Some simple rules for G2k/Darkstar's board

[Darth Wong]

Interestingly enough, by your own logic, Darkstar's conduct here was deliberately designed to destroy any possibility of "well ordered debate", since he refused to accept the standard canon policy published in the Star Wars Encylopedia and startrek.com which had been accepted by both sides for use on ASVS and was then ported here.

[Darth Wong]

Logic dictates the best route of any analyst is to prepare for both cases and have arguments that work in both paradigms.

That's the only intelligent thing you've said so far in this thread. Unfortunately, it is also irrelevant to your absurd claim that Darkstar was not being a hypocrite for pointedly ignoring our canon policy here and then insisting that visitors to his board accept his canon policy as a rule.

[tjhairball]

So he goes to someone else's board and says "fuck your canon policy, I'm going to use my own." And when he makes his own board, he says "it's only reasonable to force visitors to my board to observe my canon policy". YOU ARE HONESTLY TOO FUCKING STUPID TO SEE THE HYPOCRISY HERE?

Mmm. This would fit much better without those other two "debate sections" he put in his forums, but I'm well aware of the thread of your argument. As I've also indicated, I'm also aware of myriad other interpretations of the facts set forth by you than the one you're pointing at.

Hypocracy is generally defined as holding stated ideals which contradict one's actions. It's also very subjective in application.

[Crayz9000]

Hypocracy is generally defined as holding stated ideals which contradict one's actions. It's also very subjective in application.

Well, let's see. He believes that visitors to his site should use his canon policy. He also believes that he can go to other forums and still use his canon policy, regardless of what they want their visitors to use...

If that's not hypocritical, I don't know what is.

[tjhairball]

That's the only intelligent thing you've said so far in this thread. Unfortunately, it is also irrelevant to your absurd claim that Darkstar was not being a hypocrite for pointedly ignoring our canon policy here and then insisting that visitors to his board accept his canon policy as a rule.

Accept his canon policy as a rule... but allow noncanon evidence in a second debate section, and dedicate an entire section to the debate of what canon is and should be.

By the way, what explicitly and exactly is the "standard canon policy" you refer to, and where might I refer to its histories? (Links are preferred as not to clutter up and further digress discussion, just a small footnote here.)

[Darth Wong]

So he goes to someone else's board and says "fuck your canon policy, I'm going to use my own." And when he makes his own board, he says "it's only reasonable to force visitors to my board to observe my canon policy". YOU ARE HONESTLY TOO FUCKING STUPID TO SEE THE HYPOCRISY HERE?

Mmm. This would fit much better without those other two "debate sections" he put in his forums, but I'm well aware of the thread of your argument. As I've also indicated, I'm also aware of myriad other interpretations of the facts set forth by you than the one you're pointing at.

Such as? Are you denying that he pointedly ignored our canon policy when he posted here, and then posted rules for his own board that would have meant he was a rule violator? Feel free to visit the Archive board and search through his posts for evidence.

Hypocracy is generally defined as holding stated ideals which contradict one's actions. It's also very subjective in application.

Then show exactly how it should be interpreted otherwise, rather than making vague allusion to already having done so in your head.

[Darth Wong]

By the way, what explicitly and exactly is the "standard canon policy" you refer to, and where might I refer to its histories? (Links are preferred as not to clutter up and further digress discussion, just a small footnote here.)

It comes from ASVS, from which this website and board sprung. Basically, the longstanding rule from ASVS (and set out on the main stardestroyer.net website before this board was created) is that there is "canon" for Star Trek, ie- the TV shows and the movies. And there is "canon" and "official" for Star Wars, ie- the movies are canon and everything else is official, which means it's considered valid evidence but cannot contradict the movies. Technically, the exact term used in the Star Wars Encyclopedia was "quasi-canon", but we call it "official".

The point here is that we had a very clearly defined canon policy and he was made fully aware that he was ignoring it when he was here. By your own logic, he was polluting any possibility of "well ordered debate" by refusing to accept the canon policy in use here. But on his own board, it's a whole different story, and he makes his canon policy into a board rule, ie- visitors are not allowed to do precisely what he did when he was here.

[Rogue 9]

Accept his canon policy as a rule... but allow noncanon evidence in a second debate section, and dedicate an entire section to the debate of what canon is and should be.

The Canon and Epistemology section was TOTALLY BLOODY WORTHLESS because he was already dead set on what he was going to use and to hell with any evidence to the contrary! It was a bone tossed to try to keep people quiet about his hypocrisy, nothing more.

[Rogue 9]

Oh, and DarkStar, if you're reading this, we eagerly await your "failure analysis." (Or at least, I am.)

