Jump to content
News Ticker
  • IPB version 4.2 installed!
Sign in to follow this  

ASVS History: The Rules and Regulations

Recommended Posts









Welcome to the ASVS Rules and Regulations


Turning a harmless hobby into a dangerous obsession since 1997








B.) Rules of Engagement


1.) The Reality of Star Trek and Star Wars


2.) The Preservation of Personalities


3.) The Importance of Evidence


4.) Canon Criteria


5.) Relevance Rule


6.) Directness Decree


7.) Responsibility for Research


8.) Canon Cohesion


9.) Math's Magnitude


10.) Directness of Dialogue


11.) The Science of Sci-Fi




C.) Allowed Topics




1.) Duels


2.) Limited Ground Combat


3.) Ship to Ship


4.) Limited Strategic Warfare


5.) Campaigns


6.) Technological Comparisons




D.) Disallowed Topics




1.) Advancement Through Time


2.) Unlikely Alliances


3.) Neutral Super-beings


4.) Popularity Comparison


5.) The Good Guys Always Win


6.) Time Travel




E.) Voting




1.) Registration


2.) Suggestion


3.) Discussion Period


4.) Voting


5.) Results


6.) Suggestion Guidelines




F.) Rules of Conduct




1.) Is that all you've got?


2.) Goddamned Fucking Bullshit


3.) I though Crack-Smoking Donkey Fucker was a compliment


4.) Why did the thread cross the newsgroup?


5.) What does R0X0RZ even mean?


6.) Hiya Bruce!


7.) This one's for you, Baron!


8.) Just what does sodomy have to do with Borg?


9.) John Lennon and Paul McCartney were smoking a lot of dope back then.


10.) We don't care about your penis or why it burns when you urinate.


11.) We don't want to here about the Culture anymore.


12.) I don't get it.


13.) This one's for you, RayCav.


14.) I thought she was better in Time of Your Life.


15.) Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Wonderful Spam!!!!




G.) Crimes and Punishments




1.) Crimes


2.) Misdemeanours


3.) Punishments


4.) The Trial





H.) The Committee




1.) ASVS Maintainer


2.) ASVS Master


3.) ASVS Whip


4.) The Committee and KF


5.) Elections






I.) Elections




1.) Nominations


2.) Accepting the Nominations


3.) Discussion Period


4.) Voting


i.) Example Election


5.) Changing of the Guard




J.) Contributions




1.) The Good


2.) The Not So Good, But Still Not Bad


3.) The Ugly




K.) Abbreviations




1.) Star Trek


2.) Star Wars


3.) General


4.) Prefaces




L.) Previous Topics Database




M.) Updates

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Story so far ...




In the beginning there was nothing. And that was boring.


So the Power That Be created Sci-Fi. And it was entertaining.


Sci-Fi grew and spawned the mighty powers that are Star Trek and Star Wars.


But soon there were those who began to ask questions.




"Could a Star Destroyer beat the Enterprise?"


"Could a Borg Cube stand up to the Death Star?"


"Just what did Riker mean in 'The Outrageous Okona'?"




For years these questioned plagued the idyllic existence of newsgroups like RAST, RASSM and others. Then, on July 28th, 1997, the wise man Tyralak said unto the masses, "There is a great upheaval in our fair lands. There is but one thing to do." And with that he struck his staff upon the ground and the tortured hell known as ASVS came into existence.




ASVS was born out of chaos. ASVS was Chaos. And the Chaos was fun ... for a while.




Then, out of the darkness came a brave and smart (not to mention dead sexy) man. This living embodiment of perfection stepped forward and bellowed out these words, "We need order to battle the Chaos. A set of rules, an archive of past debates, a true method for our madness."




And lo, the people heard these words and they knew they were in the presence of true genius. There was only one response needed, "Great idea, start writing it."




