Alyeska: Fired or resigned as SB.com moderator?

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.
Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Post by Nonamer » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:39 am

Alyeska wrote:
Nonamer wrote:It had to be a supermod or admin. Either way, someone or some group above had a problem with your moderating. Your statements following the incident clearly suggests that you were no longer welcome as mod, or at the very least there was some serious disagreement with your behavior.
A single ban over turned and suddenly there is massive disagreement. So much disagreement they saw fit to fire me on the spot with an anouncement. Oh, wait, they didn't.
But you said it yourself: "My time as a VS forum mod has passed. This is rather evident in the last month or so from a few high level disagreements I've had with the rest of the administration.

I am not so short sighted that I couldn't see what was comming. My time was comming to and end. Rather then desperately cling to something and hold on to the bitter end, I find it better to bow out."

Explain to me how I'm suppose to take it any other way. If this isn't a firing, then you obviously saw the end coming and quit in advance. Either way, you did not quit because you wanted to.
I wrote most of the rules with the input and suggestions from every mod on SB.com. Rules don't get written on a whim. I got the approval of the other staff members. And notice that the rules haven't been withdrawn.
Like I said, not many mods care about the Vs. board or are even particularly aware of the events in the Vs. board. You had nearly carte blanche ability to write any rules you want and you did.
You can't make the leap can you. That the same people bitch about his treatment is an indication that the people you are using to judge me are not the best sources.
I have in his own words his complaints about your treatment of SW. That tells more than enough about his opinion.

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

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:39 am

I was describing in terms that Skyzeta favors Star Wars more then I do and from an external perspective some people (always newer members) have confused me for supporting Star Wars as well.
When you get do to it I was about about as unbiased as you could get on the subject because I would deal with both sides equally for the same reasons.
Oh, ok.
It's just that the wording gave me the impression that you had a bias.
And, I know you've defended ST on many occasions, and I do know that Syzeta is truly biased towards SW.

On a side note, it would be interesting (for me at least) how you reconcile the ICS fire power figures when compared to the movies (which do not back it up) or the rest of the EU, which has both high and low end firepower for SW.
But of course, that would need to be dealt with in another thread, because this one has nothing to do with it... :)

Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Post by Nonamer » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:48 am

Alyeska wrote:And some more fun. Nonamer has made it clear he considers any mod horribly biased if they don't agree with Trek. He doesn't like Skyzeta because he is a Warsie. He didn't like my being a mod because he thought I was against Trek. Apparently only Trekkies can mod Trek vs Wars in his book. When you get do to it I was about about as unbiased as you could get on the subject because I would deal with both sides equally for the same reasons. Someone with a clear support and bias towards one franchise over the other is going to have more baggage.
So now we see the ad hominem attacks. What kind of mod uses personal attacks in their arguments? It doesn't take genius to figure out what happened at SB.com given your actions on this site.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:48 am

Nonamer wrote:But you said it yourself: "My time as a VS forum mod has passed. This is rather evident in the last month or so from a few high level disagreements I've had with the rest of the administration.

I am not so short sighted that I couldn't see what was comming. My time was comming to and end. Rather then desperately cling to something and hold on to the bitter end, I find it better to bow out."

Explain to me how I'm suppose to take it any other way. If this isn't a firing, then you obviously saw the end coming and quit in advance. Either way, you did not quit because you wanted to.
One ban over turned and a few disagreements on other actions that didn't get over turned. The admins were starting to go another direction. Rather then stay on and potentially cause problems as I adapted to the new direction I suggested Skyzeta who was already in agreement with the new direction the admins wanted to go.
Like I said, not many mods care about the Vs. board or are even particularly aware of the events in the Vs. board. You had nearly carte blanche ability to write any rules you want and you did.
Every single moderator with VS experience supported the rules I created. This included Douglas Nicol and E1701. I have authority to write them and post them without review, but I put them up for review anyone. And of what got posted, they are not the original versions. BTW, nice attack. You claim that I wrote the rules solely intentionally stating that I took nothing into consideration. When I point out that I put them up for review with the rest of the mods you then try and dismiss them as a whole.
I have in his own words his complaints about your treatment of SW. That tells more than enough about his opinion.
And yet people already complained about his actions. That tells more then enough about their opinions.

