Split: SDN Rules, Culture, and Moderation Habits

[Gandalf]

One of the few still around. And none of them ever press a serious conservative agenda from what I've seen. The one I mentioned (forget his name) did and was gone after a while.

Then you must be blind. MKSheppard regularly espouses the view that all muslims and brown people should be nuked, that a massive wall should be built between Mexico and the USA and a million landmines should be emplaced. Axis Kast while not on the same level expresses serious support for George Bush and defends the current administration rabidly. Coyote and Glocksman are very pro gun, RThurmont and Stormbringer are classic conservatives.

You've also completely neglected to respond to the worse offenses, like when MW bans people on the spot, or ban polls, or cases where they didn't survive. Not to mention all the threats of bans that backed down many people.

Why shouldn't Mike Wong be free to conduct his board in the manner he wishes? Summary bans are rare to be almost non existant especially since the advent of the Senate. Who have largely taken over the punishment of wayward members.

It was someone else then. I was wrong about that. There was a poll for village idiot like just about every other week when I was there. Same with the ban polls.

So what? It's well known that SDN has stringent standards for behaviour and evidence.

As for conservatives and religious people, just like how the show Hannity and Colmes has 1 conservative and 1 liberal, it doesn't mean it's a balanced show. None of these "minority" positions are popular and they rarely get a say. I've rarely seen anything like a serious right wing position and these "Christians" hardly get a peep. They "exist" but I've never seen it.

Then your not looking hard enough.

Trekkies seems to comprise almost entirely of Alyeska and a few others who think just like him. Many people at SB.com have derided Alyeska's moderation style regarding ST vs SW in the Vs. forum. I've talked to over a dozen people myself who think this way of him. In fact Alyeska's biasness was one of the main reasons he lost his mod status, something he pretty much admitted himself.

So what? Your projecting your own bias and preferance onto another board. Just because you think it should be one way does not mean it hould be that way. Pro Trek people are always welcome on SDN as long as they debate logically, it's just that most of the ones that sign up are retards.

Ultimately, if out of 3000 members there's only a few dozen people with certain characteristics when there should be 50/50 split, you are not seeing a fair place. When the people who hold these minority position are massively disrespected by the same people that they claim to be in other places, then its obvious who they really are. These are clearly glimmers of a crushed minority, not proof that the site is fair.

Big deal, so there's not a 50/50 split. There's nothing saying there should be. I'm practically the only pro-wars guy on this site and I don't see you complaining that Starfleet Jedi isn't fair.

You also need to be aware of your own little history on this board. For starters you wouldn't even respect a Darkstar source and derided him as a nutcase. If anyone comes to a board with that kind of attitude, everyone would immediately think you had a very bad history with him. Seeing how you are a member of SDN and given what we known of the general attitude of SDN, that's pretty telling of what people at SDN are expected to really act like.

My history on this board is not the topic of discussion.

[GStone]

They leave them up as an example to others.

Even the ones that are closed with the second post? Why waste the space?

Your assuming that everyone signs up to debate on the sci-fi forums. The board has branched out to more than just sci-fi. I orginally signed up to post in the politics section. Why should everyone sign up to debate sci-fi?

You quoted me saying "Many just stick to the political forums and don't make their way to the debate."

Just because your pro-trek doesn't mean that you subsrcibe to the same Trek ideals that others do.

If Alyeska really is pro-trek, I'm a 3 foot, half-pig, half woman midget from papa new guinea.

[Gandalf]

I can identify some few of the people who were banned on the basis of being "trolls" as VS debaters.

Given the relatively small number of serious VS debaters on the whole, banning even one per month is worth remarking on. That's a ban a month not justified on the basis of most forums' rules, which "only" deal with spamming, trolling, copyright violations or other legal considerations, privacy violations, malicious code attacks or attempts to hack or flood the board, posting pornographic materials in an area accessible to minors, or - since flaming itself is not disallowed on SDN - flaming.

I don't see a problem with this.

Most boards have banned populations more on the order of 0.1-1% of their long-term membership.

Almost 14% of the total human population of a board on the banned list (and if anybody with access to the admin control panel on SDN would like to clarify that figure with greater precision, such figures are welcome - that's an extrapolation from the available lists of banned people) is a remarkably high figure. Even 5% would be unusually high, and for a board with SDN's membership base, permabanning one user a month would be more typical.

