Split: SDN Rules, Culture, and Moderation Habits

[Mike DiCenso]

Praeothmin wrote:
Seriously, I don't see why we still keep on talking about how biased or not SDN is.

We know it is, we've all lurked there (I've posted there), and we've all seen how they react to newcomers who aren't die-hard Wars fans.
But that's ok, its their right to do so.

As long as this site doesn't turn into a mini SDN, I don't see why we should even care...

Actually, many of these discussions we've had here in airing out the issues with SDN's forum have lead to good introspection about how we here conduct our ST versus SW debates. Quite often in essences we have asked ourselves "Are we in danger of becoming like them?". It is all too easy a temptation to give into the SDN mindset of attack and fallacy, rather than stick to our principles, and thus become hypocrites.
-Mike

[Nonamer]

Have we scared Gandalf away?

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

I hope not, since we have better discussions, or atleast more involved ones when we have an extreme warsie view point present. Though the claiming that Lando and Queen Amidala were incompetent buffoons was weird.

[Cock_Knocker]

... And this is why I won't go over and debate on SDN. There is simply no point (except for scoring moral points) in going over to a place like that and getting banned for no other reason than you disagree with the guy who runs the board, no matter how well-reasoned and presented and polite you are. It's just not worth it.
-Mike

That's completely not true, Mike. But then again, I'm speaking to the guy that willfully sips Darkstar kool-ade and believes there's an anti-Darkstar-anti Trek mailing list and that Curtis Saxton is a closet pro-Wars VS debater.

I've battled Mike W. on a lot of topics, huge disagreements that had nothing to do with Star Wars or Trek. I haven't been banned for disagreeing with him, and its not exactly like were bosom buddies. I've met the man once in person. (Never met Dr. Saxton yet).

And I find the atmosphere at SDNet refreshing, rather than the veiled "miss manners" attitude at boards like this one. Flames are fully allowed, but not for the SAKE of flaming. You have to have a reasoned response at SD.net

I've flamed Alyeska and Chris O'Farrel to hell and back in the past, and they are indeed pro-Trek. They just don't ascribe to Darkstar's idiocy, which is why they're alien to the pro-Trekkies of this board.

Kinda funny, when you think about it.

For me, the Trek vs Wars stuff has gotten old, and I rarely participate anymore, outside of making "The Last Bastion." Quit worrying about SD.net. They hardly know this place exists, unless I point out a particular thread here to laugh about.

I can only speak for myself, but these debates aren't as serious in real life as some lead you to believe. In my personal opinion, Mr. Darkstar is a very unstable individual, who I'd never agree to meet in real life. But the rest of you, (yes, even you, Gstone) I'd have no problem communicating with, be it sci-fi stuff, or anything else.

I haven't perused your boards in a while, but why are you wasting time talking about SD.net, and instead discuss the Star Trek TOS remastered episodes? I just saw "The Doomsday Machine", and it was incredible.

[Nonamer]

I've flamed Alyeska and Chris O'Farrel to hell and back in the past, and they are indeed pro-Trek. They just don't ascribe to Darkstar's idiocy, which is why they're alien to the pro-Trekkies of this board.

You're credibility just dropped to zero here. SDN is probably the only place on Earth where Alyeska and Co. are considered pro-Trek.

[Kazeite]

Kinda funny how certain people would like to discredit certain ideas by applying them to single individual (RDA) and branding people who happen to have similiar ideas as "Darkstar followers" :)

Nevertheless, I've never thanked you, Wayne - it was your site alone that has managed to convince me ST tech is superior to SW - after convincing me that the opposite is true. Now that's a unique achievement, wouldn't you say? :)

[GStone]

... And this is why I won't go over and debate on SDN. There is simply no point (except for scoring moral points) in going over to a place like that and getting banned for no other reason than you disagree with the guy who runs the board, no matter how well-reasoned and presented and polite you are. It's just not worth it.
-Mike

That's completely not true, Mike. But then again, I'm speaking to the guy that willfully sips Darkstar kool-ade and believes there's an anti-Darkstar-anti Trek mailing list

Given the Wongian/Saxtonian anti-trek acts over the years, it isn't that difficult to think that there would be off the board discussions. Mosts sites, especially when you sign up for a paid site, provide a mailing list and email accounts with the name of the domain, so both things coming together shouldn't be that unfathomable.

and that Curtis Saxton is a closet pro-Wars VS debater.

Thanking many prominante pro-wars rabids for their help in the technical specifics, including yourself, shows which side he's on.

