donate      guestbook     links     back to flame warriors    


Author Message
<  EVENT: The Funeral
Chaos Revenant
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:21 am  Reply with quote
TARGET


Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 907
Location: The World Wide Warp

It's something that no one ever wants to think of. Something so unthinkable, that at the first vestiges of the thought, they drive it from their minds. Yet sometimes, it happens.... and the forum will never be the same again.

***

All across the forum, the bells ring in their doleful tones.

Rebel Leader has his forces put the flag of the Revolution at half-mast.

Duelists sheathe their swords: for such a day is not a day for bloodshed.

Big Dog, Me-Too, Issues, Tireless Rebutter..... They are all either silent or weeping copiously.

Deacon has his fellow priests chant the requiem for the dead.

And all is quiet, as every single Flame Warrior mourns the passing of a friend.

***

Okay, now that I've gotten the story-blurb out of the way, I shall proceed to describe this event.

The Funeral is a very rare event on a forum. But when it happens, the whole forum is affected. Usually, this event is triggered by the real-life death of a well-loved forumer.

When this happens, Admin (or one of the mods) usually puts up a "sticky" thread to announce the sad event. There, many of the posters on the board begin to post their fond memories of their friend, offer their condolences, ask about the event, or simply register their shock.

When this happens, all other activity slows or stops, as the whole forum mourns. The thread may gradually grow to a great size, as every poster centers their conversation on the thread.

Seldom does anyone criticize the dead forumer at a Funeral, as it is considered bad taste. Those who do may find themselves on the receiving end of the forum's anger. (After all, "de mortuis nil nisi bonum"- speak nought but good of the dead.) If the forumer was a controversial one, people will temper their criticisms with praise in the name of etiquette.

Only the most heartless or the most foolhardy of Trollers would invade a forum during a Funeral. A Funeral is a sacred rite where the feelings of grief are released and where forumers come to terms with the loss. Those that invade a forum during a Funeral will come face-to-face with the wrath of the grieving forumers- a terrible force to be reckoned with. And even if the invasion is successful, the troll's comrades will not be happy with him: rather, they will most likely censure him for his irreverence.

Eventually, the pall of mourning will pass, and the thread will be un-stickied. But the memories of the late forumer will never fade away... for time may heal all wounds, but even so, scars may be left.....


NOTE: The Funeral does not denote the bustle of activity that happens in the wake of a banning. (I shall discuss that further under another topic.)

NOTE: If an Admin is the deceased forumer, an event known as The Coronation may happen.

WARNING: If the "deceased" turns out to be alive and well IRL, then he will immediately be attacked by the mourners!
_________________
Chaos Revenant:
Doing What You Don't Have The Guts To Since 2006


Last edited by Chaos Revenant on Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:27 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irritus
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:17 pm  Reply with quote
Abusive Admin


Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude

Hrm... I don't think I've seen anything quite this formal, but it seems plausible. It's been a long-ass time since I've seen a death announcement on a forum. I recall hearing about an extremely formal funeral held in WoW that got raided, too.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anarchy_Balsac
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:05 pm  Reply with quote
The Voice of Reason


Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368

Gosh damnit, troller is not a fucking troll, he's a poorly named attention whore, get it right.
_________________
I've got good news:

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chaos Revenant
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:23 am  Reply with quote
TARGET


Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 907
Location: The World Wide Warp

irritus wrote:
Hrm... I don't think I've seen anything quite this formal, but it seems plausible. It's been a long-ass time since I've seen a death announcement on a forum. I recall hearing about an extremely formal funeral held in WoW that got raided, too.


Here's a link to one of them. In here, the forumer named Raksha uses the thread to air her grievances, and immediately gets set upon by her fellow forumers.

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
Gosh damnit, troller is not a fucking troll, he's a poorly named attention whore, get it right.


Troller Description wrote:
Troller is looking for a response...ANY response, and he will chum the waters with complaints, insults, compliments, and inflammatory tidbits hoping that someone...ANYONE, will take the bait.


Hmm.....I'd say you're right. But then again, there's a fine line between attention whoring and "doing it for the lulz", so I can't really say anything about it..
_________________
Chaos Revenant:
Doing What You Don't Have The Guts To Since 2006
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ambosen
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:07 pm  Reply with quote
irritus' minion


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1208
Location: Behind you with a chainsword...

