Jason

[Afishymeadow 534]

 

 

 

Are you from Wing Wong's SDN?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or are you TEH BABA?

 

 

 

[enigma 521]

 

 

 

Are you from Wing Wong's SDN?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or are you TEH BABA?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's definitely not from SDN. If he was then he'd have been bounced from there so hard that he'd be currently leaving the solar system.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Yep. That's true. It's the coward's way.

[enigma 521]

Yep. That's true. It's the coward's way.

 

 

 

No again not in a cowardly way. They'd quickly noticed that he's a useless shitbag and instead of incessantly argue with him, they'll know it is futile and eject him. Yes SDN takes itself seriously but they do not have the tolerance for people like Jason. If they refused to debate Jason and simply dumped him then yes I'd agree.

[Tyralak 12,068]

You and I will probably never agree on this. The use of bully buttons is an admission of weakness and defeat. You can't defeat someone with words, so you shut them up. Jason says some of the stupidest things I've ever heard, but he's in no danger of being banned. I wouldn't even consider it. That worthless piece of shit, Schat.... er SDA didn't even get banned, he just ran away like a little bitch.

[Questor 501]

You and I will probably never agree on this. The use of bully buttons is an admission of weakness and defeat. You can't defeat someone with words, so you shut them up. Jason says some of the stupidest things I've ever heard, but he's in no danger of being banned. I wouldn't even consider it. That worthless piece of shit, Schat.... er SDA didn't even get banned, he just ran away like a little bitch.

 

 

 

Enigma,

 

 

 

While I might agree that banning may be more appropriate for what SDNet became, I don't agree that it is appropriate here. Tyralak is trying very hard to recreate the feel of the old newsgroup. On ASVS, we couldn't ban anyone, and the only thing we could do was use The Final Solution. We only did that once that I recall, and not everyone did it then.

 

 

 

Tyralak's only rules are that we can't do stuff that will get him put in jail. I suspect the only reason he has those rules are because, unlike USENET, he can actually be held responsible for anything that happens here, rather than only his own actions.

 

 

 

On a board with massive traffic, that becomes a target for invasions because of the actions of a few the stupider members and because of its relatively high profile, a board whose focus has shifted from a relatively innocuous topic to ones likely to draw a lot of fire, banning may become an important tool to control the population. I'd like to point out that at one time SDNet banned far fewer people than it does now. The negative custom title was much more common.

[Tyralak 12,068]

You hit it right on the head, Questor. If we had a situation like the SDN/4Chan incident, then it would be investigated. If the person did it intentionally, they would be banned. That falls under one of my existing rules regarding damaging my property. If it was unintentional, they might find themselves in The Brig for a while. But I would never use it as an excuse to start behaving like Wong and his fluffers do at SDN. I simply won't allow this place to turn out like that. And you're absolutely correct about trying to keep the Usenet feel. I do the best I can in that regard, the only thing is I allow edits. I might lower the time to an hour, but we all hit the post button and realize that we spelled something wrong, or wished we phrased something differently from time to time.

[enigma 521]

Enigma,

 

 

 

While I might agree that banning may be more appropriate for what SDNet became, I don't agree that it is appropriate here. Tyralak is trying very hard to recreate the feel of the old newsgroup. On ASVS, we couldn't ban anyone, and the only thing we could do was use The Final Solution. We only did that once that I recall, and not everyone did it then.

 

 

 

Tyralak's only rules are that we can't do stuff that will get him put in jail. I suspect the only reason he has those rules are because, unlike USENET, he can actually be held responsible for anything that happens here, rather than only his own actions.

 

 

 

On a board with massive traffic, that becomes a target for invasions because of the actions of a few the stupider members and because of its relatively high profile, a board whose focus has shifted from a relatively innocuous topic to ones likely to draw a lot of fire, banning may become an important tool to control the population. I'd like to point out that at one time SDNet banned far fewer people than it does now. The negative custom title was much more common.

 

 

 

I am not questioning Tyralak's method of running this board. I question him calling SDN cowards for banning people just because they have a lower threshold for trolls..

[Tyralak 12,068]

I have no problem with trolls. We have an admin and a mod who are trolls. (They don't post much though) If someone comes in to do battle, I say be a man and battle them. If the posts turn into shouting matches, they get sent to Sto'Vo'Kor. If the person gets seriously out of hand, they might find themselves in the Brig to cool off for a few days. But that's pretty much it. It's not just SDN either. I think any board that behaves in a similar manner is acting cowardly. I've spent a lot of time at places like TK and Usenet groups where I developed a taste for uninhibited verbal battle.

[enigma 521]

I have no problem with trolls. We have an admin and a mod who are trolls. (They don't post much though) If someone comes in to do battle, I say be a man and battle them. If the posts turn into shouting matches, they get sent to Sto'Vo'Kor. If the person gets seriously out of hand, they might find themselves in the Brig to cool off for a few days. But that's pretty much it. It's not just SDN either. I think any board that behaves in a similar manner is acting cowardly. I've spent a lot of time at places like TK and Usenet groups where I developed a taste for uninhibited verbal battle.

 

 

 

SDN lets you have enough rope to hang you with. They do not just summarily ban you for no reason. They will debate you but will know what kind of debater you are by what you post and if you can back it up. The only thing that I know that can get you insta-banned is by daring the mods\admins to ban you or to question their authority as mods\admins and insulting them about it (the latter case would probably get you a warning but do it again and you'd be gone).

 

 

 

They do not have the manpower to oversee everything especially after last years overhaul. I'm sure if they had two mods per forum things might be more lax but as it is they have all rights to ban you if you turn out to be a detriment to debating. After seven and a half years of constant debating there comes to a point it becomes "been there, done that why bother starting it up again". Probably new life will be brought into ST\SW debates when more Trek movies and SW shows are made.

[Legendm 1]

Penis.

[enigma 521]

anus

[enigma 521]

anus

[enigma 521]

damn.

[paul 11,988]

damn.

 

 

 

admin edits ftl

[enigma 521]

admin edits ftl

 

 

 

 

 

I want paul to go down the road but not across the street.

[paul 11,988]

I hope that was ok. Oh and you haven't replied to my PM.

 

 

 

.... you manly man you!

[Questor 501]

Questor wants paul in the worst way.

 

 

 

So now I want Paul to participate in my unnatural acts with Raycav and Jason?