The Good Old Days

[Alyeska]

While some here think that debate was over before ICS game out, many of us agree that shortly after ICS the debate really did end. Excluding the most hard core of Trekkies, there was nothing left to debate. All the Trekkies that made the interesting and reasonable (if opposition) arguments understood there was nothing left to debate.

Back in the early days of the VS debate, hell even through late 2001 all of us wanted our side to be the ultimate victor. Now that its been decided, I dare say that none of us are happy. We look back to the old days with envy. Back when there was still something to debate. Back when we could clash and disagree yet still get along. The Trek side is unhappy because ultimately they lost. The Wars side is unhappy because there isn't anything left to debate. The debate. That is what drew us together more then aything else. And now the debate is over.

I dislike ICS for two reasons. It put SW above ST. But I dislike ICS more because it ended the debate. The debate was the funnest part of the whole thing. And now thats just a memory.

[Darth Wong]

While some here think that debate was over before ICS game out, many of us agree that shortly after ICS the debate really did end. Excluding the most hard core of Trekkies, there was nothing left to debate. All the Trekkies that made the interesting and reasonable (if opposition) arguments understood there was nothing left to debate.

Back in the early days of the VS debate, hell even through late 2001 all of us wanted our side to be the ultimate victor. Now that its been decided, I dare say that none of us are happy. We look back to the old days with envy. Back when there was still something to debate. Back when we could clash and disagree yet still get along. The Trek side is unhappy because ultimately they lost. The Wars side is unhappy because there isn't anything left to debate. The debate. That is what drew us together more then aything else. And now the debate is over.

I dislike ICS for two reasons. It put SW above ST. But I dislike ICS more because it ended the debate. The debate was the funnest part of the whole thing. And now thats just a memory.

With all due respect, the ICS merely put numbers to the obvious ramifications of already-official information such as the BDZ, and already-canon information such as the AOTC asteroid destruction.

The debate was only as spirited as it was because people on the ST side took advantage of what they perceived as "wiggle room" in the evidence to push their interpretations to absurdly unrealistic places. By putting a number on the only physical rationalization of the already-official claims which made sense, the ICS merely took away that "wiggle room". It doesn't change the fact that a straightforward interpretation of evidence from Day One would have given the same results; it just means it became far more difficult to bullshit around it.

Case in point: the debate on my Hate Mail page between myself and Lord Edam, where he claimed that 250,000 megatons would constitute a full-blown BDZ operation and that you would need a fleet of a hundred ships to pull it off. He was absolutely full of shit, and his whole argument was based on a lawyer-like aggressive misinterpretation of facts to suit his agenda. The "problem" is that it's just too difficult for people like him to find excuses to creatively misinterpret "200 gigatons".

[Alyeska]

(sigh)

You missed the point entirely Mike. The debate is what brought many of us together. The debate is what made many of us friends. The debate was what we considered a fun thing to do. And now the debate is effectively over. Rather then be involved in the fun debate we now only have trolls or ignorant newbies to debate with and that is never fun.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

While some here think that debate was over before ICS game out, many of us agree that shortly after ICS the debate really did end.

Actually, all the Warsies knew the truth, probably knew it within by 1999 or 2000 at the latest. It was just waiting for the Trekkies to finally see the light. I can argue it does not speak well of Trekkies that they needed the numbers imposed by Authority rather than Logic before they realized the game was up.

Back in the early days of the VS debate, hell even through late 2001 all of us wanted our side to be the ultimate victor. Now that its been decided, I dare say that none of us are happy.

Actually, the reduced defense requirements due to the ICS deflating the Trekkies allowed the Professionals of the SW team to go and deflate Trek a little further.

For instance, IIRC the formulation of the Pegasus calcs as we knew them today (as opposed to Boyd's multi-GT calc) was after the ICS. Used to be, we stop pushing at 2GT for us and 64MT for ST except for dedicated Firepower threads (SB IIRC uses more pro-ST standards). But now, we can push ST yields down into the sub-megaton range. That makes me happy. Maybe I'm just a meanie that likes to see how far in the mud my "enemies" can be pushed.

I dislike ICS for two reasons. It put SW above ST. But I dislike ICS more because it ended the debate. The debate was the funnest part of the whole thing. And now thats just a memory.

Why don't you hate the makers of Star Trek instead. It is THEIR fault Star Trek is so weak.

Or why don't you hate ANH instead? That was the thing that was the beginning of it all, as I consistently try to explain to low-quality trolls that occasionally pop up on ASVS (no, I'm not counting those scum who crosspost or just create random messages of nothing in the thousands to cram up the server).

At worst, ICS was the MESSENGER. It didn't decide anything new, just affirmed stuff. As the old cliche goes: "Don't shoot the messenger."

And really, what makes things funny is pro-Trek stupidity. That's always available.

[Alyeska]

Oh for fucks sake.

[Gil Hamilton]

I think what Alyeska is trying to say is that even if all the evidence was their for ICS in the movies, that "wiggle room" made it fun to debate the issue. That way, people could argue about just how much one side would dominate the other or how much of a bloody nose the one side would get in crushing the other side. I mean, before ICS, even Mike Wong was tending to say that heavy turbolasers were a handful of gigatons (since SD.net is large enough that it's difficult to keep completely up with the times, there are still articles that show this), which is dominating but not completely hopeless for Trekkies. There could still be a debate, so even if it was relatively hopeless, it was still fun to engage in it.

But with ICS, that "wiggle room" was removed. Now no one can argue anything without looking like a major 'tard and the StarWars versus StarTrek debate largely involved yelling at newbies who show up without any knowledge of resolution of the debate and smacking them across the jaw with the ICS. There is no battle anymore, just informing newbies that the battle is over and dealing with legalists like DarkStar who refuse to accept anything that doesn't line up with his own world view. The debate, even though everyone already knew that StarWars would win except for a few people before, now is "Dude, ICS numbers." There is no arguing over scenes anymore or trying to convince the other of their interpretation of the scene.

I think Alyeska is basically saying a modified version of this Chinese saying "Envy the general who wins every battle, but pity the general who slays all his foes." With ICS, StarTrek is undeniably slain, so the fun of battle doesn't exist anymore.

[Alyeska]

Thank you Gil. That is exactly what I am saying.

[Ender]

I have to agree here. It's like, if you throw something up in the air, everyone knows it will come down. But you can still argue as to where it will land and when. That's what the debate was. It had long been shown SW would win. But you could still grab little points and go on for pages about them. It made it fun and it is what formed some of these communities. Seriously, no matter what side you are on, it's really hard not to laugh out loud at some of the beatings some people got, or to be amazed at how some people could win an argument they took a losing position on by carefully crafting their questions on. Plus you have to look at the educational experience it was for a lot of people. Most of us learned a lot of science in the course of the debates.

*leans back in rocker with his jug of moonshine*
Yep, them was the good ole days.

[Alyeska]

Plus you have to look at the educational experience it was for a lot of people. Most of us learned a lot of science in the course of the debates.

This I have to whole heartedly agree with you. I learned a lot about science durring the debates. My interest in the debate forced me to learn more so I could debate properly.

[Laird]

I honestly can say I prefer the days when say "2 GCS and a NCS could take on an ISD" now it is basically Trek vs B5 and b5 is in treks situation vs SW.

[YT300000]

I jumped into the debate about two months before ICS came out. I was pretty excited about it, and started debating as much as possible. Just as it was starting to get interesting, ICS killed it all. I look at the backlog of debates with envy, but also with gladness, seeing as I missed most of those trolls and tards.

As it turns out, I think I got enough for it to be fun, but not so much that it would have become boring and tiring. In the end, it worked well for me.

[Howedar]

The victor in an overall war between the Galactic Empire and the UFP has been clear for years. However, before the ICS there was still a debate to be had. GCS vs. ISD was dead for a while before, but you could still have a small Federation flotilla versus a Carrack or something and have an interesting debate.

Now there is no debate. We have a score of fighter vs. GCS threads which frankly get old very damned fast. I've come to wonder recently if it's time to axe this particular forum.

[Thirdfain]

I'd like to say that as someone who joined this messageboard after the debate was long gone, I rarely if ever post in this forum. It's at the top of the list, but I think it's pretty safe to say that most people come to SDnet for things like Off-Topic and SLAM. The debate doesn't exist anymore, besides as the occaisional fun troll-hunt. Stewart wasn't a serious debator, he was a fucking 12-year-old.

