Flamebaiting

[Premislyd]

I believe this: viewtopic.php?p=15368103#p15368103

More specifically:

"Oh look. An elementary kid admitting he's in elementary school, but claiming he's more mature ... while acting the opposite."

[Western Confederation]

lol what a donkey.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

lol what a donkey.

*** Warned *** for spamming Moderation.

As for Prem - were you or were you not acting childish in your back and forth bickering? Did you or did you not specifically mention you were in elementary school, thus opening yourself up for that comparison? I obviously can't act on this due to my involvement, but seriously. For you to gripe about the lack of debate skills in your opponents, then gripe about being called out on your own is a mite hypocritical, methinks.

[Premislyd]

lol what a donkey.

*** Warned *** for spamming Moderation.

As for Prem - were you or were you not acting childish in your back and forth bickering? Did you or did you not specifically mention you were in elementary school, thus opening yourself up for that comparison? I obviously can't act on this due to my involvement, but seriously. For you to gripe about the lack of debate skills in your opponents, then gripe about being called out on your own is a mite hypocritical, methinks.

The elementary school comment was blantantly sarcastic and was in fact made as a "jab" to Olthar (I think) who made the bold claim that I was in elementary school.

Edit: If you want proof of Olthar's comment, I'll be happy to get it.

[Western Confederation]

[deleted]

[Minnysota]

I don't want to make a separate thread for this, but I have two posts I'd like to report for flaming/flamebaiting as well.

viewtopic.php?p=15326045#p15326045

viewtopic.php?p=15344451#p15344451

[Ascelonia]

I'm not really willing to make a new thread and I will share my story here, since this one has been getting so much attention and it pertains to injustice/inequality of the law.

I was warned here: viewtopic.php?p=15367205#p15367205

For this "spam" post: viewtopic.php?p=15365285#p15365285

I justified it here: viewtopic.php?p=15367559#p15367559


I don't understand why I was being warned for defending myself. I was of the understanding that moderation is supposed to protect posters from coercion and mayhem by other posters rather than silencing dissent through abuse of warns. I assumed I had the right to defend myself by pointing out the Marxist State had a vested interest in keeping me from posting and my post, from my understanding, was very on topic. Moreover, I noticed that DLN has responded to other moderation threads, but not mine after I posted my justification.

After some reflection and paging through threads, I've noticed that there's a firm bias against right-wing posters in NSG. When leftist posters start bantering, chatting, and get off-topic, it's all fine and dandy, but god forbid any discussion of abortion in a thread about an abortion activist. It appears to me that leftist posters have a higher tendency to report their opponents rather than debate them head on and the moderation's policies of discriminating against right-wing posters has encouraged this. If you want me to tone down the rhetoric, that's fine, but shouldn't we have some sense of proportion?

Why is it okay for people to go around calling Reagan a mass murderer or justify killing unborn children? Why can I not defend Reagan or defend children? Why is my voice and the voices of other right-wing posters being silenced on this forum?

[Minnysota]

You should make a new thread, Aselonia. The two reports here have a thread in common - yours doesn't.

[NERVUN]

I don't want to make a separate thread for this, but I have two posts I'd like to report for flaming/flamebaiting as well.

viewtopic.php?p=15326045#p15326045

viewtopic.php?p=15344451#p15344451

Not actionable.

[Minnysota]

Not actionable.

Why is that? The term "gay hater" seemed like it was being used in a derogatory context. I'm sorry; I'd just like a little clarification.

[NERVUN]

Not actionable.

Why is that? The term "gay hater" seemed like it was being used in a derogatory context. I'm sorry; I'd just like a little clarification.

Because in terms of baiting, this isn't it. It is neither something that a reasonable person would consider insulting nor could it be said to be inviting a heated reply.

[Minnysota]

Could you define "reasonable" in the context you are using it? I don't believe I was being unreasonable.

EDIT: Actually, that would just be allowing you to decide whether I have the right to be offended by this or not. No; it's not unreasonable to be offended by this. If I go around saying that pro-choice people are baby-eaters, they shouldn't be offended because they're "reasonable". But no; they would be offended, and I would likely be warned for calling them something they're not. How about if someone said they didn't support Affirmative Action and were called a "racist"; would it be "reasonable" to be offended then?

