SDN and bias: Explain this

2046 · Post by **2046** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:40 pm

Alyeska wrote:Dislike me all you want, but don't use false information to justify it.

You can hardly complain about SDN, or having false information used to justify dislike.

(e.g. your false claim "DarkStar has the unique honor of being banned from both the official Star Trek and Star Wars forums" . . . neither is true.)

GStone · Post by **GStone** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:14 pm

consequences wrote:
GStone wrote: We don't leave stuff out.
Do you honestly enjoy being proven a liar this easily? On this very board, in your last reply to me, you simultaneously blatantly ignored the numerically important part of my post(you know where I laid out the numbers showing that the activity of Sd.netters here is inconsequential in relation to the whole)

You want to know why I didn't say anything about it? Because I took what you said as the truth. That you weren't lying about it. So, excuse the fuck out of me for not commenting on every damned thing you type.

It was already brought up by you, meaning that it wasn't left out at all. It's relevence is in question to the initial issue, but it wasn't left out. So, what did you want? Applause for saying it at all?

threw out the sixty-six page thread that wasn't even started about here as evidence(ignoring that it represents a single bare percentage point of the posts made in that time period at most, and large portions of it were about the St.com debate anyway)

It's relevence goes to the issue of bias and whether or not is happens at SDN and if it does, how does it happen.

and gloated about the admission that people at SD.net pick and choose the arguments they feel like addressing

Take the recent issue of the credentials of BHMM. The evidence provided was rolled around and around that they couldn't even get straight all the course requirements from his college, even when in possession of the link to the requirements and having the list provided.

*Edit: They even stickied the thread, so it's easy to find.*

(while doing the same thing yourself, with extra dishonesty to add tanginess to the recipe).

There would only be the tanginess if one isn't paying attention and gives you the benefit of the doubt. I did and you jumped on my back for it. Good show. Maybe I should learn the lesson now and not give you the benefit of the doubt in the future.

** And note that I am leaving out the rest of your post. Not because I am picking and choosing which arguments I want to talk about, but because the rest was rendered irrelevent to respond to because of what I said above. And this is the last time I will state this type of message for one of your posts.

Post by **Jedi Master Spock** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:49 pm

That's gotten more than rude enough. Cool it, folks.

mojo · Post by **mojo** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:39 am

I know this is going to seem like a stupid question, but as an outsider, I have to wonder where all this hostility came from in the first place? I was massively enjoying the comedic value of that wiki until I stumbled across the entry on JMS, and then that pretty much killed it for me. How can there be so much hostility between two sides of such a pointless and obviously 'for fun' debate?
Please don't flame me, it's an honest question. Being that I personally prefer Star Wars for entertainment value but find that I prefer the company of this side of the debate, (and I know there are Warsies on this forum but it would be difficult to argue that there are not more Trekkies) I find myself in an awkward position when I attempt to enjoy Mr. Wong's forum as it's full of hatred toward this one and toward Trekkies in general.
Also, are there other pro-Wars sites out there that are not so hostile?

GStone · Post by **GStone** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:29 pm

mojo wrote:How can there be so much hostility between two sides of such a pointless and obviously 'for fun' debate?

...I find myself in an awkward position when I attempt to enjoy Mr. Wong's forum as it's full of hatred toward this one and toward Trekkies in general.

The attitude taken by those at Wong's site is a part of how it all began.

Also, are there other pro-Wars sites out there that are not so hostile?

I'm not that aware of how many pro-wars sites there are. I know of Poe's, Wong's, Spacebattles is pro-wars, but acts like those of SDN, there was ASVS, but I don't know if that's still active or if it's closed. There was Brian Young's site, but that was for technical analysis pages and didn't have a board (I forget where he came down on for all the issues). I don't know about TFN's position but it does have a large part of the EU completists and it's got Saxton's commentaries and we know he's tried to influence the debate in offical materials.

I don't know of any others.

Praeothmin · Post by **Praeothmin** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:42 pm

GStone wrote:I don't know about TFN's position but it does have a large part of the EU completists and it's got Saxton's commentaries and we know he's tried to influence the debate in offical materials.

Although I remember reading here and there on SDN about idiots on TFN who didn't seem to agree with complete Wars supremacy, or with the more "despised" EU authors.

So Mojo, I would first start there, at TheForce.net for a Wars forum that doesn't seem as vitriolic as SDN.

Mr. Oragahn · Post by **Mr. Oragahn** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:36 pm

mojo wrote:I know this is going to seem like a stupid question, but as an outsider, I have to wonder where all this hostility came from in the first place? I was massively enjoying the comedic value of that wiki until I stumbled across the entry on JMS, and then that pretty much killed it for me. How can there be so much hostility between two sides of such a pointless and obviously 'for fun' debate?
Please don't flame me, it's an honest question. Being that I personally prefer Star Wars for entertainment value but find that I prefer the company of this side of the debate, (and I know there are Warsies on this forum but it would be difficult to argue that there are not more Trekkies) I find myself in an awkward position when I attempt to enjoy Mr. Wong's forum as it's full of hatred toward this one and toward Trekkies in general.
Also, are there other pro-Wars sites out there that are not so hostile?

Starwars.com has a forum, and there's the huge Theforce.net, with stuff for all tastes.
But you won't cut the hostility. It pokes its head out in a way or another, on various topics which also have nothing to do with the versus.
We're fans. The roots of the word explain rather well the passion.

EDIT: Eh, crap, that's Praet's point. Crap. Crap. Crap.

Post by **Mike DiCenso** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:44 pm

GStone wrote:

I'm not that aware of how many pro-wars sites there are. I know of Poe's, Wong's, Spacebattles is pro-wars, but acts like those of SDN, there was ASVS, but I don't know if that's still active or if it's closed. There was Brian Young's site, but that was for technical analysis pages and didn't have a board (I forget where he came down on for all the issues). I don't know about TFN's position but it does have a large part of the EU completists and it's got Saxton's commentaries and we know he's tried to influence the debate in offical material.

Brian Young's site did have a forum board in the late 90's that I particpated on for a while. Like everything else with Brian's site, it too was closed down when he retired. Was it pro-Wars? You betcha! A good number of the Usual Suspects (Wong, Poe, ect) were there in force, though they weren't quite as nasty with the vitrol then as they are now.
-Mike

Post by **Jedi Master Spock** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:14 pm

IMO, some of that is location. Most of the "usual suspects" are registered on other boards, and most other boards have standards of conduct that vary from those on SDN. I would claim it is a question of community style as much as individual preferences of behavior.

Post by **Mike DiCenso** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:35 am

By the way, ASVS is a news group not a forum. It is still up, but has seen very little activity in recent years thanks in part to AoTC ICS, and the Wars majority voting themselves into power.
-Mike

Post by **Jedi Master Spock** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:44 am

I've looked at it on Google Groups. It's pretty much dead; the spambots play there, but I think that's it.

Post by **Mike DiCenso** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:09 am

It's not completely dead. I posted there a year ago, and it wasn't long before elements of the Brute Squad showed up to go foaming on the attack. So at least as of that long ago they were still monitoring it.
-Mike

Mr. Oragahn · Post by **Mr. Oragahn** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:31 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:It's not completely dead. I posted there a year ago, and it wasn't long before elements of the Brute Squad showed up to go foaming on the attack. So at least as of that long ago they were still monitoring it.
-Mike

Which is just as creepy. Monitoring a dead world, just in case some survivor might poke his head... talk about trying to enforce an order at any cost. :D

Cock_Knocker · Post by **Cock_Knocker** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:39 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:By the way, ASVS is a news group not a forum. It is still up, but has seen very little activity in recent years thanks in part to AoTC ICS, and the Wars majority voting themselves into power.
-Mike

Yeah, it must be because of that all encompassing evil that is the AOTC:ICS. It had nothing to do with SD.net opening in 2002 and 99% of ASVS moving there, right?

Post by **Mike DiCenso** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:45 am

Wayne, even you must agree that once AoTC:ICS came out, it pretty much killed the debate for some people.
-Mike