KoolEaze said:

Angelsoncrack said:

I think with the org there isn't really 'trolling' or 'flaming' per se because most of the people here are old enough to understand that arguing with people on the internet is a pointless waste of time and ignore/avoid arguments that are obvious bait. Take a thread with the title of 'Purple Rain is a shit album' as an example. Guarenteed replies, because it's his most famous album and many people appreciate it. But at the same time, with a quick glance into the thread you will probably find that the OP is trying to initiate a flame war between himself and the members. So most people will see this and move on. (I would anyway lmao, I grew up with the internet).

Edit: I just wanted to add that bait comes in all shapes and forms. It's identifying it thats the trick. Because I've grown up with the internet from being a teenager I've been on a lot of forums and stuff from a young age, so I can kind of tell when someone is trying to start an argument even if it's subtle. What you could call 'premium quality bait' is basically someone starting a thread that looks legit, but they plant tiny seeds in there that will most probably start an argument.

I think what the issue is is that you have different types of fans all coming together with their own ideas, most commonly what I like to call (affectionately) 'the Prince arse lickers' and the 'I wish it was still 1988' Prince fans. Basically the first type are the ones that believe Prince can do nothing wrong and will defend him to the grave (you all know these people), and the second are just the opposite of that, they practically despise the man yet still listen to his music/buy his concert tickets etc. These two types often come into contact with each other and what looks like trolling, isn't. It's just a difference of opinion. Two largely out of proportion opinions, but opinions nontheless.

[Edited 4/8/15 9:58am]

It usually doesn't go far in most forums. But in the Politics & Religion forum it does.

There are members who don't make the difference from discussing a thought or ideal(as the rules say) but will attack the person making the post

OldFriends4Sale said:

Angelsoncrack said:

I think with the org there isn't really 'trolling' or 'flaming' per se because most of the people here are old enough to understand that arguing with people on the internet is a pointless waste of time and ignore/avoid arguments that are obvious bait. Take a thread with the title of 'Purple Rain is a shit album' as an example. Guarenteed replies, because it's his most famous album and many people appreciate it. But at the same time, with a quick glance into the thread you will probably find that the OP is trying to initiate a flame war between himself and the members. So most people will see this and move on. (I would anyway lmao, I grew up with the internet).

Edit: I just wanted to add that bait comes in all shapes and forms. It's identifying it thats the trick. Because I've grown up with the internet from being a teenager I've been on a lot of forums and stuff from a young age, so I can kind of tell when someone is trying to start an argument even if it's subtle. What you could call 'premium quality bait' is basically someone starting a thread that looks legit, but they plant tiny seeds in there that will most probably start an argument.

I think what the issue is is that you have different types of fans all coming together with their own ideas, most commonly what I like to call (affectionately) 'the Prince arse lickers' and the 'I wish it was still 1988' Prince fans. Basically the first type are the ones that believe Prince can do nothing wrong and will defend him to the grave (you all know these people), and the second are just the opposite of that, they practically despise the man yet still listen to his music/buy his concert tickets etc. These two types often come into contact with each other and what looks like trolling, isn't. It's just a difference of opinion. Two largely out of proportion opinions, but opinions nontheless.

[Edited 4/8/15 9:58am]

It usually doesn't go far in most forums. But in the Politics & Religion forum it does.

There are members who don't make the difference from discussing a thought or ideal(as the rules say) but will attack the person making the post

Ah fair enough, I don't really frequent that forum so I wouldn't know, but in regards to the main Prince forums this website is pretty troll-free.

I have one question please... Is the use of slap gifs appropriate when confronting a troll/rude ass human being/whatevs?

I'm just askin'

Averett said:

I have one question please... Is the use of slap gifs appropriate when confronting a troll/rude ass human being/whatevs?

I'm just askin'

Typically the one of Prince, for example (being beyotch slapped) is sometimes used in a humorous way when just joking around with another.

[img:$uid]http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x168/gears0413/dadslappedme.gif[/img:$uid]

Now if that is in response to a flame, bait, troll - it could be viewed in a negative way and that may or may not land you in hot purple water. Posts can be taken the wrong way by the recipient or others.

luv4u said:

Averett said:

I have one question please... Is the use of slap gifs appropriate when confronting a troll/rude ass human being/whatevs?

I'm just askin'

Typically the one of Prince, for example (being beyotch slapped) is sometimes used in a humorous way when just joking around with another.

[img:$uid]http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x168/gears0413/dadslappedme.gif[/img:$uid]

Now if that is in response to a flame, bait, troll - it could be viewed in a negative way and that may or may not land you in hot purple water. Posts can be taken the wrong way by the recipient or others.

Hot purple water sounds enticing

Averett said:

luv4u said:

Typically the one of Prince, for example (being beyotch slapped) is sometimes used in a humorous way when just joking around with another.

[img:$uid]http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x168/gears0413/dadslappedme.gif[/img:$uid]

Now if that is in response to a flame, bait, troll - it could be viewed in a negative way and that may or may not land you in hot purple water. Posts can be taken the wrong way by the recipient or others.

Hot purple water sounds enticing

luv4u said:

Averett said:

I have one question please... Is the use of slap gifs appropriate when confronting a troll/rude ass human being/whatevs?

I'm just askin'

Typically the one of Prince, for example (being beyotch slapped) is sometimes used in a humorous way when just joking around with another.

[img:$uid]http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x168/gears0413/dadslappedme.gif[/img:$uid]

Now if that is in response to a flame, bait, troll - it could be viewed in a negative way and that may or may not land you in hot purple water. Posts can be taken the wrong way by the recipient or others.

That slap was just too real

I think if someone used that as a response I would hit the request for moderation button too

Man that slap

Graycap23 said:

KoolEaze said:

I think this whole thing is getting a bit out of control. While I do understand Person B´s frustration with some of Person A's threads which sometimes consist of nothing but a videoclip or a copy-and-paste job of an article, I still enjoy some of Person A's posts about aliens, UFOs, conspiracies and racism. Not that I necessarily believe in those things but some of them are really interesting and I don´t have a problem with Person A not adding any thoughts to the stuff he posts.

Sure, it IS a violation of rules to just post something without adding your own thoughts or questions but still, some of that stuff has some entertainment value, so I don´t really mind.

As far as the personal vendetta between the two goes, I understand both sides but it is getting a bit tiresome now and very often the aggressive aura on those threads, the back and forth rebuttals and comments diminish the fun and entertainment, and often leads to threads getting locked.

-

I´d rather see less censorship and editing on the org, and , considering this is more or less a grown folks forum ( most young folks don´t even KNOW Prince ) I´d appreciate less censorship in the General Discussion forum, too.

Also, I don´t think that orgers who violate the rules should be banned for good. Even when I hate certain people or disagree strongly , I don´t think that people should ever get banned. If I don´t like them or their posts, I can simply ignore them. The org used to be so interesting ten years ago, or 15 years ago. Let´s bring some of that energy and diversity back.

Frustration? I ignore post that don't interest me. Everyone should.

edited to comply with the requirements of non-specific references to particular ORGers.

.
thing is, it is not a vendetta. Person A does not do to Person B what Person B does to Person A. therefore, imo what is occurring is stalking and bullying.

.

without bringing anything to the discussion, Person B is attacking not only Person A's posts, but Person A himself.

.

this behavior continues to the point where multiple ORGers have noticed, commented and remarked on it, and even asked person B to please leave the thread

.

one would hope that people who have no interest in discussing, for example, UFOs and ancient aliens, would simply avoid threads which are about those topics. one would hope.

.

my understanding of the rules is that stalking, bullying and posting derogatory and inflammatory remarks against ORGers and their ideas and opinions is forbidden pursuant to the following (emphasis added):

Politics & Religion

Flex your debating skills on more serious topics such as world politics, history, religion, racial issues etc. Keep it friendly though!

