Trollish Trekkies

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 10:19pm

Mr Bean wrote:
How so Bean?
It gives them a single point of attack, Defeat your single point and your war is lost, You must have a flexiable stratagy in all engagments

It might be a single point to attack, but its got a very solid foundation. It is not directly contradicted by anything on screen and has a close association with one of the movies. That in itself means there is no known way to break that foundation. The ONLY way to break the foundation of the AOTC ICS is either find clear evidence from any of the 5 movies that contradicts or heavily implies contradiction (unlikely) or Episode-3 contradicts the ICS when it comes out (possible, but not likely and not for another 18 months).

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-31 10:23pm

Alyeska wrote:It might be a single point to attack, but its got a very solid foundation. It is not directly contradicted by anything on screen and has a close association with one of the movies. That in itself means there is no known way to break that foundation. The ONLY way to break the foundation of the AOTC ICS is either find clear evidence from any of the 5 movies that contradicts or heavily implies contradiction (unlikely) or Episode-3 contradicts the ICS when it comes out (possible, but not likely and not for another 18 months).

Ahh, but Alyeska, you're forgetting one thing. Ep2 ICS is biased and therefore can be thrown out.

Many of the less intellignet Trekkie debaters like some I've encountered recently on other boards clearly don't understand what an Ad Hominem fallacy is or why its wrong.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-01-31 10:26pm

Alyeska wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Stravo wrote:I guess that was my point. The overwhelming superiority ahs made Warsies lazy on alot of points PLUS we get a shitload of me tooers that are coming along, care nothing about the debates but want to latch on to the obviously more popular or stronger side - thus we have rabid warsies.
Indeed. When I first encounterd ASVS in 2000, the Warsie victory had just been completed, but most of the trekkies were not admitting it by then, and it took at least a year to mop things up. The 'Me Too' thing is a responce to that victory. I just feel lucky that I saw the last skirmishes from the main war to know how things used to be. The only thing that will change the 'Me Too' serious study of the old ASVS threads, but no one has that kind of pateince.
Ahem, the warsie "victory" didn't exist until the AOTC ICS came out. ASVS had been a very warsie oriented place and favored the Warsie debaters, but there was still debate going on. I vividly remembering many ASVS debaters stating that it would take 20 GCSs to kill an ISD. AOTC clenched it by giving a solid number with no process behind the number to debate, that and its offical as hell. Prior to AOTC ICS the trekkies had just as much power in 2000 as they had in December of 2001 as they had in 1999. AOTC was the "magic" that changed things dramatically.

AOTC may have clinched matters, but the fact is that trekkies, or rather some trekkies, were defeated more or less when I found ASVS in 2000 and anyone who cares to veiw the threads can see this. ASVS may have been, and still is, warsie central but that is kind of irrelivant given that our arguments were broadly accurate, and others were not. What you are arguing is like saying Japan was not defeated until Hiroshima, ie you are arguing semantics.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 10:26pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Alyeska wrote:It might be a single point to attack, but its got a very solid foundation. It is not directly contradicted by anything on screen and has a close association with one of the movies. That in itself means there is no known way to break that foundation. The ONLY way to break the foundation of the AOTC ICS is either find clear evidence from any of the 5 movies that contradicts or heavily implies contradiction (unlikely) or Episode-3 contradicts the ICS when it comes out (possible, but not likely and not for another 18 months).
Ahh, but Alyeska, you're forgetting one thing. Ep2 ICS is biased and therefore can be thrown out.

Many of the less intellignet Trekkie debaters like some I've encountered recently on other boards clearly don't understand what an Ad Hominem fallacy is or why its wrong.

I to believe it is biased. I think that some of the information Saxton put in their came from "compromised" sources, but he honestly put in in there so I can't fault him. I also think its wrong information. But you know what? Its offical and as I said its got one hell of a foundation.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 10:28pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: Indeed. When I first encounterd ASVS in 2000, the Warsie victory had just been completed, but most of the trekkies were not admitting it by then, and it took at least a year to mop things up. The 'Me Too' thing is a responce to that victory. I just feel lucky that I saw the last skirmishes from the main war to know how things used to be. The only thing that will change the 'Me Too' serious study of the old ASVS threads, but no one has that kind of pateince.
Ahem, the warsie "victory" didn't exist until the AOTC ICS came out. ASVS had been a very warsie oriented place and favored the Warsie debaters, but there was still debate going on. I vividly remembering many ASVS debaters stating that it would take 20 GCSs to kill an ISD. AOTC clenched it by giving a solid number with no process behind the number to debate, that and its offical as hell. Prior to AOTC ICS the trekkies had just as much power in 2000 as they had in December of 2001 as they had in 1999. AOTC was the "magic" that changed things dramatically.
AOTC may have clinched matters, but the fact is that trekkies, or rather some trekkies, were defeated more or less when I found ASVS in 2000 and anyone who cares to veiw the threads can see this. ASVS may have been, and still is, warsie central but that is kind of irrelivant given that our arguments were broadly accurate, and others were not. What you are arguing is like saying Japan was not defeated until Hiroshima, ie you are arguing semantics.

