Flaming

[Nifflin]

 

I agree. I find it ironic or strange that on the very topic adressing flaming and trolling we have the startings of flaming and trolling...

off topic but that is not irony.

situational irony.

[Bladewing]

it's not irony, it's the opposite. people flaming in a thread about flaming is overly appropriate, not ironic.

[Nifflin]

Read the first post, "what can we do about it," implies that flaming is bad and a solution to it would be welcome. Even though this thread is about flaming, it puts flaming in a negative light.

 

It is therefor situational irony when flaming then starts happening in a thread where people are criticizing it.

[AlexDT]

This forum is designed to facilitate discussion. While the widely-held academic definition of discussion may involve mature and considered exchanges of carefully thought-out views and ideas, this is usually not the case. When someone wants to contribute to a discussion, they want to put their ideas forward. Their ideas are correct - otherwise they would not hold them. And so, when someone challenges these ideas, the audacity and idiocy displayed by this disagreement clearly demonstrates their lack of intelligence, and therefore their need for abuse. This is only exacerbated by the large proportion of proud pseudointellectuals who skulk the threads, and refuse to admit defeat when their superior thoughts are thought to be imperfect.

 

And thus, flaming.

QED.

[Sir_Squab]

Except the 4m/hr is actually tested / backed by evidence :P

Yep its scientific fact just like:

You're guaranteed dharok helm every 2.5 hours at barrows.

Every 12 hours you get a visage from frost dragons or a godsword from godwars.

4mil/hr is guaranteed to think otherwise would be ignorant. :arrow: :rolleyes:

 

And this is why we have this post, lol. I mean if you really want to troll I can claim 5M or 6M an hour, but whatever

 

Pssh. You call that trolling? THIS is trolling.

 

I make 1bil+ an hour solo'ing corp with a rubber chicken that looks like a warhammer because of constant sigil drops.

 

 

Sorry I couldn't ressist >_<

[stonewall337]

Except the 4m/hr is actually tested / backed by evidence :P

Yep its scientific fact just like:

You're guaranteed dharok helm every 2.5 hours at barrows.

Every 12 hours you get a visage from frost dragons or a godsword from godwars.

4mil/hr is guaranteed to think otherwise would be ignorant. :arrow: :rolleyes:

 

And this is why we have this post, lol. I mean if you really want to troll I can claim 5M or 6M an hour, but whatever

 

Pssh. You call that trolling? THIS is trolling.

 

I make 1bil+ an hour solo'ing corp with a rubber chicken that looks like a warhammer because of constant sigil drops.

 

 

Sorry I couldn't ressist >_<

 

 

No that's sounding like either a) an idiot or b) a liar.

 

And its resist.

[Sir_Squab]

Except the 4m/hr is actually tested / backed by evidence :P

Yep its scientific fact just like:

You're guaranteed dharok helm every 2.5 hours at barrows.

Every 12 hours you get a visage from frost dragons or a godsword from godwars.

4mil/hr is guaranteed to think otherwise would be ignorant. :arrow: :rolleyes:

 

And this is why we have this post, lol. I mean if you really want to troll I can claim 5M or 6M an hour, but whatever

 

Pssh. You call that trolling? THIS is trolling.

 

I make 1bil+ an hour solo'ing corp with a rubber chicken that looks like a warhammer because of constant sigil drops.

 

 

Sorry I couldn't ressist >_<

 

 

No that's sounding like either a) an idiot or b) a liar.

 

And its resist.

 

Idiot then. Too idiotic to be considered a lie. And woops, didn't notice typo.

[stonewall337]

Ye. An obvious troll fails, since a troll normally is trying to "fit in". Thus, a troll won't admit to trolling. Flaming is different. People who don't troll might flame.

[xxshady]

since a troll normally is trying to "fit in"

 

I don't think you know what a troll is. A troll purposely provokes argument and outrage by making obviously false claims and assertions. They have no desire to "fit in" to a community.

 

"Flaming" is when you make a heated, personal insult.

[tripsis]

since a troll normally is trying to "fit in"

 

I don't think you know what a troll is. A troll purposely provokes argument and outrage by making obviously false claims and assertions. They have no desire to "fit in" to a community.

Well there are trolls who do what you said and in the process obviously break the rules. Then there are the trolls who want to do everything you said but at the same time not get banned so they carefully toe the line and while they still try to incite a negative reaction and provoke arguments, they do it within the boundaries of the rules.. therefore I guess they "fit in" more.

 

I don't know if that's what he meant though :P

[Assume Nothing]

since a troll normally is trying to "fit in"

 

I don't think you know what a troll is. A troll purposely provokes argument and outrage by making obviously false claims and assertions. They have no desire to "fit in" to a community.

Well there are trolls who do what you said and in the process obviously break the rules. Then there are the trolls who want to do everything you said but at the same time not get banned so they carefully toe the line and while they still try to incite a negative reaction and provoke arguments, they do it within the boundaries of the rules.. therefore I guess they "fit in" more.

