View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:41 am



Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
SWST Trolling 
Author Message
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6833
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
1. I'm not laying down the foundations of a complicated warning system. My point is that there's just one warning, and then the sanction. Which is generally known as informal warning then formal warning, which in my opinion is messy.

2. I'm not sure all members should be allowing to post in those threads here. I don't think it's a good thing that anyone can come make a case along the thread where trouble is occurring: it literally doubles the argumentation. It would be much better if only mods and admins could start such threads. Members would continue to use the report function and send PMs to defend themselves. Would those defenses be accepted, they'd be posted by mods or admins in the thread dedicated to the member. Eventually, if it were possible, we could go around the PM-defense thing and only allow a special entrance to the thread for the member it's about.

3. I recently sent a report, showing that SWST was ignoring points made about Dankayo and other elements of BDZ. I posted a full post of links for that as well. Now I don't know if you want to take a position in a debate, but there's a moment the staff will have to accept the responsibility that entails gauging what makes honest debating or not, and if it includes repeatedly ignoring points and arguments on a full-auto mode.


Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:27 am
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Posts: 1629
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA
Reply with quote
Mike DiCenso wrote:
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

Well I didn't mean to imply he ignored my post, he did respond and I do not wish to claim he didn't, sir but to me I do think he's attempting to override a G-canon source in favor of C-canon he finds more favorable to the debate. I of course will respect your decision and thank you for your time sir.


Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:57 pm
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6833
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
It is quite fantastic how his memory suddenly shuts down when his claim, based on lower canon, is defeated by evidence from higher canon.
He's a troll, and dumb. Anyone with a nut of intelligence and honesty would have dropped the axe in light of facts from the movies for example.
The most ridiculous idea here being that SWST is a honest debater who needs to be given time, plenty of tolerance and multiples tries, in order to learn.

Bollocks.


Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:46 pm
Profile
Security Officer

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5728
Reply with quote
Sonofcnn wrote:
Well I didn't mean to imply he ignored my post, he did respond and I do not wish to claim he didn't, sir but to me I do think he's attempting to override a G-canon source in favor of C-canon he finds more favorable to the debate. I of course will respect your decision and thank you for your time sir.


Noted. But right now I'm trying to build as airtight a case as I can. See, the way I look at it, past efforts at making things stick against SWST don't work because JMS says that there's not enough evidence to show a pattern, even IMHO, Praeo did a great job of that in his scoring four instances of such, but which was overturned by JMS, and that sadly lead to Praeo leaving as a mod.

The only reason my previous warnings and bans on SWST have stuck is because I am patient and methodical about it, and smart people took the time to properly document the incidents.

My way may seem frustrating to some, but it works.
-Mike


Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:19 pm
Profile
Security Officer

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5728
Reply with quote
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
3. I recently sent a report, showing that SWST was ignoring points made about Dankayo and other elements of BDZ. I posted a full post of links for that as well. Now I don't know if you want to take a position in a debate, but there's a moment the staff will have to accept the responsibility that entails gauging what makes honest debating or not, and if it includes repeatedly ignoring points and arguments on a full-auto mode.


I've seen behavior to that extent. Did you keep a copy of what those specific incidents are? If you tie that in with Sonofcnn's reporting of SWST's dishonesty in claiming a C-canon source overrides a G-canon source, then that might be enough right there.
-Mike


Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:25 pm
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 881
Reply with quote
Whichever mod made this thread, I would appreciate it if you were to adjust the thread title to "allegations of SWST trolling" rather than the loaded title.

To all those who accuse me of trolling, please read this. Thank you.





Did you know that Breetai openly refused to accept the film-novels as evidence, even after I told him that Lucas considers it right below the films in hierarchy? That he actually stated that he doesn't care about what Lucasfilms states and only about "what is on screen"?

To give you a show of the amazing rationality and maturity of our admiral:

Quote:
SWST you just openly insult and flame the board while dishonestly ignoring the fact that we have all destroyed your arguments before, that we don't say Trek wins because we like it we say it wins because you have consistently failed to prove other wise.

so you return commit a bannable offense and lie smoar

okay cool: fuck Chee and his canon policy he's not Lucas and Lucas own statements are superior evidence: Picard and DS have proven multiple times he considers the EU separate.But if you want your silly little bait thread to be indulged, and it is a bait thread you are blatantly and utterly guilty of trolling and baiting here.

with six months? 25,000 Dominion ships swarm alliance turf virus bomb and bombard the fuck out of everything and kamikaze shipyards and other such things. While the alliance is dealing with it's own idiocy incompetence and catastrophic loss of life and epidemics The Dominion sends another fleet.

or you know if you want me to answer in your language: OMG GAIZ LIAAK TOTALLY GT CANON UR AMTOSPHERES WRAPPP STURFING!! FTW ST HAXOR PWN JOO NUUB


Quote:
know what's really awesome? SWST is again guilty of lying that's three times in this thread, three warnings Mike could have issued to ban him yet he has not for some reason.

any ways SWSt is being cowardly again refusing to answer posts brought towards him. but onto the lying: Wolf 359 you know is not indicative of the Federations war time capability you know this, you know this because ds9 shows battles where dozens to hundreds of ships are lost per battle yet they keep on tugging. you claiming they can't hurl 1,200 ships at the GFFA easily is dishonesty on your part.

