SWST Trolling

For technical issues, problems, bugs, suggestions on improving these forums, discussion of the rules, etc.
Post Reply
Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:55 pm

Special note: I could not send this message off in PM, so I'm trying it here:

I for one do not want to see Praeothmin resign as a moderator, and I think Praeo documented three separate incidents of clear rules violations in his commentary summaries.

So I know it seems unusual, but I believe in this instance it is warranted, and I gave SWST wide latitude when he returned and started the "Challenge: Invade the Star Wars galaxy" thread.

You did not see this, because SWST quickly removed it on threat of a warning:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Okay. So, as you all seem to agree, Star Trek wins. Why? Because you like Star Trek better. But some of you agree simply because you believe that Star Trek has the better technology because it looks fancier, and attempt to twist firepower calculations, industrial might, numbers, FTL speeds and such to your advantage.
Sigh. This opening right here is against the board rules as it is a blatent insult and trolling. I give you one chance to withdraw this or it becomes a warning.


The rest is your choice to make. You can decide that the LFL canon hierarchy is the rule of the day, though it does nothing to help you since even in Leeland CHEE's accounting of it, the movies, screenplays, radio adaptations, novelizations, ect, and the SW:TCW all still outrank anything in the EU. Thus you are left with firepower far below ICS levels.

Remove all restraints on warp drive? Seriously? You do know that would make warp extremely fast, in the million c plus range with navigational restrictions lifted, don't you?
-Mike
This is the kind of blatent antagonism that SWST has been inflicting on members of the board, and while SWST removed it to avoid a warning, it's memory definitely left a bitter sting with many posters', and SWST has continually ignored people's evidence and given one excuse after another when people ask for him to back up what he is saying. In essence, SWST is like KSW, minus the in-your-face insults. The documentation as carefully complied by Praeo and reposted by me at SWST when he (or she) continued their behavior despite warnings:

Praeothmin wrote:SWST, be careful what you wish for…
SWST wrote:
Praeothmin wrote:
sonofccn, these are all numbers SWST is aware of, as they have been given to him on numerous occasions in previous posts...

I would invite you to present evidence of this. I would also invite you to refudiate the various justifications I have presented for not being able to rebute every last post directed at me, the latest being that my desktop computer's harddrive just died.
While you may not have been able to respond to them all, they were presented to you, and you chose to ignore them.
In fact, you did indeed respond to some, so it seems you decided to cherry pick the evidence you would respond to…


-Warning number one for lying about range info:

You were indeed made aware of ranges of combat, and of your exaggerated ranges based off of Endor here:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 939#p32939
When I said:
SWST, where in the video you posted does it show ranges in the hundreds of km?
At what time index can we calculate this, because I've looked at the fight, and at most get 3, 4times the length of the SSD as range, which, if we assume it is 17km long (reasonalbe scaling), means at most 80 km away when the fighters engage each other, but we still don't see the Cap ships fire at each other at these ranges, and these ranges are still far less than DS9 combat ranges, or many other examples in ST, like in "The Search" - 100,000 kilometers is "well within range" of the Jem'Hadar ships' weapons.
There's also:
"Caretaker" - Voyager launches tricobalt devices at a range of ~400 km.

"Ex Post Facto" - Voyager locks phasers shortly before the Numiri ships close to 4,000 km. The Numiri engage tractors at 2,000 km, and Voyager fires at 1,500 km. 40 tons of thalmerite explosives are expected to be able to blow up a Numiri ship.

In "The Swarm," Janeway arms phasers at 100,000 km, and the swarm's range is then reported to be 7,000 km after the phasers are fired.

"Non Sequitor" - while being chased by a Nebula class starship, Harry Kim loses shields while still 5,000 km away.

To which you replied here:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... nge#p35389

With:
SWST wrote:Excuse me? Weren’t you the one who said that the ranges shown at Endor were hundreds of kilometers, not thousands of kilometers?
Then I said:
No, I said the ranges at Endor were, at most, a few dozens of km when they start off, like this, in this thread:
Then I asked:
:
SWST, where in the video you posted does it show ranges in the hundreds of km?
At what time index can we calculate this, because I've looked at the fight, and at most get 3, 4times the length of the SSD as range, which, if we assume it is 17km long (reasonalbe scaling), means at most 80 km away when the fighters engage each other, but we still don't see the Cap ships fire at each other at these ranges, and these ranges are still far less than DS9 combat ranges, or many other examples in ST,