And thus the ASVS Rules and Regulations were born.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've pinned this since (if it is ok with the Admins) should give us a guideline on how to debate. Obviously it needs some updating such as the SW canon amongst other things but it is a good idea to read over it once it is completely posted here but for now here is the sie where it lays. R&R

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.





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.





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


The Empire will get the first shot, cause the Federation will NOT shoot first and ask questions latter, and the Empire will.


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


The Klingon forces scream a bloodcurdling battle cry as they charge into battle.


The Ferengi forces scream a bloodcurdling battle cry as they charge into battle.







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:




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.




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.




I repeatedly make the same claim but I don't want to type out the evidence each time. What should I do?


You have three options:


* Stop making that claim.


* Write a website and have the URL in your .sig. This way you can say, "For evidence see my website section 3.ii."


* Write a complete description of the thread and give it to a member of The Committee to be added into the Previous Threads DB.





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




 I am removing the table, as it is no longer relevant and I don't know how to format it in BBCode. If anyone knows, put it back in.




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.




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.





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.





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.






"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.


"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.


"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.


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.


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.





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.





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.




Claim of hyperspace being "too fast"


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


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





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.






Distance could have been at least 100,000 kilometres.


Proves the maximum to be 8000 kilometres.


No more than 300,000 shot (@2 gigaton each) needed to destroy a planet.


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, (see Previous Topics Database.)





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
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:


'30% of the crust destroyed in opening volley.' Romulan Officer in TDiC - Visuals contradict this.


'You're too late, we're everywhere.' - Dying Changeling - No direct contradiction, in fact circumstantial evidence supports this statement.


'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.


'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.





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 #7 these properties will also hold true in SW as well.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Allowed Topics




These are some of the more popular scenarios discussed in the group. These topics are only suggestions, of course; you may discuss anything you like providing it's not a Disallowed Topics and it doesn't break any of the general Rule of Engagement. These scenarios are actually so common that some of them have specific Rules associated with them, noted in the description. These Rules apply only to the scenarios in which they are noted (i.e. you can't apply "fight to the death" rules to "The Empire invades the Federation" scenarios).





Any fight to the death between two characters from opposite sides, as long as none of the rules in the Disallowed Topics section are broken. I.E. Riker vs. Yoda is allowed, Q vs. A Random Ewok is NOT allowed. It must be pointed out that the two people are assumed to be fighting in a neutral area and they are overwhelmingly compelled to fight to the death. In other words, running away is not allowed, nor is changing the venue.





Limited Ground Engagements: These are battle between small groups of ground forces from opposing side. Unlike Duels, which exist to determine technological, tactical or physical superiority, Limited Ground Engagements are meant to simulate real battles. Therefore, unless it is otherwise stated in the first post, it will be assumed that anything that can be done to force the other side to surrender is acceptable. This includes but is not limited to: Running away, Terrorist Activities, Biological Weapons, threats or genocide, etc. However, you must use the the personality of the combatants, so you can't make Picard turn into a genocidal maniac to win the battle.





Any fight between two ships, or two groups of ships from opposite sides, with the same restrictions as with Duels. I.E. saying the E-E could warp away from a SSD is also an admission of defeat. The combatants can use Warp or Hyperdrive to gain a tactical advantage. BUT there is a fine line between maneuvering and running away, and moving outside your weapons' range is running away. NOTE: there is also a fine line between fleet maneuvers and campaign battles with definite goals. Please make this distinction explicit and in the first post.





Limited Strategic Engagements: These are battle between small groups of ships from opposing side. Think of it as the middle groups between Ship to Ship and Campaigns. Large, fleet vs. fleet engagements, with the inclusion of planets, starbases, or other large installations of strategic interest. Unlike Ship to Ship scenarios, which exist to determine technological or tactical superiority, fleet v. fleet engagements are meant to simulate real battles. Therefore, unless it is otherwise stated in the first post, it will be assumed that anything that can be done to force the other side to surrender is acceptable. This includes but is not limited to: Running away, planetary bombardments, threats or genocide, etc. As with Limited Ground Combat, no Plot Induces Personality Changesâ„¢





A long term campaign style war. NOTE: as per rule #1 in the Disallowed Topics section, advancements in technology through time are NOT allowed. I.E. Pro-SW people can NOT say, 'The Empire would capture a ST ship and retrofit warp drives to all off their SDs.' The reverse is also true, so no hyperdrives on the Enterprise.





