Split: SDN Rules, Culture, and Moderation Habits

[GStone]

IP has posted enough to prove he's 'died in the wool' of the overriding view of the debate. My guess is that it might have been fear.

And no, that isn't a typo.

Excuse me, I don't understand your last post. Please elaborate it?

He's posted enough over there that they know how he thinks. And what they know makes him 'SDN approved(TM)', so he'd be able to say basically the same thing you said and not get banned because, while he has been approved, you haven't been SDN approved(TM).

It really is nothing more than a handful of obsessive, uneducated crackpots. It's pretty sad, really. And for all their handwaving and accusations, none of them can explain why all of the scientists, engineers, and military veterans in this debate happen to be on my side. I guess relevant education and experience must be the "bias" they're referring to.

But you don't have lawyers who understand scientific expertises and can "debate and analyse scientific evidence" on your side.

And as someone that is a scientist, as well as militarily tactically trained (though I've never been in the military and I'm not talking about something I just read from a book), I've been both college and real world educated. The problem in Wong's view is that I am not SDN approved(TM). His mind puts me in the 'dumbass section'. But, it's not too bad. You'd be SDN approved(TM), even if you were in junior high school and partially retarded, as long as you said their side was right. You could still be this person and wank out Saxton's wankings.

It won't ever matter what your background is, as long as you say something along the lines of 'Star Wars would beat the Federation, like hitting a dead fly with a fly swatter- it's just that easy' or something like that.

I have never known the very few and far between posts that wank Saxton's level of wanking to ever get deridded for being 'out there' or the posters of such things to back up their claims.

Another problem is, that they think, an engineer have to be more qualified to analyze science fiction than another person. I think, that's wrong.
Every person can see science fiction and see, what is done.

What the 'official' educations do is let some people know how some things are in scifi in relation to real life. A lot of the times, that isn't even necessary and is sometimes a liability. Outside of dogmatic views, many subjects evolve the extent of their knowledge so quickly, especially in the sciences that teachers are force to cut short how extensive they make their lessons because there is more and more to learn and they have to make adjustments. Students get more and more general educations about subjects, forcing graduate schools that are to make them into experts on subjects that much more intensive.

As far as I know, there is no established theorie about turbo lasers or phasers.

In the canon, the most we have is the ep 3 novel saying a weird spelling of what would be necessary, if you had a plasma weapon. Phasers seem to be a direct heating weapon with a weird mechanism.

[coyote]

Y'know, I was reading along out of my own amusement and I just had to jump in. Wheee! Cannonball!

I most assuredely do not have to "toe any line" in order to post there, and I am considered fairly conservative over at SDN. I'm also religious and I post regularly, not just once in awhile keeping a low profile in the shadows. In fact, I am in the Senate and vote almost every single time a poll comes up.

You know why so many people get banned? Bear in mind that we regularly have "purges"-- people who sign up, post maybe once, or not at all, then are purged after a year or more of inactivity. That will artificially inflate numbers. But of active bans, I guarantee that every sungle person who was up for a ban poll deserved it in some way. Warning are given, the poill goes up publicly in the Senate, and the person in question can watch and see what, exactly, it was that raised ire as it is dissected and argued.

This last-ditch observation of the Senate picking through their behavior is frequently enough to either scare the miscreant away, or cause a quick realization and backtracking.

The Senate is a very useful tool for determining board policy, and it is not a simple rubber-stamp body, and I also do see it used in too many other places. See, in SDN, I'd ask for evidence to back up this:

GStone wrote:

And as someone that is a scientist, as well as militarily tactically trained (though I've never been in the military and I'm not talking about something I just read from a book), I've been both college and real world educated.

And cryptic "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" as an explanation would not fly. And since evidence would not be forthcoming, there would eventually be a Senate poll to see if this person is worth wasting space on. Not because of being a Wongbot, but rather, because at SDN there is a lower crap-tolerance watermark.

