Flame.

Snipped.

I feel like i've walked into the cinema just after the film's finished everytime I see these two words.

Reading a thread with those words strewn throughout is like listening to the clean version of the album.

But it's not just the juice though; I guess it's about liberalism. I understand the rules and I know I signed up to them. But it's always good to discuss the reasons for rules, right? That's how progression happens.

So I guess I'm wondering - what's the reason for the paternalism behind removing flames and banning those who flame?

well, let's start by asking the question, "what is a flame?"

as in, why do people post flames? what is the desired effect?

if you can answer that, you'll find you've answered your own question.

Anxiety said:

Well, no, i don't think that answers my question if i'm honest. People post flames because they want to insult / belittle someone, or because they are incapable of discussing a disagreement without resorting to insults, or in defence because they themselves have been flamed etc.

That just brings the question full circle - paternalism. We're protecting those who are the subject of flames, right?

So what i'm asking is why that paternalism is felt necessary? It's not wrong, necessarily - i'm just wondering why.

TheFrog said:

so if something has been posted that has been created to offend others, is it considered "paternal" when a moderator removes it, or is it considered "responsible"?

if someone writes a letter to a newspaper talking about how much of a jackass joe smith is, and how he's ugly and anyone who likes him is a jackass too, does the newspaper have an obligation to print it simply because the person wrote the letter and wants it to be published?

for me, i delete flames because i don't want to escalate conflict. plain and simple. the reason i don't want you or anyone else to read some of the shit people post is because i don't want it to get you guys upset, thus tempting you all to flame the person back, which will make them flame you back, and so on and so forth. it's not "paternal" when all i'm deleting is negative garbage.

have you ever visited alt.music.prince? they don't moderate much of anything there, and it's a real smashing success these days.

Anxiety said:

Well, that's the point, isn't it. Sometimes responsibility has nothing to do with paternalism. One person may consider acting in a paternal manner to be responsible, and one person may not. You may consider it responsible, and that's fine! I'm just asking why.



I'm not sure the publisher of a newspaper and an internet forum are strictly comparable in this instance. But assuming they are, i have not said that everyone on an internet site has the right to say everything they want. I'm asking why it is felt necessary to protect the subject of a flame, or if there is a different reason. Now, a newspaper will be very wary of libel laws, whereas the host of an internet website will not be quite as concerned, I would have thought. But maybe that enters the equation too.



So it's simply an editorial decision about what you don't want to be on the forums / an endeavour to reduce negativity generally. That's fine, and really what I was asking. We just want the org to be a nice place, right?



I'm a little confused. Is alt.music.prince very unpopular now, is that the point?

Like I said - i'm asking a question, that's all. I'm not trying to have a dig here, i promise, just work out the reasoning. I hope it doesn't appear that I am having a dig, and I apologise if it does.

So thank you for answering, anyways.
[Edited 9/29/05 6:38am]

no problem at all. i think the thing that frustrates me is when we snip a flame, people get upset because they didn't get to see what it was that got snipped. well, that's the reason we snipped it!

then, if a thread has too many flames and we decide to hide/delete the thread, people get upset and ask why we couldn't just snip the flames.

there's no winning!

I vote we no longer use the phrase "flame snipped", but instead replace the offending comment with "aooowahhh!"

i really like the discussion within this thread...

Tom said:

or...

"RIP TAYLOR WUZ HERE!"

cborgman said:

i'll rip YOUR taylor.

Anxiety said:

You guys don't have an easy job, for sure.

Anxiety said:

flirt...

Tom said:

I use that "flame snipped", now aooowahhhh snipped? I likey that

TheFrog said:

[I love my job edit]

or how about "penis snipped"?

or how about "you are sooo good looking" ?

maybe we can replace it with "wanna order a pizza and fuck?"
[Edited 9/29/05 17:02pm]

Tom said:

how does one orger a pizza?

cborgman said:

Hi priscilla

TheRealFiness said:

hey steve-o!

I dont understand it at all.

People insult my music tastes, should we have them snipped aswell?

thesexofit said:

depends if they're jewish, in which case, you should call a rabbi, and throw a party and go for it
[Edited 9/29/05 14:45pm]

cborgman said:

oh yeah,

I have stern views on that sorta snipping too.

cborgman said:

Oh shit, I meant to type order. I'm on this site too much LOL

Tom said:

well, NOW you tell me... i already called dominos and told em i wanted to 2the9s a pizza

Tom said:

Tom said:

BananaCologne said:

co

Thank you mods for snipping flames. They make me upset and I wouldn't want to hang around this place if things got really crappy. I like to discuss stuff, but I don't like to gawk at creepy nonsense. I just don't have time for that. I respect your judgments.