Have you updated your personal rebuttal FAQ?

THE FLAME FAQ

Civility and pertinence              

Q. What is the duty of forum moderation regarding flaming? 

A. Freedom of speech is too precious lightly to abridge. Therefore any limitations imposed even merely for the sake of moderation must be minimal, clear and distinct.

If Civility of the Online community does not regulate itself without moderator intervention, the rôle of the forum moderator must be to stop any and all bullying, to extinguish flame, puncture whining, invalidate sulking, and to denounce, diffuse and disrupt devious consensus manipulation and the extortion of affirmation!  

No more and no less.

Flaming is hostility sans content or relevance. Flaming is inflammatory, vicious, gratuitously nasty, malicious, spiteful diatribe. Flaming is not only bullying manipulative provocation against the target, but also manipulative intimidation and aversion more widely, for the purpose of online Relational Bullying, obstruction of fruitful discourse, Truth Suppression by sabotage against pointed controversy. One way or another, unpleasant conversation often consists of demeaning disrespect, non responsive hostility and reprobation. Irrelevant invective derision and provocation or even explicit threats, generally sans pertinent content, are not appropriate, nor is the other extreme, touchy-feely Borg collectivity, peer pressure, consensus manipulation, and brown nosing, replete with humorless calculating over sensitivity, Paranoid "reading between the lines" or impugning intentions, bogus innocence abused, pointless picayune irritability, off topic trivial peeves, prudery, anal Netiquette, peer pressure,  not to mention such classic cat-and-mouse maneuvers as flame baiting, which is the provocation of any exasperated off the cuff retort or perfectly ingenuous expression of irritation as any excuse for subsequently lashing out, flaming, whining, sulking, even censure or sanction. 

• Flamer Personality Disorder?!!
• DON'T PANIC!

A. In the end, pertinence is the only issue. Invective is irredeemable not because it is offensive, but when it adds nothing to content. Flaming is inflammatory, vicious, gratuitously nasty, malicious, spiteful diatribe. Flaming is hostility sans content or relevance, undisciplined empty invective, an irritant with no mitigating substance, inflicting waste of time in sifting. Perhaps the worst baiting is such defamation as may simply be too damaging to ignore. 

Flame is hostile non sequitur, nastiness, abuse, lies, distortion, provocation, usually Ad Hominem Abusive, accusation, defamation, even threats, overtly or by implication. Flame can be thought of as the null-SPAM, in that flame even seeks to overwhelm or subvert topic relevance and context, even without promoting anything else in it's place except malicious irrelevancy in and of itself. Flame promotes uneasiness, close-mindedness and hostility. Flame is the universal Antithesis, ultimate negation. The wearisome baiting of flaming is the hostile act of abusive information warfare deliberately aiming at decreasing signal to noise. Flaming is hostility sans content or relevance, frequently characterized by Ad Hominem Abusive. The provocations of flaming seeks merely to inveigle pseudo-engagement only in order to corrupt discourse towards that end and to subvert topic.

Worse, flaming is Online bullying. 

Irrelevant invective derision and provocation or even explicit threats, generally sans pertinent content, are not appropriate, nor is the other extreme, touchy-feely Borg collectivity and brown nosing, replete with humorless calculating over sensitivity, Paranoid "reading between the lines" or impugning intentions, bogus innocence abused, pointless picayune irritability, off topic trivial peeves, prudery, anal Netiquette, peer pressure,  not to mention such classic cat-and-mouse maneuvers as flame baiting, which is the provocation of any exasperated off the cuff retort or perfectly ingenuous expression of irritation as any excuse for subsequently lashing out, flaming, whining, sulking, even censure or sanction. 

Q. What is "trolling"?

A. Trolling for newbies is a type of practical joke or online crank, the dubious art consisting of raising foolish questions in order to illicit predictable responses from the masses of the uninitiated. The result may be annoying to all others, or even illicit a trivial cascade of such massive volume as actually to drive out all serious interaction and discourse. Worse however, trolling for flames means the malignant sport and bag of tricks of deliberate provocation of anger or instigation among existing factions, in order thereby to illicit acrimonious conflict, metaphorically angling by drawing a baited line through the proverbial water, even chumming the river of discourse, sowing confusion and discord.

