Jeez, I go to bed and then blow half the day sleeping in and reading a book (Glory Season by Dr. David Brin, an enthralling sci-fi adventure that I strongly recommend, even though I'm only a little over half-way through it), and look what happens...
Since Miles Tails Prowers hasn't contributed anything substantial to the discussion beyond insisting that a force that is described in a quantifiable manner in canon materials cannot be quantified, and that this force and the IoM would beat Trek hands-down just because he says so, making a bare assertion fallacy, arguing from his own authority (which is supposedly unassailable, and the only available authority), and perpetrating strawman and ad hominem attacks against other posters and their knowledge of the 40K lore, even when those other posters have noted their own significant experience with 40K, I move that his posts and arguments be struck from consideration in this discussion until such time as he can bring forward actual arguments and evidence according to the general rules of civilized debate and discussion.
Unsupported claims of capabilities are not acceptable. References to demonstrated examples of capabilities are required. This can be a reference to a technical yield specification or an example of actual use, but SOME support for a claim must be provided.
Claims that a certain force is unquantifiable, and is therefore an instant-win are not acceptable. An unquantifiable force cannot be quantified in any way, including demonstrated capabilities. Demonstrated capabilities CAN be quantified, and so if a force cannot be quantified, it cannot have demonstrated any abilities, and is therefore irrelevant. The warp and psyker capabilities HAVE been demonstrated (and described in lore in quantifiable terms), and so they can be quantified, if not necessarily fully understood.
Furthermore, Chaos and the Warp demonstrate consistent, ordered patterns - they often break with the typical patterns of 'normal' physics, but they are not absolutely pure random chaos. There are persistent entities, lifeforms comprised of persistent patterns of matter and/or energy and/or space, with persistent personalities and character traits. The Chaos gods, for example, have clear and persistent, if not always logical character traits, and these persist over time. If Chaos is as unquantifiable and utterly random and ununderstandable as is claimed, then these entities would not be able to exist in a persistent form, let alone manipulate the forces of their own surroundings in any reliable manner.
At the very least, Chaos and the Warp is as understandable as Quantum Mechanics, which really IS pure random chaos (as in really really - get small enough and everything is just random chance and probabilities), and even WE have been able to piece together a half-decent understanding of Quantum Mechanics today.
Miles Tails Prower, on 24 December 2011 - 12:59 PM, said:
Second off. Why shouldn't I gather my allies? If you need assistance in the issue of something, are you going to go to complete strangers with no knowledge of the topic? I'm sure that anyone who reads the thread will be able to tell the difference between legit posts and random posts.
The thing is, Miles, when people are truly interested in debating, and not just simply trying to win an argument they decided the conclusion to long before even entering the discussion, they don't go running to a decidedly-biased forum that serves as a hub for fans of a particular side and ask for help in winning a debate. People truly interested in debating, and determining actual facts and reality as best we are able, go out and
look things up for themselves. Help may well be enlisted, but the core goal is to examine facts and data, crunch numbers, and run comparisons and analysis to try and determine how things actually compare.
When Catamount and I approach this debate, we pull up the best reference sources we have on 40K canon available to us, and pour over them for usable figures of stated or demonstrated capabilities, or limitations, and then compare them to what we know of Trek's capabilities and limitations, often with some double-checking of Trek canon materials, since we don't have eidetic memories (well, I don't; Catamount does, but it's selective). We then crunch the available numbers to get usable figures (if necessary, some are usable right away), and then compare the resulting figures of performance and capabilities and limitations.
Our conclusions are that Trek comes out on top in most areas, hands-down. Now, if you can provide evidence that shows otherwise, we will be more than happy to work it into our analysis and see how it influences the results, and we would willingly accept those results if they concluded that 40K had the advantage (that's how things are done scientifically),
but you have done no such thing. You have not provided one shred of verifiable evidence beyond your own claimed word, and your argument from your own, supposedly-insuperable authority. If you can provide evidence, in the form of demonstrated performance or capabilities, stated or listed capabilities or specifications, then we will incorporate those into our analysis. We will not just take you at your word alone, ESPECIALLY when you deride the knowledge of others who also make claim to knowledge and experience in the 40K universe, ESPECIALLY when you deride others for actually going out to research facts and figures, and ESPECIALLY when you run crying to a fanbase for help in waging an internet war.
Until you can actually provide stated or demonstrated figures of performance, capabilities or specifications, things that can be verified by others, then you are not providing any substantive contribution to this discussion, and it is not worth our time to give you any of our attention.
Miles Tails Prower, on 24 December 2011 - 12:59 PM, said:
First off the Hugh Fox is neutral to both sides so that is just that - neutral.
The entire Fed counter argument is on baseless numbers simulated on cursory scans of wiki numbers. I brought in someone with the technical manual who wrote an essay on the issue. I don't think it takes a scientist to figure out who is more credible.
The problem is that the analysis is rather pathetic. The only substantive and relevant factor covered in the debate is the size of the IoM vs the Federation (which is admittedly superior, though Mr. Fox gets the Federation size wrong). Mr. Fox concludes that the IoM is superior to the Federation because the IoM has many more types of handguns and rifles and ground guns than the Federation. That is absolutely RIDICULOUS because it doesn't matter whether the Federation has thirty types of handgun or one, what matters is HOW THOSE HANDGUNS PERFORM. Mr. Fox never once touches on the actual performance of the weapons examined, the only critical factor in such an analysis. The same is for shipboard weapons. Mr. Fox does compare size of the IoM ships, and makes the conclusion that they are superior by size alone. This is a more forgivable mistake, because greater size very often does equate to greater power. However, it once again fails to examine the actual capabilities of said ships. As Catamount and I demonstrated, known weapons output figures for the Leman Russ can be scaled up to get approximate weapons yield figures for IoM capital ships. Even estimating generously in the IoM's favor, the total output of a Retribution class Battleship's full weapons compliment pales in comparison to the energy yield of a single photon torpedo. IoM ships are much larger, yes, but Trek ships still throw around far greater firepower yields, like candy (as Yoda said, "Judge me by my size, do you? Hee hee hee."). Mr. Fox also utterly fails to compare weapons range and targeting capabilities, ship speed and maneuverability, and other critical factors like Trek's ability to engage targets from FTL, all absolutely enormous factors in any analysis of combat capabilities.
In short, Mr. Fox's credentials may be respectable, but his analysis is absolutely crap. Again the Appeal to Authority fallacy: it doesn't matter how knowledgeable and reputable a person is if they cannot back up their statements, or even present real, credible analyses.
To reiterate, I move that, until Miles Tails Prower can provide substantive evidence and support for his claims beyond bare assertion fallacies, cries of help to biased sources, and appeals to unreliable authorities, or in otherwords until MTP can provide a substantive contribution to the discussion at hand, his posts be stricken from consideration for the purposes of the discussion at large.
13
