[GEN] What is the Policy Regarding Flaming?

I always understood that members get full protection, while non-members do not. For example, there have been many discussions about whether George Lucas gets protection from flaming, and as far as I know, it's always been decided that he doesn't (until the day he registers, one would presume).

I thought this question might lead to different responses depending upon which mod/admin answered, so decided to bring it here and get various responses.

So, anyone?

 

As a general rule, the dividing line is user/non-user. However, that can be different depending on circumstances.

For example: for most of us, our mothers are not registered users here. If in a thread, a user were to start insulting another user's mother (or other close relative), I'd definitely consider that to be flaming and punishable. The same would hold in my opinions for other close people, such as wife, fiancé, close group of friends, etc.

Why? Because what purpose would there be to direct insults towards these people other than to tyr and irritate or upset the user that they are close to? Its net effect is that of a flame.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I always understood that members get full protection, while non-members do not. For example, there have been many discussions about whether George Lucas gets protection from flaming, and as far as I know, it's always been decided that he doesn't (until the day he registers, one would presume).

First off, since this is policy discussion, this is [Comms] as I understand it...

Second, your interpretation is correct. I argue, and argue, and argue, and argue, ... , and argue that it shouldn't matter. That flaming public figures who may not post here is sometimes as inflammatory as flaming those who do post here. But I'm usually shouted down. I know several of the people who agreed with me are sadly no longer mods (JG, DLM -- I miss you guys!) so I may be the only one left.

The example I tend to use is insulting Jesus. Because, to me, he's just some dude who doesn't post here. Also, how do we know that people here aren't related to famous people who might be insulted? (e.g. "Is it Cartman's mom?" "**** you, guys!" "Oh my G-d! It *IS* Cartman's mom!!!").

EDIT: Also, as clarification, the policy has also mutated into a bizarre happenstance of insulting NATIONS is okay, but insulting PEOPLE is not. So I can say "I hate France!" but not "I hate the French!" (as an example, mind you).

 

So if relatives are protected, someone can show uop, say they're George Leucas' third cousin, and then he would become protected?

How about comments such as, "some people are fat and I mock them."?

 

ALL flaming should be outlawed. One of these days George could visit this site and if he ever sees some of the stuff people print about him he could easily pull all those nice little icons and banners away without a second thought.

 

So if relatives are protected, someone can show uop, say they're George Leucas' third cousin, and then he would become protected?

Again, it depends. If the post is directed at George Lucas and calls him fat, then THat would fall more under the non-flaming side. However, if you told user X "Your daddy's so fat that he has his own zip code", and his father happens to be George Lucas, then that would be more along the lines of flaming.

The difference is in how much it is personalized.

The same would happen if you went into a thread with several (clearly stated) french people in it, and started saying things like "The French are all ugly, smelly, and bad with women." In the context of the discussion, that is designed to flame those users, even if not by name.

How about comments such as, "some people are fat and I mock them."?

Again, it depends on the context. If a user is talking about how they are fat and such a comment is made, then it it most likely a flame. As with most things, context is the key.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Sounds like it open to interpretation by each mod....and we have learned recently that they all interpret things in their own little way. There should be some clear cut policy.

 

I'm agreeing with Kimball up to this point reguarding flames, as they basically constitute anything that is directed at someone/something in a degrading, insulting, or purposely direspectful manner.

As for the remark on fat people, I don't see a problem with that specifically. However, if you're referring to the thread I recently locked in reguards to fat people and small clothing in JCC, it was because the thread had degenerated into nothing more than taking shots at fat people and posting images that were more than purposely degrading in nature.

 

I'm agreeing with Kimball up to this point reguarding flames, as they basically constitute anything that is directed at someone/something in a degrading, insulting, or purposely direspectful manner.

Even those people who aren't registered here?

 

If those remarks become too disrespectful and degrading to extent, then yes.

 

Even those people who aren't registered here?

Again, it depends on the context.

To make the rule absolute (non-registered users are fair game, no matter what) is to invite non-stop flaming of the form of the "Yo Mama" jokes. But what is the purpose of such comments? To insult, aggravate, and offend other users.

