So what IS a flame, anyway?

So what IS a flame, anyway? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

LadyHibiscus -> So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/26/2009 7:24:07 PM)
On That Other Site, I moderate some groups, along with some close female friends. The three of us are being ripped for being CENSORS for SUPPRESSING THOUGHT AND DISCUSSION and for FAVOURING OUR FRIENDS. Why? Because when what we perceive as "flame wars" and personal attacks begin, we ask nicely that folks behave, then nail them when they don't pay attention. In our opinion, it is more important that an outed person's privacy be protected, and that a public libel does not deserve to remain for posterity. (Libel written, slander spoken!) So, what IS a flame anyway? Is telling a person that they are a selfish jerk and they are a disgrace to the scene a flame? How about if that is in response to a post where the "jerk" is describing his happy marriage? Is calling someone you are angry at over a private matter a liar and a hypocrite a flame? Or is that just a "personal attack"? I like to think of myself as a reasonable and fair minded person. My students thought so, and my clients and colleagues think so. I am a fiercely loyal friend, but I do not think that they---or I---are immune to the standards that have been set for acceptable behaviour. Still, maybe I am wrong. Maybe it is fine as wine to bash folks on the net, and posters should be allowed to go wild and say whatever they wish! Yeah, right. [8\|] Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you would share your thoughts and experiences with me, so I can have some ammo to post with tomorrow... (and some of you wonder why I heart Mod XI!! ya couldn't PAY me to do her job!)

Level -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/26/2009 7:36:37 PM)
Yup, it does indeed seem like a mighty fine line, LH. I'd probably tend to let things go, unless it was a pretty blatant bit of libel. Insults, while often distasteful, I'd generally let go.

DemonKia -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/26/2009 7:56:28 PM)
First, I have to consult a reference so I'm sure what the hell I'm flappin' my jaw 'bout: From http://www.urbandictionary.com flame 1. To insult someone electronically, or otherwise. Sometimes to be a group insult. The l4m3 k1dd13 finds himself flamed. 2. To insult a person you are arguing with over the internet in hopes of reviving your argument. You are an idiot for thinking this. 3. a flame is a tirade. The flamer may be quite articulate and intelligent as they question the upbringing of the flamee. One can also flame about a third party to a conversation. Finally, a flame may be from an idiot, in response to a resonable post from someone else. 4. A flame is noun associated with the action of flaming, what people do when they express a strongly held opinion without holding back any emotion. Although flames often get out of hand, they have a purpose in the ecology of cyberspace. Many flames are aimed at teaching someone something (usually in overstated language) or stopping them from doing something (like offending other people). Flame messages often use more brute force than is strictly necessary, but that's half the fun. Netiquette does ask that you consider the art of flaming before pulling out the flame-thrower. A famous flame by Linus Torvalds "This 'users are idiots, and are confused by functionality' mentality of Gnome is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it. I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long since reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do." (...) "Gnome seems to be developed by interface nazis, where consistently the excuse for not doing something is not 'it's too complicated to do', but 'it would confuse users'." Okay, given that, I'd say it's more useful for me to think of my keyboard-activated mouth as a flamethrower, the words as flaming, sticky liquid with a high-flammability factor, igniting in ripe tinder-stacks of people's minds . . . . . . . & thus, to avoid incineration I must moderate my tempestuous inclinations . . . . . For me, it was another step along the path of controlling my temper . . . . . If you don't mind, I'm gonna go lookie-loo at your FL life. If I get any other impulses to share . . . . . . . [sm=evil.gif]

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/26/2009 8:01:25 PM)
To me, a flame has to meet two basic criteria - it has to be hostile, and it has to be a personal insult. For instance, if i were to say you're probably not very bright if you need to ask what a flame is (which I am sure you know I would certainly never say about you!), that would arguably constitute an insult, but not necessarily a flame. If I were to become enraged at you and ask why in the world you would ask such an infuriating question, and explain in lengthy detail how angry it makes me when someone asks that, and how terribly traumatic it is for me to see such a question, it would still not be a flame - because although I am expressing hostility, I am not insulting you. But if i were to tell you that anyone asking such a moronic question is so stupid they make their parrot look like Steven Hawking, I'm flaming you. By this definition, the examples you offered probably are flames (although I'm not sure I understand the one about someone describing their happy marriage.) In my opinion, anything not meeting these two criteria is not a flame. Now, every internet forum has its own rules regarding what does and does not constitute acceptable behavior, and in many cases comments that aren't really flames may still be considered unacceptable. Some forums forbid personal insults even if they are not necessarily hostile; some forums forbid a hostile tone even if the poster is not resorting to insults; and some forums even forbid any sort of personal criticism whatsoever (I tend not to hang out on such forums, obviously.) It may be that you ladies choose to moderate your forum in such a way that nothing that might be construed as a personal insult would be allowed, regardless of tone. I've seen a lot of forums (especially sports forums) where overt flaming is not allowed, but so many people manage to sneak snarky, biting insults through the door anyway that the overall tone of the forum is pretty much ruined by the petty backbiting. There's nothing wrong at all with you guys stating up front, "no flaming or personal attacks will be allowed, and the moderators will determine personal attacks according to their own discretion." It sounds like such a policy would allow you to nip personal attacks in the bud without giving anyone the opportunity to weasel out of it by saying, "well, that wasn't really a flame, so you're being unfair to me!" Does this help at all? Does it sound as though it's in the neighborhood of what you were asking about? Ya big dummy?

