Slashdot Mirror
Why Trolls and Flames Happen
AnonymousHack writes "New Scientist examines why people are in general more rude and abusive online. 'Psychologically, we are "distant" from the person we're talking to and less focused on our own identity. As a result we're more prone to aggressive behavior' says one psychologist, who also cites research showing messages received by email are always perceived more negatively than on the phone." Just more proof for the Greater Internet F***wad Theory.
Ooh, more DISTANT. I hadn't thought of THAT before. Jesus Christ. Idiots.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
And regard off-kilter research like this as flawed not just in its basic design, but unproveable by any statistically sound method, using self-selected groups of college students who tend to like to flame more than the general population, and to whom trash-talking is an art, not a crime.
But that's the real world viewpoint.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Let the flame wars begin
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
There is a newsgroup, perhaps not too unlike many others, where a troll has taken up residence. He insults members and has found some method of posting every few minutes a lot of gibberish under various names and forged addresses.
This person is a degree or two off the usual troll who just likes to make some preposterous post and watch people take the bait and go. This one is actively trying to destroy the group with crap-flooding and there appears little members can do about it. There's also some halfwit posting MI5 crap across many newsgroups. Alas, Google News doesn't appear to allow filtering. Does reporting abuse every work?
Some newsgroups are still alive and thriving, but others seem to be losing regular posters to blog sites, I expect because they are freed from the harrassment of trolls, spammers and crapflooders by a moderator who will simply delete their garbage.
My ISP had a NEWS server, but shut it down for economic reasons and pointed out I could just use Google News. Feh.
I've given some thought over the weekend whether USENET can survive and whether anonymity also can survive. The more people abuse a system, the less eventual resistance there will be to the heavy hand of moderators or even government. I expect at some point bills requiring tagging and tracking of every email and every post on the internet being required by law with few people actually coming to the defence of anonymity, because they have had their own fill of trolls an crackers. It may come in on the wind of some means of fighting terrorism or protection of IP (a la RIAA & MPAA, among others) but it will encompass all.
Anonymous Cowards enjoy the present. I think the trolls are undermining us all and they really don't care if they lose anonymity and privacy, they're called trolls for a reason.
Lastly, no, this isn't a troll. Notice I didn't post anonymously. I am genuinely concerned about this as I lament the ills befalling open forms such as USENET and email.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Does this mean every flame and troll post in this thread will get modded +1 Insightful for demonstrating the principle of the article?
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
Alright! Who's going to be the first one here to receive the oh so coveted (Score:5, Troll) moderation?
This guy's the limit!
This is all to be expected. "Civilaised society", whatever that means, comes from feedback. That feedback is significantly reduced by a computer interaction or by excessive alcohol etc. resulting in less inhibited behaviour online or when pissed.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I think that when you post to a forum, showing off a coin
for example, that when people post their opinion anything
negative is seen as a troll or a flame.
They go into the post thinking this is fun not realizing
that criticism should be welcome and can improve them as
a collector.
Or another person may simply not like their coin, see problems
with it they do not, or know they paid too high a price.
All this combined makes others think they are being negative
for no good reason and should have simply ignored the post
and moved on.
I disagree with these people who have thin skin and should
be happy they got honest feedback from someone who could
very well know much more then them.
Hey, as long as they do not use name-calling they should be
free to be as negative about the topic as they like. I find
i learn more from the negative comments that get discussed
then from the people who simply say, "nice coin" just to be nice.
LET THE games BEGIN!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Anyone who thinks abortion should be criminalized is a crazed far right-wing nut job religious fanatic!
--- What?
This is the place for all the angry lie-berals to get their hating out of their system now. Then maybe, just maybe, after the hate is gone, you'll listen to logic.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
But that's the real world viewpoint.
A bit over 20 years ago I found the first open and anonymous form of many I'd see, at college. Eventually I was hired on as a programmer and rewrote the system for greater capacity and enabling cursor animations in messages (it was pretty cool, honestly.) The thing that seemed to happen almost immediately, though, was flame wars (don't mention 'gun control') and some trolling. I think it is pretty simple human nature to speak more openly or play villain when there's a poor chance of getting caught. It was a bit different in those days, however, as we had system accounts and terminal lines, which made finding mean people a bit easier, if you were a fairly clever user.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
No, really. I'm serious.
So anonymity makes people troll, huh? Hobbism makes a comeback.
Flames happen because Apple is superior to Microsoft in every way... Deal with it...
Apple Rules! Apple Rules! Apple Rules!
He is am impatient utopianist who, now that the soft sell has failed, wants to become a tyrant. So says anyone who is not a commie bastard! Agree with me or get lost!
This is not related just to the electronic age. If anyone has ever written a letter to you with some criticism (e.g. parental letter) It is usually a far more cutting communication than person to person. Phone communication is somewhere in the middle. I once had a work associate that I communicated with email (at first) almost exclusively. His notes were condescending, pontificating, degrading... without apparent purpose. He was somewhat better on the phone. Eventually when I dealt with him in person he was somewhat reasonable.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
My coworker sits right next to me. He's not distant at all, and still trolls every comment I post.
Ron Paul.
WTF? People are rude everywhere. Now don't get me wrong, dear reader. Of course I do not mean you, but the two idiots on either side of your cubicle, yes THEM, those hideous bastards and their soccer practicing spouses.
Clearly, this research team did all their research reading emails inside a nice warm coffee shop in Seattle, AND if you lift the rock off their heads, I'm betting both ears are flattened.
By the way, Flat Ear Syndrome (FES) has been diagnosed as affecting 1 in three research scientists by doctors at UCLA and WSU. Pfizer, working closely with the Bursars office of these highly respected institutes, has develope UnfesION, that relieves the symptoms of FES in 1 out of 16 patients with no dramatic side effects. Note: consult with your physician before taking UnfesION. Side effects may include; sudden outbreaks of common sense, clarity of vision, actual merit based grant funding, possible curricular related job opportunities, and possible respect among the greater community.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Quick question: Would you stand up and respond in that manner to a lecture given at a seminar on the exact same topic?
... I would say Kudos for the elaborate AI displayed (so much for the 'online editorial assistant').
Otherwise, I would recommend some reading, this search gives a good start.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
It is the anonymous nature of the web that give people the false sense of strength and protection that lets them lash out with fear of consequence. But in reality,the web is often a "pay-it-forward" kind of place. You don't care about buring someone on a usenet group or a chan while someone else doesn't care that you don't want your passwords and private data stolen. I think most people are a little too scared to put themselves out there for what they are: uninformed. Be willing to learn a new idea or a new perspective and you'll be less inclined to flame and troll. And always be willing to teach and pass on knowledge. Everyone who reads this had a time when they never knew what Slashdot was.
that this kind of "emotional distance" is behind ganking.
And not the fact that my WoW character's name is Gnomestompy.
Although that seems to piss off a lot of gnomes.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Take for example the idea of a person starting a thread on a gaming site claiming that PS1 is where the real gaming is at. He could either do this on a PS1 gaming site, or on an xbox forum, or on a forum that is meant to discuss knitting. If he does it on the PS1 site, he is insightful. On an xbox forum it is a flame thread. On the knitting forum he is widely ignored. Now, is he truly a troll or starting a flame thread on any forum? No. He is simply stating his opinion. Even if he says "PS1 pwns that faggoty ass micro$oft pile of nazi shit" that is simply his thought on the subject. Regardless of how he expressed it, he is not a troll for that. He is simply misguided, he becomes a troll when people starting calling him troll.
In Summary: You're a troll once labeled that, and people are less likely to label you a troll in real life because they can see you as a person. On the internet you are labeled a troll because "its the thing to do about that."
P.S. Chipotle is awesome. mmmmm
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
You just post this drivel to distract people from looking into the facts behind my analysis of the "numbers stations".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I'd like to add: or be fired, yelled a by your wife, etc....
Commenting online is a why to vent anger at at shit you can't normally vent at. I've seen many comment here about how "stupid" their management or users are/is. And I bet, most of the time, folks wouldn't talk like that at work - but they do here. I think being online is a way to deal with aggression. In short, I'd rather have you folks flame me, or whatever, online than shoot me at work.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
This is in contrast to spoken communication, which is much easier to assimilate and can therefore go on for longer. It also contains more emotion than simple writing, so the actual words are less important than the intonation - which is almost completely missing from text.
People frequently mistake short comments for either sarcasm or impatience and this gives the impression that written communication (esp. in email, netnews) that the writer does not respect the audience.
I beleive this is incorrect, when I insult someone they will be left in no doubt they have been insulted. I think over time, most people will come to realise the difference between rudeness and terseness. There will always be a few however, who take exception at everything. there's no helping these individuals.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
are Trolls fire-resistant or do they take extra damage from flames?
I haven't played AD&D in years.
+5 coins to you, sir! Well said.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
Research on this phenomenon has been ongoing for some time. Here's an excellent summary: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html
Creationists are idiots!!!1111one
Ok, I'll go back to my corner now....
Some companies "compete" that way. They break other people's things and conversations because they don't have anything better to offer.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I think I've come to realize that people aren't that much different online than off. The difference being that posts are persistent. You can easily ignore something someone said, but when its sitting there in print it affects you more. Its more obvious.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I got mod points today! -1 Troll for 5 lucky winners today! *sigh* goodbye, excellent karma...
Science has not yet discovered a way to transmit a punch across the Internet. Until such a time, people will continue to be rude because there are few if any consequences for their actions.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Emacs is a bloated piece of shit with too many commands (vi is the only sensible choice), C++ is a horrible language only used by substandard programmers, God exists, God doesn't exist, Captain Picard is way better than that over-sexed, stupid Cold Warrior Kirk and I fucked your mother last night. Also, disagreeing with me is an act in futility since I have 3 PhDs, am a self-made millionaire, speak 7 languages, am married to a super model who I regularly cheat on with other super models, can play guitar, piano, violin and trumpet well enough to play with any jazz ensemble, rock band or orchestra in the world and most important am NOT a lonely kid sitting in his mother's basement, bothering people on the internet since no one in the real world will respond to my juvenile taunting.
The threat of a punch in the mouth is a great deterrent to rude behaviour.
His theory is full of shit! How does this crap get posted on Slashdot? Everyone who responds to this story is a fucktard. I'm going to go play WoW in my Whine window running on a virtualized copy of Ubuntu that I'm running on my bug free OSX Leotard 10.5 uber super shiny silver box. And oh yeah, I'm going to call the author of this story on my iPhone and give him a piece of my mind about why the gPhone blows chunks.
>Recently there has been a sharp increase in the amount of abusive language on the New Scientist website.
Oh, how very fucking _interesting_! Sounds just like the kind of impartial, thoughtful introduction that heralds a fucking well-balanced scientific curio doesn't it? It's on an intellectual par with Schrödinger postulating about quantum mechanics because his damned cat wouldn't stop shitting on the carpet. Bra-fucking-vo.
>My pet theory about why people behave so rudely is that online commenting is treated, by most people, like a pub conversation
Oh yeah? Well _my_ pet theory is that you're fucking retarded. What's your local pub? The "make up spurious claims & expect people to be interested in them"?
>After being described a few weeks ago as "a self-lobotomised liberal who can't face the facts", I decided to look into the psychology of online behaviour a bit further.
You don't need a shitting psychology decree to know that's called fucking rampart narcissism, you self-interested jackass.
>Psychologically, we are "distant" from the person we're talking to and less focused on our own identity. As a result we're more prone to aggressive behaviour, he says.
Well that's fucking retarded, all I can think about when reading your mastabatory drivel is how awesome I am in comparison.
>Another factor influencing online communication, according to Epley, is simply the risk of miscommunication involved with text-based messages, which are inherently more ambiguous.
Nothing ambiguous about how much of a shit-eating moron you are, you must be a master of textual precision.
>Another obvious factor is that, if you insult someone online, it's unlikely you'll face any physical retaliation for it.
Look at brave Mr. New-Scientist-Blogger! People won't insult him in _real_ _life_ because if they do, he fucks their shit up for them! If he invents a way to stab people in the face over the internet, I'm in real fucking trouble.