And believe it or not, I'm actually one of the nice, polite, generally forgiving people on the board. I'm there because I already felt this way and found a acceptably comfy place, not because I showed up as unformed dough and let Mike Wong form my brain into a mirror image of his own. I'm about as far from DW as you can get in many things. Saying that it's a zombie attack is just excuse-seeking.

[Who is like God arbour]

In fact, I am in the Senate and vote almost every single time a poll comes up.

You know why so many people get banned? Bear in mind that we regularly have "purges"-- people who sign up, post maybe once, or not at all, then are purged after a year or more of inactivity. That will artificially inflate numbers. But of active bans, I guarantee that every sungle person who was up for a ban poll deserved it in some way. Warning are given, the poill goes up publicly in the Senate, and the person in question can watch and see what, exactly, it was that raised ire as it is dissected and argued.

This last-ditch observation of the Senate picking through their behavior is frequently enough to either scare the miscreant away, or cause a quick realization and backtracking.

The Senate is a very useful tool for determining board policy, and it is not a simple rubber-stamp body, and I also do see it used in too many other places. See, in SDN, I'd ask for evidence to back up this:

In your senate, there is one, who abstractly charges someone with something by numerating the violated board rules.

Esteemed Senators!
The question before this body is as follows: Should the user known as AVOGARDO be banned from the board?
He is accused of the following rules violations:

• - PR1, legible English: Almost every single post
  - PR3, requirement of honesty: Outright lies about what he has claimed, almost every single post
  - DR4: Ignores any and all points made against him, regardless of rudeness or lack thereof
  - DR5, broken record ban: Repeats the same bullshit page after page after page after failing to answer points
  - DR6, evidence: Has not provided a single shred of evidence in 7 pages of debate, uses broken record instead
  - DR7, dismissing an argument due to profanity: standard practice for this troll
  - AR1, forum rules: Fuckwit quotes German consumer law, and an exception to burden of proof at that, to get off the hook for DR6
  - AR3, complaining about enforcement of rules: Whines that everyone is being unfair because his bullshit is not accepted
  - IR1, status as houseguest: Numerous instances of whining, see previous

I think that about covers it.
As evidence, the trainwreck in question.
So, what say you? Ban or no ban?

And then there are the senators, who vote.

For the record, get the fuck rid of this piece of subvermin scum already!

The melting snowflake bit made me chuckle. But ban.

Ban him. He can't even spell Avogadro right.

ditto, no sympathies here. (and unlike shep I do feel I can be objective about this one)

Exterminate.

Exterminate.

With extreme prejudice.

Open and shut bannination here.

Just dump it out with the rest of the garbage.

amusing to watch Mad kick his ass, but get rid of him.

amusing to watch Mad kick his ass, but get rid of him.

Indeed. I don't think I've ever seen him flame someone before.

Rare that I get to vote thumbs-down on two idiots on the same day. Off with Avogardo's head as well.

More than 3 rules broken in a single thread? Get rid of him.

Backing up your claim by giving someone an international phone number and telling them to call on their own dime is a new low even for the HoS. Ban.

Exterminate.

Indeed.

To the compost heap with 'im.

suggestion for the picture for this guy's ban photo - based mostly off the EXTERMINATE! - option.

No redeeming qualities. Ban.

Permban.

So any admin want to give the Senate an early Christmas gift, and ban this moron?

I don' think we are quite at quorum yet as we are lacking votes from several quarters. IIRC the 60% voting quorum for bans means we need 26 votes total.

Just dump it out with the rest of the garbage.

Eh, the EPA's been on our ass lately about dumping so many jackasses. I propose we do what Superman did in Superman IV, toss him into the sun! Ban the fucker.

Merry Christmas to us, ban the tweep.

I'm back from my honeymoon, and he's not gone yet? Ban.

For the record, get the fuck rid of this piece of subvermin scum already!

Um... Edi... I'm not quite sure... but I THINK I'm getting an "I don't like this scumpuppy" vibe from you....

