LMAO@SpaceBattles!

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.
Post Reply
User avatar
Tyralak
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:39 am
Contact:

LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by Tyralak » Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:56 pm

Well, I was alerted to an interesting thread at SB.com the other day: http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=164663
If you read the thread, you'll notice there is no reply from me. This is because it was removed silently and without warning. I responded right after Mith. He explained that SDN doesn't allow "free" email addresses essentially to deter sock puppetry. He is, of course correct. I added my two cents: "This of course, is likely due to the fact that Wong is a pantywaist who can't handle trolls" I returned the next day, and *POOF*! The post was gone. It's amazing to see just how pwned these twerps are.

User1356
Padawan
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by User1356 » Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:49 am

Tyralak wrote:Well, I was alerted to an interesting thread at SB.com the other day: http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=164663
If you read the thread, you'll notice there is no reply from me. This is because it was removed silently and without warning. I responded right after Mith. He explained that SDN doesn't allow "free" email addresses essentially to deter sock puppetry. He is, of course correct. I added my two cents: "This of course, is likely due to the fact that Wong is a pantywaist who can't handle trolls" I returned the next day, and *POOF*! The post was gone. It's amazing to see just how pwned these twerps are.
One of SB's rules is the affairs of other boards don't concern us. While technically that entire thread is in violation of said rule your trolling post was more flagrantly so and also in violation of the rule forbidding trolling. Thus snipped, since you werent warned or worse somebody must have took pity upon you and just deleted your post. If SB really was mini SDN, Mith, Oragahn, and I33telboi would have been permabanned ages ago

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by Khas » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:09 pm

Why didn't they just snip the whole thread, if it was in violation of the rules?

On another note, as for SB being mini-SDN, it also probably means that it has more tolerance for Trekkies.

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

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:53 am

It's a mini-SDN? It surely has a couple of pro wars moderators who are quite effective at times, but high profile members of SDN despise SBC with a passion.
Wong, for example, really can't even allow himself complimenting that website and its community. It's just pure bile in general.
That thread now... it's already against the rules, and using it to post insults and other stuff would obviously not make it any better. While I suppose it was left open because there could be something positive to get out of it -how to register- that's also pretty much all you can hope.

User1356
Padawan
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by User1356 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:00 am

I'm pretty sure the only reason it's still open is because of alyeska

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by 2046 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:53 am

InvaderSkooj wrote:If SB really was mini SDN, Mith, Oragahn, and I33telboi would have been permabanned ages ago
That's a false dilemma . . . SB can be a mini-SDN yet still not engage in said permaban.

Instead, the pro-Wars moderators dick them around, temp-ban them for daring to disagree with mod pets like Leo or certain moderator-prevalent (i.e. pro-SW) views, and otherwise ignore abuse toward them that, if it were directed at a pro-Wars associate or even a random member, would result in a banning of the abuser.

Put simply, Spacebattles is a hostile environment to reasoned discourse on the Trek vs. Wars topic. StarDestroyer.Net is even moreso. Ergo, SB is a mini-SDN.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5826
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by Mike DiCenso » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:39 pm

Okay, it's time to ask a rather controversial question here: Given that there has been a change of thought among some of the members as to SW's technological superiority, is it possible to oust the blantantly pro-Wars mods, or are they too buddy-buddy with the site admin and owners?
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by 2046 » Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:41 am

I can probably answer that one from over here.

The answer is no, they will not be ousted. Even if some opinions have changed regarding Star Wars technology, the pro-Wars mods are trying to keep a lid on the idea at SB, and a campaign of equating "argue-lower-SW-tech" with "dumbass-(inserted hated sci-fi franchise here)-wankers" like "(insert unpopular or previously-banned person here)" will keep all but the motivated (such as Mith, Mr. O, l33t, et cetera, who are conspicuously kept on the recently-banned list) from touching the topic.

Put simply, it would take an overwhelming outcry from the hoi polloi (probably along with new polloi over time) to produce a change in that behavior.

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

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:12 pm

2046 wrote:... such as Mith, Mr. O, l33t, et cetera, who are conspicuously kept on the recently-banned list)...
Hey? I don't know all the ins and outs of SBC. Is there such a list available?

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5826
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:32 pm

2046 wrote:I can probably answer that one from over here.

The answer is no, they will not be ousted. Even if some opinions have changed regarding Star Wars technology, the pro-Wars mods are trying to keep a lid on the idea at SB, and a campaign of equating "argue-lower-SW-tech" with "dumbass-(inserted hated sci-fi franchise here)-wankers" like "(insert unpopular or previously-banned person here)" will keep all but the motivated (such as Mith, Mr. O, l33t, et cetera, who are conspicuously kept on the recently-banned list) from touching the topic.

Put simply, it would take an overwhelming outcry from the hoi polloi (probably along with new polloi over time) to produce a change in that behavior.
What I'm really getting at is if there is a system by which moderators can be removed or censured by the "hoi polli" as you put it membership, and what it would take. Actually organizing such an effort, would be another matter all together.
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by 2046 » Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:58 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
2046 wrote:... such as Mith, Mr. O, l33t, et cetera, who are conspicuously kept on the recently-banned list)...
Hey? I don't know all the ins and outs of SBC. Is there such a list available?
I doubt there's an official one, but for example I have a thread saved for pertinent info which also contains Facehugger temp-banning CrossoverManiac, having drummed up some feigned excuse ("zomg, he quoted our rules!"), while at the same time patting a pro-Wars kid on the shoulder when he was acting a fool. (For reference, it's the recent "Turbolasers make my head hurt" thread).

That way, CrossoverManiac can be said to be a troublemaker, while real troublemakers like Leo1 are allowed to run free while his opponents get warnings/bannings if they disagree.

Considering abuse of moderator power is the only force they can apply, they use it as much as is feasible to short-circuit rational argumentation. Thus the pro-Trek (or anti-Wars-wanking) SB guys are dared to disagree while the proverbial gun is pressed to their heads.

Put simply, it's moderatorial pissing in the well of discourse.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by 2046 » Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:01 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:the "hoi polli" as you put it
. . . unwashed masses . . . plebes . . . commoners . . . rabble . . . people to be controlled . . . whatever derogatory term you want to insert will work. I was basically making fun of the seeming elitist self-opinion some people have if they have some miniscule position of authority on the frickin' internet.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5826
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by Mike DiCenso » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:33 am

2046 wrote:. . . unwashed masses . . . plebes . . . commoners . . . rabble . . . people to be controlled . . . whatever derogatory term you want to insert will work. I was basically making fun of the seeming elitist self-opinion some people have if they have some miniscule position of authority on the frickin' internet.
I'm well aware of the meaning behind it. What I'm concerned about is instituting real reform at SB.com. Is there any chance of that, or is the pro-Wars moderator abuse too well ingrained for that to happen. Also interestingly enough, I'm somewhat curious as to how it is that Star Trek is so badly beat upon, while other franchises like WH40K are allowed to slide. Is it really because the Imperium of Man is powerful? Or is it because as a franchise WH40K is not on the top of the list, just a modest niche in the wargame and RPG communities?
-Mike

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

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:59 pm

2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
2046 wrote:... such as Mith, Mr. O, l33t, et cetera, who are conspicuously kept on the recently-banned list)...
Hey? I don't know all the ins and outs of SBC. Is there such a list available?
I doubt there's an official one, but for example I have a thread saved for pertinent info which also contains Facehugger temp-banning CrossoverManiac, having drummed up some feigned excuse ("zomg, he quoted our rules!"), while at the same time patting a pro-Wars kid on the shoulder when he was acting a fool. (For reference, it's the recent "Turbolasers make my head hurt" thread).

That way, CrossoverManiac can be said to be a troublemaker, while real troublemakers like Leo1 are allowed to run free while his opponents get warnings/bannings if they disagree.

Considering abuse of moderator power is the only force they can apply, they use it as much as is feasible to short-circuit rational argumentation. Thus the pro-Trek (or anti-Wars-wanking) SB guys are dared to disagree while the proverbial gun is pressed to their heads.

Put simply, it's moderatorial pissing in the well of discourse.
I remember the issue with CM's quoting of the rules. He didn't wish to argue against someone who insulted him right off the bat, it was his right to do so, and point it out.
I argued that it was a silly decision to sanction CM for that. hr was accused of style of substance for that. Whatever.
It was said he should use the report button. I scarcely use it, and generally no one gives a damn. Amusingly, every time a moderator comes to a SW thread after several reports have been filled, I notice that as far as I'm concerned, despite the heated arguments, I never pressed the button.
Schatten and Leo1 also got their usual free pass. Magic9mushroom got pissed off by Leo1's usual way he reacts to attacks against Saxton's work... in a forum which supposedly is tighter regarding posting behaviour.
No surprise here. That's the kind of biased moderation that gives support to the revival of ASVS.