Any technology comparison between counter parts is allowed with a few constraints. The two pieces of technology must be similar in function, in availability and be the same technological level within its galaxy. Some examples of faulty comparisons:


Data vs. MF: Dissimilar Functions - Droid vs. Space Ship


Data vs. Protocol Driods: Dissimilar Availability - Unique vs. Mass Produced


Data vs. Bollux: Dissimilar Technological Level - State of the Art vs. Obsolete

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disallowed Topics




The following topics are disallowed.





Advancement Through Time:
The Pro-SW side is not allowed to bring up "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" and say by the time ST and SW meet SW will be a lot more advanced then what we see in the movies. Conversely, the Pro-ST side is not allowed to state that technology seen in previous episodes will be more advanced than what we saw.





Unlikely alliances:
No one can bring up unlikely alliances. By doing so that person is, in effect, saying, 'Our side is so weak that the individual factions will put aside all their differences and fight together.' In other words, it is an admission of defeat. An alliance is unlikely if any of the following are true:


Alliance would only form if there is no other way for victory.


Alliance would collapse at first sign of possible defeat.


Alliance would collapse at first sign of possible victory.


Alliance would collapse during any lull in combat.





The Neutral Super Being:
Neither side is allowed to bring up any 'Super Being' that would not fight for their side. This is considered a sub rule of #2. These 'Super Beings' include, but are not limited to: Q, Dowd, Cytherians, Orgainians, Metrons, Trelane, Aing-Tii Monks of the Kathol Rift, Caretakers, and Armus. On the other hand, The Emperor is allowed to fight for the Star Wars side since he is not a neutral superbeing.





Popularity comparisons:
The discussion on this newsgroup is not a popularity contest, it is a complete waste of time. Sorry, I mean it is a debate about who would win in a military conflict. So, no Pro-SW person can bring up box office figures or awards won and no Pro-ST person can bring up the longevity of the series.





The Good Guys Always Win:
This addition to the list and was the first vote that was unanimous. It was banned because of three main reasons: Good is in the eye of the beholder, there are examples of where the good guys do lose and, most importantly, this is simply a literary cliche and has no place in a military discussion.





Time Travel.
Although time travel has been shown to be available it has also been shown that predicting the net result of such time travel escapades is impossible. And since we require a high level of of evidence in this NG we decided that such debates were futile and are not be allowed.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting Rules




Step 1.)

All voters must register by E-Mailing each person in The Committee and tell them your name, e-mail address and affiliation:


ASVS Master: C.S.Strowbridge


ASVS Whip: Robert Dalton


FAQ Maintainer: Ian Samuel


To be eligible you must have been posting for 30 days.


If you were on previously on the voters list but were removed for breaking any of the rules you must post for the previous 30 days before you can preregister. If you were removed for any other reason, (inactivity, asked to be removed, etc.) you can preregister at any time.




Step 2.)

Perspective Propositions are to be E-Mail to the ASVS Master at any time of the month. If the vote is seconded, then the wording is decided on by The Committee.


There are three important rules with regards to nominating perspective Propositions:


1. If the suggestion is not seconded within one month then the suggestion is removed from the list and must be suggested again.


2. If the vote requires a 2/3rds majority to pass it also requires an additional person to second it before it becomes and official vote.


3. Because of they work with the FAQ and R&R on an intimate level, members of The Committee can put forth any vote without needing someone to second that vote. It is important to note that all other aspects of the vote will be carried out in the same fashion.




