Is this an official position?

[Kiskaanak]

From here.

It's a little thing called context. Like I said, if you go around being a gigantic asshole, "why are you being a gigantic asshole?" is a legitimate question.

So is it an official position that Neo Art is a gigantic asshole? Or do I have to wait for him to act like a gigantic asshole in order to use this ruling that it's okay to ask him why he's being a gigantic asshole?

Related questions in regards to others may be:

"Why are you acting like such a bitch/fuckwad/douchebag/idiot/moron/pussywhippedfuckface?" Are these also okay as long as the person they are directed at is indeed acting like one of the included labels?

[Neo Art]

Related questions in regards to others may be:

"Why are you acting like such a bitch/fuckwad/douchebag/idiot/moron/pussywhippedfuckface?" Are these also okay as long as the person they are directed at is indeed acting like one of the included labels?

My question is, who makes that determination? Is it merely sufficient that I have to think someone is being a pussywhippedfuckface in order to call them that? Does the poster him/herself have to admit to being such? Is it not a flame as long as a moderator agrees that the poster in question was being quite pussywhippedfuckface? Or does it have to be agreed upon by a neutral observer?

Should we empanel a commission? Should we have one group of set people who makes these calls, or rotate it? Would it be by majority? Super-majority? Unanimity? What if the poster calling one a giant asshole thinks the target is, but the target disagrees? Do we have a tiebreaker?

Just how many people have to agree that someone is being a giant asshole before "why are you being such a giant asshole" becomes not flaming, and merely just a tautology?

God, it would be so much easier if we just said that flaming someone was flaming someone, without having to come up with nonsensical justifications like "well, he was asking for it!"

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I think that whether you're an asshole/bitch/jerkass/pussywhippedfuckface/and other colorful epithets IRL or not, calling you one in the forum constitutes as flaming.

That's all I will say.

[Neo Art]

I think that whether you're an asshole/bitch/jerkass/pussywhippedfuckface/and other colorful epithets IRL or not, calling you one in the forum constitutes as flaming.

That's all I will say.

One would think, wouldn't one? But apparently, given the quote from a moderator at the top of this page, it's not flaming/flamebaiting, as long as it's true (though, one wonders...according to whom...)

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I think that whether you're an asshole/bitch/jerkass/pussywhippedfuckface/and other colorful epithets IRL or not, calling you one in the forum constitutes as flaming.

That's all I will say.

One would think, wouldn't one? But apparently, given the quote from a moderator at the top of this page, it's not flaming/flamebaiting, as long as it's true (though, one wonders...according to whom...)

A ruling I find strange because whether you are one or not, whether you portray yourself as one or not is inconsequential. If someone calls you one, utilizing the forum, that is breaking the rules.

[GothicLust]

This is an interesting turn of events. I am wondering if we can get official word? This seems rather suspect.

[Rambhutan]

It would be helpful if this was decided quickly before someone decides to test Melkor's position.

[Kiskaanak]

It would be helpful if this was decided quickly before someone decides to test Melkor's position.

I rather doubt that is a serious consideration.

Chill. I haven't seen any mods in the forum since I posted this.

[Melkor Unchained]

I think that whether you're an asshole/bitch/jerkass/pussywhippedfuckface/and other colorful epithets IRL or not, calling you one in the forum constitutes as flaming.

That's all I will say.

(emphasis added)
This is correct, but if you go back and read what happened between NA and UT, that's not what happened (although ironically, someone else called another poster a "dumbass" subsequently, for which he was warned). The gist of UT's "offending" remarks editorialize about NA's behavior, it doesn't actually deploy any direct invective. He wasn't saying "You are an asshole," he was asking "Why are you acting like an asshole?" only in different words. How you post/behave affects how you are perceived by other players and sometimes other players will voice these perceptions.

To quote myself from the relevant thread in M/A:

...in his GHR Neo quotes the OSRS at us, and reading back over it I can see what he's getting at: it does sort of imply that "attacking the poster" is by itself an actionable offense; but it's not and it never has been. Even the worst ad hominems aren't by themselves technically flames, but it's hard for us to quantify in clear terms just what makes flames always and what doesn't ever. A good general rule is to steer clear of insults and that's what we advise, but there are some things you can say about other users that might be negative but not quite insults; like asking them if they habitually ignore direct questions or asserting that they don't know what they're talking about (a time-honored favorite). In Neo's case, it's "why are you acting like an asshole" after an extended period of acting like an asshole.

It might not be polite, but technically the rules don't require that you be polite, as we've seen over the years. In that exchange, I simply didn't see UT's remarks as being worse than Neo's or vice versa. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen: the best way to avoid these kind of situations is to be more civil.

My question is, who makes that determination?

We do. It's part of the territory. If someone isn't causing any problems and/or has no warnings or history and another poster comes out of left field with "hey, why are you being such a dick," we probably wouldn't full-on redtext but we might post a reminder and keep an eye on the subsequent exchange. If, however, someone demonstrates a preference for agitating other posters (e.g., "You're wrong" without any backing data, "You don't know what you're talking about" and the like), turnabout is fair play: people are allowed to ask what the deal is or (for example) if the subject is highly personal to you.

[Fartsniffage]

It would be helpful if this was decided quickly before someone decides to test Melkor's position.

I think anyone who did would be dinged for rules lawyering.

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."

Although, extrapolating from this ruling, perhaps it would be okay if they actually were a lawyer.

[Neo Art]

He wasn't saying "You are an asshole," he was asking "Why are you acting like an asshole?" only in different words.

The fact that you're going through such great lenghts to somehow argue that those are different things is kinda the problem. It's nonsensically bizarre to suggest that "gee, why are you acting like an asshole" is not pretty much the same thing as saying "you're an asshole".

How you post/behave affects how you are perceived by other players and sometimes other players will voice these perceptions.

I'm sure how I behave affects how I am perceived. That's pretty much the case of human interaction generally. However, by the very rules of the forum, voicing those perceptions with the intent to induce hostility and anger is not allowed.

I'm not in any way attempting to argue that someone isn't allowed to think something about me. I'm arguing that my legal conduct on this forum should not and can not ever be used as a justification to commit a forum violation.

We do. It's part of the territory. If someone isn't causing any problems and/or has no warnings or history and someone comes out of left field with "hey, why are you being such a dick," we probably wouldn't full-on redtext but we might post a reminder and keep an eye on the subsequent exchange. If, however, someone demonstrates a preference for agitating other posters (e.g., "You're wrong" without any backing data, "You don't know what you're talking about" and the like), turnabout is fair play: people are allowed to ask what the deal is or (for example) if the subject is highly personal to you.

And, again, here's the problem. If "why are you being such a dick?" is a warnable offense, then it's a warnable offense. If it isn't, then it isn't. This nonsensical quibbling about "well, it's a bad thing...unless you really were being a dick" is beyond any rational thought. All it does is create the "well, she was asking for it!" defense.

Regardless of what impression of me my (by your own admission, perfectly legal) conduct creates in you, insulting a player (even by backhanded "I didn't SAY you were being an AIDS addled whore, I was just asking why you were acting like a whore addled with AIDS would act") is either against forum rules or it isn't.

Now if you don't think that UT's comments IN THAT INSTANCE rose to the level of a rules violation, then so be it, the appeal is in and we'll see what happens, but to somehow imply that, well, if I were nicer it would have gotten him a warning but because I'm so very very MEAN all the time that it's somehow OK to treat me differently than other players is ascinine.

If it was against the rules to say that to someone, then it's against the rules to say that to someone, whether they were "asking for it" or not. To say otherwise single handedly creates a rule NOWHERE in the OSR that what is, and what is not a flame depends entirely on whether the flamed poster "deserved" it or not, and is perhaps the single most dangerous precident that can be set on this forum.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I think that whether you're an asshole/bitch/jerkass/pussywhippedfuckface/and other colorful epithets IRL or not, calling you one in the forum constitutes as flaming.

That's all I will say.

(emphasis added)
This is correct, but if you go back and read what happened between NA and UT, that's not what happened (although ironically, someone else called another poster a "dumbass" subsequently, for which he was warned). The gist of UT's "offending" remarks editorialize about NA's behavior, it doesn't actually deploy any direct invective. He wasn't saying "You are an asshole," he was asking "Why are you acting like an asshole?" only in different words. How you post/behave affects how you are perceived by other players and sometimes other players will voice these perceptions.

To quote myself from the relevant thread in M/A:

...in his GHR Neo quotes the OSRS at us, and reading back over it I can see what he's getting at: it does sort of imply that "attacking the poster" is by itself an actionable offense; but it's not and it never has been. Even the worst ad hominems aren't by themselves technically flames, but it's hard for us to quantify in clear terms just what makes flames always and what doesn't ever. A good general rule is to steer clear of insults and that's what we advise, but there are some things you can say about other users that might be negative but not quite insults; like asking them if they habitually ignore direct questions or asserting that they don't know what they're talking about (a time-honored favorite). In Neo's case, it's "why are you acting like an asshole" after an extended period of acting like an asshole.

It might not be polite, but technically the rules don't require that you be polite, as we've seen over the years. In that exchange, I simply didn't see UT's remarks as being worse than Neo's or vice versa. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen: the best way to avoid these kind of situations is to be more civil.