Level -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/26/2009 8:06:43 PM)
LOL at "ya big dummy" [8D]

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/26/2009 8:16:48 PM)
I figure 400 miles is safe enough....

Level -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/26/2009 8:21:09 PM)
lol, perhaps so, but then again, she's seems to be an awfully determined woman...[8\|]

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/26/2009 8:22:54 PM)
I wonder how long it takes a parrot to fly 400 miles with a tiny nuclear bomb strapped to its feathery little chest....

VirginPotty -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/27/2009 6:50:51 AM)
Flame>>>>>[sm=flameout.gif]<<<<LadyHib

FullCircle -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/27/2009 7:07:22 AM)
My thoughts are. To flame is to invoke a negative response e.g. I may not insult someone but I can wind them up within the rules to the point they get so annoyed as to break the TOS in some way. In other words it is one of those all encompassing words people use when they can’t set out a specific example of what it actually means in relation to the rules. 100% personal perception.

mnottertail -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/27/2009 7:25:05 AM)
A frantic, impassioned, one night fling? Just gessing here. Ron

beargonewild -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/27/2009 7:27:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus On That Other Site, I moderate some groups, along with some close female friends. The three of us are being ripped for being CENSORS for SUPPRESSING THOUGHT AND DISCUSSION and for FAVOURING OUR FRIENDS. Why? Because when what we perceive as "flame wars" and personal attacks begin, we ask nicely that folks behave, then nail them when they don't pay attention. In our opinion, it is more important that an outed person's privacy be protected, and that a public libel does not deserve to remain for posterity. (Libel written, slander spoken!) So, what IS a flame anyway? Is telling a person that they are a selfish jerk and they are a disgrace to the scene a flame? How about if that is in response to a post where the "jerk" is describing his happy marriage? Is calling someone you are angry at over a private matter a liar and a hypocrite a flame? Or is that just a "personal attack"? I like to think of myself as a reasonable and fair minded person. My students thought so, and my clients and colleagues think so. I am a fiercely loyal friend, but I do not think that they---or I---are immune to the standards that have been set for acceptable behaviour. Still, maybe I am wrong. Maybe it is fine as wine to bash folks on the net, and posters should be allowed to go wild and say whatever they wish! Yeah, right. [8\|] Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you would share your thoughts and experiences with me, so I can have some ammo to post with tomorrow... (and some of you wonder why I heart Mod XI!! ya couldn't PAY me to do her job!) By the looks if it, a personal insult and a flame against a person/people do fall under the same umbrella. We all know that too often that we happen to take some staements too personal and we reaction wiht anger and indignity which only compounds the situation. Another issue to consider is having loyalty towards friends is an admirable quality yet what happens when that loyalty is taken to far? When that happens it is then seen as favoritism which is a result of a biased opinion against the perceived culprit and a misguided bias for the other side. I have no wish to share personal thoughts and experiences at this time. To do so would be personally unethical towards the standards I have set for myself.

sunshinemiss -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/27/2009 8:00:48 AM)
I agree with panda - flame = insult plus hostility. Brilliant.

GreedyTop -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/27/2009 8:06:42 AM)
echos Sunny and Panda

LadyHibiscus -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/27/2009 8:33:35 AM)
Coolio. From what you are saying, we are pretty much on the same page. I know I was vague mentioning the "happy marriage" post, but I didn't want to blab about a post here, when it was over THERE. Short story---a lengthy post about how a guy introduced bdsm to his very vanilla wife, and how she happily service tops him now, tra la la, happily ever after. ONE person took that opportunity to attack the writer's character, behaviour, etc etc, AND make commentary about the wife---WHEN HE HAS NOT SEEN EITHER PERSON IN YEARS. When those of us who ARE acquainted pointed out the reality, more venom ensued. And that is only ONE part of the many faceted thrill ride that is the local scene. Big Dummy Hib

Apocalypso -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/27/2009 9:03:14 AM)
Panda's definition is spot on. Insult plus hostility. It's also worth noting that there is also "flamebait", which is a post designed to elicit flames. That can be harder to spot, because it's possible for something to be entirely civil and moderate in tone, but still be flamebait. Flaming is often mixed up with trolling, but it isn't the same thing. Trolls sometimes flame, but a troll's only purpose to upset/anger people. Most flames are done by people with a genuine motivation. Even more complicated, false accusations of "flaming" or being a "troll" are, in themselves, a flame. In fact, false accusations of trolling are a standard tactic of many trolls. Which isn't helped by the fact people don't actually know what a troll is a lot of the time. You see that a lot on here, when a new poster will make a stupid or aggressive post and people will call them a troll. Most of the time, I don't think they are. Trolls only post for the reaction, the fact somebody is annoying doesn't make them a troll.

Arpig -> RE: So what IS a flame, anyway? (8/30/2009 6:50:40 PM)
That's exactly why I would never offer to moderate a site....my idea of a flame would allow damn near anything....I would be a really crappy Mod, I probably wouldn't stop anything.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125