How do you like this "a flame for a flame" idea?
I love the idea! I think they should go ahead and make that a rule!
No, i don’t like the idea. (*a personal note from me: if you vote this one then you’d better pray that you’ll never get flamed!)
I’ve been thinking about it and it seems to me that it’s only fair that when someone is flamed he or she should at least have a chance to flame back. Thus, the title. An eye for an eye, a flame for a flame. I mean, isn’t it that the only fair thing? Someone flames you, you flame back so you’re even. Please maomaoman, will you and goose egg give it some thought? But we’ll see what most of the forumosans think anyway. Please vote people!
Yeah, but if someone flames you, and you’re entitled to flame them, they’ve just been flamed, which means they’re entitled to flame you, but then by this idea you’re not allowed to respond, which I’m guessing wasn’t quite the way you had it planned out.
No, the idea is that whoever flames you, you then can have 1 go at that person. After that you’re done. No more flaming. Neither party should have another word out of them. If the initial flamer decides to flame black then he or she will break the rules so subsequently will be warned.
Seriously, it’s soooooo hard not to say anything back to someone who decides to flame you. And then what? All he or she gets is a warning from the mods. How’s that going to make you feel better about the fact that you’ve just been flamed? Nope, it won’t, which is why we should have the right to take the matters in our own hands.
You can’t understand what I’m saying if you’ve never been flamed before.
This is precisely the reason that the difficult decision was made to remove flames from the public forums altogether, rather than letting flame wars fester.
Dave’s Girl, just think for a minute how difficult it would be to police the policy you suggest. We would get into a whole load of boring and time-consuming discussions along the lines of “He said this”, “But she said that first”.
If you feel that somebody has flamed you, PM the moderator of the relevant forum and, if they agree that it was a flame, they’ll remove it. Problem solved.
Dave’s Girl, just think for a minute how difficult it would be to police the policy you suggest. We would get into a whole load of boring and time-consuming discussions along the lines of “He said this”, “But she said that first”.[/quote]
Agreed, but it seems just as hard to determin what exactly is a flame. I’ve been told that I have a thin skin so I suppose I will feel flamed easily. Others, will take any insults with a grain of salt and respond with a joke. So, despite that the final word comes from the mods, the posters are the ones who can better determin what is flaming and what isn’t. If a moderator has a neutral position, his/her opinion should be listened to carefully.
If they agree? What if they do not agree? Would that not make the poster feel even worse like if the moderator actually agrees with the"flaming"response. Maybe it would be better to give a chance for one flaming post in return to a flame but as mentionned, hardly feasible. Then I guess that’s one of the purpose of pms. That also can be troubles. I myself got flamed by the same poster many times and everytime, it was more appropriate to respond via pm. In the end, that same poster accused me of stalking him via pms for simply replying to his posts(which should have been pms in the first place) I suppose I could have posted it but the rules clearly state that personnal conflicts should be adressed in pms.
So, a poster follows you around the boards and posts everywhere you do saying black when you say white but he’s not stalking you and if you reply via pm, you become the stalker.
Having the choice to pm the moderators however is good. I read before that if you send a pm to a mod about what another poster wrote, you can expect a harsh response or no response. I’m glad that was changed.
[quote=“hatch”]If they agree? What if they do not agree? Would that not make the poster feel even worse like if the moderator actually agrees with the"flaming"response. Maybe it would be better to give a chance for one flaming post in return to a flame but as mentionned, hardly feasible. Then I guess that’s one of the purpose of pms. That also can be troubles. I myself got flamed by the same poster many times and everytime, it was more appropriate to respond via pm. In the end, that same poster accused me of stalking him via pms for simply replying to his posts(which should have been pms in the first place) I suppose I could have posted it but the rules clearly states that personnal conflicts should be adressed in pms.
So, a poster follows you around the boards and posts everywhere you do saying black when you say white but he’s not stalking you and if you reply via pm, you become the stalker.
Having the choice to pm the moderators however is good. I read before that if you send a pm to a mod about what another poster wrote, you can expect a harsh response or no response. I’m glad that was changed.[/quote]
It should have ended with you reporting the flame to the mod in charge of the forum although you should be applauded for following rules and taking it into the pm’s.
Flames are almost always obvious and if it’s questionable whether or not it’s a flame, explaining your reasons for why it should be flamed will always be taken into consideration for the situation.
