One of the aspects of electronic communication that was consistently mentioned as a source of concern for many interview volunteers--especially the females--was the incidence of conflicts on the list, which sometimes evolve into full-fledged "flame wars." This chapter explores some of the common causes of flame wars, among which are message content, users' style of expression, and differing concepts of list (and Internet) purpose. Flaming can be the list's response to a newcomer's perceived threat to existing social and status hierarchies. Additional communication challenges are presented by characteristics of the electronic environment itself.
Wars of Passion: A Clash of Tastes
Cinema-L is an unmoderated list, which means that messages sent to the LISTSERV are not screened but are automatically distributed to all list members. It does, however, have an owner, whom I interviewed, but he does not censor messages that are sent to the list. This means that contributors are free to use whatever language they wish to express their opinions. People tend to react to art in general, and to movies in particular, on a very emotional level; the language list members use to express themselves (often extremes of opinion such as "love" and "hate") when discussing cinema reflects the depth of their underlying personal engagement with a particular art form. It is the love of cinema that draws many to subscribe to lists like Cinema-L, and that results in the passionate discussion that makes the discourse on such lists fun to participate in and entertaining to watch.
Indeed, Jenkins has noted that fandom communities often define themselves around issues of taste. "Taste becomes one of the important means by which social distinctions are maintained and class identities are forged" (Jenkins 1992, 16). Within this model, "the boundaries of 'good taste,' then, must constantly be policed; proper tastes must be separated from improper tastes; those who possess the wrong tastes must be distinguished from those whose tastes conform more closely to our own expectations" (Jenkins 1992, 16). Bourdieu has also observed that taste can foster and help to maintain boundaries between individuals and groups: "Tastes are perhaps first and foremost distastes, disgust provoked by horror or visceral intolerance for the tastes of others" (Bourdieu 1984, 57).
The boundaries of acceptable taste are pretty wide on Cinema-L, with the range of tastes represented as divergent as the list's subscribership. Once in a while, however, a heated discussion on a particular film or current event turns into a personal argument. Indeed, "flaming"--the common list term for heated online debates that occasionally extend into name-calling and personal attacks--sometimes provides an opportunity for individual list members to negotiate matters of taste, as well as to exhibit an additional set of complex group dynamics. These kinds of disputes are referred to by list members as "flame wars" or "flamewars." The more diluted version of the verb "to flame" generally means "to criticize." When a poster makes a comment that he or she anticipates will be met with disapproval on the list, the poster may say, "Please don't flame me for saying this, but. . . . " She may then go on to posit that the Best Picture Oscar should have gone to The Crying Game instead of Unforgiven. Any opinion that a poster anticipates may cause an outbreak of strong disagreement among other list members is sometimes referred to by the poster or by others as "flamebait."
Many times, a flame war begins when two list members have a passionate difference of opinion. Disagreements are quite usual occurrences, as it is often the people who hold the strongest opinions either for or against a given actor, movie, or director who are moved to post. But a flame war results when friendly discussion of the content of a contributor's posting escalates into a personal attack, and one list member begins challenging another list member's credentials or standards of personal taste.
For example, Bob, who has identified himself on the list as a film professor at a state university in the West, bemoans the fact that the history department at his university is airing the film JFK as part of history month. Bob observes that the film JFK is as blatant a piece of revisionist history (and a badly done one at that) as he has seen in years. Paul responds that Bob should not assume that the history department is presenting the film as "truth," and Paul suggests an alternative viewpoint that perhaps the purpose in showing the film is to stimulate critical inquiry into the ways in which history is presented in various media. Besides, Paul observes that "history" is just one person's opinion anyway, and he introduces his own opinion that filmmakers have the right to use (at their own discretion) a little bit of poetic license in presenting historical events.
