Should we revive the Flame wars?

[Woodruff]

I asked you nicely to stop. Why do you continue? Do you think getting banned again, and again is proving some sort of point? Do you think you're making a difference? Please, for your own sake, don't get banned any more. It's not going to bring back flame wars.

Timminz, are you going to personally ban me? I didn't see a moderator badge by your avatar.
Timminz, why would I be banned in the first place? Am I swearing, throwing around personal insults?
Why have all you ANTI-FLAMERS attacking those who want a "civil discussion?" You guys go and personally attack us and do the 24/7 spamming of us and you threaten me with a ban? Are we in the twilight zone forum, where up is down and yes means no?
Is this the "Double Speak" of which some of us read in the book, "1984"
Strange indeed.

That brush you're using sure seems awfully broad. You should try a different brush because you're badly painting over your point.

[KLOBBER]

Oh my...every dictator ever created loves the sound of your words. In fact, if people held your opinion, the path to dictatorial rule would be paved perfectly.

There is nothing wrong with questioning anything (though sometimes there are times when you should wait before doing so, for instance on a battlefield).

Even though I'm quite satisfied with seeing FlameWars gone, I must admit that I tend to agree that there should have been some statement come out from the site leadership regarding the specifics of why. They've simply CREATED arguments and problems by not doing so.

I question all of the above.

[Woodruff]

Yes, vulcans are nothing if not polite -- except in that special season, you know.

Every seven years, baby!!!

[KLOBBER]

You and I will have to courteously and maturely agree to disagree on all those points, Stahrgazer.

So you've never been flamed in game-chat, Klobber? Really? Because I certainly have, and she's right.

Who said that I had never been flamed in game chat? Not I.

[Woodruff]

Yes. But don't you think everyone is entitled to some shred of [free speech?]

The governments of many countries do provide the right to LIMITED free speech for their citizens. However, Conquer Club is under no legal or moral obligation to provide any amount of free speech to anyone, not even to its paying members.

This is certainly true. And yet, good business sense would tend to lead a business toward doing so.

On the contrary, Mr. Spock, it's better business to make the site appeal to as broad a spectrum as possible, and, like it or not, many people are offended by profanity and personal attacks, and many don't want their small children exposed to such behavior.

Your point about making the site appeal to as broad a spectrum as possible is irrelevant. It's a quite simple matter to do that AND simply explain clearly and concisely why the decision was made. I'm not saying changes shouldn't be made, I'm saying that an intelligent businessman does explain the reasons for why they do what they do.

[Woodruff]

Oh my...every dictator ever created loves the sound of your words. In fact, if people held your opinion, the path to dictatorial rule would be paved perfectly.
There is nothing wrong with questioning anything (though sometimes there are times when you should wait before doing so, for instance on a battlefield).
Even though I'm quite satisfied with seeing FlameWars gone, I must admit that I tend to agree that there should have been some statement come out from the site leadership regarding the specifics of why. They've simply CREATED arguments and problems by not doing so.

I question all of the above.

And you provided such an outstanding and crystal-clear rationale, too! Or did you actually have one?

[Woodruff]

You and I will have to courteously and maturely agree to disagree on all those points, Stahrgazer.

So you've never been flamed in game-chat, Klobber? Really? Because I certainly have, and she's right.

Who said that I had never been flamed in game chat? Not I.

You disagreed with stahrgazer that flaming in game-chat had been taken care of. In fact, it's NEVER (not EVER) taken care of unless it falls within some very specific and narrow concepts, such as racism. So given that you were disagreeing with stahrgazer on that point, it's clear that you've never been flamed in game-chat, else you'd be well aware that you're simply told to FOE an individual an no other action is taken. At least, if you were paying attention, that is.

[KLOBBER]

Oh my...every dictator ever created loves the sound of your words. In fact, if people held your opinion, the path to dictatorial rule would be paved perfectly.
There is nothing wrong with questioning anything (though sometimes there are times when you should wait before doing so, for instance on a battlefield).
Even though I'm quite satisfied with seeing FlameWars gone, I must admit that I tend to agree that there should have been some statement come out from the site leadership regarding the specifics of why. They've simply CREATED arguments and problems by not doing so.

