Because everyone likes the bad guys.GStone wrote:And that's one thing I've never understood. Why are there so many Darth etc. over there.
Split: Signing up and keeping accounts on SDN
-
- Padawan
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:09 pm
Okay, for all of you who are griping about having to pay, I'm sure if you E-Mail and ask nicely he'll let you in. Besides, getting a legitimate E-Mail address isn't very hard, most ISP's provide you with a free one.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Undercover in Culture space
So, if I got an account such as "gstonesdn@gmail.com", you or someone else would go to Wong and he would say it's okay for me to join, if they vouched for the address?Cpl Kendall wrote:On the issue of paying for email accounts. If you only have a free email and you can get someone to vouch for you you you can get in. I did that for my wife when we only had one ISP provided email and she got in.
I get the impression he wouldn't let me in.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
Maybe if you promised to debate within the rules of the forum and not troll. You see when someone vouches for your behaviour then they assume responsibility for your actions. So I doubt that you or anyone else from this board are going to find someone to sponser them. But you can try. I certainly am not going to do it.GStone wrote:
So, if I got an account such as "gstonesdn@gmail.com", you or someone else would go to Wong and he would say it's okay for me to join, if they vouched for the address?
I get the impression he wouldn't let me in.
- Who is like God arbour
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1155
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
- Location: Germany
On the issue of paying for SDN acces.
The problem is not, to not have the $ 10. That wouldn't be a problem.
The problem is, that it would be idiotic to pay these $ 10 for acces to SDN, if you can get banned at once. And that seems to me most likely, if I would say my opinion.
But why should I pay $ 10 for an acces at SDN, if I better say nothing to don't get banned?
The problem is not, to not have the $ 10. That wouldn't be a problem.
The problem is, that it would be idiotic to pay these $ 10 for acces to SDN, if you can get banned at once. And that seems to me most likely, if I would say my opinion.
But why should I pay $ 10 for an acces at SDN, if I better say nothing to don't get banned?
- Who is like God arbour
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1155
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
- Location: Germany
Maybe you should read this thread, starting shortly before this post. As it stands, the Senate don't need an adequate reason to ban someone.Cpl Kendall wrote:[...] and did AVOGARDO's trick of simply repeating your argument ad nausum then you'd eventually be dragged up in front of the Senate.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
I don't intend to rehash your complaining over your banning. Your back under a new name. Be quiet about it and be thankful they don't try and find your sock puppet and ban it. I would.Who is like God arbour wrote:
Maybe you should read this thread, starting shortly before this post. As it stands, the Senate don't need an adequate reason to ban someone.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Undercover in Culture space
Okay, so then even if I had a different view of what something would mean to the canon and still believed it in opposition of what others thought, I'd be brought in front of the senate for sticking to that opinion because I had a different view from the majority of the others, even if I was following the rules and the board's policy in the other threads.Cpl Kendall wrote:I really don't follow your views on SW canon enough to comment directly on you. But if you came on the board and espoused a mistaken view on canon and refused to see the real version of canon and showed a repeated wall of ignorance and did AVOGARDO's trick of simply repeating your argument ad nausum then you'd eventually be dragged up in front of the Senate.Then, let me ask you a hypothetical? If there was a thread to discuss whether something new that's been mentioned as to the heirarchy of the Wars canon and what it means for the policy of the board/site over at SDN and if I continue to post the same views there that I have over here (and other posters keep saying again and again that I'm not paying attention, though at the same time, I am following the policy of the board in other threads and sticking to it), would I be accused of breaking the rules of the board and be accused of various things, like wall of ignorance, broken record, etc. etc.?
So, I'd be brought up for possible banning for not giving up my opinion. I would need to have the prevailing view of the upper tier of SDN members to keep that from happening.
We don't do that here. We don't ban or bring up the question of banning because you stick to your guns with your arguments.
Do you realize how much this is making SDN sound like a cult?
-
- Redshirt
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:11 am
The SDN forums are for discussion. If you repeat the same points over and over again, and do nothing to answer counterarguments that demolish your points, then you might as well record your arguments on a record, strategically scratch it so that it skips to the beginning of your list of points, put it on the phonograph, and leave the room. (Hence the term "Broken record tactics".) In this case, you're not really discussing anything, rather you're repeating the same things over and over again.GStone wrote:Okay, so then even if I had a different view of what something would mean to the canon and still believed it in opposition of what others thought, I'd be brought in front of the senate for sticking to that opinion because I had a different view from the majority of the others, even if I was following the rules and the board's policy in the other threads.
In this case, you are breaking a rule that you have agreed to by signing up on the forum. If you break the rules, why should we keep you?