Then I might as well point out that warsies won at ASVS the moment hostilities commenced (Pear Harbor) and that it was a doomed exercise. Fact is prior to AOTC ICS, things were not near so clearly defined as they are now and that is a VERY important distinction.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-31 10:34pm

Okay, let's take ICS out of this for a minute. Now, examine the evidence again. In "Nemesis," we saw that SF weapons seemed to be less than one kiloton each. In "ANH," we saw that X-Wing weapons are at least in that range. In "AotC" (the movie, not the ICS), we saw that Slave-1's weaponry was easily in the MT range, and probably in the dozens of megatons. Even without the ICS, it's pretty clear who the side with the superior technology is. The ICS merely clinched the case.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-01-31 10:34pm

Alyeska wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Alyeska wrote: Ahem, the warsie "victory" didn't exist until the AOTC ICS came out. ASVS had been a very warsie oriented place and favored the Warsie debaters, but there was still debate going on. I vividly remembering many ASVS debaters stating that it would take 20 GCSs to kill an ISD. AOTC clenched it by giving a solid number with no process behind the number to debate, that and its offical as hell. Prior to AOTC ICS the trekkies had just as much power in 2000 as they had in December of 2001 as they had in 1999. AOTC was the "magic" that changed things dramatically.
AOTC may have clinched matters, but the fact is that trekkies, or rather some trekkies, were defeated more or less when I found ASVS in 2000 and anyone who cares to veiw the threads can see this. ASVS may have been, and still is, warsie central but that is kind of irrelivant given that our arguments were broadly accurate, and others were not. What you are arguing is like saying Japan was not defeated until Hiroshima, ie you are arguing semantics.
Then I might as well point out that warsies won at ASVS the moment hostilities commenced (Pear Harbor) and that it was a doomed exercise. Fact is prior to AOTC ICS, things were not near so clearly defined as they are now and that is a VERY important distinction.

Warsies won because we had the better, more logical argument. From 2000 on this was more and more apparent esp in 01. Things were well defined simply because we had the better, most logical argument, as I said you only have to reveiw the threads to see this.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-31 10:34pm

Acutal Alyeska, Two things helped the most

One was ICS of course
The second however is overlooked, That is the X-wing Series and the only realy descriptive series of Fleet Battles in the entire EU exculding NJO

From this we could caculate everything from Shield strengths to response times

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 10:36pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:Warsies won because we had the better, more logical argument. From 2000 on this was more and more apparent esp in 01. Things were well defined simply because we had the better, most logical argument, as I said you only have to reveiw the threads to see this.

Saying you had better arguments would indicate that the sides themselves don't mater and that if Star Trek had better arguments could win... Interesting implication.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 10:37pm

Mr Bean wrote:Acutal Alyeska, Two things helped the most

One was ICS of course
The second however is overlooked, That is the X-wing Series and the only realy descriptive series of Fleet Battles in the entire EU exculding NJO

From this we could caculate everything from Shield strengths to response times

I tend to disagree with the X-Wing examples. Other EU sources would indicate that X-Wings carry a fixed yield torpedo and it only takes 80 to down the shields on an SSD. Not exactly the best of things to have happen.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 10:38pm

I should clarify that this is downing a section of shields on an SSD. It would probably take 420 similtanous torpedo strikes, 70 on each shield arc, to down a SSDs shields instantly.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-31 10:41pm

Alyeska wrote:I to believe it is biased. I think that some of the information Saxton put in their came from "compromised" sources, but he honestly put in in there so I can't fault him. I also think its wrong information. But you know what? Its offical and as I said its got one hell of a foundation.

