The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Sorry I haven't been posting here as much as I should be. I've been really busy, most of my debating skills have gone into trying to debate with the ******* in tactical and stage discussion (yes, let's ban a stage because a character is good on it, great idea guys, let's ban a tactic that obviously isn't broken just because we don't like it and then use "well it worked for our community" as backup, wonderful idea)... Plus I've had trouble accessing most of the debates here.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Also I told her the general guidelines as set forth in the rules thread, and she scanned the PG looking for interesting topics to post in. I told her it's okay to post in topics even if they're really old. I treat the PG like the User Blogs in this regard, there's no problem as far as I'm concerned if someone "necros" an old topic, it's not that critical, lol.

About the Dre. thing... he's getting a pass. We've agreed to disagree, all that jazz. Yeah, some of us here think "smart troll" fits or actually "concerned troll" more accurately. His views on homosexuality would fit most modern definitions of "homophobic." Spook being technically a lesbian (don't ask, it's a long story) feels that Dre.'s participation here is not only confounding (why isn't he room banned?) but inappropriate. To allow a troll to sit in our midst, plain faced and free to disrupt the boards.

I have reviewed the situation along with several other moderators I pointed to the Debate Hall/Proving Grounds, and of course with Gold Shadow. His infraction is reversed, and we've agreed he's not to be banned. Going forward, I've asked that when he posts regarding his views on gays that he do so with respect, avoiding blanket statements that can be construed as anti-gay sentiment (such as "gays are evil"). In the more recent DH version, he's kept the debate to a much more philosophical high ground, though there still seems to be some meandering on the floor about what is "natural" and what isn't. Meh, I've already locked the PG topic for fear it'd get further out of hand and expose posters to frankly inappropriate material. Lets not let that one get out of hand too. For those of you that honestly believe Dre. should not be a member here, your voices are heard, your stances acknowledged, but as Moderators, we have to be fair to everyone, and it's just not fair to ban him for the little that he's said and done.

When I saw my old PG thread necro'd I was like dub tee eff.

But if it's your wife...I'll let it slide. :>

Considering how others have been room banned (a few happened before you even ventured here), I would beg to differ on the last sentence, but we'll discuss that in aim or something.

Sorry I haven't been posting here as much as I should be. I've been really busy, most of my debating skills have gone into trying to debate with the ******* in tactical and stage discussion (yes, let's ban a stage because a character is good on it, great idea guys, let's ban a tactic that obviously isn't broken just because we don't like it and then use "well it worked for our community" as backup, wonderful idea)... Plus I've had trouble accessing most of the debates here.

(smirk)

That means you've been debating pretty well.

And why is it that everyone has access problems here (except me)? :S

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I haven't had any problems with DH access either. I guess I have no technical excuse for negligence anymore.

Budget Player Cadet are there any specific threads you can't access and what is the type of error message you receive when you try to enter such topics?

Also, I've been reading the following journal article published in Nature entitled, "Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation." [Source]

Many people pose the argument that government restrictions on pharmaceutical patent process for products is linked to the gradual decline of R&D Departments after the 1996 boom of major pharm companies and serve as a stop-gag for the production of genuine drugs to be used for use by the general populace. The study in question refutes such assumptions by studying NME (new molecular entities) and stating that the trend has remained fairly consistent since the 1950s. Around 10-15 NMEs are produced and patented by the FDA. Therefore debunking major studies in areas legal and scientific that state otherwise.

I have a great deal of refutations to this report. Namely I feel that the studies bastardize the results to be meaningless. When you are dealing with around 10-15 NMEs every small amount of variation should be seen as significant. I have other qualms that I'm re-analyzing as I reread the report. Yet I'd thought I'd post it here if anyone was interested in reading it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No I mean I just can't get into them because I have nothing to say on the topic that hasn't been covered (or, sometimes, I don't have any commentary on the debate at all, either due to neutrality or lack of knowledge needed to debate effectively).

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

No I mean I just can't get into them because I have nothing to say on the topic that hasn't been covered (or, sometimes, I don't have any commentary on the debate at all, either due to neutrality or lack of knowledge needed to debate effectively).

Yeah. I feel the same way on a lot of threads. That's why you got to make your own.

 

[Dre89]

Again, I never said gays were evil.

I don't understand why homosexuality threads are allowed if you're just going to accuse anyone who argues the other side a troll.

You say I need to be more respectful, yet find me a post where I said someone is ignorant. I could find pleny where you guys attack me instead of the argument.

So it's ok for you guys to call me ignorant, yet if I argue the opposite side, I'm automatically disrespectful, even if I called anyone anything?

Again, if you're not going to allow intellectual freedom on the issue, the topic shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Sieguest]

Wow. School has really eaten up a lot of my time. x.x Definitely won't be seeing much of me for the next few months. (Or maybe just until labor day.) On the plus side, I'll probably be able to debate a little more outside of what I normally jump into. (I'm in U.S. Government and Microeconomics this semester, and next semester I'll be taking Comparative Government and Macroeconomics.)

 

[BSP]

Yeah, school started back up on me, so when I can get on, I usually focus on the smash sections of the forums more. I procrastinate too much

^^^I'm in government too. I like the class, and our teacher really makes us think about all the decisions and such our country has made. It's interesting.

 

[Aesir]

I have some nutty lady in my class who believes the NWO is coming.

I have to fight back my sarcasm, it's really tough. Anyone who knows me can attest to the fact that I'm a smartass.


Edit: btw CK can you give me a run down why the NWO is bull****? I remember you being the guy who use to destroy those arguments. It's been a while since I've had to interact with nutso's

 

[Dre89]

So you're saying it's BS, before you even know why it's BS?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Yeah. I feel the same way on a lot of threads. That's why you got to make your own.

My thinking exactly.

School has started for me, oh noez D:

 

[KrazyGlue]

ah you saw my thread ^^ yeah, it's all simple recommendations. if anything this will prove whether or not PG members are actually reading before posting nah, but yeah, as you have pointed out, KG Acrostic was ready from the get go. There are others too that were ready and only joined the PG because it's ... tradition? Not really the right word but I'm sleep deprived atm. Anyway, it's really just a general guideline. Someone who does all those things -successfully- should be let into the DH. Someone who does say, 3 posts, 1 topic and no CS debate, eh, we'd prolly want more from them.

Ok, thanks for responding. Yeah, the main thing I'd like to see is a sentence that just makes it clear it isn't required, like the one I posted earlier. When I first read it I thought you were listing requirements. Other than that it's all good.

And to clear things up:

spookyskeptic is my wife.

Also I told her the general guidelines as set forth in the rules thread, and she scanned the PG looking for interesting topics to post in. I told her it's okay to post in topics even if they're really old. I treat the PG like the User Blogs in this regard, there's no problem as far as I'm concerned if someone "necros" an old topic, it's not that critical, lol.

Yeah there's nothing wrong with bumping old topics when you have something useful to say. I don't know why people make such a big deal about it. If you honestly have something to contribute to a debate that hasn't been brought up already, there's nothing wrong with bumping it.

About the Dre. thing... he's getting a pass. We've agreed to disagree, all that jazz. Yeah, some of us here think "smart troll" fits or actually "concerned troll" more accurately. His views on homosexuality would fit most modern definitions of "homophobic." Spook being technically a lesbian (don't ask, it's a long story) feels that Dre.'s participation here is not only confounding (why isn't he room banned?) but inappropriate. To allow a troll to sit in our midst, plain faced and free to disrupt the boards.

I have reviewed the situation along with several other moderators I pointed to the Debate Hall/Proving Grounds, and of course with Gold Shadow. His infraction is reversed, and we've agreed he's not to be banned. Going forward, I've asked that when he posts regarding his views on gays that he do so with respect, avoiding blanket statements that can be construed as anti-gay sentiment (such as "gays are evil"). In the more recent DH version, he's kept the debate to a much more philosophical high ground, though there still seems to be some meandering on the floor about what is "natural" and what isn't. Meh, I've already locked the PG topic for fear it'd get further out of hand and expose posters to frankly inappropriate material. Lets not let that one get out of hand too. For those of you that honestly believe Dre. should not be a member here, your voices are heard, your stances acknowledged, but as Moderators, we have to be fair to everyone, and it's just not fair to ban him for the little that he's said and done.

I don't ever recall him saying "gays are evil", nor do I think he's trolling. There's certainly no reason for a room ban, so I at least agree with you on that.

 

[Sucumbio]

He didn't say those three words in that exact order. Instead he was writing entire paragraphs whose synopsis boiled down to that, with a modifier that "and by evil I don't mean Eeeevil, like Skelator, I mean Evil like picking your nose in public" kinda thing. It was frankly infuriating to watch so I finally chimed in, then had to go and people jumped in after me so by the time I got back my carefully constructed attempt at displaying his logical flaws was pretty much waylaid. But its of no consequence, he's agreed to stop calling gays names or implying things like they're evil, unnatural, etc. And the topic in which that was happening has been locked.

edit: updated the PG rules thread so it's less ambiguous. thanks for the recommendation!

 

[Aesir]

So you're saying it's BS, before you even know why it's BS?

If you were here like a few years ago you would understand. I use to know quite a bit about it, hence why I formed the opinion it's BS. I stopped researching it cause A. The topic bored me and B. I ran into less and less people using NWO arguments.

I'm only asking ck for a refresher.

Edit: basically I'm to lazy to refresh myself with it, plus I always enjoy CK trashing those people.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Yeah there's nothing wrong with bumping old topics when you have something useful to say. I don't know why people make such a big deal about it. If you honestly have something to contribute to a debate that hasn't been brought up already, there's nothing wrong with bumping it.

Necrobumping, (as SS has done) violates SWF global rules.

THAT'S why it's bad.

 

[KrazyGlue]

It's only intended to be enforced when the bump has no point. If you're not bumping just for the sake of it, there's nothing wrong.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

It never says "only meaningless bumps". I've seen mic lock threads after someone necrobups them.