For the record, get the fuck rid of this piece of subvermin scum already!

Um... Edi... I'm not quite sure... but I THINK I'm getting an "I don't like this scumpuppy" vibe from you....

Ya think? *grin*
Thank you for the Christmas present, milady, for we now have the 26 votes needed for the quorum and the tally for banning stands at 10 for yes, 16 for hell yes and 0 against. So, which admin wants to do the honors?

Merry Christmas to me.

Don't you think, that there is missing something?

• Maybe a concrete charge sentence?
  (What exactly should I have done. Where, when, how?)
  
  Maybe a line of argument, which shows, that I was wrong and have violated the board rules?
  
  Maybe an explanation, why the violation was bad to such an extent, that it was necessary to ban me?
  
  Maybe the possibilitiy of a defence?
  
  Maybe the necessary to give a resaon for a vote?
  (There is not a single reason given. The most could be said unchanged in every other ballot too.)

I think, that this is an ideal example for arbitrariness.

If that is all, what is needed, to be a Senator, it isn't impressive.

And if this is all, what is needed to ban someone, it is piteous.

[coyote]

The following questions are posed:

Maybe a concrete charge sentence?
(What exactly should I have done. Where, when, how?)

Maybe a line of argument, which shows, that I was wrong and have violated the board rules?

Maybe an explanation, why the violation was bad to such an extent, that it was necessary to ban me?

Maybe the possibilitiy of a defence?

Maybe the necessary to give a resaon for a vote?
(There is not a single reason given. The most could be said unchanged in every other ballot too.)

And the answers can be found here:

• - PR1, legible English: Almost every single post
  - PR3, requirement of honesty: Outright lies about what he has claimed, almost every single post
  - DR4: Ignores any and all points made against him, regardless of rudeness or lack thereof
  - DR5, broken record ban: Repeats the same reasonable page after page after page after failing to answer points
  - DR6, evidence: Has not provided a single shred of evidence in 7 pages of debate, uses broken record instead
  - DR7, dismissing an argument due to profanity: standard practice for this troll
  - AR1, forum rules: Fuckwit quotes German consumer law, and an exception to burden of proof at that, to get off the hook for DR6
  - AR3, complaining about enforcement of rules: Whines that everyone is being unfair because his reasonable is not accepted
  - IR1, status as houseguest: Numerous instances of whining, see previous

Some of these may seem petty, in fact I can agree to the arbitrariness of some of them. LIke "no whining". It's annoying, but whatever. The ones to look at are DR 5,6, and 7. If you make a claim, you should provide evidence to back uo that claim. Why is that too onerous a thing to ask?

DR6, if you do not provide evidence but instead just re-state the claim over and over again as if that was evidence, again, what is wrong with demanding some accountability for that?

And DR7, dismissing an argument because of profanity-- I don't like all the name-calling and such myself, but that doesn't negate the fact that an argument is given. Dismissing information (an argument, counter-claim, etc) because you don't like the package it came in is an example of that very arbitrariness being deplored.

And if this is all, what is needed to ban someone, it is piteous.

You're hurt because it happened to you. You're hardly an unbiased point of view in this, and neither am I. Typically, by the time someone reaches the Senate, their behavior is established as dishonest and evasive. Why waste time with someone who cannot or will not deal with things in a forthright manner? I guarantee that you didn't show up, post a couple "Hi, everybody!" posts and then get banned. Something happened in an argument where someone probably asked you for evidence repeatedly, etc, and felt that you didn't produce the goods asked.

Somnething like that goes to the Senate, with links or quotes of the offense in question, the Senate looks at it and frequently the charges against the accused are on target. Your chance at defense came in the various threads being argued-- asked to provide evidence, probably many times, and then a direct listing of complaints posted for all to see in the Senate to vote on. In other words, it's a final clue.

It's not a perfect system, and it was never advertised that way. It is still evolving.

