I have no idea where u all grown up, but the meaning of flaming where i grown up means a comment of lacking wit or an insult and shows the weakness of argumentation.

Two or several persons swear at themselves in all public because of some completely uninteresting mischief over days and weeks.

A flame has nothing to do with a heated emotional discussion. A flame is based on losing selfcontrol and basic respect to each other. It has the goal to offend/hurt the opposite personally.
Emotional discussions are named often in a breath with Flamewars.

That is absolute nonsense, and I ask you for one thing, please think just once, what u all classify as flamings. Just because someone is bringing arguements up against something.

You must consider, that one can not express his feelings neither with the mimicry nor with a other manner. People can do it just with text.

In the genueine live u must reckon, that u get a fist in ur mug, or u get laughed out if u call someone moron. Here in i-net nothing can happen to you.

And thats why i respect nearly everybody who barely use cheap language.

Don't compare "Discussion" with "Flaming".

Oh boy.

@SuperBo!

We, the members of the forum staff team, and our common sense.

Risk of stepping on some toes and making biased decisions is all part of the job, i'm afraid, tho, i'm doing the best i can to avoid that stuff, sometimes the smoke alarm in my head goes off so strong i just cannot ignore it.

And do tell me, how does taking pre-emptive actions to keep the peace on the boards, is making someone a BAD moderator? That only makes him a moderator that wont allow you to vent your frustrations on-line.

Everything. If you cant stop yourself from bringing flames into a discussion, well, it shows you shouldnt have taken part in the discussion in the first place.

You know, it's funny. Everyone thinks flame wars are cool, up until the moment when they're on fire themselves. :roll:

I will allow ANYTHING that isnt violating common netiquette and isnt flames, even if they're "civil" (civil flames? lol). However, under some circumstances, i will allow direct flames IF, and only IF, they're VERY strongly justified. Please, dont try to check where the line is.

Flames are breaking the forum rules. Simple 'nuff?

@Mow

Buahahah!

You, you... old person!

Aye, hence why i'm always writing a reason why the thread is being closed (if it isnt obvious enough already, of course). Since the top decided NOT to delete anything that isnt completely useless (like bot spam), and i dont want to create zillion of closed topics that will only make the boards messy (from splits), i have no choice but to lock threads for now, and wait for a trash can subforum.

Unfortunately, internet anynomity brings out the cheekies assholes in people, and there's nothing i, or anyone else, can do about it.

That's a-propos a certain someone who keeps calling people "morons" for no reasons other than simply disagreeing with them.

@Trance

Probably, yes. I never said i'm TEH PERFECT, nor will i ever do, i'm prone to make mistakes now and then. That being said, if anyone feels a decision of mine is wrong, do feel free to pm me about it. Giving me some logical arguments to back up your "whine", of course.

@Torz

If i had a dollar...

Bloody freakin' aye!

@Assy

I dont have any more rights that you, or anyone else using these boards has. I have to obey the rules just as much as does everyone else. The only difference is, i have a duty to enforce a certain set of laws, using the mod tools at hand, and my common sense. And by golly, enforce them i will, lol.

I disagree. What if someone made a topic, for example:

@XYZ

XYZ, you fucking bag of cat piss, you miserable piece of rotten dog shit. Go fuck yourself with a decapitated chicken head.

Sooo, am i supposed to just stand by the sideline and be a referee in a "discusson" that would follow a post like that?

That topic would get locked. IF the dude would create another one, with similar content, it would get either deleted or locked too. Any further offense would mean a ban.

So no - if i see a flame, i get rid of it. If i see a heated discussion, i just keep a close eye on it. If i see a VERY heated discussion, i try to research every factor involved in it (other events that happened lately, the likings/dislikings of engaged people, their recent mood, the topic at hand and other stuff like this) and either allow to keep it going, or lock it away.

In the end, guys, we should all just do one thing - use common sense. It's so simple and obvious, many people seem to forget about it..

Moderation is not just about stopping flaming, it about moderating (look it up) and its done for the good of the community by only a few people, its not easy and if I’m am locking a thread for example its given lot of thought and I on occasion invite input form people if they want it locking etc, which I have to say usually end’s up in either no one, a couple or the same people resending.

I feel this community (that’s all of us) has been used to a practicaly un-moderated forum for a long time. and is feeling a little shocked at the fact there is someone daring to moderate the anarchy. Its always the same in life, any form of change is uncomfortable for most people.

My style of moderation has been as transparent as It could be till now, but I am learning from mad, I really cant understand all this negativity towards someone spending free time having to try to keep the forums free of nastiness (abusive text etc) and to also try to keep things running smoothly.

I really don’t see any argument about stopping a thread going in a bad direction. in some cases if the thread goes bad the damage is already done, then people are shouting LOCK THIS THREAD PLS !!! ,anyway I know I am totally open to debate, nothing is final and will always listen to what we all want and I’m sure any of the moderators will do the same.

Its sort of a thankless task, which is sad because as I said, all you are trying to do is actually make things better for all. Not act like a power tripper as someone hinted at. but as member of the community who knows the community well and hopefully will do what most of the people want most of the time, but as we all know that in life is a rare feat for anyone, let alone a few gaming moderators.

All I see in mad’s moderation is someone trying to get a little structure into moderating theses forums and he always (as far as I have seen) delivers his comments and moderation with a smile or a bit of dry humor, as if to say " ye I know but I’m doing this cause I think its the right thing to do" its certainly making me feel like I need to do the service better. Which I intend to do.

ill tell you, you could have a lot worse and more unapproachable moderators . So let just ease up on this nonsense and if anyone has issues with something they feel is unjust pm someone about it ( maybe even a moderator)

ok have to go to work now, have a nice day everyoone

I lost the point of this topic :scratch:

If this is about complaints concerning a mod( you can do 2 things:

a) Send a private message to the moderator( and/or administrator( with your issue.

Go public with it BUT bring along facts and references to precise events. Saying "He doesn't do a good job", "He locks threads too fast" or whatever, is pointless. You MUST give an example AT LEAST. eg: "Mad is doing a crappy job as a mod. He locked this thread too fast, this too. He attacked members on these two occasions too: 1) 2). Dude pull your shit together or quit being a mod."

If you are unable to do one of the above then dig a deep hole on the ground and scream in it.

----

If this thread is about "what makes a good moderator" the answer is very simple imo.

A good mod:

a) Is active
Comprehends the power of "giving a Warning"
c) Enforces the forum rules
d) Follows the administrator's Guidelines

----

About the whole flame-thing: Definition of flame war from urbandictionary:

"A flame war is a heated argument between two individuals, that results in those involved posting personal attacks on each other during or instead of debating the topic at hand.

Most forums have rules that forbid flaming. This is because the quality of conversation on a forum can be seriously degraded by a flame war. Topics can be "hijacked" by two people who would rather flame each other than discuss the subject of the thread."

Let's not mix criticism with flames. A heated discussion that moves the debate forward is good. A heated discussion that goes around circles should get a warning by the moderator but NOT be considered flame and NOT be locked. If you can't stand criticism and/or a strong debate then better grow up a bit.

That's all from me ;]

wrote:

source of ur translation? if u post something which is not grown on your own knowledge u should add the source.

this is also just normal in other forums.

Is this addressed to me? I already said my source:

www.urbandictionary.com I know it's not the "official" explaination of a flame war but i don't really think it exists ;]