Flame Enforcement

[chaosfactor]

Where the old Flame Forum found its demise was by Losing Wicked, there was no-one who was prepared to fill her shoes, it was a crying shame because in late 2006, through to 2008, the Flame forum was a formidable arena, It took me months to work up the courage to begin to post on a constant basis there. Most of you reading this will only have heard about its attraction from others like myself or Prowler(Being the last Flaming dinosaurs left standing). Once the Moderation went away, the threads lost there meaning, and so forth with it eventually the forum. Prowler had an attempt to revive it earlier this year, and a jolly good go as well, possibly if Admin were prepared to get over there differences with us surviving rebels and gave him a position as a moderator,then it might still be there. It is not how-ever, it is time to move on. I for one pity the moderators who now have got their work cut out by editing school kids posts to an un-defining standard. Before it was simple! Moved to Flame wars, Oh yes we used to love eating you guys up!!!

[timmytuttut88]

Now that flame wars is gone it looks as if CC is taking a kinder stance towards forum activity. The current definition of a flame is

Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack another user.

Concise description:

• Flaming needs to be far more strictly enforced with much tougher rules towards flaming. Here is something I am thinking:
  1. Every flame will be mod-edited no matter how petty it may be
  2. Every flame comes with a official warning, quickly amounting to a ban

Specifics:

• Flaming rules changed to something basically along the lines of
  1. Every flame will be mod-edited no matter how petty it may be
  2. Every flame comes with a official warning, quickly amounting to a ban

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• This site seems to be taking a friendlier attitude and this will help accomplish that
• Forum activity will be more pleasant
• Flamers will likely leave the site

Really Sailor?

[RADAGA]

So, calling someone an idiot, calling someone "part of the moronic brigade" are also not to be considered flaming?

I have been called that some times, and there were NO punishment to the dear and protected members who did it. When I complained, they said "get over it". When I flamed myself (telling them to stfu), they warned me to tone it down least I would be removed from the community.

So, "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than the others" here.

Let us see, for those who says calling someone a moron or an idiot is not a flame:

In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation, or a very low IQ level, as a sufferer of cretinism, defining idiots as people whose IQ were below 20.

In current medical classification, these people are now said to have profound mental retardation, and the word "idiot" is no longer used as a scientific term.

Idiot indicated the greatest degree of intellectual disability, where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard himself or herself against common physical dangers.

Moron was defined by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded in 1910, following work by Henry H. Goddard, as the term for an adult with a mental age between eight and twelve; mild mental retardation is now the term for this condition.

In my oppinion (mind you, the oppinion of a sanctioned idiot and moron, according to some people here), those are a bit past the "friendly insult" one may get from a total stranger (thats what most forum members are to each other) who happens to disagree with said person.

Therefore, I would welcome a more strict control of flaming. But you may disregard it, or even flame this response. After all, you know, I am a sanctioned deep mentally retarded individual, and who would listen to what an idiot have to say, made the assumption they are able to say anything at all?

[timmytuttut88]

So, calling someone an idiot, calling someone "part of the moronic brigade" are also not to be considered flaming?

I have been called that some times, and there were NO punishment to the dear and protected members who did it. When I complained, they said "get over it". When I flamed myself (telling them to stfu), they warned me to tone it down least I would be removed from the community.

So, "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than the others" here.

Let us see, for those who says calling someone a moron or an idiot is not a flame:

In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation, or a very low IQ level, as a sufferer of cretinism, defining idiots as people whose IQ were below 20.

In current medical classification, these people are now said to have profound mental retardation, and the word "idiot" is no longer used as a scientific term.

Idiot indicated the greatest degree of intellectual disability, where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard himself or herself against common physical dangers.

Moron was defined by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded in 1910, following work by Henry H. Goddard, as the term for an adult with a mental age between eight and twelve; mild mental retardation is now the term for this condition.

In my oppinion (mind you, the oppinion of a sanctioned idiot and moron, according to some people here), those are a bit past the "friendly insult" one may get from a total stranger (thats what most forum members are to each other) who happens to disagree with said person.

Therefore, I would welcome a more strict control of flaming. But you may disregard it, or even flame this response. After all, you know, I am a sanctioned deep mentally retarded individual, and who would listen to what an idiot have to say, made the assumption they are able to say anything at all?

Who does this guy think he is?

[Rocketry]

stop posting stupid rule changes

[neanderpaul14]

Now that flame wars is gone it looks as if CC is taking a kinder stance towards forum activity. The current definition of a flame is

Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack another user.

Concise description:

• Flaming needs to be far more strictly enforced with much tougher rules towards flaming. Here is something I am thinking:
  1. Every flame will be mod-edited no matter how petty it may be
  2. Every flame comes with a official warning, quickly amounting to a ban

Specifics:

• Flaming rules changed to something basically along the lines of
  1. Every flame will be mod-edited no matter how petty it may be
  2. Every flame comes with a official warning, quickly amounting to a ban

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• This site seems to be taking a friendlier attitude and this will help accomplish that
• Forum activity will be more pleasant
• Flamers will likely leave the site

And now your making rules on this site because????

[Woodruff]

I would also add that the current forum rules on flaming should be applied to in-game flaming. There's no reason for inconsistency between the two.

No thanks, we don't need any thought police around here, that's what the 'Foe list' is for. Further more, no harm is done where consent is given, if two players want to engage each other in a slanging match for the fun of it, they can. If clans want to engage each other in rowdy banter during a clan match they can. It's only a problem when some loud mouth fool picks an argument with someone who just isn't interested(Read: GENERAL STONEHAM), then THAT is a matter for the mods.

I don't have a problem with two players wanting to engage each other in a slanging match. I have a problem when I am NOT wanting to be engaged in such a manner. The fact of the matter is that the FOE list is a particularly worthless band-aid to the problem, that really doesn't accomplish much at all. As you say, when some loud-mouth fool picks an argument with someone who just isn't interested, then that is a matter for the mods...and that should be applied to the in-game comments, as well.

[sailorseal]

I would also add that the current forum rules on flaming should be applied to in-game flaming. There's no reason for inconsistency between the two.

No thanks, we don't need any thought police around here, that's what the 'Foe list' is for. Further more, no harm is done where consent is given, if two players want to engage each other in a slanging match for the fun of it, they can. If clans want to engage each other in rowdy banter during a clan match they can. It's only a problem when some loud mouth fool picks an argument with someone who just isn't interested(Read: GENERAL STONEHAM), then THAT is a matter for the mods.

I don't have a problem with two players wanting to engage each other in a slanging match. I have a problem when I am NOT wanting to be engaged in such a manner. The fact of the matter is that the FOE list is a particularly worthless band-aid to the problem, that really doesn't accomplish much at all. As you say, when some loud-mouth fool picks an argument with someone who just isn't interested, then that is a matter for the mods...and that should be applied to the in-game comments, as well.

I concur all the way

[LED ZEPPELINER]

I don't know if this has already been said, but that would put a lot of work on all of the mods, to patrol and look for every flame, just saying. But I know where your coming from.