[Here are a series of posts from August 1993, to alt.culture.usenet and news.future, on usenet and flaming.]

-The Unabridged History of Usenet Flaming???
-Great Flame Classics
-Is bullying an 'opinion'?

Last updated: September 1997

alt.culture.usenet #1408 (0 + 0 more)                                      [1]
From: jorn@genesis.MCS.COM (Jorn Barger)
[1] The Unabridged History of Usenet Flaming???
Date: Sun Aug 15 14:29:46 CDT 1993

Here's a thought experiment:

Picture an "Unabridged History of Usenet" in the form of a shelfful of
CD-ROMs, chronologically covering everything from the early 80s thru the
present.  (Under 100 gigs total, I'm sure.  Currently about a gig a month,
a new disk a month, I think?)  ((How much of this record is already
irretrievably lost, anybody know?))

Picture a master index for the whole series, including sub-indexes by
newsgroup, contributor, and topic.  Picture serious devotees { :^) keeping
it all on-line, on a 100-gig harddrive, with software sophisticated enough
to maintain the illusion of its all being 'at their fingertips'.

Picture legions of future researchers studying every aspect of the
sociology of Usenet, with this unabridged reference as the impeccable
repository of *all* the really necessary evidence.

Now picture that some of these researchers decide to compile *an analytic
history of the evolution of Usenet flaming*....

Will it be possible for them to establish a neat set of *classes* of flame?
Then, for each newsgroup, they could trace the historical sequence of the
sorts of flamers it attracted.  Flaming styles might be named to
immortalize the personalities that pioneered them...  (God forbid...
right?  ;^)

Graphs could be drawn up showing how different styles of flaming changed
the patterns of posting to a group-- driving some people away, driving out
some sorts of discussion, or maybe sometimes the opposite-- opening up new
possibilities and breaking down barriers.  Someone would code a shareware
"SimFlame" or "SimNewsgroup" that captured these rules...?

And a set of rules-to-go-by will emerge, for how best to handle any given
sort of flame...

GREAT FLAME CLASSICS, and what to do about them
(a first draft)

The Spelling flame
PROS (of flaming someone's spelling): they learn something, maybe
CONS: who cares about spelling?  is it ever worth wasting a message on?
Alternative strategy: quote their text in your followup and casually *fix*
the error (kind of subtle)
How to respond if you're flamed for this: Ignore it publicly, or thank them
politely.  By email send them a thoughtful argument about the
destructiveness of such flames.  (I'd like to see form-letters for this
sort of purpose, easily available.)

The Bandwidth flame
PROS: some messages are a big waste, and others are in the wrong group
CONS: variety is the spice of life, does it really hurt anybody?  Bandwidth
is cheap!
Alternative to flaming: if you must flame, use mail not news!
Response to being flamed: Email them another form-letter argument.  Each
newsgroup is going to have a few bandwidth-fascists-- I'd like to see a
counterforce in each group that responds each time with a calm reassurance
that the flame is not the voice of the majority.  This is a case where it's
better for the response to be from a third party.

The Untrimmed-Quoted-Text flame
PROS: people should get in the habit of trimming quotes
CONS: it wastes bandwidth to flame by Followup instead of Reply
Alternative: if you want to flame, use mail not news!  Miss Manners
recommends phrasing such complaints in terms of technological helpfulness:
"Perhaps you haven't learned the delete-block command in vi or emacs?
They're simple: ..."
Response: Swallow your pride and email your thanks.  If they were vicious,
you might work up a thoughtful paragraph about the destructiveness of
vicious flaming, but never flame them back, it's hopeless.

The Clueless-Newbie flame
PROS: none, it's just darn easy (or is there a useful 'hazing' effect?)
CONS: everybody was one, and will be again, why torture them?
Response:  Another case where a counterforce ought to speak up in the
newbie's defense.

The Read-the-Manual flame
PROS: some people are just *lazy*, and need a boot
CONS: reading manuals is a drag, cultivating your skills at communicating
things concisely is very valuable exercise
Alt: Give them the boot *and* give them a nice concise answer
Response: A form-email about destructive flaming.

The You?!?-a-Worthwhile-Idea??? flame
PROS: none, it's just darn easy
CONS: you can never know in advance who'll turn out to have a really good
idea
Response: Don't let them get your goat.  Reply as if their attack was
constructive criticism, and deal with it straightfaced.  You'll look lots
better than them.  If you can't find anything to repond to, say that.

The You-Like-X?!? flame
PROS: sometimes (often!) people's tastes seem ridiculous and bizarre
CONS: what business is it of yours?
Alt: You have to be allowed to disagree with their taste, but try to keep
it humorous and friendly.  Here's where the sandwiched-in-sugar trick
really helps.  Reassure them you respect them in general.
Response: A form-email about tolerance might be good here.

The Get-a-Life flame
PROS: some people use Usenet as a psychological crutch, and could do with
more reality in their lives
CONS: one person's useless trivia is another's scholarship, or at least
their healing hobby
Alt: a form-email seems kind of cold if you're telling someone to get a
life.  But maybe that's okay...
Response: (Is there any reasonable way to reply with evidence that you
*have* a life?)

The Starry-eyed-Idealist flame
PROS: most people have *no idea* how cruel and selfish the world can get
CONS: that's no reason to stop fighting for kindness and justice
Alt: Sandwich your cynicism ( /realism) in a statement of your own ideals
Response: A form-email with some beautiful and inspiring quotes?

The Why-Bother? flame
PROS: people can get too worked up, about nothing
CONS: somebody needs to start doing *something* in the world
Alt: a form-email about priorities?
Response: a reasoned posting about your priorities

The Science-Skeptic flame
PROS: people can be credulous about the dumbest things
CONS: science is still miles from perfection, and common sense is
vindicated regularly, often after decades of scientific 'disproof'
Alt: phrase your attack entirely in terms of questions for the nonskeptic
to answer (don't appear like you're trying to shut them up)
Response: Personally, I think non-skeptics need to marshall a scientific-
method formletter/FAQ that shows in detail how science works best if you
nurture *multiple hypotheses*.  Skeptics have this territorialism that's
not at all scientific...

jorn@mcs.com

alt.culture.usenet #1435
From: jorn@genesis.MCS.COM (Jorn Barger)
[1] Re: Explaining Usenet to non-subscribers
Date: Sun Aug 29 07:23:55 CDT 1993

Roger Lewis writes:
> What makes usenet GREAT is the lack of Matt Dillons.  We have here, not
> merely a near-Democracy, but also a near-Anarchy.  I don't mean anarchy
> in the sense of chaos, but the actual political movement Anarchy.
>
> So what is so unpleasant about it that makes you feel we need to start
> building heirarchies where Matt Dillons rule the net?  Did it ever
> occur to you that you're more likely to wind up with Laurence Powells
> than Matt Dillons?
>
> Maybe point 12 being your last was one of those "blurt out" moments
> you described earlier?  Or do you really want more rules and regulations
> and enforcers?

Roger, first off let me assure you that my number one hero,
philosophically, is William Blake, with his attitude of "Damn braces!
Bless relaxes!" and "Exuberance is beauty."  So certainly, rules and
regulations and enforcers is not what I meant to imply by "innovate the
Usenet equivalent of a Matt Dillon".

Did you see the sorts of responses to flames that I was advocating in my
"Unabridged History of Usenet Flaming" post?  All I really want to see is
the emergence of a shared community consciousness of what's destructive,
that responds instantly and reliably to every occasion of rudeness on the
net.  (I called it a "Counterforce", which is a term Pynchon uses in
Gravity's Rainbow.)

One of the recurring tragic themes of my adult life has been ***utopian
ideals of group process *laid low* by some single malicious individual***.
Again and again, I've started groups that were freely, anarchically open to
all, and spent many patient hours trying to build a communal consciousness
within those groups, only to have my efforts betrayed by some person (who I
could have chosen to exclude, but didn't) who decided to use that forum to
act out malicious I'm-cooler-than-you scenarios.

My frustration and impotence in those situations has made me wish for some
strength of personality that would make me invulnerable to these predators--
one mental image I have of this power is the John Houseman character in
"Paper Chase", whose forceful *gaze* makes people sit up and take notice!
(Does this make him a 'cop' to an anarchist?  Or does it just make him the
baddest s.o.b. in Anarchia?  ;^)

But why can't we, as a substitute for this fictional Houseman or
authoritarian Matt Dillon, have instead a counterforce that *rises as one* to
protect the weak and preserve newsgroups as friendly places for lively,
interesting discussions?

What I would like, Roger, is that the next time you see me (or anyone)
being treated cruelly, *you* take it upon *yourself* to become 'Matt Dillon
for a day' and speak up in my defense!

(After seeing the Kadie thread turn into a Kadie-is-a-hypocrite witchhunt,
I'd like to try to dissociate my own virtues-or-lack-of-same from the
question of the validity of my argument!  It shouldn't matter if I haven't
always lived up to my own highest standards, nor if I fail again in the
future.  I'm not saying I expect *anybody* to be perfect.  I'm trying to
argue that the best way to cope with human fallibility is if we all
try to stand up for kindness over cruelty, whenever the issue arises...
Certainly, I'm a terrible judge of what other people are going to
perceive as a flame!)


jorn@mcs.com

alt.culture.usenet #1437
From: jorn@genesis.MCS.COM (Jorn Barger)
[2] Is bullying an 'opinion'? (Was: Explaining
+   Usenet to non-subscribers)
Date: Sun Aug 29 15:08:07 CDT 1993

I'm very fond of Mark Alan Stamaty's weekly political comic, "Washingtoon".
The latest one is about how *complicated* political issues have gotten (eg,
NAFTA) and about how much easier it is for most people, to just grumble at
whoever's in power, rather than actually trying to figure out *who deserves
what*, and standing up to those who are trying to take more than they
deserve.

And I see the same "politics of the shrug" on Usenet, when people say 'just
ignore flamers':
> But what is so beautiful about the Usenet is that it is unreliable and
> that there is not a constricting conciousness. Your ideal is constructed
> in personal terms, and while many may agree with it as a general prin-
> ciple, getting those same people to agree what constitutes actual rude-
> ness, and what an appropriate response is, will be impossible. We are
> black and white, male and female, gay and straight, there are posters
> from 6 continents, and in that riot of conflicting opinions there will
> never be a shared culture. Vive la difference.

It seems to me there's a perfectly obvious fallacy in this argument, but
I've still never quite managed to explain it clearly enough to get the
point across:

  "Flame" is NOT one of the colors, in the rainbow of cultural diversity!!!

Flaming causes pain.  It causes fear.  It causes withdrawal.  It causes
cultural impoverishment, as *fewer* opinions get freely expressed.  These
are deep offenses to our evolutionary heritage-- intellectual
territorialism-- they're not just another equally valid philosophical
"opinion"!

You do *not* risk cultural impoverishment if you discourage bullying.
Bullying is *not* part of the scientific method.  It's not part of *any*
decent educational philosophy.  Cultural relativism does *not* require
protecting the freedom of bullies to be bullies!  (But *of course* the
bullies recognize how lucky it will be for them, if they can convince
anyone that it *does*...)

jorn@mcs.com


=----------=-    ,!.    --=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=
Jorn Barger      j't    Anon-ftp to genesis.mcs.com in mcsnet.users/jorn for:
  <:^)^:>    K=-=:: -=->   Finnegans Wake, artificial intelligence, Ascii-TV,
 .::.:.::..   "=i.: [-'   fractal-thicket indexing, semantic-topology theory,
jorn@mcs.com   /;:":.\     DecentWrite, MiniTech, nant/nart, flame theory &c!
=----------=  ;}'   '(,  -=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=