NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123914&highlight=

It started well enough. Copy-pasted article was generating some interesting debate. On the second page, Vonners arrives, and begins flaming/flamebaiting the author of the thread, despite three requests not to (after his first post).

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123914&highlight=

It started well enough. Copy-pasted article was generating some interesting debate. On the second page, Vonners arrives, and begins flaming/flamebaiting the author of the thread, despite three requests not to (after his first post).

So pointing out truths...however robustly is flamebaiting?

Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc.)though it does to watch what you post IC as well unless the other posters know you're not serious. Flaming in the forums should be reported in the Moderation forum, in the game itself, through Getting Help Page.

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies
(like having a topic title declaring that '[whoever] is an idiot' for example).

Of course I will abide by whatever ruling the mods make. Goes without saying.

However my posts were not angry, nor uncouth. Nor were they to anger anyone.

I was pointing out fact.

I'm going to speak in defence of Vonners because this is an example of a debate when tempers are in danger of running high. I don't believe that this is the usual run of the mill democrats vs republicans or labour vs tories style debates. I think the stakes run much higher than that and opinion will become highly polarised and things will be said. What Vonners said in the heat of the moment is actually pretty mild and its something that will be said thousands of times, in thousands of posts all the time on NS. The debate has run off topic which has allowed people to calm down. This is as heated as the debate will get I would have thought . Of course it is not my desison to make.

I am a nice guy...honest! :twisted: LOL :)

Flaming? I was stating the obvious. The evidence has shown that you are unable to think and that you are a dolt.

I do not think that constistutes a flame.

That is not "pointing out the truth". That is uncalled for.

In the thread in question, the debate had remained very polite, even amiable, until Vonners showed up and started calling people dolts and idiots.

Flaming? I was stating the obvious. The evidence has shown that you are unable to think and that you are a dolt.

I do not think that constistutes a flame.

That is not "pointing out the truth". That is uncalled for.

In the thread in question, the debate had remained very polite, even amiable, until Vonners showed up and started calling people dolts and idiots.

Not called for?? So you want to tell me how to speak? What to think?

If someone is being idiotic or is a dolt there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123914&highlight=

It started well enough. Copy-pasted article was generating some interesting debate. On the second page, Vonners arrives, and begins flaming/flamebaiting the author of the thread, despite three requests not to (after his first post).
http://hum.amu.edu.pl/~zbzw/glob/ani28t.gif

Vonners was the very first poster to respond. Get your facts straight before whining because your chum Mongoose is being 'harrassed' again. You BliNP losers don't like the heat you yourselves generate do you.

Excuse me, SO, but you can step out of this thread. This is not the place for your blind rants.

Furthermore, I've already said I do not support the BNP. You're a worse offender than CE. So, if you please, get out of my thread.

Lastly, it doesn't really matter when he posted, just what he posted.

Furthermore, I've already said I do not support the BNP. You're a worse offender than CE. So, if you please, get out of my thread.

I beg your pardon!!! :x

Where did that comment come from? What do I have to do with it? You seem more intent on defending the BNP supporters than defending the anti-BNP people - even though you claim that you do not support the BNP (nor its actions I guess).

I beg your pardon!!! :x

Where did that comment come from? What do I have to do with it? You seem more intent on defending the BNP supporters than defending the anti-BNP people - even though you claim that you do not support the BNP (nor its actions I guess).

My intent in this debate - only the second of the sort that I've stepped into - is merely to provide perspective. JT may support the BNP, but he is not the one ranting, raving, and generally acting as SO just did.

I beg your pardon!!! :x

Where did that comment come from? What do I have to do with it? You seem more intent on defending the BNP supporters than defending the anti-BNP people - even though you claim that you do not support the BNP (nor its actions I guess).

My intent in this debate - only the second of the sort that I've stepped into - is merely to provide perspective. JT may support the BNP, but he is not the one ranting, raving, and generally acting as SO just did.

errr you made a complaint to the mods so you are not JUST providing perspective are you?

noooooo

And SO def was not ranting nor raving....that was me....remember??

Excuse me, SO, but you can step out of this thread. This is not the place for your blind rants.

Furthermore, I've already said I do not support the BNP. You're a worse offender than CE. So, if you please, get out of my thread.

