How Would You Define an Inflammatory Post

This is NOT true.

(1) Those who talk about what "we" want fail to realize they are not "we". "We" should include ALL of us. Everyone should be able to post on the forums and be received with a modicum of respect - not ridicule, a shunning campaign (I'm not making that up), or so much foul language no non-gutter-mouthed person feels right about participating.

The Guidelines should be upheld:

"Be respectful. Please challenge opinions, state your own and enjoy the discussion, but do not cross the line into personal attacks and insults because you will risk having your Second Life account suspended or banned."

Yet when I point that out, I'm ridiculed by some.

(2) Don't get the idea that Blaze is the only one these posters who like a free-for-all here engage in. They run off - or TRY to run off - anyone who disagrees.

(3) The post above insulted you right and left. Some posters want the freedom to do that. (The Guidelines are pretty wishy-washy on that point.) Some want even MORE freedom to do that. Together, they use insults and ridicule to run off anyone who disagrees with their style.

(4) The whole thing comes down to a reporting war. For the first five or so months, I refused to report anyone, thinking I could appeal to people's logic and humanity. No such thing.

The problem is, right now the balance is out of kilter. There may be one of me reporting something, but there may be six others who want me gone from the forums reporting me.

Your mistake was reporting EVERYTHING that wouldn't be acceptable on other forms, as well as stating that you were. You would be better off reporting only the very worst of the attacks.

I hope this balance will be redressed as the game grows. After all, these are the only official forums we have, and there is no reason why they should be reduced to the lowest common denominator by a handful of people, allowing abuse and degradation of others to continue.

coco

Where is the logic here?
What are you saying?
I did not participate in the discussion. Therefore, those posts that I reported were not inflammatory and malicious?
Please break down your reasoning because it follows no pattern.



From a proper logical perspective, abuse should not be tolerated. This is not preschool.
This behavior does not belong: I do not like your opinion. Therefore, you are "insert expletive".

It doesn't matter if "nobody likes a tattle tale". This is not preschool, and should not be treated as such. Nobody likes a tattle tale. Therefore, what? It is irrelevant. What is relevant is that abuse does not belong in a discuission. Abusive responses. Complaints about so called "tattle taling". None of it is reasonable. None of it brings any practical element to the discussion. All of it does nothing but destroy the discussion.

Thanks. It's good to know that not everybody falls into the childish mob mentality that appears to be running rampant around

here. The moderating really needs to be changed. As far as I have experienced, it is not possible to have a logical

discussion in this forum. Make a proposition, and support it with points. Expect the people that might disagree to state

their logical assesment, and perhaps provide some insight. Instead get slammed with childish retorts and tantrums.


Example of a personal attack against Blaze:

This is not relevant any point made by anybody.
Blaze posted a topic asking the strangest place you've ever done it. Therefore, it is OK to be abusive and make personal

attacks. Therefore, it is not important to treat people properly.

Apparently Sl is all about tolerating a small group of old friends who's particular usage of a forum (which is owned by Linden Lab and supposedly provided for all of it's subscribers to use) takes precedence even if that usage is not in the best interest of LL or SL.

"What we tend NOT to want to tolerate..." ? Think about this line right here.

Chip's point was relevant, and that is NOT a personal attack. Blaze spoke repeatedly about the inappropriateness of off topic commentary in the General forum. The fact that he often starts off topic threads in General is relevant, and stating so is not a personal attack.

This post is not about tolerance yet you claim that SL is about tolerance.
I have not scene proper tolerance.
Name calling and childish behavior do not fall under tolerance.
My actions are actions of an adult, and in no way "whiny" as you state in your attack.

First you claim that SL is about tolerance, then you claim that "we" do not tolerate "whiny little boys". This is not a logical depiction of tolerance nor is it an accurate depiction of the situation.

First you propose that SL is about tolerance. Then, you request that childish abuse should be tolerated, and "gripes" about childish abuse should not be tolerated. Childish abuse should not be tolerated. "Gripes" about childish abuse is a loaded statement. Reports about childish abuse is a more realistic description.

Your post is an exageration of reality. You downplay the severity of the abuse that is going on. You turn around, and twist what is reporting abuse into whiny little boy gripes.

Your exaggerated statements are in no sense accurate, and therefore should not be taken seriously.

A question probably better asked of Mr. Spock.

If you feel that a particular post requires that you report it, then simply report it. To announce that you are going to report posts 30 times in one thread is in itself inflammatory and malicious. I beleive your intent in these forums is to incite divisivness. I consider your repeated announcements in that thread and listing of my name personal attacks.
Are you sure you are not a bot?





How did your multitude of announcements bring any practical element to the discussion? Where is the logic in that?

You have come to these forums to create even more conflict and hostility. I believe your intent here to be malicious. I find it funny that some others here do not see that.


Yes. Contact your lawyer.

Disagree. It is not relevant.

