Flame Wars Removed

[Night Strike]

Removed the spam.

[xelabale]

YES, we know that this "site" is a private enterprise and you guys can do what you want, including using "bully methods," to win any argument against FLAME WARS. But, is that how REAL private enterprise treats their customers?

yes. many private enterprises protect their customers against being verbally abused as they were commonly in flame wars. In reality most wouldnt have allowed it for so long.

Who was abused in flame wars, please? Prowler? chaosfactor? Who?

[Woodruff]

Oh my, what the heck. Are we going to police the chat in games?
Guys and gals, we're all basically anonymous, how can anyone be personally insulted? If you got a thin skin like today's moderators, just close your eyes and count to ten. OR, insult the moron back, unless of course it's deserved.

Rather than act like...you know...thinking human beings, you mean.

[a.sub]

Oh my, what the heck. Are we going to police the chat in games?
Guys and gals, we're all basically anonymous, how can anyone be personally insulted? If you got a thin skin like today's moderators, just close your eyes and count to ten. OR, insult the moron back, unless of course it's deserved.

Rather than act like...you know...thinking human beings, you mean.

yeah we should all stop thinking
use Gen. SToneham as an example

[xelabale]

yeah we should all stop thinking
use Gen. SToneham as an example

Flaming is not tolerated on cc - please apologise now and take it elsewhere.

[a.sub]

please apologise

apologize*

[thegreekdog]

Oh my, what the heck. Are we going to police the chat in games?
Guys and gals, we're all basically anonymous, how can anyone be personally insulted? If you got a thin skin like today's moderators, just close your eyes and count to ten. OR, insult the moron back, unless of course it's deserved.

Rather than act like...you know...thinking human beings, you mean.

Do "thinking human beings" not hurl insults?

[Woodruff]

Oh my, what the heck. Are we going to police the chat in games?
Guys and gals, we're all basically anonymous, how can anyone be personally insulted? If you got a thin skin like today's moderators, just close your eyes and count to ten. OR, insult the moron back, unless of course it's deserved.

Rather than act like...you know...thinking human beings, you mean.

Do "thinking human beings" not hurl insults?

No, hurling insults are not necessary for those who effectively use their ability to think.

[thegreekdog]

Oh my, what the heck. Are we going to police the chat in games?
Guys and gals, we're all basically anonymous, how can anyone be personally insulted? If you got a thin skin like today's moderators, just close your eyes and count to ten. OR, insult the moron back, unless of course it's deserved.

Rather than act like...you know...thinking human beings, you mean.

Do "thinking human beings" not hurl insults?

No, hurling insults are not necessary for those who effectively use their ability to think.

And if one who effectively uses their ability to think chooses to use that ability to hurl insults at those who hurl insults? You do understand, don't you, that stating "rather than act like... you know... thinking human beings, you mean" and "hurling insults are not necessary for those who effectively use their ability to think" insult certain people, right? Does this, in turn, mean that you do not effectively use your ability to think?

[neanderpaul14]

please apologise

apologize*

Does this mean you apologize or are you just correcting his spelling???

[xelabale]

Well it can't be a correction for obvious reasons - it's just trolling so now I need a second apology. Apologise now.

[Woodruff]

Oh my, what the heck. Are we going to police the chat in games?
Guys and gals, we're all basically anonymous, how can anyone be personally insulted? If you got a thin skin like today's moderators, just close your eyes and count to ten. OR, insult the moron back, unless of course it's deserved.

Rather than act like...you know...thinking human beings, you mean.

Do "thinking human beings" not hurl insults?

No, hurling insults are not necessary for those who effectively use their ability to think.

And if one who effectively uses their ability to think chooses to use that ability to hurl insults at those who hurl insults? You do understand, don't you, that stating "rather than act like... you know... thinking human beings, you mean" and "hurling insults are not necessary for those who effectively use their ability to think" insult certain people, right? Does this, in turn, mean that you do not effectively use your ability to think?

I know you're quite infatuated with what you believe is your ability to argue in favor of Flame Wars being reinstated, but the fact that you continue to do so using sarcasm and irony is really only making you appear to be someone not to be taken seriously, rather than allowing you to appear to be someone whose interests lie with the success of the site.

[thegreekdog]

I know you're quite infatuated with what you believe is your ability to argue in favor of Flame Wars being reinstated, but the fact that you continue to do so using sarcasm and irony is really only making you appear to be someone not to be taken seriously, rather than allowing you to appear to be someone whose interests lie with the success of the site.