Step 3.)

Discussion Period:
The first week of every month we will discuss the upcoming votes in a special thread.




Step 4.)

The second week of the month we vote. E-mail your vote to the ASVS Master. Remember, you can vote Yes, No or Abstain. No other votes count. In order to pass the vote must get a simple majority. The only exception to this rule is for Changing Voting Rules, Trials, Overturning Official Decisions of The Committee and Elections. These votes require a two thirds majority.


You must E-Mail your vote to the ASVS MASTER. Any vote made in the [Vote] thread on the newsgroup will not be counted, and if a flame war starts because of it, it may invalidate your ballot.


We need 50% voter turnout before a vote is considered official.


Once voting has started, nothing can be posted to the [Vote] thread with the sole exception of warning messages by the ASVS Master, or other members of The Committee. No other messages can be submitted to the voting thread, doing so can invalidate your vote if they are deemed to be of an inflamatory nature. However, if a flame war starts in the voting thread all participants will have their vote invalidated, not just the one who started it. You should be more mature than to be sucked into something so childish. We all know you are not that mature, but you should be.




Step 5.)

At the end of voting the ASVS Master says which votes passed and which did not. If you would like a full discloser of the results please e-mail the ASVS Master and give a short reason why. No reasonable request will be denied.


By sending a request to the ASVS Master you can allow the ASVS Master to disclose your vote if the proper procedures have been followed. You can cancel this request at any time, but requesting then unrequesting just to annoy the ASVS master will be considered misuse and abuse of the R&R.




There are three guidelines on what can and can not be submitted for voting.


1. Recent Votes: You can not ask for a revote for a period of three (3) months.


2. Certain changes to the R&R can be made without the need to go to a vote. These are limited to:


Previous Topics Database: The previous topics section does not need to be voted on, it is just updated whenever appropriate. However, if you submit a topic to the ASVS Maintainter and it isn't added to the Database, then you can ask for a vote which would be binding.


Abbreviations: This section is treated as above.


Members of the Committee can change the FAQ and R&R at any time with regards to spelling, grammar, punctuation and other purely technical aspects. In other words, the spirit and the letter of the law will remain entirely intact. If there is even a chance that the changes could affect the debate, the NG must be informed and a vote must take place first.


3. Counter Productive and / or Inappropriate Votes: A vote will not take place if the Committee unanimously decides that a suggest either does not fall under the jurisdiction of the R&R, is deemed to unfairly harm one side, or adversely affects the debate as a whole.


For Example:


"Swearing is considered and admission of defeat." - While many would disagree with this vote, under this rule The Committee would not be allowed to veto it because it's a valid rule.


"Due to the inconsistent nature of Star Trek all canon evidence must be backed up with additional canon evidence before it is considered true fact." - This unfairly punishes one side of the debate and is therefor clearly counter productive. It would be vetoed.


"All pro-ST debaters must end each post with, 'And if I'm wrong may jackals lick my funky love stick.'" - While this may be funny, but it is also inappropriate for the R&R. It would be vetoed.


"Star Wars wins. Ha ha ha." - Yes, this was an actualy vote once. Obviously if it passed it would harm the debate and with this rule it would be vetoed.


Note: As with all decisions made by the Committee this can be overturned by a 2/3rds majority.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rules of Conduct




These rules govern the allowed conduct in A.S.V.S. Most of these apply not only to the On Topic versus debates, but All conduct that takes place in A.S.V.S.





In this newsgroup we debate the various merits of Star Wars and Star Trek, among many other topics. If you want to debate bring up counter arguments - or don't reply at all.
Certain responses are banned unless they are followed by a suitable explanation. They include, but are not limited to: False, Nope, < Yawn>, "Concession Accepted", or Star Wars/Star Trek Rulez!