This isn't "working on hypotheticals"; they're all, essentially, the same occurrence as what I raised my concern over. I don't support special rights extended to a certain group because of a certain social perception about that group, so therefore I must hate that group. How is that assumption not "reasonably" insulting to me as it's a presumption made in ignorance with the intent to dismiss my opinions?

[NERVUN]

Could you define "reasonable" in the context you are using it? I don't believe I was being unreasonable.

EDIT: Actually, that would just be allowing you to decide whether I have the right to be offended by this or not. No; it's not unreasonable to be offended by this. If I go around saying that pro-choice people are baby-eaters, they shouldn't be offended because they're "reasonable"? But no; they would be offended, and I would likely be warned for calling them something they're not. How about if someone said they didn't support Affirmative Action and were called a "racist"; would it be "reasonable" to be offended then?

This isn't "working on hypotheticals"; they're all, essentially, the same occurrence as what I raised my concern over. I don't support special rights extended to a certain group because of a certain social perception about that group, so therefore I must hate that group. How is that assumption not "reasonably" insulting to me as it's a presumption made in ignorance with the intent to dismiss my opinions?

Reasonable: I.e. usual, someone off the street as it were.

Baby-eater is of course a lot stronger than gay hater and we allow racist to go around quite a bit. It's not an issue of if you are offended or not, we do not make a promise about not being offended on this game, it is very much a matter of intent and level and no, being called a gay hater does not rise to either. If you feel the label, argue it the next time it comes up. If you feel my judgement is in error, you may ask another Moderator to take a look.

[Western Confederation]

Could you define "reasonable" in the context you are using it? I don't believe I was being unreasonable.

EDIT: Actually, that would just be allowing you to decide whether I have the right to be offended by this or not. No; it's not unreasonable to be offended by this. If I go around saying that pro-choice people are baby-eaters, they shouldn't be offended because they're "reasonable"? But no; they would be offended, and I would likely be warned for calling them something they're not. How about if someone said they didn't support Affirmative Action and were called a "racist"; would it be "reasonable" to be offended then?

This isn't "working on hypotheticals"; they're all, essentially, the same occurrence as what I raised my concern over. I don't support special rights extended to a certain group because of a certain social perception about that group, so therefore I must hate that group. How is that assumption not "reasonably" insulting to me as it's a presumption made in ignorance with the intent to dismiss my opinions?

Reasonable: I.e. usual, someone off the street as it were.

Baby-eater is of course a lot stronger than gay hater and we allow racist to go around quite a bit. It's not an issue of if you are offended or not, we do not make a promise about not being offended on this game, it is very much a matter of intent and level and no, being called a gay hater does not rise to either. If you feel the label, argue it the next time it comes up. If you feel my judgement is in error, you may ask another Moderator to take a look.

To be honest I find that rather odd. Since it's a moderator in question, aren't moderators supposed to show a good example. Telling someone, in the most subjective manner that he/she is a gay-hater totally ruins that concept. Furthermore, if it is very much a matter of intent and level and no, being called a gay hater does not rise to either. Then please enlighten me, what exactly are the levels and what is supposed to be the intention in a "normal case". The thing is, stating someone is a gay-hater triggers flaming, hence flamebating.

[Euroslavia]

Reasonable: I.e. usual, someone off the street as it were.

Baby-eater is of course a lot stronger than gay hater and we allow racist to go around quite a bit. It's not an issue of if you are offended or not, we do not make a promise about not being offended on this game, it is very much a matter of intent and level and no, being called a gay hater does not rise to either. If you feel the label, argue it the next time it comes up. If you feel my judgement is in error, you may ask another Moderator to take a look.

To be honest I find that rather odd. Since it's a moderator in question, aren't moderators supposed to show a good example. Telling someone, in the most subjective manner that he/she is a gay-hater totally ruins that concept. Furthermore, if it is very much a matter of intent and level and no, being called a gay hater does not rise to either. Then please enlighten me, what exactly are the levels and what is supposed to be the intention in a "normal case". The thing is, stating someone is a gay-hater triggers flaming, hence flamebating.

If I may defend myself, his argument in the thread gave off the strong vibe that he was pushing against gay rights by saying that 'gay clubs' themselves were discriminating (among other things).

"This thread is really pointless and is really full of gay apologists."

This statement alone lumping everyone up as 'gay apologists', rather than anything logical in defending 'gay rights' gave off the vibe that Minny really wasn't there to actually discuss the topic, but to dismiss the opposing argument. For what it's worth, I admit that I was a bit aggressive with the statement and I do apologize. To me, his argument came across as, like I said above, dismissive of gay rights.

[Premislyd]

I'm sorry, but can the Minnysota/Euroslavia deal be moved to another thread? I don't really see how it pertains to DLN flamebaiting for no reason.

[Transnapastain]

I'm sorry, but can the Minnysota/Euroslavia deal be moved to another thread? I don't really see how it pertains to DLN flamebaiting for no reason.

I'm sorry, I'd thought you'd understood when I spoke to you yesterday that to moderators had reviewed and found no evidence of flamebaiting. That's my fault for relying on informal communications and not posting, I apologize.

[Premislyd]

I'm sorry, but can the Minnysota/Euroslavia deal be moved to another thread? I don't really see how it pertains to DLN flamebaiting for no reason.

I'm sorry, I'd thought you'd understood when I spoke to you yesterday that to moderators had reviewed and found no evidence of flamebaiting. That's my fault for relying on informal communications and not posting, I apologize.

Thank you for the ruling, however, I would like it if another moderator could look it over.

From my viewpoint, if I truly was in elementary school like I "claimed" to be, would that not warrant deletion or being banned for posting in the forums under the accepted age? Rather than that, I instead got a "snarky" jab aimed at, what I feel is, my character.

[Frisbeeteria]

Thank you for the ruling, however, I would like it if another moderator could look it over.

As requested, I've reviewed the post in question and sampled the linked thread. The moderator response was in fact a bit snarky, but it accurately captured the mood of the thread without crossing over into flamebaiting or flaming. When dealing with unruly children, it is entirely reasonable to use a Playground Voice rather than a Librarian Voice. You were bickering like children and were treated accordingly.

Rather than that, I instead got a "snarky" jab aimed at, what I feel is, my character.

General is OOC. Your "character" is presumed to be the player of the nation.

would that not warrant deletion or being banned for posting in the forums under the accepted age?

If you're asking us to delete or forumban your nation, I'm sure we could oblige you.

I see nothing that requires any additional action on the part of the moderation staff.

[Pythagosaurus]

Not actionable.

Why is that? The term "gay hater" seemed like it was being used in a derogatory context. I'm sorry; I'd just like a little clarification.

I actually interpreted Euroslavia's remark somewhat differently. I believed he was reacting to your use of the term "gay-apologist," which would be the initial affront in the exchange. When you call somebody an X-apologist, it means you think there's something wrong with X. I believe this is what Euroslavia was trying to express. If, as you suggest, you do not have any ill-feelings toward gay people, then you should not trot out the gay-apologist line.

My feeling is that you brought it up, so the subject is open to cross-examination. On the other hand, if Euroslavia had just decided to call you a gay-hater based on your opinions, I would consider that a flame.

At any rate, both of you, play nicely.

[Premislyd]

Thank you for the ruling, however, I would like it if another moderator could look it over.

As requested, I've reviewed the post in question and sampled the linked thread. The moderator response was in fact a bit snarky, but it accurately captured the mood of the thread without crossing over into flamebaiting or flaming. When dealing with unruly children, it is entirely reasonable to use a Playground Voice rather than a Librarian Voice. You were bickering like children and were treated accordingly.

Thank you for giving it another look over.

[Divided America]

What is Flamebaiting?

[Transnapastain]

What is Flamebaiting?

From the One Stop Rules Stop, which can be found pinned to the top of the moderation forum...

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.