Dave’s Girl, how many arguments do you know of that end with each person saying one thing and then ending it right then and there? Exactly. Even if they were cut off after each person spoke their peace (piece? I never know ), there would still be hostile feelings smouldering that would potentially explode in other posts. Then there’s that whole thing of “getting in the last word”.
By cutting them out and locking them away, it stops the problem and allows threads to continue, squabble-free.
Yes, but the initial flame may not have actually been a flame (maybe the recipient was having a shitty day and saw it as such, for example) and then the “recipient” will outright flame the first person when no initial flame was present, which means the “recipient” is actually the perpetrator, which means the person who they assumed flamed them then has the right to flame back. It’s a nice idea, but damn near impossible to put into practice.
Not necessarily - they might get banned. It might be the final straw. If enough people complain about being flamed by the same user, that user’ll eventually get the flick. It might even by your complaint that tips the scales. And if you really have to say something back to them, just take it to PM - you can’t get banned for sending “flame” PMs. It might not be polite, it might not be right, but it’s better than taking it out in public.
There’s not a single person on TEH INTARWEBS that hasn’t been flamed at some point, unless they’re really new to it, and even that’s no guarantee, eh Hatch
I usually have a liberal attitude about what should be allowed. Personally, it doesn’t bother me to see a bit of flaming or personal attacks or both because I think it’s difficult to draw the line. What’s “flaming” to one may not be to another. However, it seems to me that rules against flaming and personal attacks are being applied a little unevenly. I will not be too detailed and I have no way of knowing if my own experience of late is indicative of any sort of trend in the moderating here, but I found a recent, friendly warning I was given a shade on the silly side. In trying to describe what led up to this warning, I’ll try to be as specific as possible without using the exact name of the other poster involved or the exact words exchanged. I don’t wish to take issue with the other poster, nor do I care to rekindle any previous arguments. It is the moderating that followed that I thought was a bit silly.
When referring to the words of another poster, I cited them as having been written by “some adjective + noun used to describe a person who has chosen a certain lifestyle.” Well, that’s obviously not exactly what I wrote. The adjective used was a subjective one of my choosing, though not one that would generally be considered derogatory. The noun was not subjective or insulting at all. The poster had labelled themselves as such. Said poster didn’t care for the adjective I had used to describe said poster, and a bit of minor flaming ensued. When I logged back on a few hours later, I found a friendly warning from one of our moderators.
As I see it, I had not changed the posters name. I had not capitalized “some adjective noun used to describe a person.” It seems obvious to me that the use of “some” before the noun phrase made it obvious that I was not using it as a name. Perhaps the use of “a” would have been better than the randomizing “some.” I didn’t change or distort the poster’s name, nor did I give the poster a new name.
I also don’t believe that I personally attacked the poster. If I had stated that “I feel that you are a (adjective+noun used to describe a person who has chosen a certain lifestyle)” or “In my opinion, you are being a (adjective+noun used to describe a person who has chosen a certain lifestyle),” I doubt that I would have been warned for personal attacks in spite of having basically said the same thing as when I wrote “some adjective + noun wrote.” It just seemed that our friendly moderator was being a bit too sensitive. I don’t recall having used any seriously derogatory language in my post, nor did I call the other poster something like a “liar.” If I had done, the moderator certainly didn’t point it out in his friendly warning.
After all of this, I just thought “oh well, newer, more comprehensive rules and perhaps a new approach to enforcing them.” Although I think it’s a bit silly to call one poster’s enjoyment of a little freedom within the quote brackets to describe what he thinks of another poster and their views, I can make my arguments just fine within the text of my message if this is indeed going to be the rule. And if a moderator feels that a certain style or approach to discussion amounts to “personal attacks,” I can adjust my style a bit even though I may feel that said moderator is leaning toward the ridiculous. Just so long as there are clear rules and that those rules are enforced fairly and consistently, I have no problem. Endless name calling or personal attacks (if they truly are attacks and are truly personal) makes for a shitty forum. I think flaming should be controlled, but within reason and with consistency.
