Starfleet Jedi

Considering how SDN is under a complete comatose when it comes to real challenging discussions regarding SW, and seeing how they consider the ASVS topic to be settled, it's actually a miracle that some of their people poked their heads.

Besides, Vympel is Leo1.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Considering how SDN is under a complete comatose when it comes to real challenging discussions regarding SW, and seeing how they consider the ASVS topic to be settled, it's actually a miracle that some of their people poked their heads.

Besides, Vympel is Leo1.

Oops, I meant Lord Vespasian.=D

But I'm not that surprised. They seem like the type that would want to crush any resistance. Losing SB.com would be a major blow to their ego. I'm actually surprised that they didn't have more people pop in.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:I would have prefered the SB debate not to partly turn into what looked like an opposition between delegates from SJFN and delegates from SDN, with SB as a pseudo neutral terrain of discussion where opinions sway one way or the other depending on the populace and the moderation.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:.
Both l33telboi and Mith have been members of SB.com for longer than they've been members of SFJ. ICS debates on SB.com in the past have seemed - from what I've seen - largely like debates between SDN delegates and the disorganized opposition. The only difference is that SFJ has for some time been a collecting ground for that disorganized opposition, and so it no longer seems quite so disorganized.

Yes, if you look closely at Fortress SDN's stance on SFJ, they tend to try to portray this place as a last desperate rallying point for the crushed, uneducated "Federation Cultists" with Robert Scott Anderson/Darkstar/G2K as our leader. Never mind that people like Mr. Oragahn and l33telboi are not necessarily pro-Trek. They just don't hold the Warsies' beloved ICS numbers as sacred.

As for the SDN Warsie organization, that seems to illustrate more how religiously fanatical they are than anyone here over this whole thing that's just supposed to be something to pass some spare time on.
-Mike

Mith wrote:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Considering how SDN is under a complete comatose when it comes to real challenging discussions regarding SW, and seeing how they consider the ASVS topic to be settled, it's actually a miracle that some of their people poked their heads.

Besides, Vympel is Leo1.

Oops, I meant Lord Vespasian.=D

But I'm not that surprised. They seem like the type that would want to crush any resistance. Losing SB.com would be a major blow to their ego. I'm actually surprised that they didn't have more people pop in.

There seems to be a gradual implosion on the part of the fanatical Warsies; retreating further and further into Fortress SDN under the delusion of total victory once they got their Holy ICS Bible written codifying their fanwank for all to see. With Vympel/Leo1, they still have some hard-core fanatics patrolling the forums and newsgroups looking to quell all who oppose them. Now that the Clone Wars CGI TV series is blowing the ICS crap out of the water, it'll be very interesting to see how they'll continue to react.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:Yes, if you look closely at Fortress SDN's stance on SFJ, they tend to try to portray this place as a last desperate rallying point for the crushed, uneducated "Federation Cultists" with Robert Scott Anderson/Darkstar/G2K as our leader. Never mind that people like Mr. Oragahn and l33telboi are not necessarily pro-Trek. They just don't hold the Warsies' beloved ICS numbers as sacred.

I'm under the impression that, for the most part, SDN's membership tries to avoid bringing up SFJ.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:

Mike DiCenso wrote:Yes, if you look closely at Fortress SDN's stance on SFJ, they tend to try to portray this place as a last desperate rallying point for the crushed, uneducated "Federation Cultists" with Robert Scott Anderson/Darkstar/G2K as our leader. Never mind that people like Mr. Oragahn and l33telboi are not necessarily pro-Trek. They just don't hold the Warsies' beloved ICS numbers as sacred.

I'm under the impression that, for the most part, SDN's membership tries to avoid bringing up SFJ.

It has more advantages than inconveniences, so that's fine with me. All they have to say about this place is present in their mediocre wiki, and it stops there. I'm not even sure, in fact, if the way they use the wiki system allows for such direct slander, but that's another topic.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:

Mike DiCenso wrote:Yes, if you look closely at Fortress SDN's stance on SFJ, they tend to try to portray this place as a last desperate rallying point for the crushed, uneducated "Federation Cultists" with Robert Scott Anderson/Darkstar/G2K as our leader. Never mind that people like Mr. Oragahn and l33telboi are not necessarily pro-Trek. They just don't hold the Warsies' beloved ICS numbers as sacred.

I'm under the impression that, for the most part, SDN's membership tries to avoid bringing up SFJ.

I know Ted C and Wong in their Imperial wiki thread called for not giving each individual person on SFJ a "star article", but Kane Starkiller seemed rilled up enough by Mr. Oragahn enough to want to put one in there for him. But their Imperi-wiki article is how they view us. Or at least how they would like others to view us.
-Mike

Sometimes I forget just how bad their wiki content is. Of course, ours isn't really too much to talk about either, but I think it's a bit better than that. Now hang on, I feel like I should split this discussion of SDN from the SB.com discussion, for clarity's sake.

When you look again at the Imperial wiki article on SFJ, then compare it to the SFJ Database article, you can see that at least we do have the moral ground with regards to how we try to maintain some level of neutrality and fairness towards even those whom we disagree with.
-Mike

One day SDN saw its facts in a golden shining book and hid behind them.. the next day everyone revealed those facts to not be fact at all, but the wall was built and has stood ever since, keeping the truth out.

This has been the norm for years now. The result was the debate slowed down... hell, it began slowing down immediately after the ICS, not because of any formal victory, but because it was a wall they (SDN) could hide behind.

They do believe we are all a bunch of crazy nut jobs but that's because that wall forces them to do so. Me, personally, I believe the federation and the empire would be hard pressed to wage a war at all against each other... ended up with a sort of tie situation... This view is considered radical and 'G2k fanboy wank.' The reality being that it means I don't support G2k on all his opinions. They can't see that, and they won't. No one takes SDN seriously any longer because of it, the motto should be, 'our way or the high way,' honestly.

