Debating at CW.org

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2002-11-07 02:43am

At worst, two of my posts were sarcastic. No flames, trolls, cussing or explicit content of any sort.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-07 02:43am

Phil wrote: It does matter if the original people were banned and deserved it, because all the trouble stemmed from there. I'm just trying to work out what is happening.

If I set up a message board and set up the rules that say 'No supporters of Manchester United allowed' and then a group of people who are Manchester United supporters come from another MB, I will not look kindly on others from the same MB.

If anyone feels they have been banned when they should not have been, I will gladly help them get reinstated if they have a case.

So you openly admit that people were being banned merely for disagreeing with the beliefs held by people on the board.

And don't forget that in your sign-up there is nothing that says "No SD.net members" and there was also no stipulation that we blindly follow and agree with all that was said.

Phil · Post by **Phil** » 2002-11-07 04:14am

I am not saying that they were or were not banned without justification. I am just trying to find out. I will listen to what people have to say and make up my own mind.

You are right, there are no instructions about banning SD.net members, but you must remember its their board and they can do what they like if they think that they are being invaded.

Post by **Edi** » 2002-11-07 05:45am

Phil, they're not being invaded, not in the true sense of the word. A real invasion is when a bunch of people just show up and start trolling. There are good examples of that in the Hall of Shame, look up anything by Arminius and the Elite Fitness trolls. That is an invasion. But if a bunch of likeminded people go someplace to engage in a rational, constructive debate, that's not an invasion. That's an influx of new users, and if they start getting banned just because they don't agree with the mod's opinions and asking for the reasons behind questionable bans gets the people who ask banned, then something is definitely wrong.

I've followed the events from pretty much the start, and the abuses are not committed by people from here. The talk here is rowdier, and we don't have the same rules of conduct here as at CW, but if the SDnet people act according to the rules at CW, then that should be good enough for them.

Simply put, Sam Bollinger is a grade double-A+ hypocritical asshole who deserves to have an electric cattleprod shoved up his rectum. He's not the least bit different from the neo-nazi, racist fuckheads over at WCOTC. Except I'll have to hand it to those racist buttwipes, they come right out and say directly that you will be banned if you register and don't agree with their sick and twisted ideals and if you post dissenting views. SBollinger adheres to the exact same policy, except he insists there is no censorship. He needs to have some sense beat into him, preferably with a baseball bat.

Edi

Phil · Post by **Phil** » 2002-11-07 06:56am

Edi,

So were the first few people there banned for no reason or for "racism" and "sockpuppeting" as claimed over at CW.

The people that were banned later is another issue.

I have never been censored at CW (oh, except for one time when some people that made SBollinger look like Ghandi took over the moderation for a short time), so the fact that others have been suprises me.

This is why I am questioning you lot so much. I want to see your PoV before I go shouting my mouth off.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-07 07:24am

Phil wrote:Edi,

So were the first few people there banned for no reason or for "racism" and "sockpuppeting" as claimed over at CW.

The people that were banned later is another issue.

I have never been censored at CW (oh, except for one time when some people that made SBollinger look like Ghandi took over the moderation for a short time), so the fact that others have been suprises me.

This is why I am questioning you lot so much. I want to see your PoV before I go shouting my mouth off.

Hi, Phil

I've been posting in CW for a while, as you may know.
You're right in a way, they have also never censored me, although the effort not to flame Okkun, for instance, for his sheer stupidity and boring the opponent to death technique, was too strainful.

I think some of them (sBollinger, stp) reacted badly to the fact they were overwhelmed by new users with opposing views. While they can handle three or four, especially when they mainly post in the evolution forum, they went crazy when faced by a dozen demanding proof against homosexuality and refuting their claims, or started pointing flaws in the Bible.

there was one member from here that behaved trollish. He was severely reprimended. You can see from the posts in C.W, and the posts about it here, that the SD.net members didn't behave trollish. Check them.

If you have doubts about what is a troll, then check the HOS.
or, a troll is" im rIght ure all gonna dy pray and lets see jesus saving u from my bullet"

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-07 10:05am

Phil wrote:
What's your point? It doesn't matter why those people were banned and if they deserved it. It does matter that some new people were banned and that they didn't deserve it.
It does matter if the original people were banned and deserved it, because all the trouble stemmed from there. I'm just trying to work out what is happening.

