*Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

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

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by l33telboi » Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:42 am

Roondar wrote:You mean, you'd end up with armed forces more like what you see in Star Trek: no (or very little) armored vehicles, force projection* mostly based on space superiority and having ground stuff at all because it's a necessity, not because it's the general way of doing things.
There'd still be a use for armored vehicles in some instances, I'm sure. But we're talking gear that's extremely specialized and used only in certain situations. Tanks won't be a common sight on a battlefield, neither would artillery. The main combat vehicles used would probably be shuttle-sized, but having a design emphasis on armor (or shields) and weapons, rather then transport. Infantry would of course also be needed to capture and hold buildings and cities. But their duties would be more along the lines of peacekeeping and security, rather then outright combat.
The theory probably being that if you lose space superiority you've already lost the war by virtue of the orbital-bombardment problem and if you gain/keep space superiority you've won the war by the same token.
That is one of the contributing factors, but not the one I'm referring too now. Right now I'm talking about the simple fact that once you start throwing around kilotons or megatons in rapid succession as commonly anti-vehicle weaponry, then your vehicles need to be fast just to evade 'splash damage' to put in RTS terms. Fighting on a ground in slow moving vehicles formed up in dense clusters would be a very bad idea, because there are shockwaves strong enough to throw your vehicle around just from nearby hits and crater formation is as regular as bullets flying through the air.

Take the battle of Geonosis, what if one single clone had been smart enough to dial his tank/artillery weapon to maximum and targeted the center of the advancing droid army? Boom. He just took out the entire advancing army with pretty much zero effort or cost. But no one ever does that. Not in any single one battle.

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

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:56 am

Roondar wrote:BTW, I see no one has actually tried to explain why the rebels weapons (snowspeeders etc) didn't do what the Imperial guns should have done: create craters, huge explosions, etc. Sure, they where using poor equipment compared to the stuff the empire had, but it surely wasn't ten or so orders of magnitude less powerful. Or why no groundbattle in SW history actually showed ever anything even approaching a relatively outdated US nuke.
Perhaps because the whole of Star Wars is actually happy with the weapons they have, and that safe for shields --and that's not even a given-- most attacks manage to damge small vehicles and structures. Which also means that while the armour is good, it is not "oh so good".
Perhaps because the standard weapon can't actually do more than what we see them do?
As for the second, they largely have the means to level the battlefield that way. I've heard the argument of fear of escalation in indiscriminate means of destruction.
Of course that's perhaps a good argument when you talk about medium KT and above, but not for yields that are at 0.1 and 0.9 KT or perhaps just a notch above. Yields in the hundreds of gigajoules are not exactly excessive, especially when you consider real cases of carpet bombings and napalm raining over entire villages.
The question, is not if either forces have that firepower, or could have that firepower, because the answer is already yes, they do or could, but under what form that firepower comes, and while most people would say it either requires a heavy turbolaser with some good power plant behind it, or some puncky missile/bomb, some warsies will argue that the random main cannon on a ground vehicle is capable of that firepower.
Yet it's never observed.

That's where you get X-wings with kilotons of firepower, and so they're more or less obligated to argue that the not so ridiculous snowspeeders, which actually have two big cannons, should have a firepower perhaps one order of magnitude below.

If you check the first pages of the thread, you'll note that Leo1 tried to explain, in his own way, why in fact Rebels DO have a firepower that's greater than thought, but is largely invisible.
He, however, admitted that he didn't have problems with a figure I presented for the snowspeeder's firepower, of 225 MJ per shot, but that was based on considerably generous initial parameters.

Could we argue that the snowspeeders' weapons had a problem with the cold? I for one would not really say it's illogical, although it's totally unproven, as long as it would not be used to argue for yields we never saw displayed by other weapons of the same caliber in more favourable environments.
Roondar wrote:I'd argue that anyone that has such weaponry quickly stop using ground forces in the same way we do today. Not that they'd just dial down the yields on every single warmachine they produce. Would you find infantry that's not in completly sealed power-armor on a field where these sorts of weapons are used? Of course not. Would you even find power-armored infantry on such battlefields? I doubt it. Would you find slow-moving tank-sized vehicles that can be destroyed by megajoule level weaponry on a battlefield where kilo/megaton scale weaponry are commonly used? No. Why? Because you don't spend a great deal of money on constructing something the enemy can take out in droves just with a single lazy shot in the general area of where they are. That'd be a waste of money.

You mean, you'd end up with armed forces more like what you see in Star Trek: no (or very little) armoured vehicles, force projection* mostly based on space superiority and having ground stuff at all because it's a neccesity, not because it's the general way of doing things.

The theory probably being that if you lose space superiority you've already lost the war by virtue of the orbital-bombardment problem and if you gain/keep space superiority you've won the war by the same token.