The discussion turns into a personal argument, which escalates as various list members chime in with their own opinions of Oliver Stone's various representations of "history." Paul and Bob continue to trade barbs related to their opinions, and finally Paul (in CAPITAL LETTERS, WHICH DENOTE STRONG OPINION, OR SHOUTING!) suggests that Bob is "UNFIT TO BE IN THE SAME ROOM WITH (LET ALONE TEACH) IMPRESSIONABLE YOUNG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS!" Bob may post his own suggestion that Paul is an "a**h*le" (bad language appears less frequently on the list than one might expect--except during flame wars--and is sometimes tempered by inserting asterisks in place of key vowels or consonants), and he may vow never to read Paul's postings again. On e-mail, it is easy to silence the voices of opposition; you simply stop reading their posts, or stop acknowledging their messages.
Although I do not consider myself to have an incendiary on-list "personality," I did become involved in at least one fairly serious flame war on Cinema-L worth relating. I would categorize it as a war of passion; following is an account of the interactional dynamics of that flame war.
Isaac joined the list around the middle of 1992, and he immediately began posting very critical reviews of movies he had seen. In one message he criticized several popular actors and actresses whom he did not like (and whom I generally like) and at the same time he extolled the virtues of several other actors and actresses whom he did like (including several whom I do NOT like). Over the course of several weeks he posted critical commentary on several films that I had enjoyed very much. He criticized the commercial motivations of almost all film directors and producers working in the industry today, and suggested deprecatingly that in this country, at least, filmmaking was becoming--perhaps had already become--a lost art.
Finally unable to contain myself any longer, I posted a message addressed to Isaac on the list, and suggested that if he always found the experience of going to the cinema so disappointing, perhaps he should stop attending movies.
Shortly after that exchange, Isaac posted a message detailing his "10 rules" of personal rituals related to going to the cinema. I responded by immediately posting a parody of his message. That's when the flames broke out. Isaac suggested that I had deliberately misinterpreted his message, and expressed a concern that it was part of my personal agenda to make him look bad in front of the other list members. Various Cinema-L regulars leaped into the flames to show their support for one opinion or the other.
It is common for contributors who do not want to become publicly involved in the flame war on the list to send personal (off-list) messages supporting the flame-spouting individual whose opinions they agree with more. At the time I became involved in the flame war I just described, I received my first (and so far only) "fan letter" from another Cinema-L member. The note was from a woman who hardly ever posted to the list. Her message was one of support; she believed that Isaac deserved to be flamed, and she was glad I had had the guts to do it.
On lists, as in families and in other intimate social groups, individuals tend to adopt specific roles in relation to others in the group. For example, one person may take on the role of the director of the group, suggesting topics for future discussion. Another may consistently provoke conflict with others. Still another role is that of the peace-keeper of the list whose job is to maintain group harmony. When a flame war breaks out, it is usually one of the peace-keepers who eventually steps in and intermediates, or suggests that the two people involved take the dispute off the list.
At the time that I became involved in my own personal flame war, a frequent contributor whose eloquent prose and incisive cinema analysis I greatly respect contacted me off-list and attempted to mediate between my viewpoint and Isaac's viewpoint. Once chastised, I became immediately ashamed of my childish behavior, and extinguished any further flames that I might have been considering igniting in the other disputee's honor. Thus ended my first flame war, in more of a whimper than a bang.
Different Concepts of What is Humorous
During April 1993, the only interchange that could have been construed as a true flame war (and a mild one, at that) was the controversy that arose surrounding the posting of a joke related to the Waco incident. Following, in condensed form, are the events of this fairly typical "mini flame war."
On April 19, several Cinema-L messages were posted which related to the events that had occurred that day in Waco, Texas--the burning of the Branch Davidian compound in which David Koresh and his followers had been waging a standoff against federal officials for several months. Sergio, a Cinema-L regular, commented in a post titled "Waco" that he wondered how long it would be until the first movie about the Waco tragedy would be made. Sergio, who often posts pithy, humorous messages denouncing what he and many others in academic circles have referred to as "PC" (political correctness), then posted a second message, titled "Waco PS," in which he said,
A fellow here used to teach a course called Psychology of Cults. He had to change it to Psychology of Alternative Religions. Can't discriminate, y'know.