 

I don't know if that's what he meant though :P

 

I know you can't name names, but what kind of behaviour is "toeing the line"? An example please?

[tripsis]

since a troll normally is trying to "fit in"

 

I don't think you know what a troll is. A troll purposely provokes argument and outrage by making obviously false claims and assertions. They have no desire to "fit in" to a community.

Well there are trolls who do what you said and in the process obviously break the rules. Then there are the trolls who want to do everything you said but at the same time not get banned so they carefully toe the line and while they still try to incite a negative reaction and provoke arguments, they do it within the boundaries of the rules.. therefore I guess they "fit in" more.

 

I don't know if that's what he meant though :P

 

I know you can't name names, but what kind of behaviour is "toeing the line"? An example please?

Well the best example would be specific examples (real situations), which I can't give. But generally speaking, I'd say people who "toe the line" are purposely annoying but without breaking the rules. Meaning they say and do annoying things but without resorting to personal attacks or spamming. And we can't ban people just for being annoying :P Or to use xxshady's definition as a base:

 

An obvious troll purposely provokes arguments and outrage by making obviously false claims and assertions. In the process of defending their arguments, etc. they resort to using personal attacks and insults against the opposing side. They try to generate arguments out of pointless discussions by creating obviously spam topics.

 

A subtle troll does the above but debates in a more appropriate manner, without the personal attacks and insults. What they are arguing is ridiculous but they do it in an appropriate fashion. They know where the line is drawn between "spam" and "discussion value" and they create topics of the bare minimum discussion value (borderline spam rather than obviously spam). They purposely create threads in the wrong forum but claim it was an accident. They "fit in" in the sense that they abide by the forum rules but their annoying behavior tends to make them stand out.

[Sir_Kurity]

The rules are lax so you don't even have to attempt to toe the line.

 

Just jump across it and hope it all goes well. It generally works for half the posters in these forums. (Including me)

 

Short of throwing an insult in every second line of conversation and then swearing at the admins for deleting your posts, while making topics with your alternate accounts about how bad these forums are i'm pretty sure people get bored of it before they get banned.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Well the best example would be specific examples (real situations), which I can't give. But generally speaking, I'd say people who "toe the line" are purposely annoying but without breaking the rules. Meaning they say and do annoying things but without resorting to personal attacks or spamming. And we can't ban people just for being annoying :P Or to use xxshady's definition as a base:

 

An obvious troll purposely provokes arguments and outrage by making obviously false claims and assertions. In the process of defending their arguments, etc. they resort to using personal attacks and insults against the opposing side. They try to generate arguments out of pointless discussions by creating obviously spam topics.

 

A subtle troll does the above but debates in a more appropriate manner, without the personal attacks and insults. What they are arguing is ridiculous but they do it in an appropriate fashion. They know where the line is drawn between "spam" and "discussion value" and they create topics of the bare minimum discussion value (borderline spam rather than obviously spam). They purposely create threads in the wrong forum but claim it was an accident. They "fit in" in the sense that they abide by the forum rules but their annoying behavior tends to make them stand out.

 

Interesting definitions.

 

Often Ive been called a troll. Does it bother me? No. In fact its amusing in some ways that many posters who credit themselves with a lot of intelligence bother to write you troll!. I always think of some 12 year old kid finger pointing at me shouting Troll!. Makes me chuckle.

 

I thought the idea of forums was to be able to debate topics in hand in a reasonable manner. That includes any form of disagreement. Sure there will be times when a couple of things get close to the knuckle of what is acceptable but it happens. Real life is no different.

 

However, calling people a troll seems to be a convenient excuse to use in debates. More often than not its because they dislike another poster so its used as a tool to try to shout someone down or to try to get away with remarks theyve previously written but didnt like the comeback. Pretty much on the lines of do as I say, not as I do.

 

So far on these forums I have seen the finger pointing you-iz-a-trollz for the following excuses, along with how I define what the poster is actually saying:

 

You are thick/idiot because you dont understand me

No, youre just not explaining yourself very well or making assumptions that I know what you know.

 

Refusing to give evidence on a point made.

Yes I am going to ask you to provide evidence if you are trying to prove something and Im going to keep asking until you provide me with such evidence.

 

Refusing to explain a point, instead relying on accept it because I said it so it must be true

No Im not to accept it until you explain why I should with some valid points.

 

You are a troll

So you dont have any valid points here, youve just into the debate just to call me that, or you cant think of anything else to say? Did you also ignore the rest of the trolling/flaming posts too to tell me that?

 

I just posted a smart-arse comment at you. You posted one back. Youre a troll

Enough said.

[stormveritas]

Unfortunately, it's a hell of a lot easier to criticize someone else than it is to bring valuable insight to a conversation. This has become the basis of these boards. People want to look intelligent but can't bring any discussion to the table, so they just cherry pick something they don't like and berate it.

 

It's both venomous and highly contagious, and these forums will remain stained by the scarlet "T" until the powers that be just stop allowing these derelicts to poison the well from the periphery of the written rules and just start banning the legions of absolute jerks who exist solely to make others angry.

