Requiem for a Flameboard

[Mishaela]

Admittedly (and I'm sure this'll piss several dozen people off), I'll hafto say that the only time Pere's flamed vs people from what I've seen was on the FB or if someone else started it first...though I could be wrong, I don't read all topics. And unfortunately, I don't have the time to read all 13 pages of this. But very, very well put first post, Cubs.

 

[Bajaratt]

Peregrine started a few flames on his own, and the rest he just derailed on his own. It always started with people telling him he was wrong and showing why, but then descended into a flame because he lacks arguing skills.

 

[Raesvelg]

Peregrine started a few flames on his own, and the rest he just derailed on his own. It always started with people telling him he was wrong and showing why, but then descended into a flame because he lacks arguing skills.

From what I saw, mostly it devolved into a flame because, sadly, people would either follow him to the thread to flame him, or attempt to provoke a flame from him with snide comments. On rare occasions the situation was reversed, but mostly Pere acted as a flame magnet rather than an actual instigator.

And oddly enough, that's exactly the sort of thing that Sculli seems to want to do away with.

 

[Bajaratt]

From what I saw, mostly it devolved into a flame because, sadly, people would either follow him to the thread to flame him, or attempt to provoke a flame from him with snide comments. On rare occasions the situation was reversed, but mostly Pere acted as a flame magnet rather than an actual instigator.

And oddly enough, that's exactly the sort of thing that Sculli seems to want to do away with.

Sorry, but you must not have seen many/any of those threads. It was usually people who were already involved in the thread who started disagreeing with him and then it delved into a flame after he starting posting things designed to derail the thread. More people would chime in as time went on, but he was the instigator the vast majority of the time. The threads fell into insults when his inability to argue pissed people off.

Getting rid of the people who instigate the flames would have been a better start.

 

[Raesvelg]

Sorry, but you must not have seen many/any of those threads. It was usually people who were already involved in the thread who started disagreeing with him and then it delved into a flame after he starting posting things designed to derail the thread. More people would chime in as time went on, but he was the instigator the vast majority of the time. The threads fell into insults when his inability to argue pissed people off.

Getting rid of the people who instigate the flames would have been a better start.

I saw enough. Post happens, discussion ensues, Pere comes on and posts a differing view, instant flames. Flames with content maybe, but flames nonetheless. Pere posts again, more flames, with various flameboard cronies coming in mutual support. Rinse, repeat. Did Pere flame? Yes. Was he flamed for existing far more often? Also yes.

 

[Marajade]

From what I saw, mostly it devolved into a flame because, sadly, people would either follow him to the thread to flame him, or attempt to provoke a flame from him with snide comments. On rare occasions the situation was reversed, but mostly Pere acted as a flame magnet rather than an actual instigator.

And oddly enough, that's exactly the sort of thing that Sculli seems to want to do away with.

For about 2 pages from the derail, it was actual discussion with him. But after that its just easp pickings since he'd already lost and didnt see it.

Eventualy that just got shorter and shorter because it was already clear from previous experiences that he just will not accept himself as being wrong, so we just started off the bat with the shoot-down posts, rather than attempting to argue with him.
If you're looking for the real arguments with him, look back 2 months. Altho the Algol thread had the factual arguments at the start too. But once again, generaly devolved into everyone smacking him around for fun.

-Edited for new post.

I saw enough. Post happens, discussion ensues, Pere comes on and posts a differing view, instant flames. Flames with content maybe, but flames nonetheless. Pere posts again, more flames, with various flameboard cronies coming in mutual support. Rinse, repeat. Did Pere flame? Yes. Was he flamed for existing far more often? Also yes.

As i said, after a while, we just started off on the assumption that he was talking out of his digestive tract, and ran with it. I'd reference the threads with the real discussion, but the FB is gone and i'm unable.

 

[Sneakypants]

Sounds like you did miss the posts of his that solicited such an overwhealming response towards him time and time again.

 

[Mishaela]

Sounds like you did miss the posts of his that solicited such an overwhealming response towards him time and time again.

