GStone wrote:Wyrm wrote:The SDN forums are for discussion.
When it come to the TvW discussions, it's basically dead.
If there's no new ground to cover, or people are bored with the topic, why should discussion continue?
Ibid wrote:If you repeat the same points over and over again, and do nothing to answer counterarguments that demolish your points, then you might as well record your arguments on a record, strategically scratch it so that it skips to the beginning of your list of points, put it on the phonograph, and leave the room. (Hence the term "Broken record tactics".)
And yet, show me someone that has been banned here for displaying such behavior.
So you
like to argue with scratched phonograph records?
To each his (perverted) own.
Ibid wrote:And if this place used that as a basis, Ted C should be banned by now for his dead power switch arguments. Is he? No. You make the spirit of the idea seem logical, but the practice with specific situations shows it's mainly a 'agree with us or we'll probably ban you, make fun of you, etc.'.
Bullocks. He's answered your points. Just like I'm doing (God help me). He's demonstrating that he's engaged with you. The problem is that you don't seem to be engaging with him. Nothing seems to click. It's very hard to have a discussion with someone when they don't seem to be absorbing your ideas. Takes two to tango, dude.
Ibid wrote:In this case, you are breaking a rule that you have agreed to by signing up on the forum. If you break the rules, why should we keep you?
Again, in spirit, it's logical, but adjudicating that spirit is a selective process, which is used to often get rid of those that are deemed 'unwanted'.
Explain MKSheppard.
Ibid wrote:On the other hand, if you DO answer the counterarguments posted to you, own up when you make mistakes, and are willing to withdraw claims you cannot defend (and why should we accept claims you can't defend?), we'll keep you, because you are discussing. You are contributing. You are obeying the rules.
As long as you are obeying the rules in the view of the higher tier of people. And the practice of that view is basically 'agree with us or you're most likely banned'.
Again, explain MKSheppard. He's all, "Glass the Mohommedians" (his term for Muslims), and somehow earned the title 'Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger'. Whenever I see him cross swords with SirNitram... man, the
fur! It FLIES!! Quite franly, I don't know how he earns his keep.
Ibid wrote:You would be brought before the Senate for banning for not giving up a claim you cannot defend.
And my views would be designated 'not supported', regardless of the facts contrary to that idea. In Kendell's own words, I couldn't last long if I stuck to my guns with an opposing canon view in the canon thread, even though I followed all the rules in every other part of the board.
That's because your guns are clearly
empty. How is that contradicting anything I have said.
Ibid wrote:I probably wouldn't get that far, based on everything that's been said about me in the members only section and what's open to the public. Wong would probably ban me as soon as I spoke a dissenting post or a couple.
You're right that
you wouldn't get too far. I've experienced your debate strategy... it's
not stimulating.
Ibid wrote:SDN lets you stay based on what you can prove in the versus discussion, particularly trek and wars.
Wrong. You don't have to participate in verses discussions. If the verses discussion isn't your speed, you don't have to participate. Some trolls never touch the verses discussion, or any of the sci-fi forums, and they still get banned. They get banned for being trolls, not Trekkies.
Ibid wrote:As you say, it's more about what you can prove in your discussions than not.
No. You may never win a single discussion in all your tenure on SDN, so long as you gracefully admit defeat.
Ibid wrote:That is, if you answer people's counterarguments effectively, you're allowed to keep your position.
And effectiveness is based on a very subjective view and voted on by an oligarchy. And the views of this oligarchy is based on an us v them mentality. This is the cultish behavior I spoke of, regardless of how Kendell wants to spin it.
Bull. I disagreed with one of the mods, Master of Ossus... cussed him out in fact, on the effectiveness of fingerprints. I won that discussion. Haven't been kicked yet.
Ibid wrote:Those that dare not don't want dissention of the predominate view of that board in the tvw discussion. It's already stacked against you, if you are on the other side.
Of course it's stacked against you if you're on the side of Trek. It's a weak position. In Mobile Suit Gundam Vs. Star Wars, even though I find giant robots cool beyond words, I still realize that the Gundams would get their asses handed to them by the Empire. Should I be surprised if I get my ass handed to me if I argue Gundams > Empire on SDN? Of course, and rightly so.
Now let's suppose... just
suppose... that Trek really is weaker than Wars. Wouldn't an honest debate also come to that conclusion? So how do you decide the difference?
You go through the arguments and the evidence. Set aside your a priori objections, and go through the arguments. Are the observations accurate? Do you understand the reasoning, even if you don't agree with the conclusion? If the answer is yes, then the debate is indeed honest.
Please note, that it is important to
understand the arguments; if you don't understand an argument, you cannot judge its correctness.
Ibid wrote:
See above about the us v them mentality of the trek v wars discussion.
So, if it really is an Us Vs. Them situation...
and they let the Time Lords and the Daleks win over the Empire...
THEN THEY MUST NOT BE WARSIES — They're WHOVIANS!!!
MECCA!!!
MECCA!!!
MECCA!!!
Ibid wrote:I'm a Doctor Who whore, by the way. My side CAN beat the Empire! >:D
It's a cultish behavior stemming from having a particular view of wars and trek canon predominately. Mess with that, the gloves come off and you get dog piled on, get thrown in front of the senate and most likely get banned.
Why the fixation on
Trek? Why not go for the whole enchalada and start crushing us Whovians with the same zeal? Why crush only Trek and not Gallifrey, or Skaro, or the Culture, or the Xeele.
C'mon, at least SDN could have the Empire crush the DALEKS! Those tin cans are way too uppity.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
I know that I'll be exagerating a bit but you'll get my point...
- What can beat Star Wars' forces (Empire, etc.)?
- Gods, godlike entities and super inflawank races.
The Daleks are a super inflawank race?
The
Daleks?!
The
great space dustbins?!
The Federation of Doctor Who fought them back. Multiple times! The wee saltshakers had to resort to trickery to get back into the game. Multiple times! Are humans and their alien friends suddenly a super inflawank race?
Ibid wrote:See, we're objective. We're not pretending Star Wars can beat anything.
We're objective, too. We're not pretending Star Trek can beat anything either.