StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You were banned for the same reason I was banned last year - that is, because your argument flies directly in the face of their official policy. You didn't break any rules per se - but you did upset the regulars with your argument and logic. Thus, you had to be removed.

I was banned thrice before I quit. Do yourself a favour Ossus and don't waste your own time on those brown-nosing cowards.

Hot Hands Harry wrote:I'm StarKiller_Outrider over there and I all ready got a ban warning. I asked why Excellence and Havac weren’t warned and DP4m said that was there style and it was ok you just have to read harder.

Translation: "I am not personally offended or attacked by their arguments, nor are any of my constituents. Therefore they are fine. You, on the other hand, are treading dangerously close to the realms of TEH LOGIK. All your future posts will be monitored and edited by Big Brother as he sees fit."

Does anyone know if it save PM, that the jest of what I remember.

I was under the impression it did, but it has been so long since I bothered with posting over there that I forgot my account/pass and can't even check anymore.

I responded that, so its ok to be border line negative. Ok, I’ll try to be like them and be more boarder line negative in the future. I so far have go no more replies.

Nice one. Of course you know, you either earned a ban for smacktalking a mod or a constant overview by a vengeful mod who will nab you at the slightest infraction. Depends on how many people he has banned lately, I would think.

This is laughable.

I tried to appeal my ban with the address that Mange pointed out and got this message:

TFN wrote:PLEASE NOTE:

Thank you very much for your email, however our general news mailbox,

[email protected], has been changed to a new email address.

Please refer to http://www.theforce.net/contact_us.asp for our new
contact address.

So I checked out the link and sent my e-mail to [email protected], the address they gave me, and got the same e-mail back! It appears as if they have changed e-mails without bothering to tell anybody.

Does anyone have the real e-mail addresses of any of the moderators there?

d4pm is not exactly the most unbiased of the mods frankly. Ran into him on the ISD turrets and he displayed his unswerving obedience to WEG stats despite the existence of ICS: OT which wasn't even written by Saxton.

Sigh... this is a dictatorship of ideas.

Master of Ossus wrote:This is laughable.

I tried to appeal my ban with the address that Mange pointed out and got this message:

TFN wrote:PLEASE NOTE:

Thank you very much for your email, however our general news mailbox,

[email protected], has been changed to a new email address.

Please refer to http://www.theforce.net/contact_us.asp for our new
contact address.

So I checked out the link and sent my e-mail to [email protected], the address they gave me, and got the same e-mail back! It appears as if they have changed e-mails without bothering to tell anybody.

Does anyone have the real e-mail addresses of any of the moderators there?

I was reading over the whole announcements/bans ( ++http://boards.theforce.net/rules_announ ... 4099/p1/?0 ) thread and saw this. I beleive it is the third bullet point from the bottom.

TFN Announcements wrote:- Do not talk privately to a mod other than the one who banned you. If you do not want to settle it with the mod who banned you alone, feel that he/she has some kind of bias or misjudgment, and would wish to inform the admins in general, please e-mail [email protected] . And naturally, if you don't know which admin banned you and would like to inquire, use e-mail as well.

They have a metric fuckton of mod complaint procedure threads to wade through though. I went through at least three others before I came to this one. Hopefully it is the one you need MoO.

Also a no-go. It would help if I could actually read the darn communications board.

TFN Boards turned into a fascist bureaucracy? Perish the thought!

Master of Ossus wrote:Also a no-go. It would help if I could actually read the darn communications board.

You can. Just sign out.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:d4pm is not exactly the most unbiased of the mods frankly. Ran into him on the ISD turrets and he displayed his unswerving obedience to WEG stats despite the existence of ICS: OT which wasn't even written by Saxton.

Sigh... this is a dictatorship of ideas.

How can anybody do this? The WEG stats on ISD armament are *clearly* bogus.

Stark wrote:How can anybody do this? The WEG stats on ISD armament are *clearly* bogus.

It doesn't matter to WEG fanboy. I've recently had the same problem at SW Wiki. I pointed out that WEG's 60 turbolasers and 60 ion cannons were blatantly wrong. The fucktard responded with fallacy after fallacy:

-"Your armament is too little!" (based on what standard?)

-"You can't see all the weapons on the model!" (those would be the point defense guns, NOT the heavy cannons)

-"Going by your stats, a Mon Cal would have more guns than an ISD!" (if you want to use WEG's Mon Cal stats, which have questionable basis in research).

-"You can't trust visuals!" (are any of you ever surprised to see this anymore?)

Never did the dumbshit ever respond to my main point, which was that G-canon overrules WEG's C-canon. It's clear that these people are slaves and zombies to WEG, never actually thinking about anything and/or blocking out things that they don't like to hear.

The Star Destroyer stats and Mon Cal stats are among the most debatable nonsense around. The trouble when debating those stats is that ewoks like McEwok cling to WEG like a bunch of sloths with no sense of imagination.

Sigh...

About these bannings, and with this in mind:

dp4m wrote:Ever since I initiated the policy against author bashing a couple of years ago, I broadened it to include authors who are not registered here (e.g. Tim Zahn).

Now, how many times have Curtis Saxton been accused for having "an agenda" with his ICS books, even as late as October last year:
+http://boards.theforce.net/literature/b ... 1854494/p6

One only have to look what people have said about other authors, this discussion pales in comparison to that.

