ATTN: Tyralak

[Questor 501]

Is it wrong that I don't notice anyone's avatar but yours?

[Tyralak 12,068]

Odd. Explain what you mean. Nobody else's avatar is showing up?

[Questor 501]

Odd. Explain what you mean. Nobody else's avatar is showing up?

 

 

 

No, I just don't notice them because they are not hot women holding firearms.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Ah, I see what you mean. No, there's nothing wrong with that in the least.

[Tyralak 12,068]

WTF YOU'RE A MOD NOW TOO?!?!?!?!?!

 

 

 

Who is?

[enigma 521]

[Nelson] HA! HAAA! [/Nelson]

[paul 11,988]

putting down the crack pipe helps

[Tyralak 12,068]

Kthxbai

[paul 11,988]

merged thread since it's the same title as the other.

[paul 11,988]

I know thats the point but i just like pointing out points.

[Questor 501]

Hey Tyralak,

 

 

 

I posted this downsite, but it might be good to put it here.

 

 

 

Do you think posting a copy of the old R&Rs would be of historical interest? I've got a copy.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Yeah, go for it. I meant to reply to your suggestion in one of the other threads, but didn't get around to it. An updated rules of debate might be nice. Certainly not the way other sites do it where there can be actual sanctions for breaking them. (banning, etc) Instead, someone who refuses to follow them simply won't be taken seriously. They should be basic. The old R&Rs were too complicated and legalistic, but they should be posted for their historical value, no doubt. Then we can work on hammering out new one. This should be fun.

[Questor 501]

Yeah, go for it. I meant to reply to your suggestion in one of the other threads, but didn't get around to it. An updated rules of debate might be nice. Certainly not the way other sites do it where there can be actual sanctions for breaking them. (banning, etc) Instead, someone who refuses to follow them simply won't be taken seriously. They should be basic. The old R&Rs were too complicated and legalistic, but they should be posted for their historical value, no doubt. Then we can work on hammering out new one. This should be fun.

 

 

 

I'm rereading them. A lot were quite funny, too.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Oh I know. Didn't Strow draft that one? That's another person we need to track down.

[enigma 521]

Oh I know. Didn't Strow draft that one? That's another person we need to track down.

 

 

 

Doesn't this fall under the FAQ? Anyone knows Dalton's website?

[Questor 501]

Doesn't this fall under the FAQ? Anyone knows Dalton's website?

 

 

 

That was the FUQ, the FAQ was at asvs.org

 

 

 

Losing your memory in your old age?

[Tyralak 12,068]

Doesn't this fall under the FAQ? Anyone knows Dalton's website?

 

 

 

Dalton's site is the same as it's always been. http://www.daltonator.net

[enigma 521]

That was the FUQ, the FAQ was at asvs.org

 

 

 

Losing your memory in your old age?

 

 

 

 

 

The FAQ was separate.

 

 

 

Chuck's site has the FAQ. FAQ YOU

[enigma 521]

From Strow's site R&R

 

 

 

 

 

*Rules of Engagement*

 

 

 

These are the rules we use to determine who would win if Star Wars

 

fought Star Trek. They also regulate the conduct of the people in the

 

news group.

 

 

 

1. 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 (did I mention

 

we're not nuts?) Therefore, real world problems are to be left out

 

of these discussions. For example: budget restraints, copy right

 

infringements, FX demons, strange camera lenses, or plot devices

 

are ALL considered invalid arguments.

 

 

 

Further, we are all quite sick of this debate and bringing it up

 

is one of the quickest ways to end up in people's KF or even on

 

trial. You have been warned.

 

 

 

2. 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 side. 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 latter, 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 their, 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.

 

 

 

3. 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.

 

 

 

/Note/: This goes for stating old claims as well as new ones. This

 

is necessary for two reasons:

 

 

 

1. 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 proved 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.

 

2. 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*: You have three 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.

 

 

 

 

 

4. To qualify as evidence for this newsgroup it must fit the

 

following rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Star Trek*

 

 

 

 

 

*Star Wars*

 

 

 

*Canon* Live Action Star Trek Movies, Scripts, Novelizations and

 

Radio Dramas (In that order)

 

Incredible Cross Sections

 

*Official* None - Although a couple of novels (Mosaic and

 

Pathways) and one episode of The Animated Series (Yesteryear) have

 

facts that have entered canon by appearing in Live Action Star

 

Trek All EU material, Star Wars Encycopedia and other

 

sourcebooks, Comic Books, certain aspects of the RPG and other

 

interactive games?

 

*Inadmissable* Everything that does not match Live Action Star

 

Trek Star Wars Holiday Special

 

 

 

? Interactive games have been 'readjusted' to preserve game play

 

and balance. So use your common sense when judging their validity.

 

 

 

/Note/: Promotional Materials:

 

While the shows are canon, the opening and closing credits, DVD

 

menus, even commercials and other promotional materials are not

 

canon and can not be the basis of a theory without direct canon

 

evidence to back them up.

 

 

 

/Note/: Dealing with Special Edition vs. Regular Editions:

 

1. All films are canon, so since the originals were films they

 

are canon, period.

 

2. Special Edition, Director's Cuts, etc. versions of both

 

franchises have come out on DVD.

 

3. Where multiple versions of the same film disagree, the

 

latest version is considered the most canon.

 

/Note/: Dealing with Special Features:

 

* Almost every DVD produced for either franchise has at least

 

some special features. How these special features are

 

treated depends on the franchise in question.

 

* Star Trek: Special features are to be treated like the TM,

 

i.e. speculation. Granted, it is informed speculation, but

 

still nothing that can be the basis of a theory without

 

direct canon evidence to back them up.

 

* Star Wars: Special features are Official and on par with the

 

novels.

 

 

 

/Note/: This is the single most important factor in the debate. If

 

we do not use the Canon Policy of the respective owners than we

 

are not debating Star Trek vs. Star Wars, but 'What we think Star

 

Trek is vs. What we think Star Wars is.' Consequently, we have

 

done a *lot* of research into this subject, read many quotes from

 

many sources, even spoken to people with first hand knowledge on

 

the subject personally. And so we can say with 100% certainty, if

 

we don't know Paramount's and LucasFilm's canon policy, then they

 

don't know either.

 

 

 

What is that? You read a quote that shows our rules are wrong! And

 

it's a quote from George Lucas himself! Guess what, we've read

 

that quote as well and we know exacty how you are going to twist

 

it so it agrees with your opinion on Star Wars Canon Rules. So we

 

don't care what you think it means. We've been through this debate

 

a dozen times and to clear up any ambiguity we asked people who

 

know more than you, and they say our rules are correct. So unless

 

you have any new evidence, (i.e. from October 2004 or later) just

 

shut up. Can't handle that simple request, then leave. You won't

 

be adding anything productive here anyway.

 

 

 

Some important points to remember:

 

 

 

* When 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. So no one can claim that

 

their book is more official than another book or movies

 

are more canon than TV episodes. The only exception to

 

this is the Canon Hierarchy set up by LucasFilm.

 

* All other Star Trek sources (TM, Encyclopedia, Fact

 

Files, etc.) are considered by the newsgroup to be, in

 

the words of RAST, 'close to official.' I.E. they

 

contain useful information and interesting theories but

 

can not be the basis of an argument here unless backed

 

up by other, /canon/ sources.

 

* Quoting from Non-Official sources (Nit Pickers Guides

 

and Fan Web Sites) can meet the minimum burden of proof.

 

*However*, the conclusion drawn by the authors can still

 

be debated.

 

* All known evidence from acceptable sources must be taken

 

into account when trying to settle a debate. You can not

 

pick and choose what to look at no more than you could

 

choose to ignore the results of an experiment in real

 

life. Of course, this should be obvious to all but the

 

very, very stupid. So I'll repeat it again. You must

 

take into account ALL acceptable information.

 

 

 

5. Evidence must be relevant to the topic at hand: Just because one

 

species has access to technology doesn't mean every one in that

 

galaxy has access to the same technology.

 

 

 

6. Evidence must be direct, (said or shown on screen, or in the

 

novels for Star Wars): You can NOT use logical reasoning to

 

conclude what MIGHT be POSSIBLE. /Note/: Some people have tried to

 

argue that this entire newsgroup is based on speculation. This is

 

_not_ true. The abilities of the two sides are to be based on

 

facts and evidence. To clarify, 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.

