Conquer Club

Now that flame wars is gone it looks as if CC is taking a kinder stance towards forum activity. The current definition of a flame is

Night Strike wrote:Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack another user.

Concise description:

• Flaming needs to be far more strictly enforced with much tougher rules towards flaming. Here is something I am thinking:
  1. Every flame will be mod-edited no matter how petty it may be
  2. Every flame comes with a official warning, quickly amounting to a ban

Specifics:

• Flaming rules changed to something basically along the lines of
  1. Every flame will be mod-edited no matter how petty it may be
  2. Every flame comes with a official warning, quickly amounting to a ban

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• This site seems to be taking a friendlier attitude and this will help accomplish that
• Forum activity will be more pleasant
• Flamers will likely leave the site

We don't want to squeeze every aspect of life out of this forum with endless rules in my opinion.

stop posting stupid rule changes

Sailorfail, just get over yourself. You're coming over as nothing but a wannabe moderator, and, if anything, it's only hurting your chances of acquiring such a position. Stop posting this useless crap that will never get considered / implemented.

Oops, did I flame? Boo-hoo.

Thank you all for making my suggestion worthwhile

You're annoying.

Serbia wrote:You're annoying.

Wow, proving the worth of my suggestion will be easier then I thought

sailorseal wrote:

Serbia wrote:You're annoying.

Wow, proving the worth of my suggestion will be easier then I thought

You consider that a flame?

Serbia wrote:

sailorseal wrote:

Serbia wrote:You're annoying.

Wow, proving the worth of my suggestion will be easier then I thought

You consider that a flame?

The new rule would

sailorseal wrote:

Serbia wrote:

sailorseal wrote:

Serbia wrote:You're annoying.

Wow, proving the worth of my suggestion will be easier then I thought

You consider that a flame?

The new rule would

I'm all for getting rid of flamers. But this "new rule" sounds rather nazi... ish.

Bones2484 wrote:

sailorseal wrote:

Serbia wrote:

sailorseal wrote:

Serbia wrote:You're annoying.

Wow, proving the worth of my suggestion will be easier then I thought

You consider that a flame?

The new rule would

I'm all for getting rid of flamers. But this "new rule" sounds rather nazi... ish.

You have a better way? Honestly not insultingly just how would you do it, it is the goal or this

sailorseal wrote:You have a better way? Honestly not insultingly just how would you do it, it is the goal or this

Someone who has basically lost control of what they are typing (read: ronc) is a lot different than someone calling you annoying.

The site doesn't need more oversight. It just needs more consistent oversight.

Bones2484 wrote:

sailorseal wrote:You have a better way? Honestly not insultingly just how would you do it, it is the goal or this

Someone who has basically lost control of what they are typing (read: ronc) is a lot different than someone calling you annoying.

The site doesn't need more oversight. It just needs more consistent oversight.

Agreed now how can that be achieved?

Most of the value of flames is in the eye of the recipient. So how about a flame emotive, just a little red flame, no words?

sailorseal wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

sailorseal wrote:You have a better way? Honestly not insultingly just how would you do it, it is the goal or this

Someone who has basically lost control of what they are typing (read: ronc) is a lot different than someone calling you annoying.

The site doesn't need more oversight. It just needs more consistent oversight.

Agreed now how can that be achieved?

How about a clarification of the rules instead of adding more intense ones?

We don't need stricter rules, just to protect every Tom, Dick, and Sailor. Sometimes people need to be told they're being ridiculous.

Bones2484 wrote:

sailorseal wrote:

Serbia wrote:

sailorseal wrote:

Serbia wrote:You're annoying.

Wow, proving the worth of my suggestion will be easier then I thought

You consider that a flame?

The new rule would

I'm all for getting rid of flamers. But this "new rule" sounds rather nazi... ish.

Bones just flamed. 36 month forum ban for you buddy.

Serbia wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:
I'm all for getting rid of flamers.

Bones just flamed. 36 month forum ban for you buddy.

Dang it. And I voted no on Prop 8, too.

Timminz wrote:We don't need stricter rules, just to protect every Tom, Dick, and Sailor. Sometimes people need to be told they're being ridiculous.

that almost got by me... and if words hurt you, perhaps you don't belong on an internet forum where people play out their bully fantasies...-0

owenshooter wrote:

Timminz wrote:We don't need stricter rules, just to protect every Tom, Dick, and Sailor. Sometimes people need to be told they're being ridiculous.

that almost got by me... and if words hurt you, perhaps you don't belong on an internet forum where people play out their bully fantasies...-0

If this is addressed to Tim, then something has gotten by you. If it's addressed to sailor, agreed, carry on.

Serbia wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

Timminz wrote:We don't need stricter rules, just to protect every Tom, Dick, and Sailor. Sometimes people need to be told they're being ridiculous.

that almost got by me... and if words hurt you, perhaps you don't belong on an internet forum where people play out their bully fantasies...-0

If this is addressed to Tim, then something has gotten by you. If it's addressed to sailor, agreed, carry on.

Sailor hasn't posted in this for a while why would it be addressed to him?

sailorseal wrote:

Serbia wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

Timminz wrote:We don't need stricter rules, just to protect every Tom, Dick, and Sailor. Sometimes people need to be told they're being ridiculous.

that almost got by me... and if words hurt you, perhaps you don't belong on an internet forum where people play out their bully fantasies...-0

If this is addressed to Tim, then something has gotten by you. If it's addressed to sailor, agreed, carry on.

Sailor hasn't posted in this for a while why would it be addressed to him?

Witty.

sailorseal wrote:Now that flame wars is gone it looks as if CC is taking a kinder stance towards forum activity. The current definition of a flame is

Night Strike wrote:Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack another user.

Concise description:

• Flaming needs to be far more strictly enforced with much tougher rules towards flaming. Here is something I am thinking:
  1. Every flame will be mod-edited no matter how petty it may be
  2. Every flame comes with a official warning, quickly amounting to a ban

Specifics:

• Flaming rules changed to something basically along the lines of
  1. Every flame will be mod-edited no matter how petty it may be
  2. Every flame comes with a official warning, quickly amounting to a ban

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• This site seems to be taking a friendlier attitude and this will help accomplish that
• Forum activity will be more pleasant
• Flamers will likely leave the site

First of all, ignore the wannabe flamers in this thread...they're just upset still over the recent decision and it will take them a bit to ease down from it (understandably, I suppose).

However, I do tend to agree with Bones. Tighter rules aren't necessary, but consistent enforcement and good clarification of them are. I would also add that the current forum rules on flaming should be applied to in-game flaming. There's no reason for inconsistency between the two. I believe that with the consistency and clarification (so everyone knows where things stand), it will be good.

Woodruff wrote:I would also add that the current forum rules on flaming should be applied to in-game flaming. There's no reason for inconsistency between the two.

No thanks, we don't need any thought police around here, that's what the 'Foe list' is for. Further more, no harm is done where consent is given, if two players want to engage each other in a slanging match for the fun of it, they can. If clans want to engage each other in rowdy banter during a clan match they can. It's only a problem when some loud mouth fool picks an argument with someone who just isn't interested(Read: GENERAL STONEHAM), then THAT is a matter for the mods.

sailorseal wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:I'm all for getting rid of flamers. But this "new rule" sounds rather nazi... ish.

You have a better way? Honestly not insultingly just how would you do it, it is the goal or this

Did I catch this right?