But alas, I don’t think the rule on “personal attacks” is being enforced consistently. The same day I was warned, a poster referred to another poster as a “dickhead.” This took place in the same forum that is moderated by the person who sent me the friendly warning. The poster was actually another moderator. Perhaps hoping to maintain some sort of consistency, the post and others in the same thread were withdrawn from public view today. I wonder if said post was even cut out because of the “dickhead” comment. Actually, I think the poster who was labelled a dickhead truly is one and I didn’t see the need to flame it; most other posters in the thread would probably agree that the guy is a dickhead. The moderator apparently didn’t see the need to flame it for three days, either. I found that to be a bit of a double standard. I don’t recall using derogatory words like “dickhead” in the post that I was warned about, yet it was flamed within hours of being submitted. It seems to me that the moderating in one situation was knee-jerk and hypersensitive, while the moderating in the other situation was alright up until it was deleted today-that is, unless the string of posts to which it belonged were removed for other reasons. If postings like my own are going to be warnable, and eventually bannable offenses, then I fear this place will begin to feel like a Sunday school at a fundamentalist church rather than a forum where people can say what they think within reason. This will be made worse if different standards are followed by the moderators within just one forum.
I also think it’s a bit nutty to warn posters about “personal attacks” when the administration seems to be guilty of the same. I’m referring to the “Village Idiot” label assigned to certain posters. I don’t quite understand how that could not break any of the forum rules that some moderators seem zealous about enforcing. Just my two cents. I still enjoy posting here and think this is generally a well administered and moderated site. Hopefully what I perceive as inconsistent and overly sensitive moderating is just what I perceive and will not become the norm.
It’ll take years for Tetsuo to get back to you on that.
[quote=“914”]What’s a flame and why are we voting on it?
Looked it up on Merriam-Webster and it says: an angry, hostile, or abusive electronic message. So there. Yes, ‘flame’ can be a noun.
However, let me just stress the importance of implementing a rule like this: it will, IMHO, deter anyone from throwing flames if they know they will get flamed back, instead it will keep them focused on the messages they’ll try to get across and therefore ensure a more peaceful forumosa.
Let’s see JT, you belittled a person for their personal beliefs and don’t think that’s a personal attack? And you think, maybe, the reason for the time difference is that your comment may’ve stirred a complaint or two, whereas the dickhead comment, which even you say was aimed at someone who apparently deserves the title, didn’t? And if you can’t see the difference between a generic piece of name-calling and specifically belittling a person for their beliefs - which you did, by virtue of the name and the fact you quoted them specifically which left little doubt as to who you were referring to - then I’m not surprised you see that as inconsistent. And without knowing if the poster who posted the “dickhead” comment was warned, how do you even know they weren’t called up for in within hours? After all, it took a while for your comments, which you were warned about, to be removed too, didn’t it.
So both were removed, right? So what’s your problem? That the moderator was not sitting hunched over his computer 24/7 just waiting for something to do? Get a grip! Its volunteer work. We have jobs, shopping to do, dogs to walk, beer to drink, that kind of thing. We usually get around to things eventually. As is true in your case, evidently.
Sometimes I get sucked into this whole flame thing. It’s childish of me really. Sometimes I deserve it, sometimes I don’t, but why do I need to go to that level. Blow off some steam, show everyone that I can go to that level. Rant like I would never do in public. Get to say stuff that would get me smacked in the head if I said it at “Happy hour”. Everytime I flame I am left thinking, why did I do that. Recently a poster pulled me up on it, and, in many ways, he was right, but in others … well, I am not going to flame again today
I do like witty flames though, and I don’t think they should be counted as flames, although humour doesn’t translate well online, does it? Well, to some people.
Yeah, but he or she eventually got to it. The time issue isn’t a big deal for me. I’m glad the “dickhead” post you mentioned got noticed and put away - not all posts get read by the moderators. Next time, a PM to the moderator will ensure faster action.
That hasn’t been applied since the new rules went into effect. When was the last time you noticed the VI title? :s
I didn’t belittle the poster for personal beliefs. I criticized the poster for what I perceived as imposing their personal beliefs in the form of “advice” when it didn’t seem applicable. Did you read the exchange? If you did and you still have this take on it, then that’s fine. Just wondering.