 

Unfortunately, I have seen zero evidence that leads me to believe any action will be taken against these sniping, spineless cowards.

[TheAncient]

Unfortunately, it's a hell of a lot easier to criticize someone else than it is to bring valuable insight to a conversation. This has become the basis of these boards. People want to look intelligent but can't bring any discussion to the table, so they just cherry pick something they don't like and berate it.

 

It's both venomous and highly contagious, and these forums will remain stained by the scarlet "T" until the powers that be just stop allowing these derelicts to poison the well from the periphery of the written rules and just start banning the legions of absolute jerks who exist solely to make others angry.

 

Unfortunately, I have seen zero evidence that leads me to believe any action will be taken against these sniping, spineless cowards.

 

Opinion is opinion

 

Anyway, if the definition of troll is "one who intentionally makes controversial topics", I would assert that trolls are good. Communities need skeptics who are willing to take alternative viewpoints and skepticize the accepted. I, in fact, do this on purpose.

[Grimy_Bunyip]

Opinion is opinion

 

Anyway, if the definition of troll is "one who intentionally makes controversial topics", I would assert that trolls are good. Communities need skeptics who are willing to take alternative viewpoints and skepticize the accepted. I, in fact, do this on purpose.

I wouldn't quite define troll that way.

Typically when I think of troll, I think of some sort of harassment.

[stormveritas]

Anyway, if the definition of troll is "one who intentionally makes controversial topics

 

This is where you lose me. Trolls on these forums are not opinionated intellectuals simply offering a contrary viewpoint. Trolls are those who throw rocks behind a thin veil of their posts being "not personal" despite their every word dripping with sarcasm and vitriole.

 

Trolls are the baiters, the snipers, the pot stirrers who offer not a contributing counterpoint but rather a touch of reference to the original post and then a stream of scathing assaults.

 

It happens here with incredible regularity, and it makes an otherwise wonderful forum ugly.

[Ts_Stormrage]

^this

 

 

 

Btw even saying you agree and leaving pout any other contributhing factors can constitute as a trolling post... Hence, if ONLY the first line of this post was actually there, and none of the rest was; I would be trolling too...

[Danqazmlp]

Unfortunately however, if we were to suddenly go on a ban spree and take out those who walk the line very closely, we would end up getting barrages of fake accounts, insults and the like from friends who would make accounts and no end of hassle. I am somebody who would swiftly get rid of a lot of people as many walk the line on purpose so much, I do have a good handful of people I have to keep looking at and keeping an eye on, alas action cannot be taken in a fair forum. Usually, the trolls just slip up eventually and we can usually just carry on.

[Obtaurian]

What about people who offer both discussion AND snide insults? I won't pretend that I'm not a sarcastic, condescending SOB, but I almost always try to add to the discussion or help someone if I can (I most frequently post in GD and H&A).

[Grimy_Bunyip]

Unfortunately however, if we were to suddenly go on a ban spree and take out those who walk the line very closely, we would end up getting barrages of fake accounts, insults and the like from friends who would make accounts and no end of hassle. I am somebody who would swiftly get rid of a lot of people as many walk the line on purpose so much, I do have a good handful of people I have to keep looking at and keeping an eye on, alas action cannot be taken in a fair forum. Usually, the trolls just slip up eventually and we can usually just carry on.

there should be some middle ground between a ban spree and quiet monitoring shouldn't there?

or would quiet monitoring be the middle ground between ban spree and something else?

[tripsis]

What about people who offer both discussion AND snide insults? I won't pretend that I'm not a sarcastic, condescending SOB, but I almost always try to add to the discussion or help someone if I can (I most frequently post in GD and H&A).

You can't balance out rule breaking with constructive posts to get away with it :P While we may deal with someone who ONLY dishes out snide comments more severely, offering discussion won't completely save you from the consequences of posting insults and other personal attacks. Breaking the rules is still breaking the rules.

[Danqazmlp]

You would be surprised how well the communication works between the staff. If there is a troubling user walking the line, chances are we all know of them and are keeping an eye on them. The problem is, we have do do as we would like done to ourselves. If I was to post something close to, but not quite breaking the rules, I would be mightily displeased to be banned.

[stormveritas]

You would be surprised how well the communication works between the staff. If there is a troubling user walking the line, chances are we all know of them and are keeping an eye on them. The problem is, we have do do as we would like done to ourselves. If I was to post something close to, but not quite breaking the rules, I would be mightily displeased to be banned.

 

I certainly understand your point and can sympathize with the plight of the mods, having struggled to control a few unruly boards in my day as well.

 

That said, if the existing rules create an environment everyone agrees is unpleasant, hostile, or just generally drives away quality members, why can't the rules be changed to eliminate those who ultimately seek only to bring destructive content to the board? Any change to rules would understandably be met with complaints, but I'd be hard pressed to say that the current rule set allows for effective governance.