[mikeh]

I recently read a suggestion that may be self-evidento to many others who post here, but which got me to thinking.

The suggestion was that we see flame wars on the internet to a far greater degree than ever arise in real life largely because in real life, our exchanges are moderated by non-verbal cues. In most one on one discourse, we convey and receive many non-verbal cues that serve to lessen or modify the negative meaning we might otherwise draw from the mere words, while on-line we read the words and impose on them a meaning that arises more from our state of mind than it does any perception of what the author meant.....often were we to see the facial expression or the body language or hear the tone of voice, we would perceive a different meaning and perhaps not so readily take offence. Furthermore, these non-verbal cues operate as a sort of dampening feedback loop, minimizing the risk of a misunderstanding leading to escalation.

As one of those who undoubtedly irritates a number of posters, and who all too often gets irritated myself, this idea, which may seem obvious to others, made me metaphorically step back and look at how I behave on this forum, and how I perceive those whose posts occasionally annoy me.

As one example, there is a certain poster to whose ideas I often respond critically.....I shall not name him, but he is rumoured to be the best theorist on BBF. I suspect and maybe someday will learn that we'd get along fine over a beer or two....and that if we ever did, we'd still vigorously disagree but with perhaps more grace and humour than we do now...because we'd bring to each other's posts, as we read them, the real life impressions we have of the other, rather than merely the internal imagery we have created from reading our posts.

Now, the majority of posters seem to be able to avoid rudeness (either because they are nicer people than I am and/or they already instinctively or consciously understand this issue), and this post wouldn't have much relevance to them. I am definitely NOT trying to create more issues than already exist

So this post is partly a sort of apology to those I have annoyed, and will (alas) undoubtedly annoy in the future, and partly an invitation to others to either add to this thought or to suggest disagreement.

Perhaps this thread belongs in the WC, and, if so, I invite a moderator to move it.

[hrothgar]

 mikeh, on 2011-October-06, 11:14, said:

The suggestion was that we see flame wars on the internet to a far greater degree than ever arise in real life largely because in real life, our exchanges are moderated by non-verbal cues. In most one on one discourse, we convey and receive many non-verbal cues that serve to lessen or modify the negative meaning we might otherwise draw from the mere words, while on-line we read the words and impose on them a meaning that arises more from our state of mind than it does any perception of what the author meant.....often were we to see the facial expression or the body language or hear the tone of voice, we would perceive a different meaning and perhaps not so readily take offence. Furthermore, these non-verbal cues operate as a sort of dampening feedback loop, minimizing the risk of a misunderstanding leading to escalation.

I have heard this theory before. There is probably some truth to it. However, here's my take on matters

The internet forces us to deal with people that we would normally be able to exclude from our lives.

Case in point: I pretty much despise Lukewarm and alucard
I wouldn't cry a tear if either of them up and died

In the real world, you wouldn't ever see me/them at the same event. We're able to self segregate. Geography helps a lot, however, in the real world, I don't think that a host would ever make the mistake of inviting us both to a cocktail party.

Sadly, things don't work nearly as easily online.

[wyman]

 mikeh, on 2011-October-06, 11:14, said:

on-line we read the words and impose on them a meaning that arises more from our state of mind than it does any perception of what the author meant

 hrothgar, on 2011-October-06, 11:24, said:

Case in point: I pretty much despise Lukewarm and alucard
I wouldn't cry a tear if either of them up and died

I see what you mean...

[whereagles]

BBF? As in, Botswana bridge federation?

Anyway, the internet without flames is like Brazil without the girls. It's not fun, ahah!

[babalu1997]

 whereagles, on 2011-October-06, 12:02, said:

BBF? As in, Botswana bridge federation?

Anyway, the internet without flames is like Brazil without the girls. It's not fun, ahah!

I AGREE

UM ELEFANTE INCOMODA MUITA GENTE, DOIS ELEFANTES, INCOMODAM INCOMODAM MUITO MAIS

UM ELEFANTE INCOMODA MUITA GENTE, DOIS ELEFANTES, INCOMODAM INCOMODAM MUITO MAIS, TRES ELEFNATES INCOMODAM, INCOMODAM INCOMODAM MUITO MAIS

UM ELEFANTE INCOMODA MUITA GENTE, DOIS ELEFANTES, INCOMODAM INCOMODAM MUITO MAIS, TRES ELEFNATES INCOMODAM, INCOMODAM INCOMODAM MUITO MAIS, QUATRO ELEFANTES INCOMODAM, INCOMODAM, INCOMODAM, INCOMODAM MUITO MAIS

(CHILDREN'S DITTY IN BRAZIL)

[kenrexford]

As a person with absolutely no relevance to this discussion, I will troll anyway and offer my take.

