Split: Comparing SFJN to other sites: Biased or not?

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.
Socar
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:09 pm

Post by Socar » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:20 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:I have a feeling that it would still likely see a higher level of activity than any other site, including this one in a few weeks time, especially if there is a chance to confront or otherwise to harass RSA directly.
The only reason why I say that is simply because back then, Mike Wong seemed adamant about people going over to G2k's board and supposedly "give him a dose of his own medicine" or something along those lines (hence Wong's big announcement and "rules" at the time). Of course, when they actually did come over, surprisingly few of them actually harassed G2k and did indeed follow the rules that G2k laid out (even G2k noted this and commented on how Wong (who started like 7 canon topics at once, all pretty much saying the same thing) seemed irked by their good behavior). But after years of reading at SDN, these days I just don't feel like people would be as impulsive to go over there. I do however concur with you that it would most likely have a much more rapid increase in activity than the other current forums (if not just for the fact that it's attached to a well known website in the community). Besides, if they really wanted to harass G2k in numbers directly, there's always his blog.
Mike DiCenso wrote:It's possible that people are taking a "Wait and see" approach. After all, what's the point of getting involved in a forum that might disappear in a few weeks to a few month's on you?
Very true. Hopefully more members will start showing up soon.
Mike DiCenso wrote:Well, there was no forum to interact with, either at that time. People tend to forget or just ignore, too. Some folks from both sides are starting to slowly trickle in here, at least to lurk, if not actually get involved.
It just makes me wonder how many people from the Pro-Wars side are actually still interested in actually debating. I guess if you are at SDN where the Pro-Wars stance is pretty much unanimous, debate over there would be largely uninteresting. Just out of curiosity, do you remember about how many Pro-Wars active posters were over at Digital Breakdown? Was it about even with Pro-Trek? More, less?

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:00 pm

Socar wrote:It just makes me wonder how many people from the Pro-Wars side are actually still interested in actually debating. I guess if you are at SDN where the Pro-Wars stance is pretty much unanimous, debate over there would be largely uninteresting. Just out of curiosity, do you remember about how many Pro-Wars active posters were over at Digital Breakdown? Was it about even with Pro-Trek? More, less?
It mostly comes down to the hard core rabids of the pro-wars side. But, it isn't mainly the higher profile ones. The middle and lower profile ones are definately still in it. Some of the higher profile ones either have websites that they reference with short posts or use short posts and point to websites.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:20 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:I have a feeling that it would still likely see a higher level of activity than any other site, including this one in a few weeks time, especially if there is a chance to confront or otherwise to harass RSA directly.
Socar wrote:
The only reason why I say that is simply because back then, Mike Wong seemed adamant about people going over to G2k's board and supposedly "give him a dose of his own medicine" or something along those lines (hence Wong's big announcement and "rules" at the time). Of course, when they actually did come over, surprisingly few of them actually harassed G2k and did indeed follow the rules that G2k laid out (even G2k noted this and commented on how Wong (who started like 7 canon topics at once, all pretty much saying the same thing) seemed irked by their good behavior).


That was after everything kind of calmed down, and don't forget that with both ST-V-SW.Net as well as the STrek-v-SWars.Net they both got temporarily shut down by the massive influx of the SND invaders. At least Strek-v-SWars.Net's forum was able to recover and from that point on is when you saw the better natured debators take over things, and the real interesting debates take place there. That's going to be pretty damn hard to top those here, at least for some time.

It's very unlikely IMHO that Wong himself will ever come over here to engage in any debate. His last excuse when challanged by Captain Newland to come over to the STrek-v-SWars.Net forum and debate him was that he (Wong) would not debate anyone who did not have a degree or other "credentials". A very lame excuse and very hypocritical of him since he relies very strongly on the "research" of people like Wayne Poe and Brian Young who have no college or university-level degrees in the applied or theoretical sciences whatsoever that anyone can find.

Wong will also pretty much hide behind the wall of SDN, where he can ruthlessly control and quash any dissent against the partyline with the help of his trusted inner circle. He will not likely give up that control to go to another board where he will essentially be at the mercy of others, instead he will probably send his lieutenants over to attack, disrupt, and just generally do as much damage as possible before being banned.

Socar wrote:
But after years of reading at SDN, these days I just don't feel like people would be as impulsive to go over there. I do however concur with you that it would most likely have a much more rapid increase in activity than the other current forums (if not just for the fact that it's attached to a well known website in the community). Besides, if they really wanted to harass G2k in numbers directly, there's always his blog.
They do harass him pretty strongly at his blog from time-to-time. Those are those loud-mouth "anonymous" Warsies that break in and do nothing but parrot the Saxtonian/SDNer partyline.

