Setting Some Standards

No, trolling is directly attacking a person. Flaming isn't forbidden to a degree

 

I could troll without directly attacking anybody if you wanted

 

No, trolling is directly attacking a person. Flaming isn't forbidden to a degree

I don't understand. What is the true, exact, clear definition of flaming then? I mean it more like on your opinion and this forum's.

For example, is

S. P. Gardebiter is gay

flaming? or trolling? or is it neither, since I don't even mean it at all?

 

flaming? or trolling? or is it neither, since I don't even mean it at all?

Neither since it's a theory and you have sufficient evidence. Or probably because you're bringing it in as a demonstrationso you know you aren't doing anything wrong (or you're stupid enough to risk getting banned).

On a more serious note, I have the same question. ;D

I could troll without directly attacking anybody if you wanted

I don't think that could be called an offence because it's not as hurtful as a direct attack.

And I think the spambot rule needs a rephrase. More like "Please do not post in threads that are obviously made by spambots." or something.

It would also be sensible to add that disobedience here would lead to a warning/ban/gangbang so that nobody bitches about it later.

Also mention that multiple accounts are not allowed (I'm pretty sure the old rules didn't touch this point).

 

Trolling is about intent as well. If you are joking about the "Gardebiter is gay" thing then you are obviously not personally attacking SP are you?

It is usually quite obvious when someone is personally attacking someone else.

 

I could troll without directly attacking anybody if you wanted

Wouldn't that be spamming?

 

Wouldn't that be spamming?

Not if it's in someway related to the topic itself or the "current" topic of discussion.

 

Wouldn't that be spamming?

Um not really, it's quite possible to spam without trolling as well...
Gosh, no wonder nothing gets done about the trolling on these forums, nobody even knows what it is

Okay folks:

Spamming - Posting lots of posts without any real meaning or just for the purpose of upping one's postcount. Doesn't necessarily have to be offensive or even digging for attention, for example, somebody could just be a bit over-excited. Bot advertising is usually considered spamming (or viral marketing I guess) since there's not really any intent there as far as the bot itself is concerned, by virtue of the bot being a program >_>
Can also be used to describe other actions that are not necessarily just spamming e.g. "Stop spamming up my forums with your shitty pictures" or something.

Flaming - Attacking another user for no real reason, often involves TEXT YELLING and lots of mean words. Does not always have to be digging for attention, I mean somebody could just be an officious jerk who enjoys yelling at people <_< Think about the word, flaming = staring up flames/fanning the fires of a raging argument, makes sense yes?

Trolling - Usually involves deliberately acting like an idiot or deliberately avoiding what is true/obvious in order to get somebody riled up. So basically, lying. Is only synonymous with flaming if it directly targets somebody. Is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS about digging for attention. Does not really work due to its very definition, but people do it anyway because it's effectively impossible for it to fail or reason with. Therefore, there is really nothing that can be done to prevent it aside from deleting it or banning the user, which is why I say: Ban it, and don't screw around trying to fix something that it permanently broken.

Personally I think trolling is worse just on principle. At least in flaming there is usually some form of passion or anger, some ounce of believable emotion there to relate to, while trolling is effectively 'internet schoolyard bullying', enforcing one's own insecurities by praying on those of others. There's really no excuse for it whatsoever if you're over, say, 12.

And before anybody argues with me on these definitions I would please ask that you don't, because
a) These definitions are pretty much textbook,
b) I have seen probably thousands of cases of each of these, which all pretty much match my descriptions, and having one or two people tell me I'm wrong won't do much to change my 'opinion lol', and
c) I am obscenely grumpy at the moment and will probably say something mean

So yeah, you can call them whatever you want, but it's just going to make things confusing for everybody every single time one of these topics come up, especially since we are all very picky about our definitions when discussing these things. I'm not trying to say my word is law or anything, but there are opinions, and then there are straight-up definitions. Attacking somebody is definitely what is called flaming, it can be trolling as well, but they aren't the same thing.

 

And before anybody argues with me on these definitions I would please ask that you don't, because
a) These definitions are pretty much textbook,
b) I have seen probably thousands of cases of each of these, which all pretty much match my descriptions, and having one or two people tell me I'm wrong won't do much to change my 'opinion lol', and
c) I am obscenely grumpy at the moment and will probably say something mean

Too bad.

Flaming also means "starting or contributing to a heated argument on the internet". And yes it is true to its name because contributing to an argument is just "adding fuel to the fire". The argument itself is usually known as a flamewar. And that is the definition of flaming that we are using.

EDIT:
How's this for textbook:

The word flaming is also sometimes used for long, intensive and heated discussions, even though insults do not occur.

 

Flaming also means "starting or contributing to a heated argument on the internet". And yes it is true to its name because contributing to an argument is just "adding fuel to the fire". The argument itself is usually known as a flamewar.