Don't lose sight of the principle here, which is to avoid the personal attacks. As I have said many times before, this is not a court of law, nor are we required to have a set of "laws" that spells out every lat item of what is allowed or not. Because of that, there are no loopholes here. It is the principle (spirit) behind the rule that is important, not the specific wording of it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't think anyone who's not registered here should receive protection from flaming.

If people related to someone are being flamed, or people not part of the JC are being flamed, I think it counts as much as trolling as anything else and can be dealt with accordingly.

 

If those remarks become too disrespectful and degrading to extent, then yes.

So wait, if I were to post pictures of people who are mordibly obese and start mocking them, you'd actually ban me for that when it doesn't break any rules? I was always told there's nothing against the rules about being a jerk. Has that changed?

Amazing.

 

KK, you're saying that if it gets too personalised and hurts members feeling it shouldn't be allowed. Is that right?

 

The rules are ambiguous.....how can it be enforced accordingly?

 

If people related to someone are being flamed, or people not part of the JC are being flamed, I think it counts as much as trolling as anything else and can be dealt with accordingly.

It contains elements of each.

One thing I will mention is that no matter which you call it, it is still against the rules. If a mod edits a post insulting someone's mother, and calls it "flaming", then bans the users, complaining that you didn't flame and should be unbanned is incorrect. Whether you call it flaming or trolling, it was still a violation of the rules. Saying that the user should be unbanned because they didn't flame would be violating the spirit of the rules.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Whether you call it flaming or trolling, it was still a violation of the rules. Saying that the user should be unbanned because they didn't flame would be violating the spirit of the rules.

And just whose definition of the "spirit" of the rules are you following?

Whose definition of the rules are being broken?

Look beyond just your definitions, KK.

I thought it was agreed on by the majority of the MS that flaming people who aren't registered is not against the rules. No loopholes, nothing like that. Just plain fact.

 

I think its ok to tease and joke with eachother, but sometimes things are said that are over the top and not appropriatte. I guess I dont see the point in logging into the JCC just to annoy people and try and get under their skin by making vulgar comments. I see so many of these and have asked a few users and many of the answers are they love to annoy everyone and enjoy the banter.

 

I thought it was agreed on by the majority of the MS that flaming people who aren't registered is not against the rules. No loopholes, nothing like that. Just plain fact.

And, again, I always say something like:

"Jesus was a jacktard who screwed up most of the world with his crazy ideas."

Now, according to the "rules" -- that's okay. I'm not insulting anyone here, I'm not insulting anyone registered and I'm not insulting any group that any person might belong to here.

Just insulting some dude.

And yet, strangely, that's always deemed as "not okay"...

 

So wait, if I were to post pictures of people who are mordibly obese and start mocking them, you'd actually ban me for that when it doesn't break any rules? I was always told there's nothing against the rules about being a jerk. Has that changed?


I think there is a fine line between mocking someone, which is all in good fun, but the line can be crossed when those remarks become downright derogatory, overly offensive, and begin to take a toll on the quality of the thread/forum itself.

 

So, I was hoping this would be a clear cut issue, but it isn't.

Is the bottom line basically that this is all completely ambiguous? It's different to what I've been told before.

The argument that if it's family it isn't okay, but anyone else is okay is a load of rubbish. Some people have got highly offended by comments about George et al.

 

I think posting picture of obese people and making fun of them or even GL is ok. As long as they are not pictures of a families relative or a user. I feel we can make fun of an over weight person in a picture, but is a user says they are over weight and I turn around and call them a fat pig blah blah blah, that I think is wrong. People can get offended by a multitude of things, and that will always be to difficult to administer on the JCC, but once it becomes very personal that is when its crossing the line.

 

but once it becomes very personal that is when its crossing the line

What's "personal?"

Someone might feel very patriotic and strongly about their country.

Or about Lucas.

Or about their supposed messiah.

 

Why should relatives get special treatment?

 

I've always felt Lucas should be the one exception to the "you can flame public figures" rule.

If it wasn't for him, not only would this site not exist, Star Wars wouldn't exist. It's only through the goodness of his (and his lawyers') heart that this place is even here. If I were him, and saw some of the stuff said about him, I'd pull the plug on this place so fast, no one would know what the hell happened. It's entirely within his right to do so.

And it's kind of sad that it's not against the rules to be a jerk....but some people seem to enjoy doing that, so whatever.