Attn: Thanatos

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.
Kahless
Padawan
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:29 am

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Kahless » Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:05 pm

I expected better of them.
I would say that is being far too kind. The culture over there seems to be one of tinpot dictators clammering for power, with those who toady enough to those above them being given it.

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

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:08 pm

Here's another bit that might be of interest. I'm dropping it as it is.
Tyralak wrote:I'm not sure why you expected better of them. Their dishonesty and infantile double standards is why we used to refer to SB.com as "The kiddie pool". Let them pat themselves on the back, just like they do at SDN. They give White Rabbit a pass on everything he does, yet they come down hard on people who can actually make salient points.
The largest a community gets, the more trolls it absorbs. I didn't expect some of them to get such a free pass to the point of even getting promoted just because they seemed to lick enough boots. I think that people like Herr White Rabbit are just too obvious to get the bonus.

Double standards is pretty much the motto, indeed. Of course it's not like Thanatos, as being the pious moderator that he is, would refrain from insulting people [1], like for example dissing entire arguments by using a fair dosage of the usual mockery constructed from the basis of using the term [conspiracy] at least once, a trademark of some SDN members (and as far as being a copycat of Wong's opinion when it's used against me, relating to something I may have said at SFJ that doesn't mesh with his opinions, but then again there's quite funny things to say about Wong's opinions as well).
Another example of douchery is when Thanatos wouldn't refrain from playing with his mod powers when threatening a member and leaving him out in the blue about what he really intended to do with said powers as he couldn't stand someone openly opposing his abusive modhood [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] - and the saddest part of it is that I don't really fancy GS to begin with - or refrain from single handedly hacking a thread in a way that's endorsed by the staff and a legion of arse lickers, while it's actually forbidden (and in case you're in doubt, he already was a moderator back then).