[tjhairball]

It comes from ASVS, from which this website and board sprung. Basically, the longstanding rule from ASVS (and set out on the main stardestroyer.net website before this board was created) is that there is "canon" for Star Trek, ie- the TV shows and the movies. And there is "canon" and "official" for Star Wars, ie- the movies are canon and everything else is official, which means it's considered valid evidence but cannot contradict the movies. Technically, the exact term used in the Star Wars Encyclopedia was "quasi-canon", but we call it "official".

So the basic differences between Darkstar's canon policy and yours amount to:

Non-movie SW material "Noncanon" instead of "official," Jeri Taylor novels and "Yesteryear" canon, the radio version of Star Wars, scripts, and novels "lesser canon."

[Darth Wong]

It comes from ASVS, from which this website and board sprung. Basically, the longstanding rule from ASVS (and set out on the main stardestroyer.net website before this board was created) is that there is "canon" for Star Trek, ie- the TV shows and the movies. And there is "canon" and "official" for Star Wars, ie- the movies are canon and everything else is official, which means it's considered valid evidence but cannot contradict the movies. Technically, the exact term used in the Star Wars Encyclopedia was "quasi-canon", but we call it "official".

So the basic differences between Darkstar's canon policy and yours amount to:

Non-movie SW material "Noncanon" instead of "official," Jeri Taylor novels and "Yesteryear" canon, the radio version of Star Wars, scripts, and novels "lesser canon."

Actually, we generally accept the canonicity of the Jeri Taylor novels despite our irritation at the idea (I was trying to be concise earlier, perhaps overly so). That's why I wrote an analysis of one of those novels myself a while ago on this board. The point here is that if you agree that one cannot have a meaningful debate when you refuse to observe the canon policy in place in any given venue, then you must agree that he was basically out to muddy the waters when he was here, and that he is a hypocrite for disallowing the same thing on his own board.

[Rogue 9]

It comes from ASVS, from which this website and board sprung. Basically, the longstanding rule from ASVS (and set out on the main stardestroyer.net website before this board was created) is that there is "canon" for Star Trek, ie- the TV shows and the movies. And there is "canon" and "official" for Star Wars, ie- the movies are canon and everything else is official, which means it's considered valid evidence but cannot contradict the movies. Technically, the exact term used in the Star Wars Encyclopedia was "quasi-canon", but we call it "official".

So the basic differences between Darkstar's canon policy and yours amount to:

Non-movie SW material "Noncanon" instead of "official," Jeri Taylor novels and "Yesteryear" canon, the radio version of Star Wars, scripts, and novels "lesser canon."

You're purposefully understating how large the difference is, given the sheer amount of nonmovie SW material.

[Crown]

THE FAILURE ANALYSIS IS UP

For those that care.

[Darth Wong]

More evidence of Darkstar's awesome hypocrisy: he locked out the board, citing bad behaviour "on both sides" in order to generate a false impression of being fair and balanced, but he gave certain users (read: people who agreed with him) special user rights to continue posting despite this lockout so they would get the last word in on every thread.

[Darth Wong]

THE FAILURE ANALYSIS IS UP

For those that care.

Quote it here! It will be amusing to see how he spin-doctors his mind-bending hypocrisy. No doubt he will spend most of his time talking about how horrible we are.

[Ghost Rider]

And lo

ST-v-SW.Net Forum Experiment: Failure Analysis

(It's amusing, in a way, to refer to this as a failure analysis, since it generally confirmed my expectations. But, insofar as the forum itself was unsuccessful, the phrasing is useful.)

On June 22, 2004, I decided more or less on a lark to open these forums. I'd had the materials necessary for some time, and decided that it would be interesting, as an experiment, to see what would happen if I had one.

To be sure, this was a change of heart on my part. I'd always figured that, given the old board invasion habits of SD.Net, any forum of mine would be swarmed. Also, the flaming and stupidity that are so often allowed on SD.Net and SpaceBattles could find their way here. Further, the incompleteness I feel that my site suffers from would lead to attacks on the site's incompleteness. And, I was concerned about how much time it would take up (now more than ever before). And yet, I wanted to give it a try. I was hoping to create something new and different in the Vs. Debates . . . a place for reasoned debate and discussion.

So, I created the board, got everything set up, and made up the laws of the land. In them, I tried to make plain what it was I was hoping for, and tried to make it clear what I didn't want to see, based on the same ideas I mention in the paragraph above.

Soon people were registering, and it didn't take long for problems to develop.