I digress... The simple fact of the matter is the debate slowed so much that not even G2k has been updating his site very much. SFJ is most likely the most active vs (that is to say star trek vs star wars) site on the net at the moment in so far as we still attempt to analyze it. People try to pray on our small community size but frankly, we are the most friendly of all, and I think that is something that we can take pride in. More importantly, I think that is something that bothers a lot of people at other sites... the idea that this debate can be conducted with some sort of civility.

I'm not saying we are an ocean of calm and collected thoughts, but we sure try to not let the flames ignite. So, the most active st-vs-sw site on the net, friendly, open data base, all sides welcome... and god forbid that we don't support an official cannon policy, instead the policy is enacted by the poster of the thread? Dear god, we are terror incarnate for some of these people...

That is how they view us... and frankly, I think I can live with that. Hell, we've all been living with their contempt to some degree just by posting here, so this is nothing new I guess.

Edited for clarity: 1/6/09

It is a rather sad commentary on SDN in their own wiki that they effectively have to resort to outright lies and distortions. Here's an example from their entry on me as it currently exists:

Basically light and medium TLs appear to be in the low single and double-digit kiloton range based on older TL-to-asteroid scalings done on the Strek forum several years ago that put the TESB asteroid at no larger than 14 meters wide, and no smaller than 1 meter. The rough average being 6-8 meters. ... I still went with a rather generous 8 meter asteroid (All the educated participants in the debate scale the asteroids in question to 20-40 meters, even up to 70 meters yet Mr DiCenso insists they're no bigger than 14 meters and calls eight meters 'generous')

It also generously assumed that the asteroids were solid spheres of iron that were being vaporized, rather than loose collections of oblong or lumpy shaped rock. novelization. (Copying Stewart at SDI idiotic claim that the asteroids in TESB were soft and easily pulverized even though they survived collisions with metalic TIE fighters.

This is basically a heavily re-edited version of what I wrote in the old Capitol Ship Firepower thread from over two years ago, that removes any context from the original, and written by none other than Warsie super-troll Darth Servo. Sadly Ted C seems to be allowing this to go on as he is listed as contributing to the SFJ article. For comparison here is what I wrote in the linked to thread:


So how big are the asteroids? On both the Strek-v-Swars.Net forum, as well as Matt Carpenter's forum, a variety of scalings were done, often using the approximate width of the TL bolts, as opposed to Young's method, which involved comparing the asteroids to the TL's length. The use of the TL width produced a more accurate scaling, simply due to the fact that height (when impacting or just a frame from impact an asteroid) is less effected than using the length since the the length measurements require correcting for the 3/4 view perspective we are seeing them at. The height of the TL was determined based on comparisons of TL bolts passing close to objects like the X-wing fighters in ANH, and the Falcon in TESB. After that was done, an average was made, and the ratio of the height of the TLs to the long axis of the asteroids was determined. When all was said and done the asteroids in the TESB ISD scene were averaged out between 1.5 to 8 meters. On the extreme outside 14 meters was the maximum size (as scaled by Kane Starkiller). Nowhere near the 20-40 meter size. So about 16 TJ, assuming a perfectly spherical asteroid of 8 meters. The wattage would be around 48 TW, since it takes 8 full frames out of 24 to vaporize the asteroid. However, because the asteroids are lumpy, not perfect spheres, the energy and power required to vaporize them will likely be somewhat less than this.

So you can see how Servo chops up the original posting, combines it with made up crap of his own, and carefully removes any reference to Kane Starkiller (who scaled the asteroids to 14 meters diameter on Strek), or the method by which myself and others rescaled the asteroids to create something almost completely different. In essence, a typical Darth Servo lie, if ever there was one.
-Mike

Trinoya: First, I like what you wrote there. Second, a couple details I'd like to comment on.

Trinoya wrote:I digress... The simple fact of the matter is the debate slowed so much that not even G2k has been updating his site very much.

Some of this is also individual fatigue; I know I started off updating my website a lot, and slowed over time; Wong shows the same pattern. G2k has been very good at updating his website in general, but we shouldn't be surprised he has slowed down a lot in the last couple years.

SFJ is most likely the most active vs site on the net at the moment in so far as we still attempt to analyze it.

Both SDN and SB.com are actually much more active as VS debate sites (thanks to much more discussion of things other than Star Trek and Star Wars), but if you specifically mean Star Wars vs Star Trek discussions, you might just be right. Which is remarkable, because by the standards of internet forums, this is a pretty quiet place.

Well, I'll be damned. SDN sure has a real jewel with their "Imperial Wiki" - they actually went out of their way to make a wiki worse than Encyclopaedia Dramatica!

Trinoya wrote:They do believe we are all a bunch of crazy nut jobs.

Well, I know I'm going against the spirit of this very message board, but - they're the nutjobs for, if nothing else, and above all else, being so fanatically devoted to the debate of one fictional universe being better than another in all qualitative and quantitative categories.. If there isn't a better definition of pure, simple and unadulterated madness, I don't know what is.

Trinoya wrote:SFJ is most likely the most active vs site on the net at the moment in so far as we still attempt to analyze it.

Depends. When it comes to SW specifically, SB wins. Because at any given moment there's at least one thread that has pitted SW against something else. ST threads aren't that many though. And SW vs ST threads have dwindeled a lot recently.

Well, I agree with a lot of the stuff said here, I know some old SW debaters never moved to SDN despite the closure of B²'s board.
To me, SFJN is more like a quiet, snug lounge of old pipers.

We are far from being the most active board in pretty much anything, but I do think many new elements regarding ASVS came from here.