So no, I don't believe I've said "hundreds of km" for SW range...
Then, you again came back with your “Hundred of Km range” lies here:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 299#p35299

Which I again requested proof for:
Prove it...
SWST wrote:Which is superceded by the films, and they contradict The Clone Wars. Therefore, you evidence is rendered invalid, whereas mine are completely fine (the films don't establish maximum ranges).
Nope, since you haven't proven anything...
Movies don't show hundreds of km engagements, and neither does the TCW, which are all above your novel examples... :)
Again, I mention the battles of Chin’toka here:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 282#p35282

Which you once more ignored, and continued claiming short ranges using only one example, as you did in SW with the Endor example, always ignoring RotS and TCW…

And then, again, in this thread, you fail to back up any of your claims with hard numbers:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 943#p33943

And you never came back with replies except for a minor but inconsequential nitpick…

Here, we again have you claim long ranges while ignoring shorter ones:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 171#p33171
SWST wrote:On the contrary, there are plenty of long range Star Wars encounters; the Battle of Endor is on the middle part of the scale. There is an example of a relatively stationary target being hit from across the star system.
Then list them, if they so exist, and I’m sure for each long range example, I’ll find short range ones, like the Battle of Coruscant, all the battles in TCW, like for example:
-“Rising Malevolance”, where Venators fire, and miss, a 2km ship from less than 10km away…
-“Shadow of Malevolance”, where again, ships miss a huge target in the low km range…
-“Storm over Ryloth”, where the engagements, again, are in the low km range…

At least, ST vessels were hitting the Borg cube…
And here’s the list I provided:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 149#p33149

which you’ve tried to bullshit your way out of using EU which is disproven by higher canon, such as RotS and TCW:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 154#p33154

And now, Warning number two for lying about Firepower:

Here, you ignore the exploding asteroids of TESB for the umpteenth time:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 630#p34630

Which means your “lower limits” are even lower than what you envisioned…

Here, you try to use Hyperbole (and pass it off as literal interpretation) from the SW EU to gauge SW firepower:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 300#p35300

While refusing use of the same for ST, from Canon info in the show:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 326#p35326

Oh, how about Dankayo, where you used the atomized topsoils and drifting atmosphere as evidence of BDZ firepower, but then ignore the evenly cratered surface or the fact that people were actually walking and breathing on said surface after the attack?

Warning number three for lying about speed info:

Here, I show you some speeds calcs and comparisons between SW and ST, and throw your bullshit “SW 20 times faster than ST” out the window since you only used 1 miscalculated incident as a benchmark:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 872#p33872

Notably:
As for other SW speeds in higher canon:
AotC:
Amidala takes less than an hour to travel from Tattoine to Geonosis, less than a PARSEC away, so 3.26 LY in one hour is 31,974c.

ANH:
Han claims that he'll have Jabba's money in "three weeks." Thus, from Tattooine to Alderaan (less than 5000 LY) and back cannot take any more than three weeks' round trip. Luke's training takes place entirely within the Tattooine-Alderaan run; thus, at least some hours elapsed on board the Falcon.
Let's be generous and say the trip was done in less then a day, then 1,825,000c.

Setting out to Dantooine immediately before the destruction of Alderaan (Alderaan – Dantooine trip, about 2000 LY, or 2/10th SW Galaxy, in less than 24 hours, speeds over 730 000c) and after the departure of the Falcon, Imperial scouts checked the place before the Falcon arrived.

RotJ:
The Rebel fleet launches from Sullust, "hundreds of light years" from Endor, a scene split between scenes in the early morning Endor time. They arrive during an afternoon.

This is most likely the same afternoon, and Endor's day seems of similar length to Earth's, then the Rebel fleet took roughly 6-12 hours to arrive. The distance to Sullust should be between 200 and 1,000 light years, meaning that the total speed is 400-4,000 light years per day, or 150,000-1,500,000c.
As per the Maps in every source I found, Endor and Sullust are 1/10th of the galaxy diameter away from one another, so 1000 LY is closer to actual number.
So 1000 LY in 12 hours is 730,000c.

So except for the Maul speed, all other high end speeds derived from the movies are closer to a million c, so as I said many times, while I do agree FTL advantage is with SW in known territory, it is far less than 20 times ST speeds, at times not even twice as fast...