Nice suggestion. However, on the last part, I know first hand that's not always true; I've been declared dead online enough (usually due to rather short sighted assumptions of a certain person who assumes every "killer storm" in my area seems to have offed me) that when I post to correct matters, it's hardly even a big deal anymore.

Of course, the first time, I walked into my won e-funeral, blinked, then pulled a Samuel Clemens. The person in question who is a well meaning individual prone to constantly imagining the worst however got flamed to a crisp. I merely got questions on why I'd been offline for two months when I was normally posting 3-5 times a day at said site (should've been; it was afterall, mine.)

Aside from that and that long ass boring narrative, nothing to add.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anarchy_Balsac
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:10 pm  Reply with quote
The Voice of Reason


Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368

Chaos Revenant wrote:


Hmm.....I'd say you're right. But then again, there's a fine line between attention whoring and "doing it for the lulz", so I can't really say anything about it..


Attentions whoring "for lulz" is still attention whoring. Trolling is when you do it to piss people off.
_________________
I've got good news:

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irritus
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:02 am  Reply with quote
Abusive Admin


Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude

Trolling is manipulation. Pissing people off is one thing you can use trolling for, but ultimately someone who annoys people has as much in common with a troll as someone who replaces their own windshield wipers has with an auto mechanic.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anarchy_Balsac
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:27 am  Reply with quote
The Voice of Reason


Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368

Well actually definitions across the web disagree with you. Such as this one:

http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp

Quote:
An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.


And popular opinion does indeed define language, which means my definition was right. The flame community says it's manipulation but it's not, that's baiting. Nothing wrong with baiting, just saying it isn't trolling. The two can go hand in hand, but are not one and the same.
_________________
I've got good news:

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irritus
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:18 am  Reply with quote
Abusive Admin


Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude

What you have to keep in mind is that, typically, the word "troll" is thrown at anyone with an even slightly controversial opinion. I somehow doubt you'd rush to agree that a troll is anyone who causes fights. Likewise, you can save the references to how many sites agree with you; it didn't work for SlashCo when we were arguing over what anti-hero means. It is true that popular usage eventually defines language. That doesn't mean if a bunch of people agree with you now that you are right. There is a good reason I say this, which hopefully you'll read over before hitting reply.

Obscure terminology, especially from the tech industry, is constantly abused by laypeople. I refuse to join in their misuse even if it is widespread, because failing to resist misuse it what allows this to keep happening. A perfect example of this is the term "hack." It's an engineering term that means to get a machine to do something it was never intended to. In short, it generally means a workaround. Currently the record-holder for Greatest Hack Ever belongs to Nicolai Tesla for hacking the entire planet into an electrical circuit during some free energy experiment he was trying out.

If you're not following where I am going with this, do a google search on "hacker." Tell me how many correct results you get, because thanks to the news media abuse, most dumbasses think it means "computer criminal."

This applies to "Troll" in the following way. A troll is someone who manipulates people for a desired reaction. This reaction is, of course, nearly always negative because there's not much people can find out they were manipulated into that makes them feel good afterwards. Genreally, yes, trolls sew dissent. How do they do this if not by manipulating people?

Herein lies the problem: Your original definition was that trolling was attention whoring to piss people off. I replied that pissing people off does not make you a troll. You've since changed your definition by posting --as proof for your stance-- someone describing trolls as people who cause forum members to get into fights with each other. That is not the same thing as pissing people off by trying to get attention.

Does my analogy regarding "changing your wipers isn't the same as being a mechanic" make more sense now? You cannot call yourself a troll if all you do is make people pissed off at you. With that loose of a definition you may as well start calling spambots "trolls." As for what the rest of the internet says, they can fuck off and die. Most of them don't know what the hell they're saying because all they're doing is parroting one another ad nauseam.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anarchy_Balsac
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:30 am  Reply with quote
The Voice of Reason


Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368

irritus wrote:

Herein lies the problem: Your original definition was that trolling was attention whoring to piss people off.


No, posting to piss people off, not attention whoring.

irritus wrote:
I replied that pissing people off does not make you a troll. You've since changed your definition by posting --as proof for your stance-- someone describing trolls as people who cause forum members to get into fights with each other. That is not the same thing as pissing people off by trying to get attention.


What it says is that trolls purposely pull people into flaming discussion, which tends to mean they are trying to make people get mad and flame the crap out of them.

Anyway I understand what you are saying, but the simple fact is that language is indeed subjective, and so popular opinion does formulate it. By your logic, "yo" isn't a word. However in this day and age it is used quite commonly. You may think it's bastardized and you'd be right, but it is a part of our language now. Pedophile didn't used to be a word until some dumbfuck in the media decided he didn't know how to pronounce pediaphilliac. Language does change with popular opinion, like it or not.

Otherwise, troll would not mean either of our definitions, it would only mean a mythological creature that doesn't exist. Also I've been on the net over 10 years, and can honestly say as long as I have been on trolling has meant provoking people into flaming you. I'm not saying it wasn't the other definition before that, but it would have to go back a long way.
_________________
I've got good news:

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irritus
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm  Reply with quote
Abusive Admin


Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
irritus wrote:

Herein lies the problem: Your original definition was that trolling was attention whoring to piss people off.


No, posting to piss people off, not attention whoring.
That doesn't effect what I said. The point was you went from saying "Trolling means doing X to piss people off," to supporting a definition that describes manipulating people into fighting one another.

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
Anyway I understand what you are saying, but the simple fact is that language is indeed subjective, and so popular opinion does formulate it.
I'm not sure why you're agreeing with me in a contrary manner. As I said, popular usage eventually defines a word.

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
Otherwise, troll would not mean either of our definitions, it would only mean a mythological creature that doesn't exist.
No argument there.

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
Also I've been on the net over 10 years, and can honestly say as long as I have been on trolling has meant provoking people into flaming you. I'm not saying it wasn't the other definition before that, but it would have to go back a long way.
Unfortunately words that never had an official definition tend to become relative to the groups that use them. I honestly can't picture trolling without manipulation. Even getting people to flame you is manipulation, albeit a fairly straightforward method. On the other hand, I have trouble picturing any trolling that didn't result in the person doing it getting flamed, but if all trolling amounts to is getting people to attack you I don't see a distinction between it and flaming.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anarchy_Balsac
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:50 pm  Reply with quote
The Voice of Reason


Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368

irritus wrote:
That doesn't effect what I said. The point was you went from saying "Trolling means doing X to piss people off," to supporting a definition that describes manipulating people into fighting one another.


I don't see how, I've only ever said trolling meant deliberately pissing people off.

irritus wrote:
I'm not sure why you're agreeing with me in a contrary manner. As I said, popular usage eventually defines a word.


Well it's been used the way I use it for years now, so I'm not sure where you define the point of eventuality, but I feel safe assuming it has been crossed.

irritus wrote:
Unfortunately words that never had an official definition tend to become relative to the groups that use them. I honestly can't picture trolling without manipulation. Even getting people to flame you is manipulation, albeit a fairly straightforward method. On the other hand, I have trouble picturing any trolling that didn't result in the person doing it getting flamed, but if all trolling amounts to is getting people to attack you I don't see a distinction between it and flaming.


This probably explains where the lines became blurred, however, getting people to flame the crap out of you is not the same as flaming them yourself, so I'm not sure what you mean by that last line.
_________________
I've got good news:

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
forker
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:11 am  Reply with quote
Lurker


Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 9

Just to go off-topic a bit

I have only seen one funeral - at a computer forum
a few years back
it was one of the mods I believe





forker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anarchivist
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:33 pm  Reply with quote
Clueless Newb


Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 24

We've had a funeral at the Fourth Turning forums. It was for Bill Strauss, one of the authors of the forum's book, The Fourth Turning. This was a book that peaked in popularity aeter September 11.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irritus
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:59 pm  Reply with quote
Abusive Admin


Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
I don't see how, I've only ever said trolling meant deliberately pissing people off.
Dude, for the third time, the definition you quoted from another site to support your stance and embraced as accurate was different from your original stance.

Cutting out the parts that are moot, and on to...

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
This probably explains where the lines became blurred, however, getting people to flame the crap out of you is not the same as flaming them yourself, so I'm not sure what you mean by that last line.
Because flaming people constitutes pissing them off. As I once said as a sock puppet to Evil Ba$tard, "Evil flames? As opposed to what, supportive insults that build up their self-esteem?" If the only thing that distinguishes a troll from other posters is pissing people off and getting attacked for it, you have no way to separate them from flamers.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anarchy_Balsac
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:02 am  Reply with quote
The Voice of Reason


Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368

irritus wrote:
Dude, for the third time, the definition you quoted from another site to support your stance and embraced as accurate was different from your original stance.


