Flame Enforcement

Suggestions that have been archived.

Moderator: Community Team

User avatar
sailorseal
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Gender: Male
Location: conquerclub.com

Flame Enforcement

Post by sailorseal »

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
Night Strike wrote: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
ManBungalow
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:02 am
Location: On a giant rock orbiting a star somewhere

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by ManBungalow »

We don't want to squeeze every aspect of life out of this forum with endless rules in my opinion.
Image
User avatar
GrimReaper.
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: everywhere

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by GrimReaper. »

stop posting stupid rule changes
Image
When the first Atom bomb test was complete a colleague of Oppenheimer said: "What an Awesome and Foul display of Power." a moment later he added, "Now we are all sons of bitches"
User avatar
obliterationX
Posts: 953
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:52 pm
Gender: Female
Location: Yeah

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by obliterationX »

Sailorfail, just get over yourself. You're coming over as nothing but a wannabe moderator, and, if anything, it's only hurting your chances of acquiring such a position. Stop posting this useless crap that will never get considered / implemented.

Oops, did I flame? Boo-hoo.
User avatar
sailorseal
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Gender: Male
Location: conquerclub.com

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by sailorseal »

=D>
Thank you all for making my suggestion worthwhile
User avatar
Serbia
Posts: 12266
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:10 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Detroit

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by Serbia »

You're annoying.
CONFUSED? YOU'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE RIPE
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
User avatar
sailorseal
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Gender: Male
Location: conquerclub.com

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by sailorseal »

Serbia wrote:You're annoying.
Wow, proving the worth of my suggestion will be easier then I thought
User avatar
Serbia
Posts: 12266
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:10 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Detroit

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by Serbia »

sailorseal wrote:
Serbia wrote:You're annoying.
Wow, proving the worth of my suggestion will be easier then I thought
You consider that a flame?
CONFUSED? YOU'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE RIPE
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
User avatar
sailorseal
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Gender: Male
Location: conquerclub.com

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by sailorseal »

Serbia wrote:
sailorseal wrote:
Serbia wrote:You're annoying.
Wow, proving the worth of my suggestion will be easier then I thought
You consider that a flame?
The new rule would
User avatar
Bones2484
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA (G1)

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by Bones2484 »

sailorseal wrote:
Serbia wrote:
sailorseal wrote:
Serbia wrote:You're annoying.
Wow, proving the worth of my suggestion will be easier then I thought
You consider that a flame?
The new rule would
I'm all for getting rid of flamers. But this "new rule" sounds rather nazi... ish.
User avatar
sailorseal
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Gender: Male
Location: conquerclub.com

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by sailorseal »

Bones2484 wrote:
sailorseal wrote:
Serbia wrote:
sailorseal wrote:
Serbia wrote:You're annoying.
Wow, proving the worth of my suggestion will be easier then I thought
You consider that a flame?
The new rule would
I'm all for getting rid of flamers. But this "new rule" sounds rather nazi... ish.
You have a better way? Honestly not insultingly just how would you do it, it is the goal or this
User avatar
Bones2484
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA (G1)

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by Bones2484 »

sailorseal wrote: You have a better way? Honestly not insultingly just how would you do it, it is the goal or this
Someone who has basically lost control of what they are typing (read: ronc) is a lot different than someone calling you annoying.

The site doesn't need more oversight. It just needs more consistent oversight.
User avatar
sailorseal
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Gender: Male
Location: conquerclub.com

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by sailorseal »

Bones2484 wrote:
sailorseal wrote: You have a better way? Honestly not insultingly just how would you do it, it is the goal or this
Someone who has basically lost control of what they are typing (read: ronc) is a lot different than someone calling you annoying.

The site doesn't need more oversight. It just needs more consistent oversight.
Agreed now how can that be achieved?
mpjh
Posts: 6714
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:32 am
Location: gone

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by mpjh »

Most of the value of flames is in the eye of the recipient. So how about a flame emotive, just a little red flame, no words?
User avatar
Bones2484
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA (G1)

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by Bones2484 »

sailorseal wrote:
Bones2484 wrote:
sailorseal wrote: You have a better way? Honestly not insultingly just how would you do it, it is the goal or this
Someone who has basically lost control of what they are typing (read: ronc) is a lot different than someone calling you annoying.

