Greetings
Moderator: Edi
-
King Tiger
- Redshirt
- Posts: 19
- Joined: 2003-01-03 05:28pm
Greetings
Hi everybody. I awake poking.
-
Next of Kin
- Rabid Monkey
- Posts: 2230
- Joined: 2002-07-20 06:49pm
- Location: too close to home
-
Kelly Antilles
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 6417
- Joined: 2002-09-12 10:36am
-
God Emperor
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 637
- Joined: 2002-11-18 08:10pm
- Location: somewhere I don't want to be
Hello, King Tiger welcome to Star Destroyer. Net. Please follow rules of conduct and you will not be labled an itiot. With that done:
*Poke*
*Poke*
Last edited by God Emperor on 2003-01-03 07:14pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Greetings, if you would just sing this contract:
SD.net Contract:
Name:
DO NOT READ THE SMALL PRINT!!!!
Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnk fso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnis x nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob n skfo bnsokf nbkosf hb nkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo is fniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi
BUT READ THIS SMALL PRINT: Rules and Regulations
Live Forever
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Disallowed topics
Allowed topics
Rules of Engagement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
"Watch your step. This place can get a little rough."
- Obi-Wan Kenobi
First, a disclaimer. I am not the author of this document. I am merely the compiler and maintainer. All rules, disallowed topics, etc. were voted on by the good citizens of this newsgroup. If you feel that any of this is unfair, bring it up on the newsgroup; however, if any of this is inaccurate, (i.e. I've misrepresented a past thread, or something else) then please feel free to contact me.
This document is ever-changing. If you start now, it might still be up-to-date by the time you get to the end.
Maintainer's e-mail address: kynes@choam.org
Last updated: June 1, 2002 @ 06:06:39 PM
Your Friendly ASVS Council:
kynes@choam.org - Rules/Website Maintainer
daltonator@hotmail.com - ASVS Whip
strowbridge@home.com - ASVS Master
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disallowed Topics
Temporal Arguments: The Pro-SW side is not allowed to bring up "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" and say by the time ST and SW meet SW will be a lot more advanced than what we see in the movies.
Conversely, the Pro-ST side is not allowed to state that technology seen in previous episodes will be more advanced than what we saw, nor is the Pro-ST side allowed to bring up time travel.
Unlikely Alliances: No one can bring up unlikely alliances. By doing so that person is, in effect, saying, "ST is so weak that the individual sides will put aside all their differences and fight the SW side together," or vice versa. In other words, it is an admission of defeat. To determine if an alliance is unlikely follow these suggestions:
Alliance would only be formed if there is no other way for victory.
Alliance would collapse at first sign of possible defeat.
Alliance would collapse during any lull in combat.
Neutral Superbeings: The Pro-ST side is not allowed to bring up Q, the guy from "The Survivors", or any other superbeing that would not fight for the ST side. This restriction also applies to the pro-SW side.
Popularity Comparisons: The discussion on this newsgroup is not a popularity contest, it is a complete waste of time. Sorry, I mean it is a debate about who would win in a military conflict.
So, no Pro-SW person can bring up box office figures or awards won and no Pro-ST person can bring up the longevity of the series.Or the fact that Jonathan Boyd is a big doot, and he argues for the ST side.
The Good Guys Always Win: This is a recent addition to the list and was the first vote that was unanimous. It was banned because of three main reasons: Good is in the eye of the beholder and there are examples of where the good guy does lose. But, most importantly, this is simply a literary cliché and has no place in a military discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowed Topics
These are some of the more popular scenarios discussed in the group. These topics are only suggestions, of course; you may discuss anything you like providing it's not a Disallowed Topic and it doesn't break any of the general Rules of Engagement. These scenarios are actually so common that some of them have specific Rules associated with them, noted in the description. These Rules apply only to the scenarios in which they are noted (i.e. you can't apply "fight to the death" rules to "The Empire invades the Federation" scenarios).
Any fight to the death between two characters from opposite sides, as long as none of the above rules are broken. I.E. Riker vs. Yoda is allowed, Q vs. A Random Ewok is not allowed. It must be pointed out that the two people are assumed to be fighting in a neutral area and they are overwhelmingly compelled to fight to the death. In other words, no running away.
Any fight between two ships or two groups of ships from opposite sides, with the same restrictions as above; i.e. saying the E-E could warp away from a SSD is also an admission of defeat. The combatants can use warp or hyperdrive to gain a strategic/tactical advantage.
Note:There is a fine line between fleet maneuvers and campaign battles with definite goals. Please make this clear in the first post.
A long term campaign style war.
Note: as per rule #1 in the disallowed topics section, advancements in technology through time are not allowed. I.E. Pro-SW people cannot say that the Empire would capture an ST ship and retrofit warp drives to all of their SDs. The reverse is also true -- so no hyperdrives on the Enterprise.
Any technology comparisons between counterparts are allowed, with a few constraints. The two pieces of technology must be similar in function, in availability, and technological level within their respective galaxies. So, as one might logically deduce, "Data v. Millennium Falcon" threads are stupid and disallowed. You would think that the denizens of the newsgroup would know this already. You would think a lot of things.
Large, fleet vs. fleet engagements, with the inclusion of planets, starbases, or other large installations of strategic interest. Unlike Ship v. Ship scenarios, which exist to determine technological or tactical superiority, fleet v. fleet engagements are meant to simulate real battles. Thus, any tactic allowable in a real battle is acceptable -- and this includes running away. (Keep in mind that this also includes planetary bombardment.)
If the limited engagement has a specific goal, please state it in the first post. Otherwise, it will be assumed that ANYTHING that can be done to force the other side to surrender is acceptable.
Ground Combat: Same rules as multi-ship space combat. Except on the ground!
Any technology can be used to one side's advantage in any of the above topics, as long as that technology is still available and will be used! In other words, Dr.Soren's Trilithium device used in ST:Generations is considered lost technology, and Data is considered unique technology (just like the MF.) Their value in a campaign style war is limited by their lack of availability, although "Data vs. ..." and "MF vs. ..." are still allowable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules of Engagement
Anyone not obeying these rules shall be subject to violent, pointy death.
Although most of us know that Star Trek and Star Wars are not real, for the purpose of these discussions we treat them as if they were REAL and NOT movies made by people in the real world. We are seeing the real events as they really happened, and if you think we're nuts then you are obviously a trained medical professional. Therefore, real world problems are to be left out of these discussions. For example:
Budget restraints
Copyright infringements
FX demons
Strange camera lenses
Plot devices
Script wizards
We're all pretty sick of this debate and bringing it up will get you a faceful of feces, in the BDDB, or even on trial. Consider yourself warned.
In ASVS we debate who would win in a military conflict between the forces of Star Trek and Star Wars. We do not debate who would win if we were in charge of the two sides. Therefore, we must use any and all character traits, nuances, etc. In other words:
Example #1:
Right: The Empire will get the first shot, cause the Federation will not shoot first and ask questions later, and the Empire will.
Wrong: The Federation will destroy one of their own planets that the Empire has taken over just to destroy the Empire's forces there, even at the cost of innocent lives.
Example #2:
Right: The Klingon forces scream a bloodcurdling battle cry as they charge into battle.
Wrong: The Ferengi forces scream a bloodcurdling battle cry as they charge into battle.
If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to have trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest way to waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking for a source.
If sources of the same level (Canon vs. Canon or Official vs. Official) disagree then it is up to whoever put forth the claim to research additional sources to find which way the majority go.
To be a valid source of evidence, it must fall into the spectrum of canon for the respective franchise. Here's all of that, broken down:
Star Wars:
Canon sources cannot be overridden by anything, period. These are the movies, scripts of the movies, novelizations of the movies, and the radio dramas -- in that order.
