Read if you are 'Nux'
The dynamical system I speak of, is a world in which certain tendancies can alter over time and can even dissappear completely. Tendancies like conflict. You hold the belief that conflict will always exist (in all honesty, I'd agree with you). I wouldn't call world peace impossible though, just unlikely. What is more likely is the far less ambitious conception of 'forum peace'. This wouldn't mean no opposing opinion, but an absense of harsh terminology. People can get along in small groups- they don't have to but they can!
Yes, but again I can call a parallel to school. They're known as cliques. And they can work just about with some other allied cliques when they have to without too many problems. But when a certain point comes up the allegiances shift.
In a forum this problem is that it happens all the time since these points can differ from thread to thread. Would it not be far better for people to be themselves, so other people know how to interpret someone's post instead of suddenly having to read a feisty post from someone who in the last thread was friendly and submissive? I am for clarity of method in dealing with someone more than for short-term solutions.
Your hurtful words shocked me at first 
. If we weren't on better terms, I could have seen that as a genuine verbal attack. Were I not so well-mannered I might have retaliated, or vowed to burn effigies in your likeness.. but yes, I understand that the 'manner' of the post doesn't always reflect it's content.
And that is why removing all flaming might just as well remove a lot of useful information. Maybe even more than we would gain from the calm people that you suppose would settle.
Good to know I can carry on discussing this without it being about tremulous =) It's a nice and big discussion (though it's a shame only us two seem to enter into it).
The others who are interested read, but they might be afraid to enter their opinions on matters. Maybe they are scared by our calm, as if we are Zen-masters of discussion :p
So long as enough people are posting long and meanful posts and that these people don't care for the 'spam', there should be little consequence from deleting the smaller less meaningful posts, or 'spam'. If however, what you see as spam is what the majority sees as meaningful (say for example f0rqu3 who recently gave resignation to this forum with much protest from it's fellow users) then this might cause unnecessary upset. So spam, I would argue, isn't necessarily equivelant to flaming. Flaming is defined somewhat by it's intention to upset.
f0rqu3's resignation came almost immediatly after I had to edit a post of his twice for containing images not allowed on this board. And it is vxczet, who has left many times before and will probably still be back. But the thing that matters is that he was not above the rules. The warning was out and he chose to go himself, some call it honorable, others call it attentionwhoring. Were he banned with the reason posted less people would have protested his leave. And to define the meaning of spam on a forum. Spam: "posts with the intention of disrupting a discussion by derailing a thread or getting it locked."
As such flames can be included in spam, and most often true flames are spam as correlated by the fact that a discussion which has degraded in purely namecalling has derailed a thread. But spam might also be posting 'waffles' after which the discussion proceeds about foodgoods. Yet still it does not serve the thread's discussion. See what I mean?
I see your points about human nature. I could have just as easily put myself on your side of this debate, but I feel as though that would have been less interesting.
Yes, you need two sides to discuss.
If the mods can be seen as mere members of this community, why needn't I highlight such things?
No, when they are not using their moderation privileges they
are members. They are moderaters only when acting their part in keeping this forum clean by using their powers. You cannot report someone for moderator abuse when the most he has done is doing as much as a normal member can while staying within the rules.
I mention my original post because it demonstrates my understanding of what the rules are. If this understanding is somehow inaccurate, it gives you the oppurtunity to point that out.
It is not inaccurate, it is misapplied. To understand this the following. Lava was replying to
EDIT: Diggs, please don't make my posts appear more flammatory than they already are. The smiley indicated it was a playful post. Intentionally omitting it in your qoute shows you have no intention of reasoning with me.
I definetly don't want to do that. You don't need any help from me. :wink:
Once again, inflamatory. Don't denounce someone as a flamer and bait them in the same sentance, please.
That act can be seen as trolling (he is doing exactly that which he says diggs shouldn't do, or impersonating a moderator (telling diggs to stop according to the rules).
What lava was trying to do was end this trollspree. But while I would have sayed 'stop trolling'/'quit with the lures' kaine he said 'shut up' kaine. But to understand this you have to know the person posting it. And everyone knows Lava, some people just not as good as they should to interpret his posts.
Constant bickering between strongly opinionated peoples certainly seems like the usual state of affairs. We can only hope it doesn't have to be this way. You evidentally have little hope for such a thing. I don't blame you. 
Everybody is strongly opinionated, there simply are some people who are more vocal about it then others.
Statistically speaking, with a bigger pool will comes a greater likelyhood of finding your preferable case. You are right in pointing out that this doesn't necessarily out-weigh the problems in dealing with a larger pool.
Well mannered isn't the same as high standard, you're quite right. Though I meant only to list the two preferable characteristics it is still a good point to make. I would hope that you don't see what I post as 'empty'. I try to offer views on the subject that might not have been fully explored.
It is not empty, your points are certainly in the right direction. But sometimes I must point out fallacies because they are exactly that, false. An argument based on false facts is worthless and by showing your opponent that you hope he does better the next time to persuade you in another discussion. That is what makes these threads so interesting. Not the instawins but the battles of wits.
Lastly that post that might have 'turned the new member away' is not the sort of post I was refering to. Though this post might have turned him away, at least it was for a technical reason and not an insulting one.
It wasn't a technical one. It was about tremulous. And it was made by taiyo.uk. A respected member with a medium postcount. Yet someone who didn't know better, with less than 10 posts got this advice from someone who seems trustworthy. This is why I say well-mannered is not really as necessary as trustworthy and knowledgable. Now is it not a far worse lie because it seemed so trustworthy?