So, June 26, 2004, has seen the board come to a halt. The reasons were manifold:

A. Primary Cause

1. Bandwidth

Though the major causes I'll go into below had left me with my finger on the button, it wasn't until I went to look at my site stats that I got the shocker which closed the place down. June 25 saw a bandwidth utilization of 927.33 megabytes. That was almost double the bandwidth used during the worst day of my Fark.com headlining back in January. I was convinced at first that it couldn't be the forum, but my stats info proved that it was. And the first hours of the 26th were well on their way to being worse.

While I won't reveal the total amount of bandwidth I have available for security reasons, suffice it to say that the site couldn't possibly stay open with that sort of usage. So, the section which was the worst offender . . . the new forum . . . had to go.

B. Major Causes (in rough order)

1. Zero Prep

Like I said above, I sort of just hopped into it on a lark to see what would happen. I figured it would slowly grow, and that I'd have opportunity to make necessary changes on the fly.

Instead, I was rapidly overwhelmed with 100 new members, almost 2000 posts, and a variety of other details demanding my time and attention. Without any other moderators having been selected or briefed (though I did get volunteers, and I thank you all), and with my desire to personally guide it in the early stages, I was pretty much screwed when a busy Friday kept me away from it.

2. Unrealistic Expectations

I was hoping for a new type of board the likes of which the Vs. Debate circles hadn't seen before, one where people would know to behave like adults and actually discuss the issues with reason and evidence, instead of the knee-jerk hostilities, unresearched claims, and splitting into political-party-esque camps so common to Vs. Debates.

Of course, that hope is probably evidence of encroaching senility.

Internet debate forums are well-known as havens of silliness . . . places where ego is more important than fact, insults make arguments, and flamewars are commonplace. It certainly isn't something that Vs. Debates have the copyrights to . . . and, alas, it isn't something that most people can understand how to let go of just because the site admin says so.

3. No Time

As I mentioned in the original Laws posting, I was hoping the forum wouldn't be too much of a time burden. However, that was not to be.

Thursday night, I wrote an extensive response to Wong's "Simple Rules" for SD.Net BBS denizens who wished to participate here, and because it was late I soon retired.

Little did I realize that he was already registered and trolling the board while I wrote that. By the time I was finished with that one post, he'd written almost as many in one night as I had in days, and all of them were ridiculous efforts to meet with disciplinary action which he hoped to crow about later. Instead, he found himself disappointed at my lack of response, and on his board declared me in hiding, as opposed to in bed.

So, I woke to discover that, posted a quick comment, and then went to work. I had time to take a peek at the place before going out after work, and then crashed when I got home. Waking up mid-Saturday, I was terribly behind . . . in addition to Wong's trolling, there were all sorts of posts and other aspects which needed my direct attention. Five hours later, I'd more or less finished with everything but the Versus Forum, which would've taken more hours to get sorted out and corrected.

And of course, that's just administrative stuff. Simple participation to correct a number of erroneous claims in the discussions would've taken even more time.

4. Repetitions and Ridiculousness

Many of the discussions were either based on, or had prominent aspects which were, old issues settled long ago in the pages of my site, or were ridiculous notions thrashed within hours of the forum's formation. The "packing crate" theory, for instance, which kept getting pounded after its silliness was demonstrated. Though I wanted to ensure that independent thought was encouraged, that doesn't mean that I wanted all the dead horses beaten.

Further, there were a number of members who sought to discuss random things. This is ST-v-SW.Net, not ST-v-SW-&-othercrap.Net. While Wong has stated that he finds the one-dimensional nature of the site disturbing, I consider unfocused off-topicness equally weird. I go other places to talk about other things.

5. Accusations of Double-Standards

One thing I didn't expect to see was the accusation that double-standards were being used insofar as which "camp" received punishment, though I suppose I should've seen that coming. However, given that the accusation was made after the very first rebuke of one of the SD.Net denizens (not counting my having pointed out that Wong was trolling), compared to several rebukes of others, I found that entire concept silly. However, it did point to the handwriting on the wall insofar as how things would be handled by some.

C. Minor Causes

1. Michael Wong, Troll

At some point after Wong had posted his "Simple Rules", and while I wrote my response to them, he decided to come and exercise them. I guess that with all the other registered SD.Net denizens behaving well up to that point, he felt betrayed and decided he had to do the invasion of idiocy all by himself.

So, he posted several threads which all said the exact same previously-disproven thing, and generally made quite a fool of himself.

He did make a telling comment at one point, though, claiming that he wasn't just trolling without a purpose. He was quite correct . . . his goal was to exercise his "simple rules", wherein he would be a flaming spamming trolling 'tard, get disciplined for it, and then he'd run off and cry foul to anyone and everyone. It would pay off in other ways, as well . . . taking up my time, spoiling everyone's fun, and so on and so forth.

