favorite trek vs. wars fanfic author of all time

[Admiral Johnason]

I would have to go with Marc Xavier/Julius Harper's Trek Wars story saga. You have to go to Trek Wars: The Furry Conflict. I have read two others, but they were poorly concived in terms of depth.

[Ender]

I would have to go with Marc Xavier/Julius Harper's Trek Wars story saga. You have to go to Trek Wars: The Furry Conflict. I have read two others, but they were poorly concived in terms of depth.

Furrys rate just below pond scum on my personel scale. That has a large part to do with the fact they invaded my home forum and spammed it to hell with furry porn though

[Sea Skimmer]

I would have to go with Marc Xavier/Julius Harper's Trek Wars story saga. You have to go to Trek Wars: The Furry Conflict. I have read two others, but they were poorly concived in terms of depth.

You mean the fic that has about a dozen Federation ships driving off several Imperial SSD's and there ISD escorts? That fic sucked, slightly above portal in balance respects. A few post on there forums convinced me there's no logic to be found.

[Lord Pounder]

For me there can be only one Stravo. Star Crossed was the 1st fan fic i read and it retains a place in my heart forever.

[jegs2]

I voted for Mikes Conquest under the assumption that his was the one that used to be on the FANFIC button a while back (with all the Golden Stardestroyer Awards)... Granted, I've not read those others, but did read a pro-Trek one a long time ago...

[His Divine Shadow]

I just had to vote for Chuck, he is my god, and I just sacrificed 10 chickens in his honor.

[2000AD]

Chuck just kicks arse!

[2000AD]

Just noticed someone voted for GK

WTF?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I now evaluate FanFics on two things - the writing and the TA. Grammar and spelling to me is not important - I hardly notice small mistakes.

In writing, Stravo wins. I actually read his stuff. I read Chuck's stuff only once. It was good, but somehow he couldn't prick up my interest to read more. I don't know why, considering how good everyone else thinks he is. Oh well, you can't win them all...

In TA ... well, I love TA more than other people. All the writers on the list, with the exception of GK, are to one extent or another "pro-SW." More likely, they're just objective. They all know the rough location of the true ratio, but no one has mastered the skill of making cool battles in the story out of the true ratios. So seeing how they compromise is cool. Given rough parity in other things, how they do the balancing is critical to who wins.

In TA, I actually chose Wong, though if you took the very early Chapters, Stravo actually came on top. Stravo uses the lowest "Master Ratio Alteration" (the one where you arbitrarily reduce the firepower of an ISD and bump up the GCS so they're more equal.) But it turns out his ratio was unsustainable, so he winds up having to use a lot of "miracles" (technobabble, one-shot tricks, special tech...) to achieve his plot goals. This brought his score down.

Fortunately for him, TA is now scored differently than say a year ago in my mind. That's all thanks to the strenuous efforts of people like Chuck Sonnenburg, who made me realize the importance of a good story over nitpicking TA too much.

The old scheme was something like this:
Original Score - Technical Deviation = Final Score

It is possible to get a pretty low score like that fast. You can lose up to 90 points out of 100 in that old scheme on your compromises.

The new scheme is more like this:
Original Score * Technical Accuracy Multiplier.
Technical Accuracy Multiple = Cosine (TA deviation in degrees)
TA Deviation: 0 = perfect, 90 = Using the Outrageous Okona Fallacy.

You can see what would happen. Small deviations don't dent your score significantly at all. Used to be, the TA deviation of 30 takes away 30 full points. But to lose about 30 points to technical compromises now requires a TA deviation of 45 (Cosine 45 = 0.707.)

On the other hand, big deviations are now probably still punished badly.

[Crayz9000]

Well, I kind of beg to differ. To me, the quality of the writing is what determines the better author. Even if the technology is completely unrealistic or unlike what's in the movies, a good author can pull it off (this is what immediately disqualifies Graham Kennedy).

Chuck's writing style is more engaging, as it focuses primarily on the characters and secondarily on the devices. The characters' actions shape the plot, not the other way around. Additionally, the spelling and grammar are usually very good, making the story easier to read.

Stravo is similar, but he favors plot devices more than Chuck. Character development is used, although he focuses on a larger group of characters (I know, I'm guilty of using too many characters at once as well...).

In short, both authors are good, but focus on different areas. This is why some people prefer one over the other. They appeal to different viewpoints.

[Sonnenburg]

And the best part is that there are so few techniques that don't work you've got to actually think to come up with them. Is a pizza made in an Italian restaurant better than a sundae made in an old fashioned ice cream parlor? Comes down to personal taste, because you can't really say "this is better" or "this isn't as good" without imposing personal opinion (as opposed to pointing and saying "this dialogue is out of character" or "this scene ends too abruptly" that is easier to agree upon). The only way that the work can be judged is how well it walks the path it lays. If it's a character story, how well are the characters defined? If it's a plot driven story, how organic is its development? And perhaps the most amazing thing about it is that I don't think it's ever a conscious choice (Kaz being the exception that proves the rule).

[Admiral Johnason]

I would like to take back what I said about TFC. I am now changing my vote to Mike's "Conquest."

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I think you've bracketed why I'm not too fond of Chuck FanFics. Perhaps that's the problem. Too much character development. Too few and too short space battles

And Chuck, yes, I know. I'm wierd.

And really, writing quality is fast getting more important. Just that my stomach still turns when there is excessive TA deviation. It isn't even concious. I just see a miracle happening for the Feds that causes Imperial deaths and my stomach turns over for some damn reason. Maybe I won't mind as much if only my damned stomach doesn't turn!

And you know what's the really funny part? I don't mind as much if the TA correction leads to more New Republic soldiers dying. I mind more if it leads to more Imperial soldiers dying. Wierd.

Obviously, writing style is by far the more important determination. A year ago, Wong would have been clicked for the reasons I've explained. Now Stravo gets it. In fact, for most stories, the importance of TA has been reduced to the point it is barely significant.

When I evaluate these crossovers, I evaluate them as "Star Trek vs Star Wars crossovers." In that case, TA is a critieria, big or small, sensitive or less sensitive. In fact, the old reviews on daltonator.net DO have a space for TA (at least the ones I've seen.) Yours have something called "Balance" which I guess is what others call TA.

Tell me to evaluate them as just "General Science Fiction" (so now it is Side A vs Side B, rather than two sides with values hammered out over years of debate) and TA switches into TC (Technical Consistency.)

BTW, in that case, Stravo still wins of the five IMO.

For instance, Operation Rescue is NOT evaluated for TA at all. Because the "Imperial" side are not exactly Imperials, the technical calculations pretty much went out the window. Now I let Andrew draw the ratio he likes, and I check it just to see how well he keeps to his ratio.

[Stravo]

Personally, I'm not sure I could compute writing skill and talent into a mathematical formula, but if anyone can do it, it would be Kaz.

I have to say that Chuck hit it right on the head, everyone has a different style. If I wrote like he did or vice versa, it would be a very boring fanfic community and artistic community in general. Everyone expresses themselves differently and with that diversity comes the richness of the expression.

Its great to see how other writers do things and sometimes it can give you ideas, on what to do and what not to do. As a writer you focus on what you enjoy and want to explore and hopefully people like what you are focusing on.

[Sonnenburg]

I think you've bracketed why I'm not too fond of Chuck FanFics. Perhaps that's the problem. Too much character development. Too few and too short space battles

This is something I'll be the first to admit to. I can't write engaging space battles. It's funny because I can handle a lightsaber battle without too much trouble, but this is always a challenge.

In fact, I remember the first time you critiqued my story it was the all space battle chapter of Against All Odds. You didn't care for it (to put it mildly).

And Chuck, yes, I know. I'm wierd.

I was actually referring to your remarks that you were building your fanfics around technical accuracy first. I've only heard people remark about their style if it is a deviation from what they're known for, but you came right out of the box with it.

When I evaluate these crossovers, I evaluate them as "Star Trek vs Star Wars crossovers."

But what if a story isn't Star Trek vs. Star Wars, but Star Trek/Star Wars? Just to use PL as an example because I'm about to go to bed and am too tired to think of a non-egocentric example, it's Star Trek and Star Wars vs. Star Trek and Star Wars (Garak/Janeway/Vong vs. Luke/Seven/Empire). Is there TA for mixed technology, or TC? This isn't indictment of your opinions, it's just that so few wish to seriously discuss crossover fiction without regarding it as beneath them.

Personally, I'm not sure I could compute writing skill and talent into a mathematical formula, but if anyone can do it, it would be Kaz.

Am I the only one who thinks of Dead Poet's Society when I read this, specifically when they tear out the first chapter of the book?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I didn't know the convention. Soon afterwards, I lightened up, and am continuing to lighten up over time. And remember how half the group immediately opened fire?

Actually, considering the treatment of some other newbies that said the wrong thing, I realized only a year after the event that I actually suffered only a very light flaming, by ASVS standards

The old statements? Well, I've given up trying to build a truly "technically accurate" ST-SW crossover. And I've even gotten looser to the compromises others have made. You were right, it is near impossible to write a decent chess battle when one side has all queens and the other side has pawns

Still, I just think it shouldn't be overdone. You shouldn't put 200 ISDs versus 200 GCSs, and then twist things until the GCS and ISDs will have a draw.

Your next question. Hmm, hadn't read PL. But you mean an example like a NR+Fed force versus a Imp+Dommie force. Something like that, right?

In that case, intermixing of technology wouldn't really affect your TA rating, but please give them a realistic amount of time to mutually integrate the best of each other's techs.

It'll be better if you remembered the fundamental weaknesses of each other's techs. For instance, your TA deviation value will increase if you write in your story "The Federation upgraded their ships with NR heavy TLs." Why? Because it is pretty darned clear that the average Federation ship is not likely to successfully handle the power requirements of a heavy turbolaser.

On the other hand, upgrading them with say proton torpedoes will be a relatively simple move, and can be done relatively quickly, so their incorporation at a relatively early stage of contact will be feasible.

Your score will wind up better if you assigned realistic roles. We all know the Federation ships shouldn't be the heavy hitters, so don't assign them there and then turn the odds until they don't suffer badly. You will lose points (but not that many, and the improvement in your story will be more than worth it) if you "twist" things just enough that the Federation will have a truly viable role (a bigger role than decoy targets) working with the NR. Then you assign them to make best use of their strengths (say the Akiras might be nice for standoff torpedo support after being rearmed with proton torpedoes...)

As for Stravo's comment about my evaluating stories as a mathematical formula, well this analogous quote might clear things some:

4. Don't ask me why Iowa is a '10' and Yamato a '5'; this is inherently a very 'squishy,' subjective topic area. So it's probably best that Iowa's '10' not be taken to mean that her FC was 'twice as good' as Yamato. Instead, think of it as expressing a relationship wherein Iowa is simply 'much better' than Yamato.

http://64.124.221.191/f_fire.htm#5

Same thing here. Merely consider the formula as expressing a relationship where small "deviations" will cost minimally and will probably wind up positive (because your story may otherwise be greatly improved) but large deviations are less easily forgiven.

[Eleas]

I didn't know the convention. Soon afterwards, I lightened up, and am continuing to lighten up over time. And remember how half the group immediately opened fire?

Actually, considering the treatment of some other newbies that said the wrong thing, I realized only a year after the event that I actually suffered only a very light flaming, by ASVS standards

I remember.

[Sonnenburg]

I wouldn't give up on your TA story (or a T&A story for that matter). I'd just start by accepting that you're not going to have impressive spacebattles (watching a lawnmower go through a field of dandelions does not good television make) and look at where else you can work to make it interesting. I think you'd be especially disposed towards an Imperial invasion where the primary focus is actually on the Imperial officers in charge and their own bitter rivalries, with the war as the backdrop.

[Stuart Mackey]

I would have to go with Marc Xavier/Julius Harper's Trek Wars story saga. You have to go to Trek Wars: The Furry Conflict. I have read two others, but they were poorly concived in terms of depth.

Harper? that arse stain? That slaper couldnt write his way out of a make beleive wet paper bag. The reason being is that his knowledge of the two univerces is not good enough.