This list is not a definitive list so don't try to use responses that fall into the same category but are not on this list. If you do the Newsgroup is unlikely to accept the defence that you weren't technically breaking any rule.





Swearing is mandatory! Well, not really, but it feels that way. And while swearing is not mandatory, it is certainly allowed and sometimes even encouraged.
So complaining about someone's language will likely result in more than a few people telling you to, 'Shut the fuck up, bitch!'






And speaking of, 'Bitch,' insults are more common here than swear words, and we encourage both.
So if you insult someone, expect to be insulted back. If you use tired, old arguments, expect to be insulted. If you use broken logic, expect to be insulted. If you refuse to follow the rules, expect to be insulted. If your name is Dalton, expect to be insulted. If you come and flame us, we will be perfectly happy to flame you back. We are not above months-long, thousand-post flamewars. We would like to believe that we are, but we aren't. People who spend their time here tend to become a little cranky and fanatic after a few years, and an apparently harmless insult can quickly turn to a jihad! And that's the way we like it.





Which brings us to the next point on crossposting. Don't.
Crossposting usualy falls under two categories:


Crossposting to Related Groups:
Certain groups do exist where our on-topic posts would be almost on-topic there, (either Pure Star Wars or Pure Star Trek groups.) However, we have developed quite a reputation in these other newsgroups. They tend to view us with a mixture of equal parts fears and hatred. So crossposting to these groups is discouraged.


Crossposting to Completely Unrelated Groups:
These crossposts are almost always the result of some troll. And the resulting thread can last weeks and result in hundreds of posts. Crossposting to these threads is not only discouraged, it will land you in most people's killfilters.





Try and write like a human being.


When you do it looks like you are shouting.


don't write in all lower cases either.
When you do it looks like you failed elementary school grammar.


DoN't AlTeRnAtE bEtWeEn UpPeR aNd LoWeR cAsE lEtTeRs.
When you do it looks like you are having a seizure.


d00d! Don't ever use l33t haXor speak.
When you do it looks like you want to die a virgin.


Teh sepll chekcre is you're freind. Ues ti.


Use full words.
For instance, type 'you' not 'U'. Is the two keystrokes saved really worth your dignity?





There is no rule six.





Quote the relevant portion of the message you are replying to, and only the relevant portion.


Names are always relevant,
but only keep two to four (depending on how many people are active in the thread.)


Sigs are never important.


If someone posts a FanFic and you want to say how much you liked it, snip the god-fucking-damn FanFic!


Same goes for Sad Git of the Month tabulations.


Remember, people can check what was originally posted.
So don't use creative snipping to try and win an argument.


Stealth snipping in conjuncture with the above can quickly lead to killfiltering.





Some guidelines on the subject of Subjects:


Use Prefaces when appropriate.


Use the appropriate Prefaces.


Use descriptive subjects. Star Trek vs. Star Wars is not descriptive.


Every once and a while, check the subject. Is the subject even remotely related to the discussion happening in the thread? So it started out about Borg and has moved onto soddomy. No, that's not really related anymore, is it. Them maybe you should change the subject to something more appropriate. Or start a new thread. Or move to another newsgroup.


Never, and I'll repeat that, never put spoilers in the subject.





Number 9,
Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9.





This is a public newsgroup.


If you want a private discussion, take it to e-mail.


Never discuss a private e-mail here unless you have permission for all participants.


Never discuss your private life unless you want to be laughed at. We don't have a reputation for compassion.





Recently the on-topic portion of the newsgroup has become more or less settled. For that reason we have seen a large increase in the number of off-topic posts.
However, there are some limitations.


Don't bring up other sci-fi franchises in this newsgroup.
We are all quite tired of hearing, 'Oh yeah. Lets see your precious Star Wars take on the Culture!' For that reason, any force not belonging to Star Trek or Star Wars automatically loses in any versus debate. This includes but is not limited to: The Culture, Transformers, Voltron, Starship Troopers, Real Life Armies, The Legion of Past and Present Porn Stars lead by Long Dong Silvers, Powerpuff Girls, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Mmmm, Buffy), The Tick, An angry Redneck armed only with a 2x4 and a his 3 legged dog, Dr. Who, Terminator, Red Dwarf, Space 1999, Dragonball Z ....]


