NationStates Jolt Archive

There's no need for such language or to flamebait. Consider yourself WARNED.

Please clarify. You have punished me, justly I might add, while Hotwife who makes a thread designed either to anger people, which is labeled trolling in the rules, is not.


Do not fuel the flames.

And to everyone else, let's just play nice. We don't want to have a thread locked because we couldn't play nice, do we?

Do you not see that Hotwife deliberately baited NSG with the OP?

Please show me how posting that Obama is a promise breaker because other people allegedly abused how Obama's is set up was not meant to anger people.

For sanity purposes, I moved this post and the previous into their own thread so that there is no necessary clutter in the thread where the incident occurred.

Please clarify. You have punished me, justly I might add, while Hotwife who makes a thread designed either to anger people, which is labeled trolling in the rules, is not.

Do you not see that Hotwife deliberately baited NSG with the OP?

Please show me how posting that Obama is a promise breaker because other people allegedly abused how Obama's is set up was not meant to anger people.
If there was a problem with "angering", a lot of topics would be taboo here.

It boils down to language use.

Hotwife is entitled to his opinion, even if you think otherwise. The OP is an opinion and it was designed to start a debate. I saw nothing that looked like trolling. He was quoting from the website, and giving what was his own opinion.

He was being rather civil. Yes, it's a hot topic, but his OP post handled it in a civil manner. He presented questions he though shouldn't have been censored and nothing looked out of place.

Now let's review the post in question.

Please fin one speech where he made these promises that he would do this. If ALL of his speeches had them you should be able to find one of them. Do so or you are a incompetent troll.

You are twisting Obam's words. I never said that he didn't make any promises. WHat I doubt that his promises were what you think they were. Source or shut the fuck up.

You are clearly the aggressive one in this case. There was no need to call Hotwife an incompetent troll, and there was no reason for when asking for a source to tell him to "shut the fuck up" - your words.

This is a forum for civil debate and you haven proven in your response to not be civil.

For example, when asking for a source, you could have asked for a source without the profanities. You could have also done away with the childish name calling. I hope that this clears it up.

If there was a problem with "angering", a lot of topics would be taboo here.

It boils down to language use.

Clarify further. The one stop shop post did not say that language use was a criteria for trolling only posts designed to incite negative comments and anger were. Please alter the post if that is the one stop shop definition of trolling is imprecise.

Hotwife is entitled to his opinion, even if you think otherwise. The OP is an opinion and it was designed to start a debate. I saw nothing that looked like trolling. He was quoting from the website, and giving what was his own opinion.He was being rather civil. Yes, it's a hot topic, but his OP post handled it in a civil manner. He presented questions he though shouldn't have been censored and nothing looked out of place.[

I have no trouble that Howife has different opinions than I do, but the actions of others and the way a website is designed does not reflect on Obama. Some reviewed questions were probably flagged when they shouldn't have been and the website could have been designed differently so that while people could flag questions but to say that Obama broke his promise. Such a large reach seems designed only to enrage others. Basically flame-baiting but for more than one person.


You are clearly the aggressive one. There was no need to call Hotwife an incompetent troll, and there was no reason for when asking for a source to tell him to "shut the fuck up" - your words.For example, when asking for a source, you could have asked for a source without the profanities. You could have also done away with the childish name calling. I hope that this clears it up.

I had previously had asked him for a source. He said that I had obviously not heard any of Obama's speeches and didn't give one. Also, if you noted I did not dispute my warning, just the lack of Hotwife's.

Clarify further.

I'm not a mod, but in my opinion, you were warned for telling someone to "shut the fuck up" and for accusing Tech-gnosis of being a "incompetent troll." What part of THAT needs to be clarified?

The rules of this forum are specific. You can disagree all you want. Based on what I've seen in my time here, Max Barry encourages the free exchange of ideas and the civil debate of said ideas. He doesn't care if you think Obama is the Antichrist or a new Messiah. He just wants you to make your point by quoting facts and making your case in a mature fashion. Based on what I've seen of the posts in question, you have not done that.

I'm not a mod, but in my opinion, you were warned for telling someone to "shut the fuck up" and for accusing Hotwife of being a "incompetent troll." What part of THAT needs to be clarified?