On the other hand, if you DO answer the counterarguments posted to you, own up when you make mistakes, and are willing to withdraw claims you cannot defend (and why should we accept claims you can't defend?), we'll keep you, because you are discussing. You are contributing. You are obeying the rules.
You would be brought before the Senate for banning for not giving up a claim you cannot defend. Not all claims are created equal, you know. Sometimes you just have a weak position. You'll not be banned for having weak positions, just for stubbornly sticking to it even after it has been demolished.Ibid wrote:So, I'd be brought up for possible banning for not giving up my opinion. I would need to have the prevailing view of the upper tier of SDN members to keep that from happening.
You can stick to your guns in SDNet, so long as you have ammunition for them. That is, if you answer people's counterarguments effectively, you're allowed to keep your position. Only when you stick to your guns when you've run out of ammunition will you get overrun by the injuns.Ibid wrote:We don't do that here. We don't ban or bring up the question of banning because you stick to your guns with your arguments.
If we are a cult, specifically of Star Wars ("Rabid Warsies," remember?), then why do we have a stickied thread-list of Sci-Fi universes that can ass-rape the Empire?Ibid wrote:Do you realize how much this is making SDN sound like a cult?
I'm a Doctor Who whore, by the way. My side CAN beat the Empire! >:D
ADDENDUM: Nice how you macroed "Rabid Warsies" to "Rabid Warsies." :D
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
Oh we've been over this before Wyrm. You see even though we admit that other Sci-fi universes can destroy Wars, we secretly hope and wish that it wasn't so. You see there's a Warsie conspiracy afoot. I'm not making this up someone on this board actually said this too me.Wyrm wrote:
If we are a cult, specifically of Star Wars ("Rabid Warsies," remember?), then why do we have a stickied thread-list of Sci-Fi universes that can ass-rape the Empire?
I'm a Doctor Who whore, by the way. My side CAN beat the Empire! >:D
ADDENDUM: Nice how you macroed "Rabid Warsies" to "considerate fellow fans of Star Wars." :D
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Undercover in Culture space
When it come to the TvW discussions, it's basically dead.Wyrm wrote:The SDN forums are for discussion.
And yet, show me someone that has been banned here for displaying such behavior.If you repeat the same points over and over again, and do nothing to answer counterarguments that demolish your points, then you might as well record your arguments on a record, strategically scratch it so that it skips to the beginning of your list of points, put it on the phonograph, and leave the room. (Hence the term "Broken record tactics".)
And if this place used that as a basis, Ted C should be banned by now for his dead power switch arguments. Is he? No. You make the spirit of the idea seem logical, but the practice with specific situations shows it's mainly a 'agree with us or we'll probably ban you, make fun of you, etc.'.In this case, you're not really discussing anything, rather you're repeating the same things over and over again.
Again, in spirit, it's logical, but adjudicating that spirit is a selective process, which is used to often get rid of those that are deemed 'unwanted'.In this case, you are breaking a rule that you have agreed to by signing up on the forum. If you break the rules, why should we keep you?
As long as you are obeying the rules in the view of the higher tier of people. And the practice of that view is basically 'agree with us or you're most likely banned'.On the other hand, if you DO answer the counterarguments posted to you, own up when you make mistakes, and are willing to withdraw claims you cannot defend (and why should we accept claims you can't defend?), we'll keep you, because you are discussing. You are contributing. You are obeying the rules.
And my views would be designated 'not supported', regardless of the facts contrary to that idea. In Kendell's own words, I couldn't last long if I stuck to my guns with an opposing canon view in the canon thread, even though I followed all the rules in every other part of the board.You would be brought before the Senate for banning for not giving up a claim you cannot defend.
I probably wouldn't get that far, based on everything that's been said about me in the members only section and what's open to the public. Wong would probably ban me as soon as I spoke a dissenting post or a couple.
SDN lets you stay based on what you can prove in the versus discussion, particularly trek and wars. As you say, it's more about what you can prove in your discussions than not.Not all claims are created equal, you know. Sometimes you just have a weak position. You'll not be banned for having weak positions, just for stubbornly sticking to it even after it has been demolished.
Again, it's what you can prove to the group and then, to only a few people more than how you are.You can stick to your guns in SDNet, so long as you have ammunition for them.
And effectiveness is based on a very subjective view and voted on by an oligarchy. And the views of this oligarchy is based on an us v them mentality. This is the cultish behavior I spoke of, regardless of how Kendell wants to spin it.That is, if you answer people's counterarguments effectively, you're allowed to keep your position.
Those that dare not don't want dissention of the predominate view of that board in the tvw discussion. It's already stacked against you, if you are on the other side.Only when you stick to your guns when you've run out of ammunition will you get overrun by the injuns.
