SDN and bias: Explain this

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.
Post Reply
Opecoiler
Padawan
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:46 am

SDN and bias: Explain this

Post by Opecoiler » Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:20 pm

If you think that SDN is a website that bans users and supresses views that don't fit the sites "Party line" or Mikes personal views, explain the following:

Explain how people on Mike's hate mail list as pro-Trek "Spacebattles.com babies" have become moderators and senators on SDN.

Explain how "Spacebattles.com baby" SAMAS is not banned and remains an active user on the forums.

Explain how MKSheppard, a user with political views different than much of the board, with plenty of HoSed posts and threads, is not only an active unbanned user, but was promoted to admin of the SDN wiki by Wong himself.

Explain how strongly pro-Trek debaters like Tjhairball and StarFighter have not been banned.

Explain why pro-Wars debaters such as Allbran_Sustain have been banned.

Explain why there is a usergroup for Christians on SDN, despite Wong being a strict atheist.

Explain why Wong hasn't banned everyone who has disagreed with him in a debate.

Now for the forum's priorities:

Explain why the Trek vs. Wars forum is one of the smallest ones on SDN.

Explain why the "Other Sci-Fi" forum is bigger than both the "Pure Star Trek" and "Pure Star Wars" forums combined.

Explain why the "Off Topic" and "News and Politics" forums are the two largest on SDN, when neither has anything to do with sci-fi at all.

Kazeite
Bridge Officer
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:45 pm
Location: Polish Commonwealth

Post by Kazeite » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:17 pm

If you think that SDN is a website that bans users and supresses views that don't fit the sites "Party line" or Mikes personal views (...)
I don't. I merely think that SDN is a website with humongous SW bias, which also happens to be Mikes personal hobby - making SW "a better comparison to Trek". And that's speaking from personal experience. I'm pretty sure that this being mostly ST vs SW board, other members' experiences are mostly similiar - that is, limited to ST vs SW area, and thus expanding this beyond this scope, like you tried to do, is weird, to say the least.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: SDN and bias: Explain this

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:26 pm

Opecoiler wrote:If you think that SDN is a website that bans users and supresses views that don't fit the sites "Party line" or Mikes personal views, explain the following:

Explain how people on Mike's hate mail list as pro-Trek "Spacebattles.com babies" have become moderators and senators on SDN.

Explain how "Spacebattles.com baby" SAMAS is not banned and remains an active user on the forums.

Explain how MKSheppard, a user with political views different than much of the board, with plenty of HoSed posts and threads, is not only an active unbanned user, but was promoted to admin of the SDN wiki by Wong himself.

Explain how strongly pro-Trek debaters like Tjhairball and StarFighter have not been banned.

Explain why pro-Wars debaters such as Allbran_Sustain have been banned.

Explain why there is a usergroup for Christians on SDN, despite Wong being a strict atheist.

Explain why Wong hasn't banned everyone who has disagreed with him in a debate.

Now for the forum's priorities:

Explain why the Trek vs. Wars forum is one of the smallest ones on SDN.

Explain why the "Other Sci-Fi" forum is bigger than both the "Pure Star Trek" and "Pure Star Wars" forums combined.

Explain why the "Off Topic" and "News and Politics" forums are the two largest on SDN, when neither has anything to do with sci-fi at all.
Most of these questions would easily be replied to with "because they shut up and agree" or because "they're more a source of fun than a real nuisance".

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

Re: SDN and bias: Explain this

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:07 pm

Opecoiler wrote:If you think that SDN is a website that bans users and supresses views that don't fit the sites "Party line" or Mikes personal views, explain the following:

Explain how people on Mike's hate mail list as pro-Trek "Spacebattles.com babies" have become moderators and senators on SDN.
By adapting to said party line to a certain degree.

Not being intimately familiar with the entire SDN user base, I cannot discuss every case; however, Alyeska is the typical example given.

Alyeska accepts the ICS. Alyeska, by and large, accepts a very large amount of material that most debaters identifying as "Pro-Trek" dispute.
Explain how strongly pro-Trek debaters like Tjhairball and StarFighter have not been banned.
Starfighter just joined recently. His only thread has been removed from public view. If he does not quit [so far as I know, he already has], he will probably be banned.

Tjhairball, on trollkingdom.com, reported being banned within minutes of posting a response to Wong. He is clearly not actively posting there, and had apparently either quit or been banned before, and had numerous complaints about SDN to make. Both of his threads are locked, although from his user number, there are probably older threads I did not see which he posted in.
Explain why pro-Wars debaters such as Allbran_Sustain have been banned.
Usually, I'd suspect it is because they make the Wars side look bad.