Official sources are accepted as sources of evidence and are perfectly valid, unless they contradict the above-mentioned canon sources. If they do, we must choose the canon source. Official sources are novels (and other published stories), West End Games' gaming material, the Essential Guides series, the Behind the Magic CD-ROM and generally most things which are published and authorized by Lucasfilm. They are all equal, but in case of a disagreement between the sources, the accepted procedure is to try and sort out which information is "more" official. For example, the Behind the Magic CD-ROM would be accepted over the WEG gaming material, simply because Lucasfilm published the BTM CD. Also, novels override the Essential Guides when discussing the same material, simply because the EGs draw from the novels as source material.
Ignored sources are just that. Ignored. Don't use them at evidence, because we'll just call you names and suggest the possible species of your parents. Things that fall into this category are video games and toys.
Star Trek:
Paramount's Canon Policy is not as easy to determine as Lucasfilm's. Since Paramount is a company and not a person they can't simply state what their a canon policy is. However, people who work for Paramount (either directly or indirectly) must know what this policy in order to do their jobs. So by asking these people (people like Gaskill, Ordover, Moore, Okuda, etc.) who work intimately with Paramount's Canon Policy we were able to learn just what that policy was. With all the research done on this topic, if we don't have Paramount's Canon Policy right, neither does Paramount.
Canon sources for Star Trek are the movies, shows, two novels, and one episode of the Animated Series, which is otherwise ignored. The novels are "Mosaic" and "Pathways," both by Jeri Taylor, and the episode of the Animated Series is "Yesteryear."
Ignored sources are everything else. If you are new to the group or returning after a long absence, you may wish to re-read that statement and consider its full implications. Here is a partial (but by no means complete) list of sources which have been ruled out for use as source material:
The TNG Technical Manual
The DS9 Technical Manual
Star Trek: The Magazine
Star Trek Fact Files
Novels, with the above two exceptions
Comics
The Star Trek Encyclopedia
The Star Trek Chronology
Keep in mind that this is the official, stated policy of Paramount; John Ordover, a Paramount official who is the main editor for the Star Trek novels, has stated this in numerous conversations with Council members (with crystal clarity, I might add -- ed.). This does exclude a lot of material, but the ST and SW sides of this debate have both agreed to accept the canon policy of LucasFilm and Paramount.
This doesn't mean the Encylopedia, for example, is useless: it's still a valid reference source and contains much information taken directly from the shows which can be used in the debate. However, any material in a printed source which does not appear on-screen is ignored.
Special Cases:
For whatever reason, there are a few special cases of the above rules worth mentioning.
Nitpicker's Guide to Star Trek (all volumes): When offering evidence in the debate, these books are acceptable sources of information. While they're not "official," exactly, they are very well researched and should be considered valid sources of information to meet the criteria of evidence. Note that this applies only to the actual facts from the episodes, much like other printed material for ST.
Star Wars Christmas Special: We all wish it wasn't official, but it is.
Some people are having difficulties with how we use Dialogue or written evidence. Here's a few simple guidelines:
Keeping in line with Orkham's razor, dialogue is to be taken at face value. No twisting words, looking up obscure definitions, etc. Semantic Wars (TM) are not the way to victory. NOTE: I said face value, not LITERALLY. Exaggerations, jokes, similes, etc. are used in everyday life, deal with it.
In other words, saying, "He was exaggerating when he said that, and here's why ..." is acceptable, BUT saying, "He used the word world instead of planet and one of the definitions of world include ... so maybe he meant ..."
ALL evidence, including dialogue, is considered accurate unless there's reasonable doubt based on direct evidence. Examples:
"30% of the crust destroyed in opening volley." Romulan Officer in TDiC - Visuals contradict this.
"You're too late, we're everywhere." - Dying Changeling - No direct contradiction, in fact circumstantial evidence supports this statement.
"We have enough power to reduce a planet to a smoking cinder" - Tom Riker - Then why did the ship have so little effect on the power generation asteroids? Hmm, no time frame was given so I guess there's no real contradiction, but it is a bit misleading.
"They could be half way across the galaxy by now!" - If that was true travel times would be measured in minutes or, at most, hours. This is obviously not true.
This goes for stating old claims as well as new ones. This is necessary for two reasons.
To prevent Pregnant Kira Fallacies: For more than a year it was common knowledge that the character Kira was pregnant in "Way of the Warrior" when she beat up a Klingon. Cause it was an old claim no one bothered to do the research and back it up. When someone did do the research this bit of common knowledge was proven very wrong, and even then it was thought that Nana Visitor was pregnant at the time. A claim that if true would have meant she was pregnant for no less than 17 months.
To Prevent Thread Overload: At any given time there could be as many as a dozen topics each with multiple threads and a dozen debaters in each one. Because of this it is hard for the best of us to keep track of who said what in response to who and where. Add in when, why and how and you can see the confusion build.
Q: I repeatedly make the same claim but I don't want to type out the evidence each time. What should I do?
A: Try a less complicated hobby. Maybe masturbating like a caged monkey is more suited to your talents.
Q: Ha ha ha. Seriously, what are my options?
A: You have two options:
1.) Stop making that claim.
2.) Write a website and have the URL in your .sig. This way you can say, "For evidence see my website section 3.ii."
3.) Write a complete description of the thread and give it to a member of The Committee to be added into the Previous Threads DB.
Q: That's three options.
A: Shut up or I'll redirect you to goatse.cx!
Q: Ok, sorry.
Also, when considering evidence, remember: SF writers sometimes borrow from leading edge science. Due to the nature of the job they can make mistakes. For instance Zero Point Energy was mentioned in Star Trek, but the amount of energy it supposedly has is vastly higher than in real life. We still must consider Zero Point Energy to have all the properties real life Scientists tell us, but due to suspension of disbelief we must assume for ST the writer is correct whenever they directly contradict. Not only that, but due to RoE #14 these properties will also hold true in SW as well.
Whatever you bring up must be relevant to the topic at hand. Just because one species, for example, has access to a technology does not give you automatic license to bring that technology up in a discussion about a totally unrelated species/government/whatever.
If you're going to state capabilities, limitations, or anything else, you must have supporting, legitimate evidence. Extrapolation may not be applied blindly to conclude what might be possible.
What does this mean? No technology can be assumed to have abilities beyond what is shown in acceptable sources. No two or more existing technologies can be combined, unless shown in acceptable sources. Etc., unless shown in acceptable sources.
Example #1:
"The Defiant was seen traveling at warp 6.2 and 7.0, but never warp 6.7. Therefore it can't go warp 6.7."
Wrong. As long as it's within known upper and lower limits, it's fine.
Example #2:
"In TDiC the ships could only travel warp 6 and still be undetected. But they probably improved the design, so they can go warp 9 now."
Wrong. No hint or evidence of improvements seen.
Example #3:
"The have replicating mines. They have sub-space mines. Therefore, they can make Replicating Sub Space mines."
Wrong. Random combination of technology is disallowed. There's no evidence that they have, or can, do this.
Example #4:
While Federation Officers are never seen going to the bathroom, we see them eat and know that at least some are human, so it's safe to conclude they have bathrooms on their ships.
Right. This is logic applied to evidence we know to be correct.
Example #5:
Photon torpedo tubes can be fitted onto fighters, so it's likely they can be fit onto the Worker Bees and used in combat also.
Wrong. And I hope you know why.
You're responsible for doing your own research. All of it. If you want to show that A is better than B, then you must do research for both A and B. The thread where you are claiming this is not the place to do this research -- i.e. "I think a shuttlecraft could take the Death Star. The shuttlecraft has phasers and shields and stuff. I mean, what does the Death Star have? Anyone? So." Also, do the requisite research from appropriate sources; if you are researching Material Science go to a Material Science textbook or web site. Don't look up 'Alloy' in the dictionary and expect to be able to debate the topic.
If you insult someone, expect to be insulted back. If you come and flame us, we will be perfectly happy to flame you back. We are not above months-long, thousand-post flamewars. We would like to believe that we are, but we aren't. People who spend their time here tend to become a little cranky and fanatic after a few years, and an apparently-harmless insult can quickly turn to a jihad!
