NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431956

I'd just like a moderator to rule on whether or not my thread is considered flamebait.

I think it is.

Aust, I think you should edit your signature before a mod does.


Signature Spam: Forum signatures give you space to include a few carefully selected links or quotes. Sigs are attached to every post, and must therefore conform to clutter-reducing rules. Maximum size should never exceed eight lines, including blank lines and quote lines. (A short quote takes up 5 lines - "quote", attribution line, two lines for the box, and one line for the quote). Large font sizes should be avoided and may be trimmed without warning. Posting forbidden links is not allowed. Jolt policy prohibits images in signatures as well, so don't try IMG tags.
I'm counting at least 12 lines at the moment.

Okay, I've never had a problem before though.

I think it is.Care to elaborate?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431956

I'd just like a moderator to rule on whether or not my thread is considered flamebait.
It looks fine to me. I'm not slightly irritated by it and although you may get a flaming you don't seem to be looking for one.

Mind you I'm in the UK (so's the jolt server though) so don't care a toss about the subject matter .

It' drawing in democrats and republicans to try band create a flame war ebtween the 2 groups. It's a troll.

I'd just like a moderator to rule on whether or not my thread is considered flamebait.
No, but it is moderately trollish. Not enough to be actionable, though.

Okay, I've never had a problem before though.
That's because we're a) not omniscient and b) routinely have sigs turned off. Despite that, change it to comply to the rules (if you haven't already). You've had the rules pointed out to you, which should be sufficient.

No, but it is moderately trollish. Not enough to be actionable, though.


That's because we're a) not omniscient and b) routinely have sigs turned off. Despite that, change it to comply to the rules (if you haven't already). You've had the rules pointed out to you, which should be sufficient.In the future, how can I avoid being trollish with such issues? Is any political issue considered trollery, or was it in the way the issue was presented?

It's always in the presentation.

Probably the simplest way to avoid trollish writing is to avoid demonizing one of the sides of the argument. "Democrats are godless heathens, but if they'd just become more like Republicans maybe they could get into heaven too." Broad, ill-considered generalizations are another thing to avoid.

Or you could read some of the debate threads that haven't turned into hellish flamewars and just try to learn how they do it.

It's always in the presentation.

Probably the simplest way to avoid trollish writing is to avoid demonizing one of the sides of the argument. "Democrats are godless heathens, but if they'd just become more like Republicans maybe they could get into heaven too." Broad, ill-considered generalizations are another thing to avoid.

Or you could read some of the debate threads that haven't turned into hellish flamewars and just try to learn how they do it.But I didn't say anything like that. All I said was that they were alienating the Christian voting demographic by some of their actions. I also didn't say anything about them getting into Heaven. I guess it must have seemed like I was implying that to many of the more sensitive members of the forum?

But I didn't say anything like that. All I said was that they were alienating the Christian voting demographic by some of their actions. I also didn't say anything about them getting into Heaven. I guess it must have seemed like I was implying that to many of the more sensitive members of the forum?
You might want to consider that people who are answering you are not necessarily accusing you of something. That was an example of an outrageous statement to avoid. You asked for advice, I provided it. Pay attention.

You might want to consider that people who are answering you are not necessarily accusing you of something. That was an example of an outrageous statement to avoid. You asked for advice, I provided it. Pay attention.Okay, well what exactly was it that I said in that thread that I should avoid saying in the future?

Your error was in the flawed presumption that the Democratic party is "attacking things like the Ten Commandments". AFIK that is not a part of the Democratic Party platform. It is a generalization which is incorrect, inaccurate and insensitive to Dems, particularly those who are also Christian.

There are groups who are sympathetic to the Democratic Party who do these things, but there are groups who are sympathetic to Reps to who do unsavory things as well. It would be unfair to generalize the Reps as all supporting that type of behavior.

Seriously, I don't see how his post is any different from the dozens of political posts made here every day. Actually, it looks to me like the issue of whether or not it's flame bait is rocking the boat more than the post alone ever would have.

Your error was in the flawed presumption that the Democratic party is "attacking things like the Ten Commandments". AFIK that is not a part of the Democratic Party platform. It is a generalization which is incorrect, inaccurate and insensitive to Dems, particularly those who are also Christian.

There are groups who are sympathetic to the Democratic Party who do these things, but there are groups who are sympathetic to Reps to who do unsavory things as well. It would be unfair to generalize the Reps as all supporting that type of behavior.That was precisely the point I made to him on like page 2 of the thread. I even gave him an example of the reverse, that it would be unfair to call Republicans xenophobes based on the actions of Tom Tancredo.

Your error was in the flawed presumption that the Democratic party is "attacking things like the Ten Commandments". AFIK that is not a part of the Democratic Party platform. It is a generalization which is incorrect, inaccurate and insensitive to Dems, particularly those who are also Christian.

There are groups who are sympathetic to the Democratic Party who do these things, but there are groups who are sympathetic to Reps to who do unsavory things as well. It would be unfair to generalize the Reps as all supporting that type of behavior.I see now. Thanks.Seriously, I don't see how his post is any different from the dozens of political posts made here every day. Actually, it looks to me like the issue of whether or not it's flame bait is rocking the boat more than the post alone ever would have.It really isn't, but a lot of the political posts on this forum are flamebait, and I wouldn't want to contribute to that.