Mike DiCenso wrote:Well, there was no forum to interact with, either at that time. People tend to forget or just ignore, too. Some folks from both sides are starting to slowly trickle in here, at least to lurk, if not actually get involved.
Socar wrote:
It just makes me wonder how many people from the Pro-Wars side are actually still interested in actually debating. I guess if you are at SDN where the Pro-Wars stance is pretty much unanimous, debate over there would be largely uninteresting. Just out of curiosity, do you remember about how many Pro-Wars active posters were over at Digital Breakdown? Was it about even with Pro-Trek? More, less?
That I would say is partially true. Many of the militant Warsies have little or no reason to come over here, other than to cause trouble, simply because as far as they are concerned, the AoTC ICS made canon the inflated firepower figures they always claimed that Star Wars ships had. They stick with it the way a Creationist would with the Bible and Genesis over real scientific evidence about the origins of the universe and evolution.

In a way, I do also think that having a forum with rules that do not recognize the EU or the ICS forces many pro-Wars debators into actually having to use the movies, scripts, novelizations, and radio dramas, which in turn show very different firepower and technological levels than the so-called offical material. It forces them to go back to the way things were before AoTC ICS was introduced, and actually rely on good arguements and science instead of partyline mantras and waving the ICS about. The pro-Wars people who enjoy that kind of debate are likely to be the ones who eventually show up here, and stay and make positive contributions to the site.
-Mike

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:23 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:Kane and Swede did a kind of similar thing on the old STrek-v-Swars forum. They'd get dogpiled in a debate, then go run off back to SDN for help by starting up threads there that were related to the debate going on at Strek-v-SWars, then come back after a few days to a few weeks with new ammunition in the form of bogus arguements to continue on with.
The reason I would always walk away a few days after each of these forums opened (strek-v-swars, digital breakdown etc.) is beacuse it is run by Trekkies and 99% population are Trekkies. And when I say Trekkie I don't mean a person who likes Star Trek (I'm one of them) or a person who likes Star Trek better than Star Wars. I'm talking about the kind of person who looks at Clone Army (with it's armored soldiers, shielded LAAT's armed with superlasers, blasters and missiles, AT-AT's, AT-TE's, Juggernauts etc.) and then look at the pajamas wearing redshirts with nothing but hand held phasers and declare that they are not only superior but an "unstoppable force" as you put it DiCenso. I'm talking about the kind of person who declares battledroids as a terrible army because they are supposedly stupid but then turns around and claims that a bunch of moronic Klingons running around with a piece of metal would dominate the field.

These kinds of forums are the only place you can post DiCenso. A forum of 20 Trekkies in which you can fly whatever theory you want. A forum where you can claim that Han Solo as a smuggler is a military expert even though he has repeatedly demonstrated ignorance about the Imperial military and then use his single statement as some kind of evidence for the size of the fleet. Where you can use unfinished parts of second Death Star to produce an estimation of it's density. Such laughable claims would immediately be shot down on any larger forum such as Spacebattles or SD.net which must have stricter policy on burden of proof and rules of evidence beacuse of their sheer size but here you can get away with it.

I understand that Jedi Master Spock has repeatedly declared him as a "neutral party" who is not Trekkie or a Warsie but it is obvious to anyone that he is a Trekkie through and through. Anyone even remotley interested in rational debate, as he claims to be, would not claim gigaton/s level firepower for phasers on the main page based on the destruction of a comet (completely disregarding the known peculiar behaviour of phasers) but then turn around and deny 10^38W firepower for blowing up a planet beacuse the superlaser is somehow equal to phaser. He wouldn't constantly try to portray ISDs as having inferior power output than Federation ships because ISD supposedly use nuclear fusion and then "forget" to mention that DS9 which actually does use nuclear fusion managed to hold of a fleet of Klingon ships. He wouldn't try to evade like mad when I demanded him to explain what kind of chemical reaction in the planet could produce 10^38J beacause he obviously threw that in out of desperation and unwillingness to concede even the smallest point. He wouldn't try to use two-frame explosion artefacts to claim that they represent support for his "theories" and moreover invent explosion artefacts which apparently no one but him can see and then compare that to ST incidents in which we clearly see a few second sequence of an object slowly being "eaten away" like TWOK example.
And he sure as hell wouldn't allow guys like Nonamer to call Dr. Saxton "a lying prick" without so much as a warning but then threaten me when I call Nonamer's "superlaser creating black holes inside Alderaan" as incoherent ramblings.

Of course I realize that this post will fly straigth over your head. I couldn't reason with you in the threads we were involved with and I ceartainly don't expect you to concede anything now. But I just wanted to state for the record why I've stopped posting on this forum.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:13 pm

The reason I would always walk away a few days after each of these forums opened (strek-v-swars, digital breakdown etc.) is beacuse it is run by Trekkies and 99% population are Trekkies.
That's on the pro-wars people who don't join up. Besides, there are places that are almost entirely pro-wars people. Places, like SDN, post their view of rules and regulations and admissable pieces of evidence, but you're knocking down something that has a different view just because they don't share that view. What you accuse boards like this of doing is what has been done at places, like SDN. It's the pot calling the kettle black. Given the level of vitriol that often comes up in the debates, should it really surprise you that poeple go off "to their corners"?

If there are any pro-wars people that decide to join up, that's their right and they'll have to follow the rules of the board, whichever way the administrators/moderators/etc. slant to, just as a pro-trek person would have to obey the rules of forums, such as SDN. Any pro-trek people that don't want to abide by the rules of SDN are free to leave.
Such laughable claims would immediately be shot down on any larger forum such as Spacebattles or SD.net which must have stricter policy on burden of proof and rules of evidence beacuse of their sheer size but here you can get away with it.
Policy determinations based on the size of the forum is nonsensical.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:44 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:Kane and Swede did a kind of similar thing on the old STrek-v-Swars forum. They'd get dogpiled in a debate, then go run off back to SDN for help by starting up threads there that were related to the debate going on at Strek-v-SWars, then come back after a few days to a few weeks with new ammunition in the form of bogus arguements to continue on with.
The reason I would always walk away a few days after each of these forums opened (strek-v-swars, digital breakdown etc.) is beacuse it is run by Trekkies and 99% population are Trekkies. And when I say Trekkie I don't mean a person who likes Star Trek (I'm one of them) or a person who likes Star Trek better than Star Wars. I'm talking about the kind of person who looks at Clone Army (with it's armored soldiers, shielded LAAT's armed with superlasers, blasters and missiles, AT-AT's, AT-TE's, Juggernauts etc.) and then look at the pajamas wearing redshirts with nothing but hand held phasers and declare that they are not only superior but an "unstoppable force" as you put it DiCenso. I'm talking about the kind of person who declares battledroids as a terrible army because they are supposedly stupid but then turns around and claims that a bunch of moronic Klingons running around with a piece of metal would dominate the field.
I don't know if you remember very well, but even near the end of its life, strek-v-swars.net had a population that was close to evenly split between Trek and Wars debaters. A handful of posters on each side dominated most of the discussion.

During the earlier phases of strek-v-swars forums, there were more pro-Wars debaters than pro-Trek debaters.
Kane Starkiller wrote:These kinds of forums are the only place you can post DiCenso. A forum of 20 Trekkies in which you can fly whatever theory you want. A forum where you can claim that Han Solo as a smuggler is a military expert even though he has repeatedly demonstrated ignorance about the Imperial military and then use his single statement as some kind of evidence for the size of the fleet. Where you can use unfinished parts of second Death Star to produce an estimation of it's density. Such laughable claims would immediately be shot down on any larger forum such as Spacebattles or SD.net which must have stricter policy on burden of proof and rules of evidence beacuse of their sheer size but here you can get away with it.
Actually, Kane, Mike DiCenso can post almost anywhere. Large forums, small forums, etc - almost none would have a problem with anything Mike has said. Heck, they wouldn't even hand him warnings for being "impolite" as I have.

On SB.com, the moderation staff currently in place suppress pretty much any criticism of the ICS, to the visible frustration of much of the board's population. Nonamer can tell you more about that, or how enforcement of the rules falls more heavily on pro-Trek rather than pro-Wars debaters.

On SD.net, any actual Trek vs Wars debate is locked or removed from public view within a couple weeks. Moderation staff jump on any poster who offers a coherent pro-Trek view. The active population is pretty much universally on the pro-Wars side of the debate.

On these forums here at SFJN, there are no such ideological standards or biases. My board here - like 99+% of the internet's discussion boards - is not a board where the rules will be unevenly enforced on Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans.
DS9 which actually does use nuclear fusion managed to hold of a fleet of Klingon ships.
Every so often you say something like this, which makes me sad that you don't post here more often - because that is well worth looking at. I hadn't considered it carefully.
He wouldn't try to evade like mad when I demanded him to explain what kind of chemical reaction in the planet could produce 10^38J beacause he obviously threw that in out of desperation and unwillingness to concede even the smallest point. He wouldn't try to use two-frame explosion artefacts to claim that they represent support for his "theories" and moreover invent explosion artefacts which apparently no one but him can see and then compare that to ST incidents in which we clearly see a few second sequence of an object slowly being "eaten away" like TWOK example.
Kane, the artifact in question can't be at the same time a two-frame object that you claim is a normal part of the explosion and also be invisible to everyone but me. As I mentioned in that thread, I launched my argument based on a solid sequence of no less than eight independent pieces of evidence, of which the clear disappearance of the Rebel cruiser was one.
Kane Starkiller wrote:And he sure as hell wouldn't allow guys like Nonamer to call Dr. Saxton "a lying prick" without so much as a warning but then threaten me when I call Nonamer's "superlaser creating black holes inside Alderaan" as incoherent ramblings.
Kane, this has nothing to do with ideology - nor is it an accurate claim. Nonamer was warned in the very same post you were:
Jede Master Spock wrote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:incoherent ramblings
And I've mentioned the bit about staying polite before.

This is your final warning before I proceed to taking some variety of action.
Nonamer wrote:Did you have a minor stroke or something?
Nonamer, you may consider yourself to be given official warning as well. I'm deathly serious about maintaining good manners here - it's part of the whole experiment in launching these boards.

(You have more slack left at the moment than Kane. See enforcement policy for details.)
The reason why, of course, Nonamer had rather more slack left is because his warning count was lower than yours. You earned yourself multiple warnings in a short length of time for flying off at the handle at me, Nonamer, and Mike DiCenso. Read through the Rules section and the relatively new enforcement policy to see why that matters.

The simple fact of the matter is that you've been ruder than the other posters.

If you are to post elsewhere on the internet, though, you may wish to learn something: Most boards don't have general rules about staying polite; most do have rules against flaming.

Calling Dr. Saxton a "lying prick" is a rude assessment, likely to provoke poor behavior in his fans - but, unless Dr. Saxton happens to be present, usually won't be considered a flame. Replying to a poster by saying they are "rambling incoherently" would be considered such on most boards.
Kane Starkiller wrote:Of course I realize that this post will fly straigth over your head. I couldn't reason with you in the threads we were involved with and I ceartainly don't expect you to concede anything now. But I just wanted to state for the record why I've stopped posting on this forum.
And I would like to state for the record that your reasons are not particularly good ones.

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

Post by Nonamer » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:06 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote: Such laughable claims would immediately be shot down on any larger forum such as Spacebattles or SD.net which must have stricter policy on burden of proof and rules of evidence beacuse of their sheer size but here you can get away with it.
As a long-term SB.com member I can tell you that this was not the case until the last couple of years. SB.com use to be a much more pro-Trekkie site compared to what it is now. In fact it easily survived the ASVS invasion with miminal effect (it even arguably lead to the demise of ASVS). It wasn't until the rise of SDN, which converted many members into either pro-SW or caused them to drop out altogether, did SB.com because as hardline pro-SW as it is now. And even so, it is not really the consensus of SB.com to be so hardline pro-SW but rather the biased mods and about a dozen or so SDN/SB.com dual members that really forces the matter. About once every month or two, someone posts something criticizing how ridiculous the ICS-era SW has become and a serious debate starts before the thread gets locked or someone gets banned or at least gets beatdown by the Warsie. This has nothing to do with reasonability but the rules of SB.com which state that ICS is canon and must be accepted as such, period. Anyone who followed mine or anyone else's argument against this rule and the ICS will find how futile "burden of proof" and "evidence" are in this regard.

Also I'm pretty sure SB.com's hardline conservatives and fundementalists played a big role in driving away many Trekkies, who are usually liberal in nature, but that is a different matter.
Last edited by Nonamer on Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Socar
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:09 pm

