Master of Ossus wrote:It can be better, but is it? At SB.com, there is no talk of technical merit or comparisons between the two universes. Instead we see these silly little debates over tactics that have no relevence when one universe is orders of magnitude more powerful than the other. How is the quality of debate over there any better? What many people here do is attack DarkStar and some other people (I do this, too). The fact is, though, that when we get an intelligent Trekkie (like Darkling) we actually have rational debates with them. We sit down and figure out how something would or would not work, and then we talk about what that means. At SB.com, there is none of that. Instead you get 50 stupid, one sentence blurbs about some tactic someone has just come up with.
First and foremost. 99% of the Trekkies at SB.com agree that the Empire would defeat the Federation (There are som exceptions, but I do not defend those numbskulls). We agree that the Empire has vastly superior FTL, larger industry, and vastly larger numbers. Because of this, the standard debate over at SB when it comes to ST vs SW is something along the lines of SW task forces vs ST task forces, or single 1v1 debates. Some times you have the larger scale Vs's with things like Wormholes to give some semblence of restriction. The debate typically revolves around
Range,
STL Speed,
Firepower,
Accuracy, and
Manueverability. The STL speed, range, and firepower issues are somewhat solid at the moment thanks to ICS (and if you will bother to take note, while I complain about the ICS and its affects, I have not once said I won't accept it).
So in other words, you have the warsies and trekkies agreeing on MOST issues. Its only certain issues that are being debated, and the big picture is "ignored".
Master of Ossus wrote:I see. So Mike was never supposed to get the "Wong is Wrong" thing, and so it made it okay. You essentially attempted to assault his credibility without informing him of the attack. You refused to allow him to defend himself in any logical manner, and when he did defend himself, he slaughtered all of your points. And then you justify it by saying that it was okay because people were trusting him too much on SB? At SD.net, we don't take what he said and just believe it. We actually do some math and find out if what he says is reasonable. Although DarkStar is a complete moron, you can see how he does that. We are constantly re-examining old conclusions, here. That is part of what makes SD.net a better forum. There are more rational, reasonable, intelligent people here (by percentage) then there are at SB. If you had asked Mike to a debate, then he would have accepted it. He would have beaten the crap out of your points, seeing as how you brought up no good attacks on him, but he would have sat down and allowed you to debate against him. That is how things are done, here. Our goal is to look for the truth. At SB.com, it appears to be to pick a ship that looks cool and find ways that it could destroy another ship, regardless of relative firepowers or armor or shields or range or speed.
Ok, you are looking at that incorrectly. When you are debating person A, and person A is using a source, you want to discredit that source. The correct way is to attempt to pick apart person A's source. Mike does this all the time when he debates the Creationists. He will shred apart the persons cited material, but I highly doubt Mike has ever bothered to e-mail the creator of the material. I was not debating Mike. I was trying to get people to stop parroting him. I was not attacking him, I was dealing with idiots who litterally would not think on their own. If you have a problem, you should be confronting those who were parroting Mike. An example of this is shown here. In a thread having to deal with Time Travel and the 29th century Federation, people were attacking my claims. They never bothered to inform me, never let me attempt to "defend" myself. Yet everyone in that thread was congradulating eachother for having proven a "trekkie troll" wrong. People attack the information of a source without informing the source ALL THE TIME. What I did was nothing different, and there was no reason for me to inform Mike because I was not debating Mike, I was debating the idiots who parroted him.
FYI, a Culture ROU looks like a giant Dildo. An ISD or a GCS looks better then that, but I know who would win the battle. There are also some people who would contest the "established" ranges, speeds, and firepower. You say that here at SD.net that you go back and restablish things, that things don't always stay solid. Yet I have seen times when you hound people for even suggesting something different from what you think.
The only real differences I have noticed between SD.net and SB.com are as follows.
SD.net is less restrictive on insults tossed around durring a debate.
SD.net has a higher percentage of Star Wars fans then SB.com.
Those are the only two main differences I have noticed. If you argue that SB.com has worse debaters, then I congradulate you for insulting Captain Sheridan (Grand Admiral Thrawn), Howedar, His Devine Shadow, etc... Once again you say SB.com as a whole ignoring that most people you are referring to are NOT as you describe.
(well, E1701 and BigBryan helped, but I did most of the edit, god it was awful at times, had to remove some of Bryan's crapier arguments).
I never thought about that... Incidently, welcome to the club Mike, thanks to your forum your going to be even more popular then ever, and the term sd.net will become even more common place outside of threads dealing with SW vs ST. 