Frankly, there isn't really anything interesting going on in ST vs. SW, and I don't think that will change.

[Kyle]

Personally I was nothing but grateful when ICS came out. In truth the debate had been over for at least a year before ICS came out. All that the ST side had left was pitiful little attacks based on the wording of some quotes, plus most of them had trouble udnerstanding what the difference between a lower limit and upper limit was. BY that time most debates were based on the unfair, but seemingly standard, tactic of requiring SW to use the lowest level estimates of firepower and ST would always use the highest estimate soemone could pull out of a nearby ass. Before ICS I just felt like I was ramming my head agaisnt a brickwall trying to explain basic concepts. ICS didn't prove anything new, it just spelled it out in black and white for those unable to understand simple concepts.

[Alyeska]

Personally I was nothing but grateful when ICS came out. In truth the debate had been over for at least a year before ICS came out. All that the ST side had left was pitiful little attacks based on the wording of some quotes, plus most of them had trouble udnerstanding what the difference between a lower limit and upper limit was. BY that time most debates were based on the unfair, but seemingly standard, tactic of requiring SW to use the lowest level estimates of firepower and ST would always use the highest estimate soemone could pull out of a nearby ass. Before ICS I just felt like I was ramming my head agaisnt a brickwall trying to explain basic concepts. ICS didn't prove anything new, it just spelled it out in black and white for those unable to understand simple concepts.

Might want to read up on the debates again. If that were the case then ST would have stomped SW into the ground because ST high-end smashes SW "low end".

[Darth Wong]

Might want to read up on the debates again. If that were the case then ST would have stomped SW into the ground because ST high-end smashes SW "low end".

Wrong. ST fanwhore bullshit smashes SW low-end. No remotely realistic ST high-end figure did that even long before the ICS. Even today, ST fanwhore bullshit still smashes SW figures. Idiocy like Graham Kennedy's 1E45J figure for the Genesis device for example. But it doesn't mean shit, and it never did, because it's based on delusional nonsense.

[Alyeska]

Might want to read up on the debates again. If that were the case then ST would have stomped SW into the ground because ST high-end smashes SW "low end".

Wrong. ST fanwhore bullshit smashes SW low-end. No remotely realistic ST high-end figure did that even long before the ICS. Even today, ST fanwhore bullshit still smashes SW figures. Idiocy like Graham Kennedy's 1E45J figure for the Genesis device for example. But it doesn't mean shit, and it never did, because it's based on delusional nonsense.

The claim was made that Trek was using high end to go against wars. This was never done. High end is using canon sources like TDIC or Broken Link. What was used was the high end of the moderate figures and that is different.

[Alyeska]

BTW, the point of this thread isn't to argue the firepower of old. We've had this particular discussion before and no one was willing to change their stance on the issue. So I would prefer this entire angle be dropped.

The point of this thread is to talk about the way things used to be and compare them to how they are now. In many ways this thread is even a sign that this particular forum has lived past its usefulness.

[Darth Wong]

The point of this thread is to talk about the way things used to be and compare them to how they are now. In many ways this thread is even a sign that this particular forum has lived past its usefulness.

The debate is "dead" in the sense that one has to be an idiot to ignore the facts, so only idiots take the opposing side. Mind you, the same has been true of creationism for more than a hundred years, yet that debate is alive and well, albeit only because of idiots.

[Lord Poe]

So Alyeska, are you finally admitting you've actually learned something from me?

[Alyeska]

So Alyeska, are you finally admitting you've actually learned something from me?

What the hell are you talking about?

[Connor MacLeod]

I think what Alyeska is trying to say is that even if all the evidence was their for ICS in the movies, that "wiggle room" made it fun to debate the issue. That way, people could argue about just how much one side would dominate the other or how much of a bloody nose the one side would get in crushing the other side.

Depends on your point of view. I can't say I really had "fun" dealing with many people I had to deal with for the simple fact that they are scientifically ignorant (and/or ignorant of all the relevant facts, but thats' something of a lesser issue.) or were flat-out dishonest. It can be very difficult to assemble the relevant evidence to rebut someone, which means that the process becomes very time consuming.

