Oct 22, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Join Date: Dec 30, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 3218
Age: 32
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.S. P. Gardebiter said:No, trolling is directly attacking a person. Flaming isn't forbidden to a degree
flaming? or trolling? or is it neither, since I don't even mean it at all?yours sincerely said:S. P. Gardebiter is gay
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).freezit4 said:flaming? or trolling? or is it neither, since I don't even mean it at all?
I don't think that could be called an offence because it's not as hurtful as a direct attack.DT said:I could troll without directly attacking anybody if you wanted
Wouldn't that be spamming?DoubleThink said:I could troll without directly attacking anybody if you wanted
Not if it's in someway related to the topic itself or the "current" topic of discussion.Celtic Minstrel said:Wouldn't that be spamming?
Um not really, it's quite possible to spam without trolling as well...Celtic Minstrel said:Wouldn't that be spamming?
Too bad.DoubleThink said: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
Wikipedia said:The word flaming is also sometimes used for long, intensive and heated discussions, even though insults do not occur.
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.andwhyisit said: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.
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.DoubleThink said: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
Agreed completely. Somehow, the rule enforcement doesn't seem to. >_>DoubleThink said: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.
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.DoubleThink said: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?
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).DoubleThink said: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.
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.DoubleThink said: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.
I know your definitions are very well written, but there are just one or two things I didn't agree with. Sorry.DoubleThink said:And before anybody argues with me on these definitions I would please ask that you don't
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?andwhyisit said: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.
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.Roonil Wazlib said: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).
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 retardRoonil Wazlib said: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.
S'cool d00d, I just didn't feel like getting into an argument when nobody's going to change my opinion anyways.Roonil Wazlib said:I know your definitions are very well written, but there are just one or two things I didn't agree with. Sorry.
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.DoubleThink said: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 :|
More along the lines of "I'm right, you're wrong. Argument ended.", people usually hate that.DoubleThink said:Oh look it's that word again. Apparently "I suggest we drop it" is flaming now too :|
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.DoubleThink said: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 shall treasure it always.DoubleThink said:And now that we've gotten suitable off-topic... have a flame tree.
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?andwhyisit said:More along the lines of "I'm right, you're wrong. Argument ended.", people usually hate that.
There is a difference between "attacking" and "mild disagreement". Well, at least on my end, I can't speak for you.andwhyisit said: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".