Interested in discussing your political or religious views? Then this is the forum for you. Civility, respect and tolerance must be maintained at all times. Disagree if you wish, but do not attack other individuals on the basis of their beliefs. Remember there is no right or wrong opinion. Any deletion of combative, bigoted or insensitive comments should not be construed as denial of your individual right to air your own opinion ; we only attempt to maintain an inclusive forum.

Be civilized
Don't create offensive, vulgar, obscene, threatening, abusive or excessively profane posts. Do not instigate, engage in, or encourage 'flame wars'. If you insult someone "jokingly", be prepared to have it not interpreted that way by the Moderators. A good general rule: "criticize ideas, not people." Any language which encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense is grounds for immediate account deletion.

.

so how about this: would it be at all possible to set up threads which could be invitation only? i have found this feature on other discussion boards. it is a great way to keep the peace

.

imo, this would provide an opportunity for ORGers who want to discuss certain topics in a constructive, "hey i heard about this" fashion, to do so, without interference from ORGers who participate merely out of malice and with the intent of interfering, derailing or altogether stopping the discussion

.

OldFriends, you mentioned that the threads are like 'rooms', where certain ORgers who prefer to discuss certain topics, tend to show up. could 'invitation only' threads become a feature at prince.org? i know its asking a lot, but if its possible it might really be worth considering.

.

thanks for listening

[Edited 4/24/15 13:32pm]

XxAxX said:

XxAxX said:

Graycap23 said:

KoolEaze said: Frustration? I ignore post that don't interest me. Everyone should.

edited to comply with the requirements of non-specific references to particular ORGers.

.
thing is, it is not a vendetta. Person A does not do to Person B what Person B does to Person A. therefore, imo what is occurring is stalking and bullying.

.

without bringing anything to the discussion, Person B is attacking not only Person A's posts, but Person A himself.

.

this behavior continues to the point where multiple ORGers have noticed, commented and remarked on it, and even asked person B to please leave the thread

.

one would hope that people who have no interest in discussing, for example, UFOs and ancient aliens, would simply avoid threads which are about those topics. one would hope.

.

my understanding of the rules is that stalking, bullying and posting derogatory and inflammatory remarks against ORGers and their ideas and opinions is forbidden pursuant to the following (emphasis added):

Politics & Religion

Flex your debating skills on more serious topics such as world politics, history, religion, racial issues etc. Keep it friendly though!

Interested in discussing your political or religious views? Then this is the forum for you. Civility, respect and tolerance must be maintained at all times. Disagree if you wish, but do not attack other individuals on the basis of their beliefs. Remember there is no right or wrong opinion. Any deletion of combative, bigoted or insensitive comments should not be construed as denial of your individual right to air your own opinion ; we only attempt to maintain an inclusive forum.

Be civilized
Don't create offensive, vulgar, obscene, threatening, abusive or excessively profane posts. Do not instigate, engage in, or encourage 'flame wars'. If you insult someone "jokingly", be prepared to have it not interpreted that way by the Moderators. A good general rule: "criticize ideas, not people." Any language which encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense is grounds for immediate account deletion.

.

so how about this: would it be at all possible to set up threads which could be invitation only? i have found this feature on other discussion boards. it is a great way to keep the peace

.

imo, this would provide an opportunity for ORGers who want to discuss certain topics in a constructive, "hey i heard about this" fashion, to do so, without interference from ORGers who participate merely out of malice and with the intent of interfering, derailing or altogether stopping the discussion

.

OldFriends, you mentioned that the threads are like 'rooms', where certain ORgers who prefer to discuss certain topics, tend to show up. could 'invitation only' threads become a feature at prince.org? i know its asking a lot, but if its possible it might really be worth considering.

.

thanks for listening

[Edited 4/24/15 13:32pm]

To be honest, I brought that up to members when I first started and for the most part the idea was ripped up. I know other members have talked about the same thing. I think as far as 'religious/non belief' threads that's where the idea was directed.

.

I don't think the org can insert that function, I can ask. But I guess it would depend on how a thread is titled to give notice that 'we would like to discuss this with people that only believe in' 'we would like to discuss this with people who only like Parade or N P S' I don't think we can do that with race topics "Black Only' 'Asians Only' etc

okay. i get that it would be sort of crude to have a members only section, and various segregated threads as you describe. i generally enjoy the mix of insights on various threads. but sometimes, not so much

.

thanks for listening

XxAxX said:

What it boils down to is that Person A might start a thread and ask for everyone to reply. Heck, Person A might even say "I can't wait 2 hear the spin on this one."

And then when Persons B, C, D, and so on refute the evidence in the OP - which refutation was specifically asked for in the OP by Person A, mind you - then Person X pops up and becomes upset.

Weird, huh?

Graycap23 said:

XxAxX said:

okay. i get that it would be sort of crude to have a members only section, and various segregated threads as you describe. i generally enjoy the mix of insights on various threads. but sometimes, not so much

.

thanks for listening

I can only think of one person that I would filter out.

who might that be????

OldFriends4Sale said:

Angelsoncrack said:

I think with the org there isn't really 'trolling' or 'flaming' per se because most of the people here are old enough to understand that arguing with people on the internet is a pointless waste of time and ignore/avoid arguments that are obvious bait. Take a thread with the title of 'Purple Rain is a shit album' as an example. Guarenteed replies, because it's his most famous album and many people appreciate it. But at the same time, with a quick glance into the thread you will probably find that the OP is trying to initiate a flame war between himself and the members. So most people will see this and move on. (I would anyway lmao, I grew up with the internet).

Edit: I just wanted to add that bait comes in all shapes and forms. It's identifying it thats the trick. Because I've grown up with the internet from being a teenager I've been on a lot of forums and stuff from a young age, so I can kind of tell when someone is trying to start an argument even if it's subtle. What you could call 'premium quality bait' is basically someone starting a thread that looks legit, but they plant tiny seeds in there that will most probably start an argument.

I think what the issue is is that you have different types of fans all coming together with their own ideas, most commonly what I like to call (affectionately) 'the Prince arse lickers' and the 'I wish it was still 1988' Prince fans. Basically the first type are the ones that believe Prince can do nothing wrong and will defend him to the grave (you all know these people), and the second are just the opposite of that, they practically despise the man yet still listen to his music/buy his concert tickets etc. These two types often come into contact with each other and what looks like trolling, isn't. It's just a difference of opinion. Two largely out of proportion opinions, but opinions nontheless.

[Edited 4/8/15 9:58am]

It usually doesn't go far in most forums. But in the Politics & Religion forum it does.

There are members who don't make the difference from discussing a thought or ideal(as the rules say) but will attack the person making the post

[Take it up with the moderator in private snip. Posting your dirty laundry in a public forum is not allowed. Use orgnotes - luv4u]

XxAxX said:

Graycap23 said:

XxAxX said: I can only think of one person that I would filter out.

who might that be????

The same person that quite a few others would filter as well.

Another term for Flaming

OldFriends4Sale said:

Another term for Flaming

luv4u said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Another term for Flaming

lol I think that sinister look he has is how they look right before they hit Post Response

off topic, nevermind!

[Edited 5/8/15 18:33pm]

XxAxX said:

off topic, nevermind!

[Edited 5/8/15 18:33pm]

OldFriends4Sale said:

Another term for Flaming

Sometimes it's an entire gang

purplethunder3121 said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Another term for Flaming

Sometimes it's an entire gang

Oh yes

It's easy to see it

In some conversations, all of a sudden a bunch of members you never knew existed pop up and start siding with someone

Or such

I just know a bunch of org note calls were made to join in

I suppose claiming anything and everything that does or does not happen is all part of a race-based conspiracy would qualify as trolling.

RodeoSchro said:

I suppose claiming anything and everything that does or does not happen is all part of a race-based conspiracy would qualify as trolling.

Flaming

or a Flaming Troll?

OldFriends4Sale said:

RodeoSchro said:

I suppose claiming anything and everything that does or does not happen is all part of a race-based conspiracy would qualify as trolling.

Flaming

or a Flaming Troll?

Trolling with elements of flaming coming after getting called out for said trolling.