That's not really accurate. I am infatuated with my arguments; that is a true statement. Additionally, while it's true that I argue in favor of reinstating Flame Wars, my objections to its removal are entirely based upon the lack of a reason to remove it. In other words, no one has supplied me with a good reason to remove it. Therefore, until I am told not to, I will argue in favor of its reinstatement. I am not using sarcasm and irony in any event. I'm simply stating that there was no reason to remove it that I can fathom, apart from certain people not liking the idea of Flame Wars. And to those people I have said, and continue to say, that if you do not like Flame Wars, do not go to the Flame Wars forum. It's really quite simple. The Flame Wars forum does not harm to you or anyone else unless you go there and read the flames. And if you go there and read the flames, I would argue that any harm that comes to you is your own fault. I debate with you because you find that people that use the Flame Wars forum are ignorant and/or cannot think. Your statement to that effect is ignorant, because there are people who use the Flame Wars forum who are intelligent and well-spoken. Additionally, your statement to that effect shows that flaming will go on whether the Flame Wars forum exists or not because, in fact, your statement is a flame. This latter factor shows that eliminating Flame Wars will not actually eliminate flames.

As to whether I am taken seriously, I will venture to say that it does not matter that my arguments are well thought-out or logical or proven right, the mods have already made their decision. Based on the amount of time this thread has been open, and based upon the amount of comments (or lack thereof) of any reasoning apart from people not liking Flame Wars, I doubt that my arguments are being read by any mods at all. Therefore, perhaps you're right... I am not being taken seriously, but this is not because of the weakness of my arguments; rather, it is because no one with the power to do so is serious about reinstating the Flame Wars forum.

Finally, I enjoy Conquer Club. For the most part, I enjoy Conquer Club for the game itself. Secondary to that enjoyment is having dialogue with people from across the world, whether that be in the Much Ado About Nothing forum or Flame Wars. So, if all of the threads on this site were suddenly removed, I would still play the game. Therefore, questioning my motivations is not a valid argument on your part... apparently, since you have nothing further to add as to the legitimacy of removing the Flame Wars forum, you have begun to attack my motivations. That is a tell-tale sign that you are losing the argument.

[neanderpaul14]

Well it can't be a correction for obvious reasons - it's just trolling so now I need a second apology. Apologise now.

Apologize*

[ronsizzle]

Rather than act like...you know...thinking human beings, you mean.

Do "thinking human beings" not hurl insults?

No, hurling insults are not necessary for those who effectively use their ability to think.

And if one who effectively uses their ability to think chooses to use that ability to hurl insults at those who hurl insults? You do understand, don't you, that stating "rather than act like... you know... thinking human beings, you mean" and "hurling insults are not necessary for those who effectively use their ability to think" insult certain people, right? Does this, in turn, mean that you do not effectively use your ability to think?

I know you're quite infatuated with what you believe is your ability to argue in favor of Flame Wars being reinstated, but the fact that you continue to do so using sarcasm and irony is really only making you appear to be someone not to be taken seriously, rather than allowing you to appear to be someone whose interests lie with the success of the site.

Tags: Slow, Deadbeat, Backstabber, Suicider

this is what woodruff has rated me as..........if you look at the games i have played with woodruff, i am in fact not slow, not a deadbeat, nor a backstabber. I AM A SUICIDER! 1 out of 4 isnt bad woodruff(it is actually better than your win rate which is 21%). why is it that you argue for the success of the site, but yet you hurt cc's system by rating people from the forum, and rage, rather than from actual gameplay?

this is beef that you have with me outside of gameplay woodruff. i encourage you to rate people according to gameplay rather than personal vendettas. this is yet another reason why flame wars was good to have. rather than rating someone badly, you could have made a thread in flame wars about me. but you chose to go the route of rating someone with no validity.

nice job spock.

[Timminz]

This thread has very little to do with the announcement anymore. Lately, there has been more baiting, flaming, trolling, arguing semantics, and complaints about other users, and ratings. I'm impressed that they've let it continue for so long.

[jpcloet]

I asked for it to be closed already. I was told maybe later.

[xelabale]

Well it can't be a correction for obvious reasons - it's just trolling so now I need a second apology. Apologise now.

Apologize*

Nope, don't see it... both spellings are correct.

Move along, nothing to see here, let's not lower this to a flame war, despicable.

[neanderpaul14]

Well it can't be a correction for obvious reasons - it's just trolling so now I need a second apology. Apologise now.

Apologize*

Nope, don't see it... both spellings are correct.

Move along, nothing to see here, let's not lower this to a flame war, despicable.

Actually apologise is the English spelling while apologize is the American spelling.

So I apolgelizs.

[Woodruff]

I know you're quite infatuated with what you believe is your ability to argue in favor of Flame Wars being reinstated, but the fact that you continue to do so using sarcasm and irony is really only making you appear to be someone not to be taken seriously, rather than allowing you to appear to be someone whose interests lie with the success of the site.

That's not really accurate. I am infatuated with my arguments; that is a true statement. Additionally, while it's true that I argue in favor of reinstating Flame Wars, my objections to its removal are entirely based upon the lack of a reason to remove it. In other words, no one has supplied me with a good reason to remove it. Therefore, until I am told not to, I will argue in favor of its reinstatement. I am not using sarcasm and irony in any event.

Actually, I made a mistake. For some reason, I thought my response was to xelabale, who does almost exclusively use sarcasm and irony. So I apologize for that confusion on my part. Not sure WHY I thought that, even.

I'm simply stating that there was no reason to remove it that I can fathom, apart from certain people not liking the idea of Flame Wars. And to those people I have said, and continue to say, that if you do not like Flame Wars, do not go to the Flame Wars forum.

I certainly agree with you "then don't go there" position, as that is the position I have always personally taken. However, I have seen arguments regarding why Flame Wars was removed (though I don't know that it was from anyone "official"). Frankly, it doesn't help the image that Flame Wars does in fact give to the site. That image almost certainly does cost the site some money (how much I just as certainly have no idea), and I'm pretty sure that is largely the logic that was used in the decision. Many parents wouldn't feel comfortable with allowing their children to frequent a site that included such a forum. Many of those same parents would certainly be willing to pay $25 for a year's entertainment for their child.

I debate with you because you find that people that use the Flame Wars forum are ignorant and/or cannot think.

In fact, I did not say any such thing. What I said was that they didn't ACT like thinking human beings...a far different thing.

Your statement to that effect is ignorant, because there are people who use the Flame Wars forum who are intelligent and well-spoken.

I certainly agree that there are MANY members of that forum who are intelligent and well-spoken. However, your misunderstanding of my statement does not make it ignorant.

Additionally, your statement to that effect shows that flaming will go on whether the Flame Wars forum exists or not because, in fact, your statement is a flame.

Your misunderstanding of my statement does not make it a flame.

Finally, I enjoy Conquer Club. For the most part, I enjoy Conquer Club for the game itself. Secondary to that enjoyment is having dialogue with people from across the world, whether that be in the Much Ado About Nothing forum or Flame Wars. So, if all of the threads on this site were suddenly removed, I would still play the game. Therefore, questioning my motivations is not a valid argument on your part... apparently, since you have nothing further to add as to the legitimacy of removing the Flame Wars forum, you have begun to attack my motivations. That is a tell-tale sign that you are losing the argument.

As I've already detailed, the fact of the matter is that part of my statement was actually mis-directed, thinking I was speaking to someone else. It does not necessarily apply to you. However, it does quite aptly apply to that other individual, and thus is not a "tell-tale sign that I am losing the argument", but is rather simply a statement of fact. Again however, I do apologize for the confusion I caused there.

[thegreekdog]

I certainly agree with you "then don't go there" position, as that is the position I have always personally taken. However, I have seen arguments regarding why Flame Wars was removed (though I don't know that it was from anyone "official"). Frankly, it doesn't help the image that Flame Wars does in fact give to the site. That image almost certainly does cost the site some money (how much I just as certainly have no idea), and I'm pretty sure that is largely the logic that was used in the decision. Many parents wouldn't feel comfortable with allowing their children to frequent a site that included such a forum. Many of those same parents would certainly be willing to pay $25 for a year's entertainment for their child.

I would agree with this reason, and I would be fine with it, except that the comfortability of parents is as much affected by in-game chat and the use of foul language in threads other than the Flame Wars forum. I guess that is the crux of my issue - I'm all for making this a family-friendly site. But, there are many, many players that will continue to use foul language in places other than Flame Wars. So, eliminating Flame Wars does not eliminate the problem, in my opinion.

No worries about the other stuff...

[Woodruff]

Do "thinking human beings" not hurl insults?

No, hurling insults are not necessary for those who effectively use their ability to think.

