The Jedi Council

[Dre89]

I came to the PG in early 2010, and by then RDK was rude.

Numbers is constantly rude. Just look at his last post in the narcotics thread for example.

 

[Sucumbio]

eh, it's not overboard or anything. It's just sarcasm, you'd have to be a complete n00b to the internet to not see it for what it is and I for one get a good chuckle out of his posts like that. meh.

so far he's a net +1 unless Dark Horses' objection is an official -1 which would put him back at a net 0 with us running out of advocates to break him past +1, lol. He may have to remain in limbo after all.

eschamet yeh I remember him, he's got good potential, we'll see if he stays active enough and if so we can grant him access unless anyone outrightly objects.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

It's not official.

I'm neutral on numbers.

 

[Ganonsburg]

He may have to remain in limbo after all.

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRM


I'm going to stay neutral for now. This weekend I'll take a look through his posts and try to make a decision.

 

[Evil Eye]

We need more candidates to weigh in. We have to go deeper!

(alternatively we can dredge up some of the damn dirty debaters that ran off. What happened to Bob Saget's enthusiasm!?)

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, some PGers that haven't been discussed much or at all are Xianglian, Skully, eschemat, 제시카, and Jun.

Xianglian: Not ready yet. Has shown some debate skills but isn't consistent and sometimes makes useless posts.

Skully: Hasn't been around all that long but looks to be a similar character to Numbers.

eschemat: I've always thought highly of him, but he's just come back after a long break and may have become inactive again.

제시카: Only really see him in the social thread. Needs to actually debate.

Jun.: Has shown some skills. Needs to debate in more than just one thread, but may be good enough. Lacks any of the four fundamental flaws that the above four have (inconsistency, attitude, activity, and not debating, respectively).

 

[Nicholas1024]

What do you guys think of MuraRengan? He seems logical and thorough enough to me.

 

[asianaussie]

I read through all of his Aquila's thread, and I have no issue with his argument, the way he presents it or how he goes about it, but it's bloody difficult not to be logical and thorough when the he's defending a logical, conceptual deduction on the existence of a theoretical concept intended to challenge disproval. There are also some oversights in his diction and a couple things I personally regard as misconceptions, though these two are very, very minor nitpicks in an otherwise coherent debater.

He's definitely quite good, but I would prefer to have a look at his debating skill when what he's debating isn't something that hasn't been disproved for centuries - he specifically mentions he's only clarifying, implying that what he debates cannot be disproved (which I have no issue with, given they are vague proofs).

 

[Savon]

I just like to see how people debate topics besides those of religious topics just for the sake of versatility. Other wise he is fine with me.

 

[KrazyGlue]

MuraRengan gets a +1 from me. He's good from what I've read.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't like him, but he's certainly a good debater. +1 from me.

 

[Dre89]

+1 from me as well.

Just the fact he knows the argument and goes into it at depth is enough sophistication for me. Plus he doesn't have an attitude problem.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...Or a problem with lousy arguments and homophobia.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Just in case it isn't clear, he gets my +1 as well.

 

[KrazyGlue]

So that looks like +5/-0 for MuraRengan. Seems like he has general approval.

Any thoughts on the people below?

Well, some PGers that haven't been discussed much or at all are Xianglian, Skully, eschemat, 제시카, and Jun.

Xianglian: Not ready yet. Has shown some debate skills but isn't consistent and sometimes makes useless posts.

Skully: Hasn't been around all that long but looks to be a similar character to Numbers.

eschemat: I've always thought highly of him, but he's just come back after a long break and may have become inactive again. NOTE: As it turns out, he is in fact inactive again.

제시카: Only really see him in the social thread. Needs to actually debate.

Jun.: Has shown some skills. Needs to debate in more than just one thread, but may be good enough. Lacks any of the four fundamental flaws that the above four have (inconsistency, attitude, activity, and not debating, respectively).

 

[Evil Eye]

Mura doesn't have a join request active for the DH. If s/he gets one in, I'll approve it.

 

[Theftz22]

+1 for numbers.

There's no real criteria for rude, and if there was BPC would be kicked out immediately.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Amen to that.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Yes, apparently civil behavior is no longer a requirement for the debate hall. Despite it being used as a point against me way back when I replied to atheists in kind, it seems not to matter any longer.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...You've never met RDK, have you? Or Crashic? If those two are "civil" then I'm Mother Theresa.

And yeah, I get a little up in arms in debates about creationism and christian philosophy, especially when I see the same kind of dishonest tactics used all the time (trying to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, claiming that it's possible to prove god conclusively, etc). We're going to be great friends, you and I.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, most of the examples you all are citing are people who acted nice in the PG but became more arrogant once they got in the DH. So we had no way of knowing they would end up like that.

 

[Nicholas1024]

...You've never met RDK, have you? Or Crashic? If those two are "civil" then I'm Mother Theresa.

Actually, nope. Never seen them around.

And yeah, I get a little up in arms in debates about creationism and christian philosophy, especially when I see the same kind of dishonest tactics used all the time (trying to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, claiming that it's possible to prove god conclusively, etc). We're going to be great friends, you and I.

I'd never even heard of abiogenesis before coming to the DH, I'd always used the term evolution to cover the corresponding theories about the origin of life and its diversification.

By the way, I didn't claim it was possible to prove God conclusively, I was saying something else entirely. When your definitions make it impossible to prove God conclusively, why do you criticize Christians for not proving God conclusively? It just doesn't make much sense.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I criticize them for believing in something that not only hasn't been but cannot be proven. Hell, I don't even want conclusive proof, I want at least something pointing to reality.

 

[RDK]

...You've never met RDK, have you? Or Crashic? If those two are "civil" then I'm Mother Theresa.

And yeah, I get a little up in arms in debates about creationism and christian philosophy, especially when I see the same kind of dishonest tactics used all the time (trying to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, claiming that it's possible to prove god conclusively, etc). We're going to be great friends, you and I.

I came to the PG in early 2010, and by then RDK was rude.

Numbers is constantly rude. Just look at his last post in the narcotics thread for example.

Is it that I'm uncivil, or are you just oversensitive?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

ahahaha I dunno what you guys are talking about

I like RDK already

 

[_Keno_]

I think you are a fine debater, RDK, people just get upset when you tell them how they are wrong.

 

[Dre89]

Well it's the way he would tell them.

He didn't get multiple infractions for nothing.

I don't have a grudge against him personally, but he was/is rude.

 

[RDK]

Well it's the way he would tell them.

He didn't get multiple infractions for nothing.

I don't have a grudge against him personally, but he was/is rude.

Give me an example of when you thought I was rude.

 

[Dre89]

Well they were from like a million years ago.

I'm not the type to dislike anyone who disagrees with me if that's what you're thinking.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Is it that I'm uncivil, or are you just oversensitive?

...Nah, JK, you're legit in my books.

 

[Reaver197]

circlejerk

 

[KrazyGlue]

RDK is back?!

First Aesir, then RDK... welcome back guys.

EDIT: And then Reaver shows up too. Wow. Lots of people coming back.

 

[Reaver197]

Coming back? I never left!

Lurk mode has become dominant at the moment.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Ah, yeah, it's hard to tell when people are just lurking or not around. I miss your social thread articles.

 

[RDK]

Well they were from like a million years ago.

I'm not the type to dislike anyone who disagrees with me if that's what you're thinking.

Well that's the only legitimate explanation for why you dislike me because apparently I've been nothing but civil to you until you provide some specific examples.

circlejerk

You'll jerk me off and you'll like it

 

[Reaver197]

Only if you jerk me off as well.

I'll def try to post more interesting articles I come across though. I somehow forgot about doing that, lol.

 

[Dre89]

Well that's the only legitimate explanation for why you dislike me because apparently I've been nothing but civil to you until you provide some specific examples.



You'll jerk me off and you'll like it

I don't dislike you, I said that before. People who insult me don't really bother me.

You may not have been rude to me specifically, but just in general. It was ages ago so I can't remember.

So have you been lurking here all this time and finally decided to post after someone mentioned you?

 

[RDK]

So have you been lurking here all this time and finally decided to post after someone mentioned you?

God no. I randomly log into my account once and a while to check my messages and one of my friends told me to get back into the Debate Hall.

 

[RDK]

RDK is back?!

First Aesir, then RDK... welcome back guys.

EDIT: And then Reaver shows up too. Wow. Lots of people coming back.

Hi KrazyGlue.

 

[Deleted member]

Hi RDK.