If I set up a message board and set up the rules that say 'No supporters of Manchester United allowed' and then a group of people who are Manchester United supporters come from another MB, I will not look kindly on others from the same MB.

If anyone feels they have been banned when they should not have been, I will gladly help them get reinstated if they have a case.

Yes, but the rules for banning did not cover the behavior that the new people were banned for. As such, your analogy is flawed. How does deserved banning weigh into new cases?

We did have thread making our case. Of course it was promptly deleted and resulted in my banning. You can find the posts in the Post Archive.

Phil · Post by **Phil** » 2002-11-07 10:42am

Thanks for your patience you guys.

I have been looking on the 'general Bible discussion forum' and I can see SBollinger does assume that you are all Trolls (I do know what a troll is) but I also saw that at times he was willing to leave you alone and even noted Yogi's debating skills.

Colonle Olrik, Okkun has left the board. I bet he still has his mutation-fixation. It was fun while it lasted. I toook a few month out of the debating a while ago, because of people like him, banging ones head against a brick wall is great when it stops.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-07 12:32pm

To be fair, I was acting trollish with my last two posts, but that was only because SBollinger is a fuckwit. However, I did not receive a warning; I was simply banned.

If that's the way things work around there, I don't want to have anything of mine be posted there for fear that it will be edited and mutilated by irresponsible, power-tripping moderators.

So, to answer your question, weemadando, we begin the smackdown when the CW.Org people either agree to debate here or via E-mail. I refuse to let a backstabbing snake like SBollinger have any say or power in the debates at all.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-07 12:35pm

Yes. Bollinger has demonstrated his utter lack of honour repeatedly. For him to demand that we trust the debate to his tender care is a sheer travesty of mind-boggling magnitude. He considers it "trolling" to disagree with him on anything he considers a key issue (eg- homosexuality).

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-11-07 12:46pm

why are there so many closeminded freaks in the world?

*walks off shaking head in disgust*

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-11-07 12:48pm

Kelly Antilles wrote:why are there so many closeminded freaks in the world?

*walks off shaking head in disgust*

If I had to choose ONE reason for the existance of all these kinds of people, and I'm sure Mike would agree with me, it would be *education*. Or at least, the lack thereof.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-11-07 01:16pm

I say education plays it's part...but I say it's the inherent fear that we are not all in existence which was beaten into our collective thoughts for who knows how long.

For some reason this thought frightens so many that they need to find a way to reclaim a position we never had.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-07 04:18pm

Kelly Antilles wrote:why are there so many closeminded freaks in the world?

*walks off shaking head in disgust*

People are trained from birth to be stupid. This has an important societal function - it allows people to pay taxes to idiots, vote for morons, pay tithes to the church, buy things they don't need whenever they see an ad on TV, raise families of 6+ kids, and generally insure the continued prosperity of America. Granted, we could try engineering a society that doesn't require its citizens to be stupid, but we would first have to develop a social science that actually works. Clearly, humanity is doomed to be stupid.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-07 04:59pm

Yeah, I've found that in modern society, people in general don't act smart simply becasue the don't have to. Why get an education you can use? The government will just give you money. Why act rational? The government and talk shows will make the decisions for you. Why shouldn't we be pricks to everyone we don't like? Simple, we'll get to goto heaven when we die; we don't need to care about anything but the Bible. Why learn about math. history, or science? 90% of all jobs involve sitting in front of a desk and just looking like you're busy. Our culture has been tailored to make stupidity as easy of a route as possible.

Speaking of which, I've got a game design whoes setting involves that philosophy taken to full effect (Must... not... plug...), if I didn't have 3 papers due in 4 weeks, I'd post a few outlines for critique. (plug plug plug, dammit, I plugged.

)

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-07 05:00pm

THE DEBATE

1: DEBATE WILL TAKE PLACE VIA E-MAIL
2: DEBATE WILL BEGIN AS OF 0900 (9:00AM) SATURDAY MORNING, US EASTERN STANDARD TIME (GMT +7hrs.)
3: DEBATE WILL BE POSTED PUBLICLY AND UNALTERED AT BOTH STARDESTROYER.NET AND CREATIONWEB.ORG.