As for ST:
-TOS, "That Which Survives": the E-Nil travels 990.7 LY in less than 24 hours equals 361 606c;
-TOS, "Obsession": the E-Nil travels 2000 LY in a round trip in less than 48 hours, or 365 000c;
-ST V: the E-A travels between 17 000 to 25 000 LY in less than 7 hours, or between 21 274 286c and 31 285 714c;
-ST Gen: the E-B travels between 3 LY in less than 3 minutes, or 525 600c;
-TNG, "The Chase": the E-D is expected to travel around 40 000 LY in less than “a few weeks”. If it’s 2 weeks, then 960 000c, but if it’s 4 weeks, then 480 000c. Although Picard, if he had gone to Indri VIII, 30 000LY away, was willing to inconvenience some squabbling delegates for “a few days”;
- TNG, "Where Silence has Lease": While trapped in a special phenomena, the E-D is expected to travel around 1.4 Parsec, 4.564 LY, in less than a minute, or 2 398 838.4c;
- TNG, "The Wounded": the E-D estimated 10 LY in less than 22 minutes at Warp 9, or 239 148c;


So we see how much closer the speed differences are between the two factions...

And you ignored the Hyperspace lanes explanations many times, even though you knew the limits existed, since you so conveniently took it out of this here trollish scenario…

Oh, this is you throwing another bullshit claim in the debate without any thing to back it up, like figures and calcs:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 831#p33831



In conclusion, SWST, you are a lying Troll who posted this latest thread with the intention to Troll, as evidenced by your opening statement which was then taken out, and by the fact you again rehash all the old bullshit arguments and pretend never to have been made aware of the rebuttals because of, as you said, “a damaged computer”…

Feel free to show me what episode the Federation amassed its thirty thousand ship fleet on screen at once. I'd really enjoy watching that one.
Well, at least ST did show us multiple times close to hundreds of ships, and then there was the Cardassia battle (Mike, do you still have the picture?)…
But feel free to ignore this as you always do… :)

So I don't know what to do here. I'm just as confounded as Praeo is as to what more we need to do as we have showed I think admirable restraint and gave SWST every opportunity to change his behavior before seeking punitive action, even when it nearly resulted in outright rebellion from some of the more volatile members of our community. Luckily for him, Breetai seems to have backed off, otherwise I felt I was going to have to ban him, along with possibly Mojo.
-Mike

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:43 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:I am lifting the ban on SWST, because after spending entirely too long looking for documentation, I found only two separate incidents of moderators warning SWST for the same behavior (within the reasonable time-frames associated with our enforcement policy and SWST's activity periods), and do not agree with what appears to me in the documentation I've been able to dig up to be three simultaneous warnings for a non-emergency offense in the first place. I had a surprisingly hard time finding the warnings that were issued in the first place.

The multiple warning system leading up to a ban is intended to be instructional in nature, to allow users the opportunity to learn from mistakes; and in this particular case I do not agree with the urgency implied in issuing a triple-warning to SWST.
Trouble is, what happens when they just don't learn?
Or more precisely, what then when they don't want to learn anything?
You need to trust Praeothmin and Mike in their judgment. They have been very fair and tolerant towards SWST, and they experienced him directly, as they're more active than you are here. This also is why you needed moderators in the first place.
You should really trust them more. Or do something about the rules, so it's all absolutely clear.
For example, I don't know how it was hard to track the warnings since every time one fell on SWST, it got announced here. Either a mod would inform SWST that he was warned in the thread he partook in, or he was warned in the technical forum with a description of why and where.
However, a link wasn't always provided, unfortunately.
I intend to subsequently review this case in more detail, as evaluating the validity of the warnings in and of themselves along with SWST's behavior is something that will require no small investment of my time to do correctly, and my patience is a bit limited at the moment after the amount of time I just spent working on SFJN-related tasks, so I will be taking a few deep breaths and reviewing the case tomorrow. I would appreciate a concise summary of what happened when.
Well, that's up to the mods. I'm not doing it. I believe I've already done enough. More than enough, in fact.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:53 pm

mojo wrote: on the other side of the spectrum there was a troll by the name of 'colonel banastre tarleton' who was at least 50 times as frustrating as swst on his best day. he would spend hours trying to get a rise out of us by roping us into debates and then arguing some idiotic position like 'prove that my pants aren't made of pudding' until someone snapped.
I lol'ed. Man I'd hate to see that, considering the amount of time I'd be wasting on such nonsense. But it's golden nonsense and I can only dig it. >:]
he would drive me to the fucking brink of madness by insisting over and over that the usa had failed as a country...
Well it has.