In this newsgroup we debate the various merits of Star Wars and Star Trek and how they compare in a military match. So, if you want to debate bring up counter arguments - or don't reply at all. Certain responses are banned unless they are followed by a suitable explanation. They include, but are not limited to: False, Nope, , "Concession Accepted", or Star Wars/Star Trek Rulez!
You must quote the message you are replying to! See Rule 8 for punishment! After all, not all of us can afford to spend all day online. What do you think we are? Students with fast Internet connections, free phone service, and a lot of free time to check the thread at length to see what you might be talking about? Well, you'd be right. But quote anyway.
Don't type in odd formats. Alternating caps look stupid. All capital letters look stupid. All little letters look stupid. Again, see Rule 8 for punishment.
VS debates involving other universes do not belong here! I know it seems handy because there are so many willing debaters here that are knowledgeable about sci-fi lore, but this is not the place for it. If you want to talk about ST vs. Babylon 5, you might take it to alt.startrek.vs.b5.
Every other group on USENET fears and hates us. As such, please do not cross-post. This causes them to have heart attacks. I am not exaggerating.
Every once in a while, look at the subject of the message you're replying to. If it's totally irrelevant -- i.e. you're talking about Scotland vs. England and the subject line is "[Tech] SSD v. Federation Fleet: 2 seconds for an Imperial win?" please change it.
No one can claim that established tech or abilities in one galaxy won't work in another, or that established tech or abilities won't work cause they are unscientific or unrealistic. That means that the pro-SW side can't claim that Warp Drives will stop functioning outside the ST galaxy, or that bat'leths will suddenly be brittle, or that transporters violate the Uncertainty Principle to they can't work. Similarly, the pro-ST side can't claim that there's no hyperspace for a hyperdrive to jump to, or that Jedi will suddenly lose all of their power, or 1e38 JOULES IS JUST TOO BIG!!!!! This gets us nowhere since there's absolutely no evidence either way and there never will be.
Here are examples of what not to do.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=92 ... ace.net.au
(Claim of hyperspace being "too fast")
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6c ... spnews.com
(Subject line says it all... "Death Star too big!!!!!!"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=89 ... h.es.co.nz
(Elim vs. Rush Limbaugh. Quote: "Altering history is impossible.")
All Your Base Are Belong To Us: In this NG science rules the day. And in most instances science is backed up with calculations. Unfortunately many people feel that their theories are so obvious that no math is needed to back them up. Quite frankly, we are all quite sick and tired of disproving these claims. While the obvious is sometimes right, many times it is not. In conclusion, do the Damn Math. Examples:
Claim: Distance could have been at least 100,000km.
Reality: Simple math demonstrates the maximum to be 8000km.
Claim: No more than 300,000 shots @ 2GT each needed to destroy a planet.
Reality: Basic division demonstrates that over 12 billion shots would be necessary.
On the other hand, some times people use math to 'prove' all sort of things. These calculations, while mathematically correct, have no real basis in reality and ignore all sorts of problems. A good example of these types of Mindless Math arguments is the intentionally bogus Strowbridge Calcs. (See Previous Topics.)
Aliases: Many people here are known simply by their alias. This allows a greater freedom in responses but can be abused. If you change your alias please notify The Committee so your voting rights will not be interrupted. Also be warned, copying someone else's alias is a one way ticket to the BDDB. Obviously the situation can mitigate this. Humorous uses (Jimothy Tones, Baroness, etc.) will be tolerated. Malicious use of someone else's alias will bring such attacks upon you that the BDDB will look like an award for good sportsmanship.
Outsiders Not Welcome: Any force not belonging to Star Trek or Star Wars automatically loses in any versus debate. This includes but is not limited to: The Culture, Transformers, Voltron, Starship Troopers, Real Life Armies, The Legion of Past and Present Porn Stars lead by Long Dong Silvers, Powerpuff Girls, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Mmmm, Buffy), The Tick, an angry Redneck armed only with a 2x4 and a his 3 legged dog, Dr. Who, Terminator, Red Dwarf, Space 1999, Dragonball Z ....]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD.net Contract:
Name:
DO NOT READ THE SMALL PRINT!!!!
Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnk fso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnis x nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob n skfo bnsokf nbkosf hb nkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo is fniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi Nngiwong ingojnrw ojrng jjfdhg j nbjfs njrfwng nr nrjo njofnbvjfdnvk nfj nbfnbs nrhw nhbifro snbrfos nbrt nbt no bnfks nri nhrs nkf bnsfkb sfihg tienh itfgbnisx nbfnks nbfsl niofs nfiso bisofnbfs fnksob nskfo bnsokf nbkosf hbnkfso nfoks bnfsn bnfsobnifs oifnb fn bionf soinbvo isfniobnfio nbisfn iosoi
BUT READ THIS SMALL PRINT: Rules and Regulations
Live Forever
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Disallowed topics
Allowed topics
Rules of Engagement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
"Watch your step. This place can get a little rough."
- Obi-Wan Kenobi
First, a disclaimer. I am not the author of this document. I am merely the compiler and maintainer. All rules, disallowed topics, etc. were voted on by the good citizens of this newsgroup. If you feel that any of this is unfair, bring it up on the newsgroup; however, if any of this is inaccurate, (i.e. I've misrepresented a past thread, or something else) then please feel free to contact me.
This document is ever-changing. If you start now, it might still be up-to-date by the time you get to the end.
Maintainer's e-mail address: kynes@choam.org
Last updated: June 1, 2002 @ 06:06:39 PM
Your Friendly ASVS Council:
kynes@choam.org - Rules/Website Maintainer
daltonator@hotmail.com - ASVS Whip
strowbridge@home.com - ASVS Master
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disallowed Topics
Temporal Arguments: The Pro-SW side is not allowed to bring up "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" and say by the time ST and SW meet SW will be a lot more advanced than what we see in the movies.
Conversely, the Pro-ST side is not allowed to state that technology seen in previous episodes will be more advanced than what we saw, nor is the Pro-ST side allowed to bring up time travel.
Unlikely Alliances: No one can bring up unlikely alliances. By doing so that person is, in effect, saying, "ST is so weak that the individual sides will put aside all their differences and fight the SW side together," or vice versa. In other words, it is an admission of defeat. To determine if an alliance is unlikely follow these suggestions:
Alliance would only be formed if there is no other way for victory.
Alliance would collapse at first sign of possible defeat.
Alliance would collapse during any lull in combat.
Neutral Superbeings: The Pro-ST side is not allowed to bring up Q, the guy from "The Survivors", or any other superbeing that would not fight for the ST side. This restriction also applies to the pro-SW side.
Popularity Comparisons: The discussion on this newsgroup is not a popularity contest, it is a complete waste of time. Sorry, I mean it is a debate about who would win in a military conflict.
So, no Pro-SW person can bring up box office figures or awards won and no Pro-ST person can bring up the longevity of the series.Or the fact that Jonathan Boyd is a big doot, and he argues for the ST side.
The Good Guys Always Win: This is a recent addition to the list and was the first vote that was unanimous. It was banned because of three main reasons: Good is in the eye of the beholder and there are examples of where the good guy does lose. But, most importantly, this is simply a literary cliché and has no place in a military discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowed Topics
These are some of the more popular scenarios discussed in the group. These topics are only suggestions, of course; you may discuss anything you like providing it's not a Disallowed Topic and it doesn't break any of the general Rules of Engagement. These scenarios are actually so common that some of them have specific Rules associated with them, noted in the description. These Rules apply only to the scenarios in which they are noted (i.e. you can't apply "fight to the death" rules to "The Empire invades the Federation" scenarios).
Any fight to the death between two characters from opposite sides, as long as none of the above rules are broken. I.E. Riker vs. Yoda is allowed, Q vs. A Random Ewok is not allowed. It must be pointed out that the two people are assumed to be fighting in a neutral area and they are overwhelmingly compelled to fight to the death. In other words, no running away.