My question is, who makes that determination?

We do. It's part of the territory. If someone isn't causing any problems and/or has no warnings or history and another poster comes out of left field with "hey, why are you being such a dick," we probably wouldn't full-on redtext but we might post a reminder and keep an eye on the subsequent exchange. If, however, someone demonstrates a preference for agitating other posters (e.g., "You're wrong" without any backing data, "You don't know what you're talking about" and the like), turnabout is fair play: people are allowed to ask what the deal is or (for example) if the subject is highly personal to you.

Having noticed this thread, I can't help but ask if this new rule applies to everyone or just posters you (Melkor) think deserve it? One could, for example, say unsavory things about author of the fancydancing sophistry above. I assume they would be warned. It wouldn't matter that the poster believed them to be objectively true, others believed them to be true, or even that they might be true -- it would be up to you to say if up is down, black is white, real is real, etc., and, then, based on your determination of "truthiness" and whether the victim "deserved it," it may or may not be a rules violation.

I say this not because Moderators cannot make those determinations (or to insult you), but because this injects an incredible degree of uncertainly and vagueness in the (already vague) rules re flaming and flamebaiting. Gone is the simple mantra of "address the post, not the poster." Now, we have to wonder if something is acceptable based on whether or not a ruling Moderator will consider the statement true and/or the victim "fair game." Perhaps the Moderation team should re-think this.

Note: I haven't read the details about and do not care about the original statements that led to this ruling and explanation. It is the precedent I am concern about. UT's comments may well not have been rules violations. I don't care.

[Kiskaanak]

I have a few issues with the original comments that were reported. To not get too lost I'm going to mention this one first.

In my view, this is an attack on Muravyets. I am bothered that no one noticed this. Was she even a part of that original discussion? Why was her name brought in? The idea that we can start referring to actions we see as negative under the poster name of someone on NSG is in itself problematic. I'd be as weirded out if someone said, "What a Melkor thing to do, *insert negative behaviour attributed to Melkor*"

So that is a bit of a separate issue I'd like addressed.


Okay, back on track.

In Neo's case, it's "why are you acting like an asshole" after an extended period of acting like an asshole.

Here's my problem. You are stating, as a fact, that Neo Art acts like an asshole.

I find that extremely problematic.

You have said, when asked 'who decides this' that it's up to the mods. Well, considering the history of interactions between you and Neo Art, is it really ethical for you to be making that decision, personally?

And is it a wise thing to say that it's alright to make these personal comments towards other posters (do you have hemorrhoids, are you on the rag, did someone just break up with you, did you get interrupted masturbating, etc etc) if 'civility' is what is being promoted? Saying that there is a massive difference between flat out calling someone an asshole and saying they are acting like an asshole is flawed. In my opinion, this is an area that needs to be reconsidered.

[Neo Art]

To quote myself from the relevant thread in M/A:

...in his GHR Neo quotes

Excuse me, I thought the whole point of a GHR was to remain private. I never revealed on this forum that I had filed an appeal, not until after you did it for me anyway. I'm truly not sure why you're discussing the ongoing debate of a pending appeal in public, when I had not at that point revealed I filed any appeal.

[Melkor Unchained]

Having noticed this thread, I can't help but ask if this new rule applies to everyone or just posters you (Melkor) think deserve it?

It's not a "new rule," people have been saying negative but unactionable things about other posters for eight years. This is simply another one of many examples: it's happened before and it will happen again. If Neo doesn't want people to ask why he's acting out, he should stop acting out.

[The Norwegian Blue]

This is just staggering.

This is the official definition of flaming from the OSRS: "Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC (out-of-character) comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc)." To my mind, speculating on the state of someone's rectum based on their comments seems pretty darn uncouth, but like others here, I don't care a great deal about the particular case that stated this discussion. I am more astonished that it is apparently considered appropriate for a moderator to use his position to officially declare another poster to be "a gigantic prick" and "a gigantic asshole" - and, to top this off, to use that as the reason why crude comments regarding that poster's rectum are now appropriate. Perhaps a list should be added to the OSRS of people one or more moderators consider sufficiently assholish that we are now allowed to flame them?

