Split: SDN Rules, Culture, and Moderation Habits

[Nonamer]

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.

The overwhelming majority I've seen get banned pretty quick because of that. Exceptions occur, but rarely.

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.

Guess what: How do you get banned on a normal board? Usually trolling and flaming. Ironically, as long as your on the right side these are never the reasons to get banned, but if you debate cleanly but on the wrong side, you're banned in short order, something that could never happen on most boards. Believe what you will about your system, but the types and kinds of bans you deal out are diametrically different from the ones on most boards and are themselves wrong.

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.

If you concede everything that we've said up to this point, you must concede they are neither consistent nor logical. If you don't, you've never conceded any of our points.

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...

Piss Mike off enough and that is exactly what happens. I've seen it and it's documented. He'll ban you on the spot if he wants to.

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.

I think you are completely ignorant of us. Most of here have debated SDNers for months if not years. We would not be here if we had not known exactly how SDN is like and had broad experience debating people from SDN. In fact, THIS SITE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE IF NOT FOR SDN. This forum was created primarily due to the arcane and distasteful nature of existing SWvST debate. Delude yourself all you will, but SDN is as bad as the criticisms claim if not even worse.

[Praeothmin]

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 problem is, it may happen in most ban polls, but in the case of the poll linked here by Who is like God Abour, no links to the offenses was provided in the poll.

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.

Which is exactly like all the times pro-wars debaters offer as evidence the work of Curtis Saxton, or even Mike Wong, two experts in applied science.
Yet everytime a pro-wars debater does that, we are expected to accept it as acceptable evidence, and not an appeal to authority.
Which, to be honest, seems acceptable to me, just as the case of the economic expert's opinion is also valid.

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."

Agreed, the word of a producer of the show has less value than what we actually see on screen, or read in accepted (i.e., official or canon) books.

I'm going to go ahead and concede your points because I know we're not going to see eye to eye on this

You shouldn't concede.
You, and everyone else here, made it clear by the evidence presented, that this was more a matter of opinion then a matter of proof.
You don't need to chage your opinion if you don't feel convinced, IMO.

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.

I believe this is more the case in the SW vs ST forum than anywhere else, because I have read threads (having nothing to do with SW vs ST(, and I have seen people disagree with Mike Wong with flames abroad without any banning occurring.
That is true.
But we see a lot more bannings, and the party line is a lot more clearly defined in the SW vs ST forum than anywhere else, from what I've seen.
And the double standard of proofing your arguments is also more present there.
See this for example:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=97212

The worst thing of all, IMO, is that any argument coming from Darkstar, even if based on other's work, even if very logical, will immediately be deemed unacceptable to any SDNer in any debate, such ids the scorn or hatred to Darkstar on the boards.

So I guess all I have that remains to be said is that I haven't been convinced that SDN (I'll say in the SW vs ST forum to be fair) isn't a place I would like to debate.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Come on.

The board is owned by a person I wouldn't like to meet in real life, who has some of the most despisable habits and motives when it comes to "debating" (if we can call it that), who has been worryingly shown having issues to separate his own real life concerns from something as futile as geek centric discussions, who thinks winning an argument through any means is better than finding the actual truth, since t3h WIN is so important, and enjoys being featured in some retarded brutal fantripe where a guy gets molested to near death just for daring not accepting their beliefs, which he apparently thinks is kinda funny.
So much that it also deserved a sequel. O' Dear.

Then come some of the other most influencial figures of SDN. Just as bad.
You can add the whole clique of SW fanboys this board has generated over the years, and spread here and there. You can smell them anywhere. Their arguments are all the same. Their argumentation fallacies as well, generally speaking. Never question the SW wank, never debate if you can't win, just post on and on, and make sure the other side concedes, nevermind the method. Also, anything related to Darkstar is only worth ignorance and insults. Be damned if you ever remotely give a hint that you may agree with a bit of what Robert says, or be you burnt if you ever post a link to Robert's site to support an argument.

I have a freakingly long and sick list of such people, most of them met at Spacebattles, which everybody knows has only been a redux of SDN's mentality for years, where while feigning a sort of independancy regarding SDN, had you on, the same time, be redirected to SDN forums when their VS debate forum was out for maintenance.

That, and SDN's Pure Star Wars forum is moderated by that Vympel/Leo1 guy for crying out loud, who, in terms of objectivity and honesty, is the perfect byproduct of their horrible motto (a soft example, barely representing the tip of a very rotten iceberg - I actually experienced his skills myself, and had the *pleasure* to see other people face his objectable argumentation methods way too much for the sake of my own sanity).