Guilty!!! GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY..


Compared to:

Quote:
Breetai, I recall earlier, in one of the threads in which you were the OP, in which you complained to me about contesting one of your thread parameters banning the EU on the grounds that it was your thread, and therefore your rules. Please do not apply a double standard. I also ask you to PM me over any complaints over the OP, not openly flame me over it.

Now, care to actually debate the topic?


Quote:
Breetai:

If you really want me to respond to you, you have to show evidence that you're going to welcome a logical, civil debate. In order for that to happen:

1. Stop including an insult directed at me, a call for me to be banned, accusations of me "trolling" or "lying" in every single paragraph. It's not productive and does not make you look tough. At least Mike Wong is amazing at rhetorical speech and sounds cool when he does it, especially since he intertwines it with actually arguments and substance. Even darkstar is decent at this. You are not.

2. I'm no grammar nazi, but your prose should at least be legible.

3. Provide evidence to support your claims. Like, for example, your claim that 100 Federation vessels could blow the Death Star into smithereens. You pull this out of nowhere and provide not the slightest evidence to support it. Indeed, even if the Death Star were completely unshielded and made out of glass (while somehow not collapsing), 100 starships would be unlikely to destroy it. You don't understand how massive the battle station is.

4. When I rebute your comment or demand for additional evidence, do not reply with anything similar to:

"I already did"
"ROFLAMO troll."
"Why should I?"
"Find it yourself."
"It's obvious."
"Bullshit."
"That's just fan-wank."
(all of these are common in that they are either logical fallacies or lack any supporting evidence to back them up)

Which is what you always do. I'm not talking about you being someone that dodges around the point or makes stupid rebuttals. You are the only person in this board that literally refuses to give evidence when asked to straight up. And don't counter by claiming that I "Ignore stuff", I'm not talking about missing a few posts or not responding to everything. You literally respond to my post, but then reply to essentially every point I make, request I make or piece of evidence I make with something similar to one of the phrases above. You have literally refused to give evidence. You don't even pretend to have any; you'd reply by saying something akin to "LOL" or "you're trolling "(apparently, asking for evidence is 'trolling').

Please, instead of responding to this with a self-righteous defense of your dignity and an attack on my honesty and accusations of "trolling", actually make a decently formatted list of all of the points related to this thread you want me to address. You will prove far more and make me look bad more easily than ironically refusing to do so. All of my requests are what is basic etiquette for any reasonable debate, and should not arouse controversies.









I ask:
Quote:
ME
[And you can prove this, right? Back it up with evidence?


Direct response
Quote:
you don´t know how toi read?

refuses to provide evidence


Quote:
ME
[My point is that even if Gandalf is more powerful than a Jedi, said Jedi has a lightsaber and speed blitzing capability.


Quote:
beside a one off sm vs fl feat from obiwan ansd qui gon in phantom no jedi has shown speed blitz capacity so no

WTF?


Quote:
ME And you can explain how, right? Elaborate, maybe?


Quote:
Dodges the question
it certainly helps to catch you making a completely invalid analogy


Quote:
ME
"you know when" is not evidence.


Quote:
Very transparent stalling tactic
I'm trying to save you humiliation here


Quote:
ME I did, and I did not find your evidence. Unless if you can provide said evidence, your claim is unsupported by facts.


Quote:
More refusals
then you have very selective reading comprehension


Quote:
ME
Saruman's spell is not combat applicable. The storm he created, while impressive, took time and was not focused enough to seriously harm a combatant in a small scale engagement like this one.


Quote:
Changes his stance by dismissing the importance of a feat that he himself brought up
when he can voice fuck the environment into reigning down lighting on the council temple when him and Galadriel and likely Gandalf as well can just..bust up the council tower?



Quote:
ME Evidence.

Quote:
tells me that giving evidence to your debating opponent "isn't how it works".
you've been told now that this isn't how it works


Quote:
ME Actually, Anakin Skywalker survived a pretty long fall at terminal velocity and landed on a moving airspeeder, plus he timed it exactly so that he would land on the right airspeeder at the right time.

Quote:
No, this isn't cut off. He actually just stated this and left it at that.
that wasn't the same thing


Quote:
ME And since the burden of proof is on you, your claim still remains unsupported.

Quote:
I provided proof you ignored it..so now its not on me lol


Quote:
ME When else would they have a need to use it?

Quote:
No, this is not cut off. He made no elaboration beyond this.
your kidding right?


Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:10 pm
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6833
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
3. I recently sent a report, showing that SWST was ignoring points made about Dankayo and other elements of BDZ. I posted a full post of links for that as well. Now I don't know if you want to take a position in a debate, but there's a moment the staff will have to accept the responsibility that entails gauging what makes honest debating or not, and if it includes repeatedly ignoring points and arguments on a full-auto mode.


I've seen behavior to that extent. Did you keep a copy of what those specific incidents are?


No, but the post I reported is followed by three posts from me, one containing several links and therefore plenty of examples at different times showing how SWST kept repeating the same claims and ignoring questions and evidence repeatedly, at various points in time.

Quote:
If you tie that in with Sonofcnn's reporting of SWST's dishonesty in claiming a C-canon source overrides a G-canon source, then that might be enough right there.
-Mike


SWST doesn't state it openly, but will keep bringing back the ICS while he perfectly knows how it ranks on the canon scale and how I and others found plenty of evidence against it in higher canon.
So what he doesn't openly state, he clearly reveals through his behaviour.
Then, again, it becomes a question of knowing if you are willing to read beyond the indirect argumentation fallacies or waiting for him to openly state that he's, in fact, giving us all a nice middle finger.


Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:19 am
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 1761
Reply with quote
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:
a bunch of butthurt


so aside from all this which by the way is hilarious you'd go that far back nevermind that I did back up my claims buuuuttttt

what about those trillions of ships? what about your utter lies about Endor ranges? what about your outright fabrications about galactic population?


Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:24 pm
Profile
Security Officer

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5728
Reply with quote
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
SWST doesn't state it openly, but will keep bringing back the ICS while he perfectly knows how it ranks on the canon scale and how I and others found plenty of evidence against it in higher canon.
So what he doesn't openly state, he clearly reveals through his behaviour.
Then, again, it becomes a question of knowing if you are willing to read beyond the indirect argumentation fallacies or waiting for him to openly state that he's, in fact, giving us all a nice middle finger


I'm well aware of that, plus I'm now adding the denial of evidence that there are no 40 meter asteroids being vaped in the Falcon-Avenger chase scenes.
-Mike


Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:24 pm
Profile
Security Officer

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5728
Reply with quote
Admiral Breetai wrote:
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:
a bunch of butthurt


so aside from all this which by the way is hilarious you'd go that far back nevermind that I did back up my claims buuuuttttt

what about those trillions of ships? what about your utter lies about Endor ranges? what about your outright fabrications about galactic population?


Do me a favor Breetai, and post the links to those instances, if you can, as many as you can because the more I can show JMS, the less likely it is that any warnings and subsequent bans will get overturned.
-Mike


Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:26 pm
Profile
Security Officer

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5728
Reply with quote
On SWST not addressing evidence concerning the lack of evidence of asteroids in the Falcon-Avenger chase scenes:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1748&p=38026#p38026

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1748&p=38058#p38058

Attempting to trump higher canon with lower canon concerning planetary bombardment:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1771&p=38013#p38013

Not to mention trying to use the CCG card image that was debunked as proof of gigatons of firepower long ago, and my links back to the essays by Jedi Master Spock, Nowhereman10, and I, among several others:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1771&p=37949#p37949

This is a short list in a long list of similar behavior that dates back to SWST's first appearance here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1690&p=26941#p26941

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1684&p=26863#p26863

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1919

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1919&start=30

I see a continuing pattern of behavior.
-Mike


Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:51 pm
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6833
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
Right. This is final.
I don't care if I don't have the right to ask that, if it's unfair or else.
I'm leaving you guys one choice.
Either you permaban SWST, or I leave.
Simple.
No more patience for a board and staff who can't take the right decision.

I'm leaving you two days to decide.

You may also permaban me right there, it will be quicker if you find my request unacceptable.


Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:25 am
Profile
Security Officer

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5728
Reply with quote
I wish you wouldn't do that. I had already PMed JMS about that now that (I think) enough evidence is gathered showing a clear cut pattern of abuse all the way back to SWST's earliest days and he shows no sign of repentance over it.
-Mike


Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:49 am
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6833
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
And that translates into what? Another "lesson" temporary ban?
I wonder who are those who really need to learn something here.
The naivety is touching, but it gets rather tiring after a while.


Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:20 pm
Profile
Security Officer

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5728
Reply with quote
Take your victories where you can get them, Oragahn. A one month ban is what SWST is getting, if this holds. After that, it goes to two months, then four months, etc. There is only an upside to this. Either he learns, or he gets bans that go into the multi-month long ranges.
-Mike


Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:55 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.