So you actually did had a discussion with him. Well, an attempt at would be more apt I guess?Jedi Master Spock wrote:The banning of Point45 leaves me slightly blinking; by the time CommanderRazor acted, nothing had changed for a while, and the rest of you were flaming back at him in full measure, insult for insult. Granted, he is still very bad at debate (I debated Point45 for some time on ST.com) so it was probably justified by the codex of SB.com debate-specific rules in addition to traditional "flaming" rules.
The point was that he's troll, purely and simple. Denial, lies, strawmen, red herring, back pedaling, self contradictions and the lot, and then calling people names was just the crux of his style.
I actually contacted CR some hours before the hammer fell on 45, pointing out 45's final attack as an attempt to reboot the whole thread by pretending no evidence and above all, no statements of contradiction were presented.
When he started, weeks ago, to pretend that I was not right on any point against Leo1 in my multi-post replies to specific points (page 6 and page 9 for me), I knew we wouldn't go anywhere.
I'm still waiting for Leo to actually address those points.
FLAK also got much more support than ever, especially with the long ignored Cloud Car incident, and as per our own very thread here about all sources not agreeing with the ICS, we covered a good many of them at SB.
That said, it's been a nice thread because for the first time in years, we could actually see people point to the explosions and other damages displayed in the movies which usually get ignored, take them at face value in general, and stand ground against the usual claims of firepower being 6 OoMs superior, notably for cases involving fighter cannons, and much more OoMs for bigger ships' cannons and shields.
There still are points which remain up in the air, like what's really used for fuel by most starships, what's the real deal with Holonet and shields, the real linear accelerations abilities now that mass lightening is made fact, and many other points.
Probably because it was obvious that, first, not only there actually was a reason and matter to argue against the ICS, but secondly, there were more people doing so, and thirdly, doing so by presenting several arguments and solid evidence.I'm not sure, but while watching the latest ICS threads, I think SB.com moderation might have become a little less biased regarding ICS threads. I was amazed to see the discussion not locked down.
It was rather clear that letting the debate roll out naturally was the best way to prove that neutrality still exists.
There's obviously a point when the house of cards would crumble. You just needed the little push.
I would have prefered the SB debate not to partly turn into what looked like an opposition between delegates from SJFN and delegates from SDN, with SB as a pseudo neutral terrain of discussion where opinions sway one way or the other depending on the populace and the moderation.