Indeed, the very fact that SDN has ban polls on a regular basis is quite unusual, as is the institution of custom titles used to try and shame users.

Once again I don't see the problem with this. It's well known that SDN has stringent standards for debate, evidence and personal conduct. Getting rid of dead weight seems to me like a blessing.

Actually, interest in the debate is still quite lively among people who have posted at SDN; just look at the activity of SDN members off the board, or of the activity of many of those who have been banned [or quit ahead of a ban] at SDN.

Vary rarely do we see a topic come up in the VS section that hasn't been rehased before.

Alyeska as a pro-Trek debater could only fly at SDN among the SDN core. Nowhere else does he seem to qualify.

*shrug* I don't have a problem with him. This place is the first place I've heard any complaints about him, including Newlands board and Darkstars board.

For that matter, I heard the claim "rehashed so many times that everyone has lost interest" before ROTS even came out, and before anyone anywhere ever presented some of the analysis I've conducted and seen since launching my website here. There's lots of material pertinent to the VS debate that has never been hashed over at SDN.

I haven't seen anything here that hasn't been brought up over there. And like I say most of what we see has been brought up before, not that we're not open to new subjects. There just few and far between.

And that leaves seven for which you haven't supplied a reason. Half of those aren't for a good reason either, and most of the unmoderated threads on the front page aren't debate threads at all.

I only counted and supplied reasons for the locked threads that's why.

In the past, I've noticed that many moved threads have pertained to the VS debate. The really interesting ones made by dissenters before they are banned or quit are fairly often moved to the HOS where non-members can't read them.

Well you'd have to bring the HOS move up with the mods, they move them because they've generally descended into a crud fest and aren't worth anything. But if you want to see them I'd suggest you sign up.

However, while we're talking about how heavily moderated SDN is, there are no rules against linking to other boards on SFJ, no deadline beyond which a thread is considered necessarily closed, and simply because a topic has been talked about before is no reason to arbitrarily close and lock the thread to prevent further discussion.

It's been repeatadly stated that the affairs of other boards don't concern SDN. Typically if a thread hasn't seen action in two weeks it's necromancy. And just because we've talked about a subject before doesn't mean it will get locked but if it's been discussed recently or more than a few times than it will probably get shut down.

[Gandalf]

Even the ones that are closed with the second post? Why waste the space?

Probably because Mike Wong believes in transparency. And he hosts the board himself, space isn't a issue.

You quoted me saying "Many just stick to the political forums and don't make their way to the debate."

Your right I did.

If Alyeska really is pro-trek, I'm a 3 foot, half-pig, half woman midget from papa new guinea.

I've seen him get into it with Mike Wong over thinking Trek is more powerful than it is.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Vary rarely do we see a topic come up in the VS section that hasn't been rehased before.

I haven't seen anything here that hasn't been brought up over there. And like I say most of what we see has been brought up before, not that we're not open to new subjects. There just few and far between.

Very rarely does a debate topic come up in the VS section.

As far as not seeing anything here that hasn't been brought up over at SDN, I recommend you take a second look. There's plenty of analysis on the website and forum that to my knowledge have not been mentioned on SDN, let alone discussed in any detail.

*shrug* I don't have a problem with him. This place is the first place I've heard any complaints about him, including Newlands board and Darkstars board.

So you have never been to SB.com, then?

Here, we're simply saying that Alyeska has not really been - recently - a pro-Trek debater when it comes to Trek/Wars by any standard except SDN's.

I only counted and supplied reasons for the locked threads that's why.

Well you'd have to bring the HOS move up with the mods, they move them because they've generally descended into a crud fest and aren't worth anything. But if you want to see them I'd suggest you sign up.

It's been repeatadly stated that the affairs of other boards don't concern SDN. Typically if a thread hasn't seen action in two weeks it's necromancy. And just because we've talked about a subject before doesn't mean it will get locked but if it's been discussed recently or more than a few times than it will probably get shut down.

Just so long as you're aware this all means that SDN is heavily moderated, the activities of members sharply curtailed relative to those on other boards, etc.

I only take issue with painting things to be a way that they're not. There are a lot of thing you've claimed about SDN which, when SDN compared to other discussion forums, don't really turn out to be qualities of SDN.

