Flaming

[Esther4:14]

Here is a good article on the subject of flaming.  I am somewhat new to the world of message boards and I have heard this word thrown around here and there and I know it is even included in the terms of service that says flaming isn't allowed, but that doesn't mean that I really understood what it meant to realize that this is the definition of how someone was posting in response to something I said.  I have been hopeful at times that it would be possible to have a discussion where I could respond and try to convey my motivations that have not been met without positive outcomes, and this leaves me just feeling very disappointed, especially when multiple people join the party.  So, I wanted to point out the definition of flaming in case there are other people that are left feeling confused by the responses of others like myself.  http://techterms.com/definition/flaming

"Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life," (Proverbs 13:12).   

 

[MorningGlory]

6 minutes ago, Esther4:14 said:

Here is a good article on the subject of flaming.  I am somewhat new to the world of message boards and I have heard this word thrown around here and there and I know it is even included in the terms of service that says flaming isn't allowed, but that doesn't mean that I really understood what it meant to realize that this is the definition of how someone was posting in response to something I said.  I have been hopeful at times that it would be possible to have a discussion where I could respond and try to convey my motivations that have not been met without positive outcomes, and this leaves me just feeling very disappointed, especially when multiple people join the party.  So, I wanted to point out the definition of flaming in case there are other people that are left feeling confused by the responses of others like myself.  http://techterms.com/definition/flaming

"Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life," (Proverbs 13:12).   

 

Any time there is flaming going on here at Worthy, the mods are sure to shut down or delete the offensive posts.  I have never been flamed here but, on other sites, Katy bar the door; it can get pretty bad. 

[Esther4:14]

7 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

Any time there is flaming going on here at Worthy, the mods are sure to shut down or delete the offensive posts.  I have never been flamed here but, on other sites, Katy bar the door; it can get pretty bad. 

I think there is a lot of mild flaming that goes on here that can be a difficult call for the moderators to remove it completely.  So people may remain unclear of the definition because it is possibly that we take for granted what the moderators are responsible for and assume that they will take care of it.  Therefore, we try to moderate our way of thinking to include that the way someone is addressing a subject is okay because otherwise it would be removed.  

The instances that I consider mild forms of flaming, I do not think I would delete the post if I were in the moderators shoes the post; however, this still does not mean they don't have a harmful effect on the people who are engaged in discussion.  Therefore, I don't consider it the moderators responsibility to address it in every case.  I think we need to be more aware as a community of what the definition is so that we are growing in our capacity to show self control as Christians.  

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law" (Galatians 5:22-23).  

I think this is definitely part of a learning curve for participating in an online community.  In real life, when I am talking with a friend about something at a coffee shop, the barista who disagrees with what I am saying doesn't jump in with a statement of disagreement.  So, there are challenges to being in a setting online that doesn't really exist in real life.  

So, I think it is kind of shock at first to have your barista come along and have something to say about where you are in your walk of faith, so to speak.  In adjusting to this, we may engage in behavior that borders on breaking the rules without actually breaking the rules and think that this behavior is okay because there are no consequences, and it is not as though I think there should be.  I don't think that it is something to discipline.  I think it is a subject that we need to become more familiar with in order to have a more productive environment and more positive discussions.  

[missmuffet]

I think there is a difference between flaming and disagreement with a person's view of theology. Worthy is a Christian message board so you are going to see less verbal abuse than you see on a secular message board.

[MorningGlory]

29 minutes ago, Esther4:14 said:

I think there is a lot of mild flaming that goes on here that can be a difficult call for the moderators to remove it completely.  So people may remain unclear of the definition because it is possibly that we take for granted what the moderators are responsible for and assume that they will take care of it.  Therefore, we try to moderate our way of thinking to include that the way someone is addressing a subject is okay because otherwise it would be removed.  

The instances that I consider mild forms of flaming, I do not think I would delete the post if I were in the moderators shoes the post; however, this still does not mean they don't have a harmful effect on the people who are engaged in discussion.  Therefore, I don't consider it the moderators responsibility to address it in every case.  I think we need to be more aware as a community of what the definition is so that we are growing in our capacity to show self control as Christians.  

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law" (Galatians 5:22-23).  

I think this is definitely part of a learning curve for participating in an online community.  In real life, when I am talking with a friend about something at a coffee shop, the barista who disagrees with what I am saying doesn't jump in with a statement of disagreement.  So, there are challenges to being in a setting online that doesn't really exist in real life.  

So, I think it is kind of shock at first to have your barista come along and have something to say about where you are in your walk of faith, so to speak.  In adjusting to this, we may engage in behavior that borders on breaking the rules without actually breaking the rules and think that this behavior is okay because there are no consequences, and it is not as though I think there should be.  I don't think that it is something to discipline.  I think it is a subject that we need to become more familiar with in order to have a more productive environment and more positive discussions.  

