SWST Trolling

For technical issues, problems, bugs, suggestions on improving these forums, discussion of the rules, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:28 pm

Oh, this is precious:
SWST wrote:This does not fit with population growth trends. In just a matter of centuries the American colonies had millions of civilians, and they had to deal with constant warfare, bad nutruition and plagues that routinely killed off 1/3 of the population. Over the projection of 25,000 years without these problems, my quadrillions model fits better.

But why am I bothering? I know how much you hate inductive reasoning, and will dismiss it on a whim.
So we can use modern Earth population growth trends to calculate SW's Galactic population, even though the majority of the planets we saw were sparcely populated, but we can't use an Earth "small town" example to calculate the "vaporize a small town" thread?
The 1.5 megaton figure does not work out. Here are the assumptions that darkstar makes:

1. The turbolasers are heavy turbolasers. He uses the logic that the turbolasers were visible from such distances that they must have been heavy. However:

a) Individual starfighters were visible as gnats, so therefore, it is entirely reasonable for light or medium turbolasers to still be visible.

b) The entire sky was full of turbolasers. Based on ds's power generation/HTL ratio, realistically HTL's would take minutes to recharge given the other systems that require power; the only way for this to work with the entire sky being saturated with turbolasers is either for there to be millions or even more ships or for the turbolasers to have been light or medium ones.

c) Both the novel and the film heavily imply that HTL's were down; shields were down in the films, and power was largely down in the novels. A single HTL would have destroyed either ship in the film, yet they weren't used; they were so desperate they had to use flak cannons as cap ship weapons!

2. That a small town in SW is the same as in real life.

a) Suspension of disbelief and the fourth wall.

b) Mos Eisley is a small town by Tatooine standards, not by developed SW planet level. Why would a poor, rural desert planet have high standards for settlement sizes?

3. That the town was figuratively vaporized.

a) He can reasonably claim figurative vaporization, but then he cannot even begin to claim that his calc's are in any way high end or even a median calc.

b) Where did he get his formula for figurative vaporization? How does he know when something is "destroyed" and when it's "figuratively vaporized"? Where did his formula come from?


A more reasonable calculation would be, for example, using the claim in LOTF: Revelations that many towns have populations exceeding 4 million. Even if a small town were an order of magnitude below this; 100,000 or so, it would correlate to about 115 km^2 in land area; or about 10.7 km in radius, requiring a 3 gigaton blast to vaporize.
.
Oh, the hypocrisy... :)

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

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by Admiral Breetai » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:42 pm

sonofccn wrote: Also you mentioned Mike ignoring your post, unless I'm mistaken Mike still is the champ on the number of bans upheld against SWST. I really don't see why you'd have a beef against either him or Preao, they as far as I can tell are doing their job to the limit of the "law".
what beef with who? I was just pointing out that mike missed two legit warnings that could have settled this matter

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

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by sonofccn » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:51 pm

Admiral Breetai wrote:
sonofccn wrote: Also you mentioned Mike ignoring your post, unless I'm mistaken Mike still is the champ on the number of bans upheld against SWST. I really don't see why you'd have a beef against either him or Preao, they as far as I can tell are doing their job to the limit of the "law".
what beef with who? I was just pointing out that mike missed two legit warnings that could have settled this matter
Perhaps but the last time this merry little dance went around certain vocal members acted as if it was the mods fault SWST had a ban overruled. I was simply trying to head it off before it gained traction.

As to the infractions I'd encourage you to document them up like Preao did, the more we present the better our case will become.

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

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by mojo » Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:40 pm

at first swst was like
Image
and then breetai was like
Image
and then i was like
Image
and then mike was like
Image
OOPS.. i mean, then mike was like
Image
and then i was like
Image
but then swst lolled
Image

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

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:25 am

sonofccn wrote:
Admiral Breetai wrote:
sonofccn wrote: Also you mentioned Mike ignoring your post, unless I'm mistaken Mike still is the champ on the number of bans upheld against SWST. I really don't see why you'd have a beef against either him or Preao, they as far as I can tell are doing their job to the limit of the "law".
what beef with who? I was just pointing out that mike missed two legit warnings that could have settled this matter
Perhaps but the last time this merry little dance went around certain vocal members acted as if it was the mods fault SWST had a ban overruled. I was simply trying to head it off before it gained traction.

As to the infractions I'd encourage you to document them up like Preao did, the more we present the better our case will become.
To Sonofcnn you listen, young Padewan. If you think something got missed. Let either of us know! Mr. Oragahn knows the value of this very well as it was his careful and systematic documentation of SWST's subtle trolling that allowed me to push through the first bans on him in the first place.