I haven't been banned for disagreeing with him, and its not exactly like were bosom buddies.

And in the end, you're coming down on his general side of the debate.

And I find the atmosphere at SDNet refreshing, rather than the veiled "miss manners" attitude at boards like this one.

There's nothing veiled about the civility rules here. It was almost as stringent on strek-v-swars.

Flames are fully allowed, but not for the SAKE of flaming. You have to have a reasoned response at SD.net

Flames waste time most of the time. Most of the time, we prefere the actual meat of the arguments.

Quit worrying about SD.net. They hardly know this place exists

Give it time.

I can only speak for myself, but these debates aren't as serious in real life as some lead you to believe.

You mean when you ignore the people that suggest getting satellite photos, finding the address and actually walking up to people's houses and knocking on the door? I read the threads. I've seen the actual posts of the demented freaks being serious about considering it.

In my personal opinion, Mr. Darkstar is a very unstable individual, who I'd never agree to meet in real life. But the rest of you, (yes, even you, Gstone) I'd have no problem communicating with, be it sci-fi stuff, or anything else.

But, there's something about us that you haven't figured out yet. Whether you like it or not...we are addictive to others. It's a big reason why Darkstar is still considered bad news, even when the complaint is how he's an idiot or something else.

I can tell you that just being in my presence, many brighten up even when I don't do anything else but stand within a few feet. I've crept back in and checked on them from afar and they are not as well off as when I'm near them. You can see the look on their faces and in their upper body posture. I give a literal high to most people I come across.

Some of us are addictive in a general sense, like me, and some of us are addictive to certain types of people. Yes, we are enablers, but we are naturally that way. Also, we enable ourselves with just a modicum of in-fighting.

I haven't perused your boards in a while, but why are you wasting time talking about SD.net, and instead discuss the Star Trek TOS remastered episodes? I just saw "The Doomsday Machine", and it was incredible.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've got 2 channels showing TOS and neither is the remastered one. The best I can do is see what's online.

[Praeothmin]

And I find the atmosphere at SDNet refreshing, rather than the veiled "miss manners" attitude at boards like this one.

And I find sites like this one, where arguments instead of Flaming is the preferred way to go, quite nice to come to and discuss like rational, albeit subjective, individuals.
What's so hard in arguing about Sci-Fi without starting a Flame-war.
Just because the other side doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you should automatically start yelling and flinging insults.

Flames are fully allowed, but not for the SAKE of flaming. You have to have a reasoned response at SD.net

It might seem this way to you, but all the times I've been there to read threads and try to find something interesting, I see a lot of flaming without any reasoned arguments.
Of course, I have to agree that most of the Flamers do insert arguments within their Flames, but why couldn't they simply post their arguments without the Fames?

And those who get flamed the most, from what I've seen, are the ones who aren't Pro-Wars.

They just don't ascribe to Darkstar's idiocy, which is why they're alien to the pro-Trekkies of this board.

You know, although I don't agree with all of Darkstar's material, I find many of his ideas interesting, and leading to more interesting arguments.
Just because you don't like his conclusions, doesn't mean he's an idiot, or that your conlcusions are better, for that matter.

But the simple fact that we disagree on the subject proves how subjective all this really is... :)
And, see, all my arguments were made without a single Flame.
Why?
Because there was no need for it...

Quit worrying about SD.net. They hardly know this place exists, unless I point out a particular thread here to laugh about.

Then why mention the board at all?

n my personal opinion, Mr. Darkstar is a very unstable individual, who I'd never agree to meet in real life

And why exactly do all SDN denizens seem to think that?
Is it because Mr. Wong said so, and his word is Law at SDN?
I mean, if you'd never be willing to meet the guy (implying you never met him), then how did you form this rather radical view of Darkstar?

[Jedi Master Spock]

There's nothing veiled about the civility rules here. It was almost as stringent on strek-v-swars.

I wouldn't go as far as to say almost as stringent - here, it's a "no rudeness" rule while there it was a "don't flame" rule. For serious debates - political debates, philosophical debates, "competitive" debate, etc - it is practically unheard of for the arguments to be obscured in a mass of crude insults and rhetorical screeching.

Even on internet discussion boards, civility rules are the norm. For the record, I think most sincere debaters will notice the biggest difference between SFJ and strek-v-swars rules is that SFJ doesn't enforce a board canon policy.

[GStone]

There's nothing veiled about the civility rules here. It was almost as stringent on strek-v-swars.