Well I agree that the mods can't monitor everything; that would be impossible.  Being a public Christian message board means that many, many different personalities are going to post and give their opinions and, yes, are going to disagree with the opinions of others.  People will jump into a discussion with both feet even if it's been going on for a long time.  That's just the way it works.  If anyone wants a private conversation it should be taken to PM.  I'm against flaming but I have to state the obvious; you're going to have people disagreeing with you if you post here.  But you shouldn't have people calling you names or attacking you personally. Online discussions are often too stressful for some people and I understand that.  We can't change others so we have to work on ourselves.

[Esther4:14]

2 hours ago, bopeep1909 said:

I think there is a difference between flaming and disagreement with a person's view of theology. Worthy is a Christian message board so you are going to see less verbal abuse than you see on a secular message board.

I don't think flaming requires verbal abuse all the time, but that it also describes times when you are having a discussion with someone, you know they don't agree, and yet the thread continues and continues and continues; and there ends up being no way to stop the continual reiteration of a disagreement.  At a certain point, as a Christian, I have to just be okay with saying "I already know you disagree, I don't need to keep telling you in this thread that I disagree with what you are saying," and continue the conversation that is now a flame.  

I believe flaming can be when there is a disagreement, which is fine, that continues on over and over and over again.  I can accept that someone disagrees with me.  I don't feel like I have to be forced to accept that because someone disagrees with me that I have to accept the continual disregard for the content in the discussion post I present just because this is a forum where people are prone to find they disagree on certain subjects.  I think that just becomes people's excuse.  It is very easy to still find a way to value what a person you are disagreeing with is saying by trying to find someway to balance the argument in disagreement with something encouraging.  The absence of this and the continued disregard for the content that people present, whether we agree or not, I would consider mild flaming as well because it still leaves someone cornered without some degree of content to continue a respectful conversation with.  And, disrespect for other posters, can come through our words whether we think it can or not.  There are times when I am reading some posts where I just feel like all someone has said is "how are you so stupid," in a very detailed analysis of scripture that ends up being applauded no matter how belittling the tone of the post was.  

In conclusion, I don't think the definition of flaming suggests that there only be verbal abuse present.  I think flaming is a matter of tone and knowing when to say when as well.  

[missmuffet]

38 minutes ago, Esther4:14 said:

I don't think flaming requires verbal abuse all the time, but that it also describes times when you are having a discussion with someone, you know they don't agree, and yet the thread continues and continues and continues; and there ends up being no way to stop the continual reiteration of a disagreement.  At a certain point, as a Christian, I have to just be okay with saying "I already know you disagree, I don't need to keep telling you in this thread that I disagree with what you are saying," and continue the conversation that is now a flame.  

I believe flaming can be when there is a disagreement, which is fine, that continues on over and over and over again.  I can accept that someone disagrees with me.  I don't feel like I have to be forced to accept that because someone disagrees with me that I have to accept the continual disregard for the content in the discussion post I present just because this is a forum where people are prone to find they disagree on certain subjects.  I think that just becomes people's excuse.  It is very easy to still find a way to value what a person you are disagreeing with is saying by trying to find someway to balance the argument in disagreement with something encouraging.  The absence of this and the continued disregard for the content that people present, whether we agree or not, I would consider mild flaming as well because it still leaves someone cornered without some degree of content to continue a respectful conversation with.  And, disrespect for other posters, can come through our words whether we think it can or not.  There are times when I am reading some posts where I just feel like all someone has said is "how are you so stupid," in a very detailed analysis of scripture that ends up being applauded no matter how belittling the tone of the post was.  

In conclusion, I don't think the definition of flaming suggests that there only be verbal abuse present.  I think flaming is a matter of tone and knowing when to say when as well.  

Some people just like to get the last word in.

[MorningGlory]

1 hour ago, Esther4:14 said:

I don't think flaming requires verbal abuse all the time, but that it also describes times when you are having a discussion with someone, you know they don't agree, and yet the thread continues and continues and continues; and there ends up being no way to stop the continual reiteration of a disagreement.  At a certain point, as a Christian, I have to just be okay with saying "I already know you disagree, I don't need to keep telling you in this thread that I disagree with what you are saying," and continue the conversation that is now a flame.  

