Rules of Flame-War

[Wolfbelly]

So, I recently got involved in a minor spat on some anonymous Dungeons and Dragons forum. I was thinking about all the stuff that was said while I was showering, and I began to wonder what exactly determines if someone is winning or losing a flame war? How is one considered to have been defeated? I've seen a lot of flamewars in my time at various locations, but there are few situations where people can look at an online pissing contest and determine who the literal victor was. Which brings me to my point ...

I want to kind of develop an objective basic list of guidelines on what happens in flame wars, and how to win them or determine when you've pretty much won. I know, I know ... some of you will just say that both participants in the flame war are losers, but then is that because they're participating in a flame war, or because they're not participating well? Anyway, yeah. Post your thoughts on heated words.

[Justice Augustus]

I think flame wars have a lot in common with the philosophical debates of ancient Athens. It begins with someone producing an argument, claiming it to be correct. The next person counters by pointing out the errors in that argument and offering a different, corrected, version. The original philosopher then repeats this, pointing out errors both in his opponent's corrections and his new argument, and this process is repeated ad nauseam. Of course you could just be like Socrates and find tiny things to pick at all the fucking time (spot the person who had to read the first two books of the Republic, and the Euthyphro dialogue in one weekend) and never offer an alternate argument. This results in you beating most people, but eventually they'll have you arrested and sentanced to death for corrupting the young.

Oddly appropriate for you, Luj.
<p>

---

I am just too damn British.

LilDragonFluffy: HOW TE FUCK DO YOU FEMININFIZE GUS?!

"The best research [for playing a drunk] is being a British actor for 20 years." - Michael Caine</p>

[Banjooie]

Guidelines in what happens in flamewars, hm..

Major Flamewar:

1. Everybody else stops flaming. IMMEDIATELY. The only flames are now between the two sides. This may consist of more than one person per side, but the only issue anyone has with anyone else is in regards to this current discussion. Your compatriots in the war hate black people? Oh, well, who the fuck cares, that doesn't matter right now.

2. The flamewar consists of 'This is my point', and 'My point is better, you fucker', It works betterbecause it actually becomes interesting, and infinitely more manipulable I mean nothing.


3. The original issue is lost, and it becomes a war of ad hominem. As long as they continue to be intelligent assaults on the person, yes, it can still be good for a forum.

A minor exception. In the ZvE war, Zan did eventually start an ad hominem. It was mainly based on the 'FFGrl sex0red you to get her position', which deviates entirely from the original issue, but could easily be considered a continuation of the 'This is my point' stage.


The flamewar can taper off any number of ways, of course.

1. Admin intervention. One or more parties are banned. I would like to note, however, this is not 100% effective, as occasionally someone will argue in x or y's proxy.

2. One party leaves in defeat. This almost always works. Yes, there are times when this fails, and when said party will be tracked down wherever they hide to continue the argument.

3. Original Issue is Settled. It does work, but you have to use it either early in the war, or with precise timing. When a flamewar is in full swing, noone will listen, and you will have lost your chance to bring this up. Furthermore, if the current issue has deviated, well...you're fucked.

If the flamewar extends long enough...

1. The original issue is long gone. It's either all ad hominem, or there is a new issue.

2. There is remarkable propaganda against one side at least, if not both. The entire forum will get involved within 3 months.

3. It -will- be the only problem on your forum, plain and simple.

I've only ever seen one last 6 months, so I can't really be any more descriptive than that about it. <p><Chat> <Matto says, "What's up?"
<Chat> <Prince_Herb says, "Angst."
<Chat> <Prince_Herb says, "Drama."
<Chat> <Prince_Herb says, "Betrayal."
<Chat> <Prince_Herb says, "Plushies."</p>

[Mechanisto]

*Takes notes for the exam*

Win? A flamewar?

You don't win them. A flamewar is a rational discussion taken beyond the point of no return; Everybody involved has invested too much emotional attatchment to let go. The emotional attatchment is the key figure, so they cannot simply let the issue damn well drop. Not to mention the interconnections involved; you start to disagree with things completely off topic, snatching at any strawman presented.

It doesn't make rational discussion impossible, but it makes it a heckuva lot harder. You win a flame war by turning it BACK into a rational discussion.

Personally, I think the personal attatchment is the key problem. And I'll kill anyone who says otherwise. <p>---
My head moves around inside the bag, it's not like I'm drinking through my actual eye socket.</p>

[Zemyla]

Actually, the loser of a flame war is the person who makes a reference to Nazis or Hitler.

Banj, if you can find the name of this law, I will be grateful. <p>-----
Do not taunt Happy Fun Zemyla.

I think boobs are the lesser of two evils. - Inverse (Pervy)
Dammit, Dan, I'm not dating a damn NPC! - OOC Will (Will Baseton)
Of course! Anything worth doing is worth doing completely wrong! - Travis English

Adventurers! | RPG World World | The Phantom Lord's OT Board mkII | Indie Madnesse | Brotherhood of Elitist Bastards</p>

[pd Rydia]

Isn't that Godwin's Law? <p>

---

<center>Hello, I'm Dia. I'm a dragongirl, and I bite. RAWR!

---

</center><small>-=- "I wanna get so drunk that I start seeing my friends as cows." -- Aya (LadyDragonClawsEDW)
-=- "If you're still able to see in colors and not in scents...you're CERTAINLY not drunk enough." -- Nakibe (Nakibe)
-=- "Don't you know the only excuse for that is being drunk!?" -- Hakaril (Archmage144)
-=- "Alcohol is good for everything." -- Banjooie</small></p>

[FlamingDeth]

Dia is indeed correct!

Also, it's only a matter of time before someone makes a reference to the Special Olympics. <p></p>

[Wolfbelly]

Why does someone lose when they first reference Hitler? If there's a flamewar which is about the Third Reich, then it follows that the person to lose would be the first person to get on topic. That doesn't make sense. Godwin's law must apply not to Hitler itself as the content of the person's response, but rather as a common example of what the person is intending to achieve when they invoke the flamewar usage of Hitler.

Same deal with FD's point about the Special Olympics.

[LadyDragonClawsEDW]

Archmage: For the mention of Godwin's Law, which I was going to post about until I saw that it was already done because Zem and Dia are both awesome, all participants in this thread recieve 1 (one) box of Pocky in the flavor of their choice. <p>

---

One hat to rule them all.</p>

[Idran1701]

Now, technically, Godwin's Law just says the war is over at that point. It's just commonly accepted that the one who mentioned it loses. A sidelaw is any intentional invoking of Godwin's Law will not count as ending the war.

Even more technically, it's Usenet specific, but I see no reason why it couldn't be applicable to any sort of online debate.
<p>

---

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin</p>

[Banjooie]

Godwin's law actually states that:

As the length of a Usenet thread increases, the chance of a reference to Hitler or the Nazis reaches 1.

For the record. But you knew I'd be all over this thread like white to rice, of course. <p><Chat> <Matto says, "What's up?"
<Chat> <Prince_Herb says, "Angst."
<Chat> <Prince_Herb says, "Drama."
<Chat> <Prince_Herb says, "Betrayal."
<Chat> <Prince_Herb says, "Plushies."</p>

[Idran1701]

...Oh. Right. I stand corrected. <p>

---

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin</p>