No not really, pissing people off on the net pulls them into flaming discussion if you get a responce from them, so it actually does support my definition.

irritus wrote:
Because flaming people constitutes pissing them off.


Well actually no it doesn't, flaming constitutes making personal attacks, not the reason for said personal attacks.
_________________
I've got good news:

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raptoreyes
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:42 pm  Reply with quote
Possible Troller


Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 132

irritus wrote:
Hrm... I don't think I've seen anything quite this formal, but it seems plausible. It's been a long-ass time since I've seen a death announcement on a forum. I recall hearing about an extremely formal funeral held in WoW that got raided, too.


Ill see if I can find the video about that event. Perhaps one of the most famous "Funeral crashs" I have ever heard of online. You really should have seen the in game battle this incident spawned. Its one thing to duel over the forum but its quite another when people have the ability to hunt down your avatar in game and prevent it form resurrecting until you log out!
_________________
Gordon Angelino of Angelino Enterprises
1-800-719-8268 xa6338 (Money making opportunity)
www.angelsdeals.info
Shop till you drop, find what you desire Smile
www.angelsdeals.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irritus
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:26 am  Reply with quote
Abusive Admin


Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
irritus wrote:
Dude, for the third time, the definition you quoted from another site to support your stance and embraced as accurate was different from your original stance.


No not really, pissing people off on the net pulls them into flaming discussion if you get a responce from them, so it actually does support my definition.
No, it doesn't. Your definition was:

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
Attentions whoring "for lulz" is still attention whoring. Trolling is when you do it to piss people off.


You later clarified this in a response to me:
Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
No, posting to piss people off, not attention whoring.


The definition you posted from elsewhere was:
Quote:
An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.


There is a world of difference between 1) sewing dissent which provokes forum members to flame each other or leads to a flame war and 2) merely "posting to piss people off." Repeating your argument for a fourth time is not going to change the fact you've contradicted yourself. I would like to remind you that the difference between a Tireless Rebutter and Ferrous Cranus is the former addresses all viewpoints he disagrees with ceaselessly while the latter just repeats the same counterpoints ad nauseam.

One error doesn't blow your credibility. Pretending it doesn't exist may. No amount of excuses is going to unmake that mistake. You're better off just accepting that your definition doesn't match the one you posted and moving on. You don't even have to admit it so long as you stop pretending it's not there. Don't try to make debating about winning. Even if you do, don't convince yourself winning means never conceding at all. Do you want to end up like ATVile, endlessly coming up with excuses and deflections to the point where you could run into a room on fire and nobody would believe you when you say you're burning?

My initial complaint was your definition was far too loose. (Admittedly my initial response was too vague, but that's the price I pay for brevity.) There is more to trolling than just pissing people off and getting them to attack you. In my opinion, that thing is manipulation. If all that defines a troll is "posting to piss people off" then there is no difference between flamers and trolls because both post to piss people off.

Yet, as a troll, you must realize there is a difference. When I say trolling is about manipulation that's what I'm getting at. Take what you did to Turdston, for example. You made one of the biggest admin abuse crybabies blatantly abuse you administratively. LoCo, on the other hand, switched which side he flamed for. Now I don't know that your goal was to manipulate Turdston into admin abuse, but if so, by my definition that was some fine trolling there. Otherwise it was just highly effective flaming.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anarchy_Balsac
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:05 am  Reply with quote
The Voice of Reason


Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368

irritus wrote:


There is a world of difference between 1) sewing dissent which provokes forum members to flame each other or leads to a flame war and 2) merely "posting to piss people off."


Then you should have said that in the first place. Not tried to say flaming means pissing people off or anything. I guess I should have said it was the same as flamebaiting, but I see your point. Being annoying isn't necessarily flamebaiting.

irritus wrote:
Repeating your argument for a fourth time is not going to change the fact you've contradicted yourself. I would like to remind you that the difference between a Tireless Rebutter and Ferrous Cranus is the former addresses all viewpoints he disagrees with ceaselessly while the latter just repeats the same counterpoints ad nauseam.


