General Warning Tally for users...

[Jedi Master Spock]

it's a shame though JMS you have officially chosen false civility over honest debating and have chosen to refuse to punish some one for obvious trolling despite that one does not need to be insulting to break your rules

I reviewed his recent posting history quite carefully. He has laid out his case civilly with few recent exceptions, and I have no trouble believing that he was making arguments that he believed in, at least during the recent period I'm talking about. I could be wrong; but that's the call I'm making here.

If he believes his own arguments, there's nothing dishonest about that. As far as this being good or bad for the board; I happen to be of the opinion our discussions here are much more productive when we don't all agree with each other and stay civil enough not to shout each other down.

If you like, Breetai, here is your mission: Prove to me that SWST is trolling; and I will act on it. Use quotes and links extensively to make your case. Imagine you are a prosecutor, and you must prove to the judge the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This will be much more fun for all of us than you deciding to imitate Mojo's tactics.

[Airlocke_Jedi_Knight]

This will be much more fun for all of us than you deciding to imitate Mojo's tactics.

*British accent*

"I DISAGREE!"

*drives away*

[Trinoya]

Indeed, the 'good posting history' that JMS speaks of I mentioned earlier in the, "I hate to admit it but he is improving." I must agree with JMS that he just seems really dedicated to the cause...


And a bit uneducated on general debating practice... but that will only come with time.

To JMS and in Defense of Admiral: SWST does on occasion slip back into older arguments... but I would argue he is using the old argument for a different reason in some of those cases, and not all of them seem without merit (even if I believe them to be misguided attempts) and therefore, again, not dishonest in nature (presuming it isn't just trolling of course).

Finally: I really do think he is young, and he won't get better if we shout him down and don't give him a chance to improve or learn... and it doesn't make anyone's side come off as any more legitimate in turn.

[Praeothmin]

It took him months to finally start posting *some* evidence, but all in all he's always using the same argument to defend his claims for certain debates:
The "Wolf 359" example for short ST ranges, using it as a maximum range, while ignoring all other examples that show longer ranges, even in fleet engagements, and using RotJ as long range examples for SW when there's nothing to back his claim up, and using that as a short range example...

I too believed he was simply a bad debater first, but the more I see him go, the more I believe he may not be as honest as some think, and uses this site's civility rules to engage in polite trolling...

JMS has the final word on things, but I stand by my ruling...

But Breetai, doing "the mojo" will not help anything, and if SWST really pisses you off, simply ignore him, as you were told many times...
The more people ignore him, the less of his inane argument we'll see...

[Admiral Breetai]

This will be much more fun for all of us than you deciding to imitate Mojo's tactics.

*British accent*

"I DISAGREE!"

*drives away*

if this crap does not change soon count me in on your next BBQ

[Airlocke_Jedi_Knight]

This will be much more fun for all of us than you deciding to imitate Mojo's tactics.

*British accent*

"I DISAGREE!"

*drives away*

if this crap does not change soon count me in on your next BBQ

BBQ? I have no intention of inviting you to my house. No offense, of course.

[Mike DiCenso]

If you like, Breetai, here is your mission: Prove to me that SWST is trolling; and I will act on it. Use quotes and links extensively to make your case. Imagine you are a prosecutor, and you must prove to the judge the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This will be much more fun for all of us than you deciding to imitate Mojo's tactics.

Actually, this accounting is already underway to some extent in the "About me supposedly ignoring evidence". Most people initially did not bother because it was started by SWST, and most felt that he/she would just ignore what was said anyway. But now they have a very good reason to post examples there, since it can and will be used against SWST.

And on that note, JMS, it is your board and you decide what goes on, but I would respectfully say that your opinion here of what is appropriate is flawed. I have no problem with SWST taking a pro-Wars stance. In fact, we had a good number of positive discussions for years with Kane, even though he was borderline obtuse in his behavior, at least he tried to back it up with good arguements, evidence, as well as behavior. I recommend that you go back and review those threads, and compare them to SWST's for the difference in style. Kane, for all his faults, did not ignore contrary evidence. He acknowledged it and tried to form reasonable counterarguements to them.

SWST does none of that, and even has been dishonest enough to ignore calculations of a pro-Trek nature, or in one case, as has been pointed out by Praeothimin, my calculation of the range of the Saratoga and two other ships firing on the Borg cube during the "Emissary" flashback of the Battle of Wolf 395 as a maximum, rather than minimum. When pressed for calculations, SWST has seldom ever done anything except post a number, but never presented reasoning or shown his/her work, while I and others have.

Your own board rules state that dishonest behavior is punishable, so what and where do you define that?
-Mike

[Trinoya]

This may be off topic... do we really need to call it "the Mojo?"

[Admiral Breetai]

Your own board rules state that dishonest behavior is punishable, so what and where do you define that?
-Mike

all I know is that reversing a ban when very deliberate and blatantly obvious trolling and intentional dishonesty has happened on the basis of "oh but in his heart of hearts his intentions are pure" is..completely ridiculous and demands from the member base a very aggressive response..since it's clear the staff is not being allowed to properly act

[
BBQ? I have no intention of inviting you to my house. No offense, of course.

....I think your lost or being obtuse in taking what I meant as literal either way that was incredibly dense of you

[Airlocke_Jedi_Knight]

BBQ? I have no intention of inviting you to my house. No offense, of course.

....I think your lost or being obtuse in taking what I meant as literal either way that was incredibly dense of you

HAH! No, my friend, you are the one being dense. My comment was sarcastic and intended for humor only. Of course I wasn't being literal. I was trying to confuse you. And I succeeded. POINT FOR ME!!

[Admiral Breetai]

HAH! No, my friend, you are the one being dense. My comment was sarcastic and intended for humor only. Of course I wasn't being literal. I was trying to confuse you. And I succeeded. POINT FOR ME!!

well played my good sir, very well indeed

[Admiral Breetai]

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... f=8&t=1965

oh look he's trolling again..

of course every time we present evidence we get ignored in favor of "but he's not being mean"

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Breentai, quit it.

Mike, you certainly have a very interesting definition of the word trolling. For one, it implies that I intentionally make "dishonest" arguments for the sake of messing around with you, but, with all due respect, I honestly don't care enough about random online board members to spend hours of my time writing up elaborate trolling methods.

For another, there are numerous other members on this forum who also have a tendency to outright refuse to give evidence (like literally say "lol NO"), and your response is far more tame than with me. Granted, you are good at warning both sides of the argument, but there is little telling that you do have a predisposition against my argument.

Which leads to my next point: you are accusing me on highly subjective grounds. You claim that I keep on repeating arguments that have been "debunked" before. What? Are you honestly saying that I cannot repeat the most important arguments in the entire debate (Death Star nature, BDZ, hypermatter, etc.) because you claim that your side has already debunked them all? Doesn't the pro Wars side also claim that they have debunked all the pro Trek arguments? Why are you assuming the pro Trek stance to be true, and why are you determining administrative actions on your opinion in a debate?

How would you like it if you registered on SDN or spacebattles, only to get banned the next day because "you are arguing for Star Trek, but we've already proven that Star Wars wins"?

A more objective stance would be that I repeat the same arguments over and over, but this is patently false. I consistently make varied and valid arguments and back them up with false.

You also accuse me of ignoring evidence, when I do not. Nowhere do I do this; apparently, you find that not responding to every single post in a 14 page thread counts as evasion. You say this even though responding to one of these often meter long posts can take over an hour, and there are often several long winded rebuttals that overlap 90% of their content.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Perhaps because if you are honest enough about it, you can see that the reasons as to why they decreed that SW wins are based on total bollocks.
As for the problem with you specifically, it's been largely shown that you simply repeated some arguments which were indeed known to be false, and easily proven to be so, as well as ignored whole posts made like one page ago in a thread. I even pointed some more recently.
If you can't keep up with it, then don't multi-post and focus on a single debate at a time. You're a warsie, and there's a majority of Trekkies, so surely that puts you at a disadvantage, even in a single thread, if a large portion of Trekkies decide to post at once. But you can condense points and openly state that you'll postpone other replies for the moment, or deem them not necessary to reply to with evidence.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Known to be false? You see, you are judging based on your biased and illogical opinion on what arguments are correct or incorrect in the debate, by using the illusion that any of the popular pro Wars theories are somehow proven false.