Right-ee ho,

In this here 'Issues forum' issues are put forth and debated ... slowly but surely the replies build up and a wider picture is more often than not attained ... and yet, we sometimes hear rumbles of dissension from the ranks ... sometimes wildly abject cheap-o statements are lobbed in there, with spiky bits on, made to offend those innocent debaters, who may wish only to chew on the thread, debating, stating and replying in their own time ...

WHAM ... a gobsmackingly naff mail is chucked in there and everybody goes ape... the following 20 replies are normally centered around the blindness or poop-shoot-ism of the flaming flamer ....

And so I open the debate:

Most serious issues as debated anywhere in the world, contain 3 major groups:

- for
- against
- dont wanna know

so statistically, humanity is fully represented by all 3 sides to the question.

On the other hand people just get massively cheesed off (no offense cheese) at the holier-than-thou punishing tone of the flamers, who come in with there one-sided word-terrorism

so...

CAN FLAMING BE CONSIDERED PART OF DEBATE, OR ARE THEY ONLY IN THE WAY?

answer me that, matazone ....

I think there have been occassions in the past where people have forced their opinions on others in an unecessary manner and arguments have blown up out of proportion. If people can't handle a certain thread, maybe they should just step away instead...

Just a thought.

Kids, Say No To Flaming.

Methinks the Issues forum should be more strictly moderated - no irrelevancies or spamming, just actual debate, since that (apparently) is what it's for.

I agree about the moddin of this forum, commie, but in the spirit of the place we're not here to play "thought police" or enforce some anti-freedom of speech thing. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

That said, I have seen some people end up in arguments due to the refusal of either (or both) parties to accept that someone else's view should be respected. In those cases, it's much safer to agree to disagree. The flame wars haven't quite gotten out of hand yet, but there's been a few close calls that have been quashed cos one person backs off.

Each person here is entitled to an opinion, an that right should be respected, even if the opinion isn't.

I'm not sure... what does everyone else think? Should we mods stamp on flamin in these threads?

It depends on how far it goes I guess - everyone is entitled to a valid viewpoint, but I've seen things get out of hand on other forums because people didn't know when to back off and agree to disagree. Intelligent debate on a cuject is good, but when it starts getting personal it's bad.

The point of more heavily moderating it wouldn't be to take away people's entitlement to an opinion. Irrelevant jokes and other things that detract from a thread aren't opinion, they're spam. Flames, equally, aren't opinion. You already moderate to an extent throughout the whole board, making sure people stay on-topic, I'm just suggesting you enforce that a little more strictly here. Just my $0.02.

I agree with that.

For me, the reason I believe that this area should be a bit more strictly watched is simply because this is one forum here where real personal feelings are going to come up. More then any other forum like Daft or Media. Look around. We have discussions on suicide and depression, love, drugs, it goes on and on. And this is not the place for flaming (there is simply NO place for flaming but more so here) because, like I stated...these are topics much closer to people's emotions then anywhere else and the last thing I think anyone wants to see happen is people starting to get offended and hurt.

Mod Point Of View, watch out, make way...

Flaming indeed can be an effective way to make one's point hit home, but in a forum setting, it isn't feasible. Without voice inflections and physical clues, such discussions can run wildly in horribly personal and painful directions. That's why there are such strict rules on this forum as far as insults are concerned - Mata's made in clear that his forum is not to be used to make a point in a potentially destructive way.

There are a few calls for a stricter-moderated Issues Forum, and I'd like to address that now as well:

Y'all do have to realise that it is near impossible to read through all these posts... I mean, sure, I try to keep a good eye on this forum and diffuse big problems before they get too far started, and I know the other mods do too. But if you want things very closely monitored, you're going to have to help us out.

Wanna know how?

If you think a topic has the potential to get out of hand due to a poorly expressed, highly emotional, or spam-laden post, check to see if there are any mods lurking about, and if there is, PM them about it! And if there isn't one around, PM a couple different mods - chances are, one of us will log on soon enough and be able to take care of things.