I question all of the above.

And you provided such an outstanding and crystal-clear rationale, too! Or did you actually have one?

You provided the rationale, Mr. Spock -- you said that it's okay to question anything!

[KLOBBER]

Yes. But don't you think everyone is entitled to some shred of [free speech?]

The governments of many countries do provide the right to LIMITED free speech for their citizens. However, Conquer Club is under no legal or moral obligation to provide any amount of free speech to anyone, not even to its paying members.

This is certainly true. And yet, good business sense would tend to lead a business toward doing so.

On the contrary, Mr. Spock, it's better business to make the site appeal to as broad a spectrum as possible, and, like it or not, many people are offended by profanity and personal attacks, and many don't want their small children exposed to such behavior.

Your point about making the site appeal to as broad a spectrum as possible is irrelevant. It's a quite simple matter to do that AND simply explain clearly and concisely why the decision was made. I'm not saying changes shouldn't be made, I'm saying that an intelligent businessman does explain the reasons for why they do what they do.

The reasons have been explained thoroughly.

[Woodruff]

Oh my...every dictator ever created loves the sound of your words. In fact, if people held your opinion, the path to dictatorial rule would be paved perfectly.
There is nothing wrong with questioning anything (though sometimes there are times when you should wait before doing so, for instance on a battlefield).
Even though I'm quite satisfied with seeing FlameWars gone, I must admit that I tend to agree that there should have been some statement come out from the site leadership regarding the specifics of why. They've simply CREATED arguments and problems by not doing so.

I question all of the above.

And you provided such an outstanding and crystal-clear rationale, too! Or did you actually have one?

You provided the rationale, Mr. Spock -- you said that it's okay to question anything!

Blindly questioning is idiotic. Those demanding that FlameWars be returned or acting like babies because it's not are blindly questioning. Those asking for rationale in the case of FlameWars are not blindly questioning, thus it seems appropriate to me.
In the above instance, you certainly give the appears of blindly questioning, since you were unable to provide any rationale. Then again, given your penchant for approving dictatorial policy, I'm not surprised by that.

[Woodruff]

This is certainly true. And yet, good business sense would tend to lead a business toward doing so.

On the contrary, Mr. Spock, it's better business to make the site appeal to as broad a spectrum as possible, and, like it or not, many people are offended by profanity and personal attacks, and many don't want their small children exposed to such behavior.

Your point about making the site appeal to as broad a spectrum as possible is irrelevant. It's a quite simple matter to do that AND simply explain clearly and concisely why the decision was made. I'm not saying changes shouldn't be made, I'm saying that an intelligent businessman does explain the reasons for why they do what they do.

The reasons have been explained thoroughly.

Have they...good, then I'm sure you can point them out to me.

[KLOBBER]

This is certainly true. And yet, good business sense would tend to lead a business toward doing so.

On the contrary, Mr. Spock, it's better business to make the site appeal to as broad a spectrum as possible, and, like it or not, many people are offended by profanity and personal attacks, and many don't want their small children exposed to such behavior.

Your point about making the site appeal to as broad a spectrum as possible is irrelevant. It's a quite simple matter to do that AND simply explain clearly and concisely why the decision was made. I'm not saying changes shouldn't be made, I'm saying that an intelligent businessman does explain the reasons for why they do what they do.

The reasons have been explained thoroughly.

Have they...good, then I'm sure you can point them out to me.

Nah. Last time I did someone else's research I was paid $20 per hour. Find it yourself.

[KLOBBER]

Oh my...every dictator ever created loves the sound of your words. In fact, if people held your opinion, the path to dictatorial rule would be paved perfectly.
There is nothing wrong with questioning anything (though sometimes there are times when you should wait before doing so, for instance on a battlefield).
Even though I'm quite satisfied with seeing FlameWars gone, I must admit that I tend to agree that there should have been some statement come out from the site leadership regarding the specifics of why. They've simply CREATED arguments and problems by not doing so.

I question all of the above.

And you provided such an outstanding and crystal-clear rationale, too! Or did you actually have one?

You provided the rationale, Mr. Spock -- you said that it's okay to question anything!

