General Warning Tally for users...

For technical issues, problems, bugs, suggestions on improving these forums, discussion of the rules, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:54 am

while i'm at it, apologies to mike and praeothmin. i thought what i was doing was justified at the time but your actions afterward show that i was mistaken. also, i think you've got plenty to deal with just trying to deal with teh old oragahn trail.

and swst- although i still KNOW that you are a troll- in the same way that you know I am a troll- i spent a lot of time looking through your posts during my vacation and i think that at the very least, you do think star wars would win unequivocally. i think maybe you think you're trolling for the right side. since that's basically what breetai and i do, it's possible (don't freak on me here breetai) that we just got off on the wrong foot. i'd like to try and extend an olive branch here and clear the slate between you and i if you're also so inclined.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:40 am

Trinoya wrote:With all the sockpuppets and warnings I can't help but feel that in the last few weeks this forums has lost its mojo.
BOOOO!

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:43 am

Admiral Breetai wrote:every single thing Mojo did is now absolutely justified and honestly I hope he sees this comes back and raises hell because he as a poster was a thousand times the member the guy you just defended was..and only broke rules because you and your mods wouldn't act
this made me shed a single tear, like an indian seeing a piece of garbage on the side of the road. only it was me, and what i saw was a troll desperately trying to maintain control of himself.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:45 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote:This will be much more fun for all of us than you deciding to imitate Mojo's tactics.
define 'us'. i believe there is a silent majority who would disagree.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:46 am

Praeothmin wrote:But Breetai, doing "the mojo" will not help anything...
DO
NOT
FEED
THE
TROLL

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:48 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote: If you like, Breetai, here is your mission: Prove to me that SWST is trolling; and I will act on it. Use quotes and links extensively to make your case. Imagine you are a prosecutor, and you must prove to the judge the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This will be much more fun for all of us than you deciding to imitate Mojo's tactics.
Actually, this accounting is already underway to some extent in the "About me supposedly ignoring evidence". Most people initially did not bother because it was started by SWST, and most felt that he/she would just ignore what was said anyway. But now they have a very good reason to post examples there, since it can and will be used against SWST.

And on that note, JMS, it is your board and you decide what goes on, but I would respectfully say that your opinion here of what is appropriate is flawed. I have no problem with SWST taking a pro-Wars stance. In fact, we had a good number of positive discussions for years with Kane, even though he was borderline obtuse in his behavior, at least he tried to back it up with good arguements, evidence, as well as behavior. I recommend that you go back and review those threads, and compare them to SWST's for the difference in style. Kane, for all his faults, did not ignore contrary evidence. He acknowledged it and tried to form reasonable counterarguements to them.

SWST does none of that, and even has been dishonest enough to ignore calculations of a pro-Trek nature, or in one case, as has been pointed out by Praeothimin, my calculation of the range of the Saratoga and two other ships firing on the Borg cube during the "Emissary" flashback of the Battle of Wolf 395 as a maximum, rather than minimum. When pressed for calculations, SWST has seldom ever done anything except post a number, but never presented reasoning or shown his/her work, while I and others have.

Your own board rules state that dishonest behavior is punishable, so what and where do you define that?
-Mike
ballsy, mike. not that you have any reason to care, but this is the point at which i started to feel bad.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:50 am

Trinoya wrote:This may be off topic... do we really need to call it "the Mojo?"
YES. OH GOD YES.

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

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:02 pm

mojo wrote:if he bans swst, there's noone left to argue with. it's idiotic, but there you have it. there's really no other explanation for why he would repeatedly go against the mods he chose himself for doing the job he asked them to do. i gave the mods a lot of shit very recently because i believed they were deliberately violating the spirit of the rules in order to allow an opposing viewpoint to exist on the board. but it turns out it comes from the top. JMS himself is deliberately violating the spirit of his own ONE GODDAMN RULE. very nice.
No offense was meant. I just don't believe you have a good understanding of what I would like to see from this board, just as I do not believe that Wong has a good understanding of science (as opposed to, say, solving an engineering problem) or Saxton a good understanding of Star Wars. I apologize for putting you on the spot so publicly, but I think my anarchic tendencies aren't quite clear.

So, if I may clarify:
Admiral Breetai wrote:KSW at the very least forms good solid arguments when he's not making wild claims for the sake of cheesing you guys off. other then that he is a vicious arrogant bully

SWSt has no redeeming qualities what so ever-I rhink its only fair you apply the same standards to SWST you apply to KSW..
The rules are not intended to insure that people offer good solid arguments. They are instead intended to insure that people can offer their arguments without getting side-tracked into personal attacks and vendettas - the idea is that with such impediments out of the way, the better argument will "win" - receive positive responses.

I think of the role of a moderator in much the same way as I think of the role of the moderator of a political debate on television or in a debate team competition; not to regulate the quality of the arguments provided by the debaters, but to make sure that the debaters have a full and fair chance to make their case.

KSW does have some very interesting things to say, but is unable or unwilling to engage in a civil debate. The two cases are about as different as could be.
sonofccn wrote:I mean no disrespect sir but I implore you to reconsider your decision.
I welcome your interest.
Here SWST has repeatedly, and as recently as the seventh, made loose "generic" statments regarding things like Voyager doing something stupid and rarely if ever giving so much as a an episode title when pressed. I must stress his post on the seventh, well after Praeothmin already asked him to give details about his vauge descriptions, he said things like this:
SWST wrote:Are you honestly going to claim that redshirts ever use competent tactics? That them sending down a chief engineer to recon a dark cavern...using flashlights instead of, you know, night vision, is in any way reminiscent of using their brains?
He's refrenced this engineer recons a cave thing before but to my knowledge has never explains where it comes from.
Most curious; but not trolling, not without guarantee. I'm sure he simply cannot remember where he came up with the idea, and - as in the case where it turned out he had seen a fan-assembled video and mistaken it for an actual sequence from Star Trek - may very well be mistaken.

I would recommend replying to such statements incredulously and with very direct and straightforward demands for clarification and specificity.
here he creates a short dribble of fanfiction, in the wrong forum initially, where he rehashes "evidence" which at the very least is both debatable and is being debated in several other threads SWST either created or participated in. Things such as:
SWST wrote:The early Federation had 150 colonies; new colonies popping up in the past centuries would be smaller and developing, probably not self sufficient.
He has already been informed of Kirk's thousand worlds and spreading out quote by Mike here just last month and while he's free to believe what he believes his posting it in a fresh thread the way he did smacks of just trying to get our goat.
SWST wrote:In Star Trek Generations, the Enterprise was the only ship in range to investigate something happening 3 light years away…and it was in the middle of Sol! Any defenses would consist of stationary orbital platforms that only the more developed planets would contain.
Here he makes a sweeping generalization based upon a single datapoint nearly a century out of date. Again sir while poor debating should not be criminlized using such glaring and infuriating "evidence" to justify your favored faction curbstomping the others in your fanfiction, whose title itself could be argued to be flamebait, in conjuction with SWST other actions should be.
SWST wrote:If you require further proof that high end base delta’s are valid, the Death Star circumnavigated Yavin in 30 minutes, requiring about 2e29 joules of energy per second; scaling that down to a star destroyer, you get a power reactor of 2e23 watts.
Here he uses the scale down the Death Star output which multiple people have taken issue with in other threads as well as I believe you yourself have tried to explain to him how scaling from a DS to an ISD is, at best, shoddy and hard to justify. That he wants to believe in it I don't have an issue with but it should be kept to the thread(s) it is being debated in not creating a brand new thread for seemingly no purpuse.

Once more I wish to state I mean no disrespect to you sir, and I appologize dragging out this tiresome matter and taking away from your valuable ime, but I believe SWST is a disruptive nuisiance purpuesly trying to enrage us. Sorry for the bother but this is how I feel.
The fact that some of his arguments in that thread are repetitive does not greatly concern me. I have little doubt that he believes the Death Star to be fast in spite of all that he has been told to the contrary.

