What happened to the rules then? You were suppose to stop these things. You didn't. You've came with no counterargument to this event at all.Alyeska wrote:And, so, therefor? This has what to do with the actual debate in question? It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual debate.Nonamer wrote:Other than being a flagrant ad hominem and strawman?
The rules against flaming. Those board-wide rules you apparently didn't enforce.Show me the rules he violated.Like your a trekkie in that context. Doesn't matter, you let him off the hook.
That was last year! Your were a mod for a long time before then.The thread occurred in mid July. I was modded in late July. Either way, its irrelevant. The rules regarding civility in the Tech forum weren't created until Jan of the next year.You were definitely a mod at that time.
So when there's mass flaming and sniping, you can just ignore it then? Usually when it gets this bad, the mods intervene. You rarely intervened in such cases.Flame and insult are usually used interchangeably. The forum has a rule against flaming, though its enforced in the case of excessive flaming. I guess you've missed the significant insults thrown about the the NSF and Gaming forums that have been ignored.
That's fucking BULLSHIT and you know it. Since when was the canon rules for SW "ICS trumps everything unless specifically contradicted by the movies?" That's straight out of SDN. Hardly anyone took that position that you did, and especially not the community at SB.com, because of the numerous contradictions between ICS and other canon, higher or lower. You were the one who decided what the canon rules must be and ruled from that position onwards. Any time someone tried to show a contradiction between ICS and the movies, you intervened and either locked the thread or banned people.The rule was designed for the expressed purpose of making the people debate the facts as presented by the franchise owners. That some universes are more powerful then others is a matter of fact.All the especially problematic ones seem to fall on that one though. That rule might as well say "SW wins so STFU."
That was sniping? A bunch of people were sniping in that thread! This was the mildest one there. You're ability to see only the anti-SW is unbelievable.You have repeatedly stated that the Warsies were allowed to get away with excessive insults. I've asked you multiple times to present an example of Trekkies getting punished for being insulting. You have yet to post this.That's reasonable and you know it. Only the Warsies were given full reign to act like that.
You weren't making an argument. You were essentially sniping at ICS with that statement while also attacking the opposition. No argument, sniping, and insulting at the same time. And the only thing I told you to do was drop the attitude. The moment you started talking to them on point you were left alone.Like this brilliant event:
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=207
Took you all of 1 minute to react to a minor quip. Strange that multiple Warsie heavy handed troll posts in that thread elicited nothing.
Yeah, you only intervene when it got really bad or would get really bad. You've created those situation in the first place too.I stopped threads that weren't even flame wars simply because a pile on occurred or was on the verge of occurring. I also have IMed certain SW members to stay out of certain threads to avoid an IM. But Proactive decisions such as that aren't visible on the board as nothing happened.It's because you let things get that bad that you had to do this. The fact that you wait till pile-on flamewars before you respond just shows how biased you were.
There are in the board-wide rules which you seem to ignore altogether. How many times were trekkies banned for starting a debate about ICS? At least on a dozen separate occasions. And Warsies got away with tons of logical errors. Not to mention trolling and flames galore. I've already shown this in the quick examples which you've just ignored.Smaller offenses? What the hell are you talking about? In the VS forum there were not rules on civility or swearing and as such one did not get banned for that. People got banned for making logical errors and the sort.You banned like a dozen trekkies for way smaller offenses multiple times. Shrike, your worst example, was banned because you wouldn't listen and you broke the rules.
And you're not even responding to the Shrike incident. That was the time where you became a "rabid" Warsie and went on the warpath yourself.
That's what you think. In reality, the Warsies were both rude and had crap for arguments. All they did was ridicule the trekkies and maybe only occasionally post a serious argument. Anything resembling a serious argument from the trekkies were ignored.Your sole complaint has been that Warsies were rude. That has absolutely nothing to do with the argument being presented. People were judged based on the argument being presented and the rules reflected this. But do go on and continue to ignore this fact.No, that is the conclusion of the evidence. Sure, some trekkies were bad. But the Warsies were way worse. You slammed the Trekkies and did nothing to Warsies. The outcome was clear and obvious: the place turned into SDN-lite with Warsies flaming everybody. The higher-ups finally wised up and got rid of you I think.
Yes you did. I was one of them and that's exactly what you did all the time. That's exactly what you did to Shrike and you got overruled because of it.What exactly are you saying? Your claiming I ignored Trekkies making good arguments. Hello, if they were making good arguments why would I punish them?Are you joking? There were plenty of logical, scientific claims made during that time. Some made by me and others. You blatantly ignored them in favor of Warsie flame posts. How the heck do you think your ban was overruled that time? It wasn't because the opposition failed to post evidence.
You're confusing two events. One happened in mid-2006. Another in 2005. I wasn't keeping track of things in the vs. board in 2005, so maybe you were right. But I was aware of things in 2006, and you were definitely a tech board mod in mid-2006.Earlier in this thread you said "You were definitely a mod at that time. " about this very same thread. You can't even keep your story straight in a single post.
Aren't the ones above perfect examples of this?Do show me where Warsies violated the rules. And do remember that only one rule has to do with ICS.They did a shitload wrong, and you've simply ignored them all. In particularly, they usually posted nothing of meaning with lots of flames. Anything remotely resemble a counterargument was left a harsh and switch response. I believe I've show enough evidence for others to make this determination. Like I've said before, SB.com is not SDN. Your moderating behavior may be acceptable there, but not where you were. You did a great job of enforcing your own rules, but you failed at enforcing board-wide rules.
Yes you did! By saying "franchise owners decisions" = "ICS is Law." It's the same thing in different wording.I didn't make ICS law. I made a law that people must abide by the franchise owners decisions.That begs the question: Why the hell did you make the ICS law? Was it because there was overwhelming agreement at SB.com? I think not.
You create a forum atmosphere that went epically bad in STvSW where only the SW side was allowed to win.No. I created the rule because I wanted to create an atmosphere that encouraged discussion of technical issues that don't include the VS environment. I knew that certain Warsies were likely to be an issue on such an issue and took them into consideration. The VS debates are by their very nature adversarial. Technical discussions need not be and the rules reflected this.That's in part because they were out of control in the regular vs. board.
Then you're incredibly lazy. The tech board gets little traffic. You can easily skim every thread. To make an excuse in such an event is incredibly lame.Hello, I already said that. I have never read that thread until yesterday. I do not read every thread, no moderator does. Had someone reported the post I would have dealt with the situation. I have banned people from the Tech forum for lesser insults (this includes warsies). And you call that a weak excuse? Nice to know you have a poor opinion of moderators as a whole.That's one weak excuse. That was the first damn reply! If you didn't see that one, you didn't see the thread at all. There also should have been reports of bad behavior. Of course, my experiences with that route has lead to nowhere.
Heck, I'll say this: By that time most of the Trekkies have already left the debate, leaving only Warsie trolls. Behavior like this was created by the atmosphere you created at the vs. board and that is something you never addressed. It got so bad that "attack of the rabid Warsies" is a running joke today.