See, I don't respond to someone screaming "BAN HIM, HE's A TROLL!!" popular pressure very well. But I do respond to real evidence when properly presented that a crime has been committed.
-Mike

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

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by mojo » Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:58 am

sonofccn wrote:
Admiral Breetai wrote:
sonofccn wrote: Also you mentioned Mike ignoring your post, unless I'm mistaken Mike still is the champ on the number of bans upheld against SWST. I really don't see why you'd have a beef against either him or Preao, they as far as I can tell are doing their job to the limit of the "law".
what beef with who? I was just pointing out that mike missed two legit warnings that could have settled this matter
Perhaps but the last time this merry little dance went around certain vocal members acted as if it was the mods fault SWST had a ban overruled. I was simply trying to head it off before it gained traction.

As to the infractions I'd encourage you to document them up like Preao did, the more we present the better our case will become.
yeah. that was because it was the mods fault swst had a ban overruled. please don't rewrite history just because you don't like it. oragahn, breetai and i argued this into the ground last time. it cost too much to have you come in and pretend it didn't happen.

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

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by sonofccn » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:27 pm

mojo wrote:
sonofccn wrote:
Admiral Breetai wrote: what beef with who? I was just pointing out that mike missed two legit warnings that could have settled this matter
Perhaps but the last time this merry little dance went around certain vocal members acted as if it was the mods fault SWST had a ban overruled. I was simply trying to head it off before it gained traction.

As to the infractions I'd encourage you to document them up like Preao did, the more we present the better our case will become.
yeah. that was because it was the mods fault swst had a ban overruled. please don't rewrite history just because you don't like it. oragahn, breetai and i argued this into the ground last time. it cost too much to have you come in and pretend it didn't happen.
And as I said then our Mods had been doing everything in their power to ban SWST. Any ire, if warrented, would be directed at JMS who rightly or wrongly pardoned SWST.

Not that this finger pointing and blame slinging actually helps, indeed in many ways it actually helps SWST with us and the Mods getting into a drag out while he goes on his merry way.

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

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:35 pm

Document infractions: link + description with bit of context. Eventually, link to former posts in the technical forum's thread to show continuity in misbehaviour.
That should do.

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 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:14 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:I guess it's more like warning, then the sanction. In theory, one isn't punished by being given warnings, but because he has not taken notice of said warnings.
I think mods should be able to deliver more warnings, generals or specific to one single member (which may or may not follow him to other threads), but they shouldn't be automatically added to the member's official counter that would lead to his ban.
This is exactly the idea.

Thank you, Mr. Oragahn, for putting it much better than I've been putting it.
Mike DiCenso wrote:Maybe perhaps in the future, each individual violation should be given in seperate posts? Would that be less confusing?
-Mike
It's more that a warning might cover more than one totally different violation.

Mr. Oragahn has in mind what I'm thinking about. The idea is that warnings are a teaching tool. Warnings are letting someone know that they've violated the rules, telling them the ways in which they've done so, and giving them a chance to change their behavior.

Three formal or informal warnings will be offered prior to applying any temporary ban on posting for normal offenses. The administrator reserves the right to apply immediate sanction against any member engaging in what are deemed severe offenses.

So here, I think, is what led to confusion in the first place on another topic some time ago - three warnings is a ban, or three warnings lead to a ban. It isn't that a fourth warning is a ban, say - there isn't really a fourth warning. It's just a ban with an explanation, something entirely different from a warning.

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

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:40 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:I guess it's more like warning, then the sanction. In theory, one isn't punished by being given warnings, but because he has not taken notice of said warnings.
I think mods should be able to deliver more warnings, generals or specific to one single member (which may or may not follow him to other threads), but they shouldn't be automatically added to the member's official counter that would lead to his ban.
This is exactly the idea.

Thank you, Mr. Oragahn, for putting it much better than I've been putting it.
Mike DiCenso wrote:Maybe perhaps in the future, each individual violation should be given in seperate posts? Would that be less confusing?
-Mike
It's more that a warning might cover more than one totally different violation.

Mr. Oragahn has in mind what I'm thinking about. The idea is that warnings are a teaching tool. Warnings are letting someone know that they've violated the rules, telling them the ways in which they've done so, and giving them a chance to change their behavior.

Three formal or informal warnings will be offered prior to applying any temporary ban on posting for normal offenses. The administrator reserves the right to apply immediate sanction against any member engaging in what are deemed severe offenses.

So here, I think, is what led to confusion in the first place on another topic some time ago - three warnings is a ban, or three warnings lead to a ban. It isn't that a fourth warning is a ban, say - there isn't really a fourth warning. It's just a ban with an explanation, something entirely different from a warning.
oh, shit, son! did you just say that informal warnings can be used in a count toward a ban? that's scary, because i think in that case i just pulled a retroactive INFINITE BAN.

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

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:21 am

Yes, that's not really clear to me. lol
I mean JMS says he understands then his next paragraph is kinda big mess.
I think we need to drop that formal/informal warning story and go for a clear system, with clear terms.

A warning is a notice, following one or several rules violation(s): Behave and it ends there (but we won't forget). Continue to act wrongly and each pointed out violation is translated into one [something].