Finally, SDN is also intricately tied to the talifan movement, and is the lair where all attacks start from. Not only tolerated, but literally encouraged.

And some people come here and claim that SDN can be nice, warm and charming?

We're clearly not talking about the same world here. Let's cut the poetry. This is BS. You can only stand a chance if you're on the right side of the gun.

Who do they think they're fooling, really?

[Who is like God arbour]

You can't compete with these kiddies for sheer doggedness. They don't have real lives. All you can do is produce superior quality rather than quantity, backed up by vastly superior credentials, and trust in the fact that knowledgeable readers will be able to see the difference. The fact that they can sway the ignorant and uneducated is of no concern.

It's amusing how SDN and Darth Wong in particular fails to argue in 4 sites only one single point, which is here made.
All they have done, is unfounded insulting.
I don't see "superior quality" in their thread.



I think, that is is also very interesting, that the profile of Darth Wong says, that he has 28.41 posts per day on the average - or Vympel with 12.71 posts per day or SirNitram with 13.41 posts per day or Ghost Rider with 14.31 posts per day.
Who here has no "real lives" is yet the question.

[GStone]

I'm up to 1.5 posts per day.

I'm so consumed by this board.

[coyote]

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

Since it is evident that you are, indeed, following along with the "Darkstar State of the State Address 2007" over at SDN, then the answer provided by Mad is more than sufficient to answer your question.

Guess what: How do you get banned on a normal board? Usually trolling and flaming.

Evading requests for evidence, stonewalling, misdirection, etc, are not good reasons to mete out punishment if an actual debate is supposed to be the goal?

See, from my point of view, and I suppose for others at SDN, debating in a dishonest manner is a bannable offense. Flaming or rudeness is not. Between us, we also have a different idea of what constitutes "trolling"-- I suspect that wanton flaming is considered "trolling" here, whereas at SDN if someone says or does something considered stupid (again, see the posted rules) they get flamed as a result and that's not considered "trolling".

I think you are completely ignorant of us. Most of here have debated SDNers for months if not years. We would not be here if we had not known exactly how SDN is like and had broad experience debating people from SDN. In fact, THIS SITE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE IF NOT FOR SDN. This forum was created primarily due to the arcane and distasteful nature of existing SWvST debate. Delude yourself all you will, but SDN is as bad as the criticisms claim if not even worse.

Here's the thing that I'm having a hard time getting at, then-- you go to Mike's "house", as it were, where the rules are posted clearly. You get involved in discussions, arguments, debates, whatever, and find that you're chafing under the posted rules. Alright, no one is forcing you to be there, so you leave. Create a website that is more to your liking; more the way you think a website should be run.

So then, why worry yourself so much about what continues to happen over there? I never heard of this board before a few days ago, but when I come here I see that a great deal of threads about the goings-on at SDN, and God Arbour's call to justify his banning... if you hate it and/or don't care, why all the fireside grumbling? Why continue to be irritated at it all? Sure, there are occassional threads that pop up about Darkstar this or that, or whatever, but there seems to be more traffic here, considering the per capita balance.

If the way things are run at SDN bugs you, and it really means that much to you, the weapons locker is wide open-- meaning, the rules and standards that you will be judged by are there for you to use as well. If someone from SDN is using 'broken record' tactics against you, call 'em on it. We've got a fairly long-term member over there now faced with a titling for breaking the debate rules as they are posted. There's no "immunity", it's not "Survivor Island".

If you have good points to be made, then by all means make the points, and just be able to back up why they are good points. But bear in mind it doesn't work to try to import your way of doing things there-- at SDN, you don't have to be civil to make a point, so don't get bogged down in an argument over civility or rudeness or whatever. If you think it's lowbrow to enage in name-calling, etc, fine-- don't do it, and succor yourself with the knowledge that you're holding to a higher level of conduct, if that's what it takes.

Nothing personal against anyone here, but it just looks to me like we have two board cultures that are going to look at the same thing but not agree on what it is they see.

[Nonamer]

Guess what: How do you get banned on a normal board? Usually trolling and flaming.

Evading requests for evidence, stonewalling, misdirection, etc, are not good reasons to mete out punishment if an actual debate is supposed to be the goal?

See, from my point of view, and I suppose for others at SDN, debating in a dishonest manner is a bannable offense. Flaming or rudeness is not. Between us, we also have a different idea of what constitutes "trolling"-- I suspect that wanton flaming is considered "trolling" here, whereas at SDN if someone says or does something considered stupid (again, see the posted rules) they get flamed as a result and that's not considered "trolling".

I know the rules. You usually get away with flaming, but not with debating. The problem was always the nature of how debates are treated. If you are not on the "right" side, you are banned in a few weeks or months and disrespected the whole time. The whole ban poll is just a unpopularity poll to get rid of particularly disliked people. On most boards, the judgement by one mod is usually straightforward as it's just a punishment for flaming or trolling. That's an easy thing to judge and generally does not need more than one thoughtful person to figure out.

Here's the problem you've yet to addressed: the massive double standard on SDN. When it comes to "popular" positions on SDN, the supporters nearly never have to come up with supporting evidence and almost always resort to broken record debating, misinformation, or ad hominem attacks. They are rarely ever punished for their behavior even though they fully qualify as poor debating. And of course the flaming thing is a double standard too. Piss the mods off enough and they'll ban you anyways.

I think you are completely ignorant of us. Most of here have debated SDNers for months if not years. We would not be here if we had not known exactly how SDN is like and had broad experience debating people from SDN. In fact, THIS SITE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE IF NOT FOR SDN. This forum was created primarily due to the arcane and distasteful nature of existing SWvST debate. Delude yourself all you will, but SDN is as bad as the criticisms claim if not even worse.

Here's the thing that I'm having a hard time getting at, then-- you go to Mike's "house", as it were, where the rules are posted clearly. You get involved in discussions, arguments, debates, whatever, and find that you're chafing under the posted rules. Alright, no one is forcing you to be there, so you leave. Create a website that is more to your liking; more the way you think a website should be run.

So then, why worry yourself so much about what continues to happen over there? I never heard of this board before a few days ago, but when I come here I see that a great deal of threads about the goings-on at SDN, and God Arbour's call to justify his banning... if you hate it and/or don't care, why all the fireside grumbling? Why continue to be irritated at it all? Sure, there are occassional threads that pop up about Darkstar this or that, or whatever, but there seems to be more traffic here, considering the per capita balance.

Ask yourself that: Why are you here? If you think SDN is so great, stay there and be happy. I haven't been there for a while and I only discuss it when someone else brings it up. Gandalf started this whole mess anyways. We've merely debated him because he came here trying to point out how great SDN is. We, with our experiences of the place, find just the opposite to be true. The same is happening with you too.

If the way things are run at SDN bugs you, and it really means that much to you, the weapons locker is wide open-- meaning, the rules and standards that you will be judged by are there for you to use as well. If someone from SDN is using 'broken record' tactics against you, call 'em on it. We've got a fairly long-term member over there now faced with a titling for breaking the debate rules as they are posted. There's no "immunity", it's not "Survivor Island".

Again, why are you here? Aren't you doing the same thing you're describing here?

Back to the point, the rules on SDN are like the ethics rules used by Enron: They were upheld until it's inconvenient to do so, at which they are either bent or broken. With SDN, that usually implies that any debate involving SWvST will quickly have the rules broken in favor of SW. In debates regarding religion and politics it happens less often, but when it does it is always broken for one side very consistently. Not to mention that any debate involving a mod can only break in the favor of the mod with ban threats to boot too. Otherwise, the rules are "upheld."

I'm not even getting into the unfairness of the rules as they are.

If you have good points to be made, then by all means make the points, and just be able to back up why they are good points. But bear in mind it doesn't work to try to import your way of doing things there-- at SDN, you don't have to be civil to make a point, so don't get bogged down in an argument over civility or rudeness or whatever. If you think it's lowbrow to enage in name-calling, etc, fine-- don't do it, and succor yourself with the knowledge that you're holding to a higher level of conduct, if that's what it takes.

Nothing personal against anyone here, but it just looks to me like we have two board cultures that are going to look at the same thing but not agree on what it is they see.

Oh please. I've seen Gandalf's attempt to debate with a SDN style here. Took him about 5 minutes before he was using an ad hominem attack against Darkstar in lieu of an actually position. For some reason I don't think this is merely a disagreement between board cultures.



Speaking of board culture, why is it that so many of you guys from SDN to sound almost exactly alike? Gandalf too was throwing around phrases like "wall of ignorance" and "dishonest debating" like buzzwords, as I've heard numerous times from other SDNers. These phrases are never heard elsewhere and seem to come exclusively from Mike Wong. How is that so many people on SDN can share verbatim the same position? This may be off-topic, but it always struck as being really really strange.

[Jedi Master Spock]

See, from my point of view, and I suppose for others at SDN, debating in a dishonest manner is a bannable offense. Flaming or rudeness is not. Between us, we also have a different idea of what constitutes "trolling"-- I suspect that wanton flaming is considered "trolling" here, whereas at SDN if someone says or does something considered stupid (again, see the posted rules) they get flamed as a result and that's not considered "trolling".

Actually, flaming would not constitute "trolling" here. Flaming itself is against the rules and is a rather different offense.

I noted earlier that the general behavior of flaming is actually regulated carefully at SDN in some detail, e.g., "Only the administrative staff is permitted to attack people in that manner," "Flaming of the staff is permitted, but only with respect to their views stated in any given thread, not their administrative actions," and similar items. From what I have witnessed - e.g., see the links already posted in this thread - the charge of "dishonest debating" is neither applied to all dishonesty in debate, nor is everything it is applied to dishonest.

For that matter, it would appear that on SDN stupidity and flaming bear an even looser relationship than dishonesty within debate and "dishonest debate" charges. The only way they can be considered related is by conflating stupidity with disagreement.

Trolling - by the bye - is defined as a premeditated activity - often of great sophistication in the case of more successful trolls - employing one or more insincere tactics in order to provoke a particular desired reaction. It's only related to flaming so far as trolling typically results in flaming.

Since it is evident that you are, indeed, following along with the "Darkstar State of the State Address 2007" over at SDN, then the answer provided by Mad is more than sufficient to answer your question.

Perhaps it is just me, but I am having some difficulty understanding this reasoning. According to what was quoted earlier in this thread, this was what the user called "Mad" on SDN said in the ban poll:

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

What does this have to do with reading a guest inaccessible "Darkstar State of the State Address 2007" thread?

[Xess]

What does this have to do with reading a guest inaccessible "Darkstar State of the State Address 2007" thread?

He's referring to the "Darkstar State of the State Address 2007" thread.

Here's MAD's post.

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

This will be easy.

Debating Rule 5
Do not employ the "broken record" debating style. Continuously repeating yourself regardless of what others say is a quick way to get banned.

He starts making claims:

If the ship is travelling to you with a constant velocity, you can calculate this with the increasing gravitation, unless you think, it would loss its own mass while it is flying. Furthermore there could be a kind of Doppler effect in the gravitons.

Now, this was after I explained what is going on:

And, if there happens to be two starships, well, you're kind of screwed because you won't find either. You will, however, find your measurements pointing to a lot of nothing somewhere in between those two ships.

That should show why realspace gravity detection is not reliable except under special circumstances. A gravimeter cannot differentiate between different sources of gravity, but will lump it all together in a single vector.

So I show that this is wrong again:

No, even those ideal circumstances wouldn't help. If you don't know what its velocity is (and what are the chances that it'd be constant?), then you don't know if it's a big object moving slowly or a small object moving quickly.

So he repeats his argument:

No, if you assume that velocity and mass are constant, than you could calculate with the increasing gravitation the velocity. That both are constant is likely to be usual. Why should someone change its velocity or mass during travel between two points, for example two planets? Every change in the velocity needs energy. It could happen, sure, there could always be a reason, but that would not be a normal case.

Even if the ship are evenly accelerating, this calculation should be possible.

I show the problem: you won't be able to tell if it's a massive object with a lower relative velocity or a less massive object with a higher relative velocity. AVOGARDO response is that it is possible.

He also adds:

I never said, that you could get a distance with this method. But If you have the distance through other sensor systems, you can calculate the mass via its gravitation.

So I show him that it is not possible:

One starship of unknown configuration is sitting 100 kilometers away from you directly to port. Another starship of unknown configuration is sitting 100 kilometers away from you directly to starboard. You gravimeters are reading .002 m/s^2 to starboard. Both ships are stationary relative to you.

What are the masses of the two ships?

After he is unable to answer, I make my point:

But you claimed that a starship would be able to calculate information from the same kind of information given.

Clearly, you need more information than that which a gravimeter can give you.

He continues his claim:

I never said, that you could get a distance with this method. Hell. it's a sensor to detect gravitation an not for distance. But If you have the distance through other sensor systems, you can calculate the mass via its gravitation.

So I need to be more clear, obviously, because he's not getting it. So I try t be as clear as possible:

Let me make it clear: the two word problems I gave you are impossible to solve. They simply don't give you enough information to do anything except get a continuous range of possible answers. If you looked up the equation for calculating acceleration due to gravity and had any understanding of basic algebra, then you would realize exactly why I say that.

Note that the problem I give has distance and the gravimeter reading, which he claims is enough. I state that it is not enough information. What is his response? Why, he's a broken record!

Let me make it clear: Your argument was obviously utterly absurd. For this, I haven't bothered to even look at your givings and or think about it.

You could have given me, what you have wanted. Even if your givings would made it able, to calculate something, I wouldn't have bothered to think about it. Mainly cause I wouldn't be able to calculate somehing.

[...]

It is possible to calculate the mass of both ships together.

And if you would have a third source of gravitation and would monitoring the change of the position of both ships to this third source, you should be able to determine the mass of both ships.

Yes, that's right, AVOGARDO continues to make the same claim even though he can't back it up.

In addition, the thread these posts are from, "[OFFICIAL] What are Star Trek sensors really capable of?," has the following ground rules: "Any factual assertion must be backed up with the name of the episode from which the observation was derived, as well as useful descriptions (ideally including screenshots, although that is not a requirement)" and "Conclusions should be derived from observations (no pure speculation)." The thread "should involve theorizing about what these systems are actually capable of."

Keeping this in mind, I mention:

And just because a character thinks something is possible doesn't mean it's actually possible. The fact that so few people have experience with theta-band carrier waves is evidence enough that they are not commonly used in Federation sensors.

He misses the point:

Please, can you try not to use cheap symantics. It is clear, that he thinks, it is possible. And he has more knowledge about possibilities at a basic principle than you or every other person.
I ask you again: I have no reasons to believe that he is mistaken in his belief, that it is possible. Do you have any indication for a mistake on his part?

It doesn't matter if it's possible, it matters if they already do it in sensors. We are talking about sensors in use by the UFP. Theoretical sensors don't matter in this discussion, because, by definition, theoretical sensors are not in use by the UFP.

I'm not sure what to make of his response...

That is correct. But you don't understand, that we theorize about the functional principle of this sensors. And that are only theories. Because we don't know, how this sensors are working. We have some leads, that it is possible to send energy and matter through subspace. If we want a superluminal sensor, the sensor signal have to be sended through subspace. The question is only, what kind of sensor signal we have.

Either he doesn't want to stay on topic (discussing sensor capabilities), or he still thinks that Captain Picard is one of the few people with the expertise needed to work with subspace sensors. Either way, it's more broken record debating.

Let's combine these with his other infractions.

Posting Rule 3
Serious lies are not acceptable on this forum. If it is found that you have lied about your identity, your background, your accomplishments, or your status in life, you may face disciplinary action. If you are found to be consistently dishonest in forum discussions, that may also lead to disciplinary action.

Second, I have no clue about the demeanor of positrons. If the interference through positrons from several other sources is to high, maybe they aren't coming in a straight line. As far as I know, gravitation is bending space.

He clarifies to say:

It schould be obviosly, that I didn't mean positrons but gravitons.

So he means to say he doesn't have any "clue about the demeanor of gravitons." I double-check that with him:

So then you're saying you have "no clue about the demeanor of gravitons"? In that case, why are you trying to debate regarding them? You are clearly in over your head here.

He then lies about his knowledge:

Only because I have unintentional made a mistake doesn't mean, that I have "no clue about the demeanor of gravitons"

First he says he doesn't understand gravitons (originally the typo "positrons," and his later clarifications shows he was discussing only gravitons), then he claims that is not the case. A very clear lie.

Is that the extent of his lies? No.

I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects.

That person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject.

An engineer would not be such an expert.

But even this person would have to try to explain the reasons for its speculation.

I reply:

I like how this moron who doesn't understand anything about gravity, science in general, logic, debate, or even how to perform simple calculations wants us to believe his speculation is possible, yet he will only accept any kind speculation from an astrophysicist who has done research specific to gravitons.

For some reason, he doesn't like this characterization of himself and pathetically defends himself:

And I have said, that >> I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects. <<

And you claim, that I have said, that I >> will only accept any kind speculation from an astrophysicist who has done research specific to gravitons. <<

My reply speaks for itself.

You said "That person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject" and "An engineer would not be such an expert." That you specified who does not qualify shows that there are people you will not accept this stuff from (such as engineers).

He doesn't bother to reply to that as far as I can tell.

