|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:14 pm
I'm interested in quickly and firmly establishing a policy on what kind of replies should be allowed and what shouldn't be.
What constitutes as a constructive but harsh?
What constitutes as a flame?
Where do you draw the line?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:27 pm
I've got a rather simple distinction that I use:
Harsh criticism may include insults, so long as the person in question has presented his/her information in accordance with forum rules somewhere in the thread (normally/usually/generally to the recepiant of this criticism). This is expected to be courtious, (again, n/u/g), but if this information is ignored or the poster has presented this information in detail in one or more other threads I believe it is within his/her rights to tear into them.
Flaming in my book, is not far removed from the everyday troll post. I see flaming as either 1. an attempt to discredit information through an ad hominem attack. or 2. a (greatly) insulting post with little or no relevance to the topic at hand.
So, my basic distinction is based on the information provided...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:31 pm
Jaaten Syric I've got a rather simle distinction that I use: Harsh criticism may include insults, so long as the person in question has presented his/her information in accordance with forum rules somewhere in the thread (normally/usually/generally to the recepiant of this criticism). This is expected to be courtious, (again, n/u/g), but if this information is ignored or the poster has presented this information in detail in one or more other threads I believe it is within his/her rights to tear into them. Flaming in my book, is not far removed from the everyday troll post. I see flaming as either 1. an attempt to discredit information through an ad hominem attack. or 2. a (greatly) insulting post with little or no relevance to the topic at hand. So, my basic distinction is based on the information provided... I agree with much of what Syric has said. Though, my defenition of a flame falls closer to his #2. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:36 pm
Hmmm... The definition of flaming. That's a tough issue. I've always seen it as a pushing limit, but since this is a debate guild flaming is somewhat a need.
Flaming should be fine as long as you don't attack to directly at the person stating a opinion, than the opinion it self. Example: "You are just a stupid head monkey, that knows nothing about the matter of such and such."
That kind of flaming is quite retarded in itself.
Flaming should also have a limit of how long you can do it. I see people that go on and on about the same mistakes and incorrect behavior and/or information. That's not cool. If you both think the other is wrong and the tensions are rising between you and the other person, you should be the better person and end the discussion to keep the peace.
Other than that flaming shouldn't really be to much of a problem if everyone is opened minded to other's beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:42 pm
What should be my action as captain, and of my crew when I appoint them to flamers?
I would assume something like a 2 or 3 strike rule, or if the flame was very blatant, prehaps zero-tollerance. I'm not sure how to approch this. I wish to give everyone the right of free speech and have no one be afraid of what to say here, no matter what their opinion may be. But at the same time I want to protect those who are saying them from needless harassment.
As you guys stated. "Your a stupid monkey-head." or something of a simple insulting nature, is quite obviously a flame.
But "Your idea is stupid, and has no evidence. You wasted your time posting it." Is this an opinion or an attack on the person?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:49 pm
MistressPaco What should be my action as captain, and of my crew when I appoint them to flamers? Gettin' into a murky field here... I'd say there should be no set practice, only a 'better judgement rule' Since flaming is (as this thread will show...) a subjective term, and the intensity of the attacks (Mod forbid they happen) will vary greatly. I'd leave it up to the crew to decide, but (in the case of banning offenses) allow for an appeal to you before the sentance is carried out. MistressPaco As you guys stated. "Your a stupid monkey-head." or something of a simple insulting nature, is quite obviously a flame. But "Your idea is stupid, and has no evidence. You wasted your time posting it." Is this an opinion or an attack on the person? Well, to answer your question; kinda' sorta'. If (in my opinion) the person saying "Your idea is stupid..." has clearly shown why he/she believes this (especially when objective evidence is brought in) then no. If its used as an ad hominem without backing, I'd count it as a moderate flame, and issue a warning to the poster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:55 pm
Jaaten Syric I've got a rather simple distinction that I use: Harsh criticism may include insults, so long as the person in question has presented his/her information in accordance with forum rules somewhere in the thread (normally/usually/generally to the recepiant of this criticism). This is expected to be courtious, (again, n/u/g), but if this information is ignored or the poster has presented this information in detail in one or more other threads I believe it is within his/her rights to tear into them. Flaming in my book, is not far removed from the everyday troll post. I see flaming as either 1. an attempt to discredit information through an ad hominem attack. or 2. a (greatly) insulting post with little or no relevance to the topic at hand. So, my basic distinction is based on the information provided... I tend to define it more as number 2, but beyond that a good description.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:59 pm
MistressPaco What should be my action as captain, and of my crew when I appoint them to flamers? I would assume something like a 2 or 3 strike rule, or if the flame was very blatant, prehaps zero-tollerance. I'm not sure how to approch this. I wish to give everyone the right of free speech and have no one be afraid of what to say here, no matter what their opinion may be. But at the same time I want to protect those who are saying them from needless harassment. As you guys stated. "Your a stupid monkey-head." or something of a simple insulting nature, is quite obviously a flame. But "Your idea is stupid, and has no evidence. You wasted your time posting it." Is this an opinion or an attack on the person? Generally what I do as a moderator in TRC is apply a three strikes rule, and delete the offending post and PM the poster about it, letting them know how many strikes they have left before they are levied a penalty of some kind (usually a banning) We are a little strict though and one system that works in one place doesn't always work everywhere else. You could also send a PM linked to the post with the requirement that the offending poster edit their post so it does not flame or harass, and if they don't do so you levy the strike against them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:00 am
Whatever you do MP, you should make sure there is some kind of documentation, like a Rules Announcement or something. That way people are forewarned and can't claim that they didn't know.
Be specific and concise in it and you should be pretty fine. Most people don't want to violate the rules, and once they know what they are will avoid doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:08 am
PoeticVengeance Jaaten Syric I've got a rather simple distinction that I use: Harsh criticism may include insults, so long as the person in question has presented his/her information in accordance with forum rules somewhere in the thread (normally/usually/generally to the recepiant of this criticism). This is expected to be courtious, (again, n/u/g), but if this information is ignored or the poster has presented this information in detail in one or more other threads I believe it is within his/her rights to tear into them. Flaming in my book, is not far removed from the everyday troll post. I see flaming as either 1. an attempt to discredit information through an ad hominem attack. or 2. a (greatly) insulting post with little or no relevance to the topic at hand. So, my basic distinction is based on the information provided... I tend to define it more as number 2, but beyond that a good description. I do too, they're numbered that way because the ad hominem one popped into my head first...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:11 am
I thought I'd have something to contribute here, but it turns out I don't. Just rubber-stamping what Jaaten Syric has said so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:12 am
DragonMan Ren I thought I'd have something to contribute here, but it turns out I don't. Just rubber-stamping what Jaaten Syric has said so far. YAY! I made a point right off the bat for once!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:15 am
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:16 am
Jaaten Syric PoeticVengeance Jaaten Syric I've got a rather simple distinction that I use: Harsh criticism may include insults, so long as the person in question has presented his/her information in accordance with forum rules somewhere in the thread (normally/usually/generally to the recepiant of this criticism). This is expected to be courtious, (again, n/u/g), but if this information is ignored or the poster has presented this information in detail in one or more other threads I believe it is within his/her rights to tear into them. Flaming in my book, is not far removed from the everyday troll post. I see flaming as either 1. an attempt to discredit information through an ad hominem attack. or 2. a (greatly) insulting post with little or no relevance to the topic at hand. So, my basic distinction is based on the information provided... I tend to define it more as number 2, but beyond that a good description. I do too, they're numbered that way because the ad hominem one popped into my head first... Fair enough. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:41 am
Just as a warning; I've been known to flame from time to time, but only when my viewpoints are harshly/unjustly criticized. I'll cut that down.
You respect my opinions, and I respect yours. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
