Split: SDN Rules, Culture, and Moderation Habits

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

I think the problem with the ban system at SDN is that no proof is required in order to ban someone. The senator who feels the person has broken a rule (or rules) simply lists them, without providing any evidence to support their claim.

As for burden of proof, it seems to me that on SDN the burden of proof falls on anyone who disagrees with the majority. If most people agree with you, you don’t have to provide any evidence; however, if most people disagree with you, it is demanded of you to prove your position. If the majority feels you have failed to prove your position, then they, without providing any evidence in favor of their side claim victory. If you protest and point out why the evidence does support your claim then you will be found guilty of the following offenses: “the wall of ignorance,” “broken record,” not being honest, ignoring all points against you, and not providing evidence.

[GStone]

I concur with the idea of these posts in this thread shifted to a new thread on starship building. It could be very fun.

Maybe it's to late for me, but I don't understand this part of your post.

I just meant that the other power generation type the Feds use after m/am is fusion, as far as I know. It'd suck if someone sneezed during a battle, the dead man switch flips, warp power is lost and the back ups come online...based on fusion power generation. Romulans and others use m/am and microsingularities to power their engine cores. Fusion won't cut it, if you're fighting them.

Then the problem of SDN is, that the "bad" people are to loud.

Loud in the sense of often repetitive.

[coyote]

I think the problem with the ban system at SDN is that no proof is required in order to ban someone. The senator who feels the person has broken a rule (or rules) simply lists them, without providing any evidence to support their claim.

Actually, no, when stating that a person should face a ban poll, they need to link to the offense in specific and state why they feel that certain comments were violations. The Senate votes as much to see if the complainer is making a valid accusation as the object of the complaint is worthy of punishment.

...If you protest and point out why the evidence does support your claim then you will be found guilty of the following offenses: “the wall of ignorance,” “broken record,” not being honest, ignoring all points against you, and not providing evidence.

No, unfortunately people think thay have "evidence" but it isn't actually good evidence that is supported by any proof. They believe something is true, or they have an opinion, or some other claim and they keep repeating it, unable to comprehend that their "evidence" doesn't stack up.

Repeating nonsense as if it was proof is "dishonest" and "broken record" style debating. These are not rules made up out of nothing at SDN, many of these are rules of logic. There are legal and defined terms that are used in a debate that require precise terms-- that is doen to prevent handwave logic, circular reasoning, and other means to derail logical process into the realm of opinion, rumor, hearsay, and so on.

They can be hard rules to learn if you're used to "arguments" and "debates" that are not, truly debate as would be recognised in a academic setting. Most people think that a "debate" is a couple people loudly barking back and forth their own mixture of opinions, conjectures, put-downs, evidence, and such until someone gets frustrated and gives up. That's not a debate, that's a verbal stare-down. In order to see who wins a real debate, you have to be able to shore up your claims with evidence, and it all has to conform to certain rules like in a court of law.

[Nonamer]

Looks we have SDN defender #2 here (#3 if you include Cock_knocker I guess). Let's just say most forums have temp bans and often appeal processes as well. SDN is one of the few regularly perma-banning sites with no chance of appeal. Plus the ban by majority rule is usually refered as "tyranny of the majority." There's a reason why the founding fathers of the US explicitly tried to limit this form of democracy in favor of a court system and a bill of rights.

[Who is like God arbour]

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.

Correct. But as you can see, I have openly said, that I have only a opinion, a conclusion, based on the quotations, I have given:

Such a method would not be trustworthy. Nobody compos mentis would rely on such a method.
Therefore I have to conclude that the used method is dependable. And to determine the mass of a object via its own gravitation seems to me very dependable.

I don't think, the Enterprise crew was ready to wait up to five years.
Therefore it must be concluded that they have the technical abilitiy to acclereate gravitons far above lightspeed.
And they must have the ability to detect gravitons, which aren't acclereated above lightspeed, superluminal, because they hoped to detect the response from the Crystalline Entity while it was up to five lightyears away.

I think, it shows, that they are able to produce graviton pulses and can detect these gravitons.
In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity.
Therefore I conclude, they are able to detect gravitation.

But a proof was demanded, which was impossible to give.

How could I prove, that energy or elementar particles are easier to transport through supspace than huge molucules?

That it hasn't done before with metagenic material doesn't mean, that sensors do not use theta-band carrier waves. And it doesn't mean that ist would be impossible as a basic principle.
There are a big difference between metagenic material and sensor emissions. That one is a huge molucule and the other is energy or consists of elementar particles.
I think, it is to assume, that fot this reason the latter is easier to transort through supspace than the first.

Prove it. For all you know, it could be harder to transport such particles through subspace than it is to transport molecules. Assumptions are not evidence.

A fine example of a productive debate.

And a good reason to say, I wouldn't provide demanded evidence and therefore have to be banned.

[Nonamer]

No, unfortunately people think thay have "evidence" but it isn't actually good evidence that is supported by any proof.

This just makes me laugh. I remember my debates with the SDNers at SB.com. Any evidence you ever provide is always rejected, period. Why? Because apparently it isn't "proof." Exactly how you can ever "prove" something in science is beyond me.

It's an unfalsifiable assertion to believe in something unless it is "proved" wrong, outside of mathematics anyways. Not only that, even the beliefs held by most SDNers do not any sort of "proof" behind them, only evidence. To say you need "proof" to disprove a SDNer's position is a double standard.

[Who is like God arbour]

No, unfortunately people think thay have "evidence" but it isn't actually good evidence that is supported by any proof. They believe something is true, or they have an opinion, or some other claim and they keep repeating it, unable to comprehend that their "evidence" doesn't stack up.

Repeating nonsense as if it was proof is "dishonest" and "broken record" style debating. These are not rules made up out of nothing at SDN, many of these are rules of logic. There are legal and defined terms that are used in a debate that require precise terms-- that is doen to prevent handwave logic, circular reasoning, and other means to derail logical process into the realm of opinion, rumor, hearsay, and so on.

They can be hard rules to learn if you're used to "arguments" and "debates" that are not, truly debate as would be recognised in a academic setting. Most people think that a "debate" is a couple people loudly barking back and forth their own mixture of opinions, conjectures, put-downs, evidence, and such until someone gets frustrated and gives up. That's not a debate, that's a verbal stare-down. In order to see who wins a real debate, you have to be able to shore up your claims with evidence, and it all has to conform to certain rules like in a court of law.

To demand evidence for an opinion or a conclusion is nonsense.
You have to admit, that there are things, you can't evidence.
For example the exegesis of quotations.

[Who is like God arbour]

Actually, no, when stating that a person should face a ban poll, they need to link to the offense in specific and state why they feel that certain comments were violations. The Senate votes as much to see if the complainer is making a valid accusation as the object of the complaint is worthy of punishment.

How many times has it happened, that in such a poll the offender wasn't banned respectively, that the request was dismissed.

As a Senator, you can surely answer this question.

[coyote]

A ban poll rarely gets turned down, and I know I'm addressing a stacked deck when I say that it is because of evidence, and not because of some quasi-zombie groupthink. Some of the comments I read here just now about proof, evidence and the like show me that we are operating on wholly sepereate pages of comprehension. For example, this:

To demand evidence for an opinion or a conclusion is nonsense.
You have to admit, that there are things, you can't evidence.

If someone makes a claim-- ie, "the price of tea in China is one dollar per cup", and if I ask for evidence of that, you need to provide a receipt or something that shows the price of tea in China is, indeed, one dollar per cup.

If you cannot provide any evidence, then it is not a legitimate claim. It may be the truth-- you may have visited China and distinctly remember forking over a buck for a cup of tea-- but if you cannot produce actual evidence of this, then it is an unfounded claim.

Now arguing over the price of tea in China is the height of nitpickery, but it's just an example so let's run with it.

Now, were you to say "I think the price of tea in China is one dollar," or "it is my opinion..." or "I believe it is... (based on memeory, etc)" then you are stating an opinion. An opinion is just that, your opinion, and does not necessarily require hard evidence to back up. It's yours to hold and do with as you see fit.

If you say "My cousin went to China, and she said the price of tea was one dollar per cup," that is hearsay evidence. You're relying on the word of some random person who may or may not know what they are talking about.

If you consult an expert on the economics of the tea trade with Asia, who states that the cost of tea in China should be about a buck, that's appeal to authority. You're hoping that the prescence of an acknowledged authority will carry the argument for you.