Post by Socar » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:29 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:That was after everything kind of calmed down
Wow, really? Wasn't it only open for like, 4 days? Google has pretty much the entire thing cached, and I was looking through it at the membership list, and according to that, people started signing up on the 23rd of June (the day it opened), but almost no SDN people came over until the 25th, so they really would’ve only been around for like 2 days. Things must’ve gotten fixed pretty dang fast, because I don’t really see any actual invasion (at least not in the traditional sense, G2k did mention in his final post about having to delete a couple threads and banning a few people, though it didn’t really look like most of the people from SDN had anything to do with that). And from what I saw, when some of them seemed somewhat resistant to the rules, others (such as Dalton) reminded them that it was G2k's domain, and that they should play by his rules.
Mike DiCenso wrote:and don't forget that with both ST-V-SW.Net as well as the STrek-v-SWars.Net they both got temporarily shut down by the massive influx of the SND invaders. At least Strek-v-SWars.Net's forum was able to recover and from that point on is when you saw the better natured debators take over things, and the real interesting debates take place there. That's going to be pretty damn hard to top those here, at least for some time.
I don't recall ST-v-SW.Net actually being shut down at any point. I just remember shortly after G2k closed the forum he issued an explanation, giving his reasons for doing so (saying that in fact, although he hadn't run out of bandwidth yet, if he hadn't closed the boards, he certainly would have eventually).
Mike DiCenso wrote:It's very unlikely IMHO that Wong himself will ever come over here to engage in any debate. His last excuse when challanged by Captain Newland to come over to the STrek-v-SWars.Net forum and debate him was that he (Wong) would not debate anyone who did not have a degree or other "credentials
I find that surprising, considering how many people (such as his own Governors and Senators) that he debates with on SDN all the time that don’t have degrees of any sort. Not sure exactly what he means by other “credentials” though. I do remember Captain Newland admitting to having almost no science knowledge though, so that could be it, even though he was more interested in debating tactics and stuff of that nature, so I don’t really see why that would mean he’s not worthy of debating.
Mike DiCenso wrote:They do harass him pretty strongly at his blog from time-to-time. Those are those loud-mouth "anonymous" Warsies that break in and do nothing but parrot the Saxtonian/SDNer partyline.
I haven’t seen any strong harassment at his blog in a long time. Usually a single (sometimes maybe two) “anonymous” Warsie will show up and start debating, but most of the time I got the feeling that it was Kane (I know at least once or twice it was Kane since he admitted it straight out).

Anyway, I never got that last question of mine answered about the ratio of Pro-Trek to Pro-Wars debaters on Digital Breakdown. Do you recall about what it was?


As for the topic title, since I still haven't really read through much of SFJ.Net, I can't say if it's biased or not, though I suspect compared to other websites, probably not. As for the forums, I don't see any indication of bias, as far as the rules are concerned really. I do understand however, people having a problem with allowing members to slam other people who aren't around to defend themselves, but then again it's not like other forums don't do that either (though at SDN, they pretty much flame anyone, present or not).

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:32 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:Kane and Swede did a kind of similar thing on the old STrek-v-Swars forum. They'd get dogpiled in a debate, then go run off back to SDN for help by starting up threads there that were related to the debate going on at Strek-v-SWars, then come back after a few days to a few weeks with new ammunition in the form of bogus arguements to continue on with.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
The reason I would always walk away a few days after each of these forums opened (strek-v-swars, digital breakdown etc.) is beacuse it is run by Trekkies and 99% population are Trekkies. And when I say Trekkie I don't mean a person who likes Star Trek (I'm one of them) or a person who likes Star Trek better than Star Wars. I'm talking about the kind of person who looks at Clone Army (with it's armored soldiers, shielded LAAT's armed with superlasers, blasters and missiles, AT-AT's, AT-TE's, Juggernauts etc.) and then look at the pajamas wearing redshirts with nothing but hand held phasers and declare that they are not only superior but an "unstoppable force" as you put it DiCenso. I'm talking about the kind of person who declares battledroids as a terrible army because they are supposedly stupid but then turns around and claims that a bunch of moronic Klingons running around with a piece of metal would dominate the field.
As JMS has already pointed out, towards the end of the Strek-v-SWars.Net
forum's existance the balance of the population was split more-or-less evenly along the pro-Wars and pro-Trek camps. That is what made it a far better place to go for debates than SDN and SB. That and the moderators pretty well evenly enforced the rules on both sides, rather than force a particular partyline, and provided a forum where those who disagreed with the forum canon policy could go to vent and discuss the issues. Speaking out coherently and with significant evidence against ICS would only see me flamed and banned at SDN. Here you can speak out, though others will disagree with you, and you cannot fall back on expecting someone like Wong to come to your rescue by locking a thread, as is often done at SDN, or at SB with their now militant pro-Wars moderators.

Also, I've never declared ST redshirts to be an "unstoppable force". I've only pointed out that Federation troops would be "virtually unbeatable", if (note the qualifier there) the writers actually made use of all of the canonically mentioned technology mentioned or shown.

