Forum - View topicWhat exactly is the definition of flaming?
|
|
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
||
|
(I was going to ask this in the cynical thread, but decided a new thread may garner some feedback to help define this term a bit better.)
This thread was created from the remark from Zalis116, who linked me to a thread while describing it as "epic flamewarz". I read all the posts, but this is where I lose the definition of "flaming". While I did see back-and-forth banter to which opinions weren't going to change, I didn't see "flaming" as I know (thought) it to be. Calling someone out for the sole intent of being rude (starting a reply like "So, douchebag, you think...", as an example) is what I thought this term to be. I'm curious to know how mods define this because some posts I've read seem to be flame-oriented while others are opinionated expressions of passion for the subject at hand (often leading to said back-and-forth banter). I know the primary rule of the forum is to be courteous while replying, but there are certain elements which I can't seem to balance as being rude or socially acceptable. As an example, I use the word idiot (meaning fool) quite a bit, but I don't see this as being rude. It's no different (to me, remember) than stating someone's reply is ignorant or hypocritical (rarely do I use this term directed at someone as more often it's towards the reply itself). I do know some people will mistakenly believe the remark "This is an idiotic opinion..." as "You're an idiot for saying this". Are these really the one and the same? Sarcasm, arrogance, and cynical replies confuse me as wouldn't each of these fall under "flaming" as somewhat given by Zalis' example (for mod viewpoint, not necessarily the posts themselves)? Admittedly, I've not been to a forum in quite some time (prior to joining here), so the feedback here will help me (and others?) balance out what's truly courteous vs. seen as one who flames. Just a note: I've no beef whatsoever how a mod quips when closing a thread. I tend to find them comical, rather than being seen as flaming. |
|||
|
|||
|
abunai
Old Regular
 Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
||
|
I view flaming as the act of seeking to "win at any cost" over a debating opponent, without making any effort to approach his arguments with respect or consideration. In other words, cheating.
Hallmarks of a flame: * offensive language * ad hominem attacks * ignoring opponent's arguments that cannot be answered * using quotations from the opponent out of context * cherry-picking facts that support one's position, and ignoring others * continual restating of the same position (stubborn inflexibility) A debate, to be fair, must abide by some basic assumptions, including a commitment to treat an opponent with respect -- or with an attempt at it, even when they prove themselves patently unworthy of it. Of course, not all forum threads live up to or even approach this ideal. Sometimes, you find yourself in contention with a putative debater who has no real interest in debating fairly. In such case, you might as well give up. That's what the "report post" function is for. Let us mods handle it, we have the +1 Flame Extinguisher of Doom. Also, even the most honourable and fair debater sometimes succumbs to the "dark side" and indulges in some of the traits of flaming. It happens, and it's best forgiven and forgotten. But a real and habitual flamer is obvious, and impossible to miss. - abunai |
|||
|
|||
Blood-
 Bargain Hunter Posts: 24359 |
|
||
|
In the message boards I used to frequent, flaming was basically synonymous with insulting. Generally, if you were creative in your flame, (i.e. came up with a zinger that was of your own creation and not just rehashing generic insults) you might get some kudos.
I haven't always stuck successfully to ANN's politeness and respect policy, but I'm glad it is in place. Boards that allow flaming tend to become vast wastelands of stupidity. I have wasted more time than I like to remember, trading dumb insults with complete strangers over the Internet. |
|||
|
|||
|
Zalis116
Moderator
 Posts: 6902 Location: Kazune City |
|
||
|
I must say I wasn't being serious with that label, hence my spelling "wars" with a Z rather than an S. I was recalling some heated arguments that took place there, but on the whole it didn't fall under abunai's definition of flaming. Sorry to have confused you.
|
|||
|
|||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
||
No confusion at all. I merely used your post as a template to what may be the definition. Apparently, it is, so I'm very content in knowing this. Your link helped out tremendously. Still, I would be curious to know what other mods feel, even if they agree with abunai. Not trying to "blur the lines", just want an insight as to know how/when to post based on this definition. |
|||
|
|||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10470 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
||
Abunai's definition covers a bit more than what I consider "flaming" although everything he mentions is definitely behavior that we don't appreciate and that we will moderate. As for "flaming" it's just a synonym for "insulting" AFAIC. -t |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group