View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:06 am



Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Message to StarWarsStarTrek 
Author Message
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 1777
Reply with quote
oh..for the love of all things holly...

ya...posted a duel at dawn thread? are you serious?


Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:33 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2133
Reply with quote
Really, at this point, I think the appropriate forum section for this is Technical Discussion (which I should perhaps rename, since that's where all the discussion of the rules goes, and that's not usually thought of as "technical"), so I'm going to go ahead and move it there. I understand why it was originally posted in Trek/Wars, where it would get visibility, but it's gotten everybody's attention by now, and you'll all be able to see the "Moved" link and follow it to its new home.

I'd like it if you continued to discuss this issue. The moderators and I have discussed this issue some in private; I'll summarize what I had to say to them here.

As far as I am concerned, simply being stubbornly wrong is not a bannable offense. Being stubbornly wrong doesn't mean you're trolling. It can just mean you're wrong. Trolling - which is, as far as I am concerned here, means trying to get other people to lose their tempers - is against the rules.

If this matter comes to a ban, and SWST decides to appeal the ban, I will review SWST's posting history to see whether or not SWST deserved to be banned. Until then, it's up to the moderators to handle the case and make those judgments. EDIT: Addendum: I suppose I may chew people out for not following the rules if I happen to stumble across what I view as a clear violation of rules.

In closing, I'd like to quote myself from when I started these forums, to remind everybody of what our board rules are all about:
The rules wrote:
In truth, this board has one rule:

All discourse is to be reasonable, polite, and informative.


Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:35 am
Profile WWW
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 881
Reply with quote
...a rule which I have not broken. I have not directly insulted anyone. I have accused people of being dishonest, but that's not an insult. So what's wrong?

The fact is that this is a quite obviously pro Trek forum. I have no problem with that; there are pro Wars forums too, but being a pro Wars debater in a pro Trek forum inevitably leads to being swarmed with many, many rebuttals. I do not have time to respond to all of these, especially since many of them are the same as the rebuttal right before that one. This is not mean that I am trolling, or evading arguments. It means that I have finite time, like everybody else. I would appreciate it if people stopped sniping me and bashing me in third person behind my back.

Stubbornly wrong? What? My one on one debates do not involve stubbornness at all. Again, not having time to respond to every single rebuttal is not stubbornness.


Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:13 am
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 1777
Reply with quote
the problem is the way you post..and your passive aggressive victim style filibustering that ranges well into the trolling that people..on this forum seem to get so mad at you about

your submission of fan made videos as evidence and subsequent accusal of me and iirc mith or wilga or proth I forget who else..as liars and biased when we brought it up.. is the problem dude..your not getting that?


Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:23 am
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 881
Reply with quote
Admiral Breetai wrote:
the problem is the way you post..and your passive aggressive victim style filibustering that ranges well into the trolling that people..on this forum seem to get so mad at you about

your submission of fan made videos as evidence and subsequent accusal of me and iirc mith or wilga or proth I forget who else..as liars and biased when we brought it up.. is the problem dude..your not getting that?



1. I admitted to the fan made video mistake, so stop bringing that up. Gloating over someone's accidental mistake like you are is not a moral or fair thing to do.

2. Your second post is hypocritical, because you do it too. You also accuse me of "fan masturbation", being a retard and other derogatory names, and others of being cyber terrorists. That's hardly a moral high ground, or any moral ground at all.


What's really frustrating is you literally saying no when I ask for evidence; one of the most important factors in debate, Science, law or any civilized discussion, and when you try to make up your own canon policy for a franchise/show you do not own, At least darkstar uses evidence from people with authority on Star Wars to support his interpretation of canon; you dismiss canon on grounds of "fan masturbation".


Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:00 am
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 1777
Reply with quote
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:

1. I admitted to the fan made video mistake, so stop bringing that up. Gloating over someone's accidental mistake like you are is not a moral or fair thing to do.


you did it twice...and it took several pages of you making fun of us and claiming we never saw the series..for you to get it right

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:
2. Your second post is hypocritical, because you do it too. You also accuse me of "fan masturbation", being a retard and other derogatory names, and others of being cyber terrorists. That's hardly a moral high ground, or any moral ground at all.


are you the ICS? am I talking to a sentient book? I called the ICS that-what I accuse you of is running around with a massive Wars biased

which you are completely guilty of

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:
What's really frustrating is you literally saying no when I ask for evidence; one of the most important factors in debate, Science, law or any civilized discussion, and when you try to make up your own canon policy for a franchise/show you do not own, At least darkstar uses evidence from people with authority on Star Wars to support his interpretation of canon; you dismiss canon on grounds of "fan masturbation".