Or let's look at that one: Post 331 in "Determining Star Wars Firepower".
I think he generally likes to ban some people of the other side when there's a seemingly good enough reason to ban them, in order to make his moderation look fair, but if you look at the thread, his accusation towards Kittamaru still was pure turd. No additives. Childish behaviour? Give me a break. It's SBC, it's all over the pages. It's not the website that comes to my mind when I'm looking for more mature content (no innuendo).
His accusation about immature and childish behaviour on Kitt's part was just that silly. Like he had to threw qualificatives to give his sanction more substance.
Once again, warnings weren't even voiced. I love how standards seem so maleable.
Kittamaru is actually the only bloke/Trekkie I know who actually explained with such details the destruction of the Odyssey, in post 242.
Like he did before, Thanatos jumped in the thread eons after the supposed storm has passed, but still fell like he had to stir trouble again (because that's what his "moderation" does in reality, it's almost a gem of newspeak) by policing a thread which, ultimately, was doing very well before he jumped in.
I wouldn't be surprised if we knew that Thanatos had grown an aversion for the SFJ plebe, and would crackdown on its members when he could, especially when his sweet WH40K would take a fair beating of some sort, and would just enjoy extending that spineless behaviour to Trekkies.
After all, didn't he openly insult JMS in the very title of a thread at SDN (Challenging Spocktard to a debate - subtle). He is pretty much the only one who's accepted a debate with JMS, with JMS defending Battletech and Than defending Warhammer 40000. No one else has demonstrated such emotional attachment to Warhammer 40000 as far as to ever do that.
One of the funniest parts of it is just how real life problems piled up as soon as the debate started so he couldn't find enough time to make arguments as good as he wanted to.
Like someone held a gun against his temple and forced him to defy JMS, you know.
You get the SFJN version here, with commentaries here.
Thanatos was bragging quite a lot, possibly assured of having a nice support from SDN (not necessarily in the form of good arguments), a place where he actually rarely posted since his registration over there (182 posts since early 08, and it hasn't changed for a while) and got corrected on several points, even on such silly things as basic volumetric calcs and the definition of work (force times distance in joules) while at the same time insulting the intelligence of his oponent. It was also a good occasion to voice his kind opinion about SFJN and me.
Clarification: "a free ride on whatever shit he thinks he should be able to do" equals being allowed to defend my claims without a fanboy cracking down on me. The official warnings I got were justified, just as the ban I got by Reap for the wanker gif I posted in an ICS related discussion. The rest was just about CPLF and Thanatos killing debates since 2007 (it started when I posted the Slave-I & Delta-7 Aethersprite thread. We have quite a good collection of most specious sanctions enforced by CPLF and Thanatos: remember this deplorable example, with, surprise surprise, the typical "poor debating procedures, etiquette and standards" accusation Thanatos enjoys. You get what happened here with Thanatos snapping after being questioned about his attitude regarding the way he dealt with FBH and Kodiak (the end of the thread is just Thanatos deciding to focus on the sole point where he can actually justify my ban).
To return to the duel between JMS and him, let's just realize that he pretty much made a fool out of himself. That's the risk when playing with a double edged sword after all, and possibly why so many ego-driven people stay clear of such duels.
A post like this one even implies that he went to SDN because SB was having some technical issues (it did have some issues, but short ones and very few). Following a few replies to JMS in some random thread here where both talked about WH40K, he got so mad about what he read from JMS that he craved for a challenge against him.
He. Could. Not. Wait.
But the guy wasn't able to start a thread on SBC apparently, so he felt obligated to go to his new house and run his attack from there:
Connor MacLeod wrote: I'm shocked [JMS] didn't try to twist that into a concession on your part that spocky won the debate. Its something he'd try doing.
Thanatos wrote: Maybe he has? I haven't been back to look at the thread and I probably won't for a long time really now that SB is sorta working now.
Besides, it seems like they read this forum more than the people who actually post here.
Hell, I even tried to know if part of Thanatos' excuse to ban me was because he didn't like the arguments I used when talking about WH40K's canon and the relevance of dates of edition/revision on the topic of almost obscure, outdated and out of print sources, but it doesn't jive well with the lines from those posts:
JMS wrote:The question is if the 2005 novel overrides the 2003-2007 fluff, along with the direct narrative of the fiction within the 2007 book.
Thanatos wrote:Why are you listing dates of publication? You're not totally failing to understand the new overwrites old are you?
And one step later...
JMS wrote:The Siege of Vraks, which reiterates and reinforces the 15-16 km effective range under roughly T-normal conditions, came out in late 2007, while the incident you reference comes from 2005.
Thanatos wrote:That's not the way it works at all. New overwrites old is for use generally with the really old stuff or stuff that's out of print.
So I don't see what Thanatos may tell SBC members about not following the rules. If there would be contention on the value of WH40K canon - and canon offtopics make mods nervous - then it's clear that he would agree with me about the outdated reference on the Hellfire ACS missiles.

Of course, that very thread that JMS started here and my former replies probably didn't help either. :)

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

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:12 pm

Now you'll excuse me for this little sidenote about Cpl_Facehugger. Why should we stop here after all? It's even more amusing considering the standards of moderation his mod pal, CPLF, likes to follow:

Post 66 in "USS Defiant (Sao Paulo rename) vs Slave 1" thread.
Cpl_Facehugger, May 8th 2010, 10:56pm wrote:
Kor wrote:Actually the insults are a distraction that have no place in mature and reasonable discussion,
That depends on if the insults are the only counterargument or not. Sometimes, particularly in an interweb debate where there's nothing at stake, it makes sense to call your opponent an ignorant fool, so long as you have an actual argument to wrap that insult around.
Good, isn't it?
So who the hell are they kidding, really?

Oh but perhaps this is not enough?
Then wait, I have another gem here:

Post 26 from "CGU (my diea) v.s Galactic Empire" (a versus based on Hapsburg's fanfiction - yeah, don't ask):
Cpl_Facehugger, Apr 24th 2005, 9:08pm wrote:
I'm sorry, but that universe is too over the top to debate intelligently. Twelve thousand kilometer long battleships? 10000 Teraton beam weapons? Nope.
Pardon? Did CPLF just say that an universe with a warship that's 12,000 km long and where beam weapons that can fire 10 petatons is ridiculous, over the top, and not suited for an intelligent debate?
Now I'm sure some would look back on their bans and warnings and be rather amused.

Here's what Haps' said about this (silly) craft:
Hapsburg wrote:The CGU's flagship and fleet-tender, in stable orbit above Outreach, is the massive 12,757-km-long GSS Maximilian. The Max has never been used in combat, and stays in orbit as a constant fleet tender, and the personal flagship of Dictator Maximilian I. It's main weapon fires a 120km-wide bolt that sails out over twelve million kilometers and explodes in a massivle flash of energy. It, also, has never been tested, and it's power is merely theoretical.
So OK, that's like a 12,757 km long and certainly more than 120 km wide ship. Say 150 km. Take that as a cylinder that's 150 km wide, right?
The volume is 2.2543 e17 m³.

Now, guess how big is a 900 km wide Death Star?
3.817 e17 m³.

Oops. The Saxtonized Death Star II actually has a greater volume.

Let's continue. I don't know where the firepower figure for that silly CGU ship comes from, since Haps declared that those 2.3 km long dreadnoughts had two beam cannons firing a "beam blast" rated at 22 PT.

Now, we don't know the shape of those warships, but let's assume that they're rather elongated. We'll make them cylinders, again, which are 2.3 km long and say a quarter that figure is the width (575 meters wide).
So those ships have a volume of 5.9725 e8 m³.

Scale that up to the size of the GSS Maximilian (2.2543 e17 m³).
Good, that's a factor of 377,446,630.

Now the twin forward beam cannons could deliver a "beam blast" of 9.2048 e25 J.

Notice, btw, that it takes these cannons "several hours to cool off and require extensive recharging sequences to fire," contrary to the Saxton-ISDs which can keep pouring and annihilating tens of thousands of tonnes of fuel per second inside their power cores on and on until they are depleted, and ships which would obviously have little issues to radiate several petatons per second as neutrinos would hardly be annoyed by excruciatingly long cooling down periods.

So what's the scaled up firepower of the Maximilian, if its main weapons were to be upscaled versions of the 2.3 km long dreadnoughts?
Simple: 3,474,320,739.824 e25 J.

Or 3.47432 e34 J.

The DSII has a firepower in the n e38 J region, and supposedly is all DET btw.

Oops, the Death Star is still way more powerful, by four orders of magnitude. Only that.

Indeed, it's ridiculous.

**
Late edit: note that if I had picked a width for the Maximilian that would have been a fourth of its length, still treated as a cylinder, the volume would have been 1.0196 e20 m³.
The difference of volume between that thing and a dreadnought would be 170,715,780,661.
Which would still put its firepower 1 OoM under the Death Star II's, once upscaled, and would bring the ratio firepower/m³ down three~four OoMs below that of the DSII.
**

Why the heck is CPLF complaining? Someone came with an universe defined by firepower figures which are actually less ridiculous that those of the ICSes.

But you know, it's actually easy to understand why the moderation at SBC is not right. Just look at here.
Talking about InfernalPest/Infinity4Ever/Zinc:
Cpl_Facehugger wrote: If he's found to be a sockpuppet, we would nuke him from orbit, yes. It is, after all, the only way to be sure.
ricery1 wrote: Hey, did you fully investigate I4E if he was a sock puppet?
Cpl_Facehugger wrote: We did investigate, but our findings are... inconclusive. Fortunately he decided to go and get himself banned on his own merits, and I highly doubt he'll be able to change his behavior in the future.
ricrery1 wrote: Define how inconclusive.
Cpl_Facehugger wrote: I'm afraid not. Moderator business is not something we discuss outside our ranks.
Moderator business that's actually very public. Let me decipher it for you:
- Why was X banned?
- Only moderators need to know.
Of course, anyone can see the problem with a regulatory system which doesn't think it even has to explain why it sanctions people.
It's not like it couldn't be of use as an example to other members, at the very least.
Noooo, certainly not. ^^
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:38 pm

Moderator business that's actually very public. Let me decipher it for you:
- Why was X banned?
- Only moderators need to know.
Of course, anyone can see the problem with a regulatory system which doesn't think it even has to explain why it sanctions people.
It's not like it couldn't be of use as an example to other members, at the very least.
Noooo, certainly not. ^^
Come on bud if they start explaining why they ban people firstly they will need to find proper and detailed excuses and if that happens you would be able to stack up all the instances that their buddies did exactly the same or worse (and likely a lot more times) but got no ban at all.