 

 

 

Examples:

 

* Wrong: "The Defiant was seen travelling at Warp 6.2 and

 

7.0, BUT never warp 6.7. Therefore it can't go Warp

 

6.7." - As long as it is within known upper and lower

 

limits it is fine.

 

* Wrong: "In TDiC the ships could only travel Warp 6 and

 

still be undetected. But they probably improved the

 

design by now, so they can go Warp 9 now." - no hint of

 

improvements has been seen.

 

* Wrong: "The have replicating mines. They have sub-space

 

mines. Therefore they can make Replicating Sub Space

 

mines." - again, no evidence that they have, or can, do

 

this.

 

/Note:/ For clarification: In these debates logic is allowed,

 

extrapolation is not.

 

* Logic: 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.

 

* Extrapolation: 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.

 

 

 

7. You are responsible for doing your own research, *all* of the

 

research. If you want to argue that A is better than B then you

 

have to show evidence for the abilities of *both* A and B. Also,

 

do the require research in the correct area of expertise. I.E. 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.

 

 

 

8. 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.

 

 

 

Examples:

 

* Claim of hyperspace being "too fast"

 

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=929613939.128163%40srv1.space.net.au>

 

* Subject line says it all... "Death Star too big!!!!!!"

 

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6csp66%24nug%242%40news2.ispnews.com>

 

* Elim vs. Rush Limbaugh. Quote: "Altering history is

 

impossible."

 

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=897522938.220145%40newsch.es.co.nz>

 

 

 

9. The Importance of Math: In this newsgroup 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, just do

 

the damn math.

 

 

 

Examples:

 

* Claim

 

<http://x40.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=540443196&search=thread&CONTEXT=943822657.1541144611&HIT_CONTEXT=943822657.1541144611&HIT_NUM=9&hitnum=114>:

 

Distance could have been at least 100,000 kilometres.

 

Math

 

<http://x57.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=540497424.1&mhitnum=118&CONTEXT=967333376.842989641>:

 

Proves the *maximum* to be 8000 kilometres.

 

* Claim

 

<http://x68.deja.com/%5BST_rn=ps%5D/getdoc.xp?AN=629605003&search=thread&CONTEXT=967332131.1077084186&HIT_CONTEXT=967332094.1077149715&HIT_NUM=3&hitnum=7>:

 

No more than 300,000 shot (@2 gigaton each) needed to

 

destroy a planet.

 

Math

 

<http://x68.deja.com/%5BST_rn=ps%5D/getdoc.xp?AN=629979802&search=thread&CONTEXT=967332131.1077084186&HIT_CONTEXT=967332094.1077149715&HIT_NUM=3&hitnum=18>:

 

Proves even 1.1948e+10 shots would be insufficient.

 

 

 

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 <PTopics/PR03.html>, (see

 

Previous Topics Database <PTopics/PTIndex.html>.)

 

 

 

10. 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/: The rules says face value, not

 

*literally*. Exaggerations, jokes, similes, etc. are

 

used in everyday life, deal with it. Also, people have

 

been known to make mistakes, lie, and generally not tell

 

the truth, so it is possible the person talking is wrong.

 

 

 

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 ...' is not acceptable. In

 

other other words, when you claim that something a

 

person said should not be taken literal or even as

 

truthful you must supply direct outside evidence.

 

 

 

* *All* evidence, including dialogue, is considered

 

accurate unless there's reasonable doubt based on direct

 

evidence. Examples:

 

 

 

o '30% of the crust destroyed in opening

 

volley.' Romulan Officer in TDiC - Visuals

 

contradict this.

 

o 'You're too late, we're everywhere.' - Dying

 

Changeling - No direct contradiction, in fact

 

circumstantial evidence supports this statement.

 

o '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? Either he was mistaken

 

and / or bluffing /or/ there were unique

 

circumstances regaring the situation.

 

o '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.

 

Hyperspace is fact, but its not that fast.

 

 

 

11. Sci-Fi 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.

 

 

 

/Note/: due to Rules of Evidence #8 <Rules.html#8> these

 

properties will also hold true in SW as well.

[Questor 501]

You know, it is pretty impressive that we had THREE FAQ type documents. Not many NGs could say that.