NationStates Jolt Archive

At what point is pointing out that an idiot is being an idiot considered flaming? ie.

PosterA: Thats because the filthy jews control banking!

PosterB: You're scum PosterA

Who is in the wrong? PosterA PosterB or both?

I think both. This happens when trolls collide.

At what point is pointing out that an idiot is being an idiot considered flaming? ie.

PosterA: Thats because the filthy jews control banking!

PosterB: You're scum PosterA

Who is in the wrong? PosterA PosterB or both?

How about you post the actual posts, rather than making them up on your own? It's certainly not helping your case.

Again, America pulling down the whole world...
Flamebait/trolling, but not serious enough to be warned for it. If combined with other posts in the same thread that are equally offensive, it could become a warning.

Yeah that was our plan get hit with a fuck'n HURRICANE so we can screw YOUR country up. If wherever the hell you are from is full of worthless parasites like you it's be best if you all die painfully. You = A waste of biomass.

Direct threat to The South Islands, obvious flaming and it deserves a warning.

NOT a direct threat. Read the first word of the sentence. IF. I used an analogy because it seems to be more acceptable here to hate Americans than to hate Jews.

NOT a direct threat. Read the first word of the sentence. IF. I used an analogy because it seems to be more acceptable here to hate Americans than to hate Jews.I'm not a mod, but I don't think adding qualifiers eliminates that statement from being a direct threat. I also think it does not lessen the fact it's an obvious flame.

Incorrect.

If wherever the hell you are from is full of worthless parasites like you..
Calling him a worthless parasite.

it's be best if you all die painfully.
Inferring that if everyone else is the same as him, they deserve to die a painful death. Saying that 'if everyone was a worthless parasite', while calling The South Island the same name equates to you telling him that he should die a painful death.

You = A waste of biomass.
Putting the icing on the cake with yet another insult.

This should be more than enough evidence for you.

All that and still no official warning--consider yourself lucky, Pauljeekistan. The mods here are way tolerant.

All that and still no official warning--consider yourself lucky, Pauljeekistan. The mods here are way tolerant.

Actually, http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9553874&postcount=11

Incorrect.


Calling him a worthless parasite.


Inferring that if everyone else is the same as him, they deserve to die a painful death. Saying that 'if everyone was a worthless parasite', while calling The South Island the same name equates to you telling him that he should die a painful death.


Putting the icing on the cake with yet another insult.

This should be more than enough evidence for you.

SO I called him a worthless parasite who should be destroyed. After he basically said the same thing about a few thousand people in the US. Once again I think that if he'd said the same thing about a racial minority he would be the one warned not me. Once again I did not threaten anyone. Once again you have changed your story to justify your actions.

I'll not you never answered the question that I started the thread with. Perhaps it is too obvious a display of your hypocracy?

Once again you have changed your story to justify your actions.
You got a warning from one mod, several detailed explanations from a second mod, and this will make your third moderation ruling in this case.

My colleagues are entirely correct in interpreting the rules of these forums. Your continued and pointless arguments are making your case weaker, not stronger, as all readers are capable of reading the definitions of flaming in The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023). If you wish to argue your way into a full forumban or deletion, be my guest.

The warning stands.

Why are the rules selectively enforced?

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.

Tell me I was'nt responding to flamebait. I was as crude as I was because seeing the unaacceptable post I made an unnacceptable response. Actually one of the other posters called it flamebait.

Why are the rules selectively enforced?
The other poster posted a mild troll, and recieved a 'soft' warning: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9553865&postcount=9

You responded with direct personal attacks and implied threats, and received a 'hard' warning. The punishment was metered to fit the crime.

If you honestly think that responding to trolling with personal attacks and threats is acceptable, then I suggest you find another place to play on the 'net. You're not going to last very long around here.

Why are the rules selectively enforced?

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.

Tell me I was'nt responding to flamebait. I was as crude as I was because seeing the unaacceptable post I made an unnacceptable response. Actually one of the other posters called it flamebait.

How do you think that this is helping? Take it from someone who has had more than a few warnings: accept it, forget about it, and move on. What happens to other people isn't really that important to you, is it?