Yes, but theres a big difference between your position and theirs. You say its biased but still accept it. They say its biased and should be thrown out. Yours is an honest, respectable opinion. Theirs is a logical fallacy.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 10:47pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Alyeska wrote:I to believe it is biased. I think that some of the information Saxton put in their came from "compromised" sources, but he honestly put in in there so I can't fault him. I also think its wrong information. But you know what? Its offical and as I said its got one hell of a foundation.
Yes, but theres a big difference between your position and theirs. You say its biased but still accept it. They say its biased and should be thrown out. Yours is an honest, respectable opinion. Theirs is a logical fallacy.

Well at one point when I heard that Saxton put figures in it just to piss off trekies, I rather demanded it be thrown out. Then I remembered that if I took a dump in a box and got Paramount to call it canon, it would be.

I am not saying thats what the ICS is like, but rather when it comes to those who own the scifi universe in question, they can dictate what is and what is not. Regardless of my personal opinions of the AOTC ICS, its offical and uncontradicted by the movies.

Yeah, I had to swallow my pride last summer. Took Chris O'Farrell a little longer, but he did as well. Not exactly living up to our hate-mail page reputations anymore are we?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-01-31 10:54pm

Alyeska wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:Warsies won because we had the better, more logical argument. From 2000 on this was more and more apparent esp in 01. Things were well defined simply because we had the better, most logical argument, as I said you only have to reveiw the threads to see this.
Saying you had better arguments would indicate that the sides themselves don't mater and that if Star Trek had better arguments could win... Interesting implication.

If the arguments are based on fact and the principle of finding out who is more powerful, then you are correct. If ST was more powerfull, proper investigation would reveal this and ST would have won, but this is not the case.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-01-31 10:54pm

Alyeska wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:
How so Bean?
It gives them a single point of attack, Defeat your single point and your war is lost, You must have a flexiable stratagy in all engagments
It might be a single point to attack, but its got a very solid foundation. It is not directly contradicted by anything on screen and has a close association with one of the movies. That in itself means there is no known way to break that foundation. The ONLY way to break the foundation of the AOTC ICS is either find clear evidence from any of the 5 movies that contradicts or heavily implies contradiction (unlikely) or Episode-3 contradicts the ICS when it comes out (possible, but not likely and not for another 18 months).

Or people could just try applying a little rational thought to it and realizing that it is not the shit, not the end all be all, and not off at all from previous numbers.

For example, it's 200 GT per shot, and people (Including myself before I examined it more in depthly) say that this means each barral is 200 GT. But look at what each shot really is, from the movies:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/techno ... vie_bg.jpg

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... annons.jpg

A shot is all barrels on the turret. So they are only 50 GT. The highest I saw tossed out before ICS was 37 GT. Not a hell of alot of difference. Use Wong's scaling method and you get 400 MT for LTLs. Lord Edam got 120 for them, and I think Ossus got 300 MT for them using the asteroid scene. MTLs are still up in the air. Then there are the PD guns that are iactually lower than the infamous asteroids calcs. Further, consider that a weapon mounted by a mile long ship is not going to have the same strength as one mounted on a 300 meter one, so don't assume they are all the same.

And when you remember that 90% of the energy of a bomb is released in the first microsecond and adjust that into watts like wong does with the TLs, it explains very easily 1) How X-wings can down shields on VicSDs, 2) that some ideas about the end of the debate have been overblown and the shields are not all powerful.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-01-31 10:57pm

At the same time, warsies trot out the old 200 Gigaton figure park it in the middle of the debate and refuse to refute any points simply point to the number and move on. Debates on both sides have suffered of late.

I disagree. The ICS simply shortened the length of responses that Warsies had to make. Prior to ICS, we had to repeat asteroid calcs, BDZ figures, cites, references, and then spend fifty posts arguing over the exact size and/or composition of an asteroid. It was long, tedious, arduous, annoying, and whoever was the most fanatical with that sort of debate would be the one to keep it going longest.

Nowadays, when a debate gets to that point, we just type in five little characters and the debate is done.

Aly...

Ahem, the warsie "victory" didn't exist until the AOTC ICS came out.

It depends on how you define "victory". Long before the AOTC ICS, pretty much all the reasonable people agreed that the Empire would stomp the Federation... all that was left, then, was debating how badly the Empire would stomp (or debates about ship-to-ship engagements). It was around this time - when Trekkies were arguing sub-gigaton ranges for HTL's and Warsies were content to stick with uber-low-ends of 2 GT... it still allowed the possibility of a (relatively) small number of Federation ships to take on an ISD... a sort of "token victory" for the Trekkies.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-01-31 10:59pm

Mr Bean wrote:Acutal Alyeska, Two things helped the most

One was ICS of course
The second however is overlooked, That is the X-wing Series and the only realy descriptive series of Fleet Battles in the entire EU exculding NJO

From this we could caculate everything from Shield strengths to response times

NJO has done ALOT as well. IT gave us the .6 C frigates, .9C Xwings, the 8AU max range, better sensors everywhere, and a host of others. People can rag on it all they want, but it did a number for the debates, especially if you are looking beyond simple vs ST.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-31 11:06pm

Alyeska wrote:Then I remembered that if I took a dump in a box and got Paramount to call it canon, it would be.

Shhhhh. Quiet Alyeska. You'll give away B&B trade secrets.

Yeah, I had to swallow my pride last summer. Took Chris O'Farrell a little longer, but he did as well. Not exactly living up to our hate-mail page reputations anymore are we?

Like DW once said, "One of the SB.com babies grew up and is now a moderator here." Nobody's perfect. I respect your view about ICS. I don't respect theirs.

Butterbean569 · Post by **Butterbean569** » 2003-01-31 11:09pm

Well...MY personal opinion is that this entire topic is way off balance. With such a huge advantage in SW's favor, ONLY the stupid/desperate will debate on the ST side. That's why we've seen only..well..stupid and desperate ST supporters.

I think that there should be a worldwide annoucement that states that SW would crush ST, there's nothing ST can do about it, so these debates should stop

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 11:12pm

Butterbean569 wrote:Well...MY personal opinion is that this entire topic is way off balance. With such a huge advantage in SW's favor, ONLY the stupid/desperate will debate on the ST side. That's why we've seen only..well..stupid and desperate ST supporters.

I think that there should be a worldwide annoucement that states that SW would crush ST, there's nothing ST can do about it, so these debates should stop

So I am a stupid and desperate? Get real.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-31 11:19pm

Alyeska wrote:
Butterbean569 wrote:Well...MY personal opinion is that this entire topic is way off balance. With such a huge advantage in SW's favor, ONLY the stupid/desperate will debate on the ST side. That's why we've seen only..well..stupid and desperate ST supporters.

I think that there should be a worldwide annoucement that states that SW would crush ST, there's nothing ST can do about it, so these debates should stop
So I am a stupid and desperate? Get real.

I think he meant that only the stupid or desperate would say things like "The UFP would crush the Empire," "A GCS is more powerful than an ISD," or "Lasers can't get through our navigation shields, therefor ST wins."

You argue in favor of ST, but you are also reasonable. The people he is referring to are not.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 11:22pm

Might help to word the statements better. It was rather all inclusive. However I have to agree with your interpretation of his statement.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-31 11:22pm

I don't think we're trying to lump you in with those guys, Alyeska.

Anyway, an important distinction lost in all of this "everything's changed since the ICS!" talk is timing. Nuch of the devastation wrought upon the opposing side of the debate appeared to coincide with the release of the ICS, and it is becoming increasingly common for Trekkies to simply blame the ICS.

However, the movie itself is the hammer-blow. By pretending that everything's gotten so much harder for them since the ICS, some Trekkies are trying to turn this into a canon vs official issue even though you could just as easily say that everything's gotten so much harder for them since AOTC the movie came out.

How much more difficult would gigaton-range weaponry be to sell in these debates, irrespective of the ICS, if we didn't see Janso using seismic charges that could easily annihilate the Pegasus asteroid with a single blow? How much easier is it to dismiss longstanding Trekkie claims of sub-megaton or low-megaton ISD weaponry in light of Slave-1's immense firepower? How much easier is it to dismiss longstanding Trekkie arguments about short stormtrooper blaster ranges in light of the Geonosis ground battle?

AOTC is the 16-ton anvil that's been dropped on the heads of the extreme Trekkie debaters, regardless of whether you're talking about the ICS or the film.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-31 11:23pm

Alyeska wrote:Might help to word the statements better.

Agreed. Butterbean, please be more careful, in the future.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 11:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:AOTC is the 16-ton anvil that's been dropped on the heads of the extreme Trekkie debaters, regardless of whether you're talking about the ICS or the film.

AOTC might be a 16-ton anvil, but ICS is a freaking 100 ton MBT.