>I'm not sure what we can do to minimise miscommunication and abuse online. But being aware that we're not as good at communication online as we'd like to think seems like a good start. I know I often have to restrain myself from joining in.
Didn't fucking restrain yourself hard enough did you? Didn't fucking restrain yourself hard enough, or I wouldn't be reading this peice of vomit you call an article.
nm
or kathatsung? Has your forum ever been invaded by this creep? I'm not even sure kathasung is a person, it might be a bot. But what it does is bombard you with hundreds or thousands of posts in serial order chronicling some massive US government conspiracy into practically everything.
Cause he said it again, twice.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
In the ten or twelve years that I've been part of various on-line communities - going back to C64 BBS systems, then to the 'net when Mosaic was the cool new browser - I have had time to consider the causes underlying so much of the impolite behavior that we see in forums such as this.
One can point to the psychological impact of the solitary nature of on-line communications (as do the researchers) but I have long suspected that there are subtle and not so subtle environmental determinants that lead to irrational and counterproductive behaviors.
I am thinking of course of impaired cognition brought about by low level carbon monoxide poisoning, a problem more likely to be found in a population that spends extended periods a small, dark rooms located nearby to older gas or oil fired furnaces. This, when coupled with a largely sedentary lifestyle and nutritional habits that were best depicted by film maker Morgan Spurlock, lead to a physical and mental condition that can exacerbate any pre-existing social or cognitive disorders.
This is a complex and important problem, worthy of more research. Someday, hopefully, we can find a cure.
Three Squirrels
Whackos Awaiting Silent Trystero's Empire (WASTE)
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
After all, you're implying a pattern of behavior here, obviously. I'm not saying that your claim Microsoft "pays people to be rude" for whatever reason is invalid, but surely in a 10-year span since 1998 someone, somewhere has obtained proof of that?
I think it's interesting that so many of these are pre-2001, which is a long time. You'd think maybe they tend to stop doing things after they are caught. Like JBoss, for example. Wouldn't you agree?
Again, I have no proof that they are not doing it, but the onus is on you, realistically, to provide proof that they are.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
the typical debate about pornography or violent videogames is: do they promote rape/ real-life violence? or lessen it? i am solidly in the camp that over-the-top media lessens real-world violence
we are not born vessels of purity that are corrupted by society. go hang around any group of 3 year olds for 5 minutes. we are born feces slinging temper tantrums that are tamed by society. you cannot "catch" violent or asocial behavior, it is in all of us, innately, and we are socialized to express our negative selves in acceptable ways by society. trolling/flaming is merely another acceptable harmless way to provide catharsis we all need, a harmless release of negative asocial behavior on computer screens rather than on real people on real life
likewise, i believe trolling/flaming serves a similar taking out of the mental trash type function. that rude asocial and negative behavior will lessen in real life as people are allowed to go home, login, scream at some random anonymous people online, then go out, and be quite pleasant, rather the next road rage perpetrator
i'm totally serious. the utopianists imagined newsgroups and message boards as some idealistic philosopher's lounge where great minds would come to great thoughts and collaboration. of course, it is the exact opposite. and yet it is more useful to society for being that. just because the internet is not the grand social function the utopianists imagined it to be, doesn't mean it hasn't taken on a grand social function nonetheless
a bunch of wankers patting each other on the back about how smart they are is a lot less important a social function than some form of catharthis for society for the most unstable and hotheaded amongst us, so they don't express themselves negatively in public, where it really matters. asocial activity just doesn't matter on the web
of course, there are instances where online negativity flares up into real world violence, such as the recent suicide of the girl who was bullied by a neighbor on myspace posing as a teenage boyfriend. but using this as an argument against the positive real-life social value of trolling/ flaming is falling into the same erroneous way of thinking that says the videogame doom created dylan klebold and columbine
no. the truth is, dylan klebold was a psycho waiting to be set off. even if doom somehow was involved in his intents, they weren't formatively involved in what he did. if videogames never existed, something else would have set him off. same with the online bullying that pushed the girl over the edge into suicide. same with some guy who used porn, and then raped a woman
i mean it's not like violent behavior is something new to our world. in fact, in societies that are tolerant of pornography, and have high penetration rates of computer media (videogames, discussion boards) violent and asocial crime is on the decline
so the next time you see a troll or a flame, smile. that's one less road rage or harassment incident you have to hear about in real life
i firmly believe this, and that online trolling and flaming is VALUABLE and important and should be appreciated for the social service it provides
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
So why don't you all take a flying fsck at a rolling donut.
:)
All of you.
Now.
You're all stupid.
You're wrong, and I'm smarter than you.
Your imaginary girlfriends all like me better.
NERDS.
Oh, and your Mac sucks, too.
Sigh...the things I have to do to avoid the temptation of using mod points on this thread.
This could get confusing... for this posting, how are we supposed to distinguish between true & bonified flamers and those who sarcastically flame this post for the sake of humor??
In his landmark work to create the field of "Killology", Lt. Col Dave Grossman (ret) suggests that soldiers in every war have developed new and horrific names for their opponents. For example, Japanese soldiers in WWII became "Japs", "Nips", "Slanties"... in the Korean war, we have things like "Gooks"... in Vietnam, they were the "VC", "Charlie", and "Cong".
This effectively dehumanizes the opponents, and facilitates the ability of a soldier to rationalize the act of killing. "Well, he wasn't a real person... he was just some Kraut."
This effect seems to be present on the internet? Shocking. So then I can tell CmdrTaco that he's an "idiotic poop face that hates on CowboyNeal unfairly because of his moronic IQ and lousy personal hygiene" more easily through text than to his face? Where there is a small but perceptible chance he might do something to harm me? Distance and remoteness eases antisocial phobias and fears?
I'd also like to point people at the Slashdot report that 90% of people feel they know what "tone" of voice is used in textual communications, while the double blind study results indicate that of all people, the right "tone" of voice was detected at best 25% of the time.