Like in your case they could hardly say that they banned you because you researched and argued too effectively and any other detailed reason they gave would have been hammered by actual facts from the threads.

Personally i think any sort of punishment should be done in a dedicated part of the forum and the accuser should be forced to make a case that the accused can defend against.


From my own experiances with facehugger and others like him "inconclusive" likely means "it did not show what i wanted it to".

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

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:39 pm

Well I'm certainly not surprised.
Now, from what you said in that other thread...
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:Anyway its nice to see facehugger and crew still waving the ban hammer around.
See how the comedy writes itself, indeed. No time for a break.
What did I say by some people having free passes?
Would it be unbelievable that these people seem to always be the same?

On one hand you have this:
Cpl_Facehugger, Aug 11th 2010, 5:59pm wrote:
ricrery1 wrote: Uh, what part of "Corellian wins" do you not understand? What I think about kinetics and durability and whatnot is irrelevant, as the vs has already been decided by me.
...Ricery, you don't exactly get to decide who wins a vs debate. Strictly speaking, nobody does. :\
Of course not... for a proper conclusion to be reached, at least you need to avoid banning peoole just because they disagree with you. :)

Continued...
Cpl_Facehugger, Aug 11th 2010, 5:59pm wrote:
ricrery1 wrote: Not an official rule, but one of the Mods already said that Spacebattles usually take visuals over dialog.
Yes. That would be me. As a general rule, we should take visuals over dialog, because dialog has more ways it could be wrong.

Anyway, goddamnit, I go away for three days and I have this to deal with when I get back. Let's have some bans.

Element 30, Darth Yuthura, and Ricery, you are all in the wrong here. Ricery, you are flaming and generally refusing to provide proof when asked. Yuthura, you are also refusing to provide proof and generally making extraordinary claims without backing them up. Element 30, you've got much the same problems as Ricery.

Ricery and E30 are taking a week long vacation because of past behavior on their parts. Yuthura, you'll get off with a warning but you'd best step up your arguments and provide actual proof rather than vague appeals to TDiC. Also, when someone else makes a good point that smushes your argument (ie JC or Rama in this thread), it helps to concede it or refute it if you can. Continuing on as if the point wasn't made isn't conducive to proper debating practice.

Kittamaru, it's not exactly fair to dismiss one site as a source for no good reason when your argument relies upon another site which is arguably less reliable in terms of conclusions. It's also rather silly to assume Trek antimatter is different than normal antimatter.
Then again, no need to remind people of the curious standards of what makes a debater a good one. I've seen a good lot of trolls getting the right to post crap for weeks non stop without getting even a single warning (despite knowing that reports were sent).
I can't even say that I find some of the sanctions unfair. Ricey has been debating in the way that you understand debating as repeating other people's arguments and figures and locking the record on repeat mode.
E30 is an oddball. He seems to effectively miss many occasions to defend his points, yet several of his remarks are quite spot on at the same time.
Darth_Yuthura getting a slap on the end for forgetting to provide back up of certain claims, really, that's quite expeditive for anyone having a n old or recent memory about typical vs debates at SBC.
Yuthura's problems seem to largely be a consequence of his apparent "newbie" status, since he doesn't seem to be aware of the existence of certain arguments which have been made at SBC, which he could easily link to, notably on the Death Star.
Then again we find pretty much that the side that gets to take the spoon of turd is the Trek one, in a versus pitting ST against SW.
Only Ricery1 is on the SW side, and yet again I find that the one who's ban makes the decision look fair is pretty much a sealed case anyway, an easy and obvious one to settle, since as I said, since Ricery1's arrival at SBC, his debating method has exactly been that.