To be clear, I have no intention of rules lawyering. I don't address people as pricks and assholes because I find that to be profoundly rude and undignified, and I'll no more start doing so because of this frankly insane precedent than I would start punching people on the street if battery was decriminalized tomorrow. I am just flabbergasted at seeing a mod outright declare another poster to be a prick and an asshole and claim that this in no way resembles flaming because said mod really believes said poster to be a prick and an asshole. Something tells me that if a mod made a decision that another poster found to be completely moronic and that poster responded to them by saying, "Why are you being such a moron? Did you get dropped on the head as a baby?" no one would defend that as a reasonable statement based on the poster's honest belief that they really ARE acting like a moron. They would think it was flaming. And they would be right - at least, according to the OSRS as it stands now, until you guys get around to editing in that list of posters who've been officially designated as assholes.

(In the meantime, I guess we'll just have to do it Dogberry style - "O that Melkor were here to write NA down an ass! But, masters, remember that NA is an ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not that NA is an ass.")

[Neo Art]

Having noticed this thread, I can't help but ask if this new rule applies to everyone or just posters you (Melkor) think deserve it?

It's not a "new rule," people have been saying negative but unactionable things about other posters for eight years. This is simply another one of many examples: it's happened before and it will happen again. If Neo doesn't want people to ask why he's acting out, he should stop acting out.

So going forward it's perfectly ok to ask why you're acting like a retarded meth addict, as long as I truly believe your conduct is similar to that of a retarded meth addict? Or do I have to get another moderator to agree with me first?

I'd like this on the record.

[Neo Art]

This is just staggering.

This is the official definition of flaming from the OSRS: "Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC (out-of-character) comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc)." To my mind, speculating on the state of someone's rectum based on their comments seems pretty darn uncouth, but like others here, I don't care a great deal about the particular case that stated this discussion. I am more astonished that it is apparently considered appropriate for a moderator to use his position to officially declare another poster to be "a gigantic prick" and "a gigantic asshole" - and, to top this off, to use that as the reason why crude comments regarding that poster's rectum are now appropriate. Perhaps a list should be added to the OSRS of people one or more moderators consider sufficiently assholish that we are now allowed to flame them?

To be clear, I have no intention of rules lawyering. I don't address people as pricks and assholes because I find that to be profoundly rude and undignified, and I'll no more start doing so because of this frankly insane precedent than I would start punching people on the street if battery was decriminalized tomorrow. I am just flabbergasted at seeing a mod outright declare another poster to be a prick and an asshole and claim that this in no way resembles flaming because said mod really believes said poster to be a prick and an asshole. Something tells me that if a mod made a decision that another poster found to be completely moronic and that poster responded to them by saying, "Why are you being such a moron? Did you get dropped on the head as a baby?" no one would defend that as a reasonable statement based on the poster's honest belief that they really ARE acting like a moron. They would think it was flaming. And they would be right - at least, according to the OSRS as it stands now, until you guys get around to editing in that list of posters who've been officially designated as assholes.

It's even worse than that. Let's go over a series of events here:

1) I report a player for allegedly flaming/flamebaiting
2) Melkor rules that it is not flaming, and uses, as his justification, that it's not a flame to inquire why someone is "being a giant asshole" as long as that person is actually being a giant asshole.
3) I file a GHR, in private, appealing this decision, and quoting the OSRS sections on flaming and flamebaiting
4) Melkor apparently takes it upon himself to reveal that I have filed an appeal, in private, by discussing the pending appeal on the open forum.
5) Melkor posts and exerpt of his post in the moderation forum defending his ruling, which reads:

...in his GHR Neo quotes the OSRS at us, and reading back over it I can see what he's getting at: it does sort of imply that "attacking the poster" is by itself an actionable offense; but it's not and it never has been.

Now, let's actually read what this says. Melkor admits that the reading of the OSRS does in fact imply that attacking the poster is an actionable offense. he straight out, flatly, admits that this is a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

And then, in his own defense, in justifying why a certain level of conduct does not constitute a rules violation, even while admitting that my interpretation is a valid one, states that his decision is right because that's not how the rules have been applied, despite what they may imply.

Let's let that sink in a moment. A moderator defends his ruling by stating that they never actually followed the rules in the first place. That his ruling is correct on the grounds that they never actually upheld the rules as written in the first place.

Am I the only one who sees a big problem with this?

[Melkor Unchained]

It's not a "new rule," people have been saying negative but unactionable things about other posters for eight years. This is simply another one of many examples: it's happened before and it will happen again. If Neo doesn't want people to ask why he's acting out, he should stop acting out.

So going forward it's perfectly ok to ask why you're acting like a retarded meth addict, as long as I truly believe your conduct is similar to that of a retarded meth addict?

I'd like this on the record.