Such as it being hard to get banned on SDN (it's easy, relative to most boards - just look at how many people get banned), that getting the mods angry on SDN will not get you banned (it would seem to very often have), that the standards for the rules are objective (they aren't, see "wall of ignorance" rule and similar such), that SDN has a diversity of opinion in its active membership (it is remarkably uniform on the whole), or that SDN is transparent (you have to be a member to read the HOS, for example.)

[Gandalf]

Very rarely does a debate topic come up in the VS section.

I fail to see the distinction.

As far as not seeing anything here that hasn't been brought up over at SDN, I recommend you take a second look. There's plenty of analysis on the website and forum that to my knowledge have not been mentioned on SDN, let alone discussed in any detail.

I will take a look and get back to you.

So you have never been to SB.com, then?

Should I have?

Here, we're simply saying that Alyeska has not really been - recently - a pro-Trek debater when it comes to Trek/Wars by any standard except SDN's.

As I have repeatadly stated many people on SDN, including Alyeska have dropped out of the debate for lack of interest, topics repeating themselves or reasons of their own. Alyeska appears to be one of those people. He occasionaly posts in Pure Star Trek.

Just so long as you're aware this all means that SDN is heavily moderated, the activities of members sharply curtailed relative to those on other boards, etc.

As I've said before I don't see a problem with this, it cuts down on the stupid which we still have plenty of.

I only take issue with painting things to be a way that they're not. There are a lot of thing you've claimed about SDN which, when SDN compared to other discussion forums, don't really turn out to be qualities of SDN.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about, you'll have to clarify.

Such as it being hard to get banned on SDN (it's easy, relative to most boards - just look at how many people get banned), that getting the mods angry on SDN will not get you banned (it would seem to very often have), that the standards for the rules are objective (they aren't, see "wall of ignorance" rule and similar such), that SDN has a diversity of opinion in its active membership (it is remarkably uniform on the whole), or that SDN is transparent (you have to be a member to read the HOS, for example.)

*Sigh* You obviously have a lot of preconcieved notions of how SDN is run and how things go. I've been a member of the board for 21/2 years and never had so much of a problem and the majority of people nebver have any problems. Even if your on the fast track for the ban stick if you atraigthen up your act you can get that revoked. People have even got their custom titles revoked, MKSheppard has been titled twice and had his title removed twice after demonstrating he could be resonable and logical. As for the HOS not being visible to non-members that's a hold-over from when personal topics where posted there and privacy was an issue. Why don't you sign up and try to be a member and see how easy going it is.

[GStone]

Probably because Mike Wong believes in transparency. And he hosts the board himself, space isn't a issue.

Even if it's transparency, it's still pointless.

I've seen him get into it with Mike Wong over thinking Trek is more powerful than it is.

An he was a good little debator and toed the line in the end.

[Gandalf]

[

Even if it's transparency, it's still pointless.

I see no need to nitpick over how Mike Wong runs his webboard.

An he was a good little debator and toed the line in the end.

So should he go out in a blaze of glory? If your so convinced how one should debate SW VS ST on SDN then sign up and debate.

[GStone]

So should he go out in a blaze of glory? If your so convinced how one should debate SW VS ST on SDN then sign up and debate.

I don't give a fuck how he went out. I'm talking of how he was when he debated and the notion that he wasn't a Wong follower.

I'll break the board's policy and get around not having to pay to post before I'd actually pay to post.

[Nonamer]

Then you must be blind. MKSheppard regularly espouses the view that all muslims and brown people should be nuked, that a massive wall should be built between Mexico and the USA and a million landmines should be emplaced.

If he actually believed that he should be banned, likely just about everywhere. Problem is, I don't think he believes that.

Axis Kast while not on the same level expresses serious support for George Bush and defends the current administration rabidly. Coyote and Glocksman are very pro gun, RThurmont and Stormbringer are classic conservatives.

And they show up like once in a blue moon. They're the Colmes to Sean Hannity, barely competent to press their beliefs at all. They're also all Warsies too, and I suspect they're all around for some other reason.

Why shouldn't Mike Wong be free to conduct his board in the manner he wishes? Summary bans are rare to be almost non existant especially since the advent of the Senate. Who have largely taken over the punishment of wayward members.

Because he acts like a dick when does? The fact that he himself acts like that is not conducive to debate, and the fact that it does happen from time to time even if its rare is simply not proper debate tactics.