Oh and one more thing; I did track you and Swede back to SDN and noted in the SDN Pure Star Trek forum you two did start threads related to the ones you would leave. The ones that come to mind in particular are the Pegasus asteroid and photon torpedo growth threads. You were going back to get ammo to continue on with, not to take a rest or anything because you were being beaten on by the mean ol' Trekkie Conspiracy [tm].
Kane Starkiller wrote:
These kinds of forums are the only place you can post DiCenso. A forum of 20 Trekkies in which you can fly whatever theory you want. A forum where you can claim that Han Solo as a smuggler is a military expert even though he has repeatedly demonstrated ignorance about the Imperial military and then use his single statement as some kind of evidence for the size of the fleet. Where you can use unfinished parts of second Death Star to produce an estimation of it's density. Such laughable claims would immediately be shot down on any larger forum such as Spacebattles or SD.net which must have stricter policy on burden of proof and rules of evidence beacuse of their sheer size but here you can get away with it.
Nonsense. SDN does not enforce a better standard of evidence or what have you, it simply will quash any dissent against ICS, and or Wong's viewpoint that the Federation would be wiped out by a single ISD, no matter how much evidence is provided or how well-presented the arguements. As Nonamer has mentioned, SB used to be more evenly pro-Trek, but many people left or were forced out, creating the current Warsie majority.

Also, no matter what you say, Han is a military expert for all the reasons I cited in the thread. That you don't like it is really too bad. As for posting at other forums, I've done that in a number of places, and not been banned to date. Given that the EU is used here as a valid source, Han most certainly is an expert considering that he did serve as an officer in the Imperial Navy, and therefore should have some level of understanding what the weapons on Imperial ships are capable of. Even ignoring the EU, Han still has a knowledge from his many pre-ANH encounters with the Imperial starfleet. No matter how hard you try, you cannot escape this.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
I understand that Jedi Master Spock has repeatedly declared him as a "neutral party" who is not Trekkie or a Warsie but it is obvious to anyone that he is a Trekkie through and through. Anyone even remotley interested in rational debate, as he claims to be, would not claim gigaton/s level firepower for phasers on the main page based on the destruction of a comet (completely disregarding the known peculiar behaviour of phasers) but then turn around and deny 10^38W firepower for blowing up a planet beacuse the superlaser is somehow equal to phaser. He wouldn't constantly try to portray ISDs as having inferior power output than Federation ships because ISD supposedly use nuclear fusion and then "forget" to mention that DS9 which actually does use nuclear fusion managed to hold of a fleet of Klingon ships. He wouldn't try to evade like mad when I demanded him to explain what kind of chemical reaction in the planet could produce 10^38J beacause he obviously threw that in out of desperation and unwillingness to concede even the smallest point. He wouldn't try to use two-frame explosion artefacts to claim that they represent support for his "theories" and moreover invent explosion artefacts which apparently no one but him can see and then compare that to ST incidents in which we clearly see a few second sequence of an object slowly being "eaten away" like TWOK example
And he sure as hell wouldn't allow guys like Nonamer to call Dr. Saxton "a lying prick" without so much as a warning but then threaten me when I call Nonamer's "superlaser creating black holes inside Alderaan" as incoherent ramblings.
JMS has given out warnings to several people, including myself over a variety of things, not just you or to Poe. The other fact is that JMS does have a point with the rebel cruiser destruction by the superlaser. Yes, it is a matte cutout, but in terms of defining the movie footage as a documentary, we cannot necessarily ignore it. The ship literally disappears, with the matte cutout still there for several frames inside the explosion. It is you that is not conceeding anything, and constantly demanding over and over that evidence be provided for a CR SL, when that has been precisesly what JMS, myself and others have done here.

Also Nonamer mentioned not that superlasers were creating black holes, but that a black hole was a way in which the destruction of a planet could be accomplished without the need to resort to a 1e38 J DET superlaser. Total mass-energy conversion. It was simple and straight forward. You just simply did not want to conceed any point made that showed it was possible to do a CR-based destruction of Alderaan. You just simply did not, and still won't deal with it.
-Mike

User avatar
AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
Jedi Knight
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world

Post by AnonymousRedShirtEnsign » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:49 pm

Despite what Kane may think, this is site's rules are neutral. The main site is as unbiased as any site I've seen. Unlike Wong or his minions, JMS doesn't silence those who have opposing view points, he tells them to provide evidence to support their view points. I, for one, am greatful for the civility posting policy.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:20 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:That was after everything kind of calmed down
Socar wrote:
Wow, really? Wasn't it only open for like, 4 days? Google has pretty much the entire thing cached, and I was looking through it at the membership list, and according to that, people started signing up on the 23rd of June (the day it opened), but almost no SDN people came over until the 25th, so they really would’ve only been around for like 2 days. Things must’ve gotten fixed pretty dang fast, because I don’t really see any actual invasion (at least not in the traditional sense, G2k did mention in his final post about having to delete a couple threads and banning a few people, though it didn’t really look like most of the people from SDN had anything to do with that). And from what I saw, when some of them seemed somewhat resistant to the rules, others (such as Dalton) reminded them that it was G2k's domain, and that they should play by his rules.
By the way, were are the links to the forum cached at? I spent a while looking for any sign of them, and nothing is showing up, except for the occasional odd dead link to various threads and the main forum index.
Mike DiCenso wrote:and don't forget that with both ST-V-SW.Net as well as the STrek-v-SWars.Net they both got temporarily shut down by the massive influx of the SND invaders. At least Strek-v-SWars.Net's forum was able to recover and from that point on is when you saw the better natured debators take over things, and the real interesting debates take place there. That's going to be pretty damn hard to top those here, at least for some time.
Socar wrote:
I don't recall ST-v-SW.Net actually being shut down at any point. I just remember shortly after G2k closed the forum he issued an explanation, giving his reasons for doing so (saying that in fact, although he hadn't run out of bandwidth yet, if he hadn't closed the boards, he certainly would have eventually).
I remember that last comment of his (RSA's) there, but I do recall that Strek-v-SWars did get shut down for a while, and there was some trouble with RSA's original ST-v-SW.Net forum that caused a temporary outage or threatened to do so. I might just be getting them mixed up, it's been so long.
Mike DiCenso wrote: It's very unlikely IMHO that Wong himself will ever come over here to engage in any debate. His last excuse when challenged by Captain Newland to come over to the STrek-v-SWars.Net forum and debate him was that he (Wong) would not debate anyone who did not have a degree or other "credentials
Socar wrote:
I find that surprising, considering how many people (such as his own Governors and Senators) that he debates with on SDN all the time that don’t have degrees of any sort. Not sure exactly what he means by other “credentials” though. I do remember Captain Newland admitting to having almost no science knowledge though, so that could be it, even though he was more interested in debating tactics and stuff of that nature, so I don’t really see why that would mean he’s not worthy of debating.
With the first part there it is more one of politics. Wong can't afford to alienate some of those people. I don't recall the specifics anymore of what Captain Newland said about his own science knowledge. But that really isn't the point, as I recall Wong's response to the challenge ( believe Swede was acting as the messenger there). I believe CN's mentioning his lack of science knowledge and what-have-you was part of the post challenge reponse discussion. At any rate, it was pretty heated, and Wong's excuse was hypocritical to say the least given the past history of the man as even you point out.
Mike DiCenso wrote:They do harass him pretty strongly at his blog from time-to-time. Those are those loud-mouth "anonymous" Warsies that break in and do nothing but parrot the Saxtonian/SDNer partyline.
Socar wrote:
I haven’t seen any strong harassment at his blog in a long time. Usually a single (sometimes maybe two) “anonymous” Warsie will show up and start debating, but most of the time I got the feeling that it was Kane (I know at least once or twice it was Kane since he admitted it straight out).
Yeah, that was Kane. Also note that I said "from time-to-time" there, too.
Socar wrote:
Anyway, I never got that last question of mine answered about the ratio of Pro-Trek to Pro-Wars debaters on Digital Breakdown. Do you recall about what it was?
There was a general pro-Trek majority there, but the Pro-Wars still had a fair amount of representation in the form of Swede, Narsil, and Kane (there was a number of other pro-Wars folks who posted on occasion, but I can't recall who anymore).
As for the topic title, since I still haven't really read through much of SFJ.Net, I can't say if it's biased or not, though I suspect compared to other websites, probably not. As for the forums, I don't see any indication of bias, as far as the rules are concerned really. I do understand however, people having a problem with allowing members to slam other people who aren't around to defend themselves, but then again it's not like other forums don't do that either (though at SDN, they pretty much flame anyone, present or not).
I don't like anyone "slamming" others not present to defend themselves, but sometimes a legitimate concern does come up about other people's involvement in the debate, such as with the Saxton controversy brought up in the Are the ICS books accurate? thread, where the accuracy of ICS with it's inflated firepower figures was called into question for a variety of reasons, including Saxton's involvement with Poe's secret email group where he did discuss ST versus SW subjects with other pro-Wars people in a timeframe apparently before AoTC ICS was published and then afterwords.
-Mike