I believe flaming can be when there is a disagreement, which is fine, that continues on over and over and over again.  I can accept that someone disagrees with me.  I don't feel like I have to be forced to accept that because someone disagrees with me that I have to accept the continual disregard for the content in the discussion post I present just because this is a forum where people are prone to find they disagree on certain subjects.  I think that just becomes people's excuse.  It is very easy to still find a way to value what a person you are disagreeing with is saying by trying to find someway to balance the argument in disagreement with something encouraging.  The absence of this and the continued disregard for the content that people present, whether we agree or not, I would consider mild flaming as well because it still leaves someone cornered without some degree of content to continue a respectful conversation with.  And, disrespect for other posters, can come through our words whether we think it can or not.  There are times when I am reading some posts where I just feel like all someone has said is "how are you so stupid," in a very detailed analysis of scripture that ends up being applauded no matter how belittling the tone of the post was.  

In conclusion, I don't think the definition of flaming suggests that there only be verbal abuse present.  I think flaming is a matter of tone and knowing when to say when as well.  

Esther, let me put this as diplomatically as possible; if you think what goes on here is 'flaming' I hope you never get involved with some discussion boards I've been on.  You simply can't dictate what people say or don't say so we all have to either respond or not respond.  It's really that simple.  I, personally, walk away from threads that make me crazy; it's not worth the headaches.  If there are posters that make me crazy I simply never engage with them.  IOW, don't let a discussion board give you a migraine.

[Esther4:14]

1 hour ago, MorningGlory said:

Esther, let me put this as diplomatically as possible; if you think what goes on here is 'flaming' I hope you never get involved with some discussion boards I've been on.  You simply can't dictate what people say or don't say so we all have to either respond or not respond.  It's really that simple.  I, personally, walk away from threads that make me crazy; it's not worth the headaches.  If there are posters that make me crazy I simply never engage with them.  IOW, don't let a discussion board give you a migraine.

IOW, since you can't control what people do, you can make a generous suggestion to consider the concept of flaming from a Christian perspective.  Thereby, hopefully getting a positive response from a community of like-minded individuals striving to be more Christ-like such as "Amen," or "that is interesting to consider;" or, taken from the illustration that I gave about the coffee shop where the barista comes up to a group of friends and gives her difference of opinion.  Picture if we all were in a coffee shop where we were allowed to voice our opinions openly.  What would that coffee shop look like after a while?  Would we all be flinging coffee cakes and pastries from behind chairs and counters by the time we were ready to go home.  Therefore, is this actually a problem in our society that this is the result of our differences, we become each others enemies, and this is something that is demonstrated even on a Christian centered message board.  Therefore, in this environment, are we overcoming this and thereby promoting unity within the body of Christ by doing this.  If that is a potential of a setting like this, isn't that all the more reason to strive to gain more information about how we can better contribute to this community, which is the motivation for the article.  It provides information for how we all do our part to improve our online presence and potentially foster unity within the body of Christ that might not really exist at the present in real life.  We truly just might be pretending a lot of the time when we meet together.  So, are we able to become more unified in a setting like this?  

So, I think it says a lot when the only response I have gotten to this subject is a explanation somewhat forcing me to accept things as they are and be grateful because it could be worse, because it could just as easily be better.  

[MorningGlory]

14 hours ago, Esther4:14 said:

IOW, since you can't control what people do, you can make a generous suggestion to consider the concept of flaming from a Christian perspective.  Thereby, hopefully getting a positive response from a community of like-minded individuals striving to be more Christ-like such as "Amen," or "that is interesting to consider;" or, taken from the illustration that I gave about the coffee shop where the barista comes up to a group of friends and gives her difference of opinion.  Picture if we all were in a coffee shop where we were allowed to voice our opinions openly.  What would that coffee shop look like after a while?  Would we all be flinging coffee cakes and pastries from behind chairs and counters by the time we were ready to go home.  Therefore, is this actually a problem in our society that this is the result of our differences, we become each others enemies, and this is something that is demonstrated even on a Christian centered message board.  Therefore, in this environment, are we overcoming this and thereby promoting unity within the body of Christ by doing this.  If that is a potential of a setting like this, isn't that all the more reason to strive to gain more information about how we can better contribute to this community, which is the motivation for the article.  It provides information for how we all do our part to improve our online presence and potentially foster unity within the body of Christ that might not really exist at the present in real life.  We truly just might be pretending a lot of the time when we meet together.  So, are we able to become more unified in a setting like this?  

So, I think it says a lot when the only response I have gotten to this subject is a explanation somewhat forcing me to accept things as they are and be grateful because it could be worse, because it could just as easily be better.  

Well what response do you want?  Shall we tell you that people are going to stop being people and this site, or others, is going to become what it should be?  That wouldn't be reality so what is the point of doing that?  I agree that more civility is warranted; I don't agree that we can make other people respond the way we'd like them to.  All any of us can do is police ourselves.  OT, I like the coffee shop scenario where people throw buns and cakes at each other.  Much better than bullets.  I think you're worrying too much about this, Esther.  I suggest catching the flying buns and cakes and having them for breakfast.  We can't make an enemy of someone we have never met.