Questor 501 Posted January 17, 2010 Is it wrong that I don't notice anyone's avatar but yours? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyralak 12,068 Posted January 17, 2010 Odd. Explain what you mean. Nobody else's avatar is showing up? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted January 17, 2010 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyralak 12,068 Posted January 17, 2010 Ah, I see what you mean. No, there's nothing wrong with that in the least. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyralak 12,068 Posted January 26, 2010 WTF YOU'RE A MOD NOW TOO?!?!?!?!?! Who is? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
enigma 521 Posted January 26, 2010 [Nelson] HA! HAAA! [/Nelson] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul 11,988 Posted January 26, 2010 putting down the crack pipe helps Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul 11,988 Posted January 26, 2010 merged thread since it's the same title as the other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul 11,988 Posted January 26, 2010 I know thats the point but i just like pointing out points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted February 5, 2010 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyralak 12,068 Posted February 5, 2010 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted February 5, 2010 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyralak 12,068 Posted February 5, 2010 Oh I know. Didn't Strow draft that one? That's another person we need to track down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
enigma 521 Posted February 5, 2010 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted February 5, 2010 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyralak 12,068 Posted February 5, 2010 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
enigma 521 Posted February 5, 2010 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
enigma 521 Posted February 5, 2010 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted February 5, 2010 You know, it is pretty impressive that we had THREE FAQ type documents. Not many NGs could say that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites