StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Bubble Boy wrote:

Coyote wrote:You guys want to be our first (probably only) Coliseum match for December, then? Say, a nice Holiday Special? (I said "Holiday" because I am in the War on Christmas this year).

Can we have a go-date by Pearl Harbor Day-- start dropping bombs on December 7th?

I'm all for that, assuming Alyrium's schedule permits and the basic setup of how to proceed is worked out (ie: those in charge give the go ahead).

I would love to be. I have a final on... the 11th. So barring that day and a couple days prior for studying purposes I am golden.

I'll begin compiling an opening 'arguement' (I tried not to flinch ) in anticipation of the event.

May God have mercy on your soul!

Bubble Boy wrote:I'll begin compiling an opening 'arguement' (I tried not to flinch ) in anticipation of the event.

May God have mercy on your soul!

May darwin rip off your head and shit down your neck

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

Bubble Boy wrote:I'll begin compiling an opening 'arguement' (I tried not to flinch ) in anticipation of the event.

May God have mercy on your soul!

May darwin rip off your head and shit down your neck

Darwin? An enemy? Certainly not! You don't think I waste our time making it that easy for you, do you?

You're far too used to idiot pro IDer's...no no, I'm going to prove to you how the Theory of Evolution confirms the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

On topic, besides the established deadline for starting the debate, will there be any additional guidelines and rules to go by? If I have a arguement cleaned up and ready before the deadline, could I submit it earlier than the 7th? Whom do I touch base with; I'm under the impression this debate is going in the Coliseum forum, correct?

Bubble Boy wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

Bubble Boy wrote:I'll begin compiling an opening 'arguement' (I tried not to flinch ) in anticipation of the event.

May God have mercy on your soul!

May darwin rip off your head and shit down your neck

Darwin? An enemy? Certainly not! You don't think I waste our time making it that easy for you, do you?

You're far too used to idiot pro IDer's...no no, I'm going to prove to you how the Theory of Evolution confirms the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

On topic, besides the established deadline for starting the debate, will there be any additional guidelines and rules to go by? If I have a arguement cleaned up and ready before the deadline, could I submit it earlier than the 7th? Whom do I touch base with; I'm under the impression this debate is going in the Coliseum forum, correct?

Karl Popper then

I would prefer things not get submitted before the 7th as I have term papers and the like before then and would not be able to respond adequately before the 7th. Even then I would have to take a break between the 9th and 12th to prep for a final

Formless wrote:

We could even call the group "The DA's".

How about "The Devils Lawers?" seems to describe the group a lot better to me!

Er, you're aware an advocate is "one who pleads the case of another," right? An advocate, legally speaking, is a lawyer.

Alyrium Denryle wrote: Karl Popper then

And behold, the debate hasn't even begun and I already learned something after reading up on it. Gotta love SDN.

I would prefer things not get submitted before the 7th as I have term papers and the like before then and would not be able to respond adequately before the 7th. Even then I would have to take a break between the 9th and 12th to prep for a final

No problem, Alyrium. I'll do my best in the meantime to make my opening arguement, while not excessively extensive, at least worthy of some effort to topple it over.

Excellent. We are go for the 7th, with a break for the needed exams.

Ok, before you guys get all happy in the pants over this, can one of you explain to me exactly when the Four Horsemen were ever about debate? Last time I checked, and every time I ever saw them in action they were entirely about flaming the living hell out of people, not playing debate games. This is a retarded idea and it goes counter to what the Horsemen were created for.

They are going to flame an actor who is trying to look as rational as possible.

See if their flaming tactics actually work against someone like Kuroneko.

Ray, have you even read this thread? I keep hearing 'debate, debate, debate" and noting about "flaming the living hell out of deserving idiots". "Flaming the living hell out of deserving idiots" is the entire point of the Horsemen. Rational debaters rarely get HoS'd and therefore wouldn't need to get the shit flamed out of them. So seeing if flaming would work on someone like Kuroneko is beyond pointlessly retarded. You guys want to have a spectacle in the "Colosseum" then have a couple people pick sides on a topic and go at it, but that's not the purpose of the Horsemen and trying to pick new horsemen based around that is quite possibly the dumbest idea in the history of the board.

Mr. Coffee wrote:Ok, before you guys get all happy in the pants over this, can one of you explain to me exactly when the Four Horsemen were ever about debate?

They aren't; they are the tail end of a debate. You need a 'failed' debate in the first place for them to become active.

Last time I checked, and every time I ever saw them in action they were entirely about flaming the living hell out of people, not playing debate games. This is a retarded idea and it goes counter to what the Horsemen were created for.

Well, we could construct individual meaningless posts for the sake of Horsemen practicing their editing skills, or instead expand on the idea and have some fun with a debate subject before throwing it their way.

Sounds like you're complaining about the process of baking a pie before eating it.

Bubble Boy wrote:They aren't; they are the tail end of a debate. You need a 'failed' debate in the first place for them to become active.

Wrong. The Horsemen aren't part of the debate at all, they are what happens to idiots that get sent to HoS as the result of bad debate or failure to obey board rules. The Horsemen's one and only job is to flame the living shit out of those people, and then, only in HoS.

Well, we could construct individual meaningless posts for the sake of Horsemen practicing their editing skills, or instead expand on the idea and have some fun with a debate subject before throwing it their way.

Ok, if you want to go have your lame farce debates, go for it. That has nothing at all with what the Horsemen are supposed to do and it should have a fucking thing to do with how the Horsemen are selected. And quite frankly, the idea of turning the selection of new Horsemen in a goddamned popularity contest demeans the position.

Sounds like you're complaining about the process of baking a pie before eating it.

No, retard. I'm complaining about trying to turn the Horsemen into a retarded debate team just so you can grandstand by playing meat puppet in the Colosseum. If you people want to have your lame little mock debates, by all means do so. Just leave the position of the Four Horsemen the fuck out of it.

Mr. Coffee wrote:

Bubble Boy wrote:They aren't; they are the tail end of a debate. You need a 'failed' debate in the first place for them to become active.

Wrong. The Horsemen aren't part of the debate at all, they are what happens to idiots that get sent to HoS as the result of bad debate or failure to obey board rules.

The Horsemen's one and only job is to flame the living shit out of those people, and then, only in HoS.

When I said 'tail end of the debate', I meant that in the context of 'the debate is over, flame away'. You know, a failed debate, which I specifically pointed out.

I already know the purpose of the Horsemen, thanks.

Well, we could construct individual meaningless posts for the sake of Horsemen practicing their editing skills, or instead expand on the idea and have some fun with a debate subject before throwing it their way.

Ok, if you want to go have your lame farce debates, go for it. That has nothing at all with what the Horsemen are supposed to do and it should have a fucking thing to do with how the Horsemen are selected. And quite frankly, the idea of turning the selection of new Horsemen in a goddamned popularity contest demeans the position.

Just where have I or the thread been concerned with the selection of Horsemen? The goal here is to make a debate, and then once it's run it's course throw it to the Horsemen, whomever they may be or how they are selected. That's a seperate issue.

Sounds like you're complaining about the process of baking a pie before eating it.

No, retard. I'm complaining about trying to turn the Horsemen into a retarded debate team just so you can grandstand by playing meat puppet in the Colosseum. If you people want to have your lame little mock debates, by all means do so. Just leave the position of the Four Horsemen the fuck out of it.

No one has asserted the Horsemen are a debate team or need to be one. I'm pretty sure everyone knows what the purpose of the Horsemen are, so I fail to see what you're whining about. They come into play when, to quote you, a bad debate shows up or board rules have been violated (or as I incorrectly put it according to you, at the tail end of a debate).

We're attempting to provide some fuel for the Horsemen, in the form of a 'bad' debate, and have some fun while we're at it.

Just what is wrong with this effort, exactly?

So then the entire point of this exercise in retardation of a thread is so you can stage mock debates. What then is the point, if there is one at all, of bringing up the Four Horsemen? They have nothing to do with debate, they exist only to flame dumbasses in HoS. If your thread has nothing to do with that, then what exactly do the Horsemen have to do with this farce?

