Change the rules for flaming.
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:02 pmConcise description:
to
Specifics:
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Note: not trying to be strict, simply noticed how narrow the current definition is.
- Changes the rules as to what is considered flaming from:
Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack another user.
to
Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack someone or something.
Specifics:
- Wait! What?! You have got to be kidding with that definition.
- Under the definition of what flaming is... (in the following lines, the word "flaming" means simply "directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack"):
- Flaming CC is okay?
- Flaming the dice is okay?
- Flaming the changes CC made is okay?
- Flaming the new 'Peace & Love' Forum is okay?
- Flaming white people is okay? (since the guidelines only speak of minorities)
- Flaming the Chinese is okay? (since they consist of almost a third of the world's population, they are not a minority either)
- Flaming a country is okay?
- Flaming a state/city is okay?
- Flaming a banned member is okay? (since they are no longer "users")
- Under your definition, I could say all of those things with no consequence if you follow by your rules since I am not breaking any. The site's definition of flaming does not encompass any of that since none of that is directed at a user, therefore not flaming.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
- Make the rules say what you mean.
- Give justification to bans.
Note: not trying to be strict, simply noticed how narrow the current definition is.