However, on review, the nature, placement, and tone of the thread can indeed be viewed as provocative and disruptive, and not conducive to debate; and SWST is familiar enough with those he is debating, and vice versa, for that to seem deliberate.

That, I believe, can be considered trolling or baiting; and I can consider it just to put SWST on notice for being at a third warning, i.e., the traditional last warning before being offered a temporary ban. SWST's anti-ST position itself, however, is not trolling, as far as I'm concerned, unless SWST doesn't believe in it.

Let's talk about "dishonest debate." I'm concerned with several things. First, people who deliberately misrepresent their own positions. This is visible with inconsistency - i.e., if SWST conceded that the Federation had 1,000,000 worlds and gigaton weapons one day, and then changed his mind suddenly without giving a good reason, we would suspect that he's been dishonest at some point - either lying when he offered concessions, or lying now to provoke reactions. Second, people who abuse sockpuppets to make it seem like others are agreeing with their arguments. Those are the two types of "dishonest debating" I was concerned about when I wrote the rules up, and I don't feel SWST has qualified for these. As far as I can tell, he sincerely believes his arguments, and if he sincerely believes his arguments and is presenting them directly under his own handle, there's nothing dishonest about that.

A last note on sockpuppets. Having two accounts is not in and of itself an offense. It might be that you have an alternate identity on another board, and you want to post here as that alternate identity in a discussion of what that alternate identity is doing; or you might want to leave your old reputation behind, because you think you really used to sound like an idiot; et cetera. However, when those separate accounts are lending choruses of support to each other, or one is presenting a strawman argument for the other to demolish, those are cases where dishonest debating is taking place.

StarWarsStarTrek
Starship Captain
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:54 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote: The fact that some of his arguments in that thread are repetitive does not greatly concern me. I have little doubt that he believes the Death Star to be fast in spite of all that he has been told to the contrary.
A few points:

1. Arguments being repetitive is an inevitable side effect of the overarching SW vs ST debate having lasted for several decades. The opposition applies a double standard, as they too repeat the same arguments (chain reaction, small town, TCW snippets, etc) over and over and over again. Do I blame them for this? No, and they shouldn't either.

2. The opposition assumes that, just because they say something to the contrary, that I must concede to their rebuttal because...because they made one! They assume that because they rebuted my argument, that their rebuttal must be right based on their subjective opinion.

3. The opposition makes the subjective claim that my arguments have been "debunked", when such a claim is highly ambiguous.

4. The opposition insists that I respond to every last of their arguments, despite it taking over an hour to respond to just Picard's rebuttal in our debate alone, and despite the fact that I do have a life.

5. The opposition's Breentai has literally responded to one of my requests for evidence with: "lol no", another time he responded to it with "do you ever know how to read?". Nobody in the opposition bats an eye.

6. The opposition thinks that their subjective view of "bad debating" is somehow indicative of trolling.


BTW, I justified the creation of the One Day War in the appropriate thread. More specifically, rarely do we ever actually debate what would transpire in a war down to specific details, so my post was trying to demonstrate that:

1. Hyperdrive speeds
2. Orbital bombardment/Base Delta Zero (regardless, really, of the yields so long as they are reasonable)
3. Industrial might
4. Some competence and common sense

Is enough to bring Star Wars a victory. Number 1 is especially important; we're talking about several decades of flight time just for a starfleet counterattack to reach Coruscant. In fact, Star Wars travel speeds are faster than Federation communication speeds; could you imagine that? We're talking about the analogous equivalent of guys in automobiles facing off against guys in wheelchairs.