More often than not, the oppoennt would simply dismiss it outright via semantical nitpicking (IE that "wiggle room' you speak of) or simply ignore it outright. In the end, most of my efforts ended up trying to pound common sense into my opponent just so he understood what the fuck I was saying (and that assumes he was simply ignorant, and not dishonest.) This was done with virtually any piece of evidence you could name (from the asteroid calcs in TESB to BDZ, to the slave ship quotes or Dodonna quotes.)

A debate is "fun" when both sides debate fairly and accurately about the topics at hand, but not everyone does it that way. In which case it becomes annoying to the point of being painful.

I mean, before ICS, even Mike Wong was tending to say that heavy turbolasers were a handful of gigatons (since SD.net is large enough that it's difficult to keep completely up with the times, there are still articles that show this), which is dominating but not completely hopeless for Trekkies.

And while true, all of that was very much conservative which seems to be ignored. And even then there were people who nitpicked even the most straightforward calcs (like the TESB asteroid vaporizations - the same sort of BS continues even today)

(I might also point out that the "slave ship" calcs and Dodonna calcs tended to point to much higher firepower, though this was more often ignored or "reinterpreted" than the asteroid calcs were.)

There could still be a debate, so even if it was relatively hopeless, it was still fun to engage in it.

Maybe if you think nitpicking your opponents evidence rather than debating straightforward is fun.

But with ICS, that "wiggle room" was removed. Now no one can argue anything without looking like a major 'tard and the StarWars versus StarTrek debate largely involved yelling at newbies who show up without any knowledge of resolution of the debate and smacking them across the jaw with the ICS. There is no battle anymore, just informing newbies that the battle is over and dealing with legalists like DarkStar who refuse to accept anything that doesn't line up with his own world view. The debate, even though everyone already knew that StarWars would win except for a few people before, now is "Dude, ICS numbers." There is no arguing over scenes anymore or trying to convince the other of their interpretation of the scene.

I repeat again, just what is fun about having to educate or deal with semantical nitpicking, exactly? I didn't derive alot of enjoyment from having to do so.

I think Alyeska is basically saying a modified version of this Chinese saying "Envy the general who wins every battle, but pity the general who slays all his foes." With ICS, StarTrek is undeniably slain, so the fun of battle doesn't exist anymore.

Basically it depends on your point of view I suppose and who you're debating against. Like I said, where you say "wiggle room" I remember some teenage punk whose idea of "debating" was to nitpick little details of his oppnets argument rather than providing a counterargument of his own. I'm willing to bet Mike would say something quite along those lines too.

[Connor MacLeod]

The claim was made that Trek was using high end to go against wars. This was never done. High end is using canon sources like TDIC or Broken Link. What was used was the high end of the moderate figures and that is different.

So then what do you define as the "high end" trek calcs?

[Connor MacLeod]

As an example of what I am talking about, consider the SB Fivers. Even pre-ICS, many of them were largely a pain in the ass to deal with because of that so called "wiggle room" (they could give fundies lessons on semantics whoring and nitpicking and such). Such as the Adam Warlock. He was a HUGE pain in the ass to deal with, because he's a pseudoscience bullshitter. GEt into debates with him, and more often than not you would have to decipher just what hte hell he was saying before you could actually respond to him (for example, if he did calcs he usually padded them with alot of excess numbers or steps - or he would be very vague about"how' something demonstrated supposed high-end B5 firepower. He would also use alot of esoteric but impressive sounding phrases or words like "first principles" or "bayesian probabilities", even though it wouldnt neccesarily have any relevance to the discussion, and he even outright butchered certain concepts (anyone remember the "Neutron beams fissioning ISD hulls" bullshit?) Anyone who has dealt with him (IE Mike), knows what I am talking about.

Nowadays its even WORSE. Anyone who has followed their recent exploits knows they believe the B5 First Ones are fucking CULTURE level... which is fucking absurd. But alot of other "people" I debated with in the old days were often little better than that (Vypr, Mueon, Lord Edam, etc.) Arguing with semantics whores and nitpickers is NOT an enjoyable experience, regardless of whether they are simply ignorant or dishonest (although the latter is much more annoying than the former - at least in the former you can expect your opponent to learn and maybe become interesting in the future.)

[Alyeska]

The claim was made that Trek was using high end to go against wars. This was never done. High end is using canon sources like TDIC or Broken Link. What was used was the high end of the moderate figures and that is different.

So then what do you define as the "high end" trek calcs?

This is not the purpose of the thread.