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

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:53 am

I have in his own words his complaints about your treatment of SW.
Who is that person, and can we read those words?

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:53 am

Nonamer wrote:
Alyeska wrote:And some more fun. Nonamer has made it clear he considers any mod horribly biased if they don't agree with Trek. He doesn't like Skyzeta because he is a Warsie. He didn't like my being a mod because he thought I was against Trek. Apparently only Trekkies can mod Trek vs Wars in his book. When you get do to it I was about about as unbiased as you could get on the subject because I would deal with both sides equally for the same reasons. Someone with a clear support and bias towards one franchise over the other is going to have more baggage.
So now we see the ad hominem attacks. What kind of mod uses personal attacks in their arguments? It doesn't take genius to figure out what happened at SB.com given your actions on this site.
Excuse me? Your the one who started the insults when you posted fabrications of the truth and throughout the past thread continued to slander me. You also conveniently didn't state facts which are contrary to your opinion. You have condemned any mod who is openly in favor of Wars and even condemned a mod who favors Trek but considers Wars. The implications are clear. You think only a Trekkie is qualified to moderate Trek vs Wars.

If a Trekkie who is neutral on the issue (when you get down to it I am downright marginal compared to a lot of Warsies out there) and Warsies who don't preach the Wong gospel to be horribly biased, who makes a good moderator for the VS? Someone who believes Trek wins? You accuse me of a bias when you have a significant one of your own.

Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Post by Nonamer » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:54 am

Alyeska wrote:
Nonamer wrote:But you said it yourself: "My time as a VS forum mod has passed. This is rather evident in the last month or so from a few high level disagreements I've had with the rest of the administration.

I am not so short sighted that I couldn't see what was comming. My time was comming to and end. Rather then desperately cling to something and hold on to the bitter end, I find it better to bow out."

Explain to me how I'm suppose to take it any other way. If this isn't a firing, then you obviously saw the end coming and quit in advance. Either way, you did not quit because you wanted to.
One ban over turned and a few disagreements on other actions that didn't get over turned. The admins were starting to go another direction. Rather then stay on and potentially cause problems as I adapted to the new direction I suggested Skyzeta who was already in agreement with the new direction the admins wanted to go.
What is this new direction? Why would they need a new mod just to do this? This makes zero sense.
Like I said, not many mods care about the Vs. board or are even particularly aware of the events in the Vs. board. You had nearly carte blanche ability to write any rules you want and you did.
Every single moderator with VS experience supported the rules I created. This included Douglas Nicol and E1701. I have authority to write them and post them without review, but I put them up for review anyone. And of what got posted, they are not the original versions. BTW, nice attack. You claim that I wrote the rules solely intentionally stating that I took nothing into consideration. When I point out that I put them up for review with the rest of the mods you then try and dismiss them as a whole.
They are still your rules to enforce, which means your claim that you were only following rules are basically wrong. Not to mention the problem of how you enforced them, which was the real problem. Effectively, for Warsies they were applied a lot more gently than Trekkies.
I have in his own words his complaints about your treatment of SW. That tells more than enough about his opinion.
And yet people already complained about his actions. That tells more then enough about their opinions.
Thanatos names you specifically. I can't imagine he meant anything else other than that he disagrees with your treatment of SW.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:08 am

Praeothmin wrote:On a side note, it would be interesting (for me at least) how you reconcile the ICS fire power figures when compared to the movies (which do not back it up) or the rest of the EU, which has both high and low end firepower for SW.
But of course, that would need to be dealt with in another thread, because this one has nothing to do with it... :)
The movies are consistent with their inconsistencies. The subject material of just the movies is sufficiently large to have multiple examples while being sufficiently small that if no clear pattern can be drawn the examples are practically worthless due to their inconsistencies.

When taken into context with ICS what this means is you can find contradictions on either end of the scale. When the primary source material is largely inconsistent you drop to the next immediate level to try and grab information to get an idea what is going on. Under the Movie Purist point of view there is nothing but the movies themselves. However, with the relative inconsistencies the information is just about worthless.

