the first part of each response being a rebuttal to the arguments made in the previous round and the second part being a new argument. Each person tells the other when they have completed theres and when both are done, they are exchanged.

This keeps the debate on even footing rather than the person who responds first being put on the defensive.

I am willing to hear a counter proposal on rules to see if we can come to a consensus.

This still leaves open the issue of a third party who could be counted upon to not take sides. The person would have to be knowledgeable enough about both subjects to create an even footing... To this end might I recommend that you choose not one but two people instead, to assist in counter balance. Heck, they could even be permanent neutral members for debates like these... sorta like having a permanent referee team.

Trinoya wrote:Heck, they could even be permanent neutral members for debates like these... sorta like having a permanent referee team.

I'm afraid this is going to be more then just a bit impossible to execute.

I can have my dreams! :(

Alright, I have a few suggestions on the scenario bit. Mind you I haven't got a clue as to the actual military aspects of either side so this might turn out to be completely unworkable and unfair. BT and WH40K never really interested me. However, since no one is under any obligation to even consider this - here are the suggestions:

First off I think it'd be a good idea if the scenario would resemble the one in the original thread. But I also think it could be simplified by quite a bit, making the debate shorter as there'd be fewer issues to debate and resolve.

So how about this; a standard assault scenario where one force is assigned to attack a position held by the other side. This position being a city for instance. Naturally if such a scenario were to be considered it’d have to be split it in two to make things fair - so that BT attacks WH40K in one scenario and WH40K attacks BT in another, but identical, scenario. This would resemble, IMO, a scaled down version of the battle of Tukayyid (but then my knowledge on that is rather minimal).

Also, if you want to spruce things up a bit, you could have the assaulting force start off a distance from the city they're supposed to attack and then have them tackle various obstacles as they advance towards the city. Much like happened in some of the smaller individual assaults on Tukayyid. Obstacles could include stuff like ambush, differing terrain, dealing with enemy air support, etc. This I think would add more variables to the debate and make it a whole lot more interesting overall.

The goal would of course then be for the ‘attacking’ debater to theorize on how his force would go about achieving their goals and how that force would respond to these so called obstacles. While the ‘defending’ debater would naturally object and formulate his own conclusions on how an individual battle would go.

Yes/No/Maybe?

Thanatos wrote: For format, I prefer the format of simultaneous answer with the first part of each response being a rebuttal to the arguments made in the previous round and the second part being a new argument. Each person tells the other when they have completed theres and when both are done, they are exchanged.

This keeps the debate on even footing rather than the person who responds first being put on the defensive.

I am not sure this is the most efficient way to deal with it. Cross arguments and redundancy could abound. The two debators could tackle the same subtopic but with totally different perspectives, and end saying "as I already adressed that in my reply I sent you (while you sent me yours)" and this would turn into some spaghetti brawl.

A more classical exchange seems less messy and just plain easy to decipher, since it's the way it goes in most versus debates.
I don't see much problem with way debates have been handled between Wong and other people for example.