Socar
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:09 pm

Post by Socar » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:50 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:By the way, were are the links to the forum cached at? I spent a while looking for any sign of them, and nothing is showing up, except for the occasional odd dead link to various threads and the main forum index.
Try: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl ... t-v-sw.net

You're gonna have to scroll down through a lot of the other stuff, but eventually you should start to see pages from the forum.
Mike DiCenso wrote:I don't like anyone "slamming" others not present to defend themselves, but sometimes a legitimate concern does come up about other people's involvement in the debate, such as with the Saxton controversy brought up in the Are the ICS books accurate? thread, where the accuracy of ICS with it's inflated firepower figures was called into question for a variety of reasons, including Saxton's involvement with Poe's secret email group where he did discuss ST versus SW subjects with other pro-Wars people in a timeframe apparently before AoTC ICS was published and then afterwords.
It's not so much discussing that sort of thing, just more so outright flaming someone who's not here. I have no problem questioning someone's credibility or something like that, but just flaming someone on a forum that has rules against flaming people who are actually around... I'm just saying why I can understand why people might get upset about only having rules against it regarding people who are actually here, and not people not around. But it doesn't really bother me either way personally.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:51 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:By the way, were are the links to the forum cached at? I spent a while looking for any sign of them, and nothing is showing up, except for the occasional odd dead link to various threads and the main forum index.
Socar wrote:
Try: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl ... t-v-sw.net

You're gonna have to scroll down through a lot of the other stuff, but eventually you should start to see pages from the forum.
Thanks for the link. I found the final "failure analysis" post RSA made, but so far, no forum site history. Lots and lots and lots of wasted archiving on profile pages, not unlike what I saw for Matt's forum site at Gigablast. Lots of minor discussion threads, none of the juicy and interesting topics.
Mike DiCenso wrote:I don't like anyone "slamming" others not present to defend themselves, but sometimes a legitimate concern does come up about other people's involvement in the debate, such as with the Saxton controversy brought up in the Are the ICS books accurate? thread, where the accuracy of ICS with it's inflated firepower figures was called into question for a variety of reasons, including Saxton's involvement with Poe's secret email group where he did discuss ST versus SW subjects with other pro-Wars people in a timeframe apparently before AoTC ICS was published and then afterwords.
Socar wrote:
It's not so much discussing that sort of thing, just more so outright flaming someone who's not here. I have no problem questioning someone's credibility or something like that, but just flaming someone on a forum that has rules against flaming people who are actually around... I'm just saying why I can understand why people might get upset about only having rules against it regarding people who are actually here, and not people not around. But it doesn't really bother me either way personally.
First off, discussing someone not present is sometimes necessary. We both agree on that. In my case, I do try to present the evidence, rather than just laying a baseless claim. In this case, we have some of the secret emails which don't just have Saxton being merely "consulted" by only Wayne Poe on some point of SW tech esoteria, but actually engaging in full out discussions with other people in this group over ST versus SW topics. And that is just what is cached in the archive RSA made.
-Mike

Socar
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:09 pm

Post by Socar » Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:06 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:Thanks for the link. I found the final "failure analysis" post RSA made, but so far, no forum site history. Lots and lots and lots of wasted archiving on profile pages, not unlike what I saw for Matt's forum site at Gigablast. Lots of minor discussion threads, none of the juicy and interesting topics.
Just incase you missed it in the other topic, the whole thing is actually still up at http://www.st-v-sw.net/board
Mike DiCenso wrote:First off, discussing someone not present is sometimes necessary. We both agree on that. In my case, I do try to present the evidence, rather than just laying a baseless claim. In this case, we have some of the secret emails which don't just have Saxton being merely "consulted" by only Wayne Poe on some point of SW tech esoteria, but actually engaging in full out discussions with other people in this group over ST versus SW topics. And that is just what is cached in the archive RSA made.
I completely agree. Discussing people who aren't here (even in a negative context) is fine, it's just the extra flaming that sometimes goes along with it (and keep in mind that I am in no way intending to imply that I am talking about your behavior in any way) that I can understand people getting upset about on a board where flaming in general is against the rules.

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

Post by Nonamer » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:29 am

Socar wrote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:Thanks for the link. I found the final "failure analysis" post RSA made, but so far, no forum site history. Lots and lots and lots of wasted archiving on profile pages, not unlike what I saw for Matt's forum site at Gigablast. Lots of minor discussion threads, none of the juicy and interesting topics.
Just incase you missed it in the other topic, the whole thing is actually still up at http://www.st-v-sw.net/board
Is it still down or can we register and post? That looks like a running webforum to me.

Post Reply