Another poster, Kevin, who upon joining the list a few months earlier had immediately become embroiled in flame wars with several Cinema-L regulars, sent a joke to the list under the title "RE: Waco PS." In that message, he asked what David Koresh's favorite Talking Heads song was, and then replied that it was "Burning Down the House." Kevin explained that he worked at his campus radio station part time, and he had dedicated the song to Koresh while on the air that afternoon.
Shortly thereafter, Sergio posted a response to Kevin's message. In the response, Sergio quoted Kevin's message, and suggested that had he (Sergio) been on the faculty of the school where Kevin was doing radio announcing, "I'd have thrown you off the air and out of school." At this point Frances jumped in. She posted a message quoting both Kevin and Sergio, and seconded Sergio's comments.
Kevin replied that he thought making such statements took guts on his own part, and he suggested that he was on his way to a great career in radio. He added that he felt he was just reflecting public opinion about the incident.
The following day David, another Cinema-L regular, tuned in and responded angrily to Kevin's detractors that their censorious comments were just one more example of PC terrorism at work. David compared the political correctness movement to Nazism and McCarthyism.
That same day two women joined the discussion. One woman suggested that others on the list shouldn't be so quick to lose their sense of humor over what was intended as a joke. The other woman, Tess, a daily poster on the list, said,
Nobody said he couldn't say it. Whilst his right to say it is preserved, is not the right of someone to be offended by it also preserved?
She mentioned that perhaps what made Kevin's remark seem so offensive was his "self-congratulatory tone, his lack of originality [ . . . ], and the remark being taken out of context."
The following day Frances posted again. She observed that although she did not find Kevin's joking about the Waco incident funny, she didn't think that people on the list should have responded as harshly as they did. She observed that the list did not leave much room for simple disagreement.
In response, Kevin defended his right to free speech, and voiced a hope that PC would go up in flames, just like Waco. By the end of the week, all postings related to the Waco event (and subsequent joking) were titled "Waco PC."
This little snippet showing part of one Cinema-L flame war interaction is fairly typical in that those who initiate flame wars are often male. Women are somewhat less likely to be primary contributors to or objects of flame wars. It was suggested to me by a female list member, long before I began this study, that one of the reasons why female list members do not post more frequently is that they are afraid of becoming embroiled in flame wars. Researcher Laurel Sutton has noted,
We're supposed to behave online just as we're supposed to behave in a cocktail party full of strangers. Yet flaming is still acknowledged as a way to deal with stupid or annoying behavior. Would you punch someone who accidentally stepped on your toe at a crowded party? Why is flaming acceptable at all? The answer is that in cyberspace--as in society in general--the dominant group makes the decisions about what is appropriate behavior. The dominant group on the net (both in sheer numbers and in level of use), as in society in general, is male, and males see adversarial behavior as friendly; flaming is okay. Individualism is paramount, and the truth will eventually be shaken out of encounters built on direct conflict. (Sutton 1996, 181)
It may be the case that strong female opinions are somewhat less likely to invoke challenges that turn into flame wars than are similarly expressed strong male opinions. Status and position within the group also influence the likelihood of being flamed. During the last week of that same month, I became involved in a fairly heated discussion with Sergio, another longtime list member. [24] The second day of the discussion, a male list member who had not been participating very much in the list's recent discourse leaped in to "champion" my opinion. Although I was not personally criticized by any of the list members for my fairly strongly expressed opinion (other than by the list member who was my opponent in the original discussion), my champion's message met with the following response from one of the Cinema-L (male) regulars: "Welcome back, Butthead."