Well, for one, Ad Nauseum isn't a fallacy when there's no real counterpoint to begin with, for two, I don't see where I repeated myself, I didn't back down from my argument but that isn't the same as Ad Nauseum. Also I didn't contradict myself, I merely had a poor choice of words. Contradicting myself would be if I meant to say attention whoring to piss people off was trolling and then changed my story.

irritus wrote:
Yet, as a troll, you must realize there is a difference. When I say trolling is about manipulation that's what I'm getting at. Take what you did to Turdston, for example. You made one of the biggest admin abuse crybabies blatantly abuse you administratively. LoCo, on the other hand, switched which side he flamed for. Now I don't know that your goal was to manipulate Turdston into admin abuse, but if so, by my definition that was some fine trolling there. Otherwise it was just highly effective flaming.


Some people call that trolling, I still call it baiting though, except when making comments for FT to see. Then I'll call it trolling so they'll know what I'm talking about. Be it baiting or trolling though I'm not saying it's bad.
_________________
I've got good news:

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irritus
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:53 am  Reply with quote
Abusive Admin


Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
irritus wrote:
There is a world of difference between 1) sewing dissent which provokes forum members to flame each other or leads to a flame war and 2) merely "posting to piss people off."
Then you should have said that in the first place.
I did say that in the first place, and in the second place, and so on... We've had a communication breakdown so I expanded on it and restructured it.

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
Well, for one, Ad Nauseum isn't a fallacy when there's no real counterpoint to begin with, for two, I don't see where I repeated myself
First of all, there were two counterpoints, one of which you just now got as quoted above. Second, you repeatedly argued against my counterpoint --that you'd given too loose of a definition then quoted a website with a definition to contradicted your own as support for your position-- with the same material. You never provided any new information or clarified your point, you just made up an excuse for not being wrong and repeated yourself.


Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
irritus wrote:
Yet, as a troll, you must realize there is a difference. When I say trolling is about manipulation that's what I'm getting at. Take what you did to Turdston, for example. You made one of the biggest admin abuse crybabies blatantly abuse you administratively. LoCo, on the other hand, switched which side he flamed for. Now I don't know that your goal was to manipulate Turdston into admin abuse, but if so, by my definition that was some fine trolling there. Otherwise it was just highly effective flaming.
Some people call that trolling, I still call it baiting though, except when making comments for FT to see. Then I'll call it trolling so they'll know what I'm talking about. Be it baiting or trolling though I'm not saying it's bad.
Well I agree with you there. It's fairly difficult to bait without trolling. Ultimately I think part of it lies in the methods and part of it lies in the motives.

It reminds me of a trolling raid we'd considered against a Spice Girls forum. I went on the forum and watched how people treated each other, and after about 10 minutes decided it was pointless to even attempt it. The people there weren't taking shit too seriously, they all got along really well, and as far as I could tell treated each other like they would have in person. That right there is a rotten place to troll. For one, they don't deserve it (though most of our trolling was disruptively comedic rather than mean-spirited), and for two we probably wouldn't get anywhere. Now flametown retards, on the other hand, probably would have stormed the place because "flamer" is synonymous with "asshole" for a reason. Then they would have gotten their shit ruined in under 48 hours and spent a week gloryvic-ing about getting banned.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anarchy_Balsac
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:44 pm  Reply with quote
The Voice of Reason


Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368

irritus wrote:
I did say that in the first place


Not exactly, you may have meant to, but you said didn't point out the differences between flame baiting and just plain being annoying. I did actually mean to say flame baiting to begin with, as I've said it before on this very forum.

irritus wrote:
First of all, there were two counterpoints, one of which you just now got as quoted above. Second, you repeatedly argued against my counterpoint --that you'd given too loose of a definition then quoted a website with a definition to contradicted your own as support for your position-- with the same material.


Well I did this:

Quote:
No not really, pissing people off on the net pulls them into flaming discussion if you get a responce from them, so it actually does support my definition.


=/=

Quote:
I don't see how, I've only ever said trolling meant deliberately pissing people off.


=/=

Quote:
No, posting to piss people off, not attention whoring.