Of course, the plan backfired. I didn't notice his trolling until the next morning, much to his chagrin. He tried to spin-doctor it into a claim that I was in hiding, but he commented on his disappointment that he couldn't draw me out into a squabble. (Sorry, Mike. I just don't squabble too well when I'm asleep.)

And, besides publicly acknowledging his trolling and punishing him by leaving it up for all to see, no disciplinary action took place for him to whine about later.

The funny part is that I ended my response to his "simple rules" by pointing out that he was welcome to participate, as long as he respected my simple rules. He couldn't do that, just like he couldn't complete an honest, rational debate years ago, or have a peaceful discussion via e-mail later. And yet, for some reason, I keep extending the olive branch . . . I guess I just have too much faith in humanity. Or at least his.

1a. Did anyone else notice his edit to his "simple rules" preface? He says "Now that Darkstar finally has his own forums, some of you will join. Others will know people who have joined." Then he describes the devious methods he recommends and attempted to employ in order to fabricate justification for well-poisoning activities.

I found that chillingly reminiscent of something like The Wave, that book about creating a Nazi-esque group of high-school students by way of brainwashing.

2. Other Idiots

Not to put too fine a point on it, but a lot of people who go to all the trouble of debating this topic on message boards simply suffer from basic stupidity. Thus, I got a lot of questions and complaints from people who failed to recognize what was meant when I demanded rational, reasoned discourse. However, short of making up a veritable US Tax Code's worth of rules, I don't see how those people could ever really participate.

3. SD.Net BBS Invasion

Though SD.Net members did join in droves, some behaved themselves admirably, and I thank those.

However, from a dozen-page home base thread entitled "The impact of Darkstar's board on the debate" in the SD.Net BBS "Hall of Shame", there was a great deal of coordination in progress. From presenting a united front in arguments to suggestions on disruptive actions that were followed, there were members of the SD.Net group who were indeed invaders. I place this in the "minor causes" section, but it was definitely a contributor to major causes such as time, repetitions and ridiculousness, and so on. In short, it was a concerted effort on the part of many SD.Net denizens to undermine the purpose and spirit of the board, and probably deserves a place in the "major cause" section.

****************************

Those are the basic causes behind the closure. I anticipate that Wong and his cronies will now begin a profound spin-doctoring campaign on the matter, and indeed I've already received messages to that effect.

The below was e-mailed to my inbox by one "Crazy Ivan" from SD.Net, and appears to contain most of the ridiculous spin-doctoring attempts that have appeared thus far:

Quote:
So, after a mere two days of operation you lock the door and prepare a 'failure analysis'...


The experiment ran for four days, which was long enough to determine that what I expected to occur would indeed occur.

Quote:
What, were you looking forward to banning sd.netters by the dozens, only to discover that you couldn't find a reason to?


Actually, I had plenty of reasons to ban SD.Net BBS denizens by the dozens, had that been my intent. However, I had no wish to create a police state, instead being of the perhaps-foolish hope that people would be able to behave themselves.

Quote:
Were you thinking that after having defeated the 'imperial invasion' you so obviously expected, you would have a board full of people who would constantly tell you that you were right?


As I made clear, I don't want sycophants. That's Wong's modus operandi. What I want is reasoned, rational discussion with peers who are capable of the same thing. Now, if the question above is meant to imply that only those capable of reasoned, rational discussion will agree with me . . . well, hey, that'd be good company.

However, I'd like to think that rational people can have differing opinions and figure out what's true and what's false together . . . without degrading into rabid fanboys who feel that hating and fighting and insulting are the only way to win, and that winning that way somehow establishes truth.

Quote:
Did you realize that people might come to your board and obey your rules but not agree with you?


That's precisely what I wanted! With apologies to Cogley, the board was to be a crucible where the irrelevancies could be stripped way leaving the bare truth for all to see.

Some obviously weren't interested in letting that sort of thing occur.

Quote:
Did you finally discover that having a weboard might not be all roses when Mike Wong began posting in the vs forum?


Trolls were to be expected.

Quote:
But do you know what the really fun thing is? In just two days, you have done everything you accused Mike of doing the for two years! Banning people for no reason, going on wild deleting sprees, creating rules to favour one side, etc.


I banned a guy who called my house to harass me. I deleted one of the disruptive invasion threads on anal sex, and a related signature. I deleted a thread wherein one was to state their "rabid" fanboy allegiance. I moved one of Wong's silly threads to an appropriate forum. I deleted a pothead's picture-link to a weed site. All these things I did publicly, and in clear conformity to the established rules, as posted at the time the actions were taken.

