posted
I was just reading the new "Starship Registries" thread, and I'm probably not alone with the impression that the topic, like many others, has been discussed to death. But I think that even old Flarites don't really remember all the arguments and who said what (I know I don't), much less would a newbie find out without extensive usage of the "search" function. So let's start everything again...
But wait. The older members will remember our efforts in the last century to sort out arguments in a project Frank G dubbed "SWDAO". I have something similar in mind, only that we collect opinions from different members on the same topic. We could do that here. We would only need to set up (and have the discipline to follow) some rules. The statements should be restricted to a certain length (let's say 100 words, that's about the size of the Flare message input window), should be well thought-out (as opposed to a spontaneous forum post), and it should not be allowed to comment on other user's statements (if necessary only on "common belief" or such). And only one post per member. And we should try to keep out the off-topic stuff from the threads.
The result may be posted at appropriate places, in largely the same uncommented format as it appears here. If Frank is still interested, in some sort of a new SWDAO. Or at the sites of Flare members (you will never guess which particular site I have mind ). A concise collection of expert opinion may be a very important reference for future debates. We could even even include a vote count.
Any opinions on this? Ideas how to call it (and, like with the SWDAO, put the name in the thread title as a sign "Don't post off-topic!")? Volunteers to start a topic?
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
hm.. this is a damn good idea.. if the threads were clearly marked, and everyone signed off on their writings to be used on a page, i would be glad to include this on a SWDAO footnote-type portion of the galactopedia.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
1) NCCs! 2) Whether transporters kill people or not 3) How fast is warp x anyway? 4) How do phasers work, and are they STL or FTL or perhaps both? 5) The deeper meaning of shirt colors (this has sometimes been banned from S&T, but the new boss welcomes back the subject!) 6) What really counts for "first contact" (another technical thread that may not be pure S&T but is still subject to expert opinion and debate) 7) The governmental structure of empire X (we're getting farther and farther from starships, but this is also a subject reiterated ad nauseum) 8) ???
posted
There's plenty of points of contention to discuss, and finally settle. This is a very good idea.
Here's some.
1. Starship types 2. Where variants fit in 3. Registires 4. Antares class 5. Soyuz - why the Miranda had such longevity 6. Age of Oberth 7. Transwarp failure 8. Universal Translators 9. TOS and TNG Klingons, etc 10. A set of rules to constitute precise defintions of Canon, Non-canon and (Argh) Semi-canon.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
"...and it should not be allowed to comment on other user's statements..."
Why not? Seems to me like it would be better to have an actual discussion on the subject, then put that up on a page (possibly in an edited form to get rid of stuff that wanders off-topic).
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Add "are kitbashes really kitbashes", "what is the size of the Federation", "where have all the Ambassador class ships gone", "how big are Spacedocks really", "how many ships are in Starfleet", and "what's inside the Akira" in there as well.
Then of course, there are the rhetorical questions like "how did Voyager get all those shuttles", "where is the true nature of Starfleet", "where did the transphasic torpedoes and Bat-armor end up", and "is the Breen homeworld a frozen tundra or what?
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Surely "What's inside an Akira" is fairly rhetorical as well?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Bernd, there are a few problems with this approach:
1) A lot of people will have similar opinions, making certain statements redundant.
2) The format allows people to post opinions without peer review in terms of questioning their evidence, which is not good. It assumes that the various opinions are the best agreement one is going to get.
3) It encourages majority rule rather than victory of the best theory.
This is why I'm more in line with TSN's suggestion, though I'd expand it into a full-fledged, businesslike, moderated discussion. I'm convinced that a lot of the SWDAOs could have been resolved earlier with a kind of discussion that rarely takes place.
posted
TSN & Boris: I see the advantages of actually discussing something, but that's exactly what has been done here all the time. Someone who would want to make an archive of it, could simply dig up old threads. The information is already in there. Or open a new one about each topic, which would not really be that different.
But the actual problem would be that the statements are just not compatible as even the subject is subject to change, and removing irrelevant parts of a thread for a reader's convenience would be much like censorship. Who is to decide about that? That's why I have in mind to put the filter at the very beginning of the system.
Of course, it would be the best for an objective database if we could collect the votes/statements secretly. Maybe I could even find a script for that. But that would not involve Flare.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Although discussions have been taking place, I would disagree with the statement that a -serious- discussion has been taking place here, for precisely some of the reasons you mention -- off-topic posts and irrelevant parts. I'd also include to this incompatible views about the precedence of sources and unsubstantiated personal opinions.
The best example of a serious discussion/analysis I can think of is Curtis Saxton's Star Wars Technical Commentaries (www.theforce.net/swtc/). A while ago, someone from Flare complained about the seriousness of these pages. And yet, I know that Curtis views this strictly as a hobby, with the significant difference that the hobby does not imply a lack of serious research. He also takes the approach that laws of physics and laws of reality/normal behavior are canon until proven otherwise, which *kind of* makes sense in a show featuring humans and behavior as we know it.
For instance, how often do we research real-world registry systems instead of making up on-the-spot theories? People insist that registry numbers must follow this or that system, whereas one look at the real world reveals a myriad different registry systems and nobody getting hurt because of their inconsistencies. USN ships have hull numbers assigned at construction and kept forever, but other navies' ships have pennant numbers that are regularily changed with missions. In a related oddity, the fighter F-117A might've been labeled been F-19 or so, but it remained F-117A because (according to one story), F-117A was an arbitrary designation during flight tests.
Here, we tend to be the most serious about analyzing screencaps, behind-the-scenes research, and drawing accurate schematics. The other aspects are still kind of loose, and could be improved on by actually researching subjects one talks about. Would it make sense to discuss the B5 station without reading Gerard O'Neill, or some of the published papers on stations of exactly the same design? With a few changes, they could be a technical manual on the thing!
posted
Boris: It seems we disagree about the final product. My idea was to have a concise survey as a guide to the problems for ourselves and for Flare newbies, covering as many aspects and as many different opinions as possible, without the need to follow a thread or to read forth and back for cross-references. Of course, this can't be a complete discussion of the problem and it won't have a conclusion.
I understand your objections. But I doubt we could achieve more "seriousness" here (although I think that Flare is a comparably "serious" place considering that it's only a hobby). Since you have already mentioned Curtis Saxton, I think that something like that should be better done in a less "interactive" environment, not in a message board where people use to (and are supposed to) post spontaneous and often silly ideas, where they frequently deviate from topics, and where we have group dynamics that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion, but influence its course.
I can think of two possible compromises:
1. Open two threads: one for the discussion, and, some time later, one only for the final statements.
2. Allow testimonies and discussion in the same thread. Testimonies may be made at any time. They should be marked as such. They may be edited or replaced.
The first proposal sounds better to me.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But I think that even old Flarites don't really remember all the arguments and who said what (I know I don't), much less would a newbie find out without extensive usage of the "search" function. So let's start everything again... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I have something similar in mind, only that we collect opinions from different members on the same topic. We could do that here. We would only need to set up (and have the discipline to follow) some rules. The statements should be restricted to a certain length (let's say 100 words, that's about the size of the Flare message input window), should be well thought-out (as opposed to a spontaneous forum post), and it should not be allowed to comment on other user's statements (if necessary only on "common belief" or such). And only one post per member. And we should try to keep out the off-topic stuff from the threads.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). A concise collection of expert opinion may be a very important reference for future debates. We could even even include a vote count.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). The questions would have to be as well defined as the answers.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