So, distance makes it easier to communicate, the ability to divorce some screen name (like "ladiesman215") from a living human, and our confidence in our inability to understand the entire meaning of a text communication like email/IM/Forum posts may lead to an increase in flames AND trolls? Really. I think this needs more study. I'm not entirely convinced.
Then again, in the United States, etiquette and rules of polite behavior were declared passe sometime in the 60s and 70s, and really haven't been an issue since then. Do you think that could be a contributing factor?
Oh, and there are twice as many people in the world today than there were 20 years ago (if we're still following the same trend). Maybe all of that reproduction and increased crowding of demand for scarce resources could be souring our moods?
And if you disagree with me, you're a flaming troll. In all senses of the word. Cynical bastards.
PS - CmdrTaco, I'm just kidding. I'm sure your breath is as sweet as the vapors of a fresh baked baguette.
PPS - The confirmation word is "incense"? Slashdot code can be psychic?
Flaming is when disagreements escalate into personal attacks. This could be put down partly to the low social presence of email and forums, i.e. because people do not have the rich social clues available in face to face communication, they are therefore apt (Debian term) to misinterpret the intentions of the other.
The psychology of Trolls is different however. I think that light Trolling is pretty common on and offline, as an innocuose tease or wind-up. At this level it can be entertaining. I think that there should be more studies of Trolls. Do they start off with little gentle gibes and then get progress to more biting posts?
Any Trolls out there want to tell the group how they got into Trolling?
When I was at uni (bach maths sci degree) .. i took a 1st year course in psychology, mainly because I was young and single, and there were no hot chicks in the other mainline science subjects that I was already enrolled in (physics, stats, astronomy, chem and maths)
... psychology was interesting in as much as it made use of a lot of statistical analysis as a form of proof. However, the questions that Psychology was attempting to answer were as lame as dishwater, especially compared to the great unanswered riddles that one finds in, say, physics or maths.
.. before this greater internet fucktard theory was ever proven.
Whilst I was fascinated with the impossibly hard questions that my chosen fields of study were setting out to unravel and comprehend
And yet somehow, professional Psychology academics would manage to get substantial grants to go ahead and prove such theories as "If someone is smacked over the head every day for the next 5 years, then they are more likely to believe that they are going to get smacked over the head tomorrow - compared to someone who has never been smacked over the head at all". Such theories could be proven (at great expense mind you) using the most thorough and rigorous statistical analysis.
Woop Dee do.
I made a comment to the head of the Psych department that Psychology was nothing more than the vieled scientific study of the completely fucking obvious. My grades in this particular subject towards the end of that year reflect that fact as well. Some of the other students in my psych group who handed up almost verbatim copies of the same written work during the same period predictably fared better in their marks.
OK then, so now we find that you can take a normal person off the street, give them anonymity and an audience - and viola - without the constraints of dealing with people face to face, with no embarrassment to deal with, they tend to get obnoxious. And this is news ? The big question is - how many months of study, and how much grant money was sucked up in proving this most valuable theory ?
Its amazing that we ever managed to build the pyramids, discover mathematics, communicate wirelessly across the globe, understand the quantum states of the atom, put a man on the moon, or map out the human genome
Where would we be without Psychology ?
'Psychologically, we are "distant" from the person we're talking to and less focused on our own identity. As a result we're more prone to aggressive behavior' says one psychologist, who also cites research showing messages received by email are always perceived more negatively than on the phone.
Or maybe you're just a JERK!
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
I find the easiest way to get Trolled or Flamed is to post a response that doesn't fit the Party Line in the geek community. Post something pro downloading of copyrighted material and you'll almost always get a positive mod. Post something that disagrees with downloading and/or points out the negative ramifications and you'll generally get modded down, and you'll usually get some vicious attacks from other posters, ones that should get Trolled or Flamed. There are a number of sacred subjects that you need to avoid if you don't want to get a negative mod and you disagree with the masses. Personally I'd rather be modded Heretic than be Trolled for disagreeing with the majority. Trolling and Flame should be reserved strictly for the obnoxious posts not for people with a decenting opinion. Oh well another troll for the collection, sigh....
Because it's fun.
More precisely, I think it's the lack of repercussions for uncivil behavior. There are no repercussions for me if I tell you to go f*ck yourself or I call your mom a fat cow. In the real world, that would get you dropped faster than you can say "LOL OMG"
A lot of people who would otherwise be unable to handle themselves in a real-world confrontational situation (and in my experience this is the majority of humanity) probably feel empowered by the fact they can say anything to anyone from the comfort of their basements. It must be a psychological rush for them.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Well, duh! Everyone knows that the only way to kill a troll is with fire.
There's an even simpler explanation for why the Internet tends to be full of fucking idiots: kids. Young people, in real life, are generally ignored by adults who aren't specifically responsible for their care, and so most people don't realize that if you just listen to what they say, they're insufferable little pricks. But on the 'net, with anonymity added, these worthless little rugrats are suddenly on equal footing with adults. They go nuts with the power to insult people who would, in an actual meeting, ignore them entirely. And not knowing that they're arguing with a 12-year-old, the adults just think that the guy/gal on the other end is a total fuckwit, instead getting upset and unhappy as if they'd had an argument with another adult.
Next time you're dealing with some Internet troll, don't get angry. Just bring to your minds' eye the truth: it's a junior highschooler angry at his lack of power in his own life and taking it out on the Internet community. It's a lot less frustrating when you see it as kids being kids.
This, incidentally, is why I favor privacy, but not total anonymity. Either keep kids out of the online arena entirely or label them somehow; they bring down the maturity of the discussion as a whole.
The same mechanism here I gather. You're too far away from me and there's no risk of retaliation, hence I can behave like an asshat just for fun and because you pissed me off.
Oh, and for those who claim venting anger is good. Some people disagree.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Quick answer: Who the fuck cares?
