Flame Wars: What they are, Why they should be stopped.

[smashmaster]

In a way, entertaining to read, but not fun to be in. c:

Lol

 

[TheFlyingBoatman]

If you think Flame Wars are good that's your call, but it would seem that the whole staff team, which are most likely considerably older, more experienced, and smarter then you, would disagree.

lol.

 

[Col_StaR]

I should change my rank to Firefighter, because I've seen more flamewars than I care to count, and I'm usually the guy who's tasked with putting them out.

Honestly,Slqme , I disagree with your definition of a flame war. I find, "a heated discussion taking place where one or both parties say something aggressive" to be far too vague. Under that definition, the traded comments between you and Lucidictive would be considered a flame war, when you both clearly state that neither of you had the intention of doing so. In fact, I'd say that that was a simple argument, which involves conflict but is still within acceptable boundaries. You folks argued your points about the relevant topics at hand, and never reached for ad hominem attacks.

In my eyes, Flame Wars are defined as "a series of focused attacks against individuals with the half-semblance of a mutual topic"; contrast this with an argument, "a civil but heated discussion that stays on relevant topics and never devolves into insults against individuals or groups". Arguments attack positions and policies; Flame attacks people.

That being said, I don't think that flame wars are going to be solved by the advice of, "be the bigger man". People who engage in true to form flame wars aren't thinking with rationality or diplomacy, since if they were they'd be engaging in a proper argument. Flamers instead opt for gut-reaction and emotional charge to try and forcibly hammer their opinions and beliefs onto others. They don't care about politeness, positions, or even proper argument: they just care about being right and respected, and the only way they feel they can do that is by typing out insults IN ALL CAPS WITH BOLD TEXT IF POSSIBLE!!!!!!1 It's political debates VS toddler temper tantrums: both feature someone wanting something, but how they go about doing so and how effective they are at getting it is what differs.

Best way to stop flame wars? You need Firefighters.

TL;DR: IF YOU DISAGREE THEN UR CORRUPT AND BIASED AND NAZI COMMUNIST!!!11

 

[Miner9823]

I should change my rank to Firefighter, because I've seen more flamewars than I care to count, and I'm usually the guy who's tasked with putting them out.

Honestly,Slqme , I disagree with your definition of a flame war. I find, "a heated discussion taking place where one or both parties say something aggressive" to be far too vague. Under that definition, the traded comments between you and Lucidictive would be considered a flame war, when you both clearly state that neither of you had the intention of doing so. In fact, I'd say that that was a simple argument, which involves conflict but is still within acceptable boundaries. You folks argued your points about the relevant topics at hand, and never reached for ad hominem attacks.

In my eyes, Flame Wars are defined as "a series of focused attacks against individuals with the half-semblance of a mutual topic"; contrast this with an argument, "a civil but heated discussion that stays on relevant topics and never devolves into insults against individuals or groups". Arguments attack positions and policies; Flame attacks people.

That being said, I don't think that flame wars are going to be solved by the advice of, "be the bigger man". People who engage in true to form flame wars aren't thinking with rationality or diplomacy, since if they were they'd be engaging in a proper argument. Flamers instead opt for gut-reaction and emotional charge to try and forcibly hammer their opinions and beliefs onto others. They don't care about politeness, positions, or even proper argument: they just care about being right and respected, and the only way they feel they can do that is by typing out insults IN ALL CAPS WITH BOLD TEXT IF POSSIBLE!!!!!!1 It's political debates VS toddler temper tantrums: both feature someone wanting something, but how they go about doing so and how effective they are at getting it is what differs.

Best way to stop flame wars? You need Firefighters.

TL;DR: IF YOU DISAGREE THEN UR CORRUPT AND BIASED AND NAZI COMMUNIST!!!11

I don't know how to comprehend such a post, just simple beauty, and oh my goodness, you should definitely mobilize a small group of people who go around the forums, and even servers and including Teamspeak, just going around preventing flame-wars. And of course, they are called firefighters. Although there are moderators around that can do that, there should be some sort of clean-sweep that is somewhat similar to the hacker clean-sweep, except this time it's with flame wars.