[quoteIf we are a cult, specifically of Star Wars ("Rabid Warsies," remember?), then why do we have a stickied thread-list of Sci-Fi universes that can ass-rape the Empire?[/quote]
See above about the us v them mentality of the trek v wars discussion.
It's a cultish behavior stemming from having a particular view of wars and trek canon predominately. Mess with that, the gloves come off and you get dog piled on, get thrown in front of the senate and most likely get banned.I'm a Doctor Who whore, by the way. My side CAN beat the Empire! >:D
The extent of the conspiracy was discussions of openly stalking, photographing, trying to find out where people are in real life and with Saxton and him writing the ICSs, but that's about as far as the warsie conspiracy has gotten and the Saxton thing might even be 'retconned', but that's for another thread that's already up. Every other attempt hasn't be fruitful. Each failure weakens the conspiracy.Cpl Kendall wrote:Oh we've been over this before Wyrm. You see even though we admit that other Sci-fi universes can destroy Wars, we secretly hope and wish that it wasn't so. You see there's a Warsie conspiracy afoot. I'm not making this up someone on this board actually said this too me.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
I don't even need sarcasm, the comedy writes itself.GStone wrote:
The extent of the conspiracy was discussions of openly stalking, photographing, trying to find out where people are in real life and with Saxton and him writing the ICSs, but that's about as far as the warsie conspiracy has gotten and the Saxton thing might even be 'retconned', but that's for another thread that's already up. Every other attempt hasn't be fruitful. Each failure weakens the conspiracy.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
I know that I'll be exagerating a bit but you'll get my point...Wyrm wrote:
If we are a cult, specifically of Star Wars ("considerate fellow fans of Star Wars," remember?), then why do we have a stickied thread-list of Sci-Fi universes that can ass-rape the Empire?
- What can beat Star Wars' forces (Empire, etc.)?
- Gods, godlike entities and super inflawank races. See, we're objective. We're not pretending Star Wars can beat anything.
- SailorSaturn13
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am
If you repeat the same points over and over again, and do nothing to answer counterarguments that demolish your points, then you might as well record your arguments on a record, strategically scratch it so that it skips to the beginning of your list of points, put it on the phonograph, and leave the room. (Hence the term "Broken record tactics".)
Which is the point. Rules in SDN have much "wiggle room", which allow SDN senate to ban Trekkies for tactics Warsies aren't even scolded.Again, in spirit, it's logical, but adjudicating that spirit is a selective process, which is used to often get rid of those that are deemed 'unwanted'.
"Effectiveness of argument", for example, is opinion thing. That is, if most of Senate things X's arguments are "ineffective", it is a banning reason. Very convenient, indeed
-
- Redshirt
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:11 am
If there's no new ground to cover, or people are bored with the topic, why should discussion continue?GStone wrote:When it come to the TvW discussions, it's basically dead.Wyrm wrote:The SDN forums are for discussion.
So you like to argue with scratched phonograph records?Ibid wrote:And yet, show me someone that has been banned here for displaying such behavior.If you repeat the same points over and over again, and do nothing to answer counterarguments that demolish your points, then you might as well record your arguments on a record, strategically scratch it so that it skips to the beginning of your list of points, put it on the phonograph, and leave the room. (Hence the term "Broken record tactics".)
To each his (perverted) own.
Bullocks. He's answered your points. Just like I'm doing (God help me). He's demonstrating that he's engaged with you. The problem is that you don't seem to be engaging with him. Nothing seems to click. It's very hard to have a discussion with someone when they don't seem to be absorbing your ideas. Takes two to tango, dude.Ibid wrote:And if this place used that as a basis, Ted C should be banned by now for his dead power switch arguments. Is he? No. You make the spirit of the idea seem logical, but the practice with specific situations shows it's mainly a 'agree with us or we'll probably ban you, make fun of you, etc.'.
Explain MKSheppard.Ibid wrote:Again, in spirit, it's logical, but adjudicating that spirit is a selective process, which is used to often get rid of those that are deemed 'unwanted'.In this case, you are breaking a rule that you have agreed to by signing up on the forum. If you break the rules, why should we keep you?
Again, explain MKSheppard. He's all, "Glass the Mohommedians" (his term for Muslims), and somehow earned the title 'Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger'. Whenever I see him cross swords with SirNitram... man, the fur! It FLIES!! Quite franly, I don't know how he earns his keep.Ibid wrote:As long as you are obeying the rules in the view of the higher tier of people. And the practice of that view is basically 'agree with us or you're most likely banned'.On the other hand, if you DO answer the counterarguments posted to you, own up when you make mistakes, and are willing to withdraw claims you cannot defend (and why should we accept claims you can't defend?), we'll keep you, because you are discussing. You are contributing. You are obeying the rules.