In 1997 there was a totally awesomeburger organization for the rudneness-offended called Netizens Against Rudeness in Cyberspace. It was founded by Elly Jordaan (http://www.asecular.com/musings/others/classicelly.htm) but seems to have fallen by the wayside. Here's a link to Elly talking about NARC: http://www.asecular.com/musings/others/elly/022097.htm
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2channel
4chan was based on 2chan code, and has most of it's conventions (saging, etc.). as massive and wacky as 4chan is, it is but a weak impression of the size and cultural awareness and wackiness 2chan is in japan
a number of asocial events: suicides, plots to attack the public, and the ubiquitous hate speech against other races/ nationalities/ religions is exactly what i am talking about in terms of catharsis online that would otherwise be expressed in real life in my granddad post
4chan has nothing on 2chan, but, if the japanese are in fact ahead of us in this phenomenon, then 4chan is going to grow and grow and become a bigger part of the american conscience. the ultimate trashcan dungheap of our asocial selves
strangely enough, 2chan was started in arkansas
anyways, it was some asshole announcing his intent to murder someone on 2chan, and then actually doing it, that first luanched 2chan into national provenance in japan. likewise, 4chan got some press after some asshole there annnouced he was going to bomb the superbowl, about a year ago i think
however, japan is a far more polite culture than the usa, and since we all share the same basic human psychobiology, i would be cetain that an anonymous board in which to vent stupidly our asocial selves would be more appealing in japan than in the usa. because in the usa we're more likely to call an asshole an asshole to someone's face rather than politiely keeping it to oneself. so maybe 2chan will be permanently larger than 4chan in terms of national cultural awareness, simply because american culture allows for more outlets for asocial expression than japanese culture
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This reminds me of something I saw on the internet in the olden days. An all-purpose flame. It began with something like "It is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that" and then something about your ideas being wholly or utterly without merit or something. If anyone can find it, this article would be the ideal place for using it.
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
Create fake snuff films of trolls and Spammers being "killed" in mnany horrible but cartoon-like ways and post them onto Youtube and every other video site. Then have everybody in the blogosphere link to the videos saying "I cannot condone the action, but I *really* agree with the sentiment".
It requires effort from both sides to avoid the wrong impression.
fun! Its better then u killing e!
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Because stupid people are prone to violence in real life, we have to be polite to them in person.
On the Internet, we can flame stupid people -- people who deserve to be flamed -- and be 100% honest.
As for trolling? Trolling is just a term people use to disregard unpopular opinions. You see it all the time here on Slashdot even, where someone makes a point that makes the hivemind uncomfortable, leading to masses of furious nerds clicking their -1: Troll button instead of responding to the points the person made.
In b4 this gets modded -1: Troll
I'm somewhat perplexed by the real world some people talk about so romantically on the Internet, where a typical form of recourse is criminal behavior guaranteed to result in your prosecution and temporary incarceration, as well as nontrivial civil liability. Indeed, outside of the lower classes (or a primary school playground), where would it be perceived as acceptable reciprocity to attack someone for insulting your mother?
I don't know what ghetto that you live in, but I'm pretty sure that if someone from it thought it was acceptable to attack someone around me for the equivalent of a Slashdot troll, that I would gauge out one of their eyes with my thumb and tell them to return on whatever skiff they arrived on. If you're going to play that game, you should at least play to win. That sort of behavior is simply unacceptable, however. Real world, indeed.
By the way, your mother is a stupid whore. No, that wasn't much of a rush at all. It was actually rather banal by the standards of HBO, and thus less than exciting. I've heard worse come out of people at sporting events.
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fucktard
There are over 36 million lines of COBOL code in the world, and they are all raping children.
I just wish the rest of the World realized this.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
The problem with email and chat rooms is that those writing have ten fingers, but only one brain.
I am a Statistician. One false move and you are a Statistic
These psychologists should just have read Penny Arcade.
Or even 1984. People have been observing for some time that computer mediated communication has two negative traits:
1. Depersonalizing. We lose sight of the fact that there's another person on the other end of the line. Then again, who cares? When you're looking for answers, worrying too much about whether someone else is offended by the truth is totally counterproductive.
2. Lack of facial expression and gestures. This is the biggest for me. A message normally delivered with a wry friendly smile could be seen as supportive cynicism, where online it comes across as aggressive sarcasm.
They also failed to mention the biggest problem, which is the proliferation of stupid people since AOL came online. Put a smart person in a room and make them answer to morons, and soon they're pretty irate. As any experienced user must be reading that recycled, contentless, but provocative article.
technical writing / development
Oblig: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
And he didn't even need a PHD.
In the real world, that would get you dropped
That's really not true though. I mean, if you track down a really macho belligerent guy and determinedly heckle him in front of his friends, maybe you'll evoke a violent response. But the vast majority of the time, when you insult or act offensively to a stranger you'll get one of two responses:
- They'll ignore you or otherwise try to avoid confrontation.
- They'll express anger or threaten you aggressively, but not follow through.
People always want to make you believe they're going to "kick your ass" when they're angry, and they may even half-believe it themselves. But people are actually rarely willing to be violent to a stranger for a trivial reason.
I think that perhaps the perceived threat is what matters though. Whether or not people will actually attack you for being rude in RL, it's a possibility we can imagine, and fear of that possibility might keep us in line.
Misery loves company.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Though this may be recent scientifically released info it is simply a rehash of what was analyzed 10-15 years ago. We all knew the issue was with identity and with distance. Again, this is just a rehash of what we knew long long ago and is not news.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I wonder if, when the telephone just got popular, rich kids called random people and shouted nasty words at them throught the phone?
-- Cheers!
I think they have done studies -- only they were called socio-paths -- once called psychopaths. Generally, about 10% of the population is a socio-path. They live to abuse other human beings. In real life most socio-paths are fairly intelligent and often quite charming, but they lack any real attachments and typically lose friends easily. If they're stupid they end up in jail. If they are smart they are active in the republican party or are successful in business, where screwing people over is legal and encouraged. Personally I think most internet trolls are socio-paths. The internet is a convenient and safe place to abuse other people with no consequences. While you're typing furiously at some pig-headed ignorant non-sense (hooked by the troll), the troll is getting the all important ability to manipulate someone. It's all they live for. It's best to never reply to them, or even acknowledge their existence. Sure, some people post things that are trollish, but typically, these people are capable of having reasoned online discussions. I think most people are pretty polite and engaging online -- but it sure seems to me that about 10% are totally and complete wastes. These people return day after day, year after year posting the same garbage over and over again.