Any fight between two ships or two groups of ships from opposite sides, with the same restrictions as above; i.e. saying the E-E could warp away from a SSD is also an admission of defeat. The combatants can use warp or hyperdrive to gain a strategic/tactical advantage.
Note:There is a fine line between fleet maneuvers and campaign battles with definite goals. Please make this clear in the first post.
A long term campaign style war.
Note: as per rule #1 in the disallowed topics section, advancements in technology through time are not allowed. I.E. Pro-SW people cannot say that the Empire would capture an ST ship and retrofit warp drives to all of their SDs. The reverse is also true -- so no hyperdrives on the Enterprise.
Any technology comparisons between counterparts are allowed, with a few constraints. The two pieces of technology must be similar in function, in availability, and technological level within their respective galaxies. So, as one might logically deduce, "Data v. Millennium Falcon" threads are stupid and disallowed. You would think that the denizens of the newsgroup would know this already. You would think a lot of things.
Large, fleet vs. fleet engagements, with the inclusion of planets, starbases, or other large installations of strategic interest. Unlike Ship v. Ship scenarios, which exist to determine technological or tactical superiority, fleet v. fleet engagements are meant to simulate real battles. Thus, any tactic allowable in a real battle is acceptable -- and this includes running away. (Keep in mind that this also includes planetary bombardment.)
If the limited engagement has a specific goal, please state it in the first post. Otherwise, it will be assumed that ANYTHING that can be done to force the other side to surrender is acceptable.
Ground Combat: Same rules as multi-ship space combat. Except on the ground!
Any technology can be used to one side's advantage in any of the above topics, as long as that technology is still available and will be used! In other words, Dr.Soren's Trilithium device used in ST:Generations is considered lost technology, and Data is considered unique technology (just like the MF.) Their value in a campaign style war is limited by their lack of availability, although "Data vs. ..." and "MF vs. ..." are still allowable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules of Engagement
Anyone not obeying these rules shall be subject to violent, pointy death.
Although most of us know that Star Trek and Star Wars are not real, for the purpose of these discussions we treat them as if they were REAL and NOT movies made by people in the real world. We are seeing the real events as they really happened, and if you think we're nuts then you are obviously a trained medical professional. Therefore, real world problems are to be left out of these discussions. For example:
Budget restraints
Copyright infringements
FX demons
Strange camera lenses
Plot devices
Script wizards
We're all pretty sick of this debate and bringing it up will get you a faceful of feces, in the BDDB, or even on trial. Consider yourself warned.
In ASVS we debate who would win in a military conflict between the forces of Star Trek and Star Wars. We do not debate who would win if we were in charge of the two sides. Therefore, we must use any and all character traits, nuances, etc. In other words:
Example #1:
Right: The Empire will get the first shot, cause the Federation will not shoot first and ask questions later, and the Empire will.
Wrong: The Federation will destroy one of their own planets that the Empire has taken over just to destroy the Empire's forces there, even at the cost of innocent lives.
Example #2:
Right: The Klingon forces scream a bloodcurdling battle cry as they charge into battle.
Wrong: The Ferengi forces scream a bloodcurdling battle cry as they charge into battle.
If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to have trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest way to waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking for a source.
If sources of the same level (Canon vs. Canon or Official vs. Official) disagree then it is up to whoever put forth the claim to research additional sources to find which way the majority go.
To be a valid source of evidence, it must fall into the spectrum of canon for the respective franchise. Here's all of that, broken down:
Star Wars:
Canon sources cannot be overridden by anything, period. These are the movies, scripts of the movies, novelizations of the movies, and the radio dramas -- in that order.
Official sources are accepted as sources of evidence and are perfectly valid, unless they contradict the above-mentioned canon sources. If they do, we must choose the canon source. Official sources are novels (and other published stories), West End Games' gaming material, the Essential Guides series, the Behind the Magic CD-ROM and generally most things which are published and authorized by Lucasfilm. They are all equal, but in case of a disagreement between the sources, the accepted procedure is to try and sort out which information is "more" official. For example, the Behind the Magic CD-ROM would be accepted over the WEG gaming material, simply because Lucasfilm published the BTM CD. Also, novels override the Essential Guides when discussing the same material, simply because the EGs draw from the novels as source material.
Ignored sources are just that. Ignored. Don't use them at evidence, because we'll just call you names and suggest the possible species of your parents. Things that fall into this category are video games and toys.
Star Trek:
Paramount's Canon Policy is not as easy to determine as Lucasfilm's. Since Paramount is a company and not a person they can't simply state what their a canon policy is. However, people who work for Paramount (either directly or indirectly) must know what this policy in order to do their jobs. So by asking these people (people like Gaskill, Ordover, Moore, Okuda, etc.) who work intimately with Paramount's Canon Policy we were able to learn just what that policy was. With all the research done on this topic, if we don't have Paramount's Canon Policy right, neither does Paramount.
Canon sources for Star Trek are the movies, shows, two novels, and one episode of the Animated Series, which is otherwise ignored. The novels are "Mosaic" and "Pathways," both by Jeri Taylor, and the episode of the Animated Series is "Yesteryear."
Ignored sources are everything else. If you are new to the group or returning after a long absence, you may wish to re-read that statement and consider its full implications. Here is a partial (but by no means complete) list of sources which have been ruled out for use as source material:
The TNG Technical Manual
The DS9 Technical Manual
Star Trek: The Magazine
Star Trek Fact Files
Novels, with the above two exceptions
Comics
The Star Trek Encyclopedia
The Star Trek Chronology
Keep in mind that this is the official, stated policy of Paramount; John Ordover, a Paramount official who is the main editor for the Star Trek novels, has stated this in numerous conversations with Council members (with crystal clarity, I might add -- ed.). This does exclude a lot of material, but the ST and SW sides of this debate have both agreed to accept the canon policy of LucasFilm and Paramount.
This doesn't mean the Encylopedia, for example, is useless: it's still a valid reference source and contains much information taken directly from the shows which can be used in the debate. However, any material in a printed source which does not appear on-screen is ignored.
Special Cases:
For whatever reason, there are a few special cases of the above rules worth mentioning.
Nitpicker's Guide to Star Trek (all volumes): When offering evidence in the debate, these books are acceptable sources of information. While they're not "official," exactly, they are very well researched and should be considered valid sources of information to meet the criteria of evidence. Note that this applies only to the actual facts from the episodes, much like other printed material for ST.
Star Wars Christmas Special: We all wish it wasn't official, but it is.
Some people are having difficulties with how we use Dialogue or written evidence. Here's a few simple guidelines:
Keeping in line with Orkham's razor, dialogue is to be taken at face value. No twisting words, looking up obscure definitions, etc. Semantic Wars (TM) are not the way to victory. NOTE: I said face value, not LITERALLY. Exaggerations, jokes, similes, etc. are used in everyday life, deal with it.
In other words, saying, "He was exaggerating when he said that, and here's why ..." is acceptable, BUT saying, "He used the word world instead of planet and one of the definitions of world include ... so maybe he meant ..."
ALL evidence, including dialogue, is considered accurate unless there's reasonable doubt based on direct evidence. Examples:
"30% of the crust destroyed in opening volley." Romulan Officer in TDiC - Visuals contradict this.
"You're too late, we're everywhere." - Dying Changeling - No direct contradiction, in fact circumstantial evidence supports this statement.
"We have enough power to reduce a planet to a smoking cinder" - Tom Riker - Then why did the ship have so little effect on the power generation asteroids? Hmm, no time frame was given so I guess there's no real contradiction, but it is a bit misleading.
"They could be half way across the galaxy by now!" - If that was true travel times would be measured in minutes or, at most, hours. This is obviously not true.
This goes for stating old claims as well as new ones. This is necessary for two reasons.
To prevent Pregnant Kira Fallacies: For more than a year it was common knowledge that the character Kira was pregnant in "Way of the Warrior" when she beat up a Klingon. Cause it was an old claim no one bothered to do the research and back it up. When someone did do the research this bit of common knowledge was proven very wrong, and even then it was thought that Nana Visitor was pregnant at the time. A claim that if true would have meant she was pregnant for no less than 17 months.
To Prevent Thread Overload: At any given time there could be as many as a dozen topics each with multiple threads and a dozen debaters in each one. Because of this it is hard for the best of us to keep track of who said what in response to who and where. Add in when, why and how and you can see the confusion build.
Q: I repeatedly make the same claim but I don't want to type out the evidence each time. What should I do?
A: Try a less complicated hobby. Maybe masturbating like a caged monkey is more suited to your talents.
Q: Ha ha ha. Seriously, what are my options?
A: You have two options:
1.) Stop making that claim.
2.) Write a website and have the URL in your .sig. This way you can say, "For evidence see my website section 3.ii."
3.) Write a complete description of the thread and give it to a member of The Committee to be added into the Previous Threads DB.
Q: That's three options.
A: Shut up or I'll redirect you to goatse.cx!
Q: Ok, sorry.
Also, when considering evidence, remember: SF writers sometimes borrow from leading edge science. Due to the nature of the job they can make mistakes. For instance Zero Point Energy was mentioned in Star Trek, but the amount of energy it supposedly has is vastly higher than in real life. We still must consider Zero Point Energy to have all the properties real life Scientists tell us, but due to suspension of disbelief we must assume for ST the writer is correct whenever they directly contradict. Not only that, but due to RoE #14 these properties will also hold true in SW as well.
Whatever you bring up must be relevant to the topic at hand. Just because one species, for example, has access to a technology does not give you automatic license to bring that technology up in a discussion about a totally unrelated species/government/whatever.
If you're going to state capabilities, limitations, or anything else, you must have supporting, legitimate evidence. Extrapolation may not be applied blindly to conclude what might be possible.
What does this mean? No technology can be assumed to have abilities beyond what is shown in acceptable sources. No two or more existing technologies can be combined, unless shown in acceptable sources. Etc., unless shown in acceptable sources.
Example #1:
"The Defiant was seen traveling at warp 6.2 and 7.0, but never warp 6.7. Therefore it can't go warp 6.7."
Wrong. As long as it's within known upper and lower limits, it's fine.
Example #2:
"In TDiC the ships could only travel warp 6 and still be undetected. But they probably improved the design, so they can go warp 9 now."
Wrong. No hint or evidence of improvements seen.
Example #3:
"The have replicating mines. They have sub-space mines. Therefore, they can make Replicating Sub Space mines."
Wrong. Random combination of technology is disallowed. There's no evidence that they have, or can, do this.
Example #4:
While Federation Officers are never seen going to the bathroom, we see them eat and know that at least some are human, so it's safe to conclude they have bathrooms on their ships.
Right. This is logic applied to evidence we know to be correct.
Example #5:
Photon torpedo tubes can be fitted onto fighters, so it's likely they can be fit onto the Worker Bees and used in combat also.
Wrong. And I hope you know why.
You're responsible for doing your own research. All of it. If you want to show that A is better than B, then you must do research for both A and B. The thread where you are claiming this is not the place to do this research -- i.e. "I think a shuttlecraft could take the Death Star. The shuttlecraft has phasers and shields and stuff. I mean, what does the Death Star have? Anyone? So." Also, do the requisite research from appropriate sources; if you are researching Material Science go to a Material Science textbook or web site. Don't look up 'Alloy' in the dictionary and expect to be able to debate the topic.
If you insult someone, expect to be insulted back. If you come and flame us, we will be perfectly happy to flame you back. We are not above months-long, thousand-post flamewars. We would like to believe that we are, but we aren't. People who spend their time here tend to become a little cranky and fanatic after a few years, and an apparently-harmless insult can quickly turn to a jihad!
In this newsgroup we debate the various merits of Star Wars and Star Trek and how they compare in a military match. So, if you want to debate bring up counter arguments - or don't reply at all. Certain responses are banned unless they are followed by a suitable explanation. They include, but are not limited to: False, Nope, , "Concession Accepted", or Star Wars/Star Trek Rulez!
You must quote the message you are replying to! See Rule 8 for punishment! After all, not all of us can afford to spend all day online. What do you think we are? Students with fast Internet connections, free phone service, and a lot of free time to check the thread at length to see what you might be talking about? Well, you'd be right. But quote anyway.
Don't type in odd formats. Alternating caps look stupid. All capital letters look stupid. All little letters look stupid. Again, see Rule 8 for punishment.
VS debates involving other universes do not belong here! I know it seems handy because there are so many willing debaters here that are knowledgeable about sci-fi lore, but this is not the place for it. If you want to talk about ST vs. Babylon 5, you might take it to alt.startrek.vs.b5.
Every other group on USENET fears and hates us. As such, please do not cross-post. This causes them to have heart attacks. I am not exaggerating.
Every once in a while, look at the subject of the message you're replying to. If it's totally irrelevant -- i.e. you're talking about Scotland vs. England and the subject line is "[Tech] SSD v. Federation Fleet: 2 seconds for an Imperial win?" please change it.
No one can claim that established tech or abilities in one galaxy won't work in another, or that established tech or abilities won't work cause they are unscientific or unrealistic. That means that the pro-SW side can't claim that Warp Drives will stop functioning outside the ST galaxy, or that bat'leths will suddenly be brittle, or that transporters violate the Uncertainty Principle to they can't work. Similarly, the pro-ST side can't claim that there's no hyperspace for a hyperdrive to jump to, or that Jedi will suddenly lose all of their power, or 1e38 JOULES IS JUST TOO BIG!!!!! This gets us nowhere since there's absolutely no evidence either way and there never will be.
Here are examples of what not to do.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=92 ... ace.net.au
(Claim of hyperspace being "too fast")
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6c ... spnews.com
(Subject line says it all... "Death Star too big!!!!!!"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=89 ... h.es.co.nz
(Elim vs. Rush Limbaugh. Quote: "Altering history is impossible.")
All Your Base Are Belong To Us: In this NG science rules the day. And in most instances science is backed up with calculations. Unfortunately many people feel that their theories are so obvious that no math is needed to back them up. Quite frankly, we are all quite sick and tired of disproving these claims. While the obvious is sometimes right, many times it is not. In conclusion, do the Damn Math. Examples:
Claim: Distance could have been at least 100,000km.
Reality: Simple math demonstrates the maximum to be 8000km.
Claim: No more than 300,000 shots @ 2GT each needed to destroy a planet.
Reality: Basic division demonstrates that over 12 billion shots would be necessary.
On the other hand, some times people use math to 'prove' all sort of things. These calculations, while mathematically correct, have no real basis in reality and ignore all sorts of problems. A good example of these types of Mindless Math arguments is the intentionally bogus Strowbridge Calcs. (See Previous Topics.)
Aliases: Many people here are known simply by their alias. This allows a greater freedom in responses but can be abused. If you change your alias please notify The Committee so your voting rights will not be interrupted. Also be warned, copying someone else's alias is a one way ticket to the BDDB. Obviously the situation can mitigate this. Humorous uses (Jimothy Tones, Baroness, etc.) will be tolerated. Malicious use of someone else's alias will bring such attacks upon you that the BDDB will look like an award for good sportsmanship.
Outsiders Not Welcome: Any force not belonging to Star Trek or Star Wars automatically loses in any versus debate. This includes but is not limited to: The Culture, Transformers, Voltron, Starship Troopers, Real Life Armies, The Legion of Past and Present Porn Stars lead by Long Dong Silvers, Powerpuff Girls, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Mmmm, Buffy), The Tick, an angry Redneck armed only with a 2x4 and a his 3 legged dog, Dr. Who, Terminator, Red Dwarf, Space 1999, Dragonball Z ....]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Ted on 2003-01-03 07:34pm, edited 3 times in total.
Go, tell the Spartans, stranger passing by,
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.
-
Enlightenment
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 2404
- Joined: 2002-07-04 07:38pm
- Location: Annoying nationalist twits since 1990
Consider yourself poked. Now go away and leave us alone.
