[GEN] What is the Policy Regarding Flaming?

The way I classify flaming is if it's insulting, offensive, vulgar, malicious intent etc then it constitutes a flame. I always allow for humorous jabs between friends and usually allow most humor just as long as innuendo isn't too strong or if it isn't over the top. In that case I would PM the user and ask that they tone it down a bit. Another factor to consider is how the user to whom the remark is directed to will react and interpret it. If most cases, someone you're familiar with will know when you're joking but other, unfamiliar users may misinterpret something and complain. In that case I would send the user a PM telling them to ease off since the other person found it offensive, etc or maybe they should be a bit more clear on the nature of their remarks.

 

^ Dash's hit the nail on this head on how I feel.



"What's "personal?"

Someone might feel very patriotic and strongly about their country.

Or about Lucas. "


IMO, I could care less if every user hated every American and talk crap about the USA. It wouldnt be personal to ME, just a political conversation. Same for GL, I could care less honestly if everyone made jabs towards his kids. I dont know them and I I'm sure none of us do or ever will. I think its personal when someone mentions porking the crap out of the woman I sleep next to everynight though. Thats when its getting personal. Everyone makes mama jokes and some are just teasing, but some comments are just over the top.

 

IMO, I could care less if every user hated every American and talk crap about the USA. It wouldnt be personal to ME, just a political conversation.

And there's the rub: everyone else isn't you.

 

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.

But it's not mocking another user. It's mocking some completely anonymous person whose picture is on the internet. Those people are not protected by the TOS, so to lock a thread or warn or ban a user for making fun of fat people doesn't make any sense.

Amazing.

 

K3PO, you just highlighted why you shouldn't ever be making policy, because it's all about what you want, not neccessarily what's good for the boards.

 

But it's not mocking another user. It's mocking some completely anonymous person whose picture is on the internet. Those people are not protected by the TOS, so to lock a thread or warn or ban a user for making fun of fat people doesn't make any sense.

I understand where you're coming from, but by mocking those people (Obese ones in this case) you can easily offend anyone who is in the minority to whom the mocking is directed. Mocking is good and I think everyone enjoys it at times, all I'm saying is that after a certain point it becomes derogatory and insulting after to the general atmosphere, even to those people whom the mocking isn't directed. It would be like being at a baseball game for lack of a better example. The guy next to you disagrees with a call that the umpire made and begins swearing excessively and this carries on for several minutes. The profanity may have been acceptable or tolerable after a word or two, but at some point as the swearing continues it's going to offend the people around him and inable them to enjoy the baseball game.

 

Thats why I capped ME. I understand others might get upset. Its what I might find offensive. We are all diffrent and sometimes when we want to make a smart arse comment towards someone, we really should step back for a sec. I just saw on one of the threads on the JCC someone talk about how many times they slept with someones mom. I can read into it that they were totally joking, but other times you can totally read into it the manner it was typed that it was a flame. depends in the manner it was in.

 

"K3PO, you just highlighted why you shouldn't ever be making policy, because it's all about what you want, not neccessarily what's good for the boards. "

Hey, I'm not an admin or mod nor want to be or pretend to be. I'm an admin on a popular game server and I know how hard these guys work and how much balance they have to deal with when it comes to all the complaining and crying. Especially the mods here, I feel for them. I think many of the things that are said on the JCC are not appropriatte so many shouldnt be making policy.

BTW, yes its all about me.

 

The guy next to you disagrees with a call that the umpire made and begins swearing excessively and this carries on for several minutes. The profanity may have been acceptable or tolerable after a word or two, but at some point as the swearing continues it's going to offend the people around him and inable them to enjoy the baseball game.

So? Just because someone is personally offended doesn't mean they can dictate his behavior.

Some people might find fat jokes offensive. Great. So what? I find stupidity hugely offensive, and I'm sure others do to. I seriously doubt everyone who we think is stupid is going to be banned for it. Just because someone gets offended by something doesn't mean you should take action.

Amazing.

 

Someone is always going to be offended by something. I say if you think it might come off that way, dont type it. I have ran into many times where I wanted to type something, but held back from doing so.

 

So? Just because someone is personally offended doesn't mean they can dictate his behavior.

Some people might find fat jokes offensive. Great. So what? I find stupidity hugely offensive, and I'm sure others do to. I seriously doubt everyone who we think is stupid is going to be banned for it. Just because someone gets offended by something doesn't mean you should take action.


Yes, one person shouldn't dictate a reaction but the majority should and will. I didn't have a number of users complain to me about the obese thread in YJCC but as a mod I felt the thread was going very low on the insult level, so far that it was affecting the quality of the thread. As a mod, it is my job to use my judgement and decide what is best for the forum, which is what I did.

 

"Yes, one person shouldn't dictate a reaction but the majority should and will"

No, no, no. This is not a democracy.


Here is what I want. I want clean cut rules regarding this issue. Either non-members are fair game or they aren't. This grey area is nonsense for something so simple.

 

Does everything really have to be black or white?

With something like this, grey is the only way to go... At least if you want to keep the place remotely fun.

 

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

Come on, David. In a serious discussion, that's pretty much trolling. It could be trolling in other contexts as well.

 

Here is what I want. I want clean cut rules regarding this issue. Either non-members are fair game or they aren't. This grey area is nonsense for something so simple.


There is no grey area in my book. If you offend someone by directing remarks at them, you are flaming. That is how I judge it and will continue to.

 

So if teh conversation is

User A: I like George Lucas.
User B: Lucas is a fat talentless hack
User A: Your evidence?
User B: He sucks

That would get a banning? Because that's a major policy change as far as I know.

 

f you offend someone by directing remarks at them, you are flaming. That is how I judge it and will continue to.

Who is "them"?

If it's off-site people, I'd like to know by what (or whose) rules you're going by.

 

By 'them' I implying another user or a user of this board who could be offended by the remarks. George Lucas isn't a member of this community, so he shouldn't be an issue.

 

Okay, you make it sound like if a user is offended by remarks about anyone, offsite or otherwise, it's abanning. Which does make GL and the whole human race relevant. So which is it?

 

Obviously my point isn't getting across by my words, so I will use an example. There is a direct flame, "Such and such user is a jackass, why does he even post here?" which is an insult directed at a certain user. Then you have a generalized insult that could offend a given user(s), or be considered flaming. For example, a user saying something degrading and insulting about homosexuals. I hope that cleared things up.

 

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

Come on, David. In a serious discussion, that's pretty much trolling. It could be trolling in other contexts as well.

In some contexts, saying similar things about George Lucas would be trolling.


Firstly, I think that we should be able to agree that flaming people who do exist on the boards shouldn?t be allowed. I don?t think that there is or should be any room for discussion there.

Now then, what to do with the rest of the world? Well, calling religious figures dumb is a sure way to set off a flame war. So, I would say that flaming religious figures is not allowed.

Calling Bush dumb? That?s a bit trickier, as there are a lot of people who think the world of him. In the end, I think that calling politicians and other public figures dumb (or whatever your flame; whenever I say dumb, insert your favorite PG13 flame) should be allowed in anything other than serious discussion. In the Senate or a similar place, I think that calling Bush a bad president because he?s dumb should be called on for making a bad argument ? i.e. provide examples, don?t just fling insults ? but probably is not even then a banning. liberals use a lot of (in their minds) snappy ways of mocking the right (Weapons of Mass Distraction, Coalition of the Killing, etc), but I think that the problem there isn?t that they?re flaming but that they?re being childish and infantile. So, flaming of political figures should be allowed.

Flaming groups? I think that we can mostly all agree that flaming ethnic and religious groups like Jews, Blacks, WASPs, etc is bad. I think that gays should be on this list of groups that should not be flamed. After giving this some thought, I?ve also reversed my opinion regarding fat people, midgets, etc: I think that making fun of those groups shouldn?t be allowed either. They can?t do anything to help their condition (well, some fat people can?t), and they shouldn?t be penalized for it.

Flaming nations? Another tricky one I think. Some people get mighty riled if you say that America is acting like an evil empire these days, acting unilaterally around the world, and that it has the power to save millions of people a year through non-violent means and does not. Some don?t like French military history being brought up. Some Canadians don?t like being reminded that we all live in igloos and work as lumberjacks and fur traders. On the whole though, I think that it should be allowed but judged on a case by case basis, and it?s here I expect most people to disagree with me. If the putting-down is of the government or a historical government, I don?t see too much of a problem, if it?s a non-malicious. For example, I?ve never heard anyone complain that on the FanForce drop-down it says ?FanForce Canada, eh.? Even from Canadians (especially from Canadians actually) I?ve only gotten back positive feedback. With more serious attacks (French military history, US foreign policy, British Imperialism, Canadian military weakness, etc), I think that it?s case by case. I think that if case by case with nations does not work, we should just disallow nation bashing completely.

Flaming family members? I think that if a member flames his own sibling or parent or whatever (i.e. My parents are SO dumb) then within that thread, making fun of the family. The thread starter should be allowed to change her mind and ask for the thread to be locked. However, outside of such circumstances, I don?t think that there is any need to flame or bash members of members families.


So, my suggestions:
Religious figures: Not allowed flaming them.
Other public figures: Allowed flaming them.
Groups: Not allowed flaming them.
Nation: Allowed, but case by case.
Family members: Not allowed flaming them.

Does that leave any significant group uncovered?

 

Yes, one person shouldn't dictate a reaction but the majority should and will. I didn't have a number of users complain to me about the obese thread in YJCC

So, you think the majority should rule, but then you contradict yourself and say few people, if anyone, complained? Besides, you'll never get enough people involved in any issue to have a legitimate majority.

but as a mod I felt the thread was going very low on the insult level, so far that it was affecting the quality of the thread. As a mod, it is my job to use my judgement and decide what is best for the forum, which is what I did.

That was the point of the thread. It wasn't designed as a serious discussion of fat people. The "quality of the thread" is based on the jokes therein. What made that thread "quality" is crude jokes. Besides which, it is never up to a mod to lock a thread based on its quality. You're not supposed to lock a thread because you don't think it's good enough.

Does that leave any significant group uncovered?

Yes, fat people.

Amazing.

 

Religious figures: Not allowed flaming them.
Other public figures: Allowed flaming them.
Groups: Not allowed flaming them.
Nation: Allowed, but case by case.
Family members: Not allowed flaming them.

So, by that token, are you saying...

a) Me flaming Jesus is okay, since he's not a religious figure, or
b) Flaming George Lucas is out, since many people list their official census religion as "Jedi?"

It's one or the other. Both are religious figures to SOME people.

 

The "quality of the thread" is based on the jokes therein. What made that thread "quality" is crude jokes.

quality crude jokes, eh?

boy, does that sound like an oxymoron to anyone else?

 

What I've seen here, as well as four years of posting, leads me to believe that there can be no 100% clear-cut flaming policy. No matter what you come up with, there's still going to be a gray area.