This still counts even if you use the [OT] or [V-OT] prefraces. However, it does not count if it is not an otherwise on-topic debate. Topics that do not deal at least in part with the military conflict are so off-topic that this rule doesn't apply. For example:


Culture vs. Star Wars
- Which would win in a battle to the death: Star Wars automatically wins.


Culture vs. Star Wars - Which is the more entertaining story
: Since popularity contests are disallowed, this is so off-topic as to be not covered under this rule.


Off-topic threads can be even more volitile than on-topic threads.
You have been warned.


If you are going to drool over some hot chick in our newsgroup, (and we encourage that) make sure the woman in question is not underaged.
If not, you can bet some loser will post, 'If there's grass on the field, play ball!' and about a dozen other variations. And we don't need that, again.


If you are going to drool over some hot chick in our newsgroup, (and we still encourage that) make sure the woman in question is actually a woman.
Not that I'm going to name names, The Baron.





What is humor?


This entry is specially for those of you that wouldn't recognize a joke if it came up and forcibly sodomized your Mom. Humor is nature's way of saying 'Hey, you're not a completely useless, socially handicapped mushroom after all!' Not everything said in ASVS is meant to be taken seriously so try and lighten up. If you are still confused the following definition might help (BTW, repeating the following definition is NOT humorous, it's annoying):


joke (jok)




1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.


2. A mischievous trick; a prank.


3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.


4. (Informal.)


Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: "The accident was no joke."


An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: "His loud tie was the joke of the office."





Killfilters are features in newsreaders that allow you to block messages coming from ceratin people. There are several rules you must maintain where killfilters are involved:


When you killfilter someone, let them know with a *PLONK*.


Do not argue with people who have killfiltered you.
At best it makes you look immature, at worse it is an obvious attempt to start flame wars.


Do not argue with people you have killfiltered for the same reasons as above.


Do not repost messages of people who have been killfiltered just so their posts can be seen.
They were killfiltered by someone because that someone doesn't want to see their posts, your reposting them takes away their rights to killfilter someone. Note: you can respond to a post if you are talking with the Killfiltered person.


Do not change your alias to get arround killfilters.
We can killfilter you faster than you can change your alias.



And speaking of Aliases:
Many people here are known simply by their alias. This allows a greater freedom in responses but can be abused. If you change your alias please notify The Committee so your voting rights will not be interrupted. Also be warned, copying someone else's alias is a one way ticket to most people's killfilter. Obviously the situation can mitigate this. Humorous uses (Jimothy Tones, Baroness, etc.) will be tolerated. Malicious use of someone else's alias will bring such attacks upon you that will make mass killfiltering look like an award for good sportsmanship.





ASVS and Advertising:
ASVS was not created for spammers. Therefore, the only advertising of sales and services on this group will be by registered members in good standing. Any crossposting of advertisements is strictly forbidden regardless. It is expected that members will keep their advertisements to a minimum, "minimum" to be determined by the following guidelines, or the The Committee if necessary. Refusing to heed The Committee's decision will result in a suspension of privileges. Violators of this rule will be reported to their ISP.


Ads should be no more than 50 lines in length.


Unsolicited ads can not be posted more than once per week.


If a advertisers uses a third person to solicit ads they will be subject to punishment.


An advertisement of no more than 3 lines can be used as a sig.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





Every January ASVS will elect new members of The Committee. These votes will be the only votes for January. All other nominated and seconded votes will be held over till February. The process of electing members to The Committee will be similar to regular votes.