You are saying that Blaze made an off topic thread. Therefore, the assertion that off topic commentary being inappropriate is an incorrect assertion. Therefore, off topic commentary is appropriate.

This does not follow logic.
It is an irrelevant personal attack.
You are not attacking/discussing what is being said.
You are attacking/discussing the person making the sstatement.
What for?

It is not attacking the poster. If a person is advocating a particular position, while doing something contrary to that, it is perfectly relevant to ask them why. It is not logical to say "This is bad" while continuing to do the same thing. It follows that if off topic commentary or personal attacks are so aggregious that you feel the need to speak out about them, you should not at the same time be making off topic posts and personal attacks. Simple logic.

well, this isn't like flipping a coin 10 times and having the odds be 50-50 each time.

when you've been on the forums for a while, just like in real life, what comes out of someone's mouth is interpreted within a context of their history. C'est la vie. Blaze likes to dance to all sorts of different tunes here in the forums. So be it. But we all know it. The problem is a bit like the boy who cried wolf. It becomes hard to know what he really means when he means it.

I think Chip's point had a lot of validity. You can't control other people's behavior, you can't control how LL manages the forums, but you can control your own posting. It takes 2 to tango, and wagging the nanny finger is unfortunately as ineffective as screaming until your blood vessels burst. Actually in many cases the nanny response adds a lot of oxygen to the flames.

Disagree. I do not see how you could possibly consider that simple logic when it makes no logical sense.
It is attacking the poster, and it is irrelevant.


P1 makes a claim that X is bad.
P1 continues to partake in X.
Therefore, X is not bad.
Wrong.

You claim that it is not logical to say something is bad, and continue to do it. How is it not logical? What exactly is not logical? What is your proposition?

Simple post:
Make a proposition, and support it with points.
Here is a point" Blaze is claiming that X is bad, but partakes in X.
What is the proposition? What is your intention?
Everything points to a personal attack.

The statement that Blaze made is completely independent of Blaze’s actions. Are we going to discuss the statement or Blaze?
Here is a statement: X is bad.
Anything you can say about Blaze cannot support or dispute the statement. Anything you can say about Blaze is completely independent of the statement.
Is X bad? Yes or no. Provide your points.
Does Blaze partake in X? Irrelevant to whether or not X is bad. It is clearly nothing more than discussing the person instead of discussing the statement.

This is a little like a dog I knew with behavior problems. It kept attacking people in the same dramatic way, despite the discipline and corrective action enacted upon it.

After one attack too many, the authorities had the dog destroyed. What else could you do? It just wouldn't learn.

This post is nothing more than a tantrum flame with malicious intention.
Try coming up with a logical proposition and logical points.
I have no intention of digging through a pile of abusive flames for something meaningful.
If you wish to make a proper point, I will respond with why I agree or disagree with the point.
Until then, do not expect to be taken seriously.
If you want to be considered a joke, you will continue posting childish tantrum rants.
Your intent is not to participate in discussion. Your intent is malicious. Go flame somewhere else.

Hopefully you are referring to yourself, and not me.
Try learning to have a proper discussion.
Childish remarks such as this is what this discussion is referring to.

This type of banter should not be tolerated. Hopefully you will either learn or be destroyed as you stated.

The diversionary capability is probably more relevant to consider than the personal attack aspect. Look at how much time has been spent discussing Blaze. It is hardly uncommon for Blaze's posts to be followed by the "he is an alt" disclaimer. Maybe it's sort of a public service announcement for the new user. Kind of like Coco's repeating her new user experience for them as well. I've noticed a greater amount of discussion about Blaze's posting style and his alts in the threads where he appear to be right on topic and hits the nail on the head.

So we're clear: Was I reported?

You are only here to troll, and will hopefully either learn how to partake in proper discussion or be banned.

You didn't answer my question!

I would class inflammatory as

OMFG, you F*cking C*nt, you are a waste of f*cking time, your opinions are sh*t and you are a complete f*cking wank*r, so why don't you just f*ck off and die you f*cking worthless piece of sh*t.

But then, thats just fucking me isn't it.

oops. *holds out triangle*

Wouldn't this be considered a personal attack based on what you've claimed to be personal attacks throughout this thread and other threads?

Here is your answer:
You are only here to troll, and will hopefully either learn how to partake in proper discussion or be banned.

yeah MJ, I'm seeing an awful lot of black pot and kettle here

I'm not really up on all the forum maneuvers not having all that experience on other forums as others here have. Now, is this as well as the previous post an example of what you all refer to as baiting in that the OP has been repeatedly told to just abuse report if appropriate and not to talk about doing so here?

Screw General Hospital! SL forums is where its at!

My name is Enabran Templar. I cannot speak for You All. Mr. All has not retained my services at this time, nor have I received any communication from this individual to do so in the future.

However, I am interested in working with Mr. All, should he need my services.