So while I may not have backed down, I did do more than simply repeat myself.
_________________
I've got good news:

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irritus
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:10 pm  Reply with quote
Abusive Admin


Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
irritus wrote:
I did say that in the first place
Not exactly, you may have meant to, but you said didn't point out the differences between flame baiting and just plain being annoying.
Yes, I did exactly. You just missed it because you only reply to single sentences out of context. It took several tries to even get you to notice my point because you've taken up the flame community tactic of quoting with partial replies. Here's a perfect example:

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
irritus wrote:
First of all, there were two counterpoints, one of which you just now got as quoted above. Second, you repeatedly argued against my counterpoint --that you'd given too loose of a definition then quoted a website with a definition to contradicted your own as support for your position-- with the same material.


Well I did this:

Quote:
No not really, pissing people off on the net pulls them into flaming discussion if you get a responce from them, so it actually does support my definition.


=/=

Quote:
I don't see how, I've only ever said trolling meant deliberately pissing people off.


=/=

Quote:
No, posting to piss people off, not attention whoring.


So while I may not have backed down, I did do more than simply repeat myself.
Now notice how you replied to a paragraph with two points by only addressing the second one, and only addressing it with the extremely limited context of one thing you rephrased.

What happened to that first point, that you were lying about there being no counterpoint when you rattled off some bullshit about how it's not argumentum ad nauseam if you have a really good excuse for not listening? Do you think the dodge you made in response the the second point somehow nullified your mischaracterization of my argument? As for the second point, what happened to the entire rest of your repetitious argument? I'm somewhat amazed you pulled three dissimilar sentences out of your posts as if that was the only thing you could have been repeating.

Do you honestly believe anyone reading your posts is going to miss those things? This isn't the flame community. People read here.

I don't even know why I am wasting my time trying to talk to you. You don't evaluate what you're responding to, you just look for crumbs to disagree with as if having something contrary to say to a part is the same as being correct for opposing the whole.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anarchy_Balsac
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:42 pm  Reply with quote
The Voice of Reason


Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368

irritus wrote:
Yes, I did exactly. You just missed it because you only reply to single sentences out of context.


No, what you said was this:

irritus wrote:
Trolling is manipulation. Pissing people off is one thing you can use trolling for, but ultimately someone who annoys people has as much in common with a troll as someone who replaces their own windshield wipers has with an auto mechanic.


That is not the same as drawing a distinction between annoying people and flame baiting. You also followed it up by drawing a distinction between flame baiting and attention whoring when it pisses people off, but that isn't the same as drawing a distinction between flame baiting and pissing people off in general. So no, you did not draw the distinction. Someone attention whoring to aggravate people is far different than someone who doesn't care about attention and just wants to see sparks fly.

irritus wrote:
It took several tries to even get you to notice my point because you've taken up the flame community tactic of quoting with partial replies. Here's a perfect example:

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
irritus wrote:
First of all, there were two counterpoints, one of which you just now got as quoted above. Second, you repeatedly argued against my counterpoint --that you'd given too loose of a definition then quoted a website with a definition to contradicted your own as support for your position-- with the same material.


Well I did this:

Quote:
No not really, pissing people off on the net pulls them into flaming discussion if you get a responce from them, so it actually does support my definition.


=/=

Quote:
I don't see how, I've only ever said trolling meant deliberately pissing people off.


=/=

Quote:
No, posting to piss people off, not attention whoring.


So while I may not have backed down, I did do more than simply repeat myself.
Now notice how you replied to a paragraph with two points by only addressing the second one, and only addressing it with the extremely limited context of one thing you rephrased.


Not addressing a point that was conceeded already is bad how now? I conceeded that I worded myself badly, you know full well I meant flame baiting I have said it before, and the link did not contradict flame baiting. I did make a mistake with equating being annoying to flame baiting, but I conceeded it.

irritus wrote:
What happened to that first point, that you were lying about there being no counterpoint


What this?:

Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

Well, for one, Ad Nauseum isn't a fallacy when there's no real counterpoint to begin with


I probably should have said "The counterpoint either doesn't address the point, or doesn't appear to" because that would be more accurate than to say there wasn't a counterpoint. In any case, I wasn't "lying." The point was simply that even if what you were referring to was repititious(which you still haven't demonstrated it to be), it would not necessarily be fallacious. Like when I dismiss childish untrue personal attacks as being untrue over and over, that is indeed Ad Nauseum, but not fallacious.

irritus wrote:
when you rattled off some bullshit about how it's not argumentum ad nauseam if you have a really good excuse for not listening?