So what? It's well known that SDN has stringent standards for behaviour and evidence.

If it's against SW and other popular positions it does. Otherwise standards are crap.

Then your not looking hard enough.

That's not much of a response. I've been there. I know. They barely exist.

So what? Your projecting your own bias and preferance onto another board.

Me and about 50 other people there. Hell, even if you aren't willing to listen to any one of them, you should know at least what Alyeska did at SB.com. He was the one who implemented the "ICS is canon" rule at the vs. board, ensuring SW always wins and pissing off half the board. He's the one who claimed that its "canon" that Clonetroopers are super competent fighters, because some book said so, even though real US soldiers told him otherwise, and pointed out their absurd tactics seen in the prequel trilogy. He also banned someone for disagree with him regarding SW technology, and was promptly overruled by higher ups. I'm not kidding when I say he was pretty much ejected from his position due to his poor behavior.

Just because you think it should be one way does not mean it hould be that way. Pro Trek people are always welcome on SDN as long as they debate logically, it's just that most of the ones that sign up are retards.

And why is that almost all trekkies that sign up tend to be retards? Seeing the overwhelming number of Trekkies tend to have above average IQ and education that's a pretty unbelievable statistic. Surely you're not missing something here, regarding SDN and not the trekkies joining?

Big deal, so there's not a 50/50 split. There's nothing saying there should be. I'm practically the only pro-wars guy on this site and I don't see you complaining that Starfleet Jedi isn't fair.

This site attracts pro-ST naturally and there has never been a warsie ban. Also Kane came before you, but left. Wayne Poe and a few others came here for a while too, but never made an impact. Out of 50 that's pretty respectable. If it's out of 3000 and you have basically the same numbers, then that's terrible. More importantly, a sci-fi board doesn't produce enormous disparities between religion and non-religion or political views. SDN does, and most of the banned or labeled tend to be trekkies or conservatives or religious. SB.com does not have this property. This site does not either. Why is SDN so unique in that aspect?

My history on this board is not the topic of discussion.

So let me get this straight, you come here and almost immediately engage in improper debates methods and show enormous bias, and you still have the balls to claim that "SDN has stringent standards for behaviour and evidence?" By your own definition you should've been banned at SDN by now. So unless you're gonna claim that you act like a saint at SDN and a dick everywhere else, of course it's part of the discussion. In fact it's a gigantic red flag to the expected behavior of a SDNer, and your own behavior here has done nothing but further that claim.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I fail to see the distinction.

When it is rare for any VS topic to be discussed, it is therefore trivially true that it is rare for an unfamiliar VS topic to be discussed.

Should I have?

You should if you want to talk about how Alyeska is reacted to by a larger community of VS debaters.

As I have repeatadly stated many people on SDN, including Alyeska have dropped out of the debate for lack of interest, topics repeating themselves or reasons of their own. Alyeska appears to be one of those people. He occasionaly posts in Pure Star Trek.

He is fairly frequently involved in the VS debate over on SB.com, and is on SB.com accused of favoritism, bias, etc., in favor of the pro-Star Wars "side."

He was actually one of the people I was thinking about when I pointed out that numerous SDN members have, in fact, not dropped out of the VS community at all; they simply don't debate at SDN. There are a fair number active in Trek/Wars discussion at SB.com alone.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about, you'll have to clarify.

OK... go back and look at the facts I've pointed out about SDN. The ban rate, the banned percentage of the population, the extent of the rules, etc. Now go to other boards on the internet and look at the same indicators.

I can pull out more indicators - for example, SDN has a moderator staff of 25, which would be not at all unusual for a board that gets 8,000 posts a day (10x SDN's post rate) and had a member base of 150,000 (30x the number of members on SDN).

*Sigh* You obviously have a lot of preconcieved notions of how SDN is run and how things go.

My notions of how SDN is run and how things go aren't "preconceived." They're the result of what I've seen on SDN. I wouldn't be saying a thing if all I had to go on was simply what I've heard from other SFJ members.

I've been a member of the board for 21/2 years and never had so much of a problem and the majority of people nebver have any problems. Even if your on the fast track for the ban stick if you atraigthen up your act you can get that revoked.

I.e., if you kiss up enough?