The most telling evidence for ideological banning is the great length of the banlist... and the very high percentage of those who are of the small minority of users who have been active pro-Trek debaters.
Explain why there is a usergroup for Christians on SDN, despite Wong being a strict atheist.
And do they express their Christianity aloud much?
Explain why Wong hasn't banned everyone who has disagreed with him in a debate.
Mostly because there are other options - quieting down or quitting in disgust - and partly because not all disagreements are considered significant.
Now for the forum's priorities:

Explain why the Trek vs. Wars forum is one of the smallest ones on SDN.

Explain why the "Other Sci-Fi" forum is bigger than both the "Pure Star Trek" and "Pure Star Wars" forums combined. Explain why the "Off Topic" and "News and Politics" forums are the two largest on SDN, when neither has anything to do with sci-fi at all.
IMO, the fact that the Trek v Wars forum is small has to do with suppressing nearly all dissent on the issue.

Who joins SDN, who has not an interest in the main website? Who can agree with the party line that the debate is over, who starts new debate threads?

Is it universal suppression of dissent? Perhaps not, but dissent on the VS debate seems strongly discouraged.

Narsil
Jedi Knight
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:59 am

Re: SDN and bias: Explain this

Post by Narsil » Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:41 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:By adapting to said party line to a certain degree.
I'm not the biggest fan of SDN. In fact, you could go as far as to say that I quite dislike SDN. But 'adapting to the party line'?

You're making what is little more than a forum on the internet sound like the Party, with Mike Wong as the ever-seeing, ever-present, ever-evil Big Brother type of figure. What's the point in such rabid and violent opposition to a single Canadian and his friends on a the world wide web? Please tell me because I have absolutely how one could actually think that any of this stuff really matters in real life. You're harping on about people that you haven't met in real life, haven't physically done anything to you, and it all boils down to the statement, 'My X is better than your Y!' And then when they talk about your constant attacks towards them you start to complain about it!

It reeks of hypocrisy. Possibly from both sides, I don't know, and I really don't care. I'm not on SDN, nor do I know much about the situation other than what I've seen here, so I couldn't say too much beyond simply pointing out that this almost political bickering is pointless. Now Lord Vader will provide us with the location of the hidden Rebel... wait, sorry, wrong line.

Just take my advice; don't argue like Wars beating Trek or Trek beating Wars actually matters. Because it really doesn't. It's supposed to be for fun, as I understand it...

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

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:41 pm

Narsil wrote:don't argue like Wars beating Trek or Trek beating Wars actually matters. Because it really doesn't. It's supposed to be for fun, as I understand it...
As you said, it's supposed to be.
The problem stems from when, for example, me not agreeing with how you interpret what we both read or saw makes you start calling me an idiot, a f****** moron, etc...
Which is basically what happens at SDN when you don't agree with their interpretation of the outcome of SW vs ST.
I refer you to this nice thread here:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=113354

This is what they generally think of all who disgree with them.
What's the point in such rabid and violent opposition to a single Canadian and his friends on a the world wide web?
Does it really seem that rabid?
I always felt it just seemed like a, shall we say, strong opposition at being called names for disagreeing... :)

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

Re: SDN and bias: Explain this

Post by GStone » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:46 pm

Opecoiler wrote:If you think that SDN is a website that bans users and supresses views that don't fit the sites "Party line" or Mikes personal views, explain the following:
You do realize that this topic has come up on this board before, right?
Explain how people on Mike's hate mail list as pro-Trek "Spacebattles.com babies" have become moderators and senators on SDN.

Explain how "Spacebattles.com baby" SAMAS is not banned and remains an active user on the forums.
They don't step out of line that much.
Explain how MKSheppard, a user with political views different than much of the board, with plenty of HoSed posts and threads, is not only an active unbanned user, but was promoted to admin of the SDN wiki by Wong himself.
Haven't you understood that 'toeing the line' has been in reference to the Trek-Wars debate? That is the context that it has been used in more often than not and the only one you could have gotten from what's been written on this board.
Explain how strongly pro-Trek debaters like Tjhairball and StarFighter have not been banned.
Some people have different lifespans as members of the board. It doesn't matter if it's SDN or any other board. Some are left, so that they can be used for abject ridicule. But, it isn't even to just have token whipping boys around at SDN. The posts of others are imported from other boards, just as what you have done. Before, in SDN's history, there were new threads when they saw something that was of interest for making themselves feel better. Now, in only 4 months time, SDN has created a thread that is 66 pages long. They've focused their efforts to making a very large anthology of their mockery.
Explain why pro-Wars debaters such as Allbran_Sustain have been banned.
There is more than one definition of what it means to be 'pro-wars'. Just because one is of that view doesn't mean they aren't free from ridicule or that they could only have the Wongian/Saxtonian perspective. Long time members that sing the party line are talked down to almost as much when they feel they have done something stupid.
Explain why there is a usergroup for Christians on SDN, despite Wong being a strict atheist.
Politics. He likes to pass himself off as being enlightened, while still having his own prejudices, like against small towns folk. Plus, it feeds into his god complex by 'allowing' them to stay.
Explain why Wong hasn't banned everyone who has disagreed with him in a debate.
A statement that you fully well know you've blow totally out of proportion. It's sad.
Now for the forum's priorities:

Explain why the Trek vs. Wars forum is one of the smallest ones on SDN.
The forum is self-explanitory when you've got consistently named threads that use derogatory remarks about 'trekkies' or pro-trek people. Things have been culled and shaped over the years that SDN is a mockery of what it once was.
Explain why the "Other Sci-Fi" forum is bigger than both the "Pure Star Trek" and "Pure Star Wars" forums combined.

