Up In Flamez wrote:just wondering something, what is the exact forum definition of "flaming". I thought it was like insultive spam.
Dokool bordered on the site's definition of "flammatory" with his use of sarcasm, but the "if" keeps it in the safe zone. You can say "if you do this, you're a moron" and as long as the person doesn't do "this" he isn't being insulted.
I don't think we actually have a definition for "flammatory" but "flames" are personal attacks and insults. They might be dosed in sarcasm or spotted with curse words. They're usually really easy to distinguish from "safe" complaints and criticism.
The first post could be taken as a personal attack if Kikai were actually a mod and he was saying she'd abused her powers because she's evil and ignores the rules in order to ruin the fun of innocent newbies. He may have been implying that she was evil, but he didn't come right out and say it. So he's bordering, but again, in the "safe" zone.
There's nothing flammatory in this thread so far. Wait a while and there might be, if it doesn't get locked soon. You'll know a flame when you see one. ;p
/re: thread in general
Maybe we should add another rule saying threads "prone to spamming" are also counted as useless and shouldn't be made at all. Only we can't, because any thread is prone to spamming if the spammers are bored enough to target it. I vote we encourage those tempting threads and grab the spammers who take the bait. ^_^












