NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384693&postcount=29

His original post was:

http://radio.weblogs.com/0111734/images/asshat_award2.jpg

But then he edited his post. The new edit is:
http://oddworks.com/picz/asshat.jpg

Either way, it wouldn't be considered flamebaiting, though he has posted a few times with nothing but links to pictures, and has been told to knock it off.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384788&postcount=32



~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Either way, it wouldn't be considered flamebaiting, though he has posted a few times with nothing but links to pictures, and has been told to knock it off.



~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~
A while ago, I was warned for flaming a moderator for repeatedly calling him ignorant. In a recent thread, someone complained about being called a dumbass. The first moderator said it wasn't flaming, but the decision was later reversed.

Imagine, for a moment, that I called a moderator an "asshat." There's no doubt I'd be warned for flaming.

For purposes of clarification, could you post a list of words that ARE flaming and flame-baiting? Because it's so subjective that it's annoying. "Dumbass," and "ignorant," are flaming, but "ass," and "asshat," are not?

If there was a list, it would make things a lot easier. Instead of being fairly angry over being insulted, and then having to convince the mods that it was a bad enough insult to warrant a warning.

EDIT: Clearly, he was just trying to get a reaction. He posted an insulting image, then trollishly giggled and decided to post another image. I'd like to appeal this decision, if there are any other moderators who can give a second opinion.

For purposes of clarification, could you post a list of words that ARE flaming and flame-baiting? Because it's so subjective that it's annoying. "Dumbass," and "ignorant," are flaming, but "ass," and "asshat," are not?

If there was a list, it would make things a lot easier. Instead of being fairly angry over being insulted, and then having to convince the mods that it was a bad enough insult to warrant a warning.


Such a list could never be put together, to be quite frank with you. It all depends on the wording of the statement, and is a case by case issue. For example, swearing doesn't necessarily equate flaming, but it is one of the main reasons something could potentially become a flame.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

From the One Stop Rules Shop:
Rules Lawyers: We don't like rules lawyering. We've said this before. If someone looks like they're trying to use (or, more specifically, abuse) the above guidelines in bad faith, then an official warning will be issued against them. "But you said this was okay!" "Yes, we did say it was okay. Then you went and tried to use that to bait another player." "I wasn't trying to bait him/her!" "We don't believe you." "But it's true!" "Tough noogies. You are officially warned."
For purposes of clarification, could you post a list of words that ARE flaming and flame-baiting? Because it's so subjective that it's annoying. "Dumbass," and "ignorant," are flaming, but "ass," and "asshat," are not?
Here's George Carlin's 2,443 Dirty Words (http://www.georgecarlin.com/dirty/2443.html) list. You wanna sort, organize, append, adapt, and enforce them on YOUR site, feel free. On NationStates, we're gonna continue to use our Moderator's judgement of tone, history, and probable intent.

Such a list could never be put together, to be quite frank with you. It all depends on the wording of the statement, and is a case by case issue. For example, swearing doesn't necessarily equate flaming, but it is one of the main reasons something could potentially become a flame.
You could not put together a list of ALL potential flames, obviously. But you could compile a list of past decisions. Because there are a number of statements which are going to be flaming, no matter what the context.

For example, if the following statements are directed at someone here, it would be flaming:
Fuck you
Eat shit
Asshole
Shithead
Dumbass
Fucker
Motherfucker
Bitch

And so on. Whereas words like "ass," and "asshat," are clearly disputable. But even those, you could specify that if there's a certain adjective that modifies them... For example "asshat," and "ass," aren't flaming (according to what you've said so far), but I think we can agree "fucking ass," "god damn ass," "fucking asshat," and "god damn asshat," would all be flaming.

Such a list is possible. Not as an absolute, but as an extremely helpful guideline...

...Like I said... So people don't insult us, and then when we complain, we're told, "Sorry. That's not flaming. Get a tougher skin."

Because when we percieve that someone has flame-baited, we're already angry. Being told that the moderators refuse to take action, and already knowing that we cannot flame back, makes us all the more angry... Because someone has insulted us, and we have no way to settle it.

And, like I said, I'd still like a second opinion. Because, as I also said, he was clearly trying to get some kind of reaction. He insults me, then makes an edit that again insults me. I'll emphasize what I said a third time, as well: If I called YOU an asshat, it would be flaming.

Frisbeeteria, it is NOT rules-lawyering. In case you haven't been reading this thread properly (which is currently clearly the case), I am not trying to skirt around the rules, but am angry because someone else is skirting around the rules and you're telling me to just shut up and deal with it.

According to the "One-Stop Rules Shop," rules-lawyering is trying to interpret the rules in order to break them in bad faith. I am not doing that here.

I am not saying, "But you said I could!"

I am saying, "This person broke the rules."

It's called an appeal.

And, like I said, I'd still like a second opinion. Because, as I also said, he was clearly trying to get some kind of reaction. He insults me, then makes an edit that again insults me. I'll emphasize what I said a third time, as well: If I called YOU an asshat, it would be flaming.

You've received your second opinion, President Shrub. As a matter of fact, in discussion with the rest of the moderators online, three of them (including me) have all agreed that it isn't flamebaiting.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

What you want is a nice neat list of words.

What we have is a complicated combination of words, phrasing, context within the thread, context in the history of the poster, context in the history of the interaction between the poster and the target, an already excessive history of rulings and precedent, and a bunch of human moderators sitting at keyboards trying to sort it all out late into the night.


It's going to be subjective. Live with it.