Explain why the "Off Topic" and "News and Politics" forums are the two largest on SDN, when neither has anything to do with sci-fi at all.
When you essentially finish off a particular debate, things move on to other topics. This goes back to the culling and shaping of threads/members.

Now, tell me. Just how much activity do you think SDN would have, if the nonTrek/nonWars threads were gone? Huh? How many hits would drop off for the board as a whole? The board is mostly a nonTrek/nonWars discussion board, which you even admit to. Take that away and they aren't doing much with Trek/Wars discussions.

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

Re: SDN and bias: Explain this

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:54 pm

Narsil wrote:I'm not the biggest fan of SDN. In fact, you could go as far as to say that I quite dislike SDN. But 'adapting to the party line'?

You're making what is little more than a forum on the internet sound like the Party, with Mike Wong as the ever-seeing, ever-present, ever-evil Big Brother type of figure.
I had no intention of invoking 1984. Think more of how actual non-omnipotent political parties act to preserve the appearance of a mostly coherent ideology and try to prevent member officials from "drifting" to another faction or diluting their brand.

Then move from national and regional parliamentary bodies, and to something on the level of importance of a student government. It's nothing strange or unusual; people adapt to fit into communities all the time. People adjust or reconsider their beliefs, sometimes without realizing it.

The answer to the question "If those in the opposition are banned, then why is Alyeska a mod" is, quite simply, that Alyeska isn't part of the opposition, and hasn't been for a long time.
What's the point in such rabid and violent opposition to a single Canadian and his friends on a the world wide web? Please tell me because I have absolutely how one could actually think that any of this stuff really matters in real life. You're harping on about people that you haven't met in real life, haven't physically done anything to you, and it all boils down to the statement, 'My X is better than your Y!' And then when they talk about your constant attacks towards them you start to complain about it!
My constant attacks? I make an average of five posts every three days, and a small fraction of those mention - let alone criticize - SDN. This is my 70th post here mentioning the word "SDN" in the past year and a half, a small number, especially considering the number of common members, the referral numbers I've logged, and the degree to which that community chooses to publicize itself.

I speak my belief on the topic largely when others bring the matter up. You'll notice that I've personally started one thread on the topic of SDN's exclusionary practices - which was actually in reply to a post attacking this community. Constant attacks? Clearly not.

Rabid? No. This is nowhere near metaphorically frothing at the mouth. Violent? Again, not even metaphorically. I have been largely dispassionate and refrained from using even strong language.

Others have had stronger things to say; perhaps you mean to address them.
It reeks of hypocrisy. Possibly from both sides, I don't know, and I really don't care. I'm not on SDN, nor do I know much about the situation other than what I've seen here, so I couldn't say too much beyond simply pointing out that this almost political bickering is pointless. Now Lord Vader will provide us with the location of the hidden Rebel... wait, sorry, wrong line.

Just take my advice; don't argue like Wars beating Trek or Trek beating Wars actually matters. Because it really doesn't. It's supposed to be for fun, as I understand it...
Personally, I prefer to think of the debate as a potential method of teaching that happens to be fun.

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

Post by Nonamer » Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:07 am

None of those people who've "opposed" Wong can claim to oppose him now. Frankly, given their behavior on other websites, some of them are little more than shock troopers used to defend Wong's position.

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

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:19 pm

Yeah, just remember what happened relatively recently with the ST.com ST versus SW debate:

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=665

It didn't take long at all for the shock troopers to arrive, and go on the attack.
-Mike
Last edited by Mike DiCenso on Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Narsil
Jedi Knight
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:59 am

Post by Narsil » Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:08 pm

Shock troopers?!

You're likening people who debate science fiction on the internet to shock troopers? What the bloody hell have you people been smoking?

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

Post by Mike DiCenso » Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:21 am

Well, I suppose we could use "snarling attack dogs" as a colorfully descriptive metaphor instead of "shock troopers".... ;-)
-Mike

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:10 am

Narsil wrote:Shock troopers?!