It's likely, but wether I like someone or not shouldn't effect wether I respect what they're currently discussing. Yeah, I've had a fair share of tiffs and a shameful moment or two but really, if I went blowing off every single person after just one arguement or disagreement on view, I'd probably be ignoring alot more people right now. =P But then again I've always been told I'm too forgiving of some crap...

 

[Lavi]

Correct. Anyone with a dissenting opinion to Peregrine is a "fanboy". Although "fanboy" is the combination of fan and boy, I really don't understand the purpose. None of the people the comment was directed at really seemed to be big fans of Pere. Or perhaps they are fans of just making arguments that differ from Pere? At any rate, it was his attempt at an insult and he is as much the type QCDN no longer wants to attract as anyone else. Isn't also kind of funny, his first post was also in the FB if I am not mistaken.

Anyways, back to topic.

I really don't know what removing the FB is expected to accomplish. Removing the FB and attempting to make the forums friendly just won't work. People do not have any intentions of sharing anything game related if they can avoid doing so. Take the Feel Like Sharing a ToD? Thread as a prime example. That thread has been there for months and nothing usefull has ever come of it. Instead, you allow people to crap on it and waste what could be a fruitful idea. That's IF people agreed with the intentions of the thread. Instead, it seems a majority disagree and have no intentions of helping fellow members.

What do you think adding these new forums will accomplish? End-game Discussion? That actually makes me laugh. I'm not sharing any ToD. I have no intention of telling people when I camp. I have intentions of telling people anything if it doesn't benefit me directly. There is no reason for me to do so. I'm not greedy. I'm not being an ass. This is how I protect myself and my LS' interests. Why would I tell people when I farm? So they can find out I make a killing farming that day and CC me making it worse? Why tell people my strategies? Information is power and the less people with it, means the more power I have. This is the way things are. This is the way things will be. Why do you think every end game LS has private forums? So they can talk about strategies, set private (keyword) meetings and times for farming/LS events. Granted, it's sometimes wise to schedule so things do not conflict; however, the less I need to tell others, the better.

Neighborhood Watch? It's the FB, but worse. You allow people to make small claims and have others back up what's probably a trivial story to smear an otherwise good person's name. Permanently. People always remember the bad and rarely remember the good. Like Sire said, it's a watered down FB, but at least the FB has some form of discussion. All the NW has is some vindictive players pointing the fingers at others. Is it a good idea? Maybe. Is it a bad idea? Probably.

 

[Prothall]

The flameboard served multiple purposes that other boards will not be able to compensate for. It warned people about shady players/ls, it allowed people to vent, and most importantly it was a source of entertainment. It seems with this neighborhood watch board is that you are looking for is a way for people to say something bad about another player but in a way that doesnt hurt their feeling. Sorry, but that is ridiculous. That is just a water-downed flame, but it will have the effect of hurting the flamee's feeling. Only difference is that the flamed person has to be nice to whoever flamed, excuse me, neighborhood-watched him.

There is a clear difference between the neighborhood watch. On NW, you tell it like it is our your thread gets deleted. On FB you could say whatever you wanted. Also, ever heard of some constructive criticism?

 

[Mishaela]

Take the Feel Like Sharing a ToD? Thread as a prime example. That thread has been there for months and nothing usefull has ever come of it. Instead, you allow people to crap on it and waste what could be a fruitful idea. That's IF people agreed with the intentions of the thread. Instead, it seems a majority disagree and have no intentions of helping fellow members.

That's because most things people camp, will just give ToD to a friend that needs instead of posting it to the public. Hell, people know I camp Shikigami on an off, and I could post it's ToD r i g h t n o w . . .
...But won't. And if I ever even get the drop, I'd probably go giving the ToD or Zaltana or Sabia (though I think she got hers a while ago. Hate you Sabs <3)

What do you think adding these new forums will accomplish? End-game Discussion? That actually makes me laugh. I'm not sharing any ToD. I have no intention of telling people when I camp. I have intentions of telling people anything if it doesn't benefit me directly. There is no reason for me to do so. I'm not greedy. I'm not being an ass. This is how I protect myself and my LS' interests.

