Pro-Trek or pro-Wars?

For all your discussion of canon policies, evidentiary standards, and other meta-debate issues.

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:05 am

Nonamer wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:By all means, you are welcome to make every reasonable effort to establish that reputation here.
You cared to judge me on another forum you have little experience about. Now its my responsibility to prove you wrong over here? Doesn't work that way. As far as this forum is concerned I am neutral since as you say I have no reputation here. But as you have already judged me from somewhere else, you would be well advised to judge me on my reputation over there rather then from hearsay. Believing what Nonamer says blindly is not going to get you the truth as he has outright lied about the circumstances of my no longer being a moderator.
Again with the "lie," even though your own words are evidence against you. I can see what is obvious right in front of me and I can call it as such.
You said I got fired. Care to show where? You said that my bias towards SW was a major factor in why I was fired when my replacement was even more biased in your book. Your claim is contradicted by the facts.

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

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:22 am

Just for curiosity, what those new rules, that "new direction", were all about, if it's disclosable?

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

Post by Nonamer » Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:46 am

Alyeska wrote:
Nonamer wrote:
Alyeska wrote: You cared to judge me on another forum you have little experience about. Now its my responsibility to prove you wrong over here? Doesn't work that way. As far as this forum is concerned I am neutral since as you say I have no reputation here. But as you have already judged me from somewhere else, you would be well advised to judge me on my reputation over there rather then from hearsay. Believing what Nonamer says blindly is not going to get you the truth as he has outright lied about the circumstances of my no longer being a moderator.
Again with the "lie," even though your own words are evidence against you. I can see what is obvious right in front of me and I can call it as such.
You said I got fired. Care to show where? You said that my bias towards SW was a major factor in why I was fired when my replacement was even more biased in your book. Your claim is contradicted by the facts.
I said you "lost" your mod status. Not that you were fired directly. It is one reason for your lost modship, not the only one. Skyzeta may share your biases, but he is less of a dick about it, and hence he survives for the time being. Plus you appointed Skyzeta yourself when no one really knew who he was.

Frankly this getting retarded. This debate has lots of personal attacks, lots of rhetoric, but no listening and little substance. There is significant evidence that you did lose your job because of your behavior in general. You can spin particular aspects of this in your favor, but not the whole thing. There's very little likelihood you can convince anyone here to think otherwise.

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

Post by Alyeska » Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:03 am

Nonamer wrote:Frankly this getting retarded. This debate has lots of personal attacks, lots of rhetoric, but no listening and little substance. There is significant evidence that you did lose your job because of your behavior in general. You can spin particular aspects of this in your favor, but not the whole thing. There's very little likelihood you can convince anyone here to think otherwise.
Thats why I started simply ignoring vast swaths of what you wrote as we had already stated our positions and nothing else useful was being said between either of us.

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

Post by Alyeska » Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:05 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Just for curiosity, what those new rules, that "new direction", were all about, if it's disclosable?
When I resigned from the VS forum they wanted a less strict atmosphere, hence less enforcement of the rules. When I was laid off from modding the Tech forum they wanted to cut unnecessary over management (I was one of half a dozen mods cut from the entire board) and to bring in new blood into the VS forum (hence Thanatos getting a job).

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

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:44 am

Alyeska wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Just for curiosity, what those new rules, that "new direction", were all about, if it's disclosable?
When I resigned from the VS forum they wanted a less strict atmosphere, hence less enforcement of the rules. When I was laid off from modding the Tech forum they wanted to cut unnecessary over management (I was one of half a dozen mods cut from the entire board) and to bring in new blood into the VS forum (hence Thanatos getting a job).
So would it mean:

- Less obligated to back up your points.
- Less obligated to remain on-topic.
- Less obligated to follow canon rules (but that dpt has changed, so it's quite irrelevant)
- Less obligated to limit coloured language?
Etc.

That could not be better.