I wouldn't go as far as to say almost as stringent - here, it's a "no rudeness" rule while there it was a "don't flame" rule. For serious debates - political debates, philosophical debates, "competitive" debate, etc - it is practically unheard of for the arguments to be obscured in a mass of crude insults and rhetorical screeching.

Even on internet discussion boards, civility rules are the norm. For the record, I think most sincere debaters will notice the biggest difference between SFJ and strek-v-swars rules is that SFJ doesn't enforce a board canon policy.

Outside of the canon policy, the only difference I see is there's less high brow bitch slapping allowed here.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Ah, that old war banner propaganda about how those heretical trekkies of Alyeska and co finally saw the light. They're paraded like odd circus phenomenoms within the SDN circles, supposedly highlighting the superior value of their prowars rhetoric.
Delusion and sanctimoniousness at their best, really.

Just like Robert said, their incivility actually brought them to be considered pariahs by LL themselves. A status they may enjoy for the moment, and eventually be proud of considering their past work in terms of ad hominem behaviours, but they may one day understand that the umbilical cord which once linked them to the EU's creative department is completely severed now.
April's going to be a very interesting month.

Anyone who's been following the evolution of relations between the various versus boards - and their most active representants - would actually feel obligated to write a lifetime long essay just to close Wayne's mouth short of his nauseating plea for a so-called righteousness.

Pointing at SDN serves a very good purpose: knowing what to avoid.

[Mike DiCenso]

Mike DiCenso wrote:
... And this is why I won't go over and debate on SDN. There is simply no point (except for scoring moral points) in going over to a place like that and getting banned for no other reason than you disagree with the guy who runs the board, no matter how well-reasoned and presented and polite you are. It's just not worth it.
-Mike

Wayne Poe wrote:

That's completely not true, Mike. But then again, I'm speaking to the guy that willfully sips Darkstar kool-ade and believes there's an anti-Darkstar-anti Trek mailing list and that Curtis Saxton is a closet pro-Wars VS debater.

From all the evidence I've seen, I certainly very seriously at this point entertain the possibility of Curtis Saxton being a "closet pro-Wars VS debater", Wayne. I mean, you still to this day haven't been able to provide a real explanation as to why Saxton was involved in what amounted to a VS discussion "behind the scenes" with yourself, Brian Young, and several other prominent pro-Wars persons. All with the apparent intent of making Wars seem better than Trek. I saw the emails, Wayne. I saw the page itself and read the discussions before you killed the links to it. I know for a fact that Robert hasn't made at least some of this stuff up.

So if those exchanges are not what we think it is, then why don't you just post the URL to it here, and be done with it? Why even try to hide it at all?

I've battled Mike W. on a lot of topics, huge disagreements that had nothing to do with Star Wars or Trek. I haven't been banned for disagreeing with him, and its not exactly like were bosom buddies. I've met the man once in person. (Never met Dr. Saxton yet).

And I find the atmosphere at SDNet refreshing, rather than the veiled "miss manners" attitude at boards like this one. Flames are fully allowed, but not for the SAKE of flaming. You have to have a reasoned response at SD.net

Again, I have to disagree. As others have pointed out, the SDN version of "reasoned" is based around those who don't tow the party line, especially in matters pertaining to, though not exclusively, the ST-SW VS debate.

As JMS others here have pointed out, there is a difference between civility and "miss manners", and the SDN way tends more to lead to "groupthink", any truth getting lost in the nastiness.

I can only speak for myself, but these debates aren't as serious in real life as some lead you to believe. In my personal opinion, Mr. Darkstar is a very unstable individual, who I'd never agree to meet in real life. But the rest of you, (yes, even you, Gstone) I'd have no problem communicating with, be it sci-fi stuff, or anything else.

And there we have to disagree on; Robert is hardly unstable. He certainly comes across as far more reasonable (and provides a more balanced viewpoint) in the VS debate than many people, myself included. That and I have experiance dealing with true Net.Kooks on the sci.space heirarchy of newsgroups, as well as I also deal directly with real mentally ill people from time-to-time in my job working at a hospital emergency department, and believe me, if I thought Scott were a nutter I would be the first to denounce him as such.

I haven't perused your boards in a while, but why are you wasting time talking about SD.net, and instead discuss the Star Trek TOS remastered episodes? I just saw "The Doomsday Machine", and it was incredible.