After X [somethings], you get a ban.

A post may contain several different rules violations. It doesn't require one warning per violation. There can be a general warning, easy, that summarizes all the wrong doings, as long as it's clearly pointed out (a,b,c, 1,2,3, etc.).
However, if each rule violation is repeated, then each repeated violation would turn into a [something].

Now that [something] could be... say, a Confirmed Violation Point, a CIP (although I'm not too hot on the idea of getting "points" for something intrinsically wrong you know).
After three, four or five CIPs (up to admin to decide thus far), bam! ban.

So the number of warnings doesn't really matter. What matters, then, is the number of rules violations one or several warnings pointed out. Each post-warning repeated violation would turn into such a point, added to the counter that finally leads to a ban.
When I mean repeated, is repeated as ignoring the warning. It doesn't mean that if one produces, say, ten insults in one post after being warned against that, it would result in ten points.

Here, warnings would also act as beacons, that help keeping track of a member's behaviour and keep The Eye on him.

There would also be some kind of warning lifespan. Like, warning to cool down because of abusive language, you couldn't really a two years old warning to immediately turn some insult into a CIP.
So JMS would have to define the "jurisdiction" or age of a warning. Perhaps a week. The date of the post used to warn someone would be the indicator there.

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

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by Mike DiCenso » Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:23 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:I think we need to drop that formal/informal warning story and go for a clear system, with clear terms.

A warning is a notice, following one or several rules violation(s): Behave and it ends there (but we won't forget). Continue to act wrongly and each pointed out violation is translated into one [something].
I've always seen in more or less this way. I try to be nice to people as much as I can because I know how heated these debates can get, even with good debaters involved. So giving a warming that doesn't count towards a ban disciplining has been my philosphy up to present. If the person shows no sign of changing their ways after a certain period of time, then it becomes formal.

The thing is that it doesn't always follow the same path since different people react and there are always different circumstances, like giving a "Hey cool it down, People" is sometimes all you need to do. It's when things escalate then you have to bring down offical warnings, and then the bans.

That's what I did with Breetai recently. Told him to cool it, then hit him for real after having tried to convince him to act more reasonably. In the future, I don't think I can keep doing that.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Here, warnings would also act as beacons, that help keeping track of a member's behaviour and keep The Eye on him.

There would also be some kind of warning lifespan. Like, warning to cool down because of abusive language, you couldn't really a two years old warning to immediately turn some insult into a CIP.

So JMS would have to define the "jurisdiction" or age of a warning. Perhaps a week. The date of the post used to warn someone would be the indicator there.
I agree with most of that, except for the overly sophisticated bit about different flavors of offical warning. That's too much, unless it's a really serious infraction, like an obvious death threat or some other really bad thing.
-Mike

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

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by sonofccn » Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:24 am

Sorry to be a bother but I would like to add this as another case of SWST ignoring or disregarding evidence to suit his own purposes.

Here Wedsday 14th of December 2011 SWST repeats as follows:
SWST wrote:The Essential Atlas and Dark Empire tell us that there are 100 quadrillion sapient beings in the Galactic Republic.
But here Sunday the 4th of December 2011 I provided to him G-level evidence overriding this:
AOTC wrote:The massive towers of the Republic Executive Building loomed above it all, seeming as if they would reach the very heavens. And that seemed fitting indeed, for inside, even at this early hour, the events and participants took on godlike stature to the trillions of common folk of the Republic
And:
ROTS wrote:"Look out there, Anakin. A trillion beings on this planet alone — in the galaxy as awhole, uncounted quadrillions — and of them all, I have chosen you, Anakin Skywalker, to be the heir to my power. To all that I am."
I understand one can not come running to a mod over every tiff with an opponet but it is vexing to debate with someone who resets with just about every post. Once more I thank you for your time and apologise for any inconvience this may cause.

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

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:44 am

I don't want to sound like I'm defending SWST, but I believe he responded with this in the same thread:
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Which is at odds with both my equally canon quote, the Essential Atlas and various other EU sources. If you assume only "trillions" of citizens in the galaxy; and, by your reasoning, this would be only 9 trillion at the most, and one million planets with life on them in the Republic, you would be left with one around one million people per planet.

This does not fit with population growth trends. In just a matter of centuries the American colonies had millions of civilians, and they had to deal with constant warfare, bad nutruition and plagues that routinely killed off 1/3 of the population. Over the projection of 25,000 years without these problems, my quadrillions model fits better.

But why am I bothering? I know how much you hate inductive reasoning, and will dismiss it on a whim.
If you mean he's attempting to override a G-canon source by claiming a lesser canon source is of equal validity, then that would be dishonesty.

Anyway, thanks for the effort, and I'll continue to look into this particular incident.
-Mike

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

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by Admiral Breetai » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:56 am

I'd do the whole documentation thing but Mike you and JMS ignore the fuck out of me

Post Reply