Whatever incendiary assertions may however incite angry refutation, or else even simply foolish comments and questions may be put forth, well constructed simply to disruptively illicit cascading foolish response, for the bad, silly, reparative, pointless, old news, to drive out whatever value of discourse and make exasperated fools of anyone striving at anything serious or valuable.

Alas, just as any statement can be taken amiss and falsely characterized or misconstrued as flame, anything at all provocative or controversial or even whimsical may likewise be maligned, Ad Hominem, as trollery. -Not to mention the most naively innocent queries of the uninitiated. 

Like relentlessly manipulative strangers with candy, beware the trollish exploitation of confidence. (Cyber Munchausen is the least of it!)

Q. What is: "soft flame"?

Fruitful dialogue requires not shared assumptions let alone flagrant bad faith, but any honest desire to progress any nearer to truth and sympathy or interest in sharing or at all comprehending one another's aims and problems, let alone POV or situation. Anything less is fruitless non engagement, even if short of the most overt hostility of flaming.

And indeed "Soft--flame" is a persistent and passive-aggressive devious non communication and needling such as may eschew overt hostility in favor of whatever sort of provocative undertone, and insult outright in favor of certain more devious annoyance tactics, even without overt verbal harassment, insult or abuse, the aim of which remains ongoing provocation into meaningless irrelevance and futility, frustration and exasperation, to completely sidetrack, obstruct and subvert topic, any topic, and just waste time.

"Soft--flame" is covert-hostile non sequitur. "soft--flame" simply bullies against communication, seeking to stifle the target individual or interaction and mark them for exclusion and abuse, just as flaming proper bullies the person more overtly. In escalating stages of hostility, the baiting lure of "Soft--flame" may typically serve as an overture or build up escalating to flaming proper, then shunning, "mobbing" and Relational Bullying.

Thinly veiled passive hostility and inappropriate moral indignation or empty protest instead of relevant response

Among typical headgames of peer pressure, that of Political Correctness often inspires devious and covert modes of non communication and noncooperation readily deployable to any degree of "soft-flame pseudo-engagement."

Non cooperative conditionality typically takes the form of the old bait and switch: Under the guise of helpful interest, the Ulterior Transaction is actually to keep distance and withhold involvement, punitively, pressing other entirely different plans or expectations instead. Should the target of the mixed message or hostile protest outright, fail to comply gratefully, then they are simply being difficult!

Whereas, non communication in specific, typically, whether in disregard to prose or to webdesign, often follows much the same old dodge and pseudo intellectual cover by nitpicking the most irrelevant picayune details of style when in truth they disapprove of content howsoever for hypocritical or dishonest reasons. Emotional reaction often stands in place of informative description. Indeed, some experience profound moral indignation in regard even to color schemes! and even manifest a certain sense of howsoever aggrieved entitlement. But the more manipulative of all is when precisely such heteronomy actually does come heartfelt, especially in context of any relationship.  -Only trying to help, it's for your own good, dear!  Regardless, feedback only proceeds at cross-purpose. Neither cogent criticism however harsh and frank nor miscommunication repair crucial to conversational adequacy, nor attention and discourse upon content nor authorial intent whatsoever, let alone, for example, real input to any howsoever genuine rewriting efforts in any advancing and meticulous close detail, will ensue, only the issuance of categorical rules, sweeping demands and bitter complaints utterly at cross-purpose all thereto.

It’s not just conversation upon webdesign to the tabooistic exclusion and even expressed crimestop of whatever actually invited discussion upon content. Worse, even conversation upon webdesign typically excludes creative problem solving in attempt to correct or to improve whatever specific webdesign deficiencies in whatever existing work, let alone how to achieve desired results in sympathy with authorial intent or Aesthetics. Because that might be helpful! And the aim of all such pseudo-engagement is never salient criticism, but only sullen protest and passive aggression! Indeed, rather, all such travesty of discourse is entirely and heteronymously closed upon the the inner adaptive child ego state of Transactional Analysis, and the elimination of all that does not conform to rules and expectations of authoritative bodies sited for standards and practices in webdesigm. And of course, implicitly in subtext, webdesign only stands for content that is taboo from very mention. The actual veiled message from the the controlling parental ego state of Transactional Analysis manifest in all such people pleasing bullies, that cannot be stated openly, is