We have decent size asteroids being exploded by known weapons on an ISD doing something like a few MT in firepower. We have Spaceships being killed by land based anti-ship weapons (AOTC battle) with firepower demonstratively sub MT in firepower. We have rockets on the Gunships in AOTC doing single digit KT firepower while starfighter grade weaponry doing far less in ROTS and ESB. We have a handful of HTL shots absolutely obliterating an ISD (I mean completely exploded) and we have X-Wings blowing up an ISD bridge. And of course both the Han Solo and Jan Dodanna dialoge on the firepower of half the starfleet.

Those firepower figures pretty much span the entire spectrum and shown essentially no consistency at all.

If your a movie purist your left with calcing every situation and trying to take an average firepower figure for each approximate level. Its the only route you can logically go to take into account all the inconsistencies. If your not a movie purist and are willing to take into account the EU, things get a little more interesting. Plenty of source material available and in sufficiently large quantities to get a good pattern.

And a more direct answer to your question as to ICS and the movies. Under the assumption that ICS is canon but of a lower level then the movies. This means that ICS cannot be simply be discarded. Instead each fact is canon unless directly contradicted by the movies. A good example. Seismic charges being 9 GT in firepower is supported by the movie and hence ICS is correct. Geonisian fighter firepower being 1KT in firepower is directly contradicted by the movie and is incorrect. Acclamator troop capacity not specified in the movie hence no direct contradiction with ICS and the ICS is correct. Mind you, I haven't taken the rest of the EU into consideration yet under this little line here.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:13 am

Nonamer wrote:What is this new direction? Why would they need a new mod just to do this? This makes zero sense.

They are still your rules to enforce, which means your claim that you were only following rules are basically wrong.
Less strict enforcement of the rules should be the obvious answer. I enforced the rules strictly where Skyzeta does not. With less strict rule enforcement and my being inclined to enforce them strictly for an extended period of time made Skyzeta the proper choice.
Not to mention the problem of how you enforced them, which was the real problem. Effectively, for Warsies they were applied a lot more gently than Trekkies.
Very few Warsies made the same blundering mistakes some of the Trekkies made. Simple logical fallacies such as burden of proof or the likes of no limits fallacy. Speaking of, what other rules would I apply gently on the Warsies but not on the Trekkies? The Warsies had no problem with the Paramount canon rules and never complained about that. They didn't snipe about things they didn't like in another franchise to derail a debate. Those that I caught doing such things were dealt with. I had an open policy asking people to report such cases. That Trekkies got reported more frequently then Warsies is a matter of fact.
Thanatos names you specifically. I can't imagine he meant anything else other than that he disagrees with your treatment of SW.
Circumstances?

Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Post by Nonamer » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:22 am

Alyeska wrote:
Nonamer wrote:
Alyeska wrote:And some more fun. Nonamer has made it clear he considers any mod horribly biased if they don't agree with Trek. He doesn't like Skyzeta because he is a Warsie. He didn't like my being a mod because he thought I was against Trek. Apparently only Trekkies can mod Trek vs Wars in his book. When you get do to it I was about about as unbiased as you could get on the subject because I would deal with both sides equally for the same reasons. Someone with a clear support and bias towards one franchise over the other is going to have more baggage.
So now we see the ad hominem attacks. What kind of mod uses personal attacks in their arguments? It doesn't take genius to figure out what happened at SB.com given your actions on this site.
Excuse me? Your the one who started the insults when you posted fabrications of the truth and throughout the past thread continued to slander me.
So apparently even with evidence it's still a fabrication.
You also conveniently didn't state facts which are contrary to your opinion.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You have condemned any mod who is openly in favor of Wars and even condemned a mod who favors Trek but considers Wars. The implications are clear. You think only a Trekkie is qualified to moderate Trek vs Wars.
Really? When I have done that.
If a Trekkie who is neutral on the issue (when you get down to it I am downright marginal compared to a lot of Warsies out there) and Warsies who don't preach the Wong gospel to be horribly biased, who makes a good moderator for the VS? Someone who believes Trek wins? You accuse me of a bias when you have a significant one of your own.
I would accept Thanatos as mod. From my experiences, he is pretty reasonable. I would not accept various pro-Trek debates as mods, like Mith or white_rabbit, because they clearly do not have the demeanor to be mods. I am biased in the sense that all people must hold biases. This is significantly different from you.