And then, again, it would appear to be fair, until you realize the shit storm that's been going in another thread at the same time.
Look at that. Gamesguy, at SBC since 2004, doesn't even get a nice reminder, a little warning or some tap on the hand for making the same mistake I did (see the part about the "Slave-I & Delta-7 Aethersprite" thread wherein I had shown the same kind of exasperation regarding Leo1/Vympel's behaviour).
Gamesguy wrote:, I'm just gonna put you on ignore and you can rage post all you want and I won't have to be bothered to reply.
Thanatos wrote:Then you will be removed from VS debates, as that is an instant VS ban. There's currently a tracking issue with that, so its going to be two weeks only right now until I can get a way to confirm there's nobody on your list.
And you have quite the lickers here too.
Mmm, the taste of Thanatos' buttocks. Luvely.
Not that I'm surprised, Dr. Strangelove's ability to use Smart has severaly decreased since the first time I conversed with this individual. He also seems to have developped a severe and irrepressible need to nerf Stargate.
He's not short of trying to peddle the same used arguments (1, 2, 3, 4). He clearly has a gripe against Stargate for some reason, and things he has evidence to pull numbers down to stupid levels.
Well unfortunately for him, Stargate actually happens to give us very specific numbers about naqahdah based weapons which he can't ignore.

What's most amusing is WR flamebaited Gamesguy as far as to insult his mother among other things, just for the kicks, but that was apparently perfectly fine according to Thanatos.

It took CPLF to actually see what's been really going on.
Cpl_Facehugger wrote: Okay, Thanatos asked me to take a look at this thread. So...

Gamesguy and WR, both of you are getting a warning for flaming. No infractions, just warning.

InfernalPest, you'd best start providing the proof that multiple people have asked for. Like the calcs that SpartanElite requested, or the evidence that Pax and Strangelove asked for regarding being able to collapse a star with one ship.

The latter especially because the mere presence of an O'Neill class ship at the end of it isn't helpful; not when we have no idea how long it took them to set that light show up, or what it took them to do it.

Pax and Strangelove, you're veering into flaming, so cut it out.

Edit: Oh yeah, Ryan. I'll be keeping an eye on you for not accepting evidence in the future. SpartanElite countered the Echos quote much more effectively than you did.
Much more tame.
But wait, I thought insults were OK?

It's quite funny to notice how the moderation is of a very different magnitude depending on the moderator's attachment to a given franchise, or distaste of it.

Oh wait, this wouldn't be complete without this touch of madness from Washy White.
Please, if there is anyone reading this who has an account at SBC, I beg you not to tell him that I just need to log off to surf anonymously. Just... don't. Don't make him cry.

Besides, why should I bother?
I'm also interested into looking how far his decent into appalling obsessions about my persona will go. If only you had seen the PMs he sent me. :)
That bloke's has lost some marbles.
Besides, please never tell him that it just takes me making a new account (like recent SBC trolls have been doing) to begin posting again, and repeating the process on an on (or using the other account I already have). Perhaps that's too complicated for him to compute, or something? :)
That said, I have been vaccinated of SBC. Took me a while to really see what it was. I even thought that things were actually getting better about that place. That was before touching another sensitive spot.
Now, it doesn't mean it's forbidden to read what's said over there, does it?
It's interesting to see that as there's less good posters over there, threads are really looking like a sad reflection of what they used to be.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:22 am

That said, I have been vaccinated of SBC. Took me a while to really see what it was. I even thought that things were actually getting better about that place. That was before touching another sensitive spot.
Now, it doesn't mean it's forbidden to read what's said over there, does it?
It's interesting to see that as there's less good posters over there, threads are really looking like a sad reflection of what they used to be.
I open up the SB page now and again to check on anything amusing going on in the ST/SW VS threads but i do not post anymore even though my ban has been over for a long time.