That's because your guns are clearly empty. How is that contradicting anything I have said.Ibid wrote:And my views would be designated 'not supported', regardless of the facts contrary to that idea. In Kendell's own words, I couldn't last long if I stuck to my guns with an opposing canon view in the canon thread, even though I followed all the rules in every other part of the board.You would be brought before the Senate for banning for not giving up a claim you cannot defend.
You're right that you wouldn't get too far. I've experienced your debate strategy... it's not stimulating.Ibid wrote:I probably wouldn't get that far, based on everything that's been said about me in the members only section and what's open to the public. Wong would probably ban me as soon as I spoke a dissenting post or a couple.
Wrong. You don't have to participate in verses discussions. If the verses discussion isn't your speed, you don't have to participate. Some trolls never touch the verses discussion, or any of the sci-fi forums, and they still get banned. They get banned for being trolls, not Trekkies.Ibid wrote:SDN lets you stay based on what you can prove in the versus discussion, particularly trek and wars.
No. You may never win a single discussion in all your tenure on SDN, so long as you gracefully admit defeat.Ibid wrote:As you say, it's more about what you can prove in your discussions than not.
Bull. I disagreed with one of the mods, Master of Ossus... cussed him out in fact, on the effectiveness of fingerprints. I won that discussion. Haven't been kicked yet.Ibid wrote:And effectiveness is based on a very subjective view and voted on by an oligarchy. And the views of this oligarchy is based on an us v them mentality. This is the cultish behavior I spoke of, regardless of how Kendell wants to spin it.That is, if you answer people's counterarguments effectively, you're allowed to keep your position.
Of course it's stacked against you if you're on the side of Trek. It's a weak position. In Mobile Suit Gundam Vs. Star Wars, even though I find giant robots cool beyond words, I still realize that the Gundams would get their asses handed to them by the Empire. Should I be surprised if I get my ass handed to me if I argue Gundams > Empire on SDN? Of course, and rightly so.Ibid wrote:Those that dare not don't want dissention of the predominate view of that board in the tvw discussion. It's already stacked against you, if you are on the other side.
Now let's suppose... just suppose... that Trek really is weaker than Wars. Wouldn't an honest debate also come to that conclusion? So how do you decide the difference?
You go through the arguments and the evidence. Set aside your a priori objections, and go through the arguments. Are the observations accurate? Do you understand the reasoning, even if you don't agree with the conclusion? If the answer is yes, then the debate is indeed honest.
Please note, that it is important to understand the arguments; if you don't understand an argument, you cannot judge its correctness.
So, if it really is an Us Vs. Them situation...Ibid wrote:See above about the us v them mentality of the trek v wars discussion.If we are a cult, specifically of Star Wars ("considerate fellow fans of Star Wars," remember?), then why do we have a stickied thread-list of Sci-Fi universes that can ass-rape the Empire?
and they let the Time Lords and the Daleks win over the Empire...
THEN THEY MUST NOT BE WARSIES — They're WHOVIANS!!!
MECCA!!!
MECCA!!!
MECCA!!!
Why the fixation on Trek? Why not go for the whole enchalada and start crushing us Whovians with the same zeal? Why crush only Trek and not Gallifrey, or Skaro, or the Culture, or the Xeele.Ibid wrote:It's a cultish behavior stemming from having a particular view of wars and trek canon predominately. Mess with that, the gloves come off and you get dog piled on, get thrown in front of the senate and most likely get banned.I'm a Doctor Who whore, by the way. My side CAN beat the Empire! >:D
C'mon, at least SDN could have the Empire crush the DALEKS! Those tin cans are way too uppity.
The Daleks are a super inflawank race?Mr. Oragahn wrote:I know that I'll be exagerating a bit but you'll get my point...Wyrm wrote:
If we are a cult, specifically of Star Wars ("considerate fellow fans of Star Wars," remember?), then why do we have a stickied thread-list of Sci-Fi universes that can ass-rape the Empire?
- What can beat Star Wars' forces (Empire, etc.)?
- Gods, godlike entities and super inflawank races.
The Daleks?!
The great space dustbins?!
The Federation of Doctor Who fought them back. Multiple times! The wee saltshakers had to resort to trickery to get back into the game. Multiple times! Are humans and their alien friends suddenly a super inflawank race?
We're objective, too. We're not pretending Star Trek can beat anything either.Ibid wrote:See, we're objective. We're not pretending Star Wars can beat anything.