Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

[Havok]

And as a counter, here we have Havok claiming that the use of child soldiers is something we should be doing, that we don't use them because we "coddle our children into their 20s and think they are complete fucking idiots" and objects to the idea it is a war crime.

Care to quote where I actually said that, or are you just going to keep harping on this after a year... hey isn't that a vendetta?... because you are too fucking stupid to get the point that the Star Wars universe is NOT ours? And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 18 the legal age, and in some cases 17, that teenagers can enter into military service? So my claim that we coddle children into their 20s actually has no bearing on your argument. Oops... my bad... you are already a Senator. Carry on with the vendetta.

I'd also cite the Poe thread as a reason against him, as that was just blustering posturing and flaming rather then the reasoned discourse we are supposed to strive for.

I would agree with this, as I was simply rising to the esteemed, well regarded, quality level of one of the Senate and ASVS members. Oh wait. I also answered all Poe points... repeatedly. He chose to ignore that, as apparently you do as well. Sorry you don't like the packaging. Need a tissue?

[Flagg]

Yeah, that post reeks of vendetta. A member of the senate should know better, frankly.

[Stark]

It's fascinating that Ender hates a lot of people (myself included) but poor old Hav gets this sort of thing. At least he's honest and doesn't say 'I choose not to vote because... um... cookies' or whatever.

[Flagg]

It's fascinating that Ender hates a lot of people (myself included) but poor old Hav gets this sort of thing. At least he's honest and doesn't say 'I choose not to vote because... um... cookies' or whatever.

My problem is that if he has an issue with a particular nominee he's free to vote "no" and say why in the senate thread as opposed to trying to sabotage the nomination with a bitchy post that has "vendetta" poorly scrawled all over it in red crayon.

[Stark]

Well it wouldn't be an old boys club if they didn't complain about 'wrong' nominations or people who 'don't fit' being nominated. Remember when they were appalled that when the HoC nominated people, those people weren't orthodox? Amazing!

[Ender]

And as a counter, here we have Havok claiming that the use of child soldiers is something we should be doing, that we don't use them because we "coddle our children into their 20s and think they are complete fucking idiots" and objects to the idea it is a war crime.

Care to quote where I actually said that,

That was a word for word quote from you from the thread I linked to. So yes, I did quote where you actually said that.

or are you just going to keep harping on this after a year... hey isn't that a vendetta?...

The topic brought up was your previous posting, making this directly relevant. So no, it is not a vendetta, it is me following the rules.

because you are too fucking stupid to get the point that the Star Wars universe is NOT ours?

The full body of that sentence was stating that it was not like modern earth, with you implicitly condemning the fact that earth does not allow child soldiers.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 18 the legal age, and in some cases 17, that teenagers can enter into military service?

You can sign up at that age but you are a ward of the service and will not see active duty until you are an adult.

So my claim that we coddle children into their 20s actually has no bearing on your argument. Oops... my bad... you are already a Senator. Carry on with the vendetta.

Yes, how dare I review your posting history when we are charged with reviewing your posting history.

I would agree with this, as I was simply rising to the esteemed, well regarded, quality level of one of the Senate and ASVS members. Oh wait. I also answered all Poe points... repeatedly. He chose to ignore that, as apparently you do as well. Sorry you don't like the packaging. Need a tissue?

As I said at the time, that was a pathetic showing from all sides that should be regarded as an embarrassment to the board. Further, the statement for what we should seek was made after that thread.


I request that this be folded back into the nomination thread, as Havok attacking me for carrying out my duties is yet another example as to why he should not be a Senator.

[Ender]

Yeah, that post reeks of vendetta. A member of the senate should know better, frankly.

We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?

[Flagg]

Yeah, that post reeks of vendetta. A member of the senate should know better, frankly.

We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?

If you have a problem with the nomination you vote "no" in the senate thread and say why. You don't fucking derail the nomination thread with links to threads where you 2 had a hissy fit because you personally dislike the member being nominated.

[Ender]

Yeah, that post reeks of vendetta. A member of the senate should know better, frankly.

We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?

If you have a problem with the nomination, you vote "no" in the senate thread and say why. You don't fucking derail the nomination thread with links to threads where you 2 had a hissy fit because you personally dislike a member being nominated.

And then you get to have a hissy fit here because there is discussion going on in the voting thread? Because that's what happened last time. Let's put this in a hypothetical - for some reason we unban Warsie, and he gets nominated for the Senate. Is it your position that reminding people of his previous ban would constitute a vendetta instead of us conducting a proper review of his past behavior?

[Beowulf]

We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?

If you have a problem with the nomination, you vote "no" in the senate thread and say why. You don't fucking derail the nomination thread with links to threads where you 2 had a hissy fit because you personally dislike a member being nominated.

Because people are going to read the entire thread before the vote, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? And people who voted before they can read what Ender posts (because they aren't able to see into the future), and wouldn't vote for a candidate if they knew? Well they're just screwed, aren't they?

[Mr. Coffee]

So what you're saying is that the Senate doesn't actually read any of the "evidence" threads for a candidate in order to make an informed decision before they vote? Who knew...

[Flagg]

We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?

If you have a problem with the nomination, you vote "no" in the senate thread and say why. You don't fucking derail the nomination thread with links to threads where you 2 had a hissy fit because you personally dislike a member being nominated.

And then you get to have a hissy fit here because there is discussion going on in the voting thread? Because that's what happened last time. Let's put this in a hypothetical - for some reason we unban Warsie, and he gets nominated for the Senate. Is it your position that reminding people of his previous ban would constitute a vendetta instead of us conducting a proper review of his past behavior?

No, because that's an administrative action taken against the person, not your personal dislike of positions (or your view of positions) that person has taken in past threads. Has Havok ever had an administrative action taken against him?

[Flagg]

We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?

If you have a problem with the nomination, you vote "no" in the senate thread and say why. You don't fucking derail the nomination thread with links to threads where you 2 had a hissy fit because you personally dislike a member being nominated.

Because people are going to read the entire thread before the vote, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? And people who voted before they can read what Ender posts (because they aren't able to see into the future), and wouldn't vote for a candidate if they knew? Well they're just screwed, aren't they?

I would hope they read the entire thread before they vote. If not then they aren't doing their fucking job and have no business being a senator, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? And it's not like they can't change their vote should new information surface.

Furthermore it's my understanding that the HoC nomination thread is for nominating members for the senate, not discussing whether or not a member should be nominated. Maybe there needs to be a discussion thread where people can pick apart the nominees, but at this time there is no such thread for that so the appropriate place for it (as far as I'm concerned) is in the voting thread where a senator can vote "no".

[Ender]

No, because that's an administrative action taken against the person, not your personal dislike of positions (or your view of positions) that person has taken in past threads. Has Havok ever had an administrative action taken against him?

So administrative action qualifies, but not past performance in debates, even though past performance in debates is the criteria we judge people by when we consider their nomination?

[Flagg]

NO CHATTER IN VOTE THREADS

If you must discuss a vote, please do so in the discussion thread for that vote. There is to be no chatting or discussion in vote threads.

At the same time:

Powers and Perks - The Rules *READ THIS FIRST*

B. Other nomination rules
I. Only nominations and comments on the nominee's may be put in a [Member] thread, if you don't agree on a nomination, then don't vote for that person. Any flames or arguments in that thread will be deleted - no exceptions!

What is the difference between a comment on a nominee and a flame? I'd say one brings up counter evidence and the other is just ad-hominums or red herrings.

Note that if the subject of discussion is a person's worth, attacking that person's worth is not an ad hominum fallacy, but rather the whole point of the debate.

Ender brought up counter-evidence, therefore, I'd consider it a comment on the nomination rather than a flame. Therefore, it belongs in the nomination thread rather than deleted.


In any case, it most certainly does NOT belong in the vote thread. Dalton's post is quite clear.

There is never a need to read a vote thread, since discussion in such threads are banned.

Fair enough.

[Flagg]

No, because that's an administrative action taken against the person, not your personal dislike of positions (or your view of positions) that person has taken in past threads. Has Havok ever had an administrative action taken against him?

So administrative action qualifies, but not past performance in debates, even though past performance in debates is the criteria we judge people by when we consider their nomination?

You're right. It's a valid point I hadn't considered.