1. Far too many people in meatspace, where direct confrontation is discouraged because it could be "harmful" or "offensive" or "illegal", or just plain painful/dangerous/deadly, etc.
2. Far too many people (and opinions) in cyberspace, which provides the option of anonymity, allowing for some degree of immediate and therapeutic outlet for stress-venting via trolling/hating, which reinforces the notion of the 'net as a vast playground for the wild id.
3. Multiply 1 and 2 by exponent.
4. Profit!
All the kids want to be trolls. They find /b/ and they think they're edgy. You fucking retards, you still don't get it. You argue the same points as before. You take the same sides as normal. You simply intersperse your boring diatribes with brainded 4chan buzzwords, and call it "trolling". You are a disgrace to my art, and I spit on you.
But sometimes people need to hear the obvious in a manner that suits them. I figure frequently this is what Psychology accomplishes. It's our collective filter and we use it to help verify and establish what it is we believe today. It's the structural Psychology that gets interesting. The beautiful machine.
Quack, quack.
Here are some some links that were in related /. stories :
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=wn_index_2
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0515/p13s01-stct.html
Basically about 50% of replies between normal people are misinterpreted.
jdb2
Obvious jokes like this that get replys likethis and people who dont realize that they are obvious jokes.
<to carry jokes to far>
Also Caps and ALL THOSE DAMN ACs. OH AND THE WORD FUCK, DAMN, SHIT, and RETARDS!!!!!!!!!!! AND EXPLANATION! POINTS! ALL! THOSE! FUCKING! EXPLANATION! POINTS!
</to carry jokes to far>
Okay, I agree about misunderstandings and short comments. But the other obvious difference is consequence. Misunderstandings in real life, face-to-face, can and often do result in physical violence.
That means that before I yell an obscenity I have to consider the consequence of my action (even if that consequence might be based in a possible misunderstanding).
Online dominance is often established as a consequence of your behavior, not your action.
Quack, quack.
Every comment you post? Thats ridiculous, surely I've missed a few.
Idiot.
Mod me offtopic for this but how do you get a "Troll" rated to a positive score?
Is the "qualifier" just the most common qualifier from all the votes?
Then you could have, for example, +1 Insightful, +1 Interesting, +1 Informative, -2 Troll and still have a positive score, eh?
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Listen you pathetic asswipes, you ridiculous ignorant F*CKTARDS, flames happen because of one thing: ANONYMITY. Take away the ability to be an asshole anonymously, and the problem goes awway.
Except for those who are genetically predisposed to be assholes, and to those of you who fall into that category I say screw YOU, asshole!, FUCK you!!!!!!
I'll be honest: I absolutely cannot tell the difference between the posts that are modded "-1: Flamebait" and the ones modded "+5: Funny". Well done moderators! :) LOL!!!111 *
* The researchers also found that putting smilies and "LOL" in a sarcastic post substantially reduced the chances of a "Flamebait" moderation...
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I find that "Lord of the Flies"-style group psychology plays a big role in the misunderstandings that erupt online. You can observe these same patterns in other political scenarios.
Discussion groups tend to build consensus quickly, and running threads lead to a form of shorthand communication among many of the participants, who after developing this level of groupthink become intolerant toward any challenge or any newcomer.
Newcomers are typically flamed for knowing little, even if their basic point is aligned with the groupthought. They are perceived this way until they too learn the groupspeak and meld into the consensus. This can happen fairly quickly and the newcomer is expected to remain active.
Contrarians are often quickly labeled as troublemakers, trying to upset the groupthink. Immediately a post contrary to the consensus is labeled as a troll or flamebait, and members of the group rally around to join in commonly ad hominem attacks that serve to reinforce the consensus opinion in the face of a challenge.
Humans, being rational, must think through the logic of any challenge, and humans, being emotional, have a strong desire to remain in a group. The internal and external conflict leads to some very interesting results.
Google says it was the drugs.
No shit Sherlock? I didn't know! Get him to /. so he can be up to date.
The NARC disbanded when members realized each other was a hypocrite.
That, and the promised incursion of AOL subscribers onto the Usenets was all blow away by the advent of Google Groups, and eventually, blogs.
What was once a heirarchy of opinion has fractured into an almost infinite constellation of opinion fiefdoms. It has become utter anarchy.
I've noticed in the last couple of years that definition of "troll" seems to be heading more towards "someone who has an opinion I dislike" rather than the correct meaning.
Interestingly enough, the first time I noticed this was several years ago on Slashdot. Even today, I still have to correct "troll" mods made by people who are only using it because because they dislike the dissenting (but still valid) opinion.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Playing the role of a troll and posting otherwise inane, rude comments in response to this topic doesn't make you any less of a troll.
nucking futs.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Mod Parent Up!
You took that one right over the top, circle, when you compared the people who participate in simple internet arguments to mass murderers.
How can you expect us to take you seriously?
Actually, though, your theory lends weight to the idea I expressed (and I won't even try wiki up the originator of either idea). That is, sometimes arguments erupt when consensus opinion is challenged.
For example, you believe that an idea contrary to your own opinion must come from someone with violent tendencies, and then you ACT upon your feelings in the online forum.
It always takes two to tango, circle, and if your dance partner is a heated kettle ready to explode, then what is your role?
This article sucks and so do YOU!
Psychology is a pseudo-science ...
Break out your old SAT analogy skills
Alchemy is to Chemistry as Psychology is to whatever real science will replace it.
It is also important to remember that most Psyc' majors are there to self-diagnose. They are all nuts and the average person would do well to stay as far away from them as possible.
And, to post sideways, in response to Kazrath's sibling post,
Previously people actually communicated everything face to face
Even in modern face to face communication this type of behaviour is a problem. Previously people actually could be punched in the face for saying something offensive.
Now you have to get the whole F'ing legal system involved. Retribution for rudeness and general assholery is often not worth the hassle. Add to this that the protest culture of the Boomers has created a world in which rudeness is rewarded.
After someone once said something incredibly rude to me, I responded with "What horrible company you must keep to say something like that and not fear being punched in the nose." The implied (although not actual) threat of physical violence got the conversation back on a civil track.
A world where there are immediate and real consequences for rude behaviour, creates a world that is civil and polite. Unfortunately, that is something we have lost in the last 50 years.
And you were wrong. Nicely done.
Let me ask you a question Mr. I took a first-level psych course, so I know all I need to know. Why does someone who gets hit over the head every day for five years expect to get hit on the head tomorrow?
More importantly, and a tremendous demonstration of why you need to maybe take a second psych course, why does someone who gets hit over the head on random days have a MUCH STRONGER response than someone who gets hit every day?
They do. You didn't know that. And it's certainly not obvious.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason you found things so obvious is the lack of sophistication of your first level course?
You'd think that to someone as intelligent as you that would be... obvious.
I played around with Google, and I found another post I made where I claim that it was actually "+5, Redundant" but I couldn't find anything using your method with "redundant" either, so maybe it was the drugs.
In person, or even on the phone, we tend to be directly accountable for things we say. If we're talking at a bar, and you call me an first-class a-hole, there's a chance I might slug you. And if I don't tag you today, I might tomorrow, because I can identify you pretty easily. If we're in a meeting work, and I call your idea the worst since Microsoft Bob, that may or may not reflect poorly on me. On the internet, however, where comments are at best anonymous and logins/handles/avatars can be easily changed, anyone can say as they please without fear of repercussions.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." - Marx
Ok, that story is only about 10 years old. Gee thanks. As for "intentionally provocative", well...duh! Good debate requires provocative discourse. It's the feeble minded fool on the other end that doesn't understand an intellectual joust and takes it as trolling or flaming, or worse yet, calls me a "FanBoi" (lamest insult ever). Without provocation, we'd never think things through critically; we'd all be in a mass state of agreement, which is pretty lame.
If you think about it, you'll see the hypocrisy of name-calling in an open public forum like usenet.
There are indeed repercussions in such forums. Flames are a consensus group's method of holding accountable the expression of a contrary thought or opinion.
Precisely because those holding consensus opinion choose to flame instead of debate, the contrarian is punished by being denied the honest discussion of the matter at hand.
All you can have in a public discussion forum is discussion, and if you are denied the discussion you desire, then that is indeed a consequence.
There is only one chair and it's a +5 Chair of Throwing
The other chairs are a lie
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Who meets face to face?
..." ...But those settings are hardly representative of the whole body of face-to-face gatherings; Those are very superficial, highly controlled settings.
What's all this talk about "what you'd never say face-to-face," when we hardly ever leave our houses and apartments?
Room-mates can easily make anything on the Internet look like a Japanese tea ceremony.
People have these very idealized, abstract, and romantic notions of what a "face-to-face" gathering entails. What they really mean is, "At work, we don't get into heated disagreements," or, "When I go to parties, we don't get into heated disagreements,
There is a simple fix for this.
Only allow overrated mod on posts that have a net positive moderation, and only allow underrated on those that have negative.
How a post that hasn't been rated can be modded overrated has always eluded me...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
TROLL THIS YOU @Q#$!@%#ING BI!#
You know what I think? I think that half the time, the meek have left their backbone at their girlfriends' house, not too far from the purse where she keeps their balls.
People in general think that everyone has to be nice to them. The truth is, it is a world of survival despite all the theraputic drugs and reefer you pathetic liberals continue to ingest. My family lineage against yours.
End of story. I am for profit, for wealth, for the highest standard of living I can afford, and everyone else is a Priority 2 unless I can figure out a way that their position in life is an enabler for my Priority 1.
Okay- so I am not serious. But the truth be known- No one is entitled to being well treated despite your own needs.
See my small cartoon: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/11/doing-social.html Bye, Oliver
+4 Redundant is the best you can claim. After that, +1 Flamebait is the next closest. You might have lost a point after hitting +5, but more likely it just got bigger with the retelling. Glad we could clear that up for you ;-)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=84020&cid=7339143
I've seen any comments that were well reasoned arguments labeled as trolls or flamebait simply because they opinion was different than /. groupthink. Unfortunately, the karma system makes the problem worse, not better.
You mean no one's called anyone Hitler in this discussion yet? Also, 4chan!
I've often wondered how many rude online trolls would act the same way in person, particularly if confronted by a linebacker sized thug.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
This is how the internet has helped dorks get dates for years. They ask girls out that would normally laugh in their face.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
Derek Smart, Derek Smart, Derek Smart.
The following letter is inspired by a quote from Thomas Paine: "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." Instead of focusing on why biased reporting and blatant disregard for the truth are hardly limited to highly visible media outlets, I would like to remind people that HiggsBison likes to compare his protests to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them. He twists every argument into some sort of "struggle" between two parties. HiggsBison unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what he claims gives him the right to scrap the notion of national sovereignty. His double standards are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. And they promote the mistaken idea that hooliganism brings one closer to nirvana.
I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that if HiggsBison were to inculcate the hermeneutics of suspicion in otherwise open-minded people, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that HiggsBison will accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses the most batty ex-cons I've ever seen with neo-biggety and uncontrollable rage. HiggsBison periodically puts up a facade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. If he thinks that he can make me cower before the emotions and accusations of others, then he's barking up the wrong tree. HiggsBison's understrappers work behind the scenes to shame my name. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true.
You may not understand this now, and I don't fault you for that, but HiggsBison's grievances will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. You might think that anyone who doesn't know that HiggsBison is unforgiving must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that's the case, then I'm afraid HiggsBison's vassals must have spent the past month on Mars. Are you beginning to get the picture here? If he feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. HiggsBison's arrogance has brought this upon himself. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that the only morally sound solution is to deal summarily with polyloquent card sharks.
In any case, perhaps you were looking for this.
I am a troll, so I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.
Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me.... You don't.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.
This is how bad info gets passed around.
If you don't know about the topic, don't make yourself sound like you do.
Cuz some Slashdotters believe anything they hear.
How ya like dat?