For StarDestroyer.net, we present:

2 Gladiators: WeeMadAndo and Durandal

5 Judges: Neoolong, Vympel, NecronLord, Coyote, Yogi

Judging criteria: 1-10 scale based on:

Effective use of Evidence
Clarity of Communication
Staying on Topic/Relevancy
Convincing
Civility

Anyone can coach or supply additional research as needed, but outside sources (books, articles, etc) must be accredited. No proof from "some guy's cousin I met at a party".

(if there are no objections, I will post this within the next four hours)

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-07 05:24pm

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Yeah, I've found that in modern society, people in general don't act smart simply becasue the don't have to. Why get an education you can use? The government will just give you money. Why act rational? The government and talk shows will make the decisions for you. Why shouldn't we be pricks to everyone we don't like? Simple, we'll get to goto heaven when we die; we don't need to care about anything but the Bible. Why learn about math. history, or science? 90% of all jobs involve sitting in front of a desk and just looking like you're busy. Our culture has been tailored to make stupidity as easy of a route as possible.

This is all true, but what I'm saying goes beyond that society makes it easy to be stupid, I'm saying it atually encourages it. Look at our schools; who gets the most attention? Those who actually have potential, or those who are failing? Who gets the promotions? Those who can do their jobs well, or those who suck up to their bosses even when they're making a mistake? In the media, who gets the recognition - those who create accurate accounts of scientific research, or those who sensationalize a minor development beyond all recognition? In society, who gets the large network of friends - the person who logically supports his opinions, or the guy that agrees with what everyone else around him is saying? Granted, there are exceptions, but on the whole, society punishes people for being smart! Is it any wonder then, that there are so many idiots, when intelligence is the only crime which tends to exact its own justice?

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-07 05:28pm

Coyote wrote:THE DEBATE

1: DEBATE WILL TAKE PLACE VIA E-MAIL
2: DEBATE WILL BEGIN AS OF 0900 (9:00AM) SATURDAY MORNING, US EASTERN STANDARD TIME (GMT +7hrs.)
3: DEBATE WILL BE POSTED PUBLICLY AND UNALTERED AT BOTH STARDESTROYER.NET AND CREATIONWEB.ORG.

For StarDestroyer.net, we present:

2 Gladiators: WeeMadAndo and Durandal

5 Judges: Neoolong, Vympel, NecronLord, Coyote, Yogi

Judging criteria: 1-10 scale based on:

Effective use of Evidence
Clarity of Communication
Staying on Topic/Relevancy
Convincing
Civility

Anyone can coach or supply additional research as needed, but outside sources (books, articles, etc) must be accredited. No proof from "some guy's cousin I met at a party".

(if there are no objections, I will post this within the next four hours)

If at all possible, I would like to be in there somewhere...

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-07 05:35pm

WeeMadAndo--

Since you have access to CreationWeb as is, would you be willing to continue your campaign directly over there, while verilon goeas at them through e-mail? This way we can best implement all of our resources-- and they can't ban you for something verilon says, while they have already shown a desire to ban him just for cycling oxygen...

Cool?

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-07 05:44pm

We should have some "refrence checkers" who go and verify as best they can the refrences each side provides. I'm at a University so I can help.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-07 05:47pm

Yogi wrote:We should have some "refrence checkers" who go and verify as best they can the refrences each side provides. I'm at a University so I can help.

That is excellent, since Judges will have to post Rationales for their numbers. I'll add that to the post for CreationWeb.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-07 05:59pm

While we have no shortage of topics with which to pick apart CreationWeb (although really it is ReichsMarshal Bollinger we're after) I think that our primary challenge to them should be to justify why they banned Alyrium in the first place! That's the indignity started this whole mess and smacks of bigotry!

If they want to defend that action with 'board policy', they need to prove it; and if they want to admit that they disagree with homosexuality and justify it that way, they need to be taken apart, rationale by rationale.

To this extent, ReichsMarshal Bollinger's post about Alyrium "whining about his special rights on the board" is a nice, big 120mm HE shell lying around waiting to explode in their faces...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-07 06:00pm

THE DEBATE

1: DEBATE WILL TAKE PLACE VIA E-MAIL

Sounds good.

2: DEBATE WILL BEGIN AS OF 0900 (9:00AM) SATURDAY MORNING, US EASTERN STANDARD TIME (GMT +7hrs.)