I have a thread on the remastered "The Doomsday Machine" in the Trek/Wars forum. So far only a handful of people have responded, or even seen the episode, though I did provide a direct link to the YouTube FX reel for people to view and comment on. If you want to discuss that episode, you're more than welcome to participate.
-Mike

[GStone]

Quit worrying about SD.net. They hardly know this place exists, unless I point out a particular thread here to laugh about.

I've just been told that you've continued to enlighten the SDN group again of us and it seems like it's more than just they hardly know us.

And, as I called it long ago, they (SDN people) keep signing up here. We are addictive. I get a sense that says many many more from SDN have signed up here, but with different names and are keeping quiet.

[Who is like God arbour]

Hello,

I'm 27 jears old and life in Germany.

I have always enjoyed to see science fiction, especially Star Wars and Star Trek. But I was never a frenetic fan.

I have no costumes, no star ship models, no posters or other franchise.

I have only the DVDs from the movies from Star Wars and Star Trek, but not a DVD from the series.

The only books I have from Star Wars and Star Trek are the novels from the movies, but only because I have from almost every film, I have seen in a theatre, a book. I have never attended a convention.

Till a short time ago, I didn't even know, that there was a Star Wars vs. Star Trek debatte and have never thought about a Star Wars - Star Trek crossover.

But then, I accidentally come across SDN. Today I don't know anymore, how I get there.
Anyway, I have read some pages on SDN, especially Star Wars vs Star Trek in Five Minutes. That was the first time, that I have thought about this topic.

I think, it is interesting, that the one-sidedness and the bias, I have noticed about SDN was the main reason, I have sticked to this topic.

The statements, which was made on this web site have contradicted my own view from Star Wars and Star Trek, as I have had it till that time. But the reasons, which were given, weren't satisfying or convincing. I have asked me, how someone could believe such figures for Star Wars, if they blatantly contradict the movies respectively aren't supported by the movies. Why do they have always compared the worst case Star Trek event with the best case Star Wars event and ignored other events, which were more significant? Why leads their arguments nearly always to the conlusion, that everyone in Star Trek is incompetent?

I have attended a university and have a state examination. I have worked at a District Court and have conduct trials. I was court representative for the Public Prosecutor's Department. I have to understand scientifical expertises and have to base my ruling on these. I think, I know, how to debate and analyse evidences.

I have passivly watched the debates on SDN awhile. But what I have seen there, has nothing to do with a debate. That was awful.

I have got the feeling that they aren't interested in a honest debate. All they do is giving themselves a pat on the back and attack everyone, who support Star Trek or is a thread for their little ideal Star Wars world.

Sometimes, they don't argue but only attack and flame and if one challenged them, to give an argument, they ignore it. The deliberately misapprehend their opponents or ignore valid arguments. If an opponent made several statements, and one single statement has a flaw or is not well founded, they attack only this single statement and flame the opponent and ignore the more important other statements.

It is obviously, that the most members of SDN are fanatical. (I have the impression, that the term "talifan" is appropriate.)

And such members are in their Imperial Senate, which decide, who will be banned.

I have readed the explanations, the "Senators" have given for their choice in a poll, whether someone should be banned. More often than not, they give only their choice but no reasons, why.

It's a fact, that they ban a lot of members without a good reason.

I have come to the conclusion, that SDN is a extremly inhospitable board. Granted, I don't know many boards. But I wouldn't feel good at this board.

But for all that, after I have only watched this board a half year, (It is like an accident: It is awful, but you can't see away) I have give an answer to a question from Darth Wong: "What are Star Trek sensors really capable of?"

I have thought, in this post, he is honest keen to determine the abilities of Star Trek sensors, that it would be a constructive debate.

But as soon as I have posted my answer, I get attacked.

Then my posts and all related posts was splitted to [AVOGARDO] Moron boy's ignorant ravings.

Soon, I have lost the notion to defend my opinion against all them. There was not one single soul, who has supported me or contradicted some of the objective scientifical wrong answers, I have got.

Under this circumstances, I have not seen a sense to proceed this debate. And I know, that I was banned shortly after. (I'm back with another username.)

But it is interessting, that shortly after the whole fiasco, in the original thread was made nearly the same statement from Illuminatus Primus, I have made. But he is an old member with 12.000 posts.

I was only a newbie.

No, thank you. I have my opinion about SDN now. It is an awful board with a lot of fanfatics.

[GStone]

IP has posted enough to prove he's 'died in the wool' of the overriding view of the debate. My guess is that it might have been fear.

And no, that isn't a typo.