 

[Slqme]

I should change my rank to Firefighter, because I've seen more flamewars than I care to count, and I'm usually the guy who's tasked with putting them out.

Honestly,Slqme , I disagree with your definition of a flame war. I find, "a heated discussion taking place where one or both parties say something aggressive" to be far too vague. Under that definition, the traded comments between you and Lucidictive would be considered a flame war, when you both clearly state that neither of you had the intention of doing so. In fact, I'd say that that was a simple argument, which involves conflict but is still within acceptable boundaries. You folks argued your points about the relevant topics at hand, and never reached for ad hominem attacks.

In my eyes, Flame Wars are defined as "a series of focused attacks against individuals with the half-semblance of a mutual topic"; contrast this with an argument, "a civil but heated discussion that stays on relevant topics and never devolves into insults against individuals or groups". Arguments attack positions and policies; Flame attacks people.

That being said, I don't think that flame wars are going to be solved by the advice of, "be the bigger man". People who engage in true to form flame wars aren't thinking with rationality or diplomacy, since if they were they'd be engaging in a proper argument. Flamers instead opt for gut-reaction and emotional charge to try and forcibly hammer their opinions and beliefs onto others. They don't care about politeness, positions, or even proper argument: they just care about being right and respected, and the only way they feel they can do that is by typing out insults IN ALL CAPS WITH BOLD TEXT IF POSSIBLE!!!!!!1 It's political debates VS toddler temper tantrums: both feature someone wanting something, but how they go about doing so and how effective they are at getting it is what differs.

Best way to stop flame wars? You need Firefighters.

TL;DR: IF YOU DISAGREE THEN UR CORRUPT AND BIASED AND NAZI COMMUNIST!!!11

Thankyou for your input CoL. I will change the thread to suite what your definitions and points make out.
I was just trying to be helpful and I am new to the community, so you'll excuse me if I might get some things a bit wrong..
Thanks a lot for your kindly worded message. I enjoyed how joyful it was,
~Slqme

Edit: I have to admit, I did rofl a little at the thought of firefighters, I definitely think the community should consider them,

 

[Lucidictive]

I should change my rank to Firefighter, because I've seen more flamewars than I care to count, and I'm usually the guy who's tasked with putting them out.

Honestly,Slqme , I disagree with your definition of a flame war. I find, "a heated discussion taking place where one or both parties say something aggressive" to be far too vague. Under that definition, the traded comments between you and Lucidictive would be considered a flame war, when you both clearly state that neither of you had the intention of doing so. In fact, I'd say that that was a simple argument, which involves conflict but is still within acceptable boundaries. You folks argued your points about the relevant topics at hand, and never reached for ad hominem attacks.

In my eyes, Flame Wars are defined as "a series of focused attacks against individuals with the half-semblance of a mutual topic"; contrast this with an argument, "a civil but heated discussion that stays on relevant topics and never devolves into insults against individuals or groups". Arguments attack positions and policies; Flame attacks people.

That being said, I don't think that flame wars are going to be solved by the advice of, "be the bigger man". People who engage in true to form flame wars aren't thinking with rationality or diplomacy, since if they were they'd be engaging in a proper argument. Flamers instead opt for gut-reaction and emotional charge to try and forcibly hammer their opinions and beliefs onto others. They don't care about politeness, positions, or even proper argument: they just care about being right and respected, and the only way they feel they can do that is by typing out insults IN ALL CAPS WITH BOLD TEXT IF POSSIBLE!!!!!!1 It's political debates VS toddler temper tantrums: both feature someone wanting something, but how they go about doing so and how effective they are at getting it is what differs.

Best way to stop flame wars? You need Firefighters.

TL;DR: IF YOU DISAGREE THEN UR CORRUPT AND BIASED AND NAZI COMMUNIST!!!11

Well said.

 

[powdski]

I have heard of flame wars before; they usually start when someone makes a remark about someone if they kill them. Also it can happen during clan battles because clans may disagree on a fact!
Thanks for reading,
Powdski