Flaming (Internet)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a discussion board, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or even through e-mail. An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree. In some cases, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they can be called "trolls". Most often however, flames are angry or insulting messages transmitted by people who have strong feelings about a subject.

Some equate flaming with simply letting off steam, though the receiving party may be less than pleased. Similarly, a normal, non-flame message may have elements of a flame -- it may be hostile, for example -- but it is not a flame if its author seriously intends to advance the discussion. The word flaming is also sometimes used for long, intensive and heated discussions, even though insults do not occur.

Although the trading of insults is as old as human speech, flaming on the Internet, like many other online 'actions,' started in the Usenet hierarchies (although it was known to occur in the WWIVnet and FidoNet computer networks as well).

The term "flaming" is believed to be a reference to the Marvel Comic superhero the Human Torch of the Fantastic Four. After the accident which gave Johnny Storm the ability to become a human torch, he was initially unable to control when he would burst into flames. He learned to control his powers by saying "Flame on" which would initiate the transformation into a human torch and he would return to his normal state by saying "Flame off." ^[1] Since early users of the asynchronous text communication wanted to distinguish their angry/insulting/sarcastic portions of their response from their serious statements, they would prefix their angry/insulting/sarcastic text with "Flame on" and indicate the end of such statements with "Flame off".

1 Other methods of flaming
2 Extended use of the term "flame war"
3 Causes of flaming
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links

[edit] Other methods of flaming

[edit] Flame reviews

Flame reviews are often used to insult the creator of a product (eg. a game, a story, or a video), but are particularly common on, but not restricted to, sites with poor review monitoring techniques. Since they are difficult to respond to, they rarely burst into prolonged online arguments, although they are intended to be both extremely annoying and hurtful (the two specific qualities required for a flame).

Flame reviews are often confused with non-constructive criticism. While non-constructive criticism is often painfully blunt, rude and sometimes insulting, it never attacks the creators themselves, only their products. (eg. "The over descriptiveness and out of characterness of this story falls flat on its face!") In other words, the review is not made with malicious intent. The review may or may not be anonymous, because such reviewers rarely believe that they have actually said anything hurtful and so are not afraid of retribution.

Flame reviews, on the other hand, involve deeply personal attacks, often regarding the creator's sexuality, intelligence, choice of fandom, family or friends, with random cursing frequently thrown in. They are more likely to be anonymous and are intentionally insulting. If there is any reference to the product, it will be used to insult the creator (eg: "How stupid are you to have written this awful trash?"). A popular stereotype of a flame review is that it is badly spelt, typed in All Caps and contains either excessive punctuation or no punctuation at all, but none of this is compulsory.

Flame reviews and non-constructive criticism are usually only confused when the creator has never actually received a genuine flame. They are in fact very different and can be told apart on sight. However, both can severely emotionally hurt the receiver.

Flame reviewers are closely associated with Internet trolls.

[edit] Flame Blitzkrieg

The using of multiple severe flames in quick succession to steamroll an opponent into submission. Sometimes multiple people with a similar opinion will participate. Sometimes one person will make multiple different flames, sometimes using alternate names to fake that they have backup (see also Sockpuppet).

Alternatively, the same identical flame may be used many times in succession - up to and over a hundred identical 'reviews' in situations where there is no limit to reviews and no way to catch the reviewer - copy-and-pasted into a review box by the same anonymous person. The 'review' may be extremely short and the same curse word pasted over and over in one review, then repeated in MORE reviews, it may be a filthy story pasted into the review box and posted repeatedly, or it may be the same flame posted repeatedly.

[edit] Holy Wars

While a flame war is usually a particular spate of flaming, a holy war is a drawn-out disagreement that may last years or even span careers. For instance, younger Linux programmers who today have strong opinions on vi and emacs may not even have been born in 1976 when these editors were released.

Use of the term "holy war" implies that the root of the disagreement is a clash of values, and intractable of resolution except by agreeing to disagree. (This sort of flamewar requires the acceptance of differing opinions in order to end, as the length of a "holy war" clearly indicates that neither side is willing to change their minds or back down.)

[edit] Pie fights

A pie fight is a type of discourse specific to bulletin boards, blogs and other types of Internet forums. Pie fights are characterized by heated, emotional exchanges, and although they are typically of short duration, they can have a devastating effect on an online community. Pie fights can be started by Internet trolls who use baiting techniques to enrage Internet forum users so much that they post inappropriate and/or offensive messages. Unfortunately, this often results in disruption of the forum more than anything else.

The term "pie fight" is derived from a June 2005 event on Daily Kos, a liberal and progressive issues web site, in which site administrators accepted an advertisement that showed two scantily-clad women throwing pies and smearing each other with whipped cream and pie filling. This advertisement was for the TBS reality series The Real Gilligan's Island.^[2]

Despite the fact that the advertisement was only marginally related to the regular subject matter discussed on Daily Kos, it dominated the user diary entries and blog comments for several days. The animosity generated by the acceptance of this advertisement caused some established members of the Daily Kos community to cease participation in the forum that it provides.

[edit] Thought policing

Thought policing (taken from George Orwell's novel 1984) is when someone trolls the forums looking for posts that do not align with their political, religious, or moral values. When they find a post that they do not agree with, they post messages in that post to incite people to bring attention to that post to get it locked or deleted. This phenomenon is widespread in forums and motives can vary, but what they accomplish is to stifle freedom of speech and open and honest discussions on topics they feel could be a threat.

During the early days of Internet use, flaming could be considered an inside joke, a group game or even a participatory artistic activity. This can still be the case on forums and message boards which have a small number of regular users who know each other well. In this situation, flames are exchanged without ill-feeling and especially clever and humorous insults may be archived for the future enjoyment of users. In the 1980s when Bulletin Board Systems were becoming common, small and tight-knit online communities would often treat flaming as a litmus test for potential new members. If they weathered the attack, or better yet, joined in and returned as good as they got, they were worth keeping. An excellent example of one such board would be the FYAD subforum of the Something Awful community, which engages in constant vicious flamewars for both comedic value and to intimidate new users from posting. Especially humorous threads are archived in the FYAD section of the Comedy Goldmine. While those who participate in the 'art of flaming' may find it humorous, those who do not often find it hurtful and have their confidence shot down. Due to this, many web sites have had anti-flame groups spring up to get flamers banned from the site on behalf of those who have been hurt by an insulting flame. So far though, none of these groups have ever been successful in getting flamers removed from any sites, and more often than not the members of these groups are banned from websites themselves for harassing the flamers.

There are other Internet communities where flaming would not be tolerated.

[edit] Extended use of the term "flame war"

Sometimes, serious academic or technical disagreements online are described casually as "flame wars" even when the major participants are making useful and informative points and, largely, not flaming. This may have to do with the degree to which observers identify emotionally with the sides of the debate, or see esteemed leaders or role-models representing their own points of view powerfully.

For example, the Usenet discussion between Andrew S. Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds on microkernel versus monolithic kernel operating system design (Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate) has been described as a famous "flame war". Despite being designated a "flame war", the debate is quite informative: it has been studied by serious computer scientists and researchers, and remains recommended and even required reading in courses on OS design and implementation.^{[citation needed]}

Partly, terming such a discussion a "flame war" seems to be due to faulty or distorted memory of the discussion itself: it is easier to remember the (relatively few) insulting asides made -- such as Tanenbaum's comment that he would give Torvalds a poor grade for Linux's design -- than it is to remember the technical points, a phenomenon called illusory correlation. To continue the above example, Torvalds and Tanenbaum have both made it clear that they consider their famous discussion to have been mischaracterized.

Technical "advocacy" discussions, concerning the merits or flaws of a technology -- or especially of rival technologies -- can often seem "flamy" simply from the emotional intensity of hobbyists or professionals involved. Some have called the debates about the relative merits of Intel Pentium versus PowerPC, or Pentium 4 versus Athlon XP, or Microsoft Windows versus Mac OS X, or Microsoft Windows versus Linux, or Apple Computer's decision to go with NeXT over BeOS as "flame wars", even though the discussions are often highly technical and non-inflammatory.

Also, debates on certain topics in theoretical physics, such as one regarding loop quantum gravity versus string theory between Lubos Motl and John Baez and Steve Carlip, have been described by string theorist and Harvard professor of physics Lubos Motl as a "flame war" despite the fact that they were a source of fruitful articles on quasinormal modes of black hole physics.

The term "flame war" may also be applied to a heated debate in anticipation of the debate becoming an actual flame war.

[edit] Causes of flaming

There is no general agreement on the causes of flaming, although a recent study has led to somewhat conclusive evidence. Some common hypotheses are:

Some forms of flaming can be attributed to deeper social or psychological weaknesses, probably from lack of exposure to a broader spectrum of disciplines that result in self-control issues.^[3]

It is noted that Internet users are more likely to flame online than insult others in the real world, as the latter can lead to embarrassment and physical altercations, which online "anonymity" can avoid. Others urge against flaming, because people on the other side have feelings too.

Those guilty of flaming may justify it as getting even for having had their feelings hurt initially, so they see it as doing justice by inflicting serious emotional distress on another.

Some flaming may be done with no stronger motive than to get a reaction from the target of the flame, or for the feeling of power or moral freedom of causing emotional distress to another, or even just randomly for no reason whatsoever.