[BanditFlyer]

So why do we find ourselves getting in so many arguments here?

I had 2 goals with this thread:

1. To learn more about how cybercultures work.

2. To find out where all this animosity comes from. I've never seen a barfight resulting from a difference of political opinions or even religious opinions, but, looking at many of the posts and threads in civ-deb, if people were to have similar discussions in person, there's quite a few of my acquaintances would wouldn't hesitate to turn it into a physical confrontation.

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

So why do we find ourselves getting in so many arguments here?

I had 2 goals with this thread:

1. To learn more about how cybercultures work.

2. To find out where all this animosity comes from. I've never seen a barfight resulting from a difference of political opinions or even religious opinions, but, looking at many of the posts and threads in civ-deb, if people were to have similar discussions in person, there's quite a few of my acquaintances would wouldn't hesitate to turn it into a physical confrontation.

Maybe you'd like to step outside & say that?

Seriously, I've no idea. But if you do fall out w/someone online, chances are you won't get laid out, so maybe some people "vent" more than would IRL.

Are other boards similar? (have you checked?)

[Empire2500]

Nah,these confrontations are just to make a debate more intense IMO.

[WarC]

I don't know if people have such in-depth political discussions in person.

I have noticed that when people speak over the internet using text, that the discussion can quickly turn heated because there is no other method to control the language. It is very up front and honest over text.

For instance, there is no indication of body language or emphasis on words...When two people are talking in person they can gauge eachother based on body language and then change their verbal delivery accordingly.

However, when you are reading the words, the meaning or context of those words and be interpreted differently than they might be in person.

This happens to me a lot - There are strongly opinionated liberals who I can not argue with online but who I could discuss things with in person very very comfortably...Because we are both able to better control the course of conversation in person. Whereas when we are talking online, we are bound to start yelling at eachother.

Am I making any sense?

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by bomb #21

Maybe you'd like to step outside & say that?

Are you talkin' ta me?!?!?!?

Originally Posted by Bomb

Seriously, I've no idea. But if you do fall out w/someone online, chances are you won't get laid out, so maybe some people "vent" more than would IRL.

Are other boards similar? (have you checked?)

I don't know. I would guess so, but this is really the only board in which I spend much time in the civ-deb type section.

We have a lot of people here who have YEARS of experience with this stuff, and I was hoping they could give me some input on the first question as well.

Also wondering what other differences there are between IRL and cybercultures ... (besides just the apparent amplification of rage)

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

We have a lot of people here who have YEARS of experience with this stuff, and I was hoping they could give me some input on the first question as well.

Well, I have seen a couple of 'long-timers' state "if you think this place is bad, try checking out other places" before, in response to "not very civilised here, is it?" posts. Mentioning no names, obviously.






















OK, it was Di and Mulder.

[JEBWrench]

The animosity of a cyberculture is no different than in offline cultures. However, the concentration of confrontations is what's different. The cyberculture is a microcosm of human culture, but, with the operative units (people) still being the same scale. As such, when one person gets angry at another in a city, it's not necessarily as noticible.

But, when your community is only a handful of people, you will take notice, and it will be easy for others to feed off that burgeoning animosity, and as such, the energy of the confrontation grows. (Indeed, "Flames" is a very fitting term.)

[iltos]

Originally Posted by WarC

I don't know if people have such in-depth political discussions in person.

I have noticed that when people speak over the internet using text, that the discussion can quickly turn heated because there is no other method to control the language. It is very up front and honest over text.

For instance, there is no indication of body language or emphasis on words...When two people are talking in person they can gauge eachother based on body language and then change their verbal delivery accordingly.

However, when you are reading the words, the meaning or context of those words and be interpreted differently than they might be in person.

This happens to me a lot - There are strongly opinionated liberals who I can not argue with online but who I could discuss things with in person very very comfortably...Because we are both able to better control the course of conversation in person. Whereas when we are talking online, we are bound to start yelling at eachother.

Am I making any sense?

yeah...and i think there is a lot of truth to it, too, WC....in addition, i believe the honesty (and distance) allows people to say things they might never say in person...either ideas expressed, or ways or expressing them.....

cyber culture seems to us allow all of us to be a bit more "us"

oh, yeah, and it also allows us to ruminate a bit before expressing stuff.....sometimes, that's a good thing...sometimes, it just allows us to get more ticked off than we might have in RT

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by JEBWrench

The animosity of a cyberculture is no different than in offline cultures. However, the concentration of confrontations is what's different. The cyberculture is a microcosm of human culture, but, with the operative units (people) still being the same scale. As such, when one person gets angry at another in a city, it's not necessarily as noticible.

But, when your community is only a handful of people, you will take notice, and it will be easy for others to feed off that burgeoning animosity, and as such, the energy of the confrontation grows. (Indeed, "Flames" is a very fitting term.)

So, in effect, it's more like a family. In that it's a smaller community. A family of in-laws, perhaps.

And I think War makes a good point too - everything here is focused on speech - you can't do any other activity here other than speak. You can't go skiing, skateboarding, etc, like you do with offline friends and acquaintences.

[JEBWrench]

I live in a neighbourhood of about 20 people in the summer. When there's a scuffle of some kind, it's major, no matter what.

If we were in downtown Toronto, it'd be an afterthought. That's why concentration is so important.

[Guyzer]

A lot of it is due to people being able to hide behind a monitor. I for one don't believe the majority of " tough guy's " on this board would act or speak the way they do in person. I'm a good example of that. In person I am not very tolerant of people and have no problem telling someone whats on my mind. In here I'm the oposite because there's no point in being any other way. In the end nothing really can be resolved or can it ? I see to many times it can't so it's a waste of time.... jmo.

[WarC]

Originally Posted by Wimpy369

A lot of it is due to people being able to hide behind a monitor. I for one don't believe the majority of " tough guy's " on this board would act or speak the way they do in person. I'm a good example of that. In person I am not very tolerant of people and have no problem telling someone whats on my mind. In here I'm the oposite because there's no point in being any other way. In the end nothing really can be resolved or can it ? I see to many times it can't so it's a waste of time.... jmo.

In that respect I think this forum does pretty good. Most people here seem to be pretty down to earth and not very trollish. A lot of sport or computer gaming forums are filled with a-holes.

That extends to the moderators as well, perhaps especially. There aren't any abusive, obxnoxious, powerhappy moderators-o-doom here. I think this forum has a personal aspect to it that is lacking in a lot of other forums.

[valis]

Originally Posted by WarC

For instance, there is no indication of body language or emphasis on words...When two people are talking in person they can gauge eachother based on body language and then change their verbal delivery accordingly.

That is it in a nutshell. I've stated for years that roughly 80% of all communication between two humans is non-verbal; this thread made me research (thanks, bandit) those figures, and found them slightly lacking. At multiple sites I found that the latest estimation is that the words themselves count for approximately 7% of the meaning inferred; the rest is through either tone and pitch of the voice (35-40%), or through body language (53-58%). Again, these are all estimations, but still bases quite the heavy totals on non-verbal communication.

The internet, and these forums, robs us of this sense of inference. We lose 90% of our communication through these forums, and as such are left to infer ourselves what was meant and what was not. Generally one can tell when someone is being a twit and provoking on purpose, but frequently I've seen threads start out innocent, someone said something that was taken out of context, and the next thing you know, wimpy is talking about burying people.

Couple the lack of communication with the anonymity afforded by the internet, and you can get a lot of people very upset with one another over perceived slights; just search this forum for the word 'semantic' and you can see where people are trying to work out what each other is saying.....

[GoneForNow]

Interesting. I've never posted anything here I wouldn't say to your face.

[valis]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Interesting. I've never posted anything here I wouldn't say to your face.

ditto here. but I would state that we would be in the minority; there's another active thread going on around here wherein the statement was made that this is all a bunch of nonsense, and none of us are who we portray ourselves. I disagree with that; we are who we are, and while we can get buy with a lot of anonymity here, I highly doubt that anyone reputable (read: not peril0us) would attempt to portray themselves as anything but themselves.