It is a sad state off affairs when a so called VS forum is only looked at for amusment in regards to biased moderation and poor behaviour from a single faction or group of people.

The reason why white rabbit and others are still throwing crap in your direction is because you got to them buddy, you turned heads got alternative theories recognised and backed them up with good material while pointing out flaws in their crap.

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

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:06 am

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:
That said, I have been vaccinated of SBC. Took me a while to really see what it was. I even thought that things were actually getting better about that place. That was before touching another sensitive spot.
Now, it doesn't mean it's forbidden to read what's said over there, does it?
It's interesting to see that as there's less good posters over there, threads are really looking like a sad reflection of what they used to be.
I open up the SB page now and again to check on anything amusing going on in the ST/SW VS threads but i do not post anymore even though my ban has been over for a long time.

It is a sad state off affairs when a so called VS forum is only looked at for amusment in regards to biased moderation and poor behaviour from a single faction or group of people.
That would be us.
It could have been better. Why I went to the alt trek wars boards and here afterwards is partially due to this kind of abusive crap. I sensed in 2007 that I could export some of the stuff, theories and evidence posted here, and I took a shit load of flak for that, but things settled.
There was just too much evidence against the ICS and any other silly claim made by Saxton. Plus many members were also fed up of the ICS and it wasn't as widely accepted as it was before - well accepted would be a big word, more like enforced.
That said I notice that there's a return of parrots who are just good at citing numbers from their little bible. A pity.

Then came debates against Halo and its wank: a bit heated, but apparently mods don't give a damn about Halo, it just has its fans who fight with its own roller coaster canon. So no bans here, not warnings either that I can recall.

And then I pushed my luck with WH40K. Boy, things went downhill very fast from there.
Along Star Whores, Wankammer 40000 is SDN's/SBC's other golden franchise that you must not bruise.
The circle's quite complete now.
The reason why white rabbit and others are still throwing crap in your direction is because you got to them buddy, you turned heads got alternative theories recognised and backed them up with good material while pointing out flaws in their crap.
Only WR seems to be silly enough to do this. I said to him that if he kept sending me signals and even dragging me into threads by proxy while I'm banned (I don't even know if that's not infringing on a couple rules), it's that he had something to settle with me. So I suggested him to come here or go at ASVS and we could discuss whatever topic he wanted to address.
Now, between acting like a punk and accepting my honest proposal, what do you think he chose? :)

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:56 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
That would be us.
It could have been better. Why I went to the alt trek wars boards and here afterwards is partially due to this kind of abusive crap. I sensed in 2007 that I could export some of the stuff, theories and evidence posted here, and I took a shit load of flak for that, but things settled.
There was just too much evidence against the ICS and any other silly claim made by Saxton. Plus many members were also fed up of the ICS and it wasn't as widely accepted as it was before - well accepted would be a big word, more like enforced.
That said I notice that there's a return of parrots who are just good at citing numbers from their little bible. A pity.
I considered starting threads rather than joining them because doing so allows you to set rules, fire power limits ect ect. Unfortunately i saw a thread a individual started that was about the borg or a borg cube VS a SW ship of some sort, the guy set down rules about assimilation among other things and a few people did join in.

But within a short space of time the usual suspects turned up and started trolling the rules, insulting him or dragging it off topic and lo and behold guess who it was that got into trouble, yup the OP and those that actually treated the topic with respect......
Then came debates against Halo and its wank: a bit heated, but apparently mods don't give a damn about Halo, it just has its fans who fight with its own roller coaster canon. So no bans here, not warnings either that I can recall.

And then I pushed my luck with WH40K. Boy, things went downhill very fast from there.
Along Star Whores, Wankammer 40000 is SDN's/SBC's other golden franchise that you must not bruise.
The circle's quite complete now.
I am not very familiar with either of those but i did read your posts regarding it and saw no reason to not believe you, especially considering their counter arguments against your material and conclusions were pitiful at best and merely trolling at worst.