I'm actually not convinced that the majority of people never have any problems on SDN - not if almost 14% of the population is outright permabanned. Again, probably at least that number quit shortly ahead of a ban, and I'd be surprised if the number of active members was greater than the number of members who have stopped posting.

Why don't you sign up and try to be a member and see how easy going it is.

I can see how easy going it is - or isn't, as the case may be - simply from reading it, counting the locked and moved threads, looking at the rules, etc.

There isn't, to my knowledge, any good reason for me to sign up for an account at SDN.

[Praeothmin]

Pro Trek people are always welcome on SDN as long as they debate logically, it's just that most of the ones that sign up are retards.

I'm sorry to say that everytime I went to SDN, to look at the SW vs ST forum, and saw a new member that seemd on the Trek side, it never took to long for that memeber to be flamed, called a moron, a f***wit, a retard, etc...

And to be honest, they weren't all idiots, they were just not on the Wars side...
In fact, you can search for posts from Marc Xavier (don't search for mine, when I went there 4 years ago I was really arrogant... ok, do search for mine and have a laugh, I know I did... :) ).
Marc Xavier came in there and debated seriously, proposed well thought-out ideas and arguments, and eventually left because he was fed-up at being flamed for not espousing "warsie" ideals.

It's well known that SDN has stringent standards for behaviour and evidence.

If by stringent you mean:
"Attack all Trekkies en masse if they don't convert!"
Then yes, I suppose it does.
Then again, I don't know if this is a result of the Mods, or simply the population over there, so you may be right if youare talking about most of the mods.

*Sigh* You obviously have a lot of preconcieved notions of how SDN is run and how things go.

Most of us here (ok, I know I do and I shouldn't speak for the others) judge by what we see when we go over there to look at the boards.
And don't get me wrong, I don't hate SDN or Mike Wong, in fact I liked his analysis of ST:Nemesis a lot... :)
It's just that we do see a lot of flaming towards the people who are not biased towards SW.

I'm practically the only pro-wars guy on this site and I don't see you complaining that Starfleet Jedi isn't fair.

If you mean:
"I think SW is superior in every way to the Federation!"
Then yes, I suppose you are, but if you include in the pro-Wars side the people who honestly think the Galatic Empire would beat the Feds in a war, then I have to admit that I am part of that club.
None of the arguments presented here since I've joined the board have succeeded in convincing me otherwise.
I also think that Jedi are dangerous opponents even if I believe their hype to be exagerated.
I think the MF is cool, and would prefer to travel onboard such a ship if I were a cargo hauler.
There are many things to Wars that I prefer over ST, it's just that I don't by all the SW hype going on at SDN, that's all.

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

I think the entry fee attracks the stupid trekkies to SDN, since they obviously aren't smart enough to debate at a free sight like this one or SB.com or even TFC (which, while a good site, isn't vs. in nature) where their opinions are actually welcome. That or they are naive enough to think that they can change the minds of people who have considered the debate over for the last four years. And yes, not every new trekkie who appears on SDN is stupid or lacks the ability to make a coherant argument, but since they don't support the notion that 1 ISD out guns the 600+ ship Federation fleet that was dispatched to retake DS9 they get flammed and accused of the "wall of ignorance" offense.

Praeothmin I see what you mean about Marc Xavier. Thus, I find it ironic that TFC's resident SW tech expert pretty much follows the SDN company line when it comes to SW abilities, though Sher is a bit more open minded about Trek as long as you don't bring out some one show wonder plot device and claim it would give the UFP an insurmountable advantage.

And Gandalf, most of the people here would bitch out SDN (or critique it) actually go there and read some of the posts, so our notions are observation based rather than preconceived.

[Gandalf]

If he actually believed that he should be banned, likely just about everywhere. Problem is, I don't think he believes that.

Whether or not he actually believes this it is how he acts on the board.

And they show up like once in a blue moon. They're the Colmes to Sean Hannity, barely competent to press their beliefs at all. They're also all Warsies too, and I suspect they're all around for some other reason.

Bullcrap they are on the board all the time.

Because he acts like a dick when does? The fact that he himself acts like that is not conducive to debate, and the fact that it does happen from time to time even if its rare is simply not proper debate tactics.

Who cares how he acts? On SDN you are free to act as you wish as long as you debate properly.

If it's against SW and other popular positions it does. Otherwise standards are crap.