It's not my place in life to make people happy. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to watch me slaughter cows you hold sacred. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to have your basic assumptions challenged. If you want bunnies in light, talk to someone else.
-
ArmorPierce
- Rabid Monkey
- Posts: 5904
- Joined: 2002-07-04 09:54pm
- Location: Born and raised in Brooklyn, unfornately presently in Jersey
*With eyes wide open filled with wonder and curiousity*
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
-
Raptor 597
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 3338
- Joined: 2002-08-01 03:54pm
- Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
Greetings, Newbie. *Salutes you and sing the Nazi Marching Song and goose steps in circles* They're many Poking Phsycos here, but my warning is far too late. 
Formerly the artist known as Captain Lennox
"To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me." - Sir Isaac Newton
"To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me." - Sir Isaac Newton
-
Kelly Antilles
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 6417
- Joined: 2002-09-12 10:36am
Brilliant, Ted. We need to post this more often for newbies.Ted wrote: BUT READ THIS SMALL PRINT: Rules and Regulations
Live Forever
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Disallowed topics
Allowed topics
Rules of Engagement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
"Watch your step. This place can get a little rough."
- Obi-Wan Kenobi
First, a disclaimer. I am not the author of this document. I am merely the compiler and maintainer. All rules, disallowed topics, etc. were voted on by the good citizens of this newsgroup. If you feel that any of this is unfair, bring it up on the newsgroup; however, if any of this is inaccurate, (i.e. I've misrepresented a past thread, or something else) then please feel free to contact me.
This document is ever-changing. If you start now, it might still be up-to-date by the time you get to the end.
Maintainer's e-mail address: kynes@choam.org
Last updated: June 1, 2002 @ 06:06:39 PM
Your Friendly ASVS Council:
kynes@choam.org - Rules/Website Maintainer
daltonator@hotmail.com - ASVS Whip
strowbridge@home.com - ASVS Master
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disallowed Topics
Temporal Arguments: The Pro-SW side is not allowed to bring up "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" and say by the time ST and SW meet SW will be a lot more advanced than what we see in the movies.
Conversely, the Pro-ST side is not allowed to state that technology seen in previous episodes will be more advanced than what we saw, nor is the Pro-ST side allowed to bring up time travel.
Unlikely Alliances: No one can bring up unlikely alliances. By doing so that person is, in effect, saying, "ST is so weak that the individual sides will put aside all their differences and fight the SW side together," or vice versa. In other words, it is an admission of defeat. To determine if an alliance is unlikely follow these suggestions:
Alliance would only be formed if there is no other way for victory.
Alliance would collapse at first sign of possible defeat.
Alliance would collapse during any lull in combat.
Neutral Superbeings: The Pro-ST side is not allowed to bring up Q, the guy from "The Survivors", or any other superbeing that would not fight for the ST side. This restriction also applies to the pro-SW side.
Popularity Comparisons: The discussion on this newsgroup is not a popularity contest, it is a complete waste of time. Sorry, I mean it is a debate about who would win in a military conflict.
So, no Pro-SW person can bring up box office figures or awards won and no Pro-ST person can bring up the longevity of the series.Or the fact that Jonathan Boyd is a big doot, and he argues for the ST side.
The Good Guys Always Win: This is a recent addition to the list and was the first vote that was unanimous. It was banned because of three main reasons: Good is in the eye of the beholder and there are examples of where the good guy does lose. But, most importantly, this is simply a literary cliché and has no place in a military discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowed Topics
These are some of the more popular scenarios discussed in the group. These topics are only suggestions, of course; you may discuss anything you like providing it's not a Disallowed Topic and it doesn't break any of the general Rules of Engagement. These scenarios are actually so common that some of them have specific Rules associated with them, noted in the description. These Rules apply only to the scenarios in which they are noted (i.e. you can't apply "fight to the death" rules to "The Empire invades the Federation" scenarios).
Any fight to the death between two characters from opposite sides, as long as none of the above rules are broken. I.E. Riker vs. Yoda is allowed, Q vs. A Random Ewok is not allowed. It must be pointed out that the two people are assumed to be fighting in a neutral area and they are overwhelmingly compelled to fight to the death. In other words, no running away.
Any fight between two ships or two groups of ships from opposite sides, with the same restrictions as above; i.e. saying the E-E could warp away from a SSD is also an admission of defeat. The combatants can use warp or hyperdrive to gain a strategic/tactical advantage.
Note:There is a fine line between fleet maneuvers and campaign battles with definite goals. Please make this clear in the first post.
A long term campaign style war.
Note: as per rule #1 in the disallowed topics section, advancements in technology through time are not allowed. I.E. Pro-SW people cannot say that the Empire would capture an ST ship and retrofit warp drives to all of their SDs. The reverse is also true -- so no hyperdrives on the Enterprise.
Any technology comparisons between counterparts are allowed, with a few constraints. The two pieces of technology must be similar in function, in availability, and technological level within their respective galaxies. So, as one might logically deduce, "Data v. Millennium Falcon" threads are stupid and disallowed. You would think that the denizens of the newsgroup would know this already. You would think a lot of things.
Large, fleet vs. fleet engagements, with the inclusion of planets, starbases, or other large installations of strategic interest. Unlike Ship v. Ship scenarios, which exist to determine technological or tactical superiority, fleet v. fleet engagements are meant to simulate real battles. Thus, any tactic allowable in a real battle is acceptable -- and this includes running away. (Keep in mind that this also includes planetary bombardment.)
If the limited engagement has a specific goal, please state it in the first post. Otherwise, it will be assumed that ANYTHING that can be done to force the other side to surrender is acceptable.
Ground Combat: Same rules as multi-ship space combat. Except on the ground!
Any technology can be used to one side's advantage in any of the above topics, as long as that technology is still available and will be used! In other words, Dr.Soren's Trilithium device used in ST:Generations is considered lost technology, and Data is considered unique technology (just like the MF.) Their value in a campaign style war is limited by their lack of availability, although "Data vs. ..." and "MF vs. ..." are still allowable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules of Engagement
Anyone not obeying these rules shall be subject to violent, pointy death.
Although most of us know that Star Trek and Star Wars are not real, for the purpose of these discussions we treat them as if they were REAL and NOT movies made by people in the real world. We are seeing the real events as they really happened, and if you think we're nuts then you are obviously a trained medical professional. Therefore, real world problems are to be left out of these discussions. For example:
Budget restraints
Copyright infringements
FX demons
Strange camera lenses
Plot devices
Script wizards
We're all pretty sick of this debate and bringing it up will get you a faceful of feces, in the BDDB, or even on trial. Consider yourself warned.
In ASVS we debate who would win in a military conflict between the forces of Star Trek and Star Wars. We do not debate who would win if we were in charge of the two sides. Therefore, we must use any and all character traits, nuances, etc. In other words:
Example #1:
Right: The Empire will get the first shot, cause the Federation will not shoot first and ask questions later, and the Empire will.
Wrong: The Federation will destroy one of their own planets that the Empire has taken over just to destroy the Empire's forces there, even at the cost of innocent lives.
Example #2:
Right: The Klingon forces scream a bloodcurdling battle cry as they charge into battle.
Wrong: The Ferengi forces scream a bloodcurdling battle cry as they charge into battle.
If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to have trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest way to waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking for a source.
If sources of the same level (Canon vs. Canon or Official vs. Official) disagree then it is up to whoever put forth the claim to research additional sources to find which way the majority go.
To be a valid source of evidence, it must fall into the spectrum of canon for the respective franchise. Here's all of that, broken down:
Star Wars:
Canon sources cannot be overridden by anything, period. These are the movies, scripts of the movies, novelizations of the movies, and the radio dramas -- in that order.