So, whereas Wong's bannings and deletions were performed to alter the content and membership of the board toward his point of view, mine were performed to bring the board in line with the rules toward the focused, rational argumentation that I expected board members to maintain. There's a big difference in the two, but anti-contextualists like Wong surely won't bother with such minutiae in their spin-doctoring campaigns.

As for the rules, there were no rules favoring one side or the other, and to state otherwise is dishonest. Tell me what part of the rules, which boiled down to "behave rationally, argue rationally, respect your opponent, and have fun" could possibly benefit one side or the other.

Oh, wait, nevermind. I forgot. Fun for some is to do precisely the opposite of the first three. Nevermind.

***************

In any case, I'm looking at other options that might allow for the existence of the sort of thing I want to see. However, for now, this experiment is a success, but the forum itself is a failure.

G2k

[Darth Wong]

Long-winded endless harping about my personality in order to deflect attention away from his own actions, as usual. Wow, what a shock

I do particularly enjoy the way he consistently projects all his own worst traits onto me, such as accusing me of refusing to operate a webboard unless it's exclusively populated with sycophants, when my board is still open and he shut his board down in 2 days because the people weren't saying the things he wanted to hear. Not to mention his claim that by arguing about canon in the "Canon" section of his board, I was "trolling" in a manner that he himself would presumably never stoop to. That was just too damned funny.

[Crown]

Just a general observation; but Scooter really has a hard on for using the word 'minutiae' doesn't he? Is it his 'word of the day' or something?

[Ghost Rider]

I do like that Mike is connected with mass brainwashing and this was a concerted effort to concetrate on parts.

And for Crown...most likely.

[Darth Wong]

Just a general observation; but Scooter really has a hard on for using the word 'minutiae' doesn't he? Is it his 'word of the day' or something?

He tends to glom onto certain words or catch phrases and then use them ad nauseum. That sort of repetition is actually a rhetorical technique, seen most often in political campaigns where people try to find a clever denigrating buzzword for their opponents and then use it everywhere.

[Stravo]

The line that made me laugh out loud: "Mike Wong, Troll" Don;t know why but just imagining Scooter in a monotone say that just had me in stitches. the rest of it is just...silly.

BTW anyone else notice that when he runs down an average day in his life (a weekend no less) there is NO MENTION of friends or anything remotely approaching normal human social life.

[Darth Wong]

The line that made me laugh out loud: "Mike Wong, Troll" Don;t know why but just imagining Scooter in a monotone say that just had me in stitches. the rest of it is just...silly.

I do like the way he claims that an astounding postcount of 39 represents a massive trolling attack , or that all of them were "attempts to meet disciplinary action" even though none of them were as remotely inflammatory as the things he said here.

BTW anyone else notice that when he runs down an average day in his life (a weekend no less) there is NO MENTION of friends or anything remotely approaching normal human social life.

No one probably noticed because it's such a non-surprise

[Illuminatus Primus]

Why the fuck did anyone even bother joining? We all knew this would happen. He thrives on this site and board to even have anything to put on his own.

Its pointless. We give him material to continue to shriek and run around over, with no real purpose.

Maybe if the troll wasn't fed, he'd eventually get tired of paying to keep open a website he had nothing to say on, and we'd all just forget this abortion of a thinking human being.

Just giving him an opening to rant and rave grates on me.

[Darth Wong]

Why the fuck did anyone even bother joining? We all knew this would happen. He thrives on this site and board to even have anything to put on his own.

Its pointless. We give him material to continue to shriek and run around over, with no real purpose.

No, the purpose in this case was to prove that he was the world's biggest hypocrite, because he would screech and cry and whine if I posted on his board without accepting his canon policy, even though he had posted on mine without accepting my canon policy. Not to mention trying to make hay out of the fact that I told people in advance to use any disciplinary action on his part whatsoever as proof of his cowardice ... even though that's precisely what he did to me.

Maybe if the troll wasn't fed, he'd eventually get tired of paying to keep open a website he had nothing to say on, and we'd all just forget this abortion of a thinking human being.

Just giving him an opening to rant and rave grates on me.

On the contrary, we finally caught him in the biggest lie of his online life: his claim that his own tactics were perfectly reasonable. When a mirror of those tactics were used against him, he considered it a virtual crime against humanity and ranted accordingly, thus accentuating his hypocrisy even further.

Sure, he'll spin himself into a frenzy, but he still loses this round, and badly.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yeah but I feel we're preaching to the choir. I mean, those unconvinced by your scrolling list of his shrieking character attacks probably weren't ever going to be convinced, at all.