Oh, slight side topic, but I noticed that during the debate, CPLF didn't refrain from regurgitating the same washed horse crap here, like:
Thester wrote:Actually no, 200 GT is not THE canon value, it is one canon value among many.
CPLF wrote:It's pretty much the only directly stated value anywhere. Everything else is calced based on various statements or events.
Certainly an old pro-wars debater would never forget about KJA's terajoules exchanged by fresh warships and heavy battle stations.
Or the same old appeal to authority:
CPLF wrote:Also: Curtis Saxton is an accredited physicist. I'm pretty sure he knows what the numbers he's writing about mean. Better than you or I, in fact.
This, mixed to the moderation above, is SBC in a nutshell.
Mike DiCenso wrote:What I'm concerned about is instituting real reform at SB.com. Is there any chance of that, or is the pro-Wars moderator abuse too well ingrained for that to happen.
Not going to change.
Also interestingly enough, I'm somewhat curious as to how it is that Star Trek is so badly beat upon, while other franchises like WH40K are allowed to slide. Is it really because the Imperium of Man is powerful? Or is it because as a franchise WH40K is not on the top of the list, just a modest niche in the wargame and RPG communities?
-Mike
WH40K is more violent, it's absurdly grimdark, but overall not superior technology wise, at least regarding the Imperium. It's powerful in certain departments because it uses its technology in ways even the UFP could but doesn't (Space Marines, big mutants with plenty of buffs and animated tough armour), and warships are powerful because they use large cores, many of them, and use big ass cannons to channel the energies.
And they generally have good ranges, in the thousands of km and more, but any ship capable of closing in fast, either by FTL or sublight while tanking shots could deal with them. There's enough material that strongly disputes the idea that they're very fast and agile.
Why it's not beaten up is because of its inherent violence and the support of many fans, including a god awful number of them quoting numbers without checking them, or perhaps even understanding them at all.
For an example of this, read this thread, "Warhammer 40k imperial guard vs star wars storm troopers", including a discussion about Caves of Ice (for which I did my own calcs in the "Other" forum of SFJN, where you can see that I get low megatons where Connor's low end estimation was about countless teratons) and the Nova Cannon, supposedly delivering tera/petatons of KE because of its relativistic velocity; a problem I explain in my other threads here as well, notably how it doesn't fit with the way the projectile explodes, and how the same source describes mighty warships threatened by most regular solar flares! In other words, cherry picking.
It also gets so much leeway because of the moderation. As you know, warsies rule the versus section of the board, more or less, and they also post at SDN.
They always excused SW's gigatons of firepower (now much more) by saying that there were universes with even far more power, like WH40K. Of course they wanked out WH40K so it worked well. One wank excused the other wank. Pretty much all retarded claims come from that.
From the few pieces of WH40K I've read, it's rather clear that the vision you get of the universe is very different of the vision you get without reading any fluff and only going on with SDN's calcs; pretty much all Connor MacLeod's calcs in fact.
It gets such a free pass that fans can throw quotes at your face and insult you and your comprehension capacities without ever providing their own interpretation, and that's it, they win the argument. I got this with quotes about titans and other supertanks, which I'm planning to address here.
I've also begun reading a couple of other short novels, which are full of rather interesting details, which as you can guess to mesh well with the vision we get from SDN.
Mind you, as a sidenote, I found an old thread about titans at SDN where the posters were faaar more moderate about the machines' abilities, and that by quoting several sources and pictures.
Other aspects of the Imperium which are often forgotten is how the typical warship formation counts very few ships, or how their FTL transit capacity and not so reliable and generally slow.
If you read my WH40K threads, this is quite clear.
This reminds me that I have to finish the Space Fleet thread. I was about to cover the part about the Goliath ship that collects fuel for other planets and warships by flying close to photospheres and sucking up energy. This is interesting because Connor references this passage of the original and old source with a short quotation about how the fuel the Imperium uses is a thousand times more powerful than nuclear fuel or something like that. Well again, with proper context, you'll see how the painting is different.

Now, a question for you Mike. Why don't we see you at SBC?

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5826
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: LMAO@SpaceBattles!

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:44 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Now, a question for you Mike. Why don't we see you at SBC?
For the most part it's not worth my time, which I have precious little of. Based on yours and other people's experiance there, it's a waste of time. I've already debated Leo1/Vympel on the old STrek-vs-SWars forum. I can only imagine from what I've read of the linked threads here just how much of a waste it would be with him out of control and backed by mods who barely behave better than 14 year old kids. My hope would have been for a reform of the place, then I might consider joining when there's a more even playing field. Until then, no way.

I also thought about getting involved with this thread here on Vexx's FlashTrek website, but realized it was probably going to be a pointless fight with kiddie followers of ICS and Wong.

By the way, I got a good laugh at the way Magic9mushroom told off Leo1 in that one thread. He's 100 percent right on the money there. Unfortunately he probably won't go unpunished by the Warsie mods for such heresy.
-Mike

Post Reply