This is the impression I get from Thrawn McEwok.

TMcE: "We can't use the movies as sources. They have a well-known Saxtonite bias."

Dooey Jo wrote:This is the impression I get from Thrawn McEwok.

TMcE: "We can't use the movies as sources. They have a well-known Saxtonite bias."

He likes to define its own canon and then preaches it. The worst part is that he has a "gibbering brood" for a following.

Thrawn McEwok is a classic example of what happens when you're a dedicated fan who realizes he's never going to be writing for Lucasfilm ever, so the next best thing is to kiss up to as many people as possible and gain some fan-legitimacy in the process. His so-called "polite and intelligent" behaviour is simply part of this deception.

In reality he's a self-absorbed, obsessive fanatic, who's actually harassed SW authors in the past by email and who apparently continues to do so on at least a limited level still. (And in Curtis Saxton's case, openly.)
He also claims to be a part of a "post-modern, experimental collective" of aliases, all using the McEwok handle. That's why his name is " Paul Urquhart" on TFN when he was introduced as a TFN staffer, yet also being known as Arkady Hodge elsewhere.

Since the IP adresses traces back to one location, this is all phony balony. There is no "collective", there's just one douchbag, it's always been.

Has anybody raised the double-standard? People have been bashing Saxton since he started working on the ICSs... does he recieve this protection from on high? Or is it still okay to bash the Australian with a Ph.D?

Stark wrote:Has anybody raised the double-standard? People have been bashing Saxton since he started working on the ICSs... does he recieve this protection from on high? Or is it still okay to bash the Australian with a Ph.D?

I attempted to... rather clumsily, unfortunately. I posed as a Hodge-esque anti-Saxtonite on TFN and tried to "blame" the whole GAR numbers dispute on him and what he wrote in the ICS (yes, it was a deplorably stupid and dishonest idea, and I'm not proud of the attempt). The thread was locked for bashing Saxton (I believe the end phrase was "No good will come of this") in the end, although it did take a significantly longer period than I suspect it would have if Traviss had been in question.

"No good will come of this"

Why, oh why, do I readily see them thinking "even though it's true"?

VT-16 wrote:Thrawn McEwok is a classic example of what happens when you're a dedicated fan who realizes he's never going to be writing for Lucasfilm ever, so the next best thing is to kiss up to as many people as possible and gain some fan-legitimacy in the process. His so-called "polite and intelligent" behaviour is simply part of this deception.

In reality he's a self-absorbed, obsessive fanatic, who's actually harassed SW authors in the past by email and who apparently continues to do so on at least a limited level still. (And in Curtis Saxton's case, openly.)
He also claims to be a part of a "post-modern, experimental collective" of aliases, all using the McEwok handle. That's why his name is " Paul Urquhart" on TFN when he was introduced as a TFN staffer, yet also being known as Arkady Hodge elsewhere.

Since the IP adresses traces back to one location, this is all phony balony. There is no "collective", there's just one douchbag, it's always been.

How did you come to know of this?

Because I talked to one such author a long time ago and at the time he was still getting some mails from this individual.
Others here have also pointed out the use of similar addresses for all these so-called "collective minds", leading back to a guy in Oxford College, I think. Funny enough, he seems to be studying history, which is utterly bizarre, as he keeps pretending there are no changes in historic SW sources. :P

VT-16 wrote:Because I talked to one such author a long time ago and at the time he was still getting some mails from this individual.
Others here have also pointed out the use of similar addresses for all these so-called "collective minds", leading back to a guy in Oxford College, I think. Funny enough, he seems to be studying history, which is utterly bizarre, as he keeps pretending there are no changes in historic SW sources.

He would make a lousy historian frankly speaking. He doesn't know how to choose and rank sources according to level of truth.

Collective minds.. definitely smacks of McEwok.

Multiple personality disorder does not qualify as a "collective mind"

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

VT-16 wrote:Because I talked to one such author a long time ago and at the time he was still getting some mails from this individual.
Others here have also pointed out the use of similar addresses for all these so-called "collective minds", leading back to a guy in Oxford College, I think. Funny enough, he seems to be studying history, which is utterly bizarre, as he keeps pretending there are no changes in historic SW sources.

He would make a lousy historian frankly speaking. He doesn't know how to choose and rank sources according to level of truth.

Collective minds.. definitely smacks of McEwok.

With all due respect. McEwok wouldn't make a good anything.

Archon wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

VT-16 wrote:Because I talked to one such author a long time ago and at the time he was still getting some mails from this individual.
Others here have also pointed out the use of similar addresses for all these so-called "collective minds", leading back to a guy in Oxford College, I think. Funny enough, he seems to be studying history, which is utterly bizarre, as he keeps pretending there are no changes in historic SW sources.

He would make a lousy historian frankly speaking. He doesn't know how to choose and rank sources according to level of truth.

Collective minds.. definitely smacks of McEwok.

With all due respect. McEwok wouldn't make a good anything.

I think that is something everyone here will heartily agree.

First of all, thanks to everyone who tried to walk me through asking to have my ban reviewed by a (relatively) impartial moderator. Unfortunately, all of my efforts to contact someone proved fruitless. It's been 72 hours, though, and I have not been unbanned. Do I have to fill out another request form to get my posting "privileges" back, again?

Update: Anytime they want to unban me is fine with me.