The rules of this forum are specific. You can disagree all you want. Based on what I've seen in my time here, Max Barry encourages the free exchange of ideas and the civil debate of said ideas. He doesn't care if you think Obama is the Antichrist or a new Messiah. He just wants you to make your point by quoting facts and making your case in a mature fashion. Based on what I've seen of the posts in question, you have not done that.

Wow, you really didn't read my either posts given that I addressed the above in the beginning of the first post and the end of second one. Also I fixed your post.

Clarify further. The one stop shop post did not say that language use was a criteria for trolling only posts designed to incite negative comments and anger were. Please alter the post if that is the one stop shop definition of trolling is imprecise.

Language is what makes the difference. The choice of wording depending on what one picks can either be designed to be negative or not.

I have no trouble that Howife has different opinions than I do, but the actions of others and the way a website is designed does not reflect on Obama. Some reviewed questions were probably flagged when they shouldn't have been and the website could have been designed differently so that while people could flag questions but to say that Obama broke his promise. Such a large reach seems designed only to enrage others. Basically flame-baiting but for more than one person.

Irrelevant. This is to be debated back on NSG. The debate is there about the nature of the questions. We aren't here to resolve that.

I had previously had asked him for a source. He said that I had obviously not heard any of Obama's speeches and didn't give one. Also, if you noted I did not dispute my warning, just the lack of Hotwife's.

Ok, then you should have asked again and without the profanities.

Whether or not he had to provide a source to back up his claims is irrelevant.

I'm double checking though.

Language is what makes the difference. The choice of wording depending on what one picks can either be designed to be negative or not.

What do you mean by wording? The wording of the rules could make it seem like the wording of trolling and flame baiting are irrelevant.

=The One-Stop Rules Shop;14295973]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.

Also, what does "made with the aim of angering" mean if "angering" is not trolling?

Irrelevant. This is to be debated back on NSG. The debate is there about the nature of the questions. We aren't here to resolve that.

Why is it irrelevant? If the claims were more reasonable there is less likelihood that the OP was designed to incite anger.

I have the sense that you're challenging Kryozerkia's ruling simply because that player was recently modded. I've looked over this complaint in its entirety, and completely concur and endorse Kryozerkia's ruling, though I would have called it flaming rather than flamebaiting or trolling

Your behavior was an attack on the player, not the argument. As such it was flaming. There is no further need for clarification, as this warning was entirely consistent with the published rules and about six years of precedent.

The ruling stands.

Frisbeeteria
Senior Game Moderator.

I have the sense that you're challenging Kryozerkia's ruling simply because that player was recently modded.

I had the same sense, actually. Spooky.

Please clarify. You have punished me, justly I might add, while Hotwife who makes a thread designed either to anger people, which is labeled trolling in the rules, is not.

And the whole point behind Tech's question is ignored...

The issue has been dealt with.

What do you mean by wording? The wording of the rules could make it seem like the wording of trolling and flame baiting are irrelevant.

lets see...

Please fin one speech where he made these promises that he would do this. If ALL of his speeches had them you should be able to find one of them. Do so or you are a incompetent troll.

You are twisting Obam's words. I never said that he didn't make any promises. WHat I doubt that his promises were what you think they were. Source or shut the fuck up.


you could've said this.
Please fin one speech where he made these promises that he would do this. If ALL of his speeches had them you should be able to find one of them. Do so or your point becomes irrelevant.

You are twisting Obam's words. I never said that he didn't make any promises. WHat I doubt that his promises were what you think they were. Find the Source of your claim or drop it.

Calling someone a "troll" is borderline since it's attacking the poster and not the argument. telling someone to "shut the fuck up" is not addressing the post but the poster.


Your post does sound like you're angry. whether or not you are is not the point. it's the perception that you are that gets across and fuels the flames.

if you felt HotWife was trolling, you could've chosen to address it in the mod forum instead of engaging him in verbal sparring.

One last bit ...

And the whole point behind Tech's question is ignored...

Hotwife is well known as a forum member whose views are significantly to the right of most forum participants. He starts such threads with his own interpretation, presents his case, and stays with his premise. I've seen threads of his (and from many other players) where staying with the premise involves logical contortions that would stretch the skills of a Cirque du Soleil acrobat, but it's not cut-and-run trolling.

It's entirely legitimate to start a thread with an incendiary topic and a premise with which 95% of the players disagree ... as long as you stay within the other rules. We allow diverse opinions. The fact that "it makes you angry" does not in itself constitute trolling.