Panda just informed me that I may have flamed him again.

I find it really difficult to understand when something stops being a legitimate gripe and starts being a flame.

I mean, obviously "you Arsehole" is a flame. But does that mean we can't accuse others of being provocative and trying to outrage?
Or can we tell someone his argumentation is stupid and not worthy of an adult person?

Can I get a few borderline examples to illustrated what is and what isn't a flame?

Sorry to be a bother, It would just really help.

Thanks

Pointing out that a poster is calling for attention is not a flame, it's actually a fairly neutral remark. Which some people might interpret negatively.

"You attention-whore!" might be flame, or affectionate joshing, depending on context.

Calling someone a jackass or a scumbag is a flame. Which Panda thinks is okay, as long as you think the other guy started it first.

i have the sense that some people are just more sensitive than others. like you say, somethings seem pretty innocent and the other person starts going on about being flamed. sheesh. get over it. if i flame you, you'll know about it!

Lol - well, it's not just about flaming or not flaming. There's lots of inbetween things like snide remarks or open attacks on the content of what the other person is saying.

And since flaming outside Flamewars is an offense for which you get banned if you do it repeatedly I'd just really really like to know when something starts being a flame according to the rules of this Board.

I mean, for all I know it's too late already and I'll be banned - kismeth - , but it would still be good to know.

don't worry, we'll take you in and make you feel welcome at the WGB, and ours is a much better board anyway :P

Agitator!!!

(oh wait, was that a flame?)

no, it was a compliment

Well, apparently, according to Panda everything he doesn't like hearing can be a flame...

This is my sort of understanding:

Outright insults are a flame.
Nasty remarks, low blows and stuff like that, can be a flame, and I they'll be worthy of, at least, a minor warning from a Mod (I think, some sort of 'Be careful, boys). If this went on after that, I think it'd be considered a flame and get a formal warning.

In the past, some debates have become agitated and some otherwise "normal" posters have insulted others -but they haven't been formally warned, just asked to tone it down. The criteria wa smore or less that these people were regulars, they were otherwise respectful, the topic was controversial... I think nowadays such considerations don't apply and anyone can get a warning if you start calling people names.

Oh, and in Flame Wars, although insults are "allowed", you can still get banned if you sink to very low levels.

But, basically, it's fuzzy (even with the perosnal insults, coz I don't know if you'd get a strike warning if you just called someone a bitch, for example), which is why it's good to have the mods to take care of that.

quote:

Originally posted by cloverheart:
Well, apparently, according to Panda everything he doesn't like hearing can be a flame...

Especially when he starts some baiting or trollish behaviour and then accuses anyone that responds as flaming. It's just that typical fundy behaviour, scream "I'm offended" really loudly at anything you don't agree with, so that their BS gets overlooked and they make the other person look as if they have said or done something outrageous. If someone is going to post trollish topics, they better be able to take the backlash without this type of behaviour.


I wouldn't take much heed in what he accuses you of, but, I agree, it would be nice to hear from the mods what they consider real flames in World's End, other than obvious insults or personal attacks.

What i personally keep to*, is that remarks about someones *behaviour* are not a flame, remarks about someones *person* are.
For instance "you are coming off as if you're deliberately misunderstanding" is not a flame. "You're stupid" is.

(* that's just my personal choice. By no means is this a mod-approved tactic.)

That's a good reference point, Runky, except I wouldn't consider "YOu're stupid" a flame. An insult, yes, but it doesn't really qualify as a flame, it's too mild (I think).

I'm sure "Runky" must be a flame. I mean, come on.

Runky? MODS!

*giggles*
@Clover: It'll do as an example. I could probably come up with some more colourful language, but i'll save that for when it's appropriate

quote:

Originally posted by Punkyfins:
Runky? MODS!

Damm, you got me!

quote:

Originally posted by Babylon the Bride:
Panda just informed me that I may have flamed him again.

I find it really difficult to understand when something stops being a legitimate gripe and starts being a flame.

I mean, obviously "you Arsehole" is a flame. But does that mean we can't accuse others of being provocative and trying to outrage?
Or can we tell someone his argumentation is stupid and not worthy of an adult person?

Can I get a few borderline examples to illustrated what is and what isn't a flame?

Sorry to be a bother, It would just really help.

Thanks

I suspect you aren't yet familiar with www.dictionary.com. It's a very useful site.

quote:

Computer Slang. an angry, critical, or disparaging electronic message, as an e-mail or newsgroup post.

No, I really didn't know it. Thank you. (I usually use my dictionary at home.)

As for "angry" and "critical" those are really broad terms and part of why I'm not sure of what it means in the concrete. I mean, if every angry or critical post (or even disparaging post) were a flame, there'd be a lot less posters.

I didn't mean this to be a cutesy or fake stupid post, I really am looking for more guidance.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with www.google.com, either? Again, a very useful site.

From www.netlingo.com:

quote:

flame:
To send nasty or insulting messages via e-mail or to post them on a newsgroup. This is usually done in response to someone having broken the rules of netiquette. A "flamer" is someone who sends these messages.

quote:

flame war:
When an online discussion degenerates into a series of personal attacks against the debaters, rather than a discussion of their opinions and positions. A heated exchange.

I see.

Babs, you haven't flamed Panda. Don't worry.

And where does condescension from the mods fit in? I think the question that BtB was asking is a very valid one. One that a dictionary definition does really answer. It would be interesting to know where OUR moderators draw the line. Panda is still among us even though he consistently starts trollish topics, and makes flame baiting comments. I don't care one bit that he's still around, even if he pushes my buttons, but since his behaviour is tolerated, I think it would be interesting to have some idea of what our moderators are basing their moderation on. I don't see how that is such an offensive question. If you are fed up with these topics, then don't feel forced to answer, Amy. There are two other mods here, and I think it would be interesting to have some real feedback.