The site doesn't need more oversight. It just needs more consistent oversight.
Agreed now how can that be achieved?
How about a clarification of the rules instead of adding more intense ones?
User avatar
Timminz
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Gender: Male
Location: At the store

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by Timminz »

We don't need stricter rules, just to protect every Tom, Dick, and Sailor. Sometimes people need to be told they're being ridiculous.
User avatar
Serbia
Posts: 12266
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:10 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Detroit

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by Serbia »

Bones2484 wrote:
sailorseal wrote:
Serbia wrote:
sailorseal wrote:
Serbia wrote:You're annoying.
Wow, proving the worth of my suggestion will be easier then I thought
You consider that a flame?
The new rule would
I'm all for getting rid of flamers. But this "new rule" sounds rather nazi... ish.
Bones just flamed. 36 month forum ban for you buddy.
CONFUSED? YOU'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE RIPE
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
User avatar
Bones2484
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA (G1)

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by Bones2484 »

Serbia wrote:
Bones2484 wrote:
I'm all for getting rid of flamers.
Bones just flamed. 36 month forum ban for you buddy.
Dang it. And I voted no on Prop 8, too.
User avatar
owenshooter
Posts: 13360
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:01 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Deep in the Heart of Tx

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by owenshooter »

Timminz wrote:We don't need stricter rules, just to protect every Tom, Dick, and Sailor. Sometimes people need to be told they're being ridiculous.
that almost got by me... and if words hurt you, perhaps you don't belong on an internet forum where people play out their bully fantasies...-0
Image
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation
makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
User avatar
Serbia
Posts: 12266
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:10 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Detroit

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by Serbia »

owenshooter wrote:
Timminz wrote:We don't need stricter rules, just to protect every Tom, Dick, and Sailor. Sometimes people need to be told they're being ridiculous.
that almost got by me... and if words hurt you, perhaps you don't belong on an internet forum where people play out their bully fantasies...-0
If this is addressed to Tim, then something has gotten by you. If it's addressed to sailor, agreed, carry on.
CONFUSED? YOU'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE RIPE
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
User avatar
sailorseal
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Gender: Male
Location: conquerclub.com

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by sailorseal »

Serbia wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
Timminz wrote:We don't need stricter rules, just to protect every Tom, Dick, and Sailor. Sometimes people need to be told they're being ridiculous.
that almost got by me... and if words hurt you, perhaps you don't belong on an internet forum where people play out their bully fantasies...-0
If this is addressed to Tim, then something has gotten by you. If it's addressed to sailor, agreed, carry on.
Sailor hasn't posted in this for a while why would it be addressed to him?
User avatar
Serbia
Posts: 12266
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:10 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Detroit

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by Serbia »

sailorseal wrote:
Serbia wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
Timminz wrote:We don't need stricter rules, just to protect every Tom, Dick, and Sailor. Sometimes people need to be told they're being ridiculous.
that almost got by me... and if words hurt you, perhaps you don't belong on an internet forum where people play out their bully fantasies...-0
If this is addressed to Tim, then something has gotten by you. If it's addressed to sailor, agreed, carry on.
Sailor hasn't posted in this for a while why would it be addressed to him?
Witty.
CONFUSED? YOU'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE RIPE
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
User avatar
Woodruff
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by Woodruff »

sailorseal wrote: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
Night Strike wrote: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
First of all, ignore the wannabe flamers in this thread...they're just upset still over the recent decision and it will take them a bit to ease down from it (understandably, I suppose).

However, I do tend to agree with Bones. Tighter rules aren't necessary, but consistent enforcement and good clarification of them are. 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. I believe that with the consistency and clarification (so everyone knows where things stand), it will be good.
User avatar
Artimis
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:09 am
Gender: Male
Location: Right behind ya!!! >:D

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by Artimis »

Woodruff wrote: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.
==================================================
This post was sponsored by Far-Q Industries.

Far-Q Industries: Telling you where to go since 2008.
User avatar
nagerous
Posts: 7513
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Flame Enforcement

Post by nagerous »

sailorseal wrote:
Bones2484 wrote: I'm all for getting rid of flamers. But this "new rule" sounds rather nazi... ish.
You have a better way? Honestly not insultingly just how would you do it, it is the goal or this

Did I catch this right? :shock:
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Archived Suggestions”