A thought on the Troll issue today...

[TAPat]

Emoticons are a really great tool to show sarcasm...

I think a lot of misunderstandings happen when folks are being sarcastic and don't indicate it somehow - Sarcasm really just doesn't fly well in written form, IMO.

I just had a response to a very serious issue (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=675198&mesg_id=675198) that has affected me personally and had to pointedly ask if they were being sarcastic - turns out they weren't, just splitting hairs...

Oh well...

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Well I disagree.

Emoticons are an excuse for sloppy writing. Oddly, the written langauge existed and functioned quite well for thousands of years without the need for emoticons. Oh I know, the immediacy of the internet...

Nah, the lazyiness of writers and readers is to me a better explanation.

I really don't think that huge flame wars are the result of misunderstood sarcasm. I could be wrong of course.

:) :-) x( :( ;-) ;) :o :D }( ;( :P :9 :* :+ :7 B-) O8) :evilfrown: :evilgrin: :hippie: :party: :toast: :bounce: :mad: :puke: :eyes: :smoke: :silly: :wtf: :argh: :freak: :nopity: :boring: :beer: :nuke: :hi: :dem: :kick: :shrug: :puffpiece: :donut: :grouphug: :cry: :pals: :yourock: :banghead: :dilemma: :rant: :woohoo: :applause: :hide: :popcorn: :rofl: :yoiks: :web:

I think that about covers it.

[Lerkfish]

2. you're wrong only in that the internet makes FEEDBACK immediate

so that people respond without understanding sarcasm immediately.
before the internet, you might have the same people misunderstand your writing, but seldom would they make the effort to respond because it wasn't immediate.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. And any misunderstanding of the original post can be

cleared up just as immediately as the misplaced reply. I don't find the 'immediacy' argument compelling. Anyhow, trolling is not a misunderstanding, trolling is deliberate behavior intended to provoke a reaction.

[Lerkfish]

5. I was responding only to your statement that:

"I really don't think that huge flame wars are the result of misunderstood sarcasm."

I was arguing that the immediacy shortens the distance from misunderstanding to reaction, and in that way, can engender flame wars that would not happen without that immediacy. I think its HARDER to climb back down from a flame war to a point of understanding.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. I understood and that is what I disagree about.

If I post something that you misunderstand and then you attack me in your response based on your misunderstanding, that series of exchanges is likely to be cleared up on the next post from me explaining what I meant.

Flame wars are a different thing entirely. I don't really think that many are the result of 'misunderstood sarcasm'. In my experience they are generally the result of sharp and distinct differences of opinions that are well understood by all participants.

Let me put it another way. Do you really think that if all sarcasm was accompanied by :sarcasm: that flame wars would decrease in frequency?

[Lerkfish]

9. ah. we differ on definition of "flame war".

which is ok.

[Nye Bevan]

4. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[AngryAmish]

7. You forgot poopcorn

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Good point!

:poopcorn:

Dang that didn't work!

[dogday]

10. Look here are a bunch of trolls that I have found