And if one who effectively uses their ability to think chooses to use that ability to hurl insults at those who hurl insults? You do understand, don't you, that stating "rather than act like... you know... thinking human beings, you mean" and "hurling insults are not necessary for those who effectively use their ability to think" insult certain people, right? Does this, in turn, mean that you do not effectively use your ability to think?

I know you're quite infatuated with what you believe is your ability to argue in favor of Flame Wars being reinstated, but the fact that you continue to do so using sarcasm and irony is really only making you appear to be someone not to be taken seriously, rather than allowing you to appear to be someone whose interests lie with the success of the site.

Tags: Slow, Deadbeat, Backstabber, Suicider
this is what woodruff has rated me as..........if you look at the games i have played with woodruff, i am in fact not slow, not a deadbeat, nor a backstabber. I AM A SUICIDER! 1 out of 4 isnt bad woodruff(it is actually better than your win rate which is 21%). why is it that you argue for the success of the site, but yet you hurt cc's system by rating people from the forum, and rage, rather than from actual gameplay?

Is there a reason you're trolling this thread rather than simply contacting me directly regarding this issue? Is there a reason you did NOT contact me directly regarding this issue? Too afraid? Not worth your time? Saving it up for a time when you might make some silly attempt to throw it in my face?

I can't frankly speak to why I would have tagged you that way, without going back and looking at our games. It's entirely possible that I confused you with another player in the game...it happens occasionally. I do, however, feel relatively secure in my belief that my ratings are accurate, because I do not take them lightly.

As to my winning percentage, I would say that a 21% winning percentage is quite good for someone who focuses on large-player games as I do (outside of tournaments), so I certainly appreciate you pointing out for everyone just how skillful I am. Thank you for that.

Oh, and...rage? Seriously? It's like you just can't help but disintegrate your own argument.

this is beef that you have with me outside of gameplay woodruff.

I don't HAVE a beef with you "outside of gameplay", ron...why exactly is it that you believe I do?

i encourage you to rate people according to gameplay rather than personal vendettas.

I encourage you to act with integrity and contact someone privately if you have a problem with them, rather than attempting to use YOUR personal vendettas within the forums.

this is yet another reason why flame wars was good to have. rather than rating someone badly, you could have made a thread in flame wars about me. but you chose to go the route of rating someone with no validity.

I don't go into Flame Wars. I didn't even really care ALL that much that it existed. I thought it was pretty juvenile to have, but that was basically the extent of my thought on it. So I certainly wouldn't have started a thread there. If I had a problem with you outside of gameplay, I would simply have PM'd you about it, as I have done with many other users here at Conquer Club.

nice job spock.

Yes, it really was. Unfortunately, you couldn't keep up.

[Woodruff]

I certainly agree with you "then don't go there" position, as that is the position I have always personally taken. However, I have seen arguments regarding why Flame Wars was removed (though I don't know that it was from anyone "official"). Frankly, it doesn't help the image that Flame Wars does in fact give to the site. That image almost certainly does cost the site some money (how much I just as certainly have no idea), and I'm pretty sure that is largely the logic that was used in the decision. Many parents wouldn't feel comfortable with allowing their children to frequent a site that included such a forum. Many of those same parents would certainly be willing to pay $25 for a year's entertainment for their child.

I would agree with this reason, and I would be fine with it, except that the comfortability of parents is as much affected by in-game chat and the use of foul language in threads other than the Flame Wars forum. I guess that is the crux of my issue - I'm all for making this a family-friendly site. But, there are many, many players that will continue to use foul language in places other than Flame Wars. So, eliminating Flame Wars does not eliminate the problem, in my opinion.
No worries about the other stuff...

I am 100% in agreement with you regarding the other areas where the abuse and language happen. In fact, I have from my very arrival at the site been...well...frankly, harassing ConquerClub to try to get SOME REASONABLE STANDARD (and I do mean reasonable...I'm not a freaking Puritan) of what should be tolerated within game-chat. Currently, it is far from acceptable (in my own opinion, of course).

[mpjh]

Frankly, I don't see the problem now that flaming is not allowed. My experience is that people are fairly civilized, with the predictable exceptions who are fewer and fewer each day.

[Artimis]

Frankly, I don't see the problem now that flaming is not allowed. My experience is that people are fairly civilized, with the predictable exceptions who are fewer and fewer each day.

Are you sure you're posting in the right forum? In case you've clicked on the wrong URL by accident, you're currently browsing http://www.conquerclub.com