Keeping the List Free of Commercialism
Posters who are not accepted members of the list community but who send messages of a commercial nature to the list often meet with public or private censure: in general, the list exhibits a sort of "old-school" Internet philosophy that frowns upon the use of the Internet for money-making schemes. Early in April 1996, someone posted a message indicating that cancer detection information could be obtained for $3 by ordering a pamphlet via e-mail. Several list members responded angrily that the posting was not appropriate for the list, and that such information was already available for free from the Cancer Society. Sergio went one step further: he forwarded a copy of the note to the individual's postmaster with a note of complaint, and set up his e-mail account to punish the individual: "I also returned spammo's SPAM to him--exactly 597 times, one every few seconds from 6:30 to 7:30 this AM." (This practice of automatically inundating a user's mailbox, sometimes called "bombing" or "spamming," can bring a user's entire e-mail network crashing down.)
Telling the List How to Behave
Some of the things that make the list popular--the free-wheeling discussion, the close-knit group dynamics--also contribute to its flaws, which may not be as apparent (or perhaps as relevant) to its long-term members as they are to newcomers: "We're a very social group, for the most part friendly, and some of the members have met face to face," observed one list member in her survey response; "however, some who join the list claim that there is a 'clique' of old members and that they have a hard time becoming one of 'us.' Other 'newbies' [new list members] claim that we stray off subject (of movies) too often, but that's just the way we are, the way we like it, and most likely the way it's going to stay" (Molly).
Some new members come to the list with preconceptions of how the list's discussions should be structured; the list community, however, is fairly self-regulating, and members do not appreciate being told how to manage their affairs by newcomers who are perceived as "outsiders": "It's difficult when people try to tell other members what the list *should* be," said Anna.
Presuming to tell "insiders" how to run their list is a guaranteed way to start a flamefest. In mid-April 1996, a list member who was an infrequent poster (this posting turned out to be his final message to the list) sent the following note:
Hello all:
The volume of mail on this listserv would decrease by more than one-half if each of you sent personal responses to individuals rather than to the entire list.
I am tired of reading all that mail which has nothing of interest to me.
Oh yes, some of you might say: "Delete unwanted mail." Might be a good idea, but still a pain when I get over 100 mgs. per day.
Please be a bit more responsible.
Thank you.
Peter Morrisack
Sam Jones, a fellow list member, responded:
Peter:
WARNING WARNING WARNING...........YOU HAVE JUST SET YOURSELF UP TO BE FLAMED BIG TIME!
Everyone on this list enjoys the freedom of conversation and the lack of regulation. I know, I posted a similar thought over a year ago when I was fairly new to the list. I got over 20 copies of the Cinema-L FAQ and hundreds of hate mails. Hang in there, live through it and deal with it. The people on this list are pretty cool, very intelligent and usually make great conversation. Someone suggested to me to treat it like a cocktail party, steer away from the conversations that don't interest you and join in on the ones that do. It works.
Don't say you weren't warned.
SJ
A second respondent posted the following "flame form," evidence of flaming's online institutionalization, personalized in Peter's honor:
Dear:
[ ] sir [x] clueless one [ ] twit [ ] big man on campus
[ ] madam [ ] dweeb [ ] twerp [ ] comrade
[ ] Elvis [ ] bitch [ ] boor [ ] Obergruppenfuehrer
[ ] lame-o [ ] geek [ ] grad student [ ] cur
[ ] git [ ] wafflehead [ ] dickweed [ ] numbnuts
[ ] other
You are being flamed for (check all that apply):
[ ] continuing a boring useless stupid thread
[ ] posting a piece riddled with profanities
[ ] advocating Net censorship
[ ] using all caps
[ ] posting some sort of crap that doesn't belong in this group
[ ] sending me one of those "Make Money Fast" articles
[ ] making a bigoted statement(s)
[x] assuming unwarranted moral or intellectual superiority
[x] being under the misapprehension that this group is your preserve
[ ] repeatedly showing lack of humor
[ ] apparently feeling compelled to post to every thread
[ ] posting an anonymous attack
[x] other (specify): Trying to control everyone else instead of taking responsibility for simply looking at your list of messages (without having to go in and read them), deleting the ones that look uninteresting to you, quitting out and returning. It takes me less than five minutes to do that, even if there's over 100 messages, and I usually reduce the messages by at least half.