[Havok]

*SIGH*

And as a counter, here we have Havok claiming that the use of child soldiers is something we should be doing, that we don't use them because we "coddle our children into their 20s and think they are complete fucking idiots" and objects to the idea it is a war crime.

Care to quote where I actually said that,

That was a word for word quote from you from the thread I linked to. So yes, I did quote where you actually said that.

WHOOSH!! Care to quote where is said "the use of child soldiers is something WE SHOULD BE DOING," "OBJECTS to the idea it is a war crime."
Please, post the relevant quotes. Show where I advocate child soldiers and object to the fact that it should be a war crime.

or are you just going to keep harping on this after a year... hey isn't that a vendetta?...

The topic brought up was your previous posting, making this directly relevant. So no, it is not a vendetta, it is me following the rules.

Uh, no dumbfuck. The nomination thread is for nominations. I was nominated, seconded with links to my posting. Those are the "rules" for that thread.

Here, since you can't read. I'll even highlight the relevant parts for you.

As the Updated Sentate ruleset has passed nomination duties have fallen to the House of Commons. Within that context please utilize this thread to nominate or second any board member you feel should be considered for Senate membership.

Nominations will close on the 24th of each month (21st in Feb) so for December the window is short but all subsequent months will have the full period (2nd-24th) available for nominations from the HoC.

Remember this thread is for nominating members to the Senate or seconding the motion, extraneous comment is discouraged.

So whatever "rules" you are following appear to just be made up in your empty little head.

because you are too fucking stupid to get the point that the Star Wars universe is NOT ours?

The full body of that sentence was stating that it was not like modern earth, with you implicitly condemning the fact that earth does not allow child soldiers.

Oh really. Again, please cite where I IMPLICITLY CONDEMN the fact that Earth does not allow child soldiers.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 18 the legal age, and in some cases 17, that teenagers can enter into military service?

You can sign up at that age but you are a ward of the service and will not see active duty until you are an adult.

Oh my bad. So they train for combat and killing for 12 months before going into combat and kill. Man, you really shot my point down there. Y'know because 17 to 18 is such a huge jump in maturity.

So my claim that we coddle children into their 20s actually has no bearing on your argument. Oops... my bad... you are already a Senator. Carry on with the vendetta.

Yes, how dare I review your posting history when we are charged with reviewing your posting history.

Review it all you want.
If this was the first time you brought it up since then, I probably wouldn't have said anything, but surprise, it isn't.
Hey look... http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... &p=2843714

Ender
It's interesting that your bullshit example just jams a whole lot of new characters in and your Schumacher example just jams a whole lot of new characters in.

And you object to Robin, but want The Ventriloquist and his puppet.

No, I cited other possibilities while focusing on overall themes as the key strength of the new ones. You are a fucking moron, so I understand why you don't understand the difference. In your mind it is the color and effects that matter, not the story. We've spent the past two movies establishing Batman's mentality of isolating himself and not spreading the danger to others. This isn't some interpretation - Nolan's characters flat out state their motivation and inner thoughts. Now you want him to do a complete reversal and have a kid in a brightly colored unarmored suit running around. And you see completely discarding all the character that has been previously established as on the same level as having a Son of Sam style paranoid schizophrenic on screen.

But hey, having Robin gives you another child soldier on screen. And we all know you are a sick fuck who is down with that.

We must have been talking about my posting history in that thread too. OOPS. Man, I know we have a word for that around here... dangit, what was it again? Ohhh that's right.

I would agree with this, as I was simply rising to the esteemed, well regarded, quality level of one of the Senate and ASVS members. Oh wait. I also answered all Poe points... repeatedly. He chose to ignore that, as apparently you do as well. Sorry you don't like the packaging. Need a tissue?

As I said at the time, that was a pathetic showing from all sides that should be regarded as an embarrassment to the board. Further, the statement for what we should seek was made after that thread.

Why, because I made fun of your fatty friend? Again, I answered all his points and arguments. Should I put a bow on it and write you a little love note next time so you don't get offended?

And just to quote Mike's opinion on flaming from the thread you linked to...

The other reason not to quick-draw is simple: the correct time to blast someone is when he makes a really stupid or dishonest argument to support an opinion. Simply stating that he has an opinion is not the correct time.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Poe fell into that category in that thread.

