It's been on various channels for years - right now I know it's on Sci-Fi, BBC America, and also one of the local PBS channels. I've only been watching it for a bit under 2 years myself, though I do love it and am glad I got into it (thanks Ush!)
And I just don't know if there'd be support enough to sustain it. And I'd think that if you want to prove there's enough support, stop saying there is and start showing there is. Because I also agree that the lack of activity in Trek-related threads is very much counter-intuitive to the claims that there's enough interest. Prove there's interest by getting those threads going and active. Stuff like that. It works a lot better than just saying "Yeah, we'll discuss it!"
Custom smilies don't mean anything, though, just that someone was bored and had access to Photoshop
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Looking for the manager
Moderator
We're trying but this thread got derailed. I know PR has been actively getting PMs in support. I'll look for the Star Treks threads and see what's happening there. Thanks for the idea.
i already said myself that i had no idea there were other star trek fans on kmc until very recently, and it was only then that i considered the idea of a star trek forum to be a worthwhile one... so through MSN, pm's and whatnot, i did some research, i asked people if they would post in a star trek forum... alot of people came back to me telling me that yes, they would...
there are several things star trek fans just can't discuss on kmc, so there are threads that i have wanted to make but can't because they would be out of place in anything but a star trek forum... yes, we could use the tv forum for the shows, the book forum for the books and whatnot, but what about everything else?
the technological advances that were inspired by star trek? the political and social commentary that is strangely accurate and ahead of its time? the writing and casting that goes into each venture? the various differences between the shows and the comics/movies/books? the comparisons between the ships, the technology, the characters, the organisations, the major events? all of these things can't be discussed because there is nowhere to put them bar a star trek forum...
i have no trouble talking about star trek shows in the tv forum, but you're talking about one thread per series, which is 4 or even 5? whats to stop them being merged or closed?
if raz turns around and says to build up traffic in pre-existing and new forums, then fair enough, thats what i'll do, but there is the problem that so many threads that could be made can't, because there is nowhere to put them...
when Lana and ush don't want a Star Trek Forum, it just makes the masses want one more, so in all fairness, we should be thanking them Paul, not argueing with them, and their fruitless arguements.
Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, UK
Co-Admin
Creshosk, this is not some silly vs. debate where you can try and use some faux intellectual words used in a nonsensical fashion and feel you have scored points or demonstrated something. Try and actually make a worthwhile contribution to the thread rather than just a pile of rubbish as you just did. Again, your negative, hostile approach is extremely unhelpful to the thread. If you do not have such a contribution then don't bother posting at all. Instead of just making such pointless, semantically empty commentary to entirely factual and relevant points such as "No-one is using Trek threads", try and actually engage and justify the idea that there is sufficient demand for a whole Trek forum. Else you are just trolling.
Again, talking about the possible broad scope that can be discussed... doesn't in any way prove that there is a huge demand to discuss it.
As for people saying they didn't know there was a Trek thread- why didn;t you start one?
I'm sorry, but I don't think this is an unreasonable view- if there was such a demand to talk about Trek, we would be seeing people already talking about Trek! As it is, even the thread about the only currently existing extant part of the franchise- the film- is barely getting any posts at all.
And so again... this case would be much better made if people actually started making/using Trek threads (example- in the TV area) that then see decent traffic.
Oh and yes; Doctor Who has been showing in the States for more the three decades. I watched it when I was over there in 1990. However, the point is that the Who thread is getting posts, which demonstrates that people want to talk about it, even though it has all the broad variety of potential of a franchise such as Trek, which is the (unusual) reason some feel Trek threads have done badly. If Who can have established a successful thread, why hasn't Trek? That is indicative of a lack of real demand.
