Attempted Socialism wrote:No, you're just highlighting that you have no answer, since "change of" and "addition to" the rules are here exactly identical. Rather than answer my question you're arguing semantics.Shofercia wrote:
It seems that I needed to explain the difference between an addition and a change in the OP, since you're effectively missing that point.And the rules, as I linked, deal adequately with this scenario. What is it we need apart from the rules as they currently stand?Here's a summary of the OP's actual example: A intentionally flamebaits B, which causes B to flame A, and B receives a warning.Again, semantics. You're misapprehending your own argument, apparently, and you either don't want to or can't answer my question. Here you're also either misunderstanding my point (Despite it being clearly articulated in the section you quote) or you're trying to make a strawman out of it.Addition: As a result of the addition, A also, automatically, receives a warning. B's warning stays.Change: As a result of the change, A also, automatically receives a warning, and B relitigates their warning.You want to change the existing ruleset to add a new rule. Is your case so weak that your time is better spent arguing semantics than about the suggestion itself?I am not suggesting a change. I'm suggesting an addition.Had you taken the effort to understand the posts involved, I wouldn't need to repeat myself:I have stated this multiple times, which is why "change" is crossed out. If you flame, you still get warned, but the baiter receives an automatic warning. This is designed to discourage flamebaiting. That's all it does. There will also be slightly less flaming as a result, but the current set of flaming warnings aren't going anywhere, and aren't going to be relitigated through this rule without quite a bit of embarrassment. Had you not chopped up a post in a Moderation thread, you would've probably picked up on this.What's difficult about this? In your step #4, the "baiter" gets a warning automatically, despite not having baited enough to warrant a warning according to the current rules (As that would have been solved in step #1). This is your (change|addition). However, this new rule would open up for everyone warned for flaming to turn around and argue that their "baiter" should also be warned -- automatically. I haven't said that the warnings for flaming would be removed, this is some weird strawman you're trying to argue against.warnings for flaming can be turned around and result in claims of baitingWell, we're dealing with cases that were not baiting here, since a clear bait post would be warned in your step #1, as a breach of the current rules. All your (change|addition) opens up for is for posters to claim their warning for flaming should result in an automatic warning for their "baiter" and have a better claim than they have today.Your claim that this isn't needed, is a faulty opinion based on a critical misinterpretation of the proposal, i.e. thinking that it's a change, not an addition. Also, I fail to see how anyone would use mods-as-weapons on this, and wouldn't be instantly humiliated as a result. You either intentionally flamebaited a poster, or you didn't. You cannot intentionally-unintentionally flamebait someone.
You claimed that the rules deal adequately with the scenario, and I disagree. TI even said that Master Baiting can cause quite a mess, and I'm most certain that he was referring to actual baiting, not the other variation, as this is a PG-13 forum. The OP shows a clear example where it didn't adequately address the situation.
Realizing that you have the unpopular opinion not backed up by factual evidence, you shift into panic mode, and utilize the Scare Tactic: this new rule would open up for everyone warned for flaming to turn around and argue that their "baiter" should also be warned
Everyone? So everyone who was ever warned for flaming on NSG has done so as a response to a bait that had nothing to do with the topic at hand? This is the core of your argument, right here, and that's why I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post:
In your step #4, the "baiter" gets a warning automatically, despite not having baited enough to warrant a warning according to the current rules (As that would have been solved in step #1). This is your (change|addition). However, this new rule would open up for everyone warned for flaming to turn around and argue that their "baiter" should also be warned -- automatically.
Emphasis - mine. First we don't know if the baiter hasn't "baited enough" or was just not reported for baiting, because the baiter either baited a newbie, or the poster baited didn't give a shit, or didn't report it for some other reason. And yet, you mistakenly assume that it's simply "not baited enough to warrant a warning" even though other cases are so prevalent, that the mods even stated that they might miss something actionable simply because it wasn't reported. They're volunteers, and wasting their time looking for unreported baits isn't part of their job.
Second, as mentioned above, you delibetaly misinterpret the suggested rule to throw in "everyone" and that's a lie. The rule, when taken as a whole, clearly states that it's not everyone:
1. Did the bait target a specific poster? If yes, continue. If you're unsure, stop.
2. Did the bait address anything about the topic? If no, continue. If it responded to something in the OP, stop.
3. Did the bait result in a flame from its target? If yes, continue. If no flame, stop.
4. Was the target warned as a result? If yes, warn the baiter. If not, stop.
It had to be a bait that targeted a specific poster, was off topic, resulted in a flame, and the flame was warned. And yet, in order to scaremonger, you've ignored point two.
So why do you want to protect the privilege of baiting someone lightly, when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand?