Constitution of Sci Debating

This is here for a guidline as to how sci-fi debates should continue. They're not rules of any binding sort and are simply designed to allow for certain disagreements how to handle debats and canon policies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anything and everything works and no blow is too low.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

yah that just about sums up our debates in here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is serious. Wars vs Trek was almost closeddown because of our argueing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prehaps sticking on to the Forum rules and regulations rigorously and harsher "disciplinary actions" as I like to call them for those that bend the rules or break them.

 

I think we should just get a moderator...

 

We do have one.

 

Alright, here we go:


1) we follow the continuity of the franchise in question. Lesser materials are good for theoretical ideas, but they're not set in stone and are of course, overridden by either higher canon or true canon unless reasonable argument provides otherwise.

2) Intention > Special Effects Budget. In many fiction series, particularly older ones such as Doctor Who, Star Wars, and Star Trek, the franchises suffered from lack of special effect budgets and technology. Even DS9 didn't use CGI until later in the series and that was mostly for Founders or starship fodder. Therefore, using a literal observation of special effects that are clearly either cheap or primitive is blatantly dishonest when the intention is clear. This doesn't mean that someone should drag something out of porportion, like a hyperbolish statement or one that is delibertly vague. It is simply to avoid the reliance upon poor or cheap special effects.

3) Physics and Technobabble. Basically, all sci-fi use this to get past physics. In most cases, it's readibly agreeable that a Galaxy class starship can move at warp speeds or that a TARDIS can travel through the time vortex. However, in some cases, logic breaks down when the series attempts to uses real life physics and fails to represent them accurately. This may due to numerous reasons, often in which case is writer's ignorance of failure in special effects. Therefore, physics should always come second to technobabble unless there is a known real-life physical person/place/thing/theory that is being used. In this case, we should assume that the writer made a mistake somewhere. However, this is not iron-clad in either case. Some technobabble is incredibly silly and some physics are clearly not working or are somehow bypassed in some instances.

Example 1: UFP ships use antimatter. Therefore, although we could assume more effective reactions, it shouldn't be too more efficient than matter-antimatter annhilation.
Example 2: A Star Destroyer is lifting up from a planet. Logically, the power required to do so would burn off a considerable sum of land from the planet. Therefore, it's likely that the Star Destroyer is cheating physics somehow, possibly through anti-gravity or mass reduction technology.

4) Site your sources and quote them when possible. Always site your source for your claims, even if you take the argument from another site. Be Warned: you will be expected to defend the theory, not the original poster or source. Do not expect your opponent to go reading through thirty pages of postings in order to learn the entirety if the argument. Large sources are fine, but don't bog down the debate by posting anything more than is needed.

5) Treat your opponent with respect. We all have biased opinions on who would win. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them a trektard or a wartard. Or any sort of tard. One can understand that in the line of debate, insults will pop up, but they shouldn't overshadow the argument and it shouldn't turn into a poo flinging contest. This isn't a childhood argument of who's dad can beat who. It is an intelligent debate.

 

You want the man to run us?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We need rules, regulations, guidelines if you will. Now these whatever-you-call-ems are mainly for Wars vs Trek but I think they could be applied elsewhere. Maybe even other websites? :shrug:

 

These aren't rules. They're simply guidlines on how one should approach the debate. So that newcomers know of how we do things. It doesn't make them immortal or unapproachable. It simply sets some common ground.

 

Ah ok. My issue is this: What if we settle something, such as we reach an agreement that a Borg could defeat a Clone trooper, should we create (or use this) a place to put things we have already solved so that some noob doesn't bring it up again and/or you don't have to look through the 1000 pages?

 

Hmmm, no, I don't like the idea of individual debates being finalized. It would be no better than SDN then. However, we should post a thread where we can link to posts where we have compared the two universes to allow them to gain a sort of understanding of where we are.

So if for example, someone wanted to talk about ICS calcs, we'd point them to the SW Starship thread or something and they could look at our issues with ICS. That way, if they have an issue, we can all be on the same page.

 

That sounds reasonable enough.

 

A major issue to be addressed is time-travel. Should it only be allowed within the universes that have used it or should it bridge to other universes?

 

Shall we use the agenda I put forward?

 

I PM'd Tristan about this idea, but we'll have to wait for a response. As of yet it would be an unofficial list of sci-debate criteria.

 

I believe there should be an agreed upon era for each universe. Everything vs Everything is a bit too messy. However, we could segment it into correlate eras for each universe...

 

6. Third party sites can be used but the burden of proof is not reliant on the site's credibility; instead, you are expected to understand the proof you present and must be able to defend it yourself. What has been agreed upon and considered fact on another site does not mean it is law here. Likewise, degrading proof based on the source doesn't refute it; target the evidence, not the source.

7. There should be a Fallacy thread that allows debaters to use as a resource against faulty argumentation. I would hope that it would be sticky-ed.

8. The debate should be segmented into correlate eras in order to facilitate a simpler debate. One can only debate from the beginning of the era they are supporting, and past eras can be called upon if feasible to do so.

9. The setting should be maintained as strictly as possible. Romulans will conduct themselves as Romulans would and The Republic would conduct itself the way it would normally. The Federation wouldn't go world burning unless put in a very tight corner where survival is at stake.

 

It should be based upon how they use the technology. For example, the 24th century UFP doesn't use time travel, despite the fact that they can travel through time using the slingshot method. The reasoning is due to the fact that they don't want to dirty the time stream and is often refered to as the Temporal Prime Directive.

The Time Lords however, do use time travel and often--nor are they shy about putting an entire species in a time loop. The 31st UFP however, despite their advanced technology in tine travel, are not likely to use it against a power that does not have it--at least not directly. You can expect that they might travel back through their past to learn things or study them--perhaps devise a method to either end the war peacefully or learn their weak points. They might use torpedoes that are not in phase with our time, allowing them to bypass shields, but that's it.

There can however, be special instances of who can do what, which would be directed in the OP itself.

That should be the OPer's responsibility. However, for the ST vs. SW thread, I would say the Alpha-Beta powers against the Empire, since it's usually the UFP vs the Empire that people think about and the Romulans and the Klingons are their allies.

I would also suggest that we have links to sites of well known debates.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Again, OPer's responsibility. For the main thread though, we should set it in the 24th century.

Correct. Might I also suggest that we also give each group the assumption of general competence, save for if shown otherwise? For example, we know that Jar-Jar is a bumbling idiot, but we should consider that most Storm Troopers are not and have reasonable accuracy. Same with ST, SG, 40k, and so forth. They'll still follow their traditional methods of combat, but we can assume that if it's obvious they need to upgrade weapons or use weapons they don't use often, but are capable of doing so, then we should presume they're smart enough to figure it out.

However, again, characters who are visually incompetent should still be treated as such.

 

I have one: Don't ignorantly say things just because you assume that your opposition is weaker, for it makes you look like an ass.

 

I believe that this has been covered upon by the citation of sources and respect for your oppenents. But you are correct.

I do also believe that we may also expand/include a guide of conduct for debators within this constitution or in a seperate document.