Airlocke_Jedi_Knight wrote:Okay, I kind of find it funny that you used the phrase "ran home and cried in his mothers skirts" then came here to whine about being banned to people with the same basic opinion as you. Rather ironic, really...
I wondered when someone would pick that up.
The thing being that here at SFJN we don't have any possibility to change SBC members' ability to post at SBC...
This subforum has, among many other uses, some kind of a watchdog function. I would have not obtained anything from SBC staff by posting here, beyond a mere revealing archiving of that event.
I didn't start this mess, but if I had not posted anything about it, I don't know who would have, and yet it was obviously completely warranted, as we have seen.
Also, my action was motivated by a wish for fairness and to denounce an abuse. That's quite different than someone going to complain to a mod about some very nasty people who didn't agree... if this happened.
Even if Leo1 didn't make any such request, the mere fact that he didn't try to distance himself from CPLF's decision tells enough about both of them.
I also didn't bother telling SBC's mods what happened because they put CPLF in place first, and that always surprised me, and it's rather obvious that such an unilateral ban of the opposition is nothing that won't get totally unnoticed anyway.
What you accuse me in a barely veiled scornful way is like if I had contacted a watchdog group to share my experience about an abuse of executive powers, possibly caused by a person using his or her relations to obtain a favorable speech-silencing of any opposition, while at the same time I refused to contact the executive staff because I didn't expect anything from the authorities and didn't think it would have been useful at all. Above all, it's not my responsibility if a troll has been given moderation powers, especially when said troll has never made any effort to mask his wish to ban any disenting opinion on flimsy grounds.
It's not like he's at his first try; Double standards in the application of the rule that affairs of other boards do not concern us:
Cpl_Facehugger plz prove that SW hyperdrive is far superior to that of SGverse!
Chronology:
1
2
3
4
Yet never mind that linking to Star Wars Technical Commentaties, Stardetroyer.net and its own board never really proved problematic.
It's not like it was any "affair" either, just that evidence, mainly pictures in that case, was already present on one page on another website, and I wouldn't start counting the number of times people link to another website where data can be found without bothering quoting the whole goddamn page.
SBC is also the same board where Kyosanim's marathon posting was tolerated over multiple threads and countless pages. For the reminder, Kyosanim stood in defense of the ICS numbers, with a massive amount of posters disagreeing with him. It had reached a point it became a comedy.
Anyone who has argued with Kyosanim will easily remember --unless the mind automatically tries to deny the trauma-- how his methods were nothing short of trolling and how he drowned his opposition with nonsense of the highest order. Just search for any thread with Star Wars and Kyosanim and you'll see.
Apparently the margin of maneuver varies depending on the side you're on.
And, of course, the incident I refered to earlier in this thread, which requires a bit of background first.
I started a thread at SBC, titled
AOTC: Slave-I's firepower and Aethersprite's shields, a slightly edited version of the one I first posted here, at SFJN.
Hell,
even Poe posted in it.
It doesn't take long for Leo1/Vympel to start using logical fallacies and trolling,
which I point out.
Me wrote:
Ok Vympel, ring me when you're done with your ridiculous comedy.
It took me quite some time to make the two posts above and get the pictures, yet you get through it within what? ten minutes, top?
You obviously didn't pay attention to the matter you were hasty to chip chop with your quotes.
You miss such a vast amount of points, make so many errors, strawmen and red herrings, it would take me a while to get through it all, and still, it would be pointless, because I'd get the same absurd rhetoric in return.
I mean, let's take the N-1's shields for example. This got to be preciseless, really.
I post evidence of their very hull hugging nature in space. Anyone with a shrug of honesty would clearly see that there's just nothing possible to argue about that.
We see a shit load of bolts zapping near the ship, and never be intercepted whatsoever. I post the clear evidence that the only time bolts are intercepted, is when they are clearly going to hit the ship's hull (count a few centimeters of thickness more, due to the gap between the hull and the shields).
Yet, the only thing that you can do is put the entire chapter through your monkey grinder and reply like a broken record "yeah and?".
Well, you want it spelled or what?
It proves that the ICS' definition of shields does not apply to the N-1. Yet, that makes the N-1 shields the most efficient and well conceived design, because they do not bother intercepting bolts that are never going to hit the ship.
My other point?
Either the Naboo are smart people and the rest of shield technicians and military theorists in the galaxy huge morons.
Or the ICS definition and your whole stance is absurd and wrong, as simple as that.
[...]
As for the rest, it's just not worth it.
You try to win points on elements where there is nothing to win, like when you cut a part of a small paragraph in its middle, just for the kicks, and ask me to get to the point...
Ok, seriously... WTF?
I'm interested in a discussion, not a monologue. You are not concerned about an honest exchange of ideas and constructive discussion. You're just too biased for this to go anywhere.
You're just there to win an argument through any mean possible, and they're just downright terrible. Why should I even bother wasting time with you?
So here's my offer: I'll let you edit your posts and actually try to adress mine honestly, or accept your concession. I can't be bothered to go through your tripe even once.
That said, if anyone else wants to talk about this honestly, you're welcome. ;)
Leo1 was grinding and sniping entire paragraphs and relying on strawmen and other dishonest tactics. This would obviously not be tolerated. But apparently, I was the guy being wrong here, both by
Alyeska and
Thanatos, and
Alyeska again, the guy who got demoded for mod power abuse in the past.
l33telboi kindly helping Alyeska to reconsider his standards.
Etc.
Rather quickly, CPLF
intervened:
Cpl_Facehugger wrote:Wow, this thread blew up fast.
Oragahn, your theory obviously doesn't work. Otherwise you'd actually respond to Leo's points rather than calling him a troll and other such monikers. If your theory was remotely viable, it would be able to stand up to the criticism of one warsie. Wouldn't it?
Now, you may disagree. But if you do, let me pose a question: If your theory could hold up under fire, why haven't you simply countered Leo's points rather than throwing up a smokescreen about how he doesn't understand your argument and, when that failed, walking away in a huff?
Dealing with people who disagree with you is one of occupational hazards of any rhetorician. It's the sign of a poor argument when one side refuses to address the other side's counterexamples. After all, if the argument were sound, you could simply address the counterpoints. After all, you're right, yes? The problem here is that I think you know you aren't right. Else you'd counter his arguments rather than running away.
I think it's pretty obvious to any impartial observer who has won this debate here. When the person making an argument runs away rather than defending it, that's a pretty good sign that the argument isn't worth making.
See, we already get a glimpse of it.
It ends
thusly.
This, of course, got me banned, by Thanatos I think.
Then, later on, I posted a sequel to the first thread,
here, in which I also explain I wasn't aware of the anti-Ignore_List rule.
My unique mistake here was being honest about not bothering entertaining Leo1 by replying to his drivel.
But my post was not about that quibble. It was to continue the thread before it got sour, by focusing on the claims and data and formulating constructed arguments.
Which got properly
welcomed by Leo1 as "excess verbage".
The thread is ripe with more comedy, notably from Dark Hellion.
That was the end of November 2007.
It's possible I had started another thread inbetween.
We move to January 2008.
RJLCyberPunk starts a thread, titled
No nonsense SW vs Stargate how would it be like? The same as SW vs Trek what?
Things are going on quietly, as we get out of massive Star Wars threads.
Mith intervenes and, at this time, believes that
I had proved my point.
Three posts later, CPLF arrives and
spills the beans:
Cpl_Facehugger wrote:
Mith wrote:Also doesn't help that the SW power figures are being challenged, and thus far, the argument is in O's favor.
What the hell? What's O?
If you mean Mister Oragahn, you're quite mistaken about the argument being in his favor. He puts out more text, but Leo is consistently crushing him in terms of argument. The only reason I haven't banned him for violation of logical rules (and thus VS and especially tech debates rules) is that I derive too much amusement from his arguments to ban him unless I have no other choice.
Need. I. Say. More?
Voila, everything's here.
EDIT: oh, and if you want true irony, you can always check the first 10 posts of
this thread; notably
this one.
That being said, it WAS a stupid reason to ban you. I was lurking in that topic and found no reason that you should have been banned.
I am glad you saw that, at least.