Edit: this does not mean that the Federation et all have groundstuff capable of unleashing kilotons/megatons per shot - it means they moved away from the ground-based arms race because they probably could make weapons like that and noticed the same problem I did ;)

*) I hope that's the right term, English is not my native language after all ;)
Space superiority has some limits when there needs to be some meticulous work done on the ground. That said, a siege, that works wonders. Any resupply of fuel, food, medicines, weapons or else can be easily be intercepted or shot down before it moves into town. You can burn entire crop fields and steam up rivers.
The question is just how dirty you can allow the attack to be.
Take the battle of Geonosis, what if one single clone had been smart enough to dial his tank/artillery weapon to maximum and targeted the center of the advancing droid army? Boom. He just took out the entire advancing army with pretty much zero effort or cost. But no one ever does that. Not in any single one battle.
Oh but you see, no, that does not work. The reason is that they wanted to capture the underground factories. You know, it's a large planet and all that, that's two forces supposedly capable of turning entire planets into factory worlds, but they're going to whine because they break the pumps and tubes right underneath the battle zone, which wasn't that large mind you.
Oh and the clonetroopers needed training. Because, you know, standing out on open plains and shooting roughly slightly below the horizon works as valuable "real combat situation" powerleveling or something.
And the same can be asked about the CIS. Same ol' argument, they had nothing to lose more than what they were already leaving behind them as they were fleeing! Even a scorched earth tactic would have worked wonders. That's not even an excuse to argue that the ships in question didn't even have kiloton firepower, it's just to point out the limited genius in military tactics. Period.

And although we're critical of these aspects, I know we never had an issue explaining this by the fact that the galaxy as a whole has not seen a war in millenia, aside from very local brushfires.
However the drop of competence between the Clone Wars and the defeat at Endor is staggering, and counter-intuitive.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:27 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Edit: this does not mean that the Federation et all have groundstuff capable of unleashing kilotons/megatons per shot - it means they moved away from the ground-based arms race because they probably could make weapons like that and noticed the same problem I did ;)
I've pointed out before that the 1200 yard "unsafe" radius of the mortar-launched photon grenade does put it up around the terajoule range. That puts Kirk's device as being fairly similar to a small nuclear device that was, at that point IRL, being deployed. And yes, folks, that means that the USA circa TOS being produced was capable of providing more firepower, using a squad-fired weapon, than ever seen in Star Wars on the ground. But was it useful? Theoretically, potentially, yes. In practice, tactical nuclear devices carry serious complications.

It's an extreme case, but we don't have enough data to qualify "Arena"'s photon grenade as an outlier. The high end of hand phasers is "merely" gigajoules (and not hundreds thereof) for overloads and maximum-yield shots, but even that is a capability that would almost never be useful in the scenarios we see.

I think the fact that conventional ground warfare is almost never glimpsed in Star Trek is a pretty logical extension of that. The point of ground troops is solely to capture intact facilities and/or personnel; any gross demolition can be carried out with ease against anything not behind shields. And if you're trying to take a ship or station intact, you don't want to be shooting things that will go through bulkheads if you don't have to.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by 2046 » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:02 am

Incidentally, if I were Leo1 in this thread, I'd probably breathe a sigh of relief . . . someone's brought up Federation tech and thus everyone's gotten distracted from the original point, which would factor right in to my efforts to evade the facts.

And if I were Facehugger, I'd ban myself for saying that, and I would in fact be shocked and appalled at the fact that I did not recognize how relevant Federation tech is to the topic.

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

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:34 pm

JMS, I'm sorry for not using quote tags properly, but the part you quoted is not from me but from Roondar I think.
2046 wrote:Incidentally, if I were Leo1 in this thread, I'd probably breathe a sigh of relief . . . someone's brought up Federation tech and thus everyone's gotten distracted from the original point, which would factor right in to my efforts to evade the facts.

And if I were Facehugger, I'd ban myself for saying that, and I would in fact be shocked and appalled at the fact that I did not recognize how relevant Federation tech is to the topic.
I'm sure some posters didn't appreciate CPLH's inquisitive decision. Now, I think I've done enough with reporting it. I don't feel like harassing other mods about this, but surely if someone else would want to do it, they would just have to point to this thread.

Anyway, more on topic --and it's true that I'd rather not have Trek derail this one-- I think it's more probable that the shaking is due to enemy fire hitting the inside of the base by flying through the gaping South entrance, possibly snowtroopers using heavy firepower to get rid of pockets of Rebels defending the hangar to prevent the Imperials from moving in faster.
I'd even wonder if the bizarre whistling noise heard, just before the tunnel Leia and Han take collapses, would not be related to some rocket fired by Imperial troops from inside.
Although not the exact same sound, the proton rocket fired by a SBD in "Bombad Jedi" (TCWS_1.8) also had a descendo whistling noise. That would also make much more sense as to why the sound was so clear, while a projectile approaching the mountain from outside would have no reason to be heard at all, especially that loud.