Step #1: Nominations:
During December people can nominate or second any eligible person. To be a eligible the person must be a registered member and have been such for at least the last six months. This is required for two reasons:


To ensure the people running have a commitment to the NG and are well acquainted with its day to day operation.


To combat the possibility of an individual, or group of individuals from invading our newsgroup with the intent of taking over The Committe.


Note: You can only nominate (or second) one person per job and one job per person. Also, you can not nominate (or second) yourself. However, someone can be nominated and seconded for more than one job. If this happens they can choose accept one, all or none of the nominations.



Step #2: Accepting the Nomination:
After a person is nominated and seconded he will be contacted by E-Mail. If they accept the nomination their name will be added to the ballot. There are three possible outcomes for each of the three jobs during this phase:


No one is nominated and seconded: In this case the old memember retains their position by default.


Only one person is nominated and seconded: In this case that person automatically wins, no disscussion or vote is needed.


More than one person is nominated and seconded: In this case, we preceed as directed below.




Step #3: Discussion Period:
The First week of January will be reserved for the discussion. Each candidate is will post reasons they should be elected, either on ASVS or on a web page. All registered voters are then encouraged to ask the candidates questions to determine who is the best person for the job.




Step#4: The Vote:
Voting will take place like any other vote. However, a two thirds majority is needed to be elected. If an election doesn't produce a clear-cut winner then a revote will be done the following week. Each revote will remove the bottom candidate, and any other candidate whose vote (and the votes of those below him) do not equal the front runner's votes. Minimum of two candidates will be keep. For example:




First Ballot:




Johnny: 11


Sally: 8


Jimmy: 6


Sue: 4


Arnold: 2




There was no clear winner, so we have another vote. Arnold if automatically removed. Sue is removed cause her votes (4) plus all those below her (2) add up to less than the leader's votes (11.) Jimmy remains cause his vote, and those below him is just higher than the leader's (12 to 11.)




Second Ballot:




Johnny: 16


Sally: 9


Jimmy: 6




Here Johnny got more than 50% of the vote, but not the 662/3% needed. Another ballot is required. Jimmy is automatically removed. Normally Sally would also be removed, however, since a minimum of two candidates is needed she remains on the ballot.




Third Ballot:




Johnny: 21


Sally: 10




Johnny Wins with 68% of the vote.




Note: At any time a candidate can remove their name from the ballot. In fact, if there are only two candidates but neither is capable of gaining a clear majority then this might be necessary.




Changing of the Guard:
When a new member of The Committee is elected the old member will remain in charge for a period of no less than 7 days and no greater than 14. This will give them time to get their affairs in order and give all the necessary information to the new member. Obviously, this would not be the case for an impeachment; in such cases the remaining two will carry on until the next vote.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





Without these brave men and women this site wouldn't even exists. Please don't hold that against them, they had no idea how it would turn out.




C.S.Strowbridge: Me, Supreme Master of All Things Important.






Contributors: These people helped build the Rules and Regulations by donating arguments, art or just a lot of time.





Paul Cassidy:
Comes from a strange tribe of people whom believe 'brief' means 14 kilobytes of text. Wrote an essay on Warp Strafing from the Pro-ST point of view. Unfortunately, it was written back when we thought the Tech Manuals were included in Star Trek Canon.




Rob Dalton:
Current ASVS Whip and maintainer of the FUQ. Also gave me some of the artwork seen here and several disturbing birthday / Christmas cards over the year. One day I will snap and send him a bomb through the mail. I swear I will.




Michael January:
Some of his calculations are in the FAQ. At his peak, he was never more than an infrequent poster and it's been almost three years since he updated his web site, which is now completely gone. When he did post, his calculations were alway meticulous.




Current maintainer of the FAQ web site, sort of. One of the most aggressive debaters you'll ever meet, if you ever meet him. While he hasn't posted on ASVS since May 23rd, 2003 and hadn't post regularly for over a year previous to that, he is still the ASVS Maintainer. How's that for inertia. Update, the Title of ASVS Maintainer as been officially retired so that Kynes will forever remains the one and only ASVS Maintainer.




Phong Nguyen:
Original maintainer of the FAQ web site and ASVS's Official Lurker. Takes his Lurker title seriously, too seriously some times. Hasn't posted in ASVS since January 7th, 2004.




Wayne Poe:
I stole, I mean, I borrowed the background from his site. Runs the Ultimate Star Wars vs Star Trek web site. High on attitude, low on patience. We have liberally borrowed each others arguments for year.




Gave me some artwork, including the spinning Imperial symbol and the ISD. Used to run a monthly Quiz that never quite ran on a monthly basis. It has long since been discontinued.




Dr. Curtis Saxton:
A Doctor of Astrophysics. Only deals with the Star Wars side. Generally considered THE source for Star Wars information, so much so that he was hired by LucasFilm to add scientific accuracy to the Star Wars universe. His work on the ICS books pretty much ended the debate. It is very important to remember not ask him anything about Star Trek or the versus debate. He doesn't care.




Michael Wong:
Runs Star Destroyer.net. One of the first, and most feared debater in ASVS. His arguments are legendary to the point that some people worship him, and others tremble at the mere mention of his name. Has since created his own web board which canabalized a lot of regulars from ASVS.






Inspiration: These people helped build the Rules and Regulations by being such pains in the asses that something had to be done to stop them.




Elim Garak:
Used to be the resident idiot of the news group, that is not to say he is no longer an idiot he just left. The only person I was able to contact over this page who didn't want their E-Mail or Web site linked to this one. He alone is responsible for half the Rules and a large chunk of the Previous Topics. He was also the only person ever convicted of a crime, (gross misuse and abuse of the R&R.)




Paul Jacques H Jr
: Another member of the Unholy Trinity. Most famous for the creation of the NRWD, which stands for No Restrictions War Document. It was basically a masturbatory fantasy that tried to ignore all the real world limitations in war. These 'non-rules' tended to change whenever they were used against him. He also once said, and I'm paraphrasing here only to fix his grammar, 'The truth is that which pleases you.' (Although saying it like that gives him too much credit, the original statement was far less elogant.) It's easy to see why logical debate was impossible with him.




Timothy Jones:
What can be said about Timothy Jones? ... Well, a lot really. But others have said it all before and far better than I could on this page. Check out the Timothy Jones FAQ for more details.




One of the dumb ones whose stupid antics resulted in many rules additions refinements. It seemed his goal was to find loopholes in rules and exploit them. When closed, he would act like the new rule didn't exists, or didn't apply to him. In the end, he was thrown into the BDDB, (before it was removed from the R&R.) On a side note, one of the few allies Darkstar had.




Robert Scott Anderson:
A.k.a. Guardian 2000, a.k.a. Darkstar. One of those idiot who thought his opinions were canon and disagreeing with his opinions were the same as ignoring canon. A great deal of his activity dealt with redefining the canon policies of the two franchises. Most famous for debating Mike Wong after getting kicked off his web board. Quickest way to summarize his arguments: He once claimed that a quote on startrek.com could be used as acceptable evidence, but the explaination of that quote, by the person who wrote it, could not be used as acceptable evidence.




Mike3 doesn't know the meaning of the word, 'defeat.' He also doesn't know the meaning of the word, 'logic.' Or 'evidence', 'debating' and most importantly, 'goodbye.' About the only thing he knows how to do is start new threads. After first appearing with a poorly thought out critique of the DET Death Star theory, he came back later with an even more poorly thought out critique. Since then he's started dozens of threads on the topic, (and he other pet theory that the EU isn't acceptable Star Wars fact) and said goodbye almost as many times. Usually he comes back and posts a few more threads before his goodbye thread has even settled down. Granted, this isn't the first time that has happened but it stopped being funny after the first six or seven time.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this