As far as your notion of "providing fodder" for the Horsemen goes, that's fucking retarded. You want to stage mock debates just so the Horsemen can have someone to flame. That is not what the Horsemen are supposed to do. They are a punishment meant to be inflicted on people who fail to obey the board's debate rules or general rules of conduct and get HoS'd for it, not for stooges like you to create idiot scenarios for them to practice on.

Have you considered that they might potentially be reconceptualized?

I have, and the idea of turning the Horsemen into Super Happy Debate Club sounds like the lamest thing to ever be thought up.

Mr. Coffee wrote:I have, and the idea of turning the Horsemen into Super Happy Debate Club sounds like the lamest thing to ever be thought up.

It doesn't fit the name, doesn't fit the concept and is quite boring. We have enough roving debators attacking everything they want. On the other hand, a bunch of flamers who will actually bother to properly flame is something we lack.

Ace Pace wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote:I have, and the idea of turning the Horsemen into Super Happy Debate Club sounds like the lamest thing to ever be thought up.

It doesn't fit the name, doesn't fit the concept and is quite boring. We have enough roving debators attacking everything they want. On the other hand, a bunch of flamers who will actually bother to properly flame is something we lack.

And that's precisely what the Four Horsemen are supposed to be. The reason why getting HoS'd can be a Bad Thing (TM).

Mr. Coffee wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote:I have, and the idea of turning the Horsemen into Super Happy Debate Club sounds like the lamest thing to ever be thought up.

It doesn't fit the name, doesn't fit the concept and is quite boring. We have enough roving debators attacking everything they want. On the other hand, a bunch of flamers who will actually bother to properly flame is something we lack.

And that's precisely what the Four Horsemen are supposed to be. The reason why getting HoS'd can be a Bad Thing (TM).

Preaching to the choir dumbass.

You wacky little Israeli...

Just a matter of clarification for all those wondering. The Horsemen serve one distinct purpose and one underline.

They are there to flame and humiliate a rabid whiny bitch. They are also entry leve mods that other admins look at the possibly promote.

That's it. Now while one can go "But the second one means they should have mod level experience!!!". No, not really. It means that the mods trust them enough to look into the secret mod forum, wherein plans of anal domination of the Senate and the world take place. Whether or not they have any ability of debating is kinda pointless given the whole premise of the board. Personally they are chosen by trust and the ability to flame decently.

Doesn't that undermine the respect the Mods have, to be good debaters themselves? I believe that the potential Moderators have to be a good debater and a good flamer. A moderator needs to judge a debate and control or salvage the debate if it is getting out of hand.

If not, they will not be able to command any respect as a moderator if they are unable to debate in a proper manner.

ray245 wrote:Doesn't that undermine the respect the Mods have, to be good debaters themselves? I believe that the potential Moderators have to be a good debater and a good flamer. A moderator needs to judge a debate and control or salvage the debate if it is getting out of hand.

If not, they will not be able to command any respect as a moderator if they are unable to debate in a proper manner.

What you believe and what is are not the same thing. I stated what the Horsemen are, and by most accounts those chosen are at least decent or they would've never gotten noticed. I mean does this have to honestly be spelled out?!

Ghost Rider wrote:

ray245 wrote:Doesn't that undermine the respect the Mods have, to be good debaters themselves? I believe that the potential Moderators have to be a good debater and a good flamer. A moderator needs to judge a debate and control or salvage the debate if it is getting out of hand.

If not, they will not be able to command any respect as a moderator if they are unable to debate in a proper manner.

What you believe and what is are not the same thing. I stated what the Horsemen are, and by most accounts those chosen are at least decent or they would've never gotten noticed. I mean does this have to honestly be spelled out?!

Sure, the older or regular members can remember the postive contribution a Horseman has made. However, what about the newer members? We have a long discussion on how are we going to ensure newbies can be more willingly to bring forth their view points. A newbie will not have knowledge about a Horseman past, and if the Horsemen is given the post as a moderator, what it will do is discouraging newer members to post.