I request that this be folded back into the nomination thread, as Havok attacking me for carrying out my duties is yet another example as to why he should not be a Senator.

That's an attack? That's fine by me. Even though Wilkens wanted to avoid this, which is why I answered you here and not in the nominations thread, but hey, what does he know.

And just for the record, I say you are absolutely full of shit. If you really found Padawans, who are indeed child soldiers SOOO reprehensible, then how could you have possibly brought yourself to watch the two follow up prequel movies? You knew that George Lucas, who clearly advocates child soldiers, was making them and that there would be more evil Jedi who take kids into battle in them. For that matter, how can you even bring yourself to read Batman, let alone discuss him. He clearly advocates child soldiers. His comics must just be too repulsive to even read. I mean, really, all of DC comics must make you sick, since they publish Batman.
How can you STAND to read the EU, which is Jedi-centric and continually features child soldiers.

Indiana Jones, Paramount, Steven Speilberg.
Dumbledore, JK Rowling.
Captain Picard, Gene Rodenberry, Paramount.
Professor X, Marvel.

Man, it must suck not to be able to watch or read any of that stuff because of all the child soldier advocacy.

Or, maybe, just maybe, you realize that accepting something in a FICTIONAL world and not finding it reprehensible in that context, is not the same thing as advocating it in the REAL world.
Nah. Giving you to much credit.

[Crazedwraith]

'No Chatter In Vote' threads no longer applies to Senate Election threads.

[CmdrWilkens]

'No Chatter In Vote' threads no longer applies to Senate Election threads.

Election and Nomination threads are different, the critical points here are:

1) Extraneous comments are "discouraged"
2) I am not the mod of this sub-forum so I can't MAKE you do anything other than express my displeasure
3) I think a debate on the merits of a candidate is fine BUT I would PREFER, as has happened in this thread, that they occur outside of the nomination thread.

[Elfdart]

It's fascinating that Ender hates a lot of people (myself included) but poor old Hav gets this sort of thing. At least he's honest and doesn't say 'I choose not to vote because... um... cookies' or whatever.

It's not surprising. Every time he tangles with me he gets beaten like a pinata. If he has this kind of grudge against the mild-mannered Havok, just imagine the hostility that lying douche nozzle has for others I could name.


If I were to talk about Star Wars spin-off ideas and came up with some scene where the Tuskens beat Imperial Stormtroopers over the head with their gaffi sticks in a skirmish outside Mos Eisely, would anyone who isn't a dishonest little asshole with a vendetta against me try to make it out to be an endorsement for people to beat real-life policemen or soldiers with pointy sticks?

Exactly. So fuck you, Ender.

Thus in spite of Havok's status as a 49er fan , he has my full support. For whatever that's worth.

[Edi]

Elfdart, the problem with you and Ender is that because you two hate each other's guts, you often manage to talk completely past each other because you only see what you expect to see, not what is actually there.

Like the spat between you and him over the POW issue.

This child soldier crap seems more like the same because while Havok's words can be interpreted as support of using child soldiers, it is not what comes across as a blanket statement. Yet that discussion careened down that way because of either inability or unwillingness to consider a broader picture on one side or both. That thread does little credit to any of the main participants.

Nor was the Poe thread a very stellar example of what the debating standards on the board should be. It was two people flaming at each other and even though Havok beat Poe like a drum in it, it left a rather ugly aftertaste as these things go. And not out of any sympathy to Poe either, since I've had a history of flaming him to a cinder over politics threads.

[Elfdart]

I tell you what:

Leave the names of the posters out of it. Go back and re-type Havok's first post on the subject or put your thumb over his name on your monitor if you have to. Now read what he wrote. Be honest -who in his or her right mind could read that and come to the conclusion that Havok supports the use of child soldiers in real life? It's not just dishonest, it's deranged.

[Flagg]

The fact that Ender has brought up the ridiculous child soldier crap up in an unrelated thread before tells the tale here.

[Phantasee]

God damn it Ender, now you've shown (in a roundabout way, through other people) that Havok is actually a decent candidate. Way to go, now I'll never get Balrog into the Senate.

Also, to whoever called Havok "mild mannered":

[Elfdart]

Also, to whoever called Havok "mild mannered":

It's all relative, as they say in Kentucky.