ISCA: IscaBBS Policy DiscussionThe ISCABBS forum: IscaBBS Policy Discussion(Tanj46899) - A lot of time an energy has been spent trying to define what a flame is, and- June 11, 2008 A lot of time an energy has been spent trying to define what a flame is, and trying users who are intent on stirring up muck trying to get around those definitions in a technical manner. If your statement is both inflammatory and is irrelevent to constructive discussion, then it&39;s a flame. But relevance isn&39;t always an automatic indicator of non-flame; it has to do with tone, number of times repeated, and so on. That why ISCABBS has FM&39;s; there is no objective way to classify posts..http://rss.iscabbs.com/getpost.cgi?forum=84&post=46899 (Dazed46900) - It's not inflammatory either.- June 11, 2008 It&39;s not inflammatory either.http://rss.iscabbs.com/getpost.cgi?forum=84&post=46900 (Rainmaker46898) - Right...but are you saying it isn't a flame because it isn't a fact- June 11, 2008 Right...but are you saying it isn&39;t a flame because it isn&39;t a fact Tanj said it is irrelevant whether it is a fact or not - if it inflames, it is a flame.http://rss.iscabbs.com/getpost.cgi?forum=84&post=46898 (Dazed46897) - Well, that statement is not fact, moreso an opinion, and not a flame.- June 11, 2008 Well, that statement is not fact, moreso an opinion, and not a flame.http://rss.iscabbs.com/getpost.cgi?forum=84&post=46897 (Rainmaker46896) - So if statement of any factopinion is "inflamatory" - it is a flame- June 11, 2008 So if statement of any factopinion is "inflamatory" - it is a flame So if someone posted "I think the Iraq war is wrong and we should penalize any soldier who willfully serves"...and that (rightfully so) infuriates and inflames the military audience on the BBS - it is a flamehttp://rss.iscabbs.com/getpost.cgi?forum=84&post=46896 (Tanj46895) - Flames are, generally, considered to be comments designed to be inflammatory- June 11, 2008 Flames are, generally, considered to be comments designed to be inflammatory and non-contributory to the discussion, regardless of truth or falsehood. In answer to your question, truth is not at all a valid defense against flaming violations.http://rss.iscabbs.com/getpost.cgi?forum=84&post=46895 (Rainmaker46894) - General question regarding isca policy.- June 11, 2008 General question regarding isca policy. Is "the truth" a valid defense against "flaming" violations I&39;m not in trouble (right now at least!!) but have wondered this in the past. Is a flame anything that is hurtfulmean (regardless of truth) or just a fictitious statement that causes "damage" on the BBS If it is something that can be quantified and validated - can it still be a flame For instance, if I get mad and call someone a "loser" in most...http://rss.iscabbs.com/getpost.cgi?forum=84&post=46894 (Chris46893) - Actually, yeah, there is. There's policy. An FM can't delete ANY speech they- June 5, 2008 Actually, yeah, there is. There&39;s policy. An FM can&39;t delete ANY speech they want as "disruptive," it doesn&39;t work that way. "Dispruptive" means something, and you can find this in the policy helpfile.http://rss.iscabbs.com/getpost.cgi?forum=84&post=46893 (Paladin Grendel46892) - As Chris has pointed out in Race>, ISCAbbs is a private insititution. there's- June 5, 2008 As Chris has pointed out in Race>, ISCAbbs is a private insititution. there&39;s no free speech, and no fairness. If FM can delete any speech they want as "disruptive", there&39;s no rule that SysOps have to be "fair" and not change his password without his consent.http://rss.iscabbs.com/getpost.cgi?forum=84&post=46892 (Amaranth46891) - good point, KAM- June 4, 2008 good point, KAMhttp://rss.iscabbs.com/getpost.cgi?forum=84&post=46891 |