Demand may well grow with the upcoming film but that's something better judged as time goes by. I feel it's also entirely possible that the interest will just relate to the release of the one film, which is not great justification for an entire area (for the record, I personally feel that 'Transformers' wasn't really in need of its own section either). A broader interest? From what is in the boards, I really don't think so.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Apr 28th, 2008 at 07:48 AM
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Even in a silly vs. debate (ridiculing the past-time of some people now, gee), you can't just throw out logical fallacies. If you can explain why it makes no sense then fair enough, it also shouldn't be to hard if you already know the name of the fallacy, but the words aren't a debate winner in any way.
I still think that there is no real reason not to try a Star Trek forum, nor a Doctor Who one for that matter. If they bomb, they bomb, but at least we tried and it might possibly be an excellent addition to KMC.
Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, UK
Co-Admin
Frankly I think it is pretty obvious how Creshosk has randomly applied terms there without any form of reasoning or sense behind them.
Meanwhile, what is it with this increasing personal commentary? Is this that people dare to say 'No' to Trek so they get singled out for attacks and snide comments? A lot of what I see in here is highly unimpressive, for sure.
This debate would be much more sensible and progressive if it kept to the facts at hand rather than simply having a go at people stating supported reasons as to why they do not think this is a good idea.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Apr 28th, 2008 at 11:03 AM
You argue against something when others are arguing fo it that makes it a debate.
Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: \di-ˈbāt, dē-\
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
: a contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
Also there is nothing faux intellectual about those words. Just because you don't understand them doesn't mean that they don't mean anything.
This is again the appelal to ridicule. It's a logical fallacy to simply say that the oppositions arguments are "silly" or "Ridiculous" or "laughable" or "rubbish"
At the risk of commiting the et tu fallacy I have to ask if your think yours is being productive to the thread. Mocking the other sides arguments without giving logical and reasonable explinations as to why comes off as poorly to us as my post did to you.
Calling your arguments factual and relevent doesn't make them so. Indeed they are quite fallicious.
Actually I personally believe that it is you who are trolling. Mocking the opposition in such a fashion as to call their arguments for it silly without explination is infalammatory commentray and falls under tradition definitions of trolling.
I'm not sure how this is relevant. You may feel like it is but it seems sort of non-sequiter to me. Showing the potential for what can be discussed does not in any way negative or positive effect the desire for a forum. In fact I've noted only two vocally opposing voices where as there are wquite of number of voices asking for it. Is there more desire for there to not be a forum as opposed for there to BE a forum?
Again I noticed that you have not addressed the problems that are involved with having a single thread for such a vast array of subjects. Its gets confusing and tedious to try and sift through other peoples discussions to get back to the topics that you personally perfer to discuss at the given moment. If you'd have spent any time in the vs forum trying to discuss a certain aspect of a fight you'd know how frustrating it was to have to sift through 20 pages of a discussion you're not involved in in order to try and discuss the aspect of the fight you yourself were interested in discussing.
I know you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't have said anything. However I feel that this veiw lacks the experience of having to deal with it.
This is again an appeal to ignorance. Simply because you haven't been seeing the discussions sdoesn't mean its not occuring. In fact the existence of this very thread does much to disprove this very line of arguing. There is a desire, otherwise why would this thread have been made?
There's not much to discuss aside from speculation, for a film that is not out yet.
So more than the single thread can be made without it being closed and us being told to use the thread that actually exists?
Usually on channels that people don't normally want to watch anyway. Locally its shown on channel 11, which out here is dedicated to PBS so has an association with children's television such as Seasame street and arthur and the magic school bus. And the local religon's own personal television station so we also get alot of LDS related programing. Its not until after 11 when they start broadcasting BBS television shows such as Doctor Who or Red Dwarf or Have You Been served... So while it has been braodcast its not exactly the most accessable show.
And in the states Star Trek is more popular, there are more references to it in other shows than there is with star trek. I've seen people playing RPGS related to trek. and even video games related to trek... Doctor who might be more popular over there and so outside influence is effecting your perception.
Actually its non-sequiter as was explained before some people get frustrated when there is more to be discussed with it all being jammed into the same thing. Doctor Who from what I've seen has less media to discuss.
Of course you don't you're arguments are illogical as my previous post pointed out. You are arguing from your own feelings. The feelings of two individuals whom there are rumors about, as opposed to a broader range of people that want it. IT does raise a question of conflict of interest.
There was nothing random about my naming the fallacies you were commiting. You commit a fallacy I pointed it out. Whenever you said that another person's point was silly, or rubbish I pointed out that you were commiting the appeal to ridicule fallacy. When you said you have'nt seen evidence I pointed out that that was the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. An appeal to ignorance as it were. Each name was cited against the fallacy that was commited.
As opposed to those whom are arguing for trek get threatened to be wanred for their disenting opinion? PErsonally that seems like an abuse of power to me.
This debate would be much more sensible and progressive if it kept to the facts at hand rather than simply having a go at people stating supported reasons as to why they think this is a good idea.
Guys, PLEASE, if you want to argue about this, please take it somewhere else... this isn't a 'should a star trek forum be made' thread, its a 'do you want a star trek forum to be made' one...
when i went to raz and asked about this, he said to go and get support, which i believe i have done...
this isn't a discussion thread, it was not what i intended at all...
you want a star trek forum? you vote yes, you say why, and you leave, simple...
you don't want one? you vote no, you say why, and you leave...
as far as i can see, the people who do want this forum heavily outnumber those who don't, and that's good enough for me...
if raz thinks otherwise, thats fair enough, and when it comes down to it, its his decision...
so please, stop treating this like its a discussion thread... its not about whether the forum SHOULD be made, its about whether people want one, simple as that...
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Also, could we stop with name dropping logical fallacies. They aren't intended as a win-all argument. To know the name of a logical fallacy is in no way better than explaining why someone's argument failed.
Also, like Raoul said it's not a debate thread, I am sure no one minds if some ideas get bounced off each other in an argumentative manner, but to make it a Superman vs. Gokuesque thread is ridiculous.
Huh, there's rumors about us, Ush. I wonder what those are?
I am curious how the position of "there is not a lot of actual discussion going on which makes it seems as though there is not enough interest to sustain a forum, based on what's happened before" is illogical and based on personal feelings. It's based on what's seen to be the case here multiple times. Personal feeling...that doesn't even make sense, considering that one of the people saying that it likely would not be a good idea is a big Star Trek fan himself!
And Cresh, you weren't threatened with a warning for having a dissenting opinion, but if you want to try and make yourself into a martyr, whatever. You were threatened with a warning because you took advantage of a chance to disagree with someone in order to get incredibly hostile and attack them. Which IS unacceptable and not at all an abuse of power. It's possible to discuss without hostility.
As for the Doctor Who issue - it is incredibly popular here in the US. Nearly as much so as Trek, and has been running far longer. And it has just as much material, many years of airing, a show setup that has it split into two series, and ten incarnations of the main character, as well as several spinoff shows...and yet we have no problem discussing in one thread. It's really not hard to keep track of one thread of conversation among several.
I still say that if you want to prove there's enough interest and discussion to justify a separate forum, to do as I suggested yesterday and get the pre-existing threads active. That would be the best way to do so, by showing instead of simply saying.
And Raoul, you really can't expect to have a thread about whether or not a forum should exist without people discussing why they think it should or shouldn't exist. Not to mention that anytime a forum gets asked for that gets discussed, why should this be any different?
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
I just haven't yet understood or heard any argument for why it should not be created. We don't know how much traffic it would generate.
I would like to understand how much work is really involved in creating, sustaining and possibly deleting one forum. That seems to be the only real reason I can think of why it shouldn't be tried. We all know that one forum won't clutter up the front page and the "then we have to make forums about anything" is certainly not a real reason as it doesn't follow.
Apr 28th, 2008 01:41 AM
says you'll be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Official pimp of Steverules 