[Who is like God arbour]

The ones to look at are DR 5,6, and 7. If you make a claim, you should provide evidence to back uo that claim. Why is that too onerous a thing to ask?

DR6, if you do not provide evidence but instead just re-state the claim over and over again as if that was evidence, again, what is wrong with demanding some accountability for that?

Sometimes, it is necessary to reverse the burden of proof. Sometimes, it is not possible to provide evidence. And sometimes, it is questionable, what qualifies as proof.

I have given quotations from the episodes. These could maybe interpreted differently. But more is not possible. I can't ask Cpt. Picard, why he has decided to do something. I can't give you the sensor array from the Enterprise.

You can't demand, what is impossible. That's a difference between a disussion of science fiction and science.

And DR7, dismissing an argument because of profanity-- I don't like all the name-calling and such myself, but that doesn't negate the fact that an argument is given. Dismissing information (an argument, counter-claim, etc) because you don't like the package it came in is an example of that very arbitrariness being deplored.

That's why there should be a concrete charge sentence. I don't know, when I should have dismissed an argument because of profanity.
I have tried to answere each post. But somewhere along the way, it got to stupid.

You're hurt because it happened to you. You're hardly an unbiased point of view in this, and neither am I.

To be honest: NO and YES.
I'm not hurt. As I have said, I have watched SDN already a half year. And it was something like a test. I haven't expected another result. And for this, you are right, I was biased.

[Cpl Kendall]

All right we'll just leave it at that then.

[Who is like God arbour]

Apparently knowing how to operate in a squad is something that doesn't change much between learning it from a book and actually being out there in the field with eleven other guys with loaded weapons and itchy trigger fingers. Good to know that all our governments are wasting so much time and money on advanced infantry training and exercises, isn't it?

That is exactly why I don't like the folk of SDN.

He deliberately ignored the part:

What traning can give you is more of a "this is how it feels like in practice" experience, but the theory behind it is still the same. I admit that it's pretty darn unsettling the first time you put your theoretical skills into practice with live rounds in your rifle, especially when you know that the guy standing next to you is just as new at this as you are. For me at least, the biggest difference between theory and practice was managing to keep your feelings in check and still be able to remember what exactly your supposed to be doing. But in the context of vs. debating, what could be more important then the theory behind it? All we do is evaluate how other people perform, it's not like we ourselves have to be there and experience it for ourselves.

It is totally taken out of context. You can't argue with such dishonest person.

It's the same with

If a terrestrial reactor shut down, nobody have to die. If a star ship loses its main power or its fuel, it could mean the death of the whole crew.

Yes, therefore it's clearly a lot better to have it explode, or melt down before it stops working! Also it must be impossible to design a sensible starship, ie one that does not cause the death of the whole crew during an emergency reactor shut-down. For fuck's sake, you shouldn't even have to be an engineer to understand something like that...

He clearly ignors the part about the "dead man's switch" principles like in a terrestrial reactor". Nobody has said, that it would be better, if the reactor of a star ship explodes. But it would be very bad too, if such a reactor shut down in an emergency like a battle or the anti matter tanks are ejected.


My problem is, that I don't understand the motivation behind such behaviour. That's not productive. Either they are stupid and haven't understood, what was said, or they are lying deliberately. But why, if they know, what was said? Is it some sort of self-deception? Do they think, that, if they repeat a lie again and again, it would become truth?

[Cpl Kendall]

Now, on this board, since you had said you were military, you might get a question about what you did, when you served. At SDN, to make such a statement would most likely get call for your name, rank, serial number, where you were station, when, what you did for the deliberate purpose of wanting to see if you were telling the truth, though I don't 9 out of 10 attempts never get past the 'anyone know how to find if it's true...no?...oh, well' stage and unless you can prove it, you will always be thought to be lying if you disagree with the higher ups.

Just to clear up the bold, I was never asked for my SN, Rank and unit until I applied to join The Mess, the private usergroup for veterans and military members on the board. Most claims of military service are taken at face value unless it's obvious that the person in question is full of it or otherwise does something to send up red flags. IE: we had a user who claimed to be a F-22 pilot but his location and other details didn't match up with his claims. Turns out he was just some kid with a big mouth. Just another popular misconception that people have with SDN.

[GStone]

So, they'd never ask about such a thing?

Bullpocky!!!

As if. They did it with me, they did it with Bernd. We all know they did it with Darkstar. SDN has done it with many Then, you've got Wong throwing his claimed degree around, Wong throwing Saxton's degree all over the place.

[Cpl Kendall]

So, they'd never ask about such a thing?

Bullpocky!!!

As if. They did it with me, they did it with Bernd. We all know they did it with Darkstar. SDN has done it with many Then, you've got Wong throwing his claimed degree around, Wong throwing Saxton's degree all over the place.

They never asked me, Major Maxillory, D Turtle, or Batman. There's four examples of people with military service that haven't been asked for rank, service number or unit in everyday conversation. In fact as I have pointed out people typically don't get asked unless they are joining The Mess or they come across as a poser.

[GStone]

Or when they don't proclaim their view is the SDN way. Saying you have such and such degree is something they pounce on. As coyote said, "And since evidence would not be forthcoming, there would eventually be a Senate poll to see if this person is worth wasting space on.' On SDN, I wouldn't be able to keep the same real life commitment I can here without the poll going up. And, since I don't subscribe to the higher up's viewpoint, I would continue to post, as I do here. I do that enough, I'll get banned because I'm wasting space.

And SDN has, in coyote's words, "a lower crap-tolerance watermark.' The irony is pitiful.

[Cpl Kendall]

Or when they don't proclaim their view is the SDN way. Saying you have such and such degree is something they pounce on. As coyote said, "And since evidence would not be forthcoming, there would eventually be a Senate poll to see if this person is worth wasting space on.' On SDN, I wouldn't be able to keep the same real life commitment I can here without the poll going up. And, since I don't subscribe to the higher up's viewpoint, I would continue to post, as I do here. I do that enough, I'll get banned because I'm wasting space.

And SDN has, in coyote's words, "a lower crap-tolerance watermark.' The irony is pitiful.

I'm not getting into this, if all you want to do is complain about SDN then you can do it by yourself. This is the same stuff that's been repeated a hundred times before on this board.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I'd like to suggest that we try to keep discussion on this thread mostly on one topic and take tangential discussions to new threads.

On the topic of individuals being challenged at SDN, I would like to point to this survey and note for the record that it would appear that anyone claiming to be educated and yet disagreeing with the majority at SDN is subject to being challenged on the basis of the frequent claim that no expert would ever disagree with the majority at SDN.

On the topic of people providing proof as to who they are, etc., I would like to reassure anyone worried about the matter that SFJ values your privacy. It is entirely up to you what you choose to give out, and as with anywhere on the internet, we generally recommend that you err on the side of discretion.

On the topic of military training and expertise on tactics, I'll go ahead and start a new topic after seeing if there's anything I can split from this thread that's purely about that.

[Who is like God arbour]

On the topic of military training and expertise on tactics, I'll go ahead and start a new topic after seeing if there's anything I can split from this thread that's purely about that.

Maybe another topic would be useful too:

"How would you build a star ship?"

or something similar.

[coyote]

Sometimes, it is necessary to reverse the burden of proof. Sometimes, it is not possible to provide evidence. And sometimes, it is questionable, what qualifies as proof.

There's not much anyone can do with this-- when is proof not proof, and "reversing the burden of proof"? You'd need to clarify that-- If you make a clai, and I ask for proof, then you... what? Ask me to prove that I need your evidence in order to make your point valid?

You can't demand, what is impossible. That's a difference between a disussion of science fiction and science.

If you state a claim, but have no evidence to back it up, then it is an opinion or a belief-- it may eventually turn out to be a correct or true opinion, but until evidence shows up it remains in the category of unproven opinion.