Thank you for your time.
Don Caraway
Don later told me that he had obtained this flame form, in its generic version, from the Cinema-L FAQ, and had tailored it to fit the situation. Around the middle of the following week I sent a "review" command to the LISTSERV to get a current membership roster and discovered that Peter had dropped his subscription to the list.
Newcomers, Status, and Conflict
Several of the female interview volunteers commented on the social hierarchies that exist on the list. Angela, a Cinema-L member for about six months at the time of our interview, observed that it can be difficult for a newcomer to attain acceptance within the list community:
Cinema-L seems to have a difficult time recognizing new members. Older members seem to be in a world by themselves. I really haven't had a major problem with it; however, I notice this with other new members. I really feel that the newer members shouldn't have to prove themselves to be accepted, they never may because of the older members even ignoring new members at times.
Beth, one of the month's top seven posters (in total number of messages posted to the list) during Phase II, agreed:
Cinema-L can seem rather "cliquey." Many of the members have been members for a long time, and it can be difficult for a new member really to feel like part of the group. I think that many members often feel left out on some of the "in-jokes" and such. I have been a member for over a year and I still don't completely feel like part of the in-crowd.
Cheryl, another of the top seven list participants during that same month, observed that this pattern of group interactions is not limited to Cinema-L; many of the same dynamics occur on other lists, as well:
The other lists also seem to be dominated by a group of denizen posters. It appears as if as soon as you become popular among the group, you have much power within the group. It is these popular members that set the tone for the group. They establish the popular threads. They rally against anyone who may attack one of their members.
Most of my 15 respondents in Phase II had participated in a flame war at one time or another during their membership on various lists. The lists are very dynamic social groups, in that new members are coming and going all the time. Cinema-L's joint status as both a LISTSERV and a Usenet newsgroup (one respondent dubbed it a "listgroup") makes it especially "public" in that people who are not subscribed to the LISTSERV can also join in on list discussions. Interviews with my research volunteers revealed that flame wars often revolve around the dynamics of a relative newcomer trying to enter the list's discussions. Flame wars are even more likely to occur when a new member joins the discussion without observing proper list "etiquette": taking the time to learn the appropriate topics, communication conventions, and power dynamics of the list.
Some new members (unlike Peter in the earlier example) survive their first flame war and go on to become regular (and accepted) participants on the list. Cheryl, a member of Cinema-L for about four months at the time of our interview, described her very early membership on the list:
A flame war with another veteran member was my baptismal fire, I guess you could say. This flame war lasted far too long. IMO [in my opinion], we were both at fault. And although our posts were very verbose, attacking each other, it seemed to be a failure to communicate that was the cause of its prolonged nature. Neither of us was willing to see the problem from the other's perspective.
The events that occur during a flame war make explicit the power dynamics that exist in the list community, in that accepted members are championed by other list members, while newer members are left to their own defense:
My status on Cinema-L is not as high compared to some of the long-timers. There have been instances in which I've been flamed by someone in the high-ranking group. I didn't expect anyone else on the list to defend me. That would risk censure from the group and most people aren't willing to take that risk (Cheryl).
Karen, who reported watching a flame war from the sidelines as a list newcomer, shared the following anecdote:
One time some "bozo," apparently new to the list, just insulted one of the "veterans" on the list and did not like the way things were done on Cinema-L. Even I, who am relatively new to the list, was irritated by this guy. Well, I was both surprised and . . . (I don't know how to explain--not touched or pleased but something to that effect) when many of the members from the list came to her defense and told the guy off--flamed him. Almost as though they were protecting their own . . . like a family.