... and so on. The complete list and their explanations are over there to read. So a person may go to SDN and say "Captain Picard would beat Luke Skywalker at in an arm-wrestling contest", then that's a claim. He has to back that up somehow-- find proof in a canon show, movie, or book, for both characters that Picard's upper body and arm strentgh is sufficient to beat Luke in arm-wrestling.

If your argument about Picard vs. Luke rested on something like "well, I met Brannon Braga at a convention and he totally said Picard would win," that would be an appeal to authority. What "some guy" said, even if he is a well-plced guy in the heirarchy, may or may not be true. It may be his opinion or belief, which the pro-Picard debater is now trying to offer up as "irrefutable proof from a canon source".

It may br thought-provoking support for the argumnent, but it is not conclusive. Accepting Braga's word about Picard's strength also means accepting his unspoken but applied word about Luke's strength (or weakness, as the case may be). Braga may have some authority to speak on behalf of the character Picard, but he has no such authority over Luke Skywalker.

But if the pro-Picard debater at SDN simply spluttered, over and over again, "But Braga said so! Canon source! Irrefutable!" the SDN debater would say "No, it is not conclusive proof, by not recognising this you are building a wall of ignorance, and not providing requisite proof of a proper comparison between the two characters, and by repeating Braga's claim over again as if it would gain traction through repetition, you are simply arguing like a broken record."

This is how these things get started-- a person thinks he has "solid evidence" but it is not as solid as he thinks-- he likes what he hears and accepts it, but fails to recognise that not everyone is as eager to accept such simple word of Picard's arm-wrestling prowess.

If someone here has been in a situation like this, instead of waving it off as "those darn SDNutters", maybe ask if there was, indeed, a flaw in your plan and find a way to shore it up better. The idea is to become a better debater, and by adhering to certain rules and structure that are commonly agreed upon in formal debate it prevents derailment into opinion and heresay, etc.

[Nonamer]

A ban poll rarely gets turned down, and I know I'm addressing a stacked deck when I say that it is because of evidence, and not because of some quasi-zombie groupthink.

There shouldn't be ban polls, period. A ban poll is never verified with evidence and always by opinion. Even if you claim it's due to evidence, it's still determined by opinion in the end because the voters can simply vote that way. How interesting that you've already started on the wrong foot with this terrible point.

Some of the comments I read here just now about proof, evidence and the like show me that we are operating on wholly sepereate pages of comprehension. For example, this:

To demand evidence for an opinion or a conclusion is nonsense.
You have to admit, that there are things, you can't evidence.

If someone makes a claim-- ie, "the price of tea in China is one dollar per cup", and if I ask for evidence of that, you need to provide a receipt or something that shows the price of tea in China is, indeed, one dollar per cup.

If you cannot provide any evidence, then it is not a legitimate claim. It may be the truth-- you may have visited China and distinctly remember forking over a buck for a cup of tea-- but if you cannot produce actual evidence of this, then it is an unfounded claim.

Now arguing over the price of tea in China is the height of nitpickery, but it's just an example so let's run with it.

Now, were you to say "I think the price of tea in China is one dollar," or "it is my opinion..." or "I believe it is... (based on memeory, etc)" then you are stating an opinion. An opinion is just that, your opinion, and does not necessarily require hard evidence to back up. It's yours to hold and do with as you see fit.

If you say "My cousin went to China, and she said the price of tea was one dollar per cup," that is hearsay evidence. You're relying on the word of some random person who may or may not know what they are talking about.

If you consult an expert on the economics of the tea trade with Asia, who states that the cost of tea in China should be about a buck, that's appeal to authority. You're hoping that the prescence of an acknowledged authority will carry the argument for you.

No duh. You don't need to explain to us what evidence is. The problem is how it's treated at SDN.

... and so on. The complete list and their explanations are over there to read. So a person may go to SDN and say "Captain Picard would beat Luke Skywalker at in an arm-wrestling contest", then that's a claim. He has to back that up somehow-- find proof in a canon show, movie, or book, for both characters that Picard's upper body and arm strentgh is sufficient to beat Luke in arm-wrestling.

If your argument about Picard vs. Luke rested on something like "well, I met Brannon Braga at a convention and he totally said Picard would win," that would be an appeal to authority. What "some guy" said, even if he is a well-plced guy in the heirarchy, may or may not be true. It may be his opinion or belief, which the pro-Picard debater is now trying to offer up as "irrefutable proof from a canon source".