Sidenote: I remember once a time reading some of E1701's posts, where he largely disputed all the usual rehashed stuff the one sided pro SW band usually sprouted.
Funnily, he didn't get the *usual treatment*, though his points were nothing original (firepower, intepretation of Dodonna's words, and many more).
I know you can't cut all the bias, but I wish this was something we'd see less.

watchdog
Jedi Knight
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:26 am
Location: Not at home

Post by watchdog » Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:23 am

Alyeska wrote:Aside for a handful of people at SB.com I am acknowledged as a Pro-Trek debater. The people who often accuse me of not being a pro-Trek debater are the people you really don't want to be debating with because of the multitude of flaws in their reasoning and analysis. I have a long history with Trek on SB.com.
Having come here from a long run at spacebattles myself I would agree with Alyeska, back before I owned a computer I used to copy whole debates from SB going back to 2000 or so and he most definatly was on the Trek side. I got board with SB after the Trek/Wars debates began to grow cold, there were more debates over other forms of sci-fi that I had no experience or interest in.
Now I would describe myself as pro-trek, I really do believe that trek could defeat wars in most situations and I do not believe the figures from the ICS. Oppinions can vary and oppinions can change, if Alyeska feels that the ICS has given a massive advantage to wars over trek then thats his perogative. Now I dont know what has been said over at SB because I dont really go there much anymore for this particular debate, but I do know what happened from before and Alyeska was always on trek's side then.

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

Post by GStone » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:04 pm

Alyeska wrote:
GStone wrote:
Alyeska wrote: And as I've already said that is a worthless way to term the issue at hand.

Just to make a point. What civilization from Trek? What civilization from Wars? Is the Borg vs the Ewoks? Or is this the Federation vs the Old Republic (which era of either?).
Funny. I'm talking of the ones usually debated in TvW- Federation and the Empire.
That breaks your argument. Its nothing about Trek vs Wars. Its merely opinions on Federation vs Empire.
Like hell it breaks my argument. I said the most used definition of how those labels are determined. Do you think Trek would typically win, do you think Wars would or are you not sure and are on the fence.

When you go situation to situtation, the label no longer applies because the decision you stand with is based on the canon (sometimes the personal view of the canon) and tactics you think would be good for whichever side you come down on.

An example would be 'okay, a shuttle, like the one Scotty got after the Dyson Sphere incident, is carrying a photon torpedo on board and it uses its shields and superior maneuverability to weave in and out between the TL blasts till it's within transporter range of the DS reactor. You transport it aboard, set it off and go to high impulse or warp 1.'

That is a situation thing that's got nothing to do with how the pro-trek-pro-wars labels are placed. They are placed based on a general sense, not situational. There are many ways the Federation would trump the Empire. There are also some ways the Empire might trump the Federation, but that isn't the point.

coyote
Redshirt
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:25 am
Location: 321st EN BN.

Post by coyote » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:35 pm

Wow, I have to say, this is sooo... McCarthy.

"Have you ever been, or are you now, a member of any pro-Star Wars debate board?"

I mean, loyalty tests are typically a sign that folks in a camp have begun feeding on each other. Isn't gang-up tactics one of the things criticised about SDN?

I love Star Wars. I also love Star Trek. I have the whole DS9 DVD collection at home. Trek and Wars are really two totally different types of stories, focusing on different things.

I also love neoBSG, ALIEN series, Babylon 5, and a host of other sci-series. But I'd never say that the Sulaco from Aliens would be able to take doewn a Star Destroyer-- it's silly. Mindlessly arguing "Trek, Trek, uber alles" is not doing the franchise any favors.

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3889
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:50 pm

I love Star Wars. I also love Star Trek. I have the whole DS9 DVD collection at home. Trek and Wars are really two totally different types of stories, focusing on different things.

I also love neoBSG, ALIEN series, Babylon 5, and a host of other sci-series.
Copycat... ;)
But I'd never say that the Sulaco from Aliens would be able to take doewn a Star Destroyer-- it's silly.
Nor would anyone here (I hope... :) ).
Mindlessly arguing "Trek, Trek, uber alles" is not doing the franchise any favors.
Same can be said of Wars, though...

coyote
Redshirt
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:25 am
Location: 321st EN BN.

Post by coyote » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:04 pm

Praeothmin wrote:Same can be said of Wars, though...
Very true.

But a pro-Star Trek argument can also be had by other means. Trek has the advantage in that, being primarily a TV arc'ed show, it can delve more deeply into character if they wish. We don't see a lot of the minutae in Star Wars, unless one wants to get into the EU or not.

I'm selective about what I take from EU, myself. I didn't like Vonda McIntyre's Crystal Star, for example.

But in a comparison of the two, I don't think it is evil or wrong to point out that Star Wars has more powerful weapons, equipment, etc than Trek. Star Wars is about... wars. Star Trek is more about exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilisations... etc. In Star Trek they've primarily explored the Alpha Quadrant and are still expanding, exploring, and making contact. The show relies on that "new discovery" flavor as part of its whole makeup.

Star Wars is about a Galaxy already explored, and now they're fighting amongst themselves about the government. It is a completely different focus. In a galaxy where most of the dark corners are already explored and the aliens and their funky culture or beliefs are no longer intersting but they exist to be recruited by one side or another, it's more about the raw power that can be brought to bear against the two opposing sides.

The asteroid-destruction calcs, the speed and distance calcs... think of how many time sin Star Trek the captain had to make a decision on his own because a "subspace message will take weeks to reach Starfleet". It's part of the drama! In Star Wars, you get on the Holonet and have a real-time conversation with the Emperor because the story is not about a ballsy captain making decisions, its about an oppressive government in a civil war. Space-delay messages isn't what it's about.

Recognising that Star Wars takes place on a different technological level doesn't make Star Trek "bad" or "stupid". Just different. Star Trek could take down "Firefly" or "Aliens" in a weekend, but that doesn't make the Aliens of Firefly universes uninteresting or stupid.

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3889
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:23 pm

Ok, your entire post describes what the two Universes are about.
And I have to agree with most of what you said.
But (ain't there always a but :)... ) I have to disagree with the following:
The asteroid-destruction calcs,
Which are disputed by many who are not purely Pro-Wars, concerning the scaling of the asteroids, on whether or not they were totally vaporized or not, on which guns exactly did the "Vaping", etc...

The speed calcs I have to give to SW without a doubt though...
think of how many time sin Star Trek the captain had to make a decision on his own because a "subspace message will take weeks to reach Starfleet". It's part of the drama! In Star Wars, you get on the Holonet and have a real-time conversation with the Emperor because the story is not about a ballsy captain making decisions, its about an oppressive government in a civil war. Space-delay messages isn't what it's about.
And yet I also remember, moreso in DS9 then in TNG, many times where either Picard or Sisko, while at the other end of the Federation, could talk to an Earth Admiral in real-time.
As you say, the delay, as many things in ST, was mostly due to plot devices, for Dramatic purposes.
Recognising that Star Wars takes place on a different technological level doesn't make Star Trek "bad" or "stupid".
I do recognize that on certain aspects, SW is on a different technological level then Trek, and Vice-versa.
SW has Lightsabres, Deathstars, Hyperdrives, combat droids, etc...
ST has Transporters, Holodecks, Holographics doctors, Dermal regenerators, etc...
Doesn't mean I believe Turbolasers are more powerful than Phasers.

And I just want to let you know what kind of a fan I am, where both Franchises are concerned.

SW, I have all the movies, four time around in the case of the OT (original, THX enhanced widescreen, Special edition VS, and finally Special Edition DVD, and if the Original gets out in DVD, I will by it). I have the Clone wars cartoons, the D20 RPG, most of the Lego collection.
I love the "Space Opera" feeling of the Franchise.

ST, I have a few seasons of TNG, going to buy all of them eventually, ditto for DS9, have all the movies, TAS, and I just love the feeling of "The Human Race's future".

I love both Fanchises equally, which is why, as I stated many times (and will again), I believe the Empire would win in a war, but not on a ship by ship basis (to an extent of course).

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 » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:36 pm

I don't think you will get any argument that the Empire is more militaristic than the Federation. The thing is that a militaristic society doesn't necessarily have more advanced tech than a passive one. The Roman Empire is more militaristic than contemporary USA, but we would still curbstomp the Romans.

And in Trek speeds and com ranges are incredibly inconsistent. DS9 is considered the frontier and is actually beyond the Federation's boarders, yet it only takes the Defiant a day to get to Earth. Also, sometime during the 5th or 6th season of DS9 Starfleet gets instant holo-communication tech.

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

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:14 pm

coyote wrote:I also love neoBSG, ALIEN series, Babylon 5, and a host of other sci-series. But I'd never say that the Sulaco from Aliens would be able to take doewn a Star Destroyer-- it's silly. Mindlessly arguing "Trek, Trek, uber alles" is not doing the franchise any favors.
Actually, considering that we know little about the Sulaco, yet she has some big fancy railguns and cannons, many nukes to sterilize a planet and that star destroyers can eat their hat due to asteroid crashes, there would be options available to the USMC. Of course, the presence of shields on the ISD and potentially insufficient level of armor on the Sulaco would make it dead, but I'm yet to see any impressive level of firepower from an ISD.

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 » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:22 pm

The Sulaco is the ship from Aliens right? The one that the Pillar of Autumn in Halo is a complete rip off of.

Post Reply