Anyways, this is totally irrelevant. The problem is not with you per se, but that you were like that as a mod, which carries significantly more weight as to your behavior. Plus you are not who you claim to be in the STvSW debate, which is obvious to anyone who reads your writings.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:25 am

Nonamer wrote: Plus you are not who you claim to be in the STvSW debate, which is obvious to anyone who reads your writings.
Given how worthless the term Pro-Trek is being defined here, this is not a problem. Anyone who reads my writings will see that I favor Trek.

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

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:26 am

We have decent size asteroids being exploded by known weapons on an ISD doing something like a few MT in firepower
If those are the ESB asteroids, I believe their were scaled with a 40m long falcon, when most of the shots of the Falcon next to humans and aliens place it at a length of around 26-30 meters.
And weren't those results in the KT range, albeit the high KT range?
And a more direct answer to your question as to ICS and the movies. Under the assumption that ICS is canon but of a lower level then the movies. This means that ICS cannot be simply be discarded. Instead each fact is canon unless directly contradicted by the movies. A good example. Seismic charges being 9 GT in firepower is supported by the movie and hence ICS is correct.
Agreed, except that, again, if memory serves correctly, the firepower is based off of an asteroid scaled at 100m, based on an 8m long Jedi starfighter, that did seem more lik 6 meters to me.
I do believe this board does also think that the ICS mustn't be thrown out the window, but that we must carefully observe and judge what may and may not be accepted.

And thanks for your point of view...
Last edited by Praeothmin on Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Post by Nonamer » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:27 am

Alyeska wrote:
Nonamer wrote: Plus you are not who you claim to be in the STvSW debate, which is obvious to anyone who reads your writings.
Given how worthless the term Pro-Trek is being defined here, this is not a problem. Anyone who reads my writings will see that I favor Trek.
Just not in the STvSW debate, which kinda is the whole point here...

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:29 am

Nonamer wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Nonamer wrote: Plus you are not who you claim to be in the STvSW debate, which is obvious to anyone who reads your writings.
Given how worthless the term Pro-Trek is being defined here, this is not a problem. Anyone who reads my writings will see that I favor Trek.
Just not in the STvSW debate, which kinda is the whole point here...
I favor Trek in every discussion that involves it. That doesn't mean I blindly support Trek in situations it clearly can't win. So in ST vs SW I do favor Trek.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:37 am

Praeothmin wrote:If those are the ESB asteroids, I believe their were scaled with a 40m long falcon, when most of the shots of the Falcon next to humans and aliens place it at a length of around 26-30 meters.
And weren't those results in the KT range, albeit the high KT range?
I was going off memory there. I don't know the specifics behind that calc, but I do remember the basics.
Agreed, except that, again, if memory serves correctly, the firepower is based off of an asteroid scaled at 100m, based on an 8m long Jedi starfighter, that did seem more lik 6 meters to me.
I do believe this board does also think that the ICS mustn't be thrown out the window, but that we must carefully observe and judge what may and may not be accepted.
When you take into account the fact that distances in the asteroid field are actually going to be fairly difficult to account for, with possible errors taken into account 9 GT is well within that range.
And thanks for your point of view...
Come to think of it, I didn't really explain my point of view on the ICS itself in relation to everything else. I just explained the various issues surrounding it. Since I believe that the movies themselves are more or less worthless for taking a broad spectrum of firepower figures, lesser canon is required. From my readings, ICS and other Technical Manuals directly tied to the movies have a higher rank within the EU then most other EU content. This would put ICS above any pattern displayed in the majority of the EU regardless of what that pattern may denote.

On a personal note I do believe that ICS violates what Star Wars was shown to be using excess in many areas. However, as Lucas is the ultimate arbiter on what makes Star Wars and he has laid the grounds for doing just that, my perceptions of what Star Wars is is ultimately irrelevant as Lucas has the final say.

Post Reply