During a flame war, other list members affirm their commitment to the list community by coming to the defense of popular list members who have become embroiled in a flame war:
There are several list members that I'm especially fond of, and I will come to their defense if they are ganged up on, but most of them can take care of themselves. For the most part, I try to keep my posts diplomatic and peaceful, try not to insult anyone (Molly).
Participation in a flame war could also qualify as rite of passage, and involves bonding and consolidation among more long-term list members:
The person who was angry with me did not handle the situation in a very mature manner, by resorting to name-calling, etc., and many cin-lers came to my defense. Although I did not enjoy being insulted, this was the first time that I really felt as though I was a part of the list (Beth).
As I mentioned, some of the list dynamics that occur during a flame war happen outside the "public" forum of the list. In other words, flaming provides an opportunity for private, off-list encouragement, which contains an element of choosing sides, to take place:
The second flame war came this last fall, when, for no apparent reason, one list member decided that I had "crappy" taste in movies and that I was "too dumb to be on the mailing list." I stood up for myself very well, if I do say so myself, and several cin-lers e-mailed me privately to tell me so. A few also stood up for me on the list, and flames ensued. The person who had insulted me had not been winning any friends on the list prior to this, and left the list soon after (Beth).
As Marvin has stated in When Old Technologies Were New, new media occasionally provide "opportunities for the wrong people to be too familiar" (Marvin 1988, 88). A flame war that has gotten out of hand can provoke annoying or even frightening consequences:
I had a rather ugly situation occur several months ago: I had made a snide (but basically harmless) comment about someone's post, and they wrote me personally and demanded that I stop commenting on their posts. Well, it is a discussion group after all and I refused. He was a rather aggravating fellow and we traded private messages back and forth a few times until I got tired of it all and refused to discuss it with him further (arguments with him basically went nowhere except around and around). He then threatened to continue to send me private e-mails, which I saw as quite intrusive. I told him he could send away, but I would not read them and would not discuss this with him further. To get even, he began posting messages about it to the list, saying that he was doing so because I had refused to take the discussion private. I just ignored him, knowing that eventually he would stop, but several on the list e-mailed me, angry that I wouldn't take the discussion private. Once I explained the situation, most saw my point of view, but it was upsetting and aggravating knowing that people were angry at me for something another list member was doing. In the eyes of many members, he was seen as somewhat of a jerk for what he had done and it appears he has now signed off (Molly).
The public nature of Usenet newsgroups allows individuals such as the one described in the anecdote above to wander into and out of groups without subscribing to LISTSERVs, inciting flame wars and then leaving--never really becoming a full-fledged member of the list community. In addition to the problems presented by flame wars, the dynamics on public lists, which are often unmoderated (messages are posted automatically without being screened by the list owner), occasionally inspire in the reader a feeling of lack of control. Angela shared the following comment:
I've been on other lists where some strange message will come on (obscene, schizophrenic) and no one responds to the person. It makes the reader feel uncomfortable, like no one is in charge and there is no organization of what comes into your e-mail.
Jane remarked that the open, unmoderated aspects of a Usenet newsgroup inhibit her own participation in the list's public discussions:
Actually, one thing that is a little inhibiting is the fact that the list is gateway'ed to Usenet. In general, I don't like posting to Usenet (although I do when I want to get information, etc.). I prefer the relative privacy and better signal-to-noise ratio of a mailing list.
Some Inherent Problems of Electronic Communication
Both Phase I and Phase II volunteers reported that one of the factors central to the incidence of flaming is the lack of cues that could help a reader interpret a fellow list member's comments in the manner in which they were intended. Discussions of both the positive and negative aspects of a medium that limits communication to purely verbal interchange appeared in many of my interviewees' comments.
The incidence of flame wars has pointed up some of the socioemotional difficulties related to conducting a relationship with others solely through electronic communication. Although when contributing a message to the network a poster may have the illusion of co-presence (especially if that message is immediately posted to the list), electronic discussions differ in some very important ways from spoken, face-to-face communication.