In a nutshell? Yes. If you see someone posting information that s/he knows to be false, you might call them a liar. If you ask direct questions that they ignore, you might ask why. If they demonstrate ignorance about the topic, you might say they don't know what they are talking about. "Retarded meth addict" might be a little confusing/esoteric for most situations, but I guess if someone was going around posting in all caps asking where he could buy meth in Canton we probably wouldn't redtext warn someone for saying it to him. We might issue a gentle reminder or some such equivalent, but in that situation the all-caps spammer would probably be our real priority, and snarky reactions/comments from the regulars would be about par for the course.

Honestly, you should know all this well enough by now, as you've been doing it yourself for years. I have a hard time understanding by what logic you expect to still have an account at all if what you reported was supposed to be actionable.

[Neo Art]

So going forward it's perfectly ok to ask why you're acting like a retarded meth addict, as long as I truly believe your conduct is similar to that of a retarded meth addict?

I'd like this on the record.

In a nutshell? Yes.

OK folks, we now have it on record. It's perfectly acceptable to flame people as long as you believe what you're saying about them is true.

I suggest bookmarking this thread in the future, it'll be a handy bit of precident.

And with that in mind, keeping in mind I truly, absolutely believe every single comment I've ever made about every poster on this forum, I want every warning on my account expunged. I also suggest removing the part in the OSRS about how one can troll, even if ones statements are truly held. Considering it's now true that stating things believed to be true is not a violation of the rules, that part is now defunct.

[Melkor Unchained]

Read the rest of the post.

[Kiskaanak]

If Neo doesn't want people to ask why he's acting out, he should stop acting out.

This isn't helpful.

I'm not sure why you can't see that this is akin to saying he asked for it.

Nor can this keep being about Neo Art. While you have stated that your ruling is not new, I disagree. So do others. I have never seen it be alright to make personal comments based on someone's opinion that another poster is an asshole, or whatever.

I respectfully ask that you not be the Moderator to speak to this issue. Both you and Neo Art seem unable to be civil to one another and it's not helping the matter.

[Neo Art]

Read the rest of the post.

The rest of the post was pointless equivocation. I asked you if it's ok to call you a retarded meth addict as long as I believe your conduct is similar to that of a retarded meth addict. The fact that you went on to give examples of what YOU think might be the conduct of a "retarded meth addict" is irrelevant. I asked you if it was acceptable as long as I truly and legitimately held that belief.

And you said yes.

What conduct you might consider aligned with that particular demographic is irrelevant. I asked if it's acceptable as long as I believe it. You said that it was.

Because, if that's not the case, and the REAL rule is "it's ok to say someone is acting like a asshole as long as MODERATION think the poster is acting like an asshole" or "it's ok to ask if a female poster is PMSing as long as MODERATION thinks that poster is acting like a woman who is PMSing would act" or "it's alright to question if someone is retarded as long as MODERATION thinks that the person is acting like someone who is retarded would act" or "it's ok to ask a poster why he's being a whiny little bitch as long as some moderator agrees that, well, he was acting like a whiny little bitch" is to state, flat out, that insulting a player is acceptable, as long as moderation think that player "deserved it".

And any claims of having an unbiased moderation team flies right out the fucking window.

[The Cat-Tribe]

With all due respect, Melkor, I hope that (1) the Moderation team has not already agreed with your statements made herein and (2) you will ask that they review them. I think you've erred. Not in the ruling on the particular statements UT made about NA necessarily, but in your statements about the rules and what is fair game to say and when it is fair game to say it.

I think you have also crossed the line in specifically making sweeping derogatory comments about the character of certain posters.

Finally, I echo Kiskaanak's concern that you overlooked the flaming of Murvayets (or you have declared her open game even when she is not part of a discussion).

Please take a step back AND consult or re-consult the Moderation team.

[Melkor Unchained]

If Neo doesn't want people to ask why he's acting out, he should stop acting out.

This isn't helpful.

I'm not sure why you can't see that this is akin to saying he asked for it.

Nor can this keep being about Neo Art. While you have stated that your ruling is not new, I disagree. So do others. I have never seen it be alright to make personal comments based on someone's opinion that another poster is an asshole, or whatever.

I respectfully ask that you not be the Moderator to speak to this issue. Both you and Neo Art seem unable to be civil to one another and it's not helping the matter.

UT's remarks were not based on NA's opinion, they were based on his conduct. If you read the exchange, UT is asking questions at first and seems to be trying to stay on the topic, it's Neo who agitates the situation by posting "For Fucks sake " and "Wrong" as one-shot posts without adding anything to the discussion. Considering those posts, remarking or inquiring about his conduct is not unreasonable. UT isn't the first poster to notice this behavior and he won't be the last.

If you or Neo or anyone else can't or won't see the difference between "You are X" and "You are acting like X," I can't make you. But the distinction does exist and the difference is something that factors into our decision-making when it comes to things like bait/flaming.