 

[KrazyGlue]

It used to say that because there was a whole section in the global rules explaining it, then they just shortened it for version 6.0.

(Also it says "posts meant to bump the thread", which would exclude posts that are intended to add something, not just bump it).

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

It's still bumping.

Those threads I was talking about... Those people who bumped it also wanted to share some stuff.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Then the mod shouldn't have closed it. They're not perfect.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I assume Mic_128 knows what he's doing.

 

[KrazyGlue]

No human being is perfect, including Mic_128. (Also, could you link me to this? I'm actually quite interested now. ).

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=151103&page=3

There's more, but it takes me forever to find these threads.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Just letting people know, yeah, school started for me. I'll definitely pop in when I can, obviously, but with school and stuff, time is less available.

So, don't think I'm just skipping out. I still appreciate the opportunity to be in the DH and plan to continue to use it.

Also, I'm pretty awesome. Discuss?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Hahaha, that was a funny thread. Eh, that one was borderline. I don't know. I don't think he should have closed it if some good discussion was going to happen, but it the thread had been really spammy in the past and looked like it was headed that way again. So that one is borderline. As far as bumping a perfectly reasonable year-old debate thread with a new, thought-provoking argument goes, I think anyone here would welcome the activity. Including Sucumbio, who's the mod after all.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Also, I'm pretty awesome. Discuss?

No.

Discuss how amazing near I am in general.

Edit: Sorry KG, didn't see your post. I guess it's up to mod's discretion.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah. I mean, you see people get away with all kinds of crap in the GBR for instance. It just depends on whether the mod thinks it's too much of a violation or whatever.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

What's the GBR?

 

[KrazyGlue]

GBR = General Brawl Discussion.

Oh wait. *facepalm*

GBD. My bad.

GBR = Great Britain.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Nobody gets away with that stuff, due to mic.

Edit: Nuclear war.

Discuss

 

[Sucumbio]

As far as bumping a perfectly reasonable year-old debate thread with a new, thought-provoking argument goes, I think anyone here would welcome the activity. Including Sucumbio, who's the mod after all.

This .

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Edit: Nuclear war.

Discuss

What do you mean by nuclear war?

Pros and Cons?

When's it going to happen?

Why?

I think we need a little more material for debating, if you really want to debate this topic, you should move it to specific thread. It's easier to keep track of that way.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Should we continue it, or should we stop? Is it an improvement of society or a downgrade? Are all those 80's metal bands songs going to come true (listen to "fight fire with fire" by metallica and "set the world afire" by megadeth)?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I am heavily against nuclear disarmament. MAD ensures that the only wars that happen are against pitiful countries, will not last long, will not be too expensive, and that we can win them real fast. (OH WAIIIIIT) Also prevents WW3.

 

[rvkevin]

I am heavily against nuclear disarmament. MAD ensures that the only wars that happen are against pitiful countries, will not last long, will not be too expensive, and that we can win them real fast. (OH WAIIIIIT) Also prevents WW3.

MAD is based on a couple of assumptions. One of them being that all parties are rational. Looking at the Middle Eastern and North Korean leadership, how confident are you?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well, after the dust clears, we'll at least be even... :V

Also I don't support disarmament. I do support nonproliferation. If Iran successfully tests a nuclear weapon, we should place them between the choice of "abandon the problem" or "have tehran leveled".

 

[Lore]

Also I don't support disarmament. I do support nonproliferation. If Iran successfully tests a nuclear weapon, we should place them between the choice of "abandon the problem" or "have tehran leveled".

If you don't support getting rid of old nukes, why do you support preventing new nukes from being made? I'm just curious.

Oh, and if we do level Tehran, they'll probably just retaliate by blowing up DC, NYC, and other big cities. After that, we'll nuke them some more, and the process will just repeat itself.

Thermonuclear war is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess instead?

 

[Sucumbio]

When it comes to nuclear war, the only winning move is not to play.

Joshua: Shall we play a game?
David Lightman: Oh!
Jennifer: [giggles] I think it missed him.
David Lightman: Yeah. Weird isn't it?
Jennifer: Yeah.
David Lightman: [typing] Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War?
Joshua: Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
[Jennifer laughs]
David Lightman: [typing] Later. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Fine.

 

[Lore]

Joshua: Shall we play a game?
David Lightman: Oh!
Jennifer: [giggles] I think it missed him.
David Lightman: Yeah. Weird isn't it?
Jennifer: Yeah.
David Lightman: [typing] Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War?
Joshua: Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
[Jennifer laughs]
David Lightman: [typing] Later. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Fine.

<3

I'm glad to know that I'm not the only person who has seen that movie.

I actually couldn't remember how the quote goes, so I had to stick a filler sentence there until I looked it up.

I need to eventually watch it again.

 

[Sucumbio]

Me too! I just watched a vid of the trailer and I'm like OH GOD I gotta find this movie now. Great movie, I was so enthralled as a kid watching it in the theater.