What exactly is a "flame"?

[stevedperkins]

<br/>
<b>System Wars</b>
<i>Debate which system is the best, but keep it clean. No flames!</i>
<br/>
I'm a little confused by what this subtitle description actually <i>means</i>. I've always defined flaming as any insult or attack on an individual, rather than just on the position that person has stated in a post. However, this forum description (as well as some other comments that 'admin' and 'Lara' have made) <i>appear</i> to promote the belief that "flaming" means to make use of swear words when talking about someone.

Obviously the first of these two possibilities is (thank God!) like outlawing jaywalking, good luck trying to enforce THAT. The second of the two, however, I totally agree with... anybody too dumb to substitute asterisks for swear words is probably too dumb to be writing for public view in the first place. All in all, I'm just curious as to what definition was intended?

[Fragmastar]

Swear words or no swear words, a flame is still a flame.

Example one: "You're an idiot" (That was still an insult even though there were no swear words)

Example two: "You're a ******* retard" (That was a flame with swearing)

[Whaxx]

Here is an example of a flame....which could ultimately lead to a Flame war.

Xbox has the best games!
(next reply)
WTF are you talking about PS2 does you ****** Xbot!!
(next)
Screw you MILK DRINKA! Xbox owns you! now go play some lame JAPANESE RPGs!! on your pissstation!

that is some flames, and a mini, Flame war.

[stevedperkins]

Okay, looking at the replies it seems that there really isn't a definition of flaming... people just "recognize it when they see it". I agree that the examples given so far are things that I don't really care to read. That's not because they're mean, but just because they're boring and non-entertaining. That's basically my own personal metric I use to judge an argument/flame post, whether or not it was clever or original or <i>entertaining</i>. I'm not really sure how one could document that as "official policy", though. I get bored browsing through "yo mama"-type insults... but at the same time, post-deletions and/or user-banning because someone called somebody "an idiot" (or some other personal insult) would just be lame beyond belief. Hopefully, reality will settle somewhere between those two extremes.

[Chris]

There's a definition already posted here:
http://forums.videogamereview.com/showthread.php?threadid=118

[stevedperkins]

There's a definition already posted here:
http://forums.videogamereview.com/showthread.php?threadid=118I saw this and proceded to ask the question anyway, because those definitions are too vague to have any meaning. You should have just said, "<i>Ehh, you know it when you see it... it's pretty subjective stuff, the final call will basically have to do with what mood we're in that day</i>".

Let me ask you this, am *I* a troll? I've posted some non-argumentative stuff on the Gamecube forum, and I started what is currently the ONLY thread running in the Gameboy forum, but when I go into posting history under my user profile I see that the vast majority of my posts have been for the sole purpose of provoking arguments. Have I posted "flames"? I verbally attacked and personally mocked four people (including the site admin himself) on the General Discussion forum. It would <i>seem</i> that I'm guilty on all counts based on the "letter of the law", but I have yet to have my posts deleted or account yanked. I don't know if it's because I'm fairly educated and try to write well-written and logically-constructed posts, so it "doesn't count" because I don't stoop to swear words and childing insults.

One way or the other, I'm just uneasy because I don't really have a clear understanding of these <i>very subjective</i> guidelines. So therefore I'll break it down into black and white. <b><i>This</i></b> (<i>meaning my gripes about System Wars over the past few days</i>) is about as argumentative and "flamey" as I get. If that is considered well within the "troll threshold", then that definition is fine with me.

[Chris]

<div class=\"smallfont\">I saw this and proceded to ask the question anyway, because those definitions are too vague to have any meaning. You should have just said, "<i>Ehh, you know it when you see it... it's pretty subjective stuff, the final call will basically have to do with what mood we're in that day</i>".

Let me ask you this, am *I* a troll? I've posted some non-argumentative stuff on the Gamecube forum, and I started what is currently the ONLY thread running in the Gameboy forum, but when I go into posting history under my user profile I see that the vast majority of my posts have been for the sole purpose of provoking arguments. Have I posted "flames"? I verbally attacked and personally mocked four people (including the site admin himself) on the General Discussion forum. It would <i>seem</i> that I'm guilty on all counts based on the "letter of the law", but I have yet to have my posts deleted or account yanked. I don't know if it's because I'm fairly educated and try to write well-written and logically-constructed posts, so it "doesn't count" because I don't stoop to swear words and childing insults.

One way or the other, I'm just uneasy because I don't really have a clear understanding of these <i>very subjective</i> guidelines. So therefore I'll break it down into black and white. <b><i>This</i></b> (<i>meaning my gripes about System Wars over the past few days</i>) is about as argumentative and "flamey" as I get. If that is considered well within the "troll threshold", then that definition is fine with me.</div>
Actually, I am the site admin (I have been using our generic "admin" handle lately, but have set up my new account to avoid confusion). It's still pretty early on to see who the trolls are in this new system. The beauty is that we can all see the post history which can be tell tale. I would say that the moderating team will decide as a group on who the trolls are and how to best deal with them. Now that you've read the "letter of the law", I'd hope you would try and not flame people going forward, and try to do less provoking.