Please to you sir reads my e mail to you'r self.
I've carried the"troll" branding for several years here on /.
It's not so much that I feel no restraint due to anonymity,I'm the kiss of death to most in real life and speak my mind freely as Johnny Rotten.
I'm the nicest guy you could hope to meet normally.
Here's the diff: Intentionally stupid people bring out the carnivore in me.
People who have thought no further than to promote their cause on the say-so of pop culture and scientific evidence for hire.Never a look to history,not a drop of common sense,nothing to substantiate their wild claims but their peer leaders.
You know the ones I'm talkin about.
From the cause du jour,to the politically self righteous,from zealous activists to the scientifically deluded,I manage to disagree with them, then their fear shows, first by attempting to discredit me w/pop factoids and the same old B.S. I was disputing,then by moderation when logic and example are impenetrable.
I'd rather be known as a Troll who turns out right later than a moron who has the support of the rest of the herd of cattle at the moment.
To waste time on the dynamics of online communication rather than something important to mankind is a terrible waste of not only time,but academia and tax dollars of those who actually work,contribute and expect a return on their investment in science.
I'll save this other bucket of barbs for morons to come.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
...are not all that different. the reason mobs work is that you end up pretty much anonymous as well. and, if the mob is large enough, virtually free from consequence.
it is why when i read all the seemingly innocuous comments containing anger, hate, and provocations out there it scares me. how easy it would be for these frustrated, bitter people to turn their online anger into real violence given the chance to remain anonymous.
example: some kid on a forum i used to administer started baiting a non-white member with stupid trollish comments. within a few hours it exploded into a full white-supremacy thread and he wasn't alone with the vitriol.
sure, most trolls are really just trying to get your goat. but the stuff that anonymity "allows" people to say doesn't come from nowhere. to me it's a sign that given the right situation, the words would turn into actions.
that kid, probably no more than 16 years old, would let himself get swept up in a real lynching, i'm sure of it.
in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
You probably enjoyed it more that way. :)
SHITCOCK!
First post = troll. Cleverly worded post designed to enrage others = flamebait.
When I click on that link, it shows as +5, Redundant with the karma bonus modifier. So, I guess if you consider that part of the score, it's +5.
My university has an “integrated online learning environment” (hopelessly designed, implemented and managed) that includes forums for individual units and courses. All posts are identified by the student or staff member's full name. Many of the posters will see each other in lectures and other classes on a daily basis. All this means that there is no anonymity of any sort.
However, many people who are significantly more reasonable in person present themselves as raging fuckwads on these forums anyway.
This is clear proof that anonymity is not essential in generating online fuckwads. The “distance factor” is a far more reasonable explanation.
Invisible to moderators.
Yes, we did.
Not exactly when the telephone became popular - it happened when we were old enough to be left at home alone.
I think the fear of being bopped in the nose keeps otherwise obnoxious people from being overly obnoxious in public. If the worse somebody can do is flame you back, you are more willing to be verbally aggressive online. It is similar to how people, usually teens, who shout something rude at strangers from a passing car wouldn't do the same if standing 5 feet away. The same "hit and run" principle happens on the net.
Table-ized A.I.
Microsoft Rules! Vote Republican! Evolution is a scam! Don't believe in Global Warming! You're all going to hell!
Science has not yet discovered a way to transmit a punch across the Internet. Until such a time, people will continue to be rude because there are few if any consequences for their actions.
Too bad life is not like Star Trek where you can make people's console smoke and spark.
"My mother is a whaaaaat??? Eat photons you pencil-neck troll!" {Zap, Ftttt, Zzzeerrrp!}
There's always goatse, but it's too wide a bullet, hitting other readers also.
Table-ized A.I.
Please _DO NOT_ try this theory out in a Dublin pub. They _WILL_ follow through and the sting of a disproven theory will pale in comparison. I speak from the experience of being a self-confessed opinionated loudmouth when inebriated with no idea when to shut up. I'm also quite bruised.
But I am on the other side and I Do!
It takes skill to get modded down in a discussion where most of the other comments are +5 Funny "Fuck You's."
Signed,
Your Daddy
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
That's the experience of the Citizendium project so far. No vandalism. No trolls. Very little actual abuse. Just the usual opinionated, argumentative people you find online--as on any good moderated mailing list.
George Carlin already knew this over 25 years ago.
In one of his stand-ups he said that the amount a person was an asshole was directly related to how far they were from you.
(Paraphrasing, as I've not heard the bit in prob 20 years)
"If you're talking to someone about guy and the he's not around, (loud voice that anyone near can hear) That guy is a real asshole!!"
"If he's in the same room, (Turning head to person next to you and speaking in a soft voice) See that guy over there? he's a real asshole."
- Roach
We are operating under the basic assumption people who are assholes online are not assholes offline.
I see rudeness everywhere, not just the internet. From the tailgater on the highway, to the woman cutting me in line at the grocery store, to the teenager on her cell phone while I try and enjoy a movie, rudeness is everywhere. People make a big deal that credit card information on the internet will be used by hundreds of crooks within minutes, but do you really think if you laid your wallet down in a crowded shopping mall anything different would happen?
In short, this underlying belief that humanity's "asshole" bit is set to off by default just doesn't sit well with me.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Your analogy doesn't wash. You believe an online forum is like you on a sidewalk and includes the ability for teens to drive by? Not logical.
Try this, since you favor violence:
An online forum is a Wii boxing ring and you compete against the skill of others on screen. You can win a match or lose it, but really, no matter how hard you punch you cannot do more than win a match and score some points. There are no drive-bys, and nobody has any advantage other than the skill they bring to the ring.
Your fists are useless in this situation.
since you favor violence:
Where did I say I favor it? I am only saying it keeps most loud-mouths in check. That doesn't necessarily mean I favor it, only that it offers us an odd tradeoff. I didn't select which side of the tradeoff to favor, only pointed out the existence of the option.
And I don't see how your Wii analogy matches up to anything discussed.
Table-ized A.I.
Heh. Good luck with that theory. Le me know if you're ever in or near Stuttgart during football season, and the drinks are on me.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo