NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm pretty sure I'm being baited by Neo-Art. See here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13266815&posted=1#post13266815)

Eh, I'm not seeing it. I am, however, seeing this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13266806&postcount=98). Not good form. Flaming, in fact. Cut it out.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Dude, how does this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13266815&posted=1#post13266815) not qualify as outright flaming?

That said, my answer to which you linked was directly related to previous insistence on his part on saying "You phail at logic" and the like. That's flamebaiting, if not flaming.

See here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13266839&postcount=115) He's insulting my intelligence.

You responded to mild snarkiness with flaming. Then the object of your flaming got a bit more snarky. Surprised?

My recommendation is that you avoid flaming people if you don't want to be sniped at.

If I hand out punishments for this, you'll get the worst of it by far, so were I in your shoes, I'd not be drawing attention to myself, especially when I was strongly advised against it a few months ago.

You responded to mild snarkiness with flaming. Then the object of your flaming got a bit more snarky. Surprised?

My recommendation is that you avoid flaming people if you don't want to be sniped at.

I was being sniped at prior to the flame.

I was being sniped at prior to the flame.

Not to a degree that constituted a rules violation. Had you responded proportionately with mild snarkiness of your own, you would have avoided a rules violation as well. But you didn't. You chose to respond in a way that does violate the rules, and rather obviously.

Not to a degree that constituted a rules violation. Had you responded proportionately with mild snarkiness of your own, you would have avoided a rules violation as well. But you didn't. You chose to respond in a way that does violate the rules, and rather obviously.

Fair enough.