It may br thought-provoking support for the argumnent, but it is not conclusive. Accepting Braga's word about Picard's strength also means accepting his unspoken but applied word about Luke's strength (or weakness, as the case may be). Braga may have some authority to speak on behalf of the character Picard, but he has no such authority over Luke Skywalker.

I feel like smashing my head against a wall. If George Lucas said Picard could beat Luke in a arm wrestling match would you refused that too? I suppose the people who actually write the "proof" don't count now? This isn't science, this is sci-fi which is basically literature. The writers should carry enormous weight.

But if the pro-Picard debater at SDN simply spluttered, over and over again, "But Braga said so! Canon source! Irrefutable!" the SDN debater would say "No, it is not conclusive proof, by not recognising this you are building a wall of ignorance, and not providing requisite proof of a proper comparison between the two characters, and by repeating Braga's claim over again as if it would gain traction through repetition, you are simply arguing like a broken record."

This is how these things get started-- a person thinks he has "solid evidence" but it is not as solid as he thinks-- he likes what he hears and accepts it, but fails to recognise that not everyone is as eager to accept such simple word of Picard's arm-wrestling prowess.

So basically here's another example of a debater coming in with evidence that is immediately ignored by the rest of SDN and gets promptly banned because of it. Wonderful place that must be. Not to mention that most of time we do see people analyze stuff written in a book or saw on film and present as evidence. This example is a significant departure from the norm and is probably a strawman. Nevertheless the situation is very similar to how debates in SDN end up and it's very incredulous how anyone can claim this is sound debating.

Instead of bashing the person for having a "wall of ignorance," why don't you find quotes or evidence in books and films showing another conclusion? You know, actually try proving the guy wrong instead of letting rip the ban-stick and ad hominem.

If someone here has been in a situation like this, instead of waving it off as "those darn SDNutters", maybe ask if there was, indeed, a flaw in your plan and find a way to shore it up better. The idea is to become a better debater, and by adhering to certain rules and structure that are commonly agreed upon in formal debate it prevents derailment into opinion and heresay, etc.

And let me ask you this: where's the evidence that it will happen the other around? This is the classic and absurd position of nearly SDNer I've met. You must "prove" beyond any reasonable level of necessary evidence while the existing position require exactly zero evidence whatsoever. All debates up as bashing the evidence and eventually bashing the debater for showing that evidence. If you think this is reasonable, then claim that claiming Luke will beat Picard in an arm wrestling match with similar evidence is a bannable offense. Until seen that this is an enormous double standard you have there.

[Jedi Master Spock]

No, unfortunately people think thay have "evidence" but it isn't actually good evidence that is supported by any proof. They believe something is true, or they have an opinion, or some other claim and they keep repeating it, unable to comprehend that their "evidence" doesn't stack up.

Ultimately, every VS argument is based on the same several types of evidence, however - analysis of fictional canon materials and analogy through real life as a grounds for comparison.

The requirement for absolute proof is waived in nearly any serious debate outside of a few small philosophical circles, mathematical sciences, and other areas in which the consistency of systems is an issue.

Strictly logical proof is, of course, completely devoid of meaning when a system is inconsistent; as most fictional canons contain some degree of inconsistency with themselves or the basic operation of reality, this makes calls for "proof" empty within the VS debate, strictly speaking.

To give you an example of a perfect logical proof:

• Fact: Ferengi minds can be read by Betazoids. (Stated in canon.)
• Fact: It is not the case that Ferengi minds can be read by Betazoids. (Also stated in canon.)
• Conclusion: Darth Vader had a sex change operation.

This is an example of a classic logical tautology that you can find in any introductory logic text. (You may see it expressed as A & ~A -> B symbolically.)

It uses "facts" that are derived from the canon using perfectly acceptable standards of evidence (expert testimony within dialogue), and the conclusion follows logically from the premises.

It is, of course, meaningless; I could invoke any inconsistency between acceptable canon "facts" to logically prove any statement. Such is the power of logic... and such are its limits.

What is instead required in any scientific, legal, or other venue relating to real life is not proof per se, but demonstration to some level of confidence. This may be called probable cause, reasonable doubt, or statistical significance.

Properly speaking, I cannot prove that evolution is the cause of speciated diversity on Earth; however, I can reasonably demonstrate this to the satisfaction of scientific standards. I cannot prove that the world was not created five seconds ago with intact memories, records, and the illusion of continuity, but I can show why it is not a reasonable assumption.

In court, the plaintiff is not proven to be guilty or innocent, but the lawyers attempt to demonstrate either guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or that reasonable doubt of guilt exists.

They can be hard rules to learn if you're used to "arguments" and "debates" that are not, truly debate as would be recognised in a academic setting. Most people think that a "debate" is a couple people loudly barking back and forth their own mixture of opinions, conjectures, put-downs, evidence, and such until someone gets frustrated and gives up. That's not a debate, that's a verbal stare-down. In order to see who wins a real debate, you have to be able to shore up your claims with evidence, and it all has to conform to certain rules like in a court of law.

Procedure for "real" debates, as I have pointed out previously, is not followed on SDN. The closest you can find as a match are the rough sorts of debates that you might see on television between political candidates, which are treated primarily as publicity stunts. Even then, the conduct which passes for normal on SDN would not pass muster.

[coyote]

I'm going to go ahead and concede your points because I know we're not going to see eye to eye on this, and I came here perfectly aware that no one was going to be "converted" or whatever. That wasn't what I came here for.

I came here because I felt maligned by the characterisation that the "minions" of SDN existed there only so long as they "toe the line" in some sort of Mike Wong Halleljeah Chorus. It's not so, we disagree spectacularly in many cases.

As for bans, and ban polls, I think a ban poll before a Senate of some sort is a far better system than just one-man dictatorship, or a single mod (who may just be a "crony") passing judgement. The Senate is an imperfect system but better than many of the alternatives. That it is open for public viewing and not some private-forum star chamber is a positive thing.

I think the rules are consistent and logical, although yes they are a bit tight at times. There are things I'd like to see different but I'm not bothered enough to try instituting change.

No one here is going to change their minds about SDN just because of what I say here this week; just bear in mind that it's not all a matter of "do as Mike says or you're out." It's a mischaracterization that religious people are pressed out, that conservatives aren't allowed a voice...

If anyone here wants to debate at SDN, come on over and speak up. If you were there before and kicked out, and feel wronged, then go over the debate rules there, familiarize yourself and engage us with the same "weapons" we use on our chosen field of battle-- since it is the nature of our chosen field that seems to be the cause of discontent.

Even drop a PM to me over there if you like-- same screen name. If you're confused or have a question about something I'll try to show you the rationale behind it, but really you can ask most of the long-timers over there. It's not really as bad as people seem to (want to?) believe.

[Who is like God arbour]

If someone makes a claim-- ie, "the price of tea in China is one dollar per cup", and if I ask for evidence of that, you need to provide a receipt or something that shows the price of tea in China is, indeed, one dollar per cup.

If you cannot provide any evidence, then it is not a legitimate claim. It may be the truth-- you may have visited China and distinctly remember forking over a buck for a cup of tea-- but if you cannot produce actual evidence of this, then it is an unfounded claim.

Now arguing over the price of tea in China is the height of nitpickery, but it's just an example so let's run with it.

Now, were you to say "I think the price of tea in China is one dollar," or "it is my opinion..." or "I believe it is... (based on memeory, etc)" then you are stating an opinion. An opinion is just that, your opinion, and does not necessarily require hard evidence to back up. It's yours to hold and do with as you see fit.

If you say "My cousin went to China, and she said the price of tea was one dollar per cup," that is hearsay evidence. You're relying on the word of some random person who may or may not know what they are talking about.

If you consult an expert on the economics of the tea trade with Asia, who states that the cost of tea in China should be about a buck, that's appeal to authority. You're hoping that the prescence of an acknowledged authority will carry the argument for you.

... and so on. The complete list and their explanations are over there to read. So a person may go to SDN and say "Captain Picard would beat Luke Skywalker at in an arm-wrestling contest", then that's a claim. He has to back that up somehow-- find proof in a canon show, movie, or book, for both characters that Picard's upper body and arm strentgh is sufficient to beat Luke in arm-wrestling.

If your argument about Picard vs. Luke rested on something like "well, I met Brannon Braga at a convention and he totally said Picard would win," that would be an appeal to authority. What "some guy" said, even if he is a well-plced guy in the heirarchy, may or may not be true. It may be his opinion or belief, which the pro-Picard debater is now trying to offer up as "irrefutable proof from a canon source".

It may br thought-provoking support for the argumnent, but it is not conclusive. Accepting Braga's word about Picard's strength also means accepting his unspoken but applied word about Luke's strength (or weakness, as the case may be). Braga may have some authority to speak on behalf of the character Picard, but he has no such authority over Luke Skywalker.

But if the pro-Picard debater at SDN simply spluttered, over and over again, "But Braga said so! Canon source! Irrefutable!" the SDN debater would say "No, it is not conclusive proof, by not recognising this you are building a wall of ignorance, and not providing requisite proof of a proper comparison between the two characters, and by repeating Braga's claim over again as if it would gain traction through repetition, you are simply arguing like a broken record."

This is how these things get started-- a person thinks he has "solid evidence" but it is not as solid as he thinks-- he likes what he hears and accepts it, but fails to recognise that not everyone is as eager to accept such simple word of Picard's arm-wrestling prowess.

If someone here has been in a situation like this, instead of waving it off as "those darn SDNutters", maybe ask if there was, indeed, a flaw in your plan and find a way to shore it up better. The idea is to become a better debater, and by adhering to certain rules and structure that are commonly agreed upon in formal debate it prevents derailment into opinion and heresay, etc.

If you're confused or have a question about something I'll try to show you the rationale behind it, but really you can ask most of the long-timers over there. It's not really as bad as people seem to (want to?) believe.

Your whole theoretical illustration would be better, if you would have used the given example.

I was banned because I allegedly have not provided demanded evidence.

I think, the demanded evidence was impossible to provide. All one could have provided was the quotations from the episodes.

Maybe you can show me, how you would have provided the demanden evidence for the conclusion that it is easier to transort energy or elementar particles through sub space than huge molucules.

I think it is logical, that it is easier to transport something, wich has no or nearly no mass than something, which has mass and can be disrupted.

I think too, that, if you think, that this conclusions is not reasonable, you should show why.

The fact is, that till now, you have not provided a justification for my banning.

I ask you hereby explicit and formally, to provide evidence, that my banning was justified.

That would be an evidence on a concrete example.

[Who is like God arbour]

Another example:

I have watched the thread Darkstar's State Of The State Address For 2007 the whole time.

This thread is the SDN answer to this thread here.

It is interessting, that there are no arguments. Three long sites only flaming and displayed asininity.

What is the use of this thread.

They deliberately misapprehend us or take single statements out of context. But they don't really argue with our statements.

That's exactly the culture of SDN, which is blamed here.

[Who is like God arbour]

another example:

That's quite well said. In general, I'd say that debates in a "Miss Manners" environment often turn into debates about peoples' manners, rather than whatever you were originally debating. It's even worse when the rules say something about being "respectful".

In other words, anyone who has an unpopular viewpoint will have people watching over him waiting for him to say anything which might be viewed as even vaguely rude or disrespectful, and then they'll pounce. Never mind the fact that everyone eventually says something which is less than perfectly respectful; this is where selective enforcement comes in handy.

In the end, civility rules may be created in some sort of attempt to create more high-minded discourse, but the result tends to be the same as the result of any other vaguely worded rule: the imprecision of its wording means that it's really just a weapon the moderators and their friends can use without fear of contradiction. Add to that the fact that forums like this generally delete threads or posts in which people were banned, and you have a fine recipe for moderator abuse. That doesn't mean it will always happen, but when the rules are so ripe for abuse, it seems inevitable that it will happen sooner or later.

That's Wongs justification for rudeness.

He doesn't think, that a debate can be polite but nevertheless argumentative and professional.

I don't see, that at STARFLEETJEDI.NET someone, who has another opinion than the "moderators and their friends" was corrected because its behaviour. Jedi Master Spock has corrected everyone, who was insulting, regardless of the stated opinion.

I ask me, why Darth Wong has such a position. I have learned to debate politely but argumentative and professional. The most debates, I have attended were such politely but argumentative and professional debates. I would never get the idea, that you have to be rude to have a argumentative and professional debate.