One of the reasons cited for the incidence of flaming was the lack of accountability that users may feel regarding comments they have made on the list. Each poster is one isolated individual at a computer that may be miles (or even continents) away from those who will read his or her message. This isolation may contribute to a certain sense of personal anonymity and/or invulnerability. An insult exchanged over electronic mail in the heat of the moment is likely to result in a war of words and not of fists, in a medium where face-to-face contact with your opponent is highly unlikely. [25] Cheryl, who earlier described her entry into the Cinema-L community through the "baptismal fire" of a flame war, had this to say:
I'd venture to guess that the Internet allows people to be even nastier than they would be in person. Good manners are not a consideration when there stands a good chance that you will never have to face in person the one you are flaming. With the Internet, not only can you piss off the friend next door, but you can also enrage your Internet acquaintance in Chile. So much for world peace. ;-)
An additional factor is that because of the speed of electronic communication via a LISTSERV, it is possible to exchange messages on the spur of the moment, with no instantaneous regulating feedback to help gauge (and perhaps temper) the appropriateness of one's response. E-mail was designed for rapid communication, but sometimes a quickly written message zapped into the ether can give the effect of terseness. A moment's hastily composed repartee that is intended to be witty and charming is not always read in the same spirit in which it was written: it may, in fact, be construed by the reader as thoughtless or downright rude.
It is daunting because unlike other forums with immediate responses, for example, in theatre/face-to-face discussion there is an immediate indication of others' opinions expressed by clapping, i.e., some physical response, and that can influence another's response, it is not in isolation. Internet responses are done in much more isolation and even though the responses are still checked by the reaction of others (posted replies) yes, but we are invisible, as it were, if we choose and there is less risk, so I believe there is a more honest response from Internet discussion groups. People sitting at their different homes and reading the same message without influence of the others' opinions express very quickly, not as quickly as live discussion but certainly faster than almost any other forum we have now [sic] (Cindy).
Also, messages posted to Cinema-L are just that: words. They do not contain the accompanying facial movements, body postures, hand gestures, or vocal inflections that moderate the meaning of verbal exchanges in any face-to-face encounter. The electronic environment thus lacks the nonverbal components that communication experts say account for more than 65% of social meaning in face-to-face discussions (Knapp 1972, 12). Social science research has also suggested that our feelings about someone we meet face-to-face may be based more than 90% on their facial and vocal characteristics, and less than 10% on the actual words they use (Mehrabian 1971, 44). The e-mail environment, lacking these crucial elements, presents challenges to the communicative process.
Irony, humor, and sarcasm are particularly difficult to transmit via e-mail. For example, if Sally posts a message stating her opinion that Tom Cruise is a great actor, Joe's response "Yeah, right!" can be construed as either agreement or disagreement. A system of "emoticons" (the term has been coined, no doubt, from combining the words "emotion" and "icons") has been developed to designate emotion. [26] (See Appendix L for a full list of emoticons.) The symbols :) and :-) are two versions of a sideways smiley-face. The smiley-face emoticon, following words, means "whatever the poster has just said has been said with a smile." Likewise, ;) or ;-) designates a wink. The "wink" emoticon means "what the poster has just said has been said with a wink." A wink is the best thing we have been able to come up with to designate an "irony alert." So if Joe says "Yeah, right! ;-)" he probably means that he is disagreeing (in a friendly way) with Sally's opinion that Tom Cruise is a great actor. Joe may also explicitly identify his tone by saying "(That was sarcasm.)" or by spelling out "<wink>" or "<humor>" instead of using the emoticon. Emoticons are often used to denote humor or to temper a statement that a poster anticipates that other readers may perceive as a potential flame--in other words, to add the missing "face talk" element to communication that occurs in an environment where those nonverbal aspects of communication are missing.