Official sources are accepted as sources of evidence and are perfectly valid, unless they contradict the above-mentioned canon sources. If they do, we must choose the canon source. Official sources are novels (and other published stories), West End Games' gaming material, the Essential Guides series, the Behind the Magic CD-ROM and generally most things which are published and authorized by Lucasfilm. They are all equal, but in case of a disagreement between the sources, the accepted procedure is to try and sort out which information is "more" official. For example, the Behind the Magic CD-ROM would be accepted over the WEG gaming material, simply because Lucasfilm published the BTM CD. Also, novels override the Essential Guides when discussing the same material, simply because the EGs draw from the novels as source material.
Ignored sources are just that. Ignored. Don't use them at evidence, because we'll just call you names and suggest the possible species of your parents. Things that fall into this category are video games and toys.
Star Trek:
Paramount's Canon Policy is not as easy to determine as Lucasfilm's. Since Paramount is a company and not a person they can't simply state what their a canon policy is. However, people who work for Paramount (either directly or indirectly) must know what this policy in order to do their jobs. So by asking these people (people like Gaskill, Ordover, Moore, Okuda, etc.) who work intimately with Paramount's Canon Policy we were able to learn just what that policy was. With all the research done on this topic, if we don't have Paramount's Canon Policy right, neither does Paramount.
Canon sources for Star Trek are the movies, shows, two novels, and one episode of the Animated Series, which is otherwise ignored. The novels are "Mosaic" and "Pathways," both by Jeri Taylor, and the episode of the Animated Series is "Yesteryear."
Ignored sources are everything else. If you are new to the group or returning after a long absence, you may wish to re-read that statement and consider its full implications. Here is a partial (but by no means complete) list of sources which have been ruled out for use as source material:
The TNG Technical Manual
The DS9 Technical Manual
Star Trek: The Magazine
Star Trek Fact Files
Novels, with the above two exceptions
Comics
The Star Trek Encyclopedia
The Star Trek Chronology
Keep in mind that this is the official, stated policy of Paramount; John Ordover, a Paramount official who is the main editor for the Star Trek novels, has stated this in numerous conversations with Council members (with crystal clarity, I might add -- ed.). This does exclude a lot of material, but the ST and SW sides of this debate have both agreed to accept the canon policy of LucasFilm and Paramount.
This doesn't mean the Encylopedia, for example, is useless: it's still a valid reference source and contains much information taken directly from the shows which can be used in the debate. However, any material in a printed source which does not appear on-screen is ignored.
Special Cases:
For whatever reason, there are a few special cases of the above rules worth mentioning.
Nitpicker's Guide to Star Trek (all volumes): When offering evidence in the debate, these books are acceptable sources of information. While they're not "official," exactly, they are very well researched and should be considered valid sources of information to meet the criteria of evidence. Note that this applies only to the actual facts from the episodes, much like other printed material for ST.
Star Wars Christmas Special: We all wish it wasn't official, but it is.
Some people are having difficulties with how we use Dialogue or written evidence. Here's a few simple guidelines:
Keeping in line with Orkham's razor, dialogue is to be taken at face value. No twisting words, looking up obscure definitions, etc. Semantic Wars (TM) are not the way to victory. NOTE: I said face value, not LITERALLY. Exaggerations, jokes, similes, etc. are used in everyday life, deal with it.
In other words, saying, "He was exaggerating when he said that, and here's why ..." is acceptable, BUT saying, "He used the word world instead of planet and one of the definitions of world include ... so maybe he meant ..."
ALL evidence, including dialogue, is considered accurate unless there's reasonable doubt based on direct evidence. Examples:
"30% of the crust destroyed in opening volley." Romulan Officer in TDiC - Visuals contradict this.
"You're too late, we're everywhere." - Dying Changeling - No direct contradiction, in fact circumstantial evidence supports this statement.
"We have enough power to reduce a planet to a smoking cinder" - Tom Riker - Then why did the ship have so little effect on the power generation asteroids? Hmm, no time frame was given so I guess there's no real contradiction, but it is a bit misleading.
"They could be half way across the galaxy by now!" - If that was true travel times would be measured in minutes or, at most, hours. This is obviously not true.
This goes for stating old claims as well as new ones. This is necessary for two reasons.
To prevent Pregnant Kira Fallacies: For more than a year it was common knowledge that the character Kira was pregnant in "Way of the Warrior" when she beat up a Klingon. Cause it was an old claim no one bothered to do the research and back it up. When someone did do the research this bit of common knowledge was proven very wrong, and even then it was thought that Nana Visitor was pregnant at the time. A claim that if true would have meant she was pregnant for no less than 17 months.
To Prevent Thread Overload: At any given time there could be as many as a dozen topics each with multiple threads and a dozen debaters in each one. Because of this it is hard for the best of us to keep track of who said what in response to who and where. Add in when, why and how and you can see the confusion build.
Q: I repeatedly make the same claim but I don't want to type out the evidence each time. What should I do?
A: Try a less complicated hobby. Maybe masturbating like a caged monkey is more suited to your talents.
Q: Ha ha ha. Seriously, what are my options?
A: You have two options:
1.) Stop making that claim.
2.) Write a website and have the URL in your .sig. This way you can say, "For evidence see my website section 3.ii."
3.) Write a complete description of the thread and give it to a member of The Committee to be added into the Previous Threads DB.
Q: That's three options.
A: Shut up or I'll redirect you to goatse.cx!
Q: Ok, sorry.
Also, when considering evidence, remember: SF writers sometimes borrow from leading edge science. Due to the nature of the job they can make mistakes. For instance Zero Point Energy was mentioned in Star Trek, but the amount of energy it supposedly has is vastly higher than in real life. We still must consider Zero Point Energy to have all the properties real life Scientists tell us, but due to suspension of disbelief we must assume for ST the writer is correct whenever they directly contradict. Not only that, but due to RoE #14 these properties will also hold true in SW as well.
Whatever you bring up must be relevant to the topic at hand. Just because one species, for example, has access to a technology does not give you automatic license to bring that technology up in a discussion about a totally unrelated species/government/whatever.
If you're going to state capabilities, limitations, or anything else, you must have supporting, legitimate evidence. Extrapolation may not be applied blindly to conclude what might be possible.
What does this mean? No technology can be assumed to have abilities beyond what is shown in acceptable sources. No two or more existing technologies can be combined, unless shown in acceptable sources. Etc., unless shown in acceptable sources.
Example #1:
"The Defiant was seen traveling at warp 6.2 and 7.0, but never warp 6.7. Therefore it can't go warp 6.7."
Wrong. As long as it's within known upper and lower limits, it's fine.
Example #2:
"In TDiC the ships could only travel warp 6 and still be undetected. But they probably improved the design, so they can go warp 9 now."
Wrong. No hint or evidence of improvements seen.
Example #3:
"The have replicating mines. They have sub-space mines. Therefore, they can make Replicating Sub Space mines."
Wrong. Random combination of technology is disallowed. There's no evidence that they have, or can, do this.
Example #4:
While Federation Officers are never seen going to the bathroom, we see them eat and know that at least some are human, so it's safe to conclude they have bathrooms on their ships.
Right. This is logic applied to evidence we know to be correct.
Example #5:
Photon torpedo tubes can be fitted onto fighters, so it's likely they can be fit onto the Worker Bees and used in combat also.
Wrong. And I hope you know why.
You're responsible for doing your own research. All of it. If you want to show that A is better than B, then you must do research for both A and B. The thread where you are claiming this is not the place to do this research -- i.e. "I think a shuttlecraft could take the Death Star. The shuttlecraft has phasers and shields and stuff. I mean, what does the Death Star have? Anyone? So." Also, do the requisite research from appropriate sources; if you are researching Material Science go to a Material Science textbook or web site. Don't look up 'Alloy' in the dictionary and expect to be able to debate the topic.
If you insult someone, expect to be insulted back. If you come and flame us, we will be perfectly happy to flame you back. We are not above months-long, thousand-post flamewars. We would like to believe that we are, but we aren't. People who spend their time here tend to become a little cranky and fanatic after a few years, and an apparently-harmless insult can quickly turn to a jihad!
In this newsgroup we debate the various merits of Star Wars and Star Trek and how they compare in a military match. So, if you want to debate bring up counter arguments - or don't reply at all. Certain responses are banned unless they are followed by a suitable explanation. They include, but are not limited to: False, Nope, , "Concession Accepted", or Star Wars/Star Trek Rulez!
You must quote the message you are replying to! See Rule 8 for punishment! After all, not all of us can afford to spend all day online. What do you think we are? Students with fast Internet connections, free phone service, and a lot of free time to check the thread at length to see what you might be talking about? Well, you'd be right. But quote anyway.
Don't type in odd formats. Alternating caps look stupid. All capital letters look stupid. All little letters look stupid. Again, see Rule 8 for punishment.
VS debates involving other universes do not belong here! I know it seems handy because there are so many willing debaters here that are knowledgeable about sci-fi lore, but this is not the place for it. If you want to talk about ST vs. Babylon 5, you might take it to alt.startrek.vs.b5.
Every other group on USENET fears and hates us. As such, please do not cross-post. This causes them to have heart attacks. I am not exaggerating.
Every once in a while, look at the subject of the message you're replying to. If it's totally irrelevant -- i.e. you're talking about Scotland vs. England and the subject line is "[Tech] SSD v. Federation Fleet: 2 seconds for an Imperial win?" please change it.
No one can claim that established tech or abilities in one galaxy won't work in another, or that established tech or abilities won't work cause they are unscientific or unrealistic. That means that the pro-SW side can't claim that Warp Drives will stop functioning outside the ST galaxy, or that bat'leths will suddenly be brittle, or that transporters violate the Uncertainty Principle to they can't work. Similarly, the pro-ST side can't claim that there's no hyperspace for a hyperdrive to jump to, or that Jedi will suddenly lose all of their power, or 1e38 JOULES IS JUST TOO BIG!!!!! This gets us nowhere since there's absolutely no evidence either way and there never will be.
Here are examples of what not to do.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=92 ... ace.net.au
(Claim of hyperspace being "too fast")
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6c ... spnews.com
(Subject line says it all... "Death Star too big!!!!!!"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=89 ... h.es.co.nz
(Elim vs. Rush Limbaugh. Quote: "Altering history is impossible.")
All Your Base Are Belong To Us: In this NG science rules the day. And in most instances science is backed up with calculations. Unfortunately many people feel that their theories are so obvious that no math is needed to back them up. Quite frankly, we are all quite sick and tired of disproving these claims. While the obvious is sometimes right, many times it is not. In conclusion, do the Damn Math. Examples:
Claim: Distance could have been at least 100,000km.
Reality: Simple math demonstrates the maximum to be 8000km.
Claim: No more than 300,000 shots @ 2GT each needed to destroy a planet.
Reality: Basic division demonstrates that over 12 billion shots would be necessary.
On the other hand, some times people use math to 'prove' all sort of things. These calculations, while mathematically correct, have no real basis in reality and ignore all sorts of problems. A good example of these types of Mindless Math arguments is the intentionally bogus Strowbridge Calcs. (See Previous Topics.)
Aliases: Many people here are known simply by their alias. This allows a greater freedom in responses but can be abused. If you change your alias please notify The Committee so your voting rights will not be interrupted. Also be warned, copying someone else's alias is a one way ticket to the BDDB. Obviously the situation can mitigate this. Humorous uses (Jimothy Tones, Baroness, etc.) will be tolerated. Malicious use of someone else's alias will bring such attacks upon you that the BDDB will look like an award for good sportsmanship.
Outsiders Not Welcome: Any force not belonging to Star Trek or Star Wars automatically loses in any versus debate. This includes but is not limited to: The Culture, Transformers, Voltron, Starship Troopers, Real Life Armies, The Legion of Past and Present Porn Stars lead by Long Dong Silvers, Powerpuff Girls, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Mmmm, Buffy), The Tick, an angry Redneck armed only with a 2x4 and a his 3 legged dog, Dr. Who, Terminator, Red Dwarf, Space 1999, Dragonball Z ....]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Cal Wright
- American Warlord
- Posts: 3995
- Joined: 2002-07-07 03:24am
- Location: Super-Class Star Destroyer 'Blight'
- Contact:
*poke*
Were you born with out a sense of humor or did you lose it in a tragic whoppy cushion accident? -Stormbringer
"We are well and truly forked." -Mace Windu Shatterpoint
"Either way KJA is now Dune's problem. Why can't he stop tormenting me and start writting fucking Star Trek books." -Lord Pounder
The Dark Guard Fleet
Post 1500 acheived on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 2:48 am
-
The Yosemite Bear
- Mostly Harmless Nutcase (Requiescat in Pace)
- Posts: 35211
- Joined: 2002-07-21 02:38am
- Location: Dave's Not Here Man
-
Grand Admiral Thrawn
- Ruthless Imperial Tyrant
- Posts: 5755
- Joined: 2002-07-03 06:11pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Greetings
King Tiger wrote:Hi everybody. I awake poking.
Awake poking? As in awake the posters. You're brave or stupid. Maybe both.
"You know, I was God once."
"Yes, I saw. You were doing well, until everyone died."
Bender and God, Futurama
"Yes, I saw. You were doing well, until everyone died."
Bender and God, Futurama
-
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi
- What Kind of Username is That?
- Posts: 9254
- Joined: 2002-07-10 08:53pm
- Location: Back in PA
That smiley is you. 
This is me. 
This is my finger. -
Darth Yoshi
- Metroid
- Posts: 7342
- Joined: 2002-07-04 10:00pm
- Location: Seattle
- Contact:
[Mola Ram]Welcome.[/Mola Ram] Don't worry, I don't poke.*chucks egg*
Lore Monkey | the Pichu-master™
Secularism—since AD 80
Av: Elika; Prince of Persia
-
jodathalas
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 348
- Joined: 2002-11-01 06:08pm
- Location: IN DA HIZZY!
- Contact:
-
Evil Sadistic Bastard
- Hentai Tentacle Demon
- Posts: 4229
- Joined: 2002-07-17 02:34am
- Location: FREE
- Contact:
Bear: That's CenObite.
And welcome, King Tiger. I am the resident Hentai Tentacle Demon. All your porn are belong to me.
And welcome, King Tiger. I am the resident Hentai Tentacle Demon. All your porn are belong to me.
Believe in the sign of Hentai.
BotM - Hentai Tentacle Monkey/Warwolves - Evil-minded Medic/JL - Medical Jounin/Mecha Maniacs - Fuchikoma Grope Attack!/AYVB - Bloody Bastards.../GALE Force - Purveyor of Anal Justice/HAB - Combat Medical Orderly
Combat Medical Orderly(Also Nameless Test-tube Washer) : SD.Net Dept. of Biological Sciences
BotM - Hentai Tentacle Monkey/Warwolves - Evil-minded Medic/JL - Medical Jounin/Mecha Maniacs - Fuchikoma Grope Attack!/AYVB - Bloody Bastards.../GALE Force - Purveyor of Anal Justice/HAB - Combat Medical Orderly
Combat Medical Orderly(Also Nameless Test-tube Washer) : SD.Net Dept. of Biological Sciences
-
Einhander Sn0m4n
- Insane Railgunner
- Posts: 18630
- Joined: 2002-10-01 05:51am
- Location: Louisiana... or Dagobah. You know, where Yoda lives.
Damn I love it when a N00b makes a "Hello" thread!
In A.D. 2101
Poke was beginning.
<<POKE!!>>
N00b: What happen ?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the Poke
Operator: We get signal
N00b: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on
N00b: It's You !!
E. Sn0 -=31337=-: How are you gentlemen !!
E. Sn0 -=31337=-: All your Poke are belong to us
E. Sn0 -=31337=-: You are on the way to destruction
N00b: What you say !!
E. Sn0 -=31337=-: You have no chance to survive make your time
E. Sn0 -=31337=-: HA HA HA HA ....
N00b: Take off every 'Zig'
N00b: You know what you doing
N00b: Move 'Zig'
N00b: For great justice