1, i do provide evidence...I will meet you with arguments when you post them..you do not..not frequently and thus I do not reciprocate that which is not given

2, I'm not challenging damn lucasfilm..I'm saying by a demand for consistent feats based solely..on that and nothing else factoring in nothing but a demand for consistency from the original source material..you have no basis to use the ICS as canon..and thats absolutely true..nothing supports in the movies..mulitple posters on two forums have told you this


Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:08 am
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am
Posts: 759
Reply with quote
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:
You guys are sniping. You refer to me in 3rd person as if I'm not there, and refuse to provide any evidence to support your claims.


This is a message board. You probably weren't here when I typed and posted that and I was in effect, addressing someone else. Nor do I think we've ignored you given that this entire thread is addressed towards you.

Quote:
This is the same Mith that claimed that Star Wars turbolasers were 1 kiloton per barrel.


I could actually go and claim far less mind you. I've been reaching the point where I think even MOABs would rival capital ship firepower. Though I might stick to around 1 kiloton for ISDs.

Quote:
These are the same posters that used the number of bolts in the air to determine the size of explosions that have already happened, and that have also made other numerous mistakes and errors, some of which are outright lies and blatant dishonesty.


...How is that bad? Surely determining the size of the explosion using the nearby bolts is good?

Quote:
If any of you actually have some constructive criticism, talk to me in 2nd person and provide evidence to support your claims. Otherwise, you're just ranting without any evidence. At all.


You seem to think that this is a debate. We already have all the evidence we need to ban you I think. And if you recall, I spoke up in your defense. Silly me.

Quote:
Mith, I dare you to provide one instance in this forum where I accused anyone of anti Star Wars wanking. I will then gladly provide evidence of you without provocation calling me and others idiots, retards, etc. Hypocrisy really annoys me.


I could have been thinking of SB.com, but then I really don't care. I don't think that even such a comment is a bannable offense. It surely isn't the problem that broke the camel's back. It's the fact that you've been dishonest, try to set your own debating terms, and all sorts of silly things.

Quote:
Others, more blatant lying. I apologized for the fan made video incident, which was accidental. I outright apologized. So don't lie please, because that's not right.


This isn't a damn voting process. This is between the admin and the mods. The rest of us are just commentors. I have no more ability to influence your guilt than anyone else, save if I were to make an elaborate bargain for or against you. And I really care to do neither. I simply wanted to make sure that any punishment passed is in accordance with your violations of board rules.

That's all. Otherwise, I have little to no interest in you, save for the clutter you stuff in our forum.


Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:40 am
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 1246
Reply with quote
This is not SDN and we should never ban some one for being like StarWarsStarTrek is.

That said StarWarsStarTrek you need to realise where you are and accept the fact that there will be opposing views from multiple individuals when you post stuff on a open forum and while not replying to some is acceptable due to time constraints it is a good idea to focus on a single poster or discuss things by mail instead if you wish to not feel "gang banged" (and not in a good way) :).

So while i can see that a lot of the stuff ypou post is regurgitated SDN shite unlike SDN i will never support you being banned for posting it.


Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:31 am
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Quebec City
Reply with quote
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:
This is not SDN and we should never ban some one for being like StarWarsStarTrek is.


And we won't, either.
As was said repeatedly, if you feel he is not responding to your arguments, or evading them, you can, and have the right to, ignore him...

Quote:
That said StarWarsStarTrek you need to realise where you are and accept the fact that there will be opposing views from multiple individuals when you post stuff on a open forum and while not replying to some is acceptable due to time constraints it is a good idea to focus on a single poster or discuss things by mail instead if you wish to not feel "gang banged" (and not in a good way) :).


Not replying due to time constraint is perfectly acceptable, and simply telling us this is the reason as you did, SWST, is fine.
The issue I have is when you ignore evidence brought forth by the person you are debating, evidence often provided as links, which you seem to fail to read, and come back with the very same argument which was just debunked with said evidence.

Worst is when you ask of us "Trekkies" to provide proof in the movies that ICS is bogus, and when such proof is provided, in the form of a list of scenes where the ICS firepower is not present, and why, you use the ICS to counter the argument that "Movies contradict the ICS"...