Err... why not just call it a heated or intense argument then? "Flaming" strikes me as a pretty powerful word, such that there wouldn't really be any reason to use it unless there was some very strong language flying around. A genuine argument that manages to remain of good quality even at such intense levels shouldn't lend itself to such a derogatory term.
This also raises the question that if attacking somebody is not considered flaming, what the heck is it called then? It sure as hell isn't trolling, bud, that's a whole other kettle of fish.
I really wouldn't cite Wikipedia as textbook either, at least not in terms of internet lingo where I seriously doubt there is any professional knowledge. Maybe "textbook" was the wrong word to use...? A bit ambitious maybe? x_x

 

Err... why not just call it a heated or intense argument then? "Flaming" strikes me as a pretty powerful word, such that there wouldn't really be any reason to use it unless there was some very strong language flying around. A genuine argument that manages to remain of good quality even at such intense levels shouldn't lend itself to such a derogatory term.
This also raises the question that if attacking somebody is not considered flaming, what the heck is it called then? It sure as hell isn't trolling, bud, that's a whole other kettle of fish.
I really wouldn't cite Wikipedia as textbook either, at least not in terms of internet lingo where I seriously doubt there is any professional knowledge. Maybe "textbook" was the wrong word to use...? A bit ambitious maybe? x_x

I have seen flaming applied to such a meaning many times before. I definitely didn't grab my information from wikipedia. I only quoted it in order to prove my point.

The problem with flaming is that it usually spirals out of control with neither side winning until an administrator threatens to ban the next person to bring it up. I remember a 100 page flamewar about racism in a thread about an experimental ds emulator. I remember countless ds vs psp arguments. I remember a long flamewar in the Crowned Witch thread. There is a damned good reason why flaming is such a derogatory term and that so many forums do not allow it. SP has nothing against it though since it does get the argument out of your system.

 

Spamming - Posting lots of posts without any real meaning or just for the purpose of upping one's postcount. Doesn't necessarily have to be offensive or even digging for attention, for example, somebody could just be a bit over-excited. Bot advertising is usually considered spamming (or viral marketing I guess) since there's not really any intent there as far as the bot itself is concerned, by virtue of the bot being a program >_>
Can also be used to describe other actions that are not necessarily just spamming e.g. "Stop spamming up my forums with your shitty pictures" or something.

Agreed completely. Somehow, the rule enforcement doesn't seem to. >_>

Flaming - Attacking another user for no real reason, often involves TEXT YELLING and lots of mean words. Does not always have to be digging for attention, I mean somebody could just be an officious jerk who enjoys yelling at people <_< Think about the word, flaming = staring up flames/fanning the fires of a raging argument, makes sense yes?

The degree of offence varies according to whether the other guy knows you're joking (if you are, that is) or not. In short, flame newbies and get banned. And I have to go with DT's definition rather than andwhy's.

Trolling - Usually involves deliberately acting like an idiot or deliberately avoiding what is true/obvious in order to get somebody riled up. So basically, lying. Is only synonymous with flaming if it directly targets somebody. Is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS about digging for attention. Does not really work due to its very definition, but people do it anyway because it's effectively impossible for it to fail or reason with. Therefore, there is really nothing that can be done to prevent it aside from deleting it or banning the user, which is why I say: Ban it, and don't screw around trying to fix something that it permanently broken.

That's not a very good description. A dig that can't be countered does not amount to trolling if the other party doesn't mind it and/or was asking for it (which may have been flame rather than troll).

Personally I think trolling is worse just on principle. At least in flaming there is usually some form of passion or anger, some ounce of believable emotion there to relate to, while trolling is effectively 'internet schoolyard bullying', enforcing one's own insecurities by praying on those of others. There's really no excuse for it whatsoever if you're over, say, 12.

Not all flaming is the way you describe it. Using 100+ insults in one post just for the lulz is also a flame, and it's not necessarily out of anger or emotion either. This bit of your post is more in agreement to andwhy's definition, not yours.

But yes, flaming on emotion is understandable as long as it's reasonable.

And before anybody argues with me on these definitions I would please ask that you don't

I know your definitions are very well written, but there are just one or two things I didn't agree with. Sorry.



I'd also like to add that this place seems to be very confused lately on what the definiton of spam implies. Reference: the "post your picture" thread. =|

 

I have seen flaming applied to such a meaning many times before. I definitely didn't grab my information from wikipedia. I only quoted it in order to prove my point.

Kind of strange, I've really never seen it used like that before myself >_> I would call the examples you gave flamewars but I fail to see how they wouldn't involve lots of angriness and heavy language. Maybe I should have been specific in that flaming can also involve attacking something rather than just someone, or at least involve lots of words that your granny wouldn't like to hear. An argument that's gone out of control could definitely be flamewar, but as long as things are kept civil there're no flames now are there?

That's not a very good description. A dig that can't be countered does not amount to trolling if the other party doesn't mind it and/or was asking for it (which may have been flame rather than troll).

Eh that wasn't quite what I meant, I was referencing more the mentality than the content of a given post. My point was that there is no point in responding to a troll in any way because by the very act of responding the troll can effectively be deemed 'successful', unless said response is a real zinger that completely turns the tables (I am bad at these ). And even if nobody responds said troll could argue that they just won the argument by default, depending on how depraved they are >_> There really isn't any such thing as a 'justified' troll, at least the way I define it.

