NationStates Jolt Archive

Flamage

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428292&page=4

Gabrones has been warned for flaming and Dobbsworld for flamebait. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9152263&postcount=154)

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Gabrones has been warned for flaming and Dobbsworld for flamebait. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9152263&postcount=154)

--The Modified Democratic States of CogitationI have a question.

How many warnings does one get before being given a "Timeout"

and how long does it take for a warning to go away?

I hardly think my response constitutes flamebait.

How many warnings does one get before being given a "Timeout"This is subject to the severity of the current offense, past offenses, and Moderator discretion.

and how long does it take for a warning to go away?
Almost never. All of your past offenses are considered when deciding on a punishment for a more recent offense.

If a player with past offenses, but no deletions, remains active and on good behavior for an extended period of time*, then we Mods may decide to lighten up (but I'm not making any guarantees).

* This is deliberately vague; I am not going to quote a number.

I hardly think my response constitutes flamebait.I'll consult with another Moderator, but in my opinion, you were taunting Gabrones. Taunting another player qualifies as flamebait.
Why Gabrones, are you insulting me? Why would you want to do that? Are you tired of yelling in mile-high colourful fonts already?

Come on, impress me with your verbal skills instead. Tell me again how you're an expert on the goings-on at 'Gay Day'...The tone-of-voice of this post appears to be snide and mocking; no other tone-of-voice I can think of makes sense, here. Therefore, I concluded that you were taunting Gabrones. Therefore, I issued an official warning for flamebait.



--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

The tone-of-voice of this post appears to be snide and mocking; no other tone-of-voice I can think of makes sense, here. Therefore, I concluded that you were taunting Gabrones. Therefore, I issued an official warning for flamebait.

The issue of 'tone-of-voice', and what it may or may not 'appear' to convey is an entirely subjective one. You're certainly welcome to infer whatever motive or emotion you wish from my post, but I cannot state more emphatically that you are in fact, incorrect in your analysis.

I can see how my post could be construed as snide, mocking or taunting - yes, I can. But no, that was not my intent. Not at all.

Is there a means by which I can appeal your decision to issue an official warning? I should appreciate it very much if I could do so.

Thank you.

I kind of read it as a mild warning not to flame...which I know sometimes the mods don't want us doing, since it's their job...but I know I'm guilty of it pretty often, and it can seem kind of...what's the word...smide or smug sometimes, but it isn't meant that way. More of a, "let's get back on a semi-civil track..."

...maybe we should all just have access to that Smokey the Bear putting out forum fires picture.... :D

Is there a means by which I can appeal your decision to issue an official warning? I should appreciate it very much if I could do so.

Thank you.

Email Max himself

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] [E-mail link removed.] [/modedit]

That's what I would do personally. Because any of the other venues would just go back directly to the same mods that gave you the warning. I agree that trying to guess someone's tone is going a bit far.

what's the word...smide or smug sometimes, but it isn't meant that way. More of a, "let's get back on a semi-civil track...

I think you were going for "snide" and being snide or smug is not against the rules. Read the rules for yourself you'll see what I mean.

Email Max himself [Moderator Edit - Cogitation] E-mail link removed. [/modedit]

That's what I would do personally. Because any of the other venues would just go back directly to the same mods that gave you the warning. I agree that trying to guess someone's tone is going a bit far.

Well, I'll certainly bear that in mind, Xanaz, thanks for the link. But before I go lobbing unsolicited emails into the ether, I'd like to see if I can work within the system to resolve this misapprehension.

Thanks again.

Well, I'll certainly bear that in mind, Xanaz, thanks for the link. But before I go lobbing unsolicited emails into the ether, I'd like to see if I can work within the system to resolve this misapprehension.

Thanks again.

Understood. No problem.

The issue of 'tone-of-voice', and what it may or may not 'appear' to convey is an entirely subjective one. You're certainly welcome to infer whatever motive or emotion you wish from my post, but I cannot state more emphatically that you are in fact, incorrect in your analysis.

I can see how my post could be construed as snide, mocking or taunting - yes, I can. But no, that was not my intent. Not at all.

Is there a means by which I can appeal your decision to issue an official warning? I should appreciate it very much if I could do so.

Thank you.
Email Max himself

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] [E-mail link removed.] [/modedit]

That's what I would do personally. Because any of the other venues would just go back directly to the same mods that gave you the warning. I agree that trying to guess someone's tone is going a bit far.
Actually, no, don't E-mail Max himself. E-mail [violet] (admin@nationstates.net) or E-mail SalusaSecondus (salusa@nationstates.net); that is where appeals are supposed to go. E-mailing Max directly is just going to make him ignore you.

I think you were going for "snide" and being snide or smug is not against the rules. Read the rules for yourself you'll see what I mean.Malice is against the rules, and I consider snideness to qualify as malice.

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

Thanks, Cog. I'll look into it.

Malice is against the rules, and I consider snideness to qualify as malice.

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

Main Entry: mal·ice
Pronunciation: 'ma-l&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin malitia, from malus bad
1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse

I don't believe that being snide or smug falls under the definition of malice.

Thanks, Cog. I'll look into it.

Don't get your hopes up. I mailed Salusa once to appeal a ruling about a signature, and I didn't get a response until two-three months after I had sent my complaint.

The outcome? "I'm sorry about the long delay on responding. As I don't have enough information in this case, the ruling will stay."

Yes, because of the absurd delay in the response to my complaint, there was no action taken. Moral of this story? Provide links and screen grabs and whatever you can, because you might just end up with a similar answer.

I don't believe that being snide or smug falls under the definition of malice.I disagree, but this will have to be decided by Mod team review or Admin review.

I thought appeals were supposed to be sent through the "Getting Help" page...For in-game rulings, appeals are sent first to the Getting Help page or second E-mailed to the Admins. For forum rulings, appeals are first posted in "Moderation" or second E-mailed to the Admins.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I disagree, but this will have to be decided by Mod team review or Admin review.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I didn't realize that the mods could define a word better than the dictionary..

But I know better than to argue with the mods. Still, it's a bad call.

I guess the mods will rule as the mods will rule. Nothing I can do about it whether I'm right or not appears to be irrelevant. So, I shall leave them to it.

I didn't realize that the mods could define a word better than the dictionary..

But I know better than to argue with the mods. Still, it's a bad call.

I guess the mods will rule as the mods will rule. Nothing I can do about it whether I'm right or not appears to be irrelevant. So, I shall leave them to it.

Way to back down graciously :rolleyes:

I have emailed Violet and cc'ed Selusa. Thanks for your assistance in this matter, Cog. I look forward to having this matter resolved.

Perhaps locking this thread so as to prevent further needless discourse would be advisable at this point in time. And thanks to all who have shown their concern by chiming in.

Way to back down graciously :rolleyes:

Would you prefer I argue with them and get myself deleted? I'm not that stupid. It's not so much backing down because I think I'm wrong, I'm backing down because I know better.

I didn't realize that the mods could define a word better than the dictionary.. /me rereads his previous post.

I'm sorry, I neglected to elaborate....

I'm not disagreeing with the definition. Rather, I'm disagreeing with your interpretation. Being snide can be a means of being malicious. Taunts between children in a schoolyard, for example, are usually also malicious.

It is possible that I'm wrong so, again, this will be subject to later review. My opinion, though, is that being snide is being malicious and I will issue Moderation decisions accordingly unless instructed otherwise.

Perhaps locking this thread so as to prevent further needless discourse would be advisable at this point in time.Agreed. iLock.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation