The Jedi Council

[asianaussie]

I haven't seen him actually engage in a lengthy discussion. He mainly fires points from the side. Just based on the one thread I saw him make:

• He expected us to watch a 1 hour documentary on what most academics consider rubbish before we could post anything.
• He got confused at us for attacking his position. You know, as debating is supposed to go.
• A lot of the time he isn't conveying what he thinks he is, half to do with his English, half to do with his fixed, one-track mindset.
• He sometimes ignored points outright, and gave ignorance as the excuse for it, without any attempts to banish said ignorance.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Ganonsburg seems to be doing a respectable job in the "Is God..." thread, though I'll wait for more activity from him in other threads before making a final judgment.

 

[Dre89]

Well I think he's committing the fallacy of cirularity and just asuming the Bible is the word of God, but if we rejected people for a single fallacy then there would be no one in the DH to reject them, so I'll +1 him too.

 

[Nicholas1024]

My stance on him would be a +1, though I may be slightly biased due to agreeing with his position.

 

[Dre89]

Certain people's opinions on a particular candidate mean more than others. As you have just alluded to, your acceptance of Ganonsburg doesn't count as much as my acceptance, because I disagree with his position. Similarily, your objection to his acceptance would mean more than mine, for you agree with this position.

I think it would be good if we could do +2s and -2s based on this format.

 

[Reaver197]

Ah, so you're suggesting two tiers of voting? Like we give +1s if we agree with their stance and want them in, but a +2 if we disagree and want them in?

Wasn't the +1 thing a formality anyway? I didn't even know we had to reach a particular number, and that it originally just came from people pretty much being "oh yeah, add me in on that".

 

[Dre89]

I saw everyone else do it so I thought it was formal.

 

[KrazyGlue]

It's not formal really, we just do it out of habit/tradition. It's just a way of saying whether or not you support someone. And there's not even really a certain amount of +1s you need to get in either; there just has to be an apparent consensus that someone is ready. A general rule of thumb we use sometimes is at least 3 +1s more than -1s, but it doesn't have to be that way necessarily.

Well, I namesearched Ganonsburg and, as it turns out, he's participated in a few other threads as well (months ago) and looked pretty good. So I'm going for +1. His activity is relatively sparing but that's ok; he's shown that he has the skills to debate.

So that's +3/-0 for Ganonsburg.

 

[asianaussie]

I +1'd him ages ago, so did someone else iirc

 

[Reaver197]

Hell, it was me, ha ha. I had forgotten.

What about Jumpman? If I remember from a while ago, I saw some posts that didn't seem half bad. It would be nice to bring him in as well.

 

[Sucumbio]

the +ing and -ing does tend to get a bit nerdy and bogged down if that's what you focus on. It's really just a way of saying you're giving them a thumbs up/down. At one point the idea was tossed around that we have a cumulative score of +3 for admission but KG's got this. If the consensus is "let them in" then they'll be let in.

I also +1 to ganon, he's pretty good. freeman's been in there for ages, so +1 to him too.

 

[Theftz22]

I'd a -1 to Jumpman and a +1 to Freeman.

 

[KrazyGlue]

So that's...

+6/-0 for Ganonsburg (seems there is a consensus here)
+3/-0 for Freeman (Sounds familiar but I will have to look over his posts again to make my decision)
+1/-1 for Jumpman (I will have to look over his posts as well)

 

[Nicholas1024]

I'm staying neutral on freeman. Although his arguments were usually fairly logical, from what I remember (it's been a while since I debated him), he'd rarely if ever concede a point, making him very frustrating to debate against.

Also staying neutral on jumpman, I don't think I've read any of his posts.

 

[Dre89]

Jumpman just has to learn not to be rude and he'd be eventually let in. At the moment he's got the rude, religion-hating athiest role that every place seems to employ at least one of.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm giving a -1 to Jumpman; as Dre said he has a bad attitude. Plus I often see a bunch of one-liners for him and haven't seen much that has impressed me. But regardless of that, bad attitudes are what we don't want in the DH. I mean heck, numbers guy was a far superior debater yet he wasn't let in due to his attitude. So why do so for Jumpman? I'll reconsider him if he cleans up his act a bit.

So, +1/-2 for him.

 

[Sieguest]

Reading from the shadows and went back to look over some posts over the guys people are currently discussing.

Ganonsburg has a +1 from me as well as Freeman, both have shown to be able to logically string ideas together into a coherent argument (some I have to say are quite convincing despite me vehemently disagreeing with them)

-1 to Jumpman, same reasons as the posters before me have stated.

(Says the one who hasn't posted in here in who knows how long)

 

[Sucumbio]

ganon and freeman are in, jumpman will have to improve it seems, he's got a net -2

welcome newcomers!

 

[Nicholas1024]

Congrats Ganon!

 

[Ganonsburg]

Thanks for the support, guys. I still can't promise much activity for now, but that's what summer break is for, no?

 

[Sucumbio]

though previously given I will repeat my +1 for 1048576

I've liked him pretty much from the start and I still think his ability is more than ample for our ranks.

 

[Dre89]

I don't think his ability has ever been in question, it's his attitude. He can be pretty rude at times.

 

[Sucumbio]

True, but I think it's more a sign of impatience rather than impertinence.

Anyone else have any thoughts on him?

 

[Evil Eye]

I haven't seen his stuff in quite some time but if I recall correctly he cut back on the strawmanning, which was my only objection.

+1

 

[Nicholas1024]

I'd have to vote -1 on him. From what I remember, he was one of the semi-troll ignorant atheist variety that would pop up to spout the occasional insult and standard argument I'd already answered at least several times. Unless he's changed drastically since then, he's not someone I'd want in here.

 

[Evil Eye]

Boiling someone down to a "semi-troll ignorant atheist variety" probably isn't giving a very objective view, since no one makes an effort for DH status for as long as Numbers has when they're just a troll. Ballistics was a troll. Numbers is just a person that can be very rude sometimes, and there's a cavernous difference. Call a pot a pot, not a kettle!

Obviously since I couldn't support a Numbers admission for the longest time I'm not offended by someone voting -1, but your assessment seems very shaky to me.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm undecided on Numbers as of now. He's clearly not a troll, as he's put a lot of time and effort into this. He does seem to have cut back on flaming/strawmanning, but it seems to me that his posts have had less substance as of late. I'll go back and review his posts.

 

[Reaver197]

I don't really have a fix on Numbers myself. Don't know what to say. Seems like he has an attitude at times, but other times I thought I remember him being pretty good.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@EE
Maybe he's different in other threads, but in the ones I frequented he wasn't good at all. I mean, when I see replies like this:

2+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=200

Use your imagination.

Anyone else want to dig up the evidence that the flood never happened? My Google-fu is lacking.
I saw an excellent video demonstrating the transition from primordial ooze to land mammals. I'll try to find it. It really is just a whole bunch of micro-evolutions going from paramecium to bear.

along with his equating God to invisible unicorns, and taking micro evolution to be complete proof of evolution, it doesn't exactly enhance his credibility.

 

[Reaver197]

Nic, you're making an issue of the precise responses and answers he has to a debate. That should not be what we're concerned about. We have to make sure they can form proper arguments, are honest about their positions and ability to be wrong, allow others to actually debate their stances, and have pretty good reasoning.

What exactly they arrive to with that reasoning is why we have debates in the first place. That shouldn't be why they are discounted. I for instance, disagree entirely with the exact issues you take umbrage with. But, I would not think of using them against you as to your ability to be in the debate hall.

 

[Dre89]

In case we I didn't make it official I'm -1 on him.

If people are going to accept him when he's rude, then he won't stop being rude when he gets into the DH, because he was never punished for it, or didn't have to discard his attitude to get into the DH.

If people are willing to let someone rude in, then I don't understand what the admission process is for. You can't say he's a good debater, but he's just rude, because remaining civil and composed is part of being a good debater. That's like saying "he's a good debater, he just can't formulate arguments well". By that logic we should let Emmanual in; he can't formulate arguments too well at the moment, but hes civil.

He's intelligent, but intelligence isn't the only aspect of being a good debater, and shouldn't be the only requirement to fulfill for DH admission.

 

[ballin4life]

@EE
Maybe he's different in other threads, but in the ones I frequented he wasn't good at all. I mean, when I see replies like this:

along with his equating God to invisible unicorns, and taking micro evolution to be complete proof of evolution, it doesn't exactly enhance his credibility.

Except those are legitimate arguments

(especially "microevolution" being proof of evolution)

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

nich, those "+1s" were part of his proof for how microevolution can be complete proof of evolution. Don't split them up and then proceed to attack them.

My biggest issue with numbers is how he copy/pasted a whole article, then said he was trolling.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, he does things like that sometimes. That's the kind of behavior that makes us all worried. Still undecided on him as of now.

 

[Sucumbio]

hm... well that's a net 0 with reaver and kg on the fence. I can honestly say I don't expect him to change his "attitude" or what has otherwise been witnessed as rudeness. By your reasoning, Dre. the likes of RDK would not be allowed into the DH, now would he? I will agree that blatant trolling or spamming is not tolerable, here or anywhere else on SWF, but that's what moderation is for. I've not been too harsh on PG members in the past, even though there's been some obvious times I've had to step in. And once or twice I'll admit he probably could have used an infraction or at least a warning. But if he is admitted, obviously we have pretty much a zero tolerance policy for idiocy.

tl:dr; we be havin' mods so it's all good.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

don't really think behavior outside of the DH should affect your standing to be accepted into the DH

I mean... that's just my opinion and I might be biased in it

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm giving a +1 to numbers now. He's obviously got the skill, and he's toned down his attitude a lot, which could definitely have been on purpose.

Also I noticed eschemat came back from the dead. He used to be really good and I'd give a +1 to him.

 

[Dre89]

hm... well that's a net 0 with reaver and kg on the fence. I can honestly say I don't expect him to change his "attitude" or what has otherwise been witnessed as rudeness. By your reasoning, Dre. the likes of RDK would not be allowed into the DH, now would he? I will agree that blatant trolling or spamming is not tolerable, here or anywhere else on SWF, but that's what moderation is for. I've not been too harsh on PG members in the past, even though there's been some obvious times I've had to step in. And once or twice I'll admit he probably could have used an infraction or at least a warning. But if he is admitted, obviously we have pretty much a zero tolerance policy for idiocy.

tl:dr; we be havin' mods so it's all good.

If RDK was a PGer I wouldn't let him in. He was pretty similar to numbers if I recall correctly.

 

[Reaver197]

RDK was a fairly eloquent debater, who definitely wasn't as short or impatient when I first joined. I just think over time he got annoyed with dealing with similar arguments over and over again, and really stopped caring too much about smashboards and the debate hall, so I think that's more the side you met unfortunately.

 

[KrazyGlue]

If RDK was a PGer I wouldn't let him in. He was pretty similar to numbers if I recall correctly.

RDK was really quite good in his prime. When I was first accepted into the debate hall in May 2009, I thought of him as one of the top debaters. Sadly he became inactive and then was pissed when he didn't get DH mod or SBR, but it's unfair to generalize his entire career based off of such a small slice of it. Regardless, what has numbers said to you that reminds you of that?