SB.com: Improving or not?

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
User avatar
Airlocke_Jedi_Knight
Jedi Knight
Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Camby
Contact:

Post by Airlocke_Jedi_Knight » Tue May 05, 2009 10:22 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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 If they do, in some cases, it is an out of date source or out of context one.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 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.

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.
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.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue May 05, 2009 4:20 pm

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.).
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.

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.
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.
We obviously have no rule against thread necromancy since we tend to have a very few threads about a given topic.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue May 05, 2009 9:34 pm

Enosh wrote:
Jedi 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
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
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.
-Mike

User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Wed May 06, 2009 5:20 pm

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
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.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu May 07, 2009 12:46 am

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
Last edited by Mike DiCenso on Thu May 07, 2009 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu May 07, 2009 2:43 am

ICS + Ph.D + crap = mass disaster. ^_^

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu May 07, 2009 3:23 am

That's one way to describe it in simple terms!
-Mike

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Thu May 07, 2009 11:29 am

The old tier quote is also used, meaning that explicit statements/figures in a lower tier is not overridden by the implied figures of a higher tier because the higher tier wasn't explicit.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu May 07, 2009 6:57 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

Enosh
Padawan
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:14 pm

Post by Enosh » Thu May 07, 2009 7:10 pm

speaking of which anyone found anyone trying to fit the CW into the ICS numbers? I kinda can't even find anything on sd.net... they seem to be mostly ignoring the firepower displayed in the cartoon

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Fri May 08, 2009 12:26 am

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

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Post by mojo » Fri May 08, 2009 5:54 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.

Enosh
Padawan
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:14 pm

Post by Enosh » Fri May 08, 2009 6:07 am

it's still T canon, I think most SW movies are only mediocre (i actualy like the clone wars series better than the 6 movies) and I don't get why they are so popular, but the are G-canon, can't ignore them on the basis that I don't like them

ILikeDeathNote
Jedi Knight
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:31 am

Post by ILikeDeathNote » Fri May 08, 2009 6:51 am

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.
True, but at the same time I know quite a few people who would say that for all of the movies if not the franchise in general.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Fri May 08, 2009 7:42 am

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.
And the ICS books are children's books. Aimed at the same demographic the CW cartoon is, IIRC.

Post Reply