Standards for debate on SDN are the same across the board, you are free to show that they are not however.

That's not much of a response. I've been there. I know. They barely exist.

Then why is there a Christian usergroup?

Me and about 50 other people there. Hell, even if you aren't willing to listen to any one of them, you should know at least what Alyeska did at SB.com. He was the one who implemented the "ICS is canon" rule at the vs. board, ensuring SW always wins and pissing off half the board. He's the one who claimed that its "canon" that Clonetroopers are super competent fighters, because some book said so, even though real US soldiers told him otherwise, and pointed out their absurd tactics seen in the prequel trilogy. He also banned someone for disagree with him regarding SW technology, and was promptly overruled by higher ups. I'm not kidding when I say he was pretty much ejected from his position due to his poor behavior.

His behaviour on SB is not related to his behaviour on SDN. I have seen no indication of this behaviour on SDN. But you are free to prove otherwise.

And why is that almost all trekkies that sign up tend to be retards? Seeing the overwhelming number of Trekkies tend to have above average IQ and education that's a pretty unbelievable statistic. Surely you're not missing something here, regarding SDN and not the trekkies joining?

Half the trekkies that sign up seem bent on avenging the banning of Darkstar for one. The rest seem to be highschool kids or the intellectual equivilant. Frankly I don't care why we're not attracting more educated trekkies.

This site attracts pro-ST naturally and there has never been a warsie ban. Also Kane came before you, but left. Wayne Poe and a few others came here for a while too, but never made an impact. Out of 50 that's pretty respectable. If it's out of 3000 and you have basically the same numbers, then that's terrible. More importantly, a sci-fi board doesn't produce enormous disparities between religion and non-religion or political views. SDN does, and most of the banned or labeled tend to be trekkies or conservatives or religious. SB.com does not have this property. This site does not either. Why is SDN so unique in that aspect?

It's still far from the 50/50 split you claim SDN should have but you make excuses for Starfleet Jedi.

So let me get this straight, you come here and almost immediately engage in improper debates methods and show enormous bias, and you still have the balls to claim that "SDN has stringent standards for behaviour and evidence?" By your own definition you should've been banned at SDN by now. So unless you're gonna claim that you act like a saint at SDN and a dick everywhere else, of course it's part of the discussion. In fact it's a gigantic red flag to the expected behavior of a SDNer, and your own behavior here has done nothing but further that claim.

Once again my behaviour on this board is not under discussion.

[Nonamer]

Whether or not he actually believes this it is how he acts on the board.

There's a difference between a "joke" position and a serious position.

Bullcrap they are on the board all the time.

They're there to talk for things other than politics. When in politics, they are barely a presence at all from what I can tell.

Who cares how he acts? On SDN you are free to act as you wish as long as you debate properly.

Except when it's not. MW's behavior is one of the primary reasons why SDN is not a fair and reasonable discussion board.

Standards for debate on SDN are the same across the board, you are free to show that they are not however.

You've never shown these "standards" by your behavior here. Everything from you tells us that SDN is a pretty biased place.

Then why is there a Christian usergroup?

And they do what exactly? They're not exactly proselytizing there.

His behaviour on SB is not related to his behaviour on SDN. I have seen no indication of this behaviour on SDN. But you are free to prove otherwise.

So basically he's a extraordinarily biased person elsewhere but not where everyone's like that? Your claims are getting exceedingly absurd. It simply can't be denied that Alyeska is considered very biased by nearly everyone who experienced him except for those who already believe in him.

Half the trekkies that sign up seem bent on avenging the banning of Darkstar for one. The rest seem to be highschool kids or the intellectual equivilant. Frankly I don't care why we're not attracting more educated trekkies.

Even if that's true, that doesn't explain the mistreatment they experience. There's never been a ban here and rarely elsewhere. Only from SDN do these hard handed tactics seem to exist.

It's still far from the 50/50 split you claim SDN should have but you make excuses for Starfleet Jedi.

50/50 is an approximation. This is a pretty small site, so we can't make a estimate. However, if it's a few thousand strong it shouldn't be 1/1000.

Once again my behaviour on this board is not under discussion.

Is this another one of your poor debating methods again? You can't ignore issues that you don't like. Your behavior here is enormously indicative to the expected behavior of someone from SDN.