Naturally, some will chastise this as ignoring arguments attempting to lower hyperdrive speeds, but I have addressed them. The fact that our heroes in SW consistently travel across the galaxy with noticeably aging, and within hours, proves that SW hyperdrive speeds are in the millions of C. Anything lower would mean that Obi Wan spent months in his cramped starfighter going to Kamino, or that the geonosians waited for years to initiate the executions.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Admiral Breetai » Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:03 pm

simply put JMS...we've proven to you time and time again the level of biased the lies and misrepresentation and dishonest debate tactics..you refuse to take action (and completely ignore me mind you) for..completely arbitrary reasons

also I'd like you to go on the record here: Yes or no is the presentation of doctored evidence known to be false or fan edited against the rules? SWST has done this many times...secondly: Yes or no is clinging to your theory on range despite on screen evidence disproving you..so as to say literally arguing with whats on screen/panel...illegal?

SWST has done this repeatedly

if these are not considered bannable offenses after such infractions then it's clear to me that you are leaving us with out any recourse so all that's left then is for us to bully and harass him until he leaves

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by sonofccn » Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:12 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:I welcome your interest.
And I thank you sir for your time.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Most curious; but not trolling, not without guarantee. I'm sure he simply cannot remember where he came up with the idea, and - as in the case where it turned out he had seen a fan-assembled video and mistaken it for an actual sequence from Star Trek - may very well be mistaken.

I would recommend replying to such statements incredulously and with very direct and straightforward demands for clarification and specificity.
While I fear I can not share your optimism in regards to the situation I will do as you say and I hope I am proven wrong.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:The fact that some of his arguments in that thread are repetitive does not greatly concern me.
And I would agree whole heartedly, forgive me if I suggested otherwise, my complaints were that he was needlessly created a new thread to argue points already being actively discussed as well as to purpusly anger us. You have now seen to it and weighed the matter and made response and once more I thank you sir for you diligence and time.

@StarWarsStarTrek:

This is not the proper forum for such a discussion so I shall try to be blunt.

1.Almost anyone you have debated here,except those who have taken to in essence trolling you out of anger/frustration, have offer more evidence and of a more stringent and exacting nature than you typically do.

2. Please do not play the sympathy card about time, you have engaged in numerous debates with posters here and made threads on your own further increasing your load. Not they. If time is at the premium I would advise you to cut down on superflucious arguments, your one day war thread being a blaring example, and try and work out a posting schedual with whom you are debating. I've asked for more time when I've debated and have never had issue given.

3. Lastly surely you are not arguing you are so naive that we would not take some offense at the one day war thread. It is no differnt than if I went to SDN and posted a story-argument, citing TDIC and such, on how the Federation whoops the Empire's butt and Kirk carves his name across the DS1 or something. That you believe what you believe is not an issue but each point is being argued in other threads as well are there total war threads already made if you were curious about the over arching conflict.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Admiral Breetai » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:52 am

oh come on now sonofccn I have at times taken to trolling him but I have gone out of my way to provide a great deal of evidence and analysis when asked

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by sonofccn » Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:11 am

Admiral Breetai wrote:oh come on now sonofccn I have at times taken to trolling him but I have gone out of my way to provide a great deal of evidence and analysis when asked
But what of Mojo? As well I did not want to give him the wiggle room to use your and his spat, which only occured after he more or less proved to be an irritant,and instead nail his hide to the wall so to speak. I do wish to extend my apologies if my words were poorly chosen or overly harsh but he does get my heckles up.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Admiral Breetai » Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:00 am

sonofccn wrote:
Admiral Breetai wrote:oh come on now sonofccn I have at times taken to trolling him but I have gone out of my way to provide a great deal of evidence and analysis when asked
But what of Mojo? As well I did not want to give him the wiggle room to use your and his spat, which only occured after he more or less proved to be an irritant,and instead nail his hide to the wall so to speak. I do wish to extend my apologies if my words were poorly chosen or overly harsh but he does get my heckles up.
naw I was just giving you a hard time I knew what you meant

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:28 am

i get your heckles up? wtf are heckles? should i be scared? should i be reporting you for sexual harassment?

Post Reply