Honestly.
and calling for me to renounce my citizenship and move to england, and demanding that i have my webcam turned on at all times so that i could stand up and salute him whenever he came in, and trying to convince the entire room that my wife had a [PROFANITY WARNING] 'cunt full of maggots' [/PROFANITY WARNING] and things like that.
believe it or not i have a point, and here it is- after the goddamn colonel had made my life a living hell for TWO YEARS, filling me with such rage that i would 'promise you that IF I EVER FUCKING FIND YOU I WILL SHOOT YOU IN THE FUCKING BRAIN UNTIL YOU DIE FROM IT YOU FUCKING BRITISH PIECE OF FUCKING BALD PIN COCK,' laisulong finally confessed that 'colonel banastre tarleton' was a sockpuppet he had created after watching me take offense to some jackass bashing the usa with great amusement. they seemed so different that i would never in a million years have figured it out on my own, and without doubt it was the greatest piece of trolling i've ever seen before or since. to this day i find myself getting angry when i think of that fucking colonel. laisulong raised the bar so high that noone's come close to touching it--
Grand Trollord of All Webs and Beyond, reigning over sixty billion troll minions.
until JMS
?!
just roll that around in your head a little bit. as insane as it sounds, every baffling decision he has made in regards to swst makes perfect sense if.. JMS IS SWST, AND HE IS THE GREATEST TROLL IN HISTORY! i salute you, sir!
NOW PLEASE STOP BEFORE YOU KILL ORAGAHN AND BREETAI. i don't think their hearts can handle the strain of another day in his company.
You know, I was kinda wondering about that for a moment, even before reading your post. And then I was, naaaah, not possible. JMS has never shown the first face, the one that would let you know he's fancying trolling in any open way. JMS is deadly calm. Oh, you can notice the subtle jab at times when you start to argue with him hard, but he's murderously calm. Kinda spooky.
However, SWST may be someone he knows. Some relative.
Just kiddin'. ^^
I don't know. I guess it's all about blood temp. I boil out quick.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:12 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote: Upon carrying out the necessary review, I have decided to uphold Praeothmin's first warning (the "triple warning" post) as one warning, but not its severity as three distinct warnings. I have decided to overrule wholly Praeothmin's other warning to SWST for defending himself in discussion about Praeothmin's previous warning. This is not SDN, and trying to defend yourself against the moderators' actions isn't ban-worthy.
Indeed, this is not SDN when it comes to moderation, but probably for all sorts of reasons you've actually not listed here. For one, moderation is public and very open, and can be argued. It's also heavily documented.
I would appreciate it, however, if it was kept in this forum section.
So I guess that the act of defending yourself against (due) bans is against that rule, the one wherein one must complain here and nowhere else.
If that's so, let's make it official then. Because SWST has certainly abused this quite a great many times, notably ending disrupting threads in some shape.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Challenge: Invade the Star Wars galaxy

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:51 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:I would appreciate it, however, if it was kept in this forum section.
So I guess that the act of defending yourself against (due) bans is against that rule, the one wherein one must complain here and nowhere else.
If that's so, let's make it official then. Because SWST has certainly abused this quite a great many times, notably ending disrupting threads in some shape.
Posting out-of-topic material that has nevertheless sprouted in the thread is, as I see it, grounds for having posts moved to other threads. It's not really a bannable offense.

Note this as distinct from SWST changing the topic on you and insisting that what you're really interested in is Star Trek; that's rude.

On that note, I've taken the liberty of moving this entire discussion into one [new] thread.
Mike DiCenso wrote:This is the kind of behavior, among others we are issuing warnings on, JMS, and other posters here are complaining about.
-Mike
Yes, it is. And if he doesn't keep it to a minimum, he will get up to his next ban.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:10 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:Special note: I could not send this message off in PM, so I'm trying it here:

I for one do not want to see Praeothmin resign as a moderator, and I think Praeo documented three separate incidents of clear rules violations in his commentary summaries.

So I know it seems unusual, but I believe in this instance it is warranted, and I gave SWST wide latitude when he returned and started the "Challenge: Invade the Star Wars galaxy" thread.

You did not see this, because SWST quickly removed it on threat of a warning:
I've highlighted what I am beginning to think is the problem - and the reason I have also attached a retroactive warning to SWST. You're threatening to give a warning, when you probably should instead actually give a warning.

When I reviewed the case, what I saw was this:

1.) SWST returns, begins posting, and it's immediately visible that we have some problems going on.
2.) You try to calm things a little, but make it clear that you don't mean business enough to issue an "official warning."
3.) Nothing changes - not surprisingly. SWST has 0 warnings in spite of some contact with the staff; and as far as any reasonable poster is concerned, that means they haven't gone too far yet.
4.) Praeothmin then comes down with a case for trolling - a legitimate case - and decides to uprate the warning level from 0 to 3.
5.) SWST objects to this case.
6.) Praeothmin bans SWST for objecting.

I disagree with your decision in step 2, because I feel like stepping in just to say you weren't going to give him official warnings just yet was if anything counterproductive. I disagree with Praeothmin's decision to increment the warning level in one step from 0 to 3; and I disagree with banning SWST on the basis that he objected to being given a warning that was one step short of an instant ban.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, and that's not the right way to do things, but that's why we're having this conversation now.
So I don't know what to do here. I'm just as confounded as Praeo is as to what more we need to do as we have showed I think admirable restraint and gave SWST every opportunity to change his behavior before seeking punitive action, even when it nearly resulted in outright rebellion from some of the more volatile members of our community. Luckily for him, Breetai seems to have backed off, otherwise I felt I was going to have to ban him, along with possibly Mojo.
-Mike
My suggestion is to be very generous with "official" warnings. When the SFJ forums were a one-man show, as far as I was concerned, everything I said was official when it came to warnings, whether I delivered it through PM or in public.

Since it's no longer a one-man show, warnings need to be documented more carefully, but please don't feel scared to hand out official warnings and, at the same time, reminders to people on how close they are to getting themselves a ban. Remember, one week of good behavior - just one week - is enough to earn back a warning. The policies I set up were intended to work with a high warning rate.

If it's going to be a more back-and-forth informal process where you're cautioning people without issuing an "official" warning, we might very well want to set the bar lower for how many warnings it takes to lead to a ban, but that's probably something we should talk about first.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:16 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Trouble is, what happens when they just don't learn?
Or more precisely, what then when they don't want to learn anything?
You need to trust Praeothmin and Mike in their judgment. They have been very fair and tolerant towards SWST, and they experienced him directly, as they're more active than you are here. This also is why you needed moderators in the first place.
You should really trust them more. Or do something about the rules, so it's all absolutely clear.
For example, I don't know how it was hard to track the warnings since every time one fell on SWST, it got announced here. Either a mod would inform SWST that he was warned in the thread he partook in, or he was warned in the technical forum with a description of why and where.
However, a link wasn't always provided, unfortunately.
The thing that confused me was the same thing that led to my overturning the ban: After looking and looking and looking, I found that there was only the one post warning SWST - in triplicate - and then the one banning SWST.

I looked back and back and there was nothing else that looked like an official warning; just the single triple-grade warning and then the ban for talking back.

I don't want to be snap in my judgements, but that really looked like grounds to call it a mistrial.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by Mike DiCenso » Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:01 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote:My suggestion is to be very generous with "official" warnings. When the SFJ forums were a one-man show, as far as I was concerned, everything I said was official when it came to warnings, whether I delivered it through PM or in public.

Since it's no longer a one-man show, warnings need to be documented more carefully, but please don't feel scared to hand out official warnings and, at the same time, reminders to people on how close they are to getting themselves a ban. Remember, one week of good behavior - just one week - is enough to earn back a warning. The policies I set up were intended to work with a high warning rate.

If it's going to be a more back-and-forth informal process where you're cautioning people without issuing an "official" warning, we might very well want to set the bar lower for how many warnings it takes to lead to a ban, but that's probably something we should talk about first.
The thing is it's no longer a "one man show" because there has been a signficant increase in posting here over just the last 2 years. I don't think that this will ever go back. Praeo's warning wasn't simply triplicate (which to me implies duplicates of the same issue), but rather him collecting a clear cut case of three different incidents among many. If Praeo had not acted, I would have issued warnings to SWST, especially after trying to appeal unsuccessfully once again to his better nature. On top of that , Praeo and I discussed the issue in detail of what to about this in PMs to each other to make sure we were not acting in bias.

Maybe perhaps in the future, each individual violation should be given in seperate posts? Would that be less confusing?
-Mike

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Challenge: Invade the Star Wars galaxy

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:10 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:I would appreciate it, however, if it was kept in this forum section.
So I guess that the act of defending yourself against (due) bans is against that rule, the one wherein one must complain here and nowhere else.
If that's so, let's make it official then. Because SWST has certainly abused this quite a great many times, notably ending disrupting threads in some shape.
Posting out-of-topic material that has nevertheless sprouted in the thread is, as I see it, grounds for having posts moved to other threads. It's not really a bannable offense.
Sure, but then if it's done repeatedly, I think it becomes one. Presumably, a mod should step in and ask the culprit to stop his circus. From there, warnings would logically rain if said individual couldn't behave.
Note this as distinct from SWST changing the topic on you and insisting that what you're really interested in is Star Trek; that's rude.
Rude, I don't know, but clearly an attempt at derailing points, that's certainly dishonest. It's not even subtle at all.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:14 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote: My suggestion is to be very generous with "official" warnings. When the SFJ forums were a one-man show, as far as I was concerned, everything I said was official when it came to warnings, whether I delivered it through PM or in public.
I guess it's more like warning, then the sanction. In theory, one isn't punished by being given warnings, but because he has not taken notice of said warnings.
I think mods should be able to deliver more warnings, generals or specific to one single member (which may or may not follow him to other threads), but they shouldn't be automatically added to the member's official counter that would lead to his ban.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:19 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Trouble is, what happens when they just don't learn?
Or more precisely, what then when they don't want to learn anything?
You need to trust Praeothmin and Mike in their judgment. They have been very fair and tolerant towards SWST, and they experienced him directly, as they're more active than you are here. This also is why you needed moderators in the first place.
You should really trust them more. Or do something about the rules, so it's all absolutely clear.
For example, I don't know how it was hard to track the warnings since every time one fell on SWST, it got announced here. Either a mod would inform SWST that he was warned in the thread he partook in, or he was warned in the technical forum with a description of why and where.
However, a link wasn't always provided, unfortunately.
The thing that confused me was the same thing that led to my overturning the ban: After looking and looking and looking, I found that there was only the one post warning SWST - in triplicate - and then the one banning SWST.

I looked back and back and there was nothing else that looked like an official warning; just the single triple-grade warning and then the ban for talking back.

I don't want to be snap in my judgements, but that really looked like grounds to call it a mistrial.
... well, it's going to be hard to judge the severity of a warning, based on the density of crap that's been delivered by a member in a single post.
SWST's posts tend to be very heavy in that department. Yet I don't think mods could handle something like soft warnings or strong warnings. That's a bit... erm... cumbersome.
It's also unfair if a post is particularly full of trolling material and gets one warning and if another post contains just one insult out of spite and gets an equal amount of warning.
Somehow, the quantity of warnings relative to the content of a post should also find some proportional consequence in the sanction.
How? Bloody hell, if only I knew! :)

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:22 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:My suggestion is to be very generous with "official" warnings. When the SFJ forums were a one-man show, as far as I was concerned, everything I said was official when it came to warnings, whether I delivered it through PM or in public.

Since it's no longer a one-man show, warnings need to be documented more carefully, but please don't feel scared to hand out official warnings and, at the same time, reminders to people on how close they are to getting themselves a ban. Remember, one week of good behavior - just one week - is enough to earn back a warning. The policies I set up were intended to work with a high warning rate.

If it's going to be a more back-and-forth informal process where you're cautioning people without issuing an "official" warning, we might very well want to set the bar lower for how many warnings it takes to lead to a ban, but that's probably something we should talk about first.
The thing is it's no longer a "one man show" because there has been a signficant increase in posting here over just the last 2 years. I don't think that this will ever go back. Praeo's warning wasn't simply triplicate (which to me implies duplicates of the same issue), but rather him collecting a clear cut case of three different incidents among many. If Praeo had not acted, I would have issued warnings to SWST, especially after trying to appeal unsuccessfully once again to his better nature. On top of that , Praeo and I discussed the issue in detail of what to about this in PMs to each other to make sure we were not acting in bias.

Maybe perhaps in the future, each individual violation should be given in seperate posts? Would that be less confusing?
-Mike
Well, a thread for each member. I think... that's quite odd, and very, err... Rome in style, but why not? It makes it clearer to follow one's behaviour, and just like bandits stuck in planks in China under the nose of everybody, culprits may feel like making efforts not to get their own thread blossom faster than light.

In fact, it's possible that it would have greatly helped in gauging SWST, for one.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Admiral Breetai » Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:36 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote: Breetai? Cool it.
how can I? when you ignore me..when i point what he's done and nothing happens
Jedi Master Spock wrote: I realize my decision above is unpopular, because SWST is unpopular.
no boss man... We want a warsie here..who isn't pants on head stupid..I want a warsie here i can debate with hell I'm so desperate for wars to have a proper defense I've offered to take up SWST's slack in arguments...before

he isn't unpopular he's a degenerate
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Let me lay two things out for you here.

