[Marcov]

Well, it ended up being yet another debate session, but at least Battuta's "Get out." had a tone of finality in it, for once.

I seriously don't think such things should be subject to debate, primarily due to the fact that I am quite opposed to someone who tries to brand another as idiotic simply because of different views on the matter. Okay, perhaps these things can be argued on, but to the point wherein one dismisses the other as a complete retard? **** no.

If any of you admins/moderators are disappointed with this comment that furthers the issue, you can do whatever you want with this comment of mine...move it, edit it, whatever. But now that you've read this at least you're informed at which point of view I currently am in.

[The E]

Well, it ended up being yet another debate session, but at least Battuta's "Get out." had a tone of finality in it, for once.

I seriously don't think such things should be subject to debate, primarily due to the fact that I am quite opposed to someone who tries to brand another as idiotic simply because of different views on the matter. Okay, perhaps these things can be argued on, but to the point wherein one dismisses the other as a complete retard? **** no.

If any of you admins/moderators are disappointed with this comment that furthers the issue, you can do whatever you want with this comment of mine...move it, edit it, whatever. But now that you've read this at least you're informed at which point of view I currently am in.

If you are not interested in debate, don't post stuff that causes debate. If you aren't interested in debating and defending your viewpoints, internet fora are not the right place for you, especially not this one. If you consistently post stuff that betrays a fundamental ignorance of what was said on the topic before, you will be branded a troll and an idiot and treated as such.
If you are only interested in voicing your opinions without having to defend them against others, get a blog and turn off commenting.

[General Battuta]

Debate is cool. Morons ****ing up important threads without outright fabrications can get out.

I could unlock that other thread to serve as a shallow end for the thalidomide-happy to play around in, though!

[Marcov]

If you are not interested in debate, don't post stuff that causes debate. If you aren't interested in debating and defending your viewpoints, internet fora are not the right place for you, especially not this one.

If you are only interested in voicing your opinions without having to defend them against others, get a blog and turn off commenting.

I never said I wasn't interested in having to defend my viewpoints against others. I was emphasizing on the point that in an argument or debate between two parties concerning their respective points of view on an isssue, one should never dismiss the other as idiotic and pointless.

If you consistently post stuff that betrays a fundamental ignorance of what was said on the topic before, you will be branded a troll and an idiot and treated as such.

Betrays what? Which thread? What "stuff" are you referring to?
Also,

you will be branded a troll and an idiot and treated as such

Does this mean that anything the specified troll will say will be trashed? If it does, I never knew bias was an important element on how you regard the forum's members.

I could unlock that other thread to serve as a shallow end for the thalidomide-happy to play around in, though!

Which thread? The one concerning S-99?

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Debate is cool. Morons ****ing up important threads without outright fabrications can get out.

I could unlock that other thread to serve as a shallow end for the thalidomide-happy to play around in, though!

Eh, don't do it. There's a policy for these sort of things (I think).

[Qent]

Just pay more attention to what other people are posting.

[The E]

I never said I wasn't interested in having to defend my viewpoints against others. I was emphasizing on the point that in an argument or debate between two parties concerning their respective points of view on an isssue, one should never dismiss the other as idiotic and pointless.

Except, of course, when it is necessary to dismiss them as such. If the points you raise are irrelevant to the topic at hand, or not supported by the existing evidence, they can and should be dismissed.

Betrays what? Which thread? What "stuff" are you referring to?

In case you didn't know, the verb "betray" has a secondary definition that goes
"to show feelings, thoughts or a particular characteristic without intending to".

Examples would be this post, where you demonstrate ignorance of basic facts wrt FS3, which would have been cleared up by a few seconds' worth of research, or this one, where it becomes clear that you haven't actually read the interview, or this one, or this one, which is just astonishing.

That's just from threads regarding this particular topic of this interview. There are other, more egregious examples.

Does this mean that anything the specified troll will say will be trashed? If it does, I never knew bias was an important element on how you regard the forum's members.

Believe it or not, we are actually able to discern whether something is worthy of a good thrashing or not. It's what we do.

[Nuclear1]

Why exactly is this in GD?  It's stupid enough here without having crap spill over from GFS.

[NGTM-1R]

I would like to arrange it so if you remove new posts from a thread, it does not show as new.

[Mongoose]

I'd like to point out that The E's direct post links are rendered sadly useless, given that said links don't seem to work right at the moment.

[Marcov]

Except, of course, when it is necessary to dismiss them as such. If the points you raise are irrelevant to the topic at hand, or not supported by the existing evidence, they can and should be dismissed.

Let me explain how this mistake is clearly demonstrated within the first portion of the debate:

I forgot battuta, you said it first about BP and inferno. This whole quote of yours is really to keep morale up for an otherwise underwhelming moment for the community. But, you are indeed the person who mentioned compatibilities of campaigns and theories from this community with what Volition said about fs3. I stand corrected and realize that you said this, and not as i said earlier was  Volition.

My main point again, this whole thing isn't much to be excited about. Us asking the great makers of fs and hear them say, "yeah, we don't know much about fs3 at all" and, "we'd love to make fs3 if we could". Really i'm curious why people are getting excited about what Volition told us about fs3 unless it's mostly just fan excitement receiving something from Volition that's actually talking to this community. This is hardly a "we finally know what gets to happen in fs3" moment in the slightest.

The reply:

You are profoundly stupid, your misrepresentations are profoundly and offensively stupid...

I don't see any misinterpretation on S-99's part. In fact, saying that your adversary party would be stupid for picking another view is, I have to say, tremendously foolhardy.

Examples would be this post, where you demonstrate ignorance of basic facts wrt FS3, which would have been cleared up by a few seconds' worth of research

This reply?

Just to dictate that I'm not currently into debating.

Also, someone has yet to explain how Freespace 3 is clearly cancelled within the interview. I see no significant statement that implies this.

The first one was that I wanted to make it clear that participating in large Freespace-Whatever debate threads is not my present hobby.
The second part is...yes, it's just true. At first most of you were, in my confusion, telling me to "read the interview again". The truth is, and it has been confirmed, there is no statement whatsoever in the interview that stated that there would be no FreeSpace 3. Okay, maybe you got me wrong on that part, I should have traced it back to the licensing going wrong, which The_E cleared out for me. But you have to understand Mr. Scott didn't say anything about FreeSpace 3 never being made. I even emphasized the fact that he said "there's not much hope, but there is, and it's still there".

or this one, where it becomes clear that you haven't actually read the interview,

Maybe you should've said that I would've been stupid enough not to read those news in the past about Volition, and therefore the rights to FreeSpace 3 and the hope that a good FS3 be made, wrecked like hell. But no. Again, this is just...flawed. There's nothing in the interview about FS 3 going non-existent.

or this one,

You could interpret the picture in many ways. Possibly it meant that I wished easter egg videos like that would exist.

 or

this one, which is just astonishing.

I can't see anything astonishing about some random HLP member posting his thoughts out.

Believe it or not, we are actually able to discern whether something is worthy of a good thrashing or not. It's what we do.

Well perhaps I don't think S-99's opinions one the matter were worth a good trashing. There. is. nothing. wrong. about. a. member. stating. his. opinion. on. an. issue.

[Nuclear1]

Just think hard, is this really worth getting all pissed off about?

Look, it's understandable how new people in the community might not be aware of the franchise's situation.  Search is still broken, and frankly, the good explanations are buried deep in General Freespace, rather than sticked where they belong.  Senior members, you know this because we've had the discussion hundreds of times.  We remember the FS3 flamewars.  The new guys, not so much.

And for God's sake, you guys can argue the merits and the reception of this interview without calling each other profoundly stupid or ignorant.  We can all discuss our points of view on the interview, no matter how ridiculous or far out our opinions, as long as we stay civil about it.  Battuta, the work you did to get this information is amazing, but there's absolutely no--ZERO--need to call people stupid.  You're a moderator and a respected member of the community, we expect better.

For everyone else, please, PLEASE read the damn topic before you post.  It'll save you a lot of grief in the long run.  The response shouldn't be this over the top in the future, but people will get annoyed if you don't read a few pages.

Can we put this behind us now and just have a decent debate? 

[Mars]

The impression I got was that  a lot people were half reading the interview and replying. The admins were more hard-core about it than usual, but really, it is kind of rude to reply to something, and know little or nothing of what the topic is about.

[Nuke]

you may have noticed my increasing rebellion index towards what i have defined as unnecessary intellectual wankery. i prefer to deal in fudge factors and rough approximations about things, instead of trying to decompile everything to the instruction set of the universe. it would wast time which i could otherwise use for more fruitful endeavors, like taking a crap, or lighting things on fire, and moderate trolling.

[Marcov]

And for God's sake, you guys can argue the merits and the reception of this interview without calling each other profoundly stupid or ignorant.  We can all discuss our points of view on the interview, no matter how ridiculous or far out our opinions, as long as we stay civil about it.  Battuta, the work you did to get this information is amazing, but there's absolutely no--ZERO--need to call people stupid.  You're a moderator and a respected member of the community, we expect better.

Summary: "Be polite."

For everyone else, please, PLEASE read the damn topic before you post.

Again, I don't think I've said anything that points to me not reading the interview carefully. As I said countless times, there's nothing about FS 3 never being released there, and it's just confusing on how that was the issue stressed by these moderators (no, I think it was specifically GB) at me. The_E's explanation is what I needed, not a nudge to read the interview again.

[Scotty]

There's no possible way for you to have read the interview and then posted what you did WITHOUT being a complete, utter moron.

That, or your reading comprehension falls somewhere below zero.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

The response shouldn't be this over the top in the future...

It was over the top? I've been tracking the thread since page two and I didn't notice. I thought the response was perfectly appropriate, actually.

[Mars]

Yeah . . . nothing seemed out of proportion in terms of response. Surprising maybe, but completely reasonable.

[Marcov]

There's no possible way for you to have read the interview and then posted what you did WITHOUT being a complete, utter moron.

That, or your reading comprehension falls somewhere below zero.

I never thought you would render someone who had said an undeniable truth a complete, utter moron.

[General Battuta]

There's no possible way for you to have read the interview and then posted what you did WITHOUT being a complete, utter moron.

That, or your reading comprehension falls somewhere below zero.