Yeah, there is certainly a difference between the general debate forums and the technical discussions. Most of the discussions in the normal versus section rarely use sources. Sources are only used when someone doubts your argument, also there is very little actual technical evaluation. At least not in the threads I post in.Jedi Master Spock wrote:I hope we haven't gotten too bad about it. This is one reason why I liked having a rather more formal than usual debate with Thanatos - lots of direct quotes, more than is usual for our discussions here.Mike DiCenso wrote:I think that is something that is all too often abused, not only on SB, but other versus forums as well, including this one. It is easy enough to cite some, even say that something happened in an episode, movie, book, or game. But when it comes down to it, no one really provides any kind of actual quote. If they do, in some cases, it is an out of date source or out of context one.
-Mike
I'm actually starting to wonder if the difference isn't between the Technical Discussion section and the Versus Debate core section in SB.com. It seems like most of the recent threads I'd been paying attention that were actually examining evidence ere in the TD subsection.
SB.com: Improving or not?
- Airlocke_Jedi_Knight
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:55 pm
- Location: Camby
- Contact:
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
There's been no less than a three parter ICS thread, two first of around 20 pages long, plus other topics here and there, another one about SW firepower somewhere shortly after, and the famous ICS poll which has shown that around 75% who cared enough to fill the poll didn't accept the ICS, and within those who voted for, some said they did it for the history of the source and for the nice pictures.Enterprise E wrote:There was a thread on it; two of them actually. I think that they were both closed (the first I believe was because it was getting too large. I don't know if the second was closed or not, but I do think it was. It hasn't been posted in for a long time.).
The ICS is C canon as much as other books which debunk it openly. It's not because a book says gun A = 100 teraton and another book describes an event that simply can't fit with even a hundredth of that firepower that this second source is inferior because it's less direct.
We obviously have no rule against thread necromancy since we tend to have a very few threads about a given topic.Jedi Master Spock wrote:That's another thing I try very hard to remember to do here - link to the older threads and discussions I casually refer to. It's a great help to people who are newer or haven't previously been interested in a specific sub-topic; the less familiar you are with a forum, the more of a pain in the neck it is to search for old threads.
-
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5837
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
That leads to another tactic the pro-ICSers make use of; fighting tooth and nail and spamming a thread where anyone who disagrees with the ICS books or Saxton until the mods step in and shut things down. Let's face it, in the advent of TCW and more up to date SW technical research, the ICS is all the more fanatical elements of the pro-SW camp have left to cling to for Star Wars superiority.Enosh wrote:that's beacose bringing up the ICS in vs debates always turns into a shit fest of pro ICS people and people that aren't agreeing with the ICS, so it is in general not liked by the mods. The ICS is canon on SB and unless specificly excluded, to be included into the versus debate. for all the "is the ICS valid or not" talk there is a thread about this on the technical discusion forumJedi Master Spock wrote: I'm surprised that when the ICS is mentioned on SB.com, nobody links to any of the SB.com ICS threads
-Mike
- l33telboi
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 910
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
- Location: Finland
The problem is that people seem to think: "The ICS is valid as evidence" means "The ICS must be treated as if it's correct." Truth is that it's just as valid a source as any of the hundreds of novels out there. And every single one of them disagrees with the ICS, in one way or another.Enosh wrote:that's beacose bringing up the ICS in vs debates always turns into a shit fest of pro ICS people and people that aren't agreeing with the ICS, so it is in general not liked by the mods. The ICS is canon on SB and unless specificly excluded, to be included into the versus debate. for all the "is the ICS valid or not" talk there is a thread about this on the technical discusion forum
-
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5837
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
At the very least the mythology of the ICS is a higher canon, and therefore more correct than all other sources, because it's conclusions are supposedly derived directly from the movies is what you see being used to defend it.
-Mike
-Mike
Last edited by Mike DiCenso on Thu May 07, 2009 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
-
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5837
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Undercover in Culture space
-
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5837
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Yes, while that is a possible vaild defense in some instances, it is hardly a defense in all of them. Most especially there is no real way to reconcile the insanely low firepower and shields of TCW (a second level T-canon) with the Saxton authored ICS book ( a third level C-canon) wank-fest numbers.
-Mike
-Mike
-
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5837
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Of course SDN is ignoring it. This is not what they wanted to see at all in terms of SW firepower in a higher canon media. No planet crust melting or shattering BDZs; no quintillion's of droids or Clone troopers (who aren't all that competent, either); no invincible neutronium armor; no shields that could take teratons of firepower... the list goes on. Right now as things stand, there is no real way to fit TCW in the ICS. The closest thing in TCW to an ICS-level display of power that I can think of off-hand is Grievious' Munificent's shields being able to take the modest-speed impacts of 60 meter asteroids... however those shields came at a price of diverting all shield power from the aft shields and doubling up the forward ones.
-Mike
-Mike
- mojo
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1159
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am
i know this is kind of irrelevant, but the clone wars cartoon feels like a kid's show to me, so i wouldn't really take it seriously myself. if that's why they're ignoring it, it makes sense to me. the writing is for crap, it's pretty damn mediocre even for a kid's show imo, and i'm pretty sure they don't have physicists working on the size of explosions and whatnot.
-
- Padawan
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:14 pm
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 430
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:31 am
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
And the ICS books are children's books. Aimed at the same demographic the CW cartoon is, IIRC.mojo wrote:i know this is kind of irrelevant, but the clone wars cartoon feels like a kid's show to me, so i wouldn't really take it seriously myself. if that's why they're ignoring it, it makes sense to me. the writing is for crap, it's pretty damn mediocre even for a kid's show imo, and i'm pretty sure they don't have physicists working on the size of explosions and whatnot.