I proved it wasn't Ad Nauseum, you have not proven it was. And what's with your erroeous accusation of not listening?

irritus wrote:
Do you think the dodge you made in response the the second point somehow nullified your mischaracterization of my argument?


Edited- Actually, if you're saying I "dodged" the point that there was a counterpoint I wasn't. You ever think maybe when someone stops arguing it's because they realized you were right, not cus they were dodging?

irritus wrote:
As for the second point, what happened to the entire rest of your repetitious argument? I'm somewhat amazed you pulled three dissimilar sentences out of your posts as if that was the only thing you could have been repeating.


Then point to what I had been repeating instead of just making the accusation Ad Nauseum. Surely if I repeated myself you would be able to prove it.

irritus wrote:
I don't even know why I am wasting my time trying to talk to you. You don't evaluate what you're responding to, you just look for crumbs to disagree with as if having something contrary to say to a part is the same as being correct for opposing the whole.


Erroneous personal attack. Simply because I do not say what you think I should does not make your accusation true.
_________________
I've got good news:

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chaos Revenant
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:41 am  Reply with quote
TARGET


Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 907
Location: The World Wide Warp

Good Chaos, you guys talk WAAAAAAAAAY too much for your own good.
_________________
Chaos Revenant:
Doing What You Don't Have The Guts To Since 2006
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irritus
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:10 pm  Reply with quote
Abusive Admin


Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude

Chaos Revenant wrote:
Good Chaos, you guys talk WAAAAAAAAAY too much for your own good.
The main difference being I realized that and stopped talking.
_________________

Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chaos Revenant
PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:08 am  Reply with quote
TARGET


Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 907
Location: The World Wide Warp

irritus wrote:
Chaos Revenant wrote:
Good Chaos, you guys talk WAAAAAAAAAY too much for your own good.
The main difference being I realized that and stopped talking.


I see.

Still, I guess there is some merit to the endless banter. Life would be soooo much more boring on these forums if there were no witty banter or mile-long debates.
_________________
Chaos Revenant:
Doing What You Don't Have The Guts To Since 2006
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fractalfeline
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:56 am  Reply with quote
Lurker


Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Posts: 6

Which conjures the desperate tactic: Fake Own Death. You can get attention whoring all over the place, and leave a truly useless forum (crappy people, or your rep is shite), all in one neat package. Establish a few sock puppet "friends" who you force to say "Don't you miss SoAndSo" after your engineered passing, and the endless pity party ensues.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bossk
PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:57 pm  Reply with quote
Lurker


Joined: 13 Apr 2010
Posts: 1

I saw something similar to this happen on a forum (I'll see if I can find the thread). The user "who had died" claimed to be a friend using his account. He said that the user had died of a heart attack but had spoken about all of the other users on the forum before hand. He shared the guy's last words about them all. It was very sad and only one person thought it was a fake (that person was loathed by all due to that). Eventually, the thread ended.

A month later the user posted. Someone pointed that he had died and suddenly everything came crashing down. He immediately claimed he hadn't made that thread and that someone had hacked his account and made it. The skeptic never played this down, pointing out in future debates he was the only person smart enough to know the guy wasn't dead.
_________________
I classify myself as a fallen Big Cat who seeks to rise up again to his former glory. That or a Space Marine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FXMastermind
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:47 pm  Reply with quote
Post Apocalypse


Joined: 04 Aug 2007
Posts: 1003
Location: Andaman Island

Wow, I was just going to post in this thread to bump the latest spammer thread (die motherfuckers, die) and had a nostalgic walk down memory lane.

Wow. I've seen a few real life incidents, where a well know and liked person died. there are even memory threads for them permanently on the forums.
_________________
-
--
---
----
---
--
-
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Profit Counter
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:11 pm  Reply with quote
Caffiene Junkie


Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 417
Location: Fighting the Klingons near Uranus.

I've gone through one of these myself, it was pretty sad, because this kid I knew on another forum who died was so young. He was about my age. There's a memorial there, and the site made a big donation to Make a Wish.
On a related note, if a death occurs to someone in an online game, there is a chance that raiders will attempt to bomb any virtual funeral held in that game for shits and giggles. Serenity Now's bombing of a WoW funeral is the most notorious instance, but there are others.
_________________

I'm Sisi's entertainment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
All times are GMT - 6 Hours

View next topic
View previous topic
Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Flame Warriors Forum Index  >  Art of Flame War

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB and NoseBleed -->