Debating Rule 6
If you are asked for evidence to support a claim you've made, you should either produce this evidence or concede the point until such time as you can produce this evidence. People who consistently ignore requests for evidence to support their claims (particularly contentious claims) are not looked upon kindly here.

In the Eiffel at Effelsberg is a moveable radio telescope, which is able to detect the energy which is released by a melting snowflake on the surface of Mars. That would be an energy so miniscule at any kind of astronomical range too.

It was build 1972. I think, I can conlude, that a sensor system in 400 years is far more advanced.

AVOGARDO is quickly called on the scientific impossibility of a snowflake releasing energy as it melts, so he restructures his argument:

It was a joke. How do you say it on english? A oxymoron?

I have used it to make it clear, that even a telescope of today is able to detect energy so miniscule at any kind of astronomical range.

But it is nevertheless possible. You have a reading from Mars with a constant energyoutput. Then the snowflake is melting. You can read the subside of energy.

He is then asked to back up the capability. His responses fail to provide any meaningful information:

That is not an extraordinary claim. There are things which could assumed as commonly known.

If you have no clue, than you should read a website from such a telescope.

For example:
http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/div/effelsberg/

There are many other telescopes and websites.

The website he links to does not substantiate his claim from what I have read from it.

Disciplinary Action 1
In some cases of severe rule violations, we will ban you. We might also ban you if we launch a ban poll and a majority of users decide that you are worthless.

Imperial Rules 2
The administrative staff will decide what is an appropriate punishment when someone breaks the rules. Sometimes we may be in a lenient mood, but that does not tie our hands for the future.

There's more infractions that he's committed (Wall of Ignorance / broken record debating, refusal to provide evidence for claims, and general dishonesty), but this is just a sampling of how AVOGARDO has broken the rules. Based on his broken record debating and refusal to provide evidence for his claims (especially with his general inability to accept correction), there was sufficient grounds for a ban poll to be created. Once the ban poll is posted, it's basically up to the Senate for how things proceed.

[Jedi Master Spock]

In those quotations, it is quite clear that he is not repeating himself, but trying very hard to get across a point over a language barrier, while "Mad," if anything, is willfully misconstruing his points - which are, from what I can see, largely reasonably grounded.

For example:

If the ship is travelling to you with a constant velocity, you can calculate this with the increasing gravitation, unless you think, it would loss its own mass while it is flying.
Furthermore there could be a kind of Doppler effect in the gravitons.

OK, so flat out, a Doppler effect for graviton signatures would solve all your problems in the blink of an eye, so let's ignore that suggestion for the moment.

Since g~r^2, assuming constant mass and velocity can give you a distance based on the changing output. The dependence is different. (Gravity travels at light speed, of course, but Mad doesn't seem to have mentioned that; a lot of people overlook that.)

Of course, Mad is right to point out that it is possible to get the same reading from two distinct objects - say four times the mass, twice the distance, and twice the speed.

It is ridiculous to speak of confusing the vectors of two ships as he does later, incidentally; the odds of perfect spherical symmetry in the motion of two ships relative to your sensors is pretty unusual and unlikely to last long - if nothing else, the fact that your vector of motion is independently controlled can be used to give you clear readings unless the ships are perfectly matching your vector changes.

As was also not mentioned by Mad, but which AVOGARDO might have been trying to get at when he mentioned a "third source", you can also get appropriate readings from parallax - fixing distance, mass, and velocity to the precision available to your resolution - if you have multiple receptors around the ship. If you want to talk about that further, get a thread started in Trek/Wars.

Besides which, he was speaking of velocity, and Mad, in his word problem, is asking for mass. Sidetrack much?

What happens next is that AVOGARDO points out - rightly - that he didn't talk about distance earlier. I don't see anything simply repeated by AVOGARDO in that set of quotations.

Mad then goes on to accuse AVOGARDO of "lying" in saying this:

I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects.

That person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject.

An engineer would not be such an expert.

But even this person would have to try to explain the reasons for its speculation.

This is a lie? He's saying that he will accept speculation from an expert who explains his reasons... and then says that he didn't say "only" as Mad claims, but "even." A perfectly honest statement to all intents and appearances - and not a single thing repeated. AVOGARDO's posts smell no more of "broken record" than Mad's - and unless Mad was banned, which I'm sure would have been mentioned, therein lies the crux of the problem.

No, I'm afraid I don't even see how the cited rules would lead to a ban if applied appropriately.

[Who is like God arbour]

Thank you, Jedi Master Spock.

I have contemplated, how I could display my answer, particularly because some of this quotations are taken out off context and a great number of arguments from me are not qouted. Furthermore the posts are to interwoven to separate them without to adulterate them.

But I couldn't find a breakdown, which I could manage in an acceptable time.
I think, the best would be, to link to the original thread.

And I can give some quotations from me, which Mad has surpressed:

Thats possible. But if you have a ship, which is moving, you could track it cause the vector is changing too and you can calculate its position while considering the standing source of gravitation.
[...]
If you have two ships, the vector ist changing, when these ships change theire positions in relation to each other.
[...]
I have never claimed, that such a sensor could do wonders. But it would be able to detect gravitation. If you have a fleet from which you knows nothing, you can at least tell how much mass it has. And you can use other sensors too.
[...]
Sure, if there are other ships, you have to consider these.
But I don't see the problem. You would have other sensors too. You would know about these ships.
[…]
Usually you would keep track of each starship in your system and consider these data while analyzing the data from your sensors.
That that isn't simple, should be clear. But it shouldn't be impossible for a computer in 400 years in "normal" circumstances.
[…]
A sensor with which you can detect gravitons wouldn't be the only sensor you have. It would be only one sensor system. And you have to unite the readings from all your sensors. And if there would be an anomaly in these readings you can find it.
[…]
If the ship is travelling to you with a constant velocity, you can calculate this with the increasing gravitation, unless you think, it would loss its own mass while it is flying. Furthermore there could be a kind of Doppler effect in the gravitons.
[...]
Through constantly monitoring the changes in the gravitation when these ships are moving in relation to each other source of gravitation. Such a moving result imperatively in a small change in the gravitation.
[...]
No, if you assume that velocity and mass are constant, than you could calculate with the increasing gravitation the velocity. That both are constant is likely to be usual. Why should someone change its velocity or mass during travel between two points, for example two planets? Every change in the velocity needs energy. It could happen, sure, there could always be a reason, but that would not be a normal case.
[...]
Even if the ship are evenly accelerating, this calculation should be possible.
[...]
But you can calculate the approaching-speed of an approaching object with the doppler effect for gravitation too.
[...]
I never said, that you could get a distance with this method. Hell. it's a sensor to detect gravitation an not for distance. But If you have the distance through other sensor systems, you can calculate the mass via its gravitation. And you always need at least two variables to calculate a third.
[...]
You can't get a velocity without time and distance.
Without a movement, a change of position from point one to point two, you have no time.
Without time, you have no movement, a change of position from point one to point two.
And so on, and so on...
[...]
Why do you insist, that because it is not possible to determine the mass of an objekt without at least two other variables, that my explanation is impossible. That made no sense. That is the normal case.

Even that is not satisfying.
You can't recognize what is the answer on what post.

[coyote]

Speaking of board culture, why is it that so many of you guys from SDN to sound almost exactly alike? Gandalf too was throwing around phrases like "wall of ignorance" and "dishonest debating" like buzzwords, as I've heard numerous times from other SDNers. These phrases are never heard elsewhere and seem to come exclusively from Mike Wong. How is that so many people on SDN can share verbatim the same position? This may be off-topic, but it always struck as being really really strange.

Not the same position, but the same way of describing, categorizing, and classifying. If we all held the same position, things like gun control and the Middle East, religion, God, etc would not even be points of discontent. We use agreed-upon understandings because it is handy, and serves as the "same sheet of music" or a common point of reference when describing something. The same phrases are used in the rules so when someone says "broken record", for example, he can go to the rules and see what is being talked about.

In much the same way that I can talk with soldiers from other units and describe things like an L-shaped ambush or a ruck march, or concepts like "motivated" or "promotion board"... others know what I'm referring to so there'd be no need to get bogged down in repeated explanation.

Ask yourself that: Why are you here?

I came here because it had been alluded that the SDN board is organized along lines of group think and that everyone must hold positions similar to Mike Wong's or be harassed out the door. I felt it was a mischaracterization, considering I myself am far and away from Mike Wong's point of view on many, many issues and I am neither harassed nor ignored/stifled.

If you think SDN is so great, stay there and be happy.

I intend to, and shall wrap this up. Regardless of events, I do appreciate your time.

[SailorSaturn13]

Evading requests for evidence, stonewalling, misdirection, etc, are not good reasons to mete out punishment if an actual debate is supposed to be the goal?

The Evidence was all there. If you get a contradiction, state this and explain why your arguments are better. And generally, personal insult is a far worse offense.

See, from my point of view, and I suppose for others at SDN, debating in a dishonest manner is a bannable offense. Flaming or rudeness is not.

Translate to real life: saying something agitated and claiming: "believe me, it's true" is a criminal offense. Hitting someone is not. Nice logic is this

Here's the thing that I'm having a hard time getting at, then-- you go to Mike's "house", as it were, where the rules are posted clearly. You get involved in discussions, arguments, debates, whatever, and find that you're chafing under the posted rules.

No, we find out there are double standards: rules are applied more strict to Trekkies than to Warsies. THIS is intolerable. And yes, some rules are, what can I say, not helpful.

If the way things are run at SDN bugs you, and it really means that much to you, the weapons locker is wide open-- meaning, the rules and standards that you will be judged by are there for you to use as well.

This is exactly like with Sowiet 1937 constitution: nominally you could say all you want. It's just that somehow, people opposing Stalin either were found guilty of spying, or of stealing. Or they somehow landed under a car.

Laws are there at SDN, but their usage isn't fair. That's the point.

[Nonamer]

Speaking of board culture, why is it that so many of you guys from SDN to sound almost exactly alike? Gandalf too was throwing around phrases like "wall of ignorance" and "dishonest debating" like buzzwords, as I've heard numerous times from other SDNers. These phrases are never heard elsewhere and seem to come exclusively from Mike Wong. How is that so many people on SDN can share verbatim the same position? This may be off-topic, but it always struck as being really really strange.

Not the same position, but the same way of describing, categorizing, and classifying. If we all held the same position, things like gun control and the Middle East, religion, God, etc would not even be points of discontent. We use agreed-upon understandings because it is handy, and serves as the "same sheet of music" or a common point of reference when describing something. The same phrases are used in the rules so when someone says "broken record", for example, he can go to the rules and see what is being talked about.

In much the same way that I can talk with soldiers from other units and describe things like an L-shaped ambush or a ruck march, or concepts like "motivated" or "promotion board"... others know what I'm referring to so there'd be no need to get bogged down in repeated explanation.

But we've all had our share of online debates. I've never heard many of the terms used, nor do they make much sense. What the hell is a wall of ignorance? What defines dishonest debating? If it's what it sounds like, then it's extremely unlikely to happen in an online discussion. They're readily thrown around as justification for various bans, but they're really stale reasons and often don't make any sense. I've also noticed, as reminded by Mad's posts, that these phrases seem to be catchall terms that describe many cases. That makes them too vague to be meaningful.

Ask yourself that: Why are you here?

I came here because it had been alluded that the SDN board is organized along lines of group think and that everyone must hold positions similar to Mike Wong's or be harassed out the door. I felt it was a mischaracterization, considering I myself am far and away from Mike Wong's point of view on many, many issues and I am neither harassed nor ignored/stifled.

Then it's no different in my case.

If you think SDN is so great, stay there and be happy.

I intend to, and shall wrap this up. Regardless of events, I do appreciate your time.

Same here.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Speaking of board culture, why is it that so many of you guys from SDN to sound almost exactly alike? Gandalf too was throwing around phrases like "wall of ignorance" and "dishonest debating" like buzzwords, as I've heard numerous times from other SDNers. These phrases are never heard elsewhere and seem to come exclusively from Mike Wong. How is that so many people on SDN can share verbatim the same position? This may be off-topic, but it always struck as being really really strange.

Not the same position, but the same way of describing, categorizing, and classifying. If we all held the same position, things like gun control and the Middle East, religion, God, etc would not even be points of discontent. We use agreed-upon understandings because it is handy, and serves as the "same sheet of music" or a common point of reference when describing something. The same phrases are used in the rules so when someone says "broken record", for example, he can go to the rules and see what is being talked about.

In much the same way that I can talk with soldiers from other units and describe things like an L-shaped ambush or a ruck march, or concepts like "motivated" or "promotion board"... others know what I'm referring to so there'd be no need to get bogged down in repeated explanation.

Ask yourself that: Why are you here?

I came here because it had been alluded that the SDN board is organized along lines of group think and that everyone must hold positions similar to Mike Wong's or be harassed out the door. I felt it was a mischaracterization, considering I myself am far and away from Mike Wong's point of view on many, many issues and I am neither harassed nor ignored/stifled.

If you think SDN is so great, stay there and be happy.

I intend to, and shall wrap this up. Regardless of events, I do appreciate your time.

Go debate at SDN about Alderaan's destruction, and mention things such as delayed explosion, ejecta slowing down, etc. Just to see what would happen.