At 23.02 -0800 02-01-09, robert m. tynes scrobe:

Has anyone out there participated in a flame war?(The more recent, the better.) If so, I'd been interested in hearing about it.

Thanks,

Robert Tynes

What qualifies as a flame war in your book? I mean, I seem to get into conflicts by email pretty regularly (a lot more often than IRL) but although this shows me how easily people (me and others) are emotionally upset by email interactions the use of strong abusive language that I connect with a "flame war" is very rare, even totally absent (depending on where you draw the line). Like, since Christmas I have already A) had two long messages that gave me a headache and set my cheeks afire: the offspring of my attempt to mediate in a listserve conflict, which was then taken "backstage" in a cc-triad wher I was actually trying to start up a cooperation with one of the main participants in the list event; B) managed to insult an old net friend in an entirely different context, by... well I'm biassed of course - by putting one of his favorite power strategies in words indicating he's over-using it. The dangers of turning the tools of analysis upon the conversation between the analysts... shall we dance? Eva

At 19.34 -0800 02-01-10, robert m. tynes scrobe:

PS Sorry Eva, Frank, and Janne for paraphrasing and hog-tieing your points. I tried to be gentle.

Well, that's allright with me. It was evident you were "doing summary" - and then you're doing a summary ;-) I agree with you we could use some more definitions, so thanks for bringing up the topic, it's well worth another round, BOTH in terms of definition, and of observations of where Net culture(s) might be going.

Why flame?

Well, in the cases where it isn't a game (as I can see that it could be, given the right context) - where there's real emotion (more or less lasting) behind it, those emotions tend to be of the hot kind: anger, hurt etc. Emotions that characteristically have "hot" physical symptoms (metaphors we live by!!) like my flaming cheeks. At being wildly misinterpreted and on basis of that being called, among other things, "a fat iron lady" - that's about as close as I get to abusive language in the Net circles I move in. Janne's sketch of the circumstances working for or against flaming was pretty apt, I think. There must be a multiplicity of Net cultures by now. Since your original question was brief, the range of phenomena that you're after wasn't all that clear. Perhaps there are forms of prolonged multiparticipant conflicts in electronic networks that are not "flame wars"?

Why flame?

Well, why people DO it - why we have this penchant for engaging our emotions that "hot" way in this apparently "cool" medium... that is a good question. From my experience of Net conflict I'd say that two important factors are A) the strength of collective investment in framing the group as a "community" (boundary wars!); and B) the strength of investment in the self-image of individual participants (if we didn't care we wouldn't care ;-) my two Uruguayan pesos http://hem.fyristorg.com/evaek/weeds/requarto/0110.html Eva Ekeblad

At 10.09 +0000 02-01-11, Ben Davidson scrobe:

Eva,

Would you accept the idea that the medium is the problem?

Umm... it's tempting to agree, Ben, but no I don't think the medium is The Problem. And it's even more tempting to turn it around and say that rather than The Medium being the problem, People are the problem - which is sort of what you're saying in your second view. And then (since I have spent my lunch over a re-reading of a piece from Bruno Latour, who always works as a stimulant on my weird humour) I can always ask whether there IS a problem here. Well, from what we have heard so far, not all "flame wars" in all contexts would be seen as problematic by their participants. So we are still tossing around ideas without a fixed common reference. The Net is too varied to serve as the sole fixture for a discussion of Flame Wars, I think. Then, of course I vaguely agree with you Ben, in your observations: I think it will be quite easy to find examples and situations where they apply, and to make cases for both your views. Well, your first view bears a kinship to my factor B, and your second view to my factor A, don't you think? (Better summarize here) Ben's first view:

If you're ready to feel threatened, slighted, ignored, it's the perfect medium to get that experience confirmed.

My factor B:

the strength of investment in the self-image of individual participants

Ben's second view:

It's easy to get polarised in any group

My factor A:

the strength of collective investment in framing the group as a "community"

Well, juxtaposing the statements like this I can see that in the second case my statement is more specific; one suggestion among several possible issues for polarisation within a group. Just one that I have seen as a tendency where I've been at, in Net places otherwise quite different. I'm not sure the conflicts arising around the issues of "the proper style in our virtual community" would qualify as flame wars in Robert's book, but they can sure raise the hackles of people and fuel events of extraordinarily high participation for a number of days, perhaps also trigger a few unsubscriptions...

the only difference in Internet large groups is that we are less familiar in 'reading between the lines' of communications.

Well, I'm not too sure of the generality of that. I think it needs to be refined into something like: in electronic groups there will often be great variation between participants in their ability to 'read between the lines' - AND in their insight into the existence (or propriety) of this variation. But this, again, is perhaps not so much different from RL.

But that will change as Internet fora become as second nature as the phone now is. Or television.

What more: this process is not one of the Net simply "becoming" second nature. Since we're in the midst of the process AND discussing it, we can still have some effect on what the medium and its genres will become as they "mature". That's great! Eva