I quite doubt that the person I had described in the quote box complained. That would be a bit hypocritical, seeing as how said poster quickly responded with rather derogatory language. Not that the poster’s language bothered me. Seeing as how it would be pretty bizarre for the other poster to have complained to a moderator and that there were no other people directly involved in any “personal attacks,” I don’t think it’s stretching too far to wonder whether the moderator just wiped the posts away on his own initiative. That’s fine, of course, so long as it’s done consistently. I don’t see it as consistent if one “personal attack” is removed within hours while another is left up for days. That is unless someone complains, which for the reasons I’ve given above, I doubt happened in this case.
Nope. As I stated above, I didn’t belittle anybody’s beliefs in that thread. If you’d like to describe in detail why you believe I did, you’re welcome to PM me. And just how is it “generic name-calling?” A guy was called a dickhead. Please explain to me just what “generic name-calling” is. I imagine that the only reason nothing was done for quite some time was because the poster who was labelled a “dickhead” a.) is not overly sensitive and did not complain to a moderator; and b.) made statements that most people who were posting in the thread disagreed with.
Well I’m certainly going be specific. Why would I label all people who live by such a lifestyle with the adjective I used? That would be sweeping and inaccurate.
Perhaps that poster was warned. However, I was warned within hours of making my post. By the time I had logged back on and found the friendly warning, my post and others in the thread had already been flamed. Regardless of when the poster of the “dickhead” comment was warned, his post was not removed for days. You seem to imply that I was warned about my comments long before they were flamed, as if I was given some sort of chance to edit them. I imagine that would be a waste of a moderator’s time and that certainly is not what happened on that day. The warning and the flaming all happened within just a few hours.
Well, such a PM would never come from me, even if such an insult were directed at me. I’m obviously a bit subjective when it comes to the content of my own post, but I don’t see anything so vile about the “dickhead” post alone that warranted flaming. I’m sure you will take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I don’t see what it is about either post that required such zealous moderating.
That’s rather strange, Maoman. I checked the profile of cmdjing just before submitting my post and saw that he still had the Village Idiot title. Strange indeed that it would have been changed just now.
Yes, which is precisely why I find it a bit strange that some moderators seem to be so zealous about stomping out the slightest sign of a flame.
BTW, I also voted no on the poll. I think the moderating in the two cases I described was excessive to the point of pre-empting any real flames and too broad in it’s interpretation of “personal attacks,” but I don’t think that the proposal in the poll is workable. However, based on my limited observations, I think the interpretation of “personal attacks” should be more narrow.
Sometimes I get sucked into this whole flame thing. It’s childish of me really. Sometimes I deserve it, sometimes I don’t, but why do I need to go to that level. Blow off some steam, show everyone that I can go to that level. Rant like I would never do in public. Get to say stuff that would get me smacked in the head if I said it at “Happy hour”. Everytime I flame I am left thinking, why did I do that. [/quote]
Well, think of it as an option that everyone can have when/if they get flamed. They can either A) ignore it or B) flame back. If you don’t want to stoop down to that level. That’s cool. But some of us would like to have that opportunity.
Humor can translate well if you’re funny and if it is intended to be funny and not offensive then anyone can easily discern the difference. Is there anyone here who can not to tell the difference between witty flames and down-right offensive flames? A lot of times, however, it might be an inside joke if you’re not aware of the personal history behind the posters. That is precisely why I’m proposing this new rule - [i][u]the flamees should be the ones who decides if he or she is flamed and not the moderators. And if he or she feels flamed then he or she should be given the right to flame back if so desire.[/i][/u]It’s about having that option. Yes, I would like to have that option when some self-righteous poster decides that he can quote me word for word and change my username Dave’s girl to “some sanctimonious vegetarian”. Tetsuo nailed it on the head.
Let me get this clear JT - you think calling someone sanctimonious because they delivered their ideas in a manner that doesn’t measure up to your standard is fine, whereas being called a dickhead isn’t?
I didn’t belittle the poster for personal beliefs. I criticized the poster for what I perceived as imposing their personal beliefs in the form of “advice” when it didn’t seem applicable. [/quote] I did NOT impose my views or personal beliefs on others. That was just that your perception. Well, you were wrong. I gave my advice because Bu Lai En’s post inspired me to do. I’m absolutely disgusted by your efforts of trying to justify your actions, Jive Turkey. You’re lowering my opinions of you - if it’s actually even possible - and others on the board by doing so.
Personally, I don’t find the dickhead comment offensive enough to be flamed. I thought it was just fine and well stated, but the rules about name calling and the way the moderators enforce them now seem clear .