Blindly questioning is idiotic. Those demanding that FlameWars be returned or acting like babies because it's not are blindly questioning. Those asking for rationale in the case of FlameWars are not blindly questioning, thus it seems appropriate to me.
In the above instance, you certainly give the appears of blindly questioning, since you were unable to provide any rationale. Then again, given your penchant for approving dictatorial policy, I'm not surprised by that.

Logic, Mr. Spock! You said that it's okay to question anything, and that was my rationale for questioning everything you said.

Logic!

[Woodruff]

Your point about making the site appeal to as broad a spectrum as possible is irrelevant. It's a quite simple matter to do that AND simply explain clearly and concisely why the decision was made. I'm not saying changes shouldn't be made, I'm saying that an intelligent businessman does explain the reasons for why they do what they do.

The reasons have been explained thoroughly.

Have they...good, then I'm sure you can point them out to me.

Nah. Last time I did someone else's research I was paid $20 per hour. Find it yourself.

Yeah, I knew you were full of crap too. Thanks for admitting it.

[Woodruff]

And you provided such an outstanding and crystal-clear rationale, too! Or did you actually have one?

You provided the rationale, Mr. Spock -- you said that it's okay to question anything!

Blindly questioning is idiotic. Those demanding that FlameWars be returned or acting like babies because it's not are blindly questioning. Those asking for rationale in the case of FlameWars are not blindly questioning, thus it seems appropriate to me.
In the above instance, you certainly give the appears of blindly questioning, since you were unable to provide any rationale. Then again, given your penchant for approving dictatorial policy, I'm not surprised by that.

Logic, Mr. Spock! You said that it's okay to question anything, and that was my rationale for questioning everything you said.

Logic!

Blindly questioning is not logical in the least. Not that I expect any more from you than that.

[KLOBBER]

And you provided such an outstanding and crystal-clear rationale, too! Or did you actually have one?

You provided the rationale, Mr. Spock -- you said that it's okay to question anything!

Blindly questioning is idiotic. Those demanding that FlameWars be returned or acting like babies because it's not are blindly questioning. Those asking for rationale in the case of FlameWars are not blindly questioning, thus it seems appropriate to me.
In the above instance, you certainly give the appears of blindly questioning, since you were unable to provide any rationale. Then again, given your penchant for approving dictatorial policy, I'm not surprised by that.

Logic, Mr. Spock! You said that it's okay to question anything, and that was my rationale for questioning everything you said.

Logic!

Blindly questioning is not logical in the least. Not that I expect any more from you than that.

But you said it's okay to question "anything."

Also, my questioning was not blind -- it was enlightened by your own statement.

[Woodruff]

Blindly questioning is idiotic. Those demanding that FlameWars be returned or acting like babies because it's not are blindly questioning. Those asking for rationale in the case of FlameWars are not blindly questioning, thus it seems appropriate to me.
In the above instance, you certainly give the appears of blindly questioning, since you were unable to provide any rationale. Then again, given your penchant for approving dictatorial policy, I'm not surprised by that.

Logic, Mr. Spock! You said that it's okay to question anything, and that was my rationale for questioning everything you said.

Logic!

Blindly questioning is not logical in the least. Not that I expect any more from you than that.

But you said it's okay to question "anything."

Also, my questioning was not blind -- it was enlightened by your own statement.

Yeah, I didn't think you had anything to add, either. But thanks for the admission, unintentional though it was!

[KLOBBER]

Um... whatever, dude.

[Night Strike]

This thread has CLEARLY served it's purpose. We have all read the same posts by KLOBBER and co. supporting the removal of Flame Wars against GENERAL STONEHAM and co. wanting Flame Wars to stay. There are reasons why every debate needs a time-limit.....because the same arguments start to be used repeatedly.

To be crystal clear: Flame Wars will NOT be returning.

That's the simple truth of the matter. And Stoneham, they aren't flaming and trolling you when they tell you this, even though you wish to believe it. They just believe that you are wrong and are pointing it out. Your crusade isn't going to change anything, and if you continue to whine throughout the forums about the injustice of not having a flame wars, I'm going to request an admin help you find a new forum to whine in.