Quote:
So while i can see that a lot of the stuff ypou post is regurgitated SDN shite unlike SDN i will never support you being banned for posting it.


There are some valid arguments made over at SDN, not all of it is "shite", as you say, and if he presented those arguments with clear explanations of how he (or those that did) came to those conclusions, they would merit a response...
And again, no, he won't be banned for this...


Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:38 pm
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am
Posts: 1162
Reply with quote
this thread never should have even existed. it was just a massive gangbang from beginning to end with nothing to show for it at the end whatsoever. a simple PM would have made a hell of a lot more sense and caused a hell of a lot less ruckus.


Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:59 am
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am
Posts: 1162
Reply with quote
all that got accomplished here was this - more than one of us was forced to consider how big the difference really is between sfj and sdn. this is the kind of bullshit that needs to stop.


Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:00 am
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Quebec City
Reply with quote
mojo wrote:
this thread never should have even existed. it was just a massive gangbang from beginning to end with nothing to show for it at the end whatsoever. a simple PM would have made a hell of a lot more sense and caused a hell of a lot less ruckus.


This thread is here because I wanted the message to be clear.
This thread is here because I wanted people who disagreed to tell me, and explain why they disgreed.
This thread is here because I wanted SWST to clearly know what people thought of his debating style on the board.
You will notice that not all replies are negative, and some are constructive.
If SWST understands what the other posters' grievances against him are, and if he can improve his debating skills because of this, then perfect.
If not, it was worth a try...

Your comment, by the way, is also welcomed, because it would not have occurred to me that this thread could be construed negatively.
We are not a big community here, and we rarely do things secretely, and if people feel opressed, they can publicly say so as well...

SWST, I do not wish you to stop posting, because as some people have said, you do bring valid points, and we do need people on the SW side to help us balance things, or help us view things in a new light.
The issue is that you fail to provide evidence too often (and by evidence, I do not mean the exact details, but at least an explanation with directions where we can find the information you present), and use disputed evidence as your proof (again, using the ICS to defend the ICS)...
As for your lack of time to allow you to debate everyone, that is a good reason and I do like the way you challenged people so you could debate them one on one.
A good way to concentrate all your efforts in one place...


Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:43 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2133
Reply with quote
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:
The fact is that this is a quite obviously pro Trek forum. I have no problem with that; there are pro Wars forums too, but being a pro Wars debater in a pro Trek forum inevitably leads to being swarmed with many, many rebuttals. I do not have time to respond to all of these, especially since many of them are the same as the rebuttal right before that one.

I don't expect you to respond to everything. Quite frankly, you won't have the time to respond if you're arguing with everyone. Focus your efforts on making good rebuttals rather than many rebuttals, and people will listen. They may be impatient; but ultimately, they will have to wait. To aid in this, I've split your debates into the debate you proposed, and, separately, commentary threads. Feel free to participate in both, but I think that the splits are helpful both for the participants in the debate and the audience of it as well. That format is the same as I employed for my formal debates against Sothis and Thanatos. (Doing things like that is the role of a moderator, quite literally; to facilitate debates.)

The limitations of time and energy are one of the reasons why I consider the "concession accepted" routine trolling. People only have so much time to put into something like this. It's often not practical to respond to everything you disagree with, especially points that seem extraneous or repetitive.
Quote:
This is not mean that I am trolling, or evading arguments. It means that I have finite time, like everybody else. I would appreciate it if people stopped sniping me and bashing me in third person behind my back.

Stubbornly wrong? What? My one on one debates do not involve stubbornness at all. Again, not having time to respond to every single rebuttal is not stubbornness.

Well, you didn't fold over instantly and concede everything. Essentially, one major part of the complaint I'm hearing is simply that you are refusing to give up the ICS, refusing to give up your position, and that's a complaint of stubbornness. Stubbornness is not and will not be a reason to ban people on this forum. Stubbornness lies in the eye of the beholder. I think if you attempt to press the argument that you aren't stubborn, you will inadvertently undermine that argument through your persistence. Which is amusing, in a way; but ultimately not very productive.

Currently, the fact that I've handed moderator powers to Mike DiCenso and Praeothmin quite recently has caused some de facto changes in policy as practiced. I do find the discussion over what should be site policy and what directions it appears to be changing in interesting, and I wouldn't mind seeing it continue. But I would much rather see you, Admiral Breetai, and 2046 continue your discussions over in the Trek/Wars forum.


Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:27 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.