Only WR seems to be silly enough to do this. I said to him that if he kept sending me signals and even dragging me into threads by proxy while I'm banned (I don't even know if that's not infringing on a couple rules), it's that he had something to settle with me. So I suggested him to come here or go at ASVS and we could discuss whatever topic he wanted to address.
Now, between acting like a punk and accepting my honest proposal, what do you think he chose? :)
Take great satisfaction that you must have really got to him for him to do that, for him to be that obsessed with you is a pretty clear indication that you are living rent free smack dab on top of that dudes emo button.

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

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:39 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:He is pretty much the only one who's accepted a debate with JMS, with JMS defending Battletech and Than defending Warhammer 40000. No one else has demonstrated such emotional attachment to Warhammer 40000 as far as to ever do that.
Sothis challenged me to a formal debate as well, although it didn't last very long - Sothis conceded that Star Trek ships had an advantage in speed and agility.
To return to the duel between JMS and him, let's just realize that he pretty much made a fool out of himself. That's the risk when playing with a double edged sword after all, and possibly why so many ego-driven people stay clear of such duels.
Depends on how ego-driven. Wong engaged in a number of "duels" that he's publicized heavily on his Hate Mail pages (although I believe our member Picard recently challenged him via e-mail and got nothing in reply). SDN did try the Coliseum thing. SB.com has K.I.S.S.

You have to be pretty confident to want - or accept - a formal one-on-one contest. I'm not sure Thanatos expected me to actually take him up on it and be willing to negotiate on terms of engagement. I don't expect him to offer me any similar challenges in the future on any topic.

I certainly haven't made any secret of the fact that I don't approve of Thanatos's conduct as a moderator on SB.com, and he's made no secret of the fact that he doesn't like me and doesn't like SFJ.

Like it or not, though, SB.com is where you can reach a broad audience and get an argument, and that makes SB.com important in the VS debates - it's where a lot of the action is. SDN is too restrictive to permit real debate; SFJ and ASVS are too obscure. There's usually a lot going on at ST.com, if you're feeling a hankering for public debate that will reach an audience. The moderators on ST.com have generally been pretty lax, which means there are usually a couple of active VS threads.

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

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:19 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:Depends on how ego-driven. Wong engaged in a number of "duels" that he's publicized heavily on his Hate Mail pages (although I believe our member Picard recently challenged him via e-mail and got nothing in reply). SDN did try the Coliseum thing. SB.com has K.I.S.S.
The KISS is more of a methodology open to anyone. It's not a dedicated domain for two opponents.
You have to be pretty confident to want - or accept - a formal one-on-one contest. I'm not sure Thanatos expected me to actually take him up on it and be willing to negotiate on terms of engagement. I don't expect him to offer me any similar challenges in the future on any topic.
Probably not, indeed.
I certainly haven't made any secret of the fact that I don't approve of Thanatos's conduct as a moderator on SB.com, and he's made no secret of the fact that he doesn't like me and doesn't like SFJ.
Trouble is that he has not been capable of keeping his griefs in the closet when wearing his moderation hat.
Like it or not, though, SB.com is where you can reach a broad audience and get an argument, and that makes SB.com important in the VS debates - it's where a lot of the action is.
Indeed. But I don't care. The quality of the action has reached an abysmal level, and the only reason why people go there is because there's other people and there's a background, an history, as simple as that.
If I want to be able to provide arguments, and be sure they'll be read, and not have to deal with fanboys infesting the multiple levels of the moderation hierarchy of a website as it goes with SBC, I can simply settle on a small board (like here) and make my own website.
SDN is too restrictive to permit real debate; SFJ and ASVS are too obscure. There's usually a lot going on at ST.com, if you're feeling a hankering for public debate that will reach an audience. The moderators on ST.com have generally been pretty lax, which means there are usually a couple of active VS threads.
Yes, it's actually quite a good place. There's also that science fiction forum with its marathon versus threads.
There's also that new strategy game - Star Ruler - that's gives you the ability to build your forces in details and then pit them against each other: it's quite possible that its community website, either an official one or fan one, will grow its own section where fans will also love to duke it out verbally.

Post Reply