If a site owner objects to any material of course the material has a good chance of being flushed. Objecting to it is a waste of time although I see it occur on other sites usually before the member objecting follows their material.

The material already down the gurgler is one thing, the understanding why, for me, another. Without being able to discuss the recently deleted thread or posts made within the thread as examples I’m struggling a bit.

What is flaming (a word I have only ever heard on OLO)?

Is it outright abuse or a personal attack or both? More definitions?

What are personal agendas?

Can personal agendas be of interest to everyone and worth discussing even after being labeled as one?

Can a personal agenda evolve into a group agenda or a matter of interest to many and then be purely labeled as an interesting topic?

What is defamation, or how is it applied on a site like this?

Can ones personal circumstances lead to a conversation that many would like to voice an opinion on and a debate evolve?

I know that has happened so maybe I need the word “agenda” put in OLO context?

Do we have Rules listed somewhere?

I was away for a year until a few days ago, maybe in that time things changed and I didn’t notice? Flaming, slander and outright nastiness, at times, were generally accepted as all part of the OLO debate process, this seemed to pretty accurately reflect debate in action globally. People demanding posts be removed were ignored, users screaming to be deleted landed on deaf ears. I remembered it all quite fondly.

Are both flaming and personal agendas in the eye of the beholder or a commonly held definition by the majority here?

Welcome back Piper! Sorry I missed all the fun.

What are personal agendas?

Every agenda is personal!

'Can ones personal circumstances lead to a conversation that many would like to voice an opinion on and a debate evolve?'

One would hope. There's noting more fun than judgemental gossip!

'Flaming, slander and outright nastiness, at times, were generally accepted as all part of the OLO debate process'

Ah, those were the days. I think I have let the site down really, I have mellowed so much as to become unrecognisable. I am on the cusp of retirement, considering a new incarnation (re-inventing myself, Madonna style) but all may be on hold if posters of the quality of the Piper (and of course Col Rouge) reignite my enthusiasm.

As I understand it according to information that I found on the web -
"flaming is a long standing network tradition. Flames can be lots of fun, both to write and read and the recipients of flames sometimes deserve the heat. However when this grows into a series of angry
letters between two people directed at each other it can dominate the tone and destroy the comaraderie of a discussion group. And while flame wars can initially be amusing they get boring very quickly to people who aren't involved in them. They're an unfair monopolization of forums."

An Editor or Moderator has to make a decision on how much they are going to allow. If a dissenting view is relevant to the discussion and argued in a constructive way then of course they resist editing. However if posts are clearly designed to disrupt the Forum - then yes action needs to be taken.

The art of resoned intelligent argument is a skill not easily acquired. I am still learning. However, I have learned from my past experience that it is better to keep things impersonal and stick to the discussion topic and if personal insults are being hurled don't react - simply ignore them. Bullies want you to explain yourself - you don't need to fall for that. There are rules of behaviour on this Forum - simply look them up. Also you may want to google
"What is a troll?" - in regards to the question about agendas.

A comment I made recently was deleted for 'flaming' so I learnt for the first time what defines a flame. Calling someone an idiot was my crime and it was rightly deleted. Maybe we all need a holiday from OLO from time to time so old sparring partners and perceived injustices in recurring themes that stir the passions don't get out of hand. :)

Fact is we can all debate without name calling - some people prefer to play the man instead of the ball. Sometimes it happens before we even know we have done it ourselves - it is human nature to make assumptions about people based on regular comments and attitudes on specific issues.

TPP I have never found your posts to be vitriolic so whatever you are doing seems fine, differing opinions is the substance of OLO.

Houel you honey of a man, one of my favorite people even when giving me a giant telling off or critiquing one of my more fluffy posts. I doubt you’ve softened and I will not fall for this disguise – the wolf is always there.

Col, now there was the master of the cruel and cutting remark, he was a shining star in the world of debate and unchained opinions. At times there was a feral quality to his posts that first made me want to gently prod them through the bars with a stick to make sure they had stopped trying to chew off their own foot. Much time was spent with dictionary in hand as it slowly dawned on me just how badly I had been insulted, which by the time I got to the end usually felt like a thorough assault.

I do prefer to leap right into making a judgment and insist the judged prove it wrong, I find it saves time rather than the slow polite build up of civilized conversation and understanding. It’s not easy being me I tell you.

You may be right about agendas Houel, outside of debating clubs where they are handed a topic, why would anyone here throw an opinion out there just to see how the cookie crumbled?

I hadn’t thought about it, if anyone here is doing it could they explain why, it would be appreciated.

Lexi your comment is interesting, monopolizing is boring agreed but what is “boring” is rather individual isn’t it? I read the rules, they seem incomplete and lack definition for my understanding, hence the thread. I’m not being deliberately dense but want a general explanation from OLO and not from a random google search. OLO is a community and I want OLO answers.

Dear Pelican

Your 'flame' was a comment on the behaviour of the man who heckled John Howard by throwing shoes at the former PM on the Q and A show. I always thought that flaming was personal insults directed at other posters.

Now I am really confused. Does that mean we can't comment on anyone?

________________________________

Welcome back Pied Piper - you may remember me as Fractelle.

There are forum rules on OLO - why don't you just check them out? OK - I read them ages ago and they haven't remotely helped me stay on the good side of the powers-that-be - but then no-one is perfect.

;)