This is a problem. I'm going home this weekend, and I won't have access to my machine. By the way, EST is GMT -7hrs. I will be returning late Sunday, and I may or may not have to pump out a paper, depending on if I get it done tonight. It'd be safest to start the debate on Wednesday or Thursday of next week, for me at least. This is all assuming that they actually agree to debate.

3: DEBATE WILL BE POSTED PUBLICLY AND UNALTERED AT BOTH STARDESTROYER.NET AND CREATIONWEB.ORG.

Sounds good. However, I propose that all E-mails be CCed to Mike Wong and SBollinger (in spite of the fact that he's a dishonorable coward), to verify their authenticity, and to make sure that each side has a record of the other side's posts.

For StarDestroyer.net, we present:

2 Gladiators: WeeMadAndo and Durandal

My name should be first.

Be sure to specify topics. I refuse to debate something as ridiculously broad as "Creationism vs. Evolution," because we all know that the creationist champion will have me jumping through all fields of science known to man to disprove his idiocy. I'll debate young-earth creationism, and WeeMadAndo can tackle historical accuracy.

5 Judges: Neoolong, Vympel, NecronLord, Coyote, Yogi

Shouldn't people from CW.Org be judges, too?

Judging criteria: 1-10 scale based on:

Effective use of Evidence
Clarity of Communication
Staying on Topic/Relevancy
Convincing
Civility

I see no reason to not be civil, but there's no reason to make it an evaluation criterion.

Anyone can coach or supply additional research as needed, but outside sources (books, articles, etc) must be accredited. No proof from "some guy's cousin I met at a party".

Sounds fine.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-07 06:03pm

Durandal wrote:
THE DEBATE

1: DEBATE WILL TAKE PLACE VIA E-MAIL
Sounds good.

2: DEBATE WILL BEGIN AS OF 0900 (9:00AM) SATURDAY MORNING, US EASTERN STANDARD TIME (GMT +7hrs.)
This is a problem. I'm going home this weekend, and I won't have access to my machine. By the way, EST is GMT -7hrs. I will be returning late Sunday, and I may or may not have to pump out a paper, depending on if I get it done tonight. It'd be safest to start the debate on Wednesday or Thursday of next week, for me at least. This is all assuming that they actually agree to debate.

Actually, its GMT -5. Mountain is GMT -7. Which means (if I can debate) I'll have to be up at 7AM....Which shouldn't be a problem...I'll just haveto get some sleep tonight. If you can't make it, I'll be glad to take your spot.

3: DEBATE WILL BE POSTED PUBLICLY AND UNALTERED AT BOTH STARDESTROYER.NET AND CREATIONWEB.ORG.
Sounds good. However, I propose that all E-mails be CCed to Mike Wong and SBollinger (in spite of the fact that he's a dishonorable coward), to verify their authenticity, and to make sure that each side has a record of the other side's posts.

Sounds like a good idea.

For StarDestroyer.net, we present:

2 Gladiators: WeeMadAndo and Durandal
My name should be first.

Be sure to specify topics. I refuse to debate something as ridiculously broad as "Creationism vs. Evolution," because we all know that the creationist champion will have me jumping through all fields of science known to man to disprove his idiocy. I'll debate young-earth creationism, and WeeMadAndo can tackle historical accuracy.

5 Judges: Neoolong, Vympel, NecronLord, Coyote, Yogi
Shouldn't people from CW.Org be judges, too?

THey can choose their own judges.

Judging criteria: 1-10 scale based on:

Effective use of Evidence
Clarity of Communication
Staying on Topic/Relevancy
Convincing
Civility
I see no reason to not be civil, but there's no reason to make it an evaluation criterion.

We're talking CW, remember?

Anyone can coach or supply additional research as needed, but outside sources (books, articles, etc) must be accredited. No proof from "some guy's cousin I met at a party".
Sounds fine.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-07 06:10pm

OK, I'll debate this question. "Is the Biblical age estimate of the unvierse of 6,500 years accurate?"

Furthermore, since creationists are attacking accepted scientific theory, the creationist side should be the first to post.

If we allow a 2-day turnaround time for each post, then I shouldn't have a problem if the debate starts late Sunday or early Monday.