It'd Be Better If You Wrote Nothing At All

When I think of criticism, three things come to mind: flaming, spam, and constructive criticism. Flaming is exemplified by the vast majority of your first paragraph. Comments such as "omg you so newb rofl your ideas sucks" are clearly not helpful but neither do they discourage me from continuing to form my ideas. I simply report the user to a moderator, slap them on my ignore list, and respond only to the replies that I can still see.

Do all flames come across as being unsophisticated taunts or can they bear more complexity? It's easy to simplify situations like this, "Killing people is bad." But when it comes to issues such as human suffering, euthanasia, medical emergency, and life support the statement takes on more complex dimensions. If the difference between a comment being a flame and not a flame is simply drawing out a snide one sentence remark to an elaborate paragraph then does that still constitute as being a flame? And what happens in circumstances where the basis behind my commentary is really the fact that I think the other guy is an idiot. Is flaming so reprehensible that the writing paragraphs of elaborated discussion really a superior substitute to an honest "fuck you." Again. I'm curious.

Spam, by my personal definition as applied to forum criticism, is when a user seems to be completely oblivious of other presented arguments with merit and continues down a non-productive trail of logic.
User: Hey guys, I have this cool idea that works because 1+1 = 2 !
Spam: Well it obviously doesn't work because 1+1 = 3
User: Actually, by these [link] reliable sources 1+1 = 2
Spam: And since 1+1 = 3, you're going to have to make these changes to your idea... And so on

Again, this doesn't discourage me from continuing my ideas as it is clear this person doesn't understand how the flow of a discussion progresses and would rather participate in a monologue of sorts. If the person eventually does say something constructive, then they regain my attention.

It's interesting that your definition goes as follows, "... when a user seems to be completely oblivious of other presented arguments with merit and continues down a non-productive trail of logic." You used a simple mathematical example again so that I could understand your point for which I am grateful. But let's say for example that the 1 + 1 = 3 person is a Christian who is posting about their belief that God created the world and the other two people stating 1 + 1 = 2 are atheists arguing about Darwinism and providing scientific papers. If you've read this sentence without questioning my choice of association then your logic is biased. There is no reason why the person who is mathematically wrong should be the Christian unless we associate with Christianity being a wrong ideology in this time and space. It is interesting that we think of Christianity as illogical when the premise behind logic is having a bias to advocate rationality rather than irrational comments. When it comes to how the world truly works, how much actions are actually rational? Does it make sense that affirmative action was enacted in order to make up for discrimination by advocating discrimination? Does it make sense that Howard Univesity's mission statement when it comes to accepting applicants of African American descent is to support "minorities" when the school is located in the District of Columbia which according to 2008 population statistics is 60% African American? Does it makes sense that people like Michael Brown somehow manage to run departments like FEMA and make phone calls stating, "These people are so fucking annoying." When it comes to an irrational world, does it always make sens to always interpret everything through a rational perspective? Again. I'm curious.

Constructive criticism is invaluable to a forum community. It's fine if your idea had flaws or was even entirely wrong. As long as some thought was placed into the idea beforehand, constructive criticism can help get you back on track or even allow new ideas to spawn. I welcome this sort of discussion as it can turn an average idea of mine into a great one. If 20 forum posters attack an idea from every angle, changes are made, and the idea is constantly reformed, then the chances of the idea being flawed are considerably lower than when it was just floating around in my head. I think at least one piece of your first paragraph could be considered constructive criticism: Granted that should be reworded in a more civil tone to further distinguish it from flaming.

I don't believe that the gap between destruction and construction is so shallow as to be bridged by feable power of semantics.

During my short stay on Southperry, I've noticed very little flaming compared to other forums. There is quite a bit of spam, but an extraordinary amount of constructive criticism. Many posters here do not seem to be afraid to stand in the face of any sort of criticism and counter with their own. Overall ideas seem to flow into the forums and develop much more efficiently than other forums. There is one minor exception to be noted which involves posters who provide a decent argument defending some business practice of Nexon. These are frequently shot down with nothing better than spam, but then again, Nexon hasn't been too kind to this forum either.

Do you feel that writing complaints to the Consumerist is a constructive method in getting Nexon to address it’s method of conducting it’s business?