Page 1 of 1
[REPORT] Flaming in TSP Thread
Posted:
Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:28 pmby Stalker Queen
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Aren't you the person who literally registered on our forums just to make a single post about how I should be kicked out of TSP?
Anyways, people's (and that's actually just a handful of people) problems with me have always been about what I did as MoFA, whenever I express an opposing opinion in the Assembly, or whenever I defend myself against some ridiculous charge. Never about anything I do *as an admin.* It's always about me not agreeing with their views.
Frankly, this is a game filled with people who argue without mercy and don't bother parsing their words to sound polite. The people who are actually complaining about this -- Cormac and Bel, for example -- made their names in this game by fighting with other people. So I'm really not sympathetic to hypocritical attacks on how I'm *so rude* and *so unpleasant* or a "jerk."
Cormac is a jerk. Belschaft is a jerk. So are you, too, Rach. Raven was on Discord talking about how he hates seeing my name and can't wait until the day I'm driven to quit this game.
Like seriously, shut up about it. We're all jerks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Emphasis mine.
Posted:
Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:39 pmby Sedgistan
Within the context of the post ("we're all quite mean") I'm not reading it as a flame, particularly as "jerk" is so mild.
Posted:
Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:56 pmby RiderSyl
I was about to report this post, but for a different reason.
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Raven was on Discord talking about how he hates seeing my name and can't wait until the day I'm driven to quit this game.
Isn't bringing off-site drama onto the forums generally looked down upon? Shouldn't this at least be hit with a rolled-up newspaper?
Posted:
Fri Feb 12, 2016 2:10 amby Sedgistan
"Off-site drama" is a vague term. It's not intended to encompass every disagreement off-site, and in fact the Gameplay forum is meant to be for discussion of certain off-site "drama" (regional elections, foreign relations, so on). We're not trying to sanitise the Gameplay forum of every disagreement, and an acknowledgement that someone dislikes you is not something I see as actionable.
Posted:
Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:33 pmby Cormac Stark
It it possible to appeal a ruling that something isn't actionable? Because, frankly, if I say "X is a [expletive], Y is a [expletive], and Z is a [expletive]" but then say "I'm a [expletive] too. We're all [expletives]", that is still flaming, it's just putting a really thin veil over it.
I mean, if I had realized I could get away with flaming people by just flaming myself as well, I would have started doing that years ago.
Posted:
Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:42 pmby Luna Amore
Jerk is far from an expletive.
Posted:
Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:37 pmby RiderSyl
Luna Amore wrote:Jerk is far from an expletive.
Cormac Stark wrote:It it possible to appeal a ruling that something isn't actionable? Because, frankly, if I say "X is a [name-calling], Y is a [name-calling], and Z is a [name-calling]" but then say "I'm a [name-calling] too. We're all [name-calling]", that is still flaming, it's just putting a really thin veil over it.
I mean, if I had realized I could get away with flaming people by just flaming myself as well, I would have started doing that years ago.
Fixed.
Now can his comment be addressed? I'm interested in moderation's response, because the ruling seems to be setting a precedent (whether it intends to or not).
Posted:
Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:47 pmby Guy
I think we've learnt that moderation re: flaming doesn't revolve around precedent, but a case-by-case evaluation around objectively-discerning meaning.