First, I have not overturned every ban of SWST. He's had a 1-day ban, a 2-day ban, a 4-day ban, a week-long ban, and a two-week ban, if I'm not greatly mistaken - his last ban was two weeks, and policy is pretty direct. That's a whopping five bans that haven't been overturned.
no you just constantly allow some..lunatic to lie and evade answering for it then you come in and bail him out..out of some really twisted sense of ethics or worse as Mojo says..traffic
Jedi Master Spock wrote: Second, bans are fragile. In most cases, a ban is issued on reaching the minimum number of warnings to reach a ban, and that means that if any single warning was not warranted, the ban may be overturned. If the case for a ban is shaky, I will overturn it, and overturning a ban is a very dramatic affair that gets attention.
I caught him lying at least three times for the two warnings issue JMS..he outright ignored me..and refused to answer the charge.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: Now; onto reviewing the case.

My reasons for overturning this ban are mainly procedural in nature. Praeothmin decided to issue three warnings all at once. He was exercising his discretion to do so; and I have decided to overrule his use of what is essentially an emergency power (issuing multiple warnings at once) as unwarranted; there was no emergency and nothing spectacular going on.
he lied..multiple times and then ran away from it when called on it..good lord JMS I freaking documented it in that thread!!!!!
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Upon carrying out the necessary review, I have decided to uphold Praeothmin's first warning (the "triple warning" post) as one warning, but not its severity as three distinct warnings. I have decided to overrule wholly Praeothmin's other warning to SWST for defending himself in discussion about Praeothmin's previous warning. This is not SDN, and trying to defend yourself against the moderators' actions isn't ban-worthy. I would appreciate it, however, if it was kept in this forum section.
'trillions of ships can be sent against the empire" my response 'this is an outright fabrication and lie..canon does not support it..TCW and the films do not support it' his actions? "trillions of ships guys" he keeps claiming it

BAM...one warning..one fucking warning for lying and evading

the second one "quadrillions of sentients" "*every one shows proof he's massively full of it* continues to spew this crap out and lies now

TWO..TWO WARNINGS! AH AH AH AH!!

these are two infractable offenses..done by him IGNORED!!

seriously I have to freaken spell this out for you and your staff? like the freaking count from sesame street here?

let's play another Jim freaking Henson public TV game game here let's line Sonfoccn picard Kor Dahar Master mike O and SWST up

one of these posters is not like the other..one of these posters just isn't the same..one of these posters is totally different..can you spot which poster is different?
Jedi Master Spock wrote: I am also exercising my discretion per procedure - that of choosing to add warnings during review for behavior not previously issued formal sanction for - to formalize the informal warnings offered by Mike DiCenso offered early in the "Challenge" thread as an official warning that SWST should have taken note of. SWST stands at two warnings, and therefore has two warnings yet to earn in order to receive his month-long ban.

If there is something that I'm missing, please do let me know.
while I fully expect you..and mike to ignore my post..especially you as you always freaking ignore me...but this is complete crap..I caught two infractions prea and mike didn't catch...AND YOU BLATANTLY IGNORE

sir..with all due respect..this is absolute BS

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by sonofccn » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:07 pm

Well if this is list possible cause for demerits thread I have a couple to throw at the wall and see if they stick.

At Tue 29th November 2011 SWST posted this in the Challenge thread
Past SWST wrote:25,000 ISD's, but the Confederacy had millions of warships and every sector has its own fleet. Not to mention the SW: WEG figures of hundreds of "heavy destroyers" present at every sector.
On the same day I responded with this
Past Sonofccn wrote:Excerpt as well do you have number of sectors?
Requesting evidence for the "hundreds of heavy destroyers" as well as asking if it gave a number of sectors.

Then on Wed 30th of November in the challenge thread he replied:
Past SWST wrote:Here's the SW: WEG:


Sector Groups (Total): 3,200 mobile deepdocks, 192,000 very heavy repair ships; 3,616,000 noncombatant resupply ships; 384,000 torpedo spheres; 45,395,200 Corvettes/Gunships/Light Frigates 101-449 meters long; 19,043,200 heavy frigates/light destroyers 450-1,000 meters long; 128,000 heavy Destroyers 1,001- 1,600 meters long.