EDIT: Felt I should also point out that it's also important to not just label folks as trolls since it is not a very nice thing to be This is part of the difficulty I guess, there has to be a balance between the rules and the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying people shouldn't respond to them either, you have a right to post if you want to, but it's the admin's/mod's duty to take control of the situation when it gets out of hand, so it kind of helps if they know what to look for >_>

Not all flaming is the way you describe it. Using 100+ insults in one post just for the lulz is also a flame, and it's not necessarily out of anger or emotion either. This bit of your post is more in agreement to andwhy's definition, not yours.

I would figure that just counted as a joke and would be more spam than flaming anyway, as long as nobody got offended you fucking retard

I know your definitions are very well written, but there are just one or two things I didn't agree with. Sorry.

S'cool d00d, I just didn't feel like getting into an argument when nobody's going to change my opinion anyways.

There are a lot of different definitions/opinions/jargonisms out there but I'm pretty sure I've narrowed them down to the 'true' definitions, not that I tried to define them perfectly or anything <_< Gotta believe somethin'.

 

Both meanings are valid. Are you incapable of understanding this?

 

Well, like I said, I've never seen it used in that respect before. Like, ever never.
And, like I also said, I'm not changing my opinion because one guy tells me to.
It's also possible that there's not a "both meanings" and we're just arguing over the same thing anyway, so unless you seriously disagree with me to the point that you don't think my definition is adequate for the purposes of possible rule updating, I suggest we drop it :|

 

Well, like I said, I've never seen it used in that respect before. Like, ever never.
And, like I also said, I'm not changing my opinion because one guy tells me to.
It's also possible that there's not a "both meanings" and we're just arguing over the same thing anyway, so unless you seriously disagree with me to the point that you don't think my definition is adequate for the purposes of possible rule updating, I suggest we drop it :|

Why are you turning this into a flamewar? Is my word not enough? I have been around quite a number of forums while being more active then most, I think I would know. Is it not possible that both myself and someone writing a wikipedia article noticed the same thing? What I don't get is your utter stubbornness to label me as wrong somehow.

 

Oh look it's that word again. Apparently "I suggest we drop it" is flaming now too :|
Words can have multiple meanings, but not in respect to the same damned thing. So no, your word isn't enough, if that's what you want me to say. As far as I'm concerned your definition is wrong, because I don't think the word flaming should be applied to any form of sensible conversation. I don't know why you feel the need to convince me, especially when I said I don't need any convincing, and I'm obviously not going to convince you that you're wrong, nor do I want to really, so like I said, unless you think my proposal isn't 'good enough' for the forums, we might as well drop it. Roonil seems to agree with me though, why not try convincing him instead?

And now that we've gotten suitable off-topic... have a flame tree.

 

Oh look it's that word again. Apparently "I suggest we drop it" is flaming now too :|

More along the lines of "I'm right, you're wrong. Argument ended.", people usually hate that.

As far as I'm concerned your definition is wrong, because I don't think the word flaming should be applied to any form of sensible conversation.

A definition isn't wrong because you say it isn't. I might as well say that "sky" means "small body of water" and claim that you have all been wrong this entire time. I have heard it used by other people, that is the reason why I know that definition of flaming.

Oh and if you think that this is "sensible conversation" when we are attacking at each others point of views then you have a twisted view on "sensible conversation".

And now that we've gotten suitable off-topic... have a flame tree.

I shall treasure it always.

 

More along the lines of "I'm right, you're wrong. Argument ended.", people usually hate that.

God... damnit... you can think what you like, go ahead, all I'm telling you is that I and I alone don't agree with your definition. I wasn't exaggerating when I said "thousands" before. I've looked at your argument fairly, I just don't agree with it. Would you prefer it if I lied to you or something?
What is it with this bleeding forum and putting words into other peoples' mouths all the time?

Oh and if you think that this is "sensible conversation" when we are attacking at each others point of views then you have a twisted view on "sensible conversation".

There is a difference between "attacking" and "mild disagreement". Well, at least on my end, I can't speak for you.

Look, I have nothing more to say and I don't feel like discussing this anymore, so I would really appreciate it if we could end this here and just see who SP agrees with. I'm not being ignorant, I just don't agree with your definition. We've obviously had different internet experiences over time. If you're really that stressed over the fact that my definition of flaming is slightly different than yours you can take it to PM. Don't make me pull a "this is my thread" on you >_>

 

andwhy doesn't seem to get the point.

IMO, the term "flamewar" strictly refers to exchange of insults PURELY FOR THE LULZ (which should explain the childish dramatisation in the inclusion of the word "war"). However, a more accepted description is a heated argument or somewhat where flames may or may not have actually been exchanged, meaning that the term "flamewar" in this case is more of an exaggeration.

Even if we are to disregard this analysis of mine, "flames" and "flamewars" are not necessarily related terms and "flamewar" could refer to a sensible debate but "flames" are always pointless fucking around.