My experience in real life with BRIDGE PLAYERS is slightly nuanced from that of Mike. In real life, the gestures and comments and means of making them are MUCH MORE OFFENSIVE than could possibly be generated in mere posts, and this among friends who have been and will remain friends for years. It is perhaps the nature of the personalities and the sense of humor held by those who play bridge.

For example, I might when talking in person to a random stranger avoid all discussion of anything controversial. However, when talking with bridge players, we have a certain level of mutual understanding as to both the facts discussed and the expected decorum. So, outside smoking a cigarette, a person might note leading the Queen against 6♣. Knowing the hand, in person I might say or have said to me, "That's a dumbass lead," even if I have never met the person. This would be rude to most people. But, it is bridge-specific decorum appropriate, somehow, to bridge discussions.

Now, there is a degree to which in person captures facial expressions better, and sometimes humor is missed. But, also to a degree the in-person facial expressions are worse!

But, who takes this personally? If the decorum of the discussion is in good nature started with, "Jane, you ignorant slut..." and then a bridge theory is espoused, the use of that lead-in is part of the game. No offense, nothing personal.

I would call Jane an ignorant slut over beers and expect Jane to respond with something equally appauling while offering to buy the next round.

[Free]

I JUST HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE TYPE WITH THEIR CAPS LOCK ON, MY STATE OF MIND WON'T CHANGE THAT.

[nigel_k]

Without those non-verbal cues I can certainly understand some people thinking Hrothgar was being serious rather than ironic.

[gnasher]

Why do annoying posts happen? Because people are too easily annoyed, of course.

[BunnyGo]

Or are we too easily annoying?

[helene_t]

In real life, when someone pisses me off, I rarely confront the person spontaneously. This is because I need time to consider an appropriate response. The more heated the conflict the more I have to lose by framing my position in a not-so-thought-through way. It usually takes a couple of hours before I have decided what an appropriate response would be. By that time, at least one of the two people involved is likely to have left the party. And otherwise the topic of discussion has changed so my response is no longer on-topic.

On the internet, when MikeH makes an annoying post, I can take my time to think through an appropriately toxic response and post it when it is still on-topic. In fact it typically takes a lot less than the two hours it might take it real life. This is because:
- I can afford not to be quite as thorough as I would have been IRL because if I make an ass of myself I can always edit it later.
- When in a toxic mood it is much easier to type than to talk because I don't have to worry about any non-verbal clues that might weaken my position, for example by betraying my lack of confidence in my own assertions. This is different when I want to make a friendly comment, in which case I am not worried about non-verbal clues.

So online communication makes it easier to be hostile and more difficult to be friendly.

[the hog]

 mikeh, on 2011-October-06, 11:14, said:

As one example, there is a certain poster to whose ideas I often respond critically.....I shall not name him, but he is rumoured to be the best theorist on BBF. I suspect and maybe someday will learn that we'd get along fine over a beer or two....and that if we ever did, we'd still vigorously disagree but with perhaps more grace and humour than we do now...because we'd bring to each other's posts, as we read them, the real life impressions we have of the other, rather than merely the internal imagery we have created from reading our posts.

The poster to whom you are referring is arrogant with very little to be arrogant about and ill mannered. I would certainly not regard this poster as "the best theorist on BBF" either, by a long way.

[awm]

We are perhaps underestimating the amount of rudeness that occurs in face to face conversations. It's just that there's no one writing it down for posterity.

[Vampyr]

 awm, on 2011-October-06, 19:28, said:

We are perhaps underestimating the amount of rudeness that occurs in face to face conversations. It's just that there's no one writing it down for posterity.

Maybe or maybe not. Recently hrothgar called me "you loathesome diseased cunt", and I do not believe that he would address a stranger, or indeed anyone, that way face-to-face.

[Vampyr]

 kenrexford, on 2011-October-06, 14:15, said:

If the decorum of the discussion is in good nature started with, "Jane, you ignorant slut..." and then a bridge theory is espoused, the use of that lead-in is part of the game.

Gosh, who else remembers point/counterpoint? That was so funny!

[mike777]

 Vampyr, on 2011-October-06, 21:22, said:

Gosh, who else remembers point/counterpoint? That was so funny!

saturday night live skit with jane curtain and dan akroyd.

[nige1]

For many, emoticons express feelings almost as effectively as words
For some, emoticons are more effective
A few are annoyed by them
Which makes me afraid
Although the blinking ones annoy even me

[jjbrr]

We are perhaps underestimating the efficacy of lolcats in response to terrible posters.

[Free]

 Vampyr, on 2011-October-06, 21:19, said:

Maybe or maybe not. Recently hrothgar called me "you loathesome diseased cunt", and I do not believe that he would address a stranger, or indeed anyone, that way face-to-face.

Well, if you deserve it, you can hardly call it "annoying"

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2011-October-06, 22:00, said:

For many people, emoticons express feelings almost as effectively as words

For this recipient, emoticons aren't at all effective, because apart from the smiling one I have no idea what any of them mean.