[Air-l] Following the flaming discussion...

[Eva Ekeblad]

At 03.32 +0100 02-01-13, Cristian Berrio scrobe:
>Within all the possible versions of flame wars, seems to me that we lack a
>clear definition of the phenomum, so it is easy to extend and extend without
>reaching clear conclusions.

Yes, Cristian, I agree there:
it would be a good thing to have a clear definition of Flame Wars in this
discussion - which I find very enjoyable and incredibly useful. It seems
that "conflict in electronic groups" is usually debated IN electronic
groups in the context of some recent conflict in the group in question,
which might not be the best of circumstances. So thanks to Robert for
asking the air-l out of the blue!

At 23.02 -0800 02-01-09, robert m. tynes scrobe:
>Has anyone out there participated in a flame war?(The more recent, the
>better.) If so, I'd been interested in hearing about it.

Now, it is also a characteristic of electronic discussions (in interest
oriented groups with voluntary participation, like this one) that they
usually proceed by chains of association that do not come to any clear
conclusions, collectively. In my opinion they may be a great means for
individual participants to reach conclusions, nevertheless. I have done
some work on this, but am still grappling with how best to express these
phenomena of e-discussion dynamics, which will probably be familiar to all
air-l readers: the quick flare-up of a topic that "catches" and the
comparatively slow fade-out without a clear endpoint. In discussions that
follow this pattern conclusions are never reached, rather a topic is
exhausted - or the contributors are. For participants who have engaged in
the discussion it is common to be left with a slight sense of
disappointment (this is not just a personal impression, if you follow
archived discussions and their aftermath you will find indications of this
in later references to dropped discussions).

This pattern of electronic group discussion points to an important
difference in dynamics between "interest oriented groups with voluntary
participation" and task oriented electronic groups of various kinds. The
model of Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning (thanks Alex
for the neat summary) may fit task-oriented (and time-limited) groups - but
in the free-form genres of electronic discussion (the main focus of my
interest) the model would have to be fragmented and multiplied into a
cycling or perhaps randomized pattern with subgroups being at different
phases in the cycle at the same time.

The core of the argument remains, of course: conflict is a natural stage in
the formation of social groups - the Problem is not that they occur, but
how to carry them through in a fruitful rather than destructive way.

Now, back to my agreement with Cristian:
>I feel we may have richer approaches if we can define more the problem of
>the flame and what elements are present there.

I would really appreciate it at this point if someone(s) would suggest a
definition of Flame War that would provide us with some distinction and
common reference, since, as Cristian writes:
>Aggresive notes can be made through elegant use of the languaje or directly
>flooding with blaming and coursing all the message.

Well, I guess Nancy did suggest something useful in describing a flame as:
>manifestation of hurt/misunderstanding/anger

We also have the aspect that others have mentioned of flame wars as a game
or sport.

So I'm really curious at this point to hear some more from Robert about
what he was after with the original question. Are you getting what you
wanted, Robert? Do YOU have a preferred definition of "flame war"? - I
mean, depending on your definition the online quarrels we may have
participated in will have been Flame Wars or something else.

Med Vänliga Hälsningar
Eva