That IS greedy! ^^; But really, it's only logical that people wouldn't share crap when all it'd do is hurt themselves in an already (possibly) difficult situation.

Information is power and the less people with it, means the more power I have. This is the way things are.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. :wink:

Neighborhood Watch? It's the FB, but worse. You allow people to make small claims and have others back up what's probably a trivial story to smear an otherwise good person's name. Permanently. People always remember the bad and rarely remember the good. Like Sire said, it's a watered down FB, but at least the FB has some form of discussion. All the NW has is some vindictive monkeys pointing the fingers at others. Is it a good idea? Maybe. Is it a bad idea? Probably.

Fixed. And yeah, it's pretty much just an FB where no one can give feedback, just supposed witnesses giving yes/nos to circumstances...also, this board lacks the ability to vent about real-life things (unless that goes into "Reality Sinks In..." now, but that place doesn't allow arguements of any sort.), which I find to be of great loss. I enjoyed watching seeing people argue tooth-and-nail for what they believed in during the religion thread, or people agreeing on the problems with gas tax hikes and such...but it'd seem that that stuff is bad for the board, too. We should all be happy little nerds, humping our computer monitors for FFXIy goodness.

 

[Bajaratt]

There is a clear difference between the neighborhood watch. On NW, you tell it like it is our your thread gets deleted. On FB you could say whatever you wanted. Also, ever heard of some constructive criticism?

So basically, the recreated the flameboard, but they're actually going to moderate this one for content; people wanted them to step up moderation for the flameboard. That's essentially what they're doing, along with forcing everyone to be polite and get along or they're banned.

 

[Sirelrohir]

There is a clear difference between the neighborhood watch. On NW, you tell it like it is our your thread gets deleted. On FB you could say whatever you wanted. Also, ever heard of some constructive criticism?

I am going to have to disagree with you here. The flameboard, you tell it how you PERCIEVE it is. Same with the nw. The person doing the 'watching' percieves something wrong has been done to them and posts. There is absolutly no difference in the two, other then you have to flame each other in a nice way.

Yes, i have heard of constructive criticism. Do you honestly believe that the NW will help with this? No, it wont, b/c the people being criticized will take it as an attack on them, and will want to defend themselves.

 

[Lavi]

There is a clear difference between the neighborhood watch. On NW, you tell it like it is our your thread gets deleted. On FB you could say whatever you wanted. Also, ever heard of some constructive criticism?

Who is to say, I am saying it like it is or not? You? What proof? Do you even need proof? So far NOT ONE PERSON has provided any nor are they required to. Then what happens if that person changes? What if it wasn't even that person? Another -Shaw-/Shaw incident? This is why this idea never got off the ground the million times before. People change. People have bad days. You cannot be expected to post their names and tarnish their reputation on small meaningless events for the duration of their game.

However, those who are willing and able to learn should not have to fear making an uneducated statement and being condemned for the rest of their FFXI life for it.

Ironic that you should say this and make a Neighborhood watch which basically condemns players for the rest of their FFXI lives for a mistake. You post their name for people to attack and ruin their fun. How is this any different from a FB? Oh, it's a friendly FB where people don't hurt each other's feelings. Quite different.

 

[Bajaratt]

I saw enough. Post happens, discussion ensues, Pere comes on and posts a differing view, instant flames. Flames with content maybe, but flames nonetheless. Pere posts again, more flames, with various flameboard cronies coming in mutual support. Rinse, repeat. Did Pere flame? Yes. Was he flamed for existing far more often? Also yes.

As others have pointed out, people just stopped trying to give any credence to whatever he said; because of his post history. Even now, there's usually several posts that try to argue with him, but he dudges the thread into a flame; and everyone knew he would do it so they argued less and less before just flaming him. It's that whole "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me," thing; but in this case it's more like he was given 5-6 chances to not derail a thread into a flame and each time that's exactly what happened. It's not people's fault for pattern recognition.

 

[Raesvelg]

As others have pointed out, people just stopped trying to give any credence to whatever he said; because of his post history. Even now, there's usually several posts that try to argue with him, but he dudges the thread into a flame; and everyone knew he would do it so they argued less and less before just flaming him. It's that whole "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me," thing; but in this case it's more like he was given 5-6 chances to not derail a thread into a flame and each time that's exactly what happened. It's not people's fault for pattern recognition.

You stopped the very first time he was involved in a flameboard topic and continued to carry that grudge everywhere else you went.

If you dislike him so much, you should have simply IGNORED HIM. If he's talking total nonsense, nobody is going to believe him anyway, and there's no need to run around making snide comments every time you see the name "Peregrine".

On the whole, that whole situation was almost Pavlovian in nature.

 

[Prothall]

I am going to have to disagree with you here. The flameboard, you tell it how you PERCIEVE it is. Same with the nw. The person doing the 'watching' percieves something wrong has been done to them and posts. There is absolutly no difference in the two, other then you have to flame each other in a nice way.

Yes, i have heard of constructive criticism. Do you honestly believe that the NW will help with this? No, it wont, b/c the people being criticized will take it as an attack on them, and will want to defend themselves.

I think bajaratt said it best where it's like a flameboard, but without the meaningless crap in there. What weight do responses like "yeah that really sucks it happened to you" and "You suck balls" actually carry? Those are the type of posts being removed to clean it up a bit.

 

[Mishaela]

I think bajaratt said it best where it's like a flameboard, but without the meaningless crap in there. What weight do responses like "yeah that really sucks it happened to you" and "You suck balls" actually carry? Those are the type of posts being removed to clean it up a bit.

True, but now we can't even give feedback and/or support for the matter. You DO know that's what posting on a bulletin board would be for, right? Feedback? Odd concept...

Can't vent about gas prices, or complain about that weird nerdy kid who smells like burnt toast stalking me, nor the drunk guy who ran over a girl and got off scot free because he plead some disability sh-!t. Now it's only finger-pointing about game-based stuff; nothing RL-based (since the RSI forum doesn't allow arguements)...

Just...meh...I'm talking in circles...

 

[Bajaratt]

You stopped the very first time he was involved in a flameboard topic and continued to carry that grudge everywhere else you went.

If you dislike him so much, you should have simply IGNORED HIM. If he's talking total nonsense, nobody is going to believe him anyway, and there's no need to run around making snide comments every time you see the name "Peregrine".

On the whole, that whole situation was almost Pavlovian in nature.

Now I know you haven't actually read his post history or the responses to it. I'm one of the last ones to just resort to insults for anyone, I always throw logic at them first; but for some people it never sticks.

It's not pavlovian in that as soon as he posts there's not an instant flame on him. People still try reason but resort to flames when he refuses to listen. A good example is the thread he made about someone insulting him in /tells using a mule. If I had a Pavlovian response, then I would have immedaitely flamed him or even responded. I didn't post in the topic because I happened to agree with him, I hate when people do that kind of thing. The only reason that I did respond when I eventually did, was because he had basically removed any public support with his asinine accusations and argumentitive style.

This is why I don't like the new shape these boards are taking. Because I don't like someone, now I'm suddenly in the wrong; regardless of the fact that I might have a reason for not liking someone. The new rules are basically forcing people to lose any personality and uniqueness, just post bland crap that shows no humanity at all; be a robot. This doesn't mean tht the flameboard was the essence of expression for the boards, far from it; but with the removal of the flameboard cam the new rules and those rules pretty much state anything that isn't warm and fuzzy is a flame and you get punished for it.

 

[Sirelrohir]

I think bajaratt said it best where it's like a flameboard, but without the meaningless crap in there. What weight do responses like "yeah that really sucks it happened to you" and "You suck balls" actually carry? Those are the type of posts being removed to clean it up a bit.

I agree that those posts had no meaning. However, i think alot of people are upset due to some of the content that has no place else to go. Threads such as the blm nerf, or the religous one, or the political one from a long time ago were very good threads where people could express how they REALLY felt about those issues. To be honest, I dont even read half the 'omg, so and so sucks balls' thread, unless I am recruiting someone, then I look at qcdn as a reference (this doesnt over-ride word of mouth tho).