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

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by l33telboi » Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:00 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Now, I think I've done enough with reporting it.
Who did you report it too?

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

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Aug 06, 2009 12:42 pm

l33telboi wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Now, I think I've done enough with reporting it.
Who did you report it too?
The members of this forum, here.
I don't wish to do more than that, the thread itself is all the proof needed in case CPLF acts funny once again.

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

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Aug 06, 2009 12:58 pm

I'd also like to point out that I don't dig Richardson using the moderator threat argument for his defense.
The vast majority of his points are frankly properly debunked by Leo1. Taking cover behind the looming threat of banning does not serve equity nor does any good to those who actually got hit by such a ban, merely because Richardson cannot assume the faults of his arguments.

I'd also point out that bizarrely, you don't hear the walker footsteps later on.

User avatar
Airlocke_Jedi_Knight
Jedi Knight
Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Camby
Contact:

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by Airlocke_Jedi_Knight » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:50 am

I tried to quote Oragahn's OP, but for some reason it would not let me...something bout having too many imbedded quotes. Let's pretend that I WAS able to quote it....


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...

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.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:39 pm

Airlocke, I'm not sure I would qualify this as whining, since he did show why he was banned, and argued about why he thought it was unfair.
He did not come here to say "I won the debate, and they're all idiots"...
He showed what his arguments were, and stated that based on them, and on the arguments of his "opponents", he should not have been banned, but that since he was, then others should have been as well...

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

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:32 pm

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.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by 2046 » Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:18 am

Facehugger once said:
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.
I say:

Image

(Translation: ROFLMAO)

Given Facehugger's view of the most recent thread, I am quite certain his view of the one he's referring to above is equally warped. No doubt Oragahn was proving the sky was blue while Leo disagreed, calling it a mauve and taupe plaid pattern instead.

Suffice it to say that if I needed the arguments of a 7 year old boy "consistently crushed", Leo would not be my first choice of who to send in.

What pisses me off more than anything is that I don't even like Oragahn, given his unusual old habit of picking fights with me for no apparent reason and as little rationale. (That's my "opinion" or "subjective view" or whatever you want to call it for the purpose of making clear that it is not a derail attempt. I'm just pointing that out in order to point out the fact that even non-aligned parties think Facehugger is being silly and that Leo's EEG would show a weak signal.)

But Leo and his guardian Facehugger are being so utterly retarded that I can't help but throw my support behind Oragahn.

User avatar
Airlocke_Jedi_Knight
Jedi Knight
Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Camby
Contact:

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by Airlocke_Jedi_Knight » Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:42 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
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.
Now, this made me laugh:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
What you accuse me in a barely veiled scornful way...
I have no issues with you, Oragahn, and have no connection to your feud with the SBC mods. Please do not confuse yourself, and believe that I am of the same opinion as your opposition. I do not appreciate it. I was simply pointing out an irony in your arguments, as I find myself incapable of resisting such compulsions. I did NOT mean to convey any scorn. Amusement would be a more appropriate word. You are taking this far more seriously than the situation warrants.

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

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:43 pm

Airlocke_Jedi_Knight wrote:Now, this made me laugh:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
What you accuse me in a barely veiled scornful way...
I have no issues with you, Oragahn, and have no connection to your feud with the SBC mods. Please do not confuse yourself, and believe that I am of the same opinion as your opposition. I do not appreciate it. I was simply pointing out an irony in your arguments, as I find myself incapable of resisting such compulsions. I did NOT mean to convey any scorn. Amusement would be a more appropriate word. You are taking this far more seriously than the situation warrants.
I don't relate you to the troublemakers at SBC, but this place is a forum. Your amusement didn't transfer well at all, and as you can see I'm not the only one who didn't get it.
And again, what I did here and suspect what happened at SBC is apples and oranges, so I respectfully disagree with your appreciation of any irony here.
As for the seriousness, is it because I made a long post? So be it. It's purely by necessity, to make the point clear about the precedents and CPLF's interesting standards of moderation.
I don't really see what's serious about it either.
Now perhaps we can move on...

User avatar
Airlocke_Jedi_Knight
Jedi Knight
Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Camby
Contact:

Re: *Sigh* Another case of biased moderation when SW is involved

Post by Airlocke_Jedi_Knight » Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:18 am

I think a nice set of smilies could have prevented the misunderstanding...

Just cave to it, JMS, just cave, all the cool kids are doing it. :)

Post Reply