|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:20 am
I would agree with what pretty much everyone else here has said, that a flame is a personal insult meant to be taken that way .... 'you ________ ' but, saying 'your post was not clearly thought out', etc. ... criticism to the post or the way it was researched, is not flaming but constructive criticism.
I do like the 3 strike rules for normal flames but if someone is REALLY horrible and threatening, yeah .... I think they need to find another place to post.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:38 am
My, this thread became quite active in a night. n_n But I will say as everyone else has said, and that is a flame is a personal attack.
I would qualify something as simple as 'your post is stupid, and you're stupid' (the example being used) a flame, simply because of the level someone stooped to to say that someone was stupid. That is just plain childishness.
Now, here's the thing, don't say someone is 'stupid' explain why the belief they have is stupid. There's a clear difference in attacking the person and attacking their idea. And as long as we're able to tell the difference, then no action should be taken.
But when it becomes clear someone is just disagreeing because they don't like the person, that's another reason to take action. Yes, I have seen it happen before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:02 am
Anko Loves Dango My, this thread became quite active in a night. n_n But I will say as everyone else has said, and that is a flame is a personal attack. I disagree. I'd say its more a personal attack out of the blue. If for example I am debating Theory T with Person X if I show conclusively that T has been observed, cite numerous objective sources to confirm this, provide a valid definition of T and so on and get a response along the lines of "I do not believe T because it does not fit in my predetermined worldview, because of this I claim T is impossible" If no sources are given (or are repeatedly refuted) I'd feel pretty justified saying something along the lines of "Then you are ignorant of reality and your ill-informed, half-assed counter-'theories' are laughable." without thinking of it as a flame...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:23 am
Jaaten Syric Anko Loves Dango My, this thread became quite active in a night. n_n But I will say as everyone else has said, and that is a flame is a personal attack. I disagree. I'd say its more a personal attack out of the blue. If for example I am debating Theory T with Person X if I show conclusively that T has been observed, cite numerous objective sources to confirm this, provide a valid definition of T and so on and get a response along the lines of "I do not believe T because it does not fit in my predetermined worldview, because of this I claim T is impossible" If no sources are given (or are repeatedly refuted) I'd feel pretty justified saying something along the lines of "Then you are ignorant of reality and your ill-informed, half-assed counter-'theories' are laughable." without thinking of it as a flame... I believe that is harsh critism, but I would not call that a flame myself either. But does that many that any flame/insult that is not justified is therefor a flame? If I simply go 'I do not agree with you', and provide no evidence or explination as to why I don't, is that a form of flaming/trolling/insulting? -sidenote. I'd really like to learn the mechanics behind arguement so I can clearly state things as you do ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:33 pm
I would not, simply because I consider insults like "You're stupid" to be more or less spam. Flaming to me is insults the french knights a 'la Monty Python would hesitate to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:43 pm
Sword The Timestalker In my humble Ice Troll opinion, this is what I consider...
(Flaming) OMFG YOU ARE FREAKING STUPID M-FING a**, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
(Constructive(Yet fairly mean) Cristism)-First off, thats just stupid, just think ABOUT what you said, ___ doesn't go with that, ___ isn't even a word, and ___ is pure trash, only a idiot would believe that. I'm going to have to agree with yonder time traveler. As I've been known to rip apart someones arguement to the point of an insult. But I always support my insults, nothing like actually 'proving' someone is stupid. twisted domokun pirate pirate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:42 pm
Jaaten Syric If for example I am debating Theory T with Person X if I show conclusively that T has been observed, cite numerous objective sources to confirm this, provide a valid definition of T and so on and get a response along the lines of "I do not believe T because it does not fit in my predetermined worldview, because of this I claim T is impossible" If no sources are given (or are repeatedly refuted) I'd feel pretty justified saying something along the lines of "Then you are ignorant of reality and your ill-informed, half-assed counter-'theories' are laughable." without thinking of it as a flame... You put that well. Having been in that situation myself, I feel that such comments are justifed. It's important to remember that some of the borderline flames just slip out in the heat of argument and aren't meant to cause offense so much as convey a point. I think that the three determining factors of a flame should be: 1) Whether it was made with malicious intent. 2) Whether it was relevant to the discussion. 3) Whether the individual being flamed took offense. Unless someone is repeatedly making malicious personal attacks whilst avoiding the argument, I see no need to take action. However, I think you should trust your own judgement. It may be a good idea to offer warnings, ask the flamer to edit their post(s), or discuss the issue with them. I don't think that there should be any instant bannings, or that anybody should be banned without a chance to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