You're likening people who debate science fiction on the internet to shock troopers? What the bloody hell have you people been smoking?
Geez, I thought it was rather obvious that it's an image. Frankly, it's not that hard to understand. ;)

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:11 am

Opecoiler seems to feel that being an ideologue in regards to the Trek vs. Wars stuff would have to blind Wong to all other pursuits.

That needn't be so at all.

Running StarDestroyer.Net (the website) all by itself would cost very little, and any el-cheapo webhost could make that possible. ST-v-SW.Net is a case in point. However, just for the forum Wong claims to spend over two thousand a year on a corporate-class connection to his home, where he runs a dedicated server running the forum.

Obviously, then, the forum is of some import to him. For evidence, you need look no further than the fact that it was kept active even after they declared the initial subject matter dead.

The original Vs. Debate stuff was the hook, but the concept of building and maintaining a community must also have been of great importance to him. And controversy was a way to do that.
As many people have said, a popular website really helps. Controversy also helps {...} if your forum exists just to get people talking about something, you need to get peoples' blood moving if you want them to post a lot.
Initial forays into controversy included (and may still include) numerous 'sock puppets' that present an anti-SDN mentality but are actually gung-ho board users. SDN's moderator's forum provided ample proof of that. Overplayed "invasions" of the board have also provided such controversy, along with the assorted invasions they perpetrate. These sorts of things provide a shared history for the community. In slow times, Wong himself appears to assume positions he does not fully agree with (or at least, one would hope), just to keep the fires stoked. Hence some of the arguments against old-timers, with plenty of faux flames and grandeur but no banstick.

Now personally, I don't get the whole internet community-building thing that some people value. There are all sorts of community-building additions in website development.

It's one thing if you and your community have a goal. There are boards for campaigns, boards for tech support, boards for social networking, boards for local communities, and so on, and those make some sense. But if you're just building a community for a community's sake on the internet, it's just a little weird. I prefer my personal interaction to be more . . . well, personal. And while I suppose being an internet community leader, controlling and swaying a bunch of kids, might involve an endorphine release for certain psychologies, I find the whole concept quite hollow. C'mon . . . go outside and play and make 'real' friends.

But then, I guess in as sense I've answered my own point about the purpose of a community for community's sake, at least in Wong's case.
The trick is to get people to post more stuff that they actually put some effort into, rather than just being chatty. I think any webboard that wishes to encourage real discussion should have a "no chat" rule, as well as a "no lazy one-liner" rule.
The tricky part to the above is that SDN doesn't encourage real discussion, unless it is among like-minded parties. Wong wants a discussion board, but within limits. MKSheppard is largely a whipping boy and comic relief, a 'safe' source for controversy. The eventual creation of a Christians-only forum was more a concession than an actual desire, since despite Wong's personal views, Christians are significantly represented. If he banned them all or otherwise made them feel completely unwelcome, the board would be much smaller.

Now I don't want to suggest that Wong's reasons are all insidious. It may simply be that he feels he's providing personal interaction for a lot of parents'-basement sci-fi geek types, with the expense of the board's internet connection, server, and server maintenance being a bit of selfless charity. But were that so, and given his belief on Trek fans, one would not expect him to be so ready to ban them, for in his mind they would need personal interaction more than anyone.

And so the only conclusion I can really draw at the moment off this quickie line of reasoning is that he really does aim for the cult of personality thing, the ego points from the deference and fealty of others (not to mention having one of the larger phpBB boards, resulting in props from other people entirely), and so on. To take one's ego from such a thing is little better than those online game players who get a big ego for having more kilss than anyone else. But hey, to each their own. It may very well be that, despite all the projections to the contrary against his foes, Wong (and certain other active SDN members) may have very little in the way of social lives offline. He's married with kids and an asshole to boot, so between the lack of time and lack of social skills, it's entirely plausible.

Back to the point, though, as soon as you start recognizing that he's at least a little more complex than a typing Warsie robot, most of your questions answer themselves.

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

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:37 pm

Narsil wrote:Shock troopers?!

You're likening people who debate science fiction on the internet to shock troopers? What the bloody hell have you people been smoking?
Narsil, please learn to take metaphors in stride.
Mike DiCenso wrote: Well, I suppose we could use "snarling attack dogs" as a colorfully descriptive metaphor instead of "shock troopers".... ;-)
-Mike
Not really any better. "Shock troop" at least is a role, which can be reasonably ascribed [accurately or not] to debaters through the metaphor of debate as war; "snarling attack dogs" is a rather more provocative choice of description.
2046 wrote:C'mon . . . go outside and play and make 'real' friends.

He's married with kids and an decidedly impolite person(s) to boot, so between the lack of time and lack of social skills, it's entirely plausible.
Baiting Wong isn't a particularly productive activity, as accurate as your analysis of his motivations for creating and maintaining SDN might be.

I believe I may have heard that particular suggestion before, and it is usually worth asking why people spend the amount of money that they do spend on things.

Post Reply