So recently a staff member defined flaming as calling someone a scammer. do you think that perhaps the rules are perhaps too strong? (note not just this situation but in general, it's more just for an example)
Flaming rule
Started by Mat-Senpai [952164] on in Graveyard.
About this thread
Posts archived: 74 / 74 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Counted by TornLife from the archived posts.
- Archived posts
- 74
- Discussion span
- →
- Authority score
- 42 / 100
- Historical score
- 25 / 100
- Story score
- 64 / 100
- Engagement score
- 78 / 100
People posting, likes and official posts are not counted for this thread yet: on threads longer than one page they come from a periodic pass over the archive, which has not covered it.
Most-liked replies
- Nuclear [827175]
· 20 likes ·
Some staff are mad with power. - JimmyJames [581165]
· 19 likes ·
I don't see how saying something that's true can be flaming. Especially if that truth is a perfectly legal style of play. That would be like me saying "mat places a lot of bounties" is flaming... It's the truth. Besides, … - Butters [34298]
· 15 likes ·
Hell no - whichever staffer is claiming that needs to run off and do a bit of homework in the interwebs. If someone is or has been a scammer then labelling them as such is certainly not a flame in …
Mentioned in this thread
189399 [189399] ×1
So recently a staff member defined flaming as calling someone a scammer. do you think that perhaps the rules are perhaps too strong? (note not just this situation but in general, it's more just for an example)
Some staff are mad with power.
I don't see how saying something that's true can be flaming. Especially if that truth is a perfectly legal style of play. That would be like me saying "mat places a lot of bounties" is flaming... It's the truth.
Besides, how are we supposed to police scamming ourselves if we're not allowed to mention when someone does it?
The whole flaming rule is stupid. This is a crime game. Big boys only
Hell no - whichever staffer is claiming that needs to run off and do a bit of homework in the interwebs.
If someone is or has been a scammer then labelling them as such is certainly not a flame in any way - you can't make a decision to do nothing about scammers and then also decide that players cannot self-regulate scamming by labelling scammers as such.
I would be perfectly happy to debate that point with anyone from Ched down if it were me - making the rules in the game you own / run is one thing, but pulling rulings like this out of your arse when they don't make sense is another thing entirely.
If flaming is simply all about false accusations against someone, then I think calling a person a scammer is flaming... unless the person is proven to be a scammer.
How is this hot issue still on fire?
in this case it's a user whom was proven a scammer but it was used more as an example of rules which perhaps do too much for what they're intended to do, which is the point of the discussion
Flaming is not about making false accusations about someone at all...
I think that rules such as flaming are so vague that the staff have the ability to use them as they see fit, it is the same as many other rules, staff are afraid that if players knew what these half explained rules really meant they would be able to argue against them.
Anything that makes their job easier.
The act of insulting to bring another player down by ridiculing or making fun of the player - http://www.torn.com/wiki/Forums
If it falls under that ^^, its called flaming.
I mentioned on the forum once that I disagreed with a staff member. I got a 7 day ban. Don't question the mighty sarlacci.
Once again it was used as an example on a discussion of how the rules are enforced, although I do find that classification interesting, anything which is negative or personally considered such can be reported under flaming?
edit: what is most interesting is the idea of it being against the rules to call someone who's publicly known and proven to be a scammer.. a scammer :o
I called a player a doofus once
He created a Thread about it in the Forums
Wow huh?
OP is a noob that plays torn. ban me staff for i am flaming or am i stating facts.... i dont f**king know.
The flaming rules need to be relaxed. I called someone who was acting like a twat a test and got a seven day ban for it.
Calling someone a scammer can't be considered an insult or bringing them down if there is proof. There is a fine line; the comunity can't go and call people idiots however you can say player "x" had a bad idea without flaming. Calling them an idiot on the open forums however would probably going too far and should be punished. The key here is most players don't want to assosiate with known scammer as they make promises and never fufill them. Muggers do just take the money and run but that can be dealt with by black listing people..
![[image: www.foremostpromotions.com]](http://www.foremostpromotions.com/images/Products/15132_med.jpg){kind=link}
I got banned for flaming once was it worth the 7 days of not posting in the forums, yes to me it was calling a idiot a idiot in this situation was hard to resists . You can still keep up with the goings on in the forums read threads and such. Just click forums without being logged in.
I'd challenge a ban for calling someone a scammer or even an idiot, what you did was a bit more than call someone an idiot so you're being a bit misleading.
My view on flaming is it's (mostly) agressive and/or abusive, so to me "idiot" or "scammer" is not ban-worthy but something like say "Your a f**king Idiot....bla bla....And NEWS FLASH dumb ass... bla bla.... f**king IDIOT!" would be flaming. See the difference?
I posted a pic of rhino beetle and asked if anyone could identify a bug.
A bit of fun and tongue in cheek with a thread that was dire but to my surprise got me 7 days ban.
Some players get away with blue murder with constant flaming & derailing whilst others get banned for the most minor infraction.