“Flame Baiting”

[Kliksa 162]

I would like the staff to tell me what exactly consistutes “Flame Baiting”?

From what I’ve seen it’s a blanket statement for them to mute whoever they want whenever they feel like it.

The only defence a player had when this happened was the main man @Logical challenging unfair mutes that breach this vague and obscure rule.

The rules are, in my opinion, purposefully vague to allow staff the freedom to paint almost anything as flamebaiting.

If you could provide clarity on this rule that would be much appreciated, thanks . 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Kliksa

[Batty 44]

Not staff but I believe it's mainly for people who are actively trying to engage in a pointless argument or straight out insult war with an individual who was previously not engaging them. For instance, if Player X was consistently attacking someone over yell who had not previously been yelling at them or arguing with them, in an effort to get them to flame them back that would be flame baiting. This rule normally gets mucky when it is intertwined with pk banter as there is no real in the sand line for staff to be able to determine what is flame baiting and what is pk banter. 

[Iron Logic 910]

When I was still a staff member, I was a part of, and the driving force behind the recent rule changes because everyone said they wanted to do them, but no-one started the conversation. 

The way I started was to lay out what I define each term as, Flame Bait was defined as followed;

"Direct actions by an individual with the primary intent to incite a flame reaction out of targeted individual"

There are a few key works in my definition that didn't quite make it to the final rule changes. Most concerning of which would be the 'intent', without the new rule outlining that flame bait needs to be intended, we can argue that literally anything is flame bait. Because regardless of someones intent, who knows what might trigger me.

Creating a new rule that lacked the part about intent was something I called incredibly dangerous at the time, I illustrated this by simply going to my RuneX client and scrolling through the chat box to find something I could use. 

That is what I found, and from a regularly minded players glance, there is nothing wrong. But..

It is clearly flame baiting me, because I also killed the enormous mole and I got no loot, so he upset me by bragging about his loot.

But when I brought this up, it was said that 'intent' is too hard to prove, and now it looks like they removed it completely for the final edition of the rule changes. 

Very concerning behaviour from the staff team.

Mute this guy please ❤️ 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Logical

[Kliksa 162]

4 hours ago, Logical said:

When I was still a staff member, I was a part of, and the driving force behind the recent rule changes because everyone said they wanted to do them, but no-one started the conversation. 

The way I started was to lay out what I define each term as, Flame Bait was defined as followed;

"Direct actions by an individual with the primary intent to incite a flame reaction out of targeted individual"

There are a few key works in my definition that didn't quite make it to the final rule changes. Most concerning of which would be the 'intent', without the new rule outlining that flame bait needs to be intended, we can argue that literally anything is flame bait. Because regardless of someones intent, who knows what might trigger me.

Creating a new rule that lacked the part about intent was something I called incredibly dangerous at the time, I illustrated this by simply going to my RuneX client and scrolling through the chat box to find something I could use. 

That is what I found, and from a regularly minded players glance, there is nothing wrong. But..

It is clearly flame baiting me, because I also killed the enormous mole and I got no loot, so he upset me by bragging about his loot.

But when I brought this up, it was said that 'intent' is too hard to prove, and now it looks like they removed it completely for the final edition of the rule changes. 

Very concerning behaviour from the staff team.

Mute this guy please ❤️ 

What I got from this was basically that, yes, there is no line or it’s very obscure and staff can abuse this rule whenever they feel like it and twist anything to be flame bait due to the vague rules?

[Iron Logic 910]

2 minutes ago, Kliksa said:

What I got from this was basically that, yes, there is no line or it’s very obscure and staff can abuse this rule whenever they feel like it and twist anything to be flame bait due to the vague rules?

While I can't say for certain that this giant lapse in the rule will be abused. It essentially allows the staff to choose what would be flame bait and what wouldn't be, regardless of a players intent behind a statement. 
Maybe they just didn't want the headache of determining if a player has intent to flame bait, or maybe the replaced a player side loop hole with a much more dangerous staff side loophole for.. convenience. Only time will tell. 

[Iron Logic 910]

Update: For Flame and Flame baiting, the need for intent has been added back into the rules.