Printable View
It's like a heap of cowdung, and flaming is the flies. Kill it, maim it, hurt it, burn it. Or move it to the end, where no one sees it. Or put it under EoEo. Or ban anyone who posts there. Or give me an option to "See / Do not see World Events on the front-page" in my options. Ban me from WE. Give me common sense not to dwell in that corrupted heap. INCINERATE AND PILLAGE IT LIKE SO MUCH SCOTTISH CITY BEFORE MY VIKING FOREFATHERS.
This forum keeps the flaming out of EoEo. I think we should keep it.
Talking politics on the net = Mass flaming, almost every time. I've yet to see a politics board that didn't include a medium/high amount of flaming.
Either way it goes, I'll never post in there again. I don't go to forums to be insulted, least of all by people who don't know me.
Yes, that was the initial reason the forum was made, because of the people who went to EOEO complaining about those sorts of threads. Now they're seperated, all you have to do is not click the link to the forum if you don't wish to see such threads. Other than that, you're reacting a little over the top about it, Nait :pQuote:
Originally posted by Black Ninja
This forum keeps the flaming out of EoEo. I think we should keep it.
EDIT: I think I'll start reading threads in that forum myself too which normally I wouldn't touch, there's currently only 1 activish one that I'm semi-interested in there now, so I suppose I could have easily missed a lot of stuff myself. :p
EDIT: I also don't think closing the forum would be a solution in any case, and banning all threads about politics anywhere is a bit silly, not to mention it might be hard to draw the line for some topics.
I haven't visited the forum since it was created. I think that's a good way to deal with it, nobody's forcing you to view it. I actually like it, because it moves all political threads out of GC and EoEO
I have no opinion on this matter. Do what you want.
Can someone give me a link to some of this flaming? There's been a huge fuss for some reason over World Events, and I've only seen one instance of very very slight possible-to-take-it-as-flaming-if-you-look-at-it-like-that post.
I mean I know flaming is bad, but I seem to have missed whatever it was that's led to complaints in three threads so far, a warning thread in World Events, and an announcement.
Someone made a warning thread there. *goes to look*
It was needed. Particularly in the case of War Angel. Like the thread said, there should be a fine line between Discussion about politics and whatnot, and outright insults. I'm surprised you haven't seen it; you posted in the thread that made it a concern several times.
Does this look familar to you: *boink*
Well HOORJ's comment was the slight thing I was referring to, and only because Unne seemed bothered by it.
"September 11th, and Iraq are two different things, but I guess you've been brainwashed beyond the point of normal" --HOORJ
Personally I took this as more of a statement about American propaganda tactics and the way terrorism has been made a buzzword for anything the media want people angry at. Even as a direct attack it would still seem unworthy of the fuss it's caused IMHO.
If there's more I'd love some quotes, because I'm really lost here.
"It's a sad, sad world." - Me
"Yes, because so many people don't dare look reality in the eyes. :rolleyes:" -WA
Now, I'm not a sensitive person by any means, but that was completly uncalled for. Just because I say one thing doesn't give some arrogant (insert profane insult here) the right to judge me based on one solitary remark I made. This sort of thing is why I dare not post in the completly unmoderated AOL News and Yahoo! News discussion boards.
As for Nait, well, that was taken care of already. :P
Ignoring the comments of everyone who's posted already, I think that, just on principle, it might be a good idea to have limited access to this forum, even moreso than EoEO, just because people get a bit riled up over things like this. However, I haven't been arsed to read anything in that forum, so my opinion is just based on principle. ;)
ROFL, THE SMILIE IN QUESTION! God I loved that.
Okay I haven't checked the context again, but that actually sounds like a general comment from War Angel. I mean yes it could have meant you, but given War Angel's political views it could have meant anyone who didn't see Iraq as a major threat, in which case it's a reasonable (if debatable) point.
Honestly I do see what you're getting at, but these aren't direct flames, and they might not even BE flames. Maybe a short post from a mod in the thread was called for, but this? It's fairly extreme.
Better to kill the monster while it's little, before it devours the whole forum. *nod*
True but theres killing something, and there's throwing it into a giant blender before launching it into the Sun.
That was the first method of overkill I could think of, I don't know what it says about me.
The staff isn't taking away your right to debate. Just don't insult anyone. Like I said a fine line exists. Flaming isn't allowed. it's simple. The only reason this started was because the mods weren't taking care of flames that weren't being reported, and it was getting nasty in there.
As long as you don't flame people, I don't see why this should be a problem.
Oh it isn't. It's just I've now seen three threads with complaints, a thread devoted to it, AND an announcement on it. I've seen much worse flaming in other areas of the MB so I was curious as to the reason.
Thanks for the quotes by the way.
I'm only stating facts. If you need any details about it, the staff knows more about this than I do. Try PMing them.
I'm off to bed.
Yes, that is rude. But it's not anything for a staff member to do anything about, IMO. If you discuss politics with people with totally different views, there's gonna be argument. Argument = some snide comments. If people don't like that, then you should delete the forum.Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Graves
"It's a sad, sad world." - Me
"Yes, because so many people don't dare look reality in the eyes. :rolleyes:" -WA
But I really don't give a damn, since I've never posted in there.
Right now, I'm seeing the WE forum as like a toy. People like to play (talk politics), but it seems nobody can play nice. I *really* want to take the toy away entirely.
If things don't shape up and soon, I think I'm going to have to invest a lot more time in that forum. Not that I *have* that kind of time, but I'll have to fit it in, so that I can close every thread in which anybody steps out of line.
On second thought, though, maybe it won't take so long, since I'll never have to read all the way to the bottom of a thread.
If people want to use emotionally-charged words and misdirection as a substitute for logic, so be it. If somebody wants to compare anything tjey personally dislike to Hitler because they know it'll make people angry, then maybe I should just start showing people what a nazi is really like.
For starters, I'm closing that thread that was linked to. It's gone far enough. If another staffer disagrees, open it again. I'm going to start closing when in doubt from now on, but I won't close the same thread twice.
I don't know how anyone can expect us not to flame in that forum. Look at our leaders. Freedom Fries? As soon as they learn then we can learn but since flaming is never going to end in polotics I don't think we should have to. Its a pretty sound arguement right here.
That's like saying that people without a university education deserve to be flamed because I, personally, know more than they.
Really. Whenever I'm in a bad mood now, I think I'll go on a thread-closing blitz in WE.
WE will be moved back under EOEO for the time being then, to see if it helps things improve. Also makes it easier to block people from both forums, since if they're not sensible enough to be in one, then there's no reason they should be in the other either with topics of similar sensitivity.
I say it's a good decision; I never really saw the point of splitting them anyway. Well done. :P
Speaking of that, no one ever banned me from EoEo. :mad:
Sounds agreeable to me. I'll still refrain from posting there, but its a good move. Hopefully people can discuss issues under calmer heads.
That should be a precedent here.Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen Bleys
I'm going to start closing when in doubt from now on, but I won't close the same thread twice.
I think this is a good idea.
Am I missing something here because I don't see how that is even relatively close to what I said.Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen Bleys
That's like saying that people without a university education deserve to be flamed because I, personally, know more than they.
Your argument is still unsound. Just because a leader does something doesn't mean that right and wrong are no longer valid. Other people's actions don't justify your own wrongdoings.
At the very least, you should be arguing that you should be allowed to flame our leaders. That has nothing to do with flaming our fellow posters while talking about our leaders, or while talking about anything else.
Unne has a point there, ed. Making fun of our leaders for their actions isn't against the rules(I don't think), but when it becomes a flame-fest because two people disagree, then it's gone over the line.
However, never having been to WE, I don't know how bad it is.
I do post in WE and I don't even know how bad it is. I'm still completely lost as to what this is about. I don't think I've been in a forum where there's been less flaming than what I've managed to find in WE.
I certainly don't see comparing a leader to Hitler as a flame, espescially if the comparison is backed up with examples (which they usually are).
I don't care if people flame public figures. It's members of EoFF that I have a responsibility to protect.
i am reminded of the time i said that the membership of EoFF was much more capable of making mature posts about sex than about politics, so I didn't see why sex was off limits and politics not.
I know. I thought of that. Just because blah blah blah does it doesn't make it right. Thats why I said pretty and not completely.Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Unne
Your argument is still unsound. Just because a leader does something doesn't mean that right and wrong are no longer valid. Other people's actions don't justify your own wrongdoings.
At the very least, you should be arguing that you should be allowed to flame our leaders. That has nothing to do with flaming our fellow posters while talking about our leaders, or while talking about anything else.
Anyways as a person who visits that forum and reads a great deal of it...I don't really see the problem for the most part. Just normal standard far argueing in most places. That place is just a flame room anyways. How am I really going to talk about GW without bad mouthing him like crazy? Someone is going to take great offense to that...probably and that is like attacking their beliefs almost. They are going to fight back.
That is pretty much how it is in politics unfortunatly...or at least that is how I see it based on what I have read and heard over the years.
[q=edczxcvbnm]That place is just a flame room anyways. How am I really going to talk about GW without bad mouthing him like crazy? Someone is going to take great offense to that...probably and that is like attacking their beliefs almost. They are going to fight back.
[/q]Like Citizen Bleys said, saying nasty things about politicians isn't the issue. If someone starts a thread simply to bad-mouth Bush, it'll probably just get closed. If, however, someone makes a personal attack - for instance, saying that a member who supports Bush is a rednecked retard, or descrying any war opponents as evil terrorists, then it becomes a problem. People should be free to discuss and express their opinions without being insulted for it. It should be perfectly simply to debate a topic without making it personal.
Here's an example. Suppose someone makes a thread about Communism. I then post saying that I don't approve of Communism and giving reasons why. Someone then responds saying that I'm a mindless freak who's a pathetic slave of the evil system and simply incapable of seeing the plain truth. That last statement is an opinion, of course, but one that's unnecessary and unwelcome since it's just a personal attack.
A debate should follow this format:
"I support X notion."
"I disagree for Y reason."
"Z is the flaw in reason Y."
"Evidence Q supports reason Y."
This may seem boring, but it's civil and productive. Far better than...
"I support X notion."
"NOO j00 r t3h wrong! I r t3h rite cuz j00 r t3h stupid!"
Here's to rational, impersonal disputation.
I must confess, I don't want to see that thing before I succumb to the demon myself and flame some aivottoman molopään with my righteous anger and broadband-connection.
But the other way is so much more fun. Is it a problem outside of that forum really? Do memebers attack each other outside of that forum? I just don't see it as a problem in general there. This thread made me go 'Where' when I first saw it.Quote:
Originally posted by Big D
A debate should follow this format:
"I support X notion."
"I disagree for Y reason."
"Z is the flaw in reason Y."
"Evidence Q supports reason Y."
This may seem boring, but it's civil and productive. Far better than...
"I support X notion."
"NOO j00 r t3h wrong! I r t3h rite cuz j00 r t3h stupid!"
Here's to rational, impersonal disputation.
I'm still trying to see where ed.
Bleys said comparing public figures is bad, then said it wasn't the problem. Then Big D had to make up examples of flaming.
That's not meant critically, just trying to explain my problem with understanding.
Where is the problem? Can anyone give an actual quote that shows flaming? Mr. Graves gave some mild examples that were open to interpretation, and thats as close to flaming as I've seen.
Porblem is, if anyone posts examples of flaming here, that could be seen as a personal attack against the person who originally posted it. Most of the worst flaming was reported in warnings, and then deleted by mods.
Well I think it's reasonable to quote a flame without naming it. Given flaming is against the rules here, and thats protecting them more than they should get really.
I guess deletion explains it, though it can't have been this bad, I saw one edited (think it was Nait's for some reason though I can't remember).
It's just the examples I've actually seen commented on barely classed as slight flaming as far as I could see, just general comments on society that you could take personally if you felt so inclined.
The deletion would explain why I don't see a problem at all. I don't go in there a whole lot because it isn't a very active forum. Maybe 2 times a day...MAYBE.