Lastly, it doesn't really matter when he posted, just what he posted.
http://hum.amu.edu.pl/~zbzw/glob/ani28t.gif

Well, I've just read this and I'd like to say..........with your permission.........since when did you start running this site? I'll 'step out' of threads when I choose, or when a mod demands it. As for blind rants, I suggest you look the words 'blind' & 'rant' up in a dictionary. You do know what a dictionary is don't you? Furthermore, to use your word, if you don't support the BliNP, you certainly make a decent job of pretending to. So, you're either stupid or ..........er, stupid.

Well, I've just read this and I'd like to say..........with your permission.........since when did you start running this site? I'll 'step out' of threads when I choose, or when a mod demands it.


It's been quite some time since the ruling that an author of a thread is within his or her rights to bar someone from posting in a thread, and that further posts after such a request are to be treated as spam. Please do not post here again.


As for blind rants, I suggest you look the words 'blind' & 'rant' up in a dictionary. You do know what a dictionary is don't you? Furthermore, to use your word, if you don't support the BliNP, you certainly make a decent job of pretending to. So, you're either stupid or ..........er, stupid.

This is irrelevant, flamebaiting, off-topic, and, furthermore, spam. Please do not post here again.

Guys, please chill. This recurring "Did not!" "Did too!" business is getting tedious. Factual reports, please, and no sniping in here.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Sorry to chuck in my 0.02c, but the 'insults' used by Vonners on the threads were 'dolt' and 'stupid'... I can't help feeling that maybe they aren't significant enough to warrant a warning, but rather could just be ignored without too significant damage to ego!!

Also, Johnny Tolerant (an appropriate name in this context) seemed happy to let his thick skin deflect these vicious words WITHOUT the need to bring this to moderation. Surely as he was the one being 'flamed', it's his right to just ignore this and carry on?

Sorry to chuck in my 0.02c, but the 'insults' used by Vonners on the threads were 'dolt' and 'stupid'... I can't help feeling that maybe they aren't significant enough to warrant a warning, but rather could just be ignored without too significant damage to ego!!

Also, Johnny Tolerant (an appropriate name in this context) seemed happy to let his thick skin deflect these vicious words WITHOUT the need to bring this to moderation. Surely as he was the one being 'flamed', it's his right to just ignore this and carry on?

You're absolutely right. However, I chose to go ahead and post it here for two reasons. 1) Vonners was repeatedly asked not to call people stupid, or dolts 2) He invited someone to run to the mods with it.

Sorry to chuck in my 0.02c, but the 'insults' used by Vonners on the threads were 'dolt' and 'stupid'... I can't help feeling that maybe they aren't significant enough to warrant a warning, but rather could just be ignored without too significant damage to ego!!

Also, Johnny Tolerant (an appropriate name in this context) seemed happy to let his thick skin deflect these vicious words WITHOUT the need to bring this to moderation. Surely as he was the one being 'flamed', it's his right to just ignore this and carry on?

You're absolutely right. However, I chose to go ahead and post it here for two reasons. 1) Vonners was repeatedly asked not to call people stupid, or dolts 2) He invited someone to run to the mods with it.

Errr not quite true that Raem. Mr Tolerant said he would take it to the mods. I said fine be my guest. That is not inviting someone to 'take it to the mods'. Thats actually calling someones bluff. And bluff it was as Mr Tolerant did not take it to the mods.

You did. I am inclined to agree with Spherical Objects that these are actions that can be discribed as idiotic.

Sorry to chuck in my 0.02c, but the 'insults' used by Vonners on the threads were 'dolt' and 'stupid'... I can't help feeling that maybe they aren't significant enough to warrant a warning, but rather could just be ignored without too significant damage to ego!!

Also, Johnny Tolerant (an appropriate name in this context) seemed happy to let his thick skin deflect these vicious words WITHOUT the need to bring this to moderation. Surely as he was the one being 'flamed', it's his right to just ignore this and carry on?

You're absolutely right. However, I chose to go ahead and post it here for two reasons. 1) Vonners was repeatedly asked not to call people stupid, or dolts 2) He invited someone to run to the mods with it.

Th point really is... calling someone 'stupid' or a 'dolt' isn't really bad enough to warrant Mod attention. It IS worth either ignoring, or coming up with a witty, cutting (non flaming) reply... but it's not worth reporting in Moderation.

As for the invite, if he invited you to place you face in a fan, you wouldn't do that, so why this?

Also, Johnny Tolerant (an appropriate name in this context) seemed happy to let his thick skin deflect these vicious words WITHOUT the need to bring this to moderation. Surely as he was the one being 'flamed', it's his right to just ignore this and carry on?

That is a very good point. I don't see why Raem needed to bring this to moderation when JT could've very well done it himself.