Conflict on the List: Lessons Learned
Over several years of posting, I learned important lessons in e-mail etiquette, including how best to structure my communications to avoid provoking offense and how to keep a cool head amid a flamefest. I also experienced firsthand the almost holy glee of slinging a flame or two at individuals whose opinions I passionately disagreed with. While I do not advocate conflict for its own sake, I believe that becoming involved in a flame war at least once was a source of growth for me, in that I learned early that flaming and being flamed didn't mean the end of the world, or the end of my relationships on the list.
In fact, a heated debate is not all bad: it can serve as a crucible where a fan can be motivated to clarify opinions and examine the underlying appeals of a particular movie. I did not know all of the reasons why I loved The Shining, for example, until it became the topic of a flamefest, and I was forced to back up my opinions with observations that were grounded in the film itself rather than in my own subjective reaction to it. One of the things that surprised me about that interchange was that afterwards, Isaac and I grew to a sort of mutual truce and even affection. From that conflict I learned, for example, that there are different kinds of fans with very different ways of expressing their fannish devotion. Some of us define our tastes inclusively--by identifying what we love and hold dear, and by expanding that number to an ever-widening circle of cinematic offerings--while other fans define their tastes in exclusionary terms--by exploring in depth their objections to those offerings that have fallen far short of the mark, and by keeping their own personal lists of cinematic gems brief. Both approaches can signify a deep love of the medium, the same passion expressed differently, but these differences can be a source of conflict among individuals whose fandom styles are at cross purposes with one another.
In the end, I believe my compatriot respected me more for having the guts to participate in a bit of verbal sparring: to be willing to take up the challenge and show my mettle by defending the opinions I stated on the list. As my research volunteers noted earlier, a list member's participation in a flame war regarding a difference of tastes can contain elements of a rite of passage, wherein a newly online fan has the opportunity to display his or her devotion and therefore earns the right to become a "legitimate" member of the community. In light of that fact, perhaps Deborah Tannen was right when she suggested the following:
Women who avoid conflict at all costs would be better off if they learned that a little conflict won't kill them. And men who habitually take oppositional stances would be better off if they broke their addiction to conflict. (Tannen 1990, 187)
Online conflicts known as "flame wars" were noted as a source of concern among my research volunteers. While many such conflicts are content-related, others occur around stylistic or ideological differences. For example, several flame wars that I observed were caused by conflicting tastes and differing concepts of what is humorous. Additional clashes occurred around divergent Internet philosophies, in that the more recent emphasis upon the use of the Internet for commercial purposes stirs up resentment between "newbies" and those who advocate the "old-school" Internet philosophy that the primary purpose of the Internet should be to serve in the free dissemination of ideas rather than in the accumulation of profit. Conflict also results between newcomers and longtime list members when new members try to impose their own conception of "what the list should be like" on the rather free-form list discussions.
During conflicts, the list often reveals its underlying social hierarchies, in that accepted list members are more likely to champion one another while newcomers are often left to their own defense. Flame wars could also qualify as a winnowing-out process, or a rite of passage, in that newcomers who survive a flame war sometimes go on to become accepted members of the community.
The electronic environment itself is a source of some of the elements of conflict. Problems inherent in electronic communication that foster conflict are the lack of socioemotional cues that might help a reader interpret a sender's message in the manner in which it was intended. Some list members use emoticons to help remedy the absence of such cues. The circumstances of e-mail message generation play a role, as well. Electronic communication, which is often written hastily and sent speedily in the absence of regulating interpersonal feedback, can have a terseness which helps to fan the flames of conflict. The perceived safety afforded by the ability to compose a message in private can contribute to a sense of invulnerability that overcomes usual prohibitions against face-to-face conflict; an anonymous, far-away user whom one has never met (and whom one probably never will meet) can seem a safe target for dissension because it is likely that such a tiff will invoke no negative "real-life" consequences.
Although flame wars highlight some of the more negative aspects of electronic communication, heated discussions can serve the function of a crucible, in which list members who state opinions are forced to clarify and stand behind them, potentially deepening fans' understanding of and regard for the cinematic art form, as well as divergent fandom styles.