NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8978146&postcount=11

or this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8986278&postcount=14

But they're both certainly disrespectful.

Sorry to bother and excuse my disrespect, but I think this has nothing to do with flaming or flamebaiting, if that's what you're implying. I meant nothing offensive with the first post, merely a bit of slight sarcasm and possibly a negative undertone. I was going to tell him that, but when you start throwing ignores around, a reply I posted is nothing but disdain/more sarcasm for such a ridiculous reaction. My first post isn't what you call a tactful remark, I admit but I never played with Pacitalia (I am quite sure it's likewise) and I end up on his lowest point. Seems strange to me, in a non-caring way that is hence why I posted #1.

By no means this is a "provoking a reaction" set of posts ie flaming and co.

Non-Friendly/Non-Conversive Nation
Nations with little or no contact with the Pacitalian government or have, in the past but not necessarily at present, harboured negative feelings against our nation, receive a 0% discount. Borneric Empire, Doomingsland, Guffingford...
Listing nations that have never made contact as having "harboured negative feelings against our nation" could equally be seen as flamebaiting, Sarzonia. However, Guffingford's responses were also a bit over-the-top, and certainly unnecessarily abrasive. However, I don't thinnk either post is a technical violation of site rules.

Tit-for-tat responses do nothing to build an atmosphere of pleasant roleplaying for anyone. We'd appreciate it if you'd all just stay away from players you don't like, and fire those nice factory-silenced IGNORE cannons without bothering to post about it.

I see your point Guff. I appreciate the fact you took time to explain your post.

I post a "black list" of countries that are barred from purchasing from my storefronts, but none of those include countries I have an active ignore on, be it a soft ignore or a hard ignore.

As for Pacitalia's putting Guffingford on that "non conversant" list, I can't speak for that player, but it's possible that the IC tensions between Sarzonia and Guffingford may be contributing factors in that since Pacitalia and Sarzonia are close allies.

Listing nations that have never made contact as having "harboured negative feelings against our nation" could equally be seen as flamebaiting, Sarzonia.With apologies to my associate, Frisbeeteria, I think Pacitalia's statement got misread. I'm guessing Pacitalia meant this:{Nations with little or no contact with the Pacitalian government} ...OR... {have, in the past but not necessarily at present, harboured negative feelings against our nation}, receive a....Thus, he's saying that both groups qualify for a 0% discount, he is not saying that the two groups are the same. Still, Pacitalia should be a little bit clearer with the grammar to avoid confusion.

That said, I concur with Frisbeeteria: Guffingford's responses were unnecessarily abrasive, and Pacitalia's posting an IGNORE cannon was also unnecessary.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Yeah, I meant the second quote.

Anyway, I'd be happy if one of you could lock that storefront. I'm going to complete Sarzonia's order by TG and then forget about the thread anyway, since it now has been transfixed by disrespect and a bad omen. Thanks.