The SW: WEG is an OOU source while the 25,000 ship quote was from the PoV from a 3rd person limited narrator. These are specific figures/statistics, while your quote was clearly an estimate and contained less significant figures.
Reinforcing he is taking this from one of the West End Games books

On Friday December 2nd 2011 I ask the following in reply to this
Past Sonofccn wrote:Which Sourcebook exactly is this from? Because the first thing I get searching for it is this. Which appears to be a fanmade fleet calculation not a West End Games production. Sorry for the inconvience, merely trying to straighten out which source, and edition in case of editorial changes, so I can more properly look at what you are showing me.
A clarification because punching his figures into Google ran directly to here a fan made calculation of ship numbers.

In reply SWST stated this:
Past SWST wrote:From what I can tell, Dalton is quoting the SW: WEG. That would explain why he has the text formatted differently and attributes it to the WEG. The alternative is that he's pulling shit out of his ass, but I doubt it.
Implying this is indeed where he swiped the figures from and merely assumed the figures surronded with explanations and promises thereof of how these numbers were calculated were a direct copy of a WEG book.

To this I responded thusly:
Past Sonofccn wrote:He's not quoting sources. He refrences them nontransparently as he makes various calculations based upon several assumptions. The numbers, the numbers you gave me, are the product of his work not a sourcebook. Now perhaps the WEG books support him completely, maybe it is completely hundred percent backed by canon, but he doesn't provide any of it to know. None of the evidence which made him make the assumptions he did.
To which at last, on Sunday december 4th 2011 he acquited to what should have been obvious from the start.
Past SWST wrote:You're right.

...just a moment. I'm going to read into it some more. BTW, are you responding soon?
This wouldn't be the first time SWST was found to be using fan material as evidence and perhaps I'm merely being bias but I find it hard to believe he just happened to do it again. Anyway this is your board so I thought I'd throw this up and see what you think sir.

Later on Sunday December 4th I posted this in regard to the Challenge thread in general:
Past Sonofccn quote AOTC Novelization wrote:The massive towers of the Republic Executive Building loomed above it all, seeming as if they would reach the very heavens. And that seemed fitting indeed, for inside, even at this early hour, the events and participants took on godlike stature to the trillions of common folk of the Republic
Establishing the Old Republic population was in the trillions.

SWST responded on monday December 5th 2011 as such:
Past SWST wrote:Which is at odds with both my equally canon quote, the Essential Atlas and various other EU sources. If you assume only "trillions" of citizens in the galaxy; and, by your reasoning, this would be only 9 trillion at the most, and one million planets with life on them in the Republic, you would be left with one around one million people per planet.

This does not fit with population growth trends. In just a matter of centuries the American colonies had millions of civilians, and they had to deal with constant warfare, bad nutruition and plagues that routinely killed off 1/3 of the population. Over the projection of 25,000 years without these problems, my quadrillions model fits better.

But why am I bothering? I know how much you hate inductive reasoning, and will dismiss it on a whim.
For the record he provided no quote equal to my G-canon quote

On Tuesday the 6th 2011 I responded thusly:
Past Sonofccn wrote:One can not overrule G-canon with fan calculations. That way leads to anarchy.
His answer, dropping his Equal canon stance to focus on his "calcuations" was as follows
Past SWST wrote:Your failure to actually refute my position on the basis of its arguments instead of lumping into a group of "fan calcs" is irritating and amusing at the same time.
Past SWST wrote:sonofccn believes that a colony inhabiting a completely unpopulated planet with the benefits of space age medicinal technology will only reach one million people in 25,000 years of population growth, in spite of the population growth of the Americas being millions of times greater despite numerous plagues that routinely killed off 1/3 of the populace.
In essence demanding we abandon a G-canon quote, in violation of the Canon policy he said we should use, and just use raw speculation of what StarWars "should" have. This is not conductive to a cordial debate.

Now I understand you are busy sir and I apologize if I am wasting it further but since you appeared to be asking for evidence I felt I should present this.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: SWST Trolling

Post by sonofccn » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:23 pm

@Admiral Breetai

I have to agree with JMS on this point, your Bullplop post really didn't help matters. If anything it does give SWST amunition to claim everyone is against him. Even through I disagree with JMS on overturning the ban.

Also you mentioned Mike ignoring your post, unless I'm mistaken Mike still is the champ on the number of bans upheld against SWST. I really don't see why you'd have a beef against either him or Preao, they as far as I can tell are doing their job to the limit of the "law".

Post Reply