And if something's posted that is completely out of line, you have an even more direct option: the "Report this post" link at the bottom right-hand corner of every single post. Trust me, if that button gets pushed, a mod will come and take care of things as immediately as possible.

Final thing - take care of yourselves, each other, and this place. Be aware and sensitive to what you're posting and how it will affect others. I am not saying to censor yourself by any means, but it's a lesson in connotation. Sometimes the exact opposite idea of what was intended can be conveyed due to a poor choice of words.

/end rant.

I think one thing I thought of while reading Mistress Alti's post was that we DO have the effective capability to more or less call a mod should the situation need it, if one already hasn't taken notice of something.
But I think something else I realized is it's also up to us to prevent flaming. I know that's almost redundant because there's very little we can actually DO. But for example...if flaming starts, don't flame back. That only creates FLAME WARS. And that's just immature. The best thing we can do to a flamer is politely ask them to stop and use the Report Post feature. *shrugs* But for the most part, many of us are mature enough to NOT flame (at least I would like to think so) and as long as we all keep doing our parts to keep this a good place, we should do fine.

i for one will admit that if someone personally insults me, i have a hard time not throwing an insult back..lol. but most of the time i think i've managed to keep my posts about my opinions on the issue (once i called someone narrowminded...which was uncalled for and i felt bad about).

i think mostly everyone else is good at avoiding flaming. occasionally someone will slip, especially if its an issue that's very dear to their heart, but that can easily be forgiven....provided it's an occasional slip and not an every day thing. because this forum is used to discuss issues that are sometimes at the core of one's belief system, i for one can understand someone occasionally getting upset.

but....personal insults should be avoided at all costs. it really should be kept to only the issues. just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant or a bad person, but i think almost all of us know that.

as for spamming.....yeah uhm there are a couple people (not naming names, don't wanna hurt anyone's feelings) who tend to post one-line responses saying "i agree with *insert name here*" and leave their post at that. if said people would just say WHY they agree with whatever it is someone said, then it wouldn't be spam, ya know?

That is something I've had in mind whislt reading this thread this morning. Although 'flaming' as it seems to be called now, can get out of hand, I think its someone's basic right to be able to disagree with someone.
I don't mean "You are wrong and I hate you with the fire of a thousand suns"
I mean more along the lines of posting why you disagree with the person and whilst posting this, remembering that other people will read your post so don't be rude and too...erm....headstrong. I guess thats the right word...

no weej, flaming isn't disagreeing w/ someone. i'm not sure if that's what you were saying.....but that's what i read it as, so correct me if i'm wrong.

flaming is deliberate personal insults....which have no place in a debate that should be about the issues, not the people discussing it.

like for instance, if you and i were discussing something we had opposite views on. a conv w/o flaming would go something like this (well, insert meaningful stuff in place of the nonsense):

me: "i think blah blah blah"
you: "i disagree, i think bleh bleh bleh"
me: "really? well what about when blah blah blah?"
you: "no, not even then...still bleh bleh bleh."

a conv. w/ flaming would go something like this, however:
me: "i think blah blah blah"
you: "god how can you think that?! it's CLEARLY bleh bleh bleh! anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron!"
me: "ugh you are so narrowminded. how can you possibly think bleh bleh bleh? your reasoning makes no sense. put some THOUGHT into it next time"
you: "aren't they teaching these kids anything in school these days? bleh bleh bleh!"

et cetera. the first conversation is calm, rational, and just discusses the issue. the second one resorts to name calling and personal attacks. i don't know if you really misunderstood this weej or if i just read your post wrong....but if not oh well maybe it'll help to illustrate it for someone else, lol.

Now it makes sense. Thanks for that Candice.

You youngsters with you slang

Yeah, there have been cases of 'flaming' I think.
the only one I can think of off the top of my head is that guy wanting to get rid of 'ish' and swearing at people. Would that count?

any time, weej

and i guess that would count, even though it wasn't in issues. i don't know.

i can think of only a couple times that happened in issues.....but, like always, i don't wanna name any names...lol.