[REPORT] Flaming in TSP Thread

[Stalker Queen]

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.

[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.

[RiderSyl]

I was about to report this post, but for a different reason.

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?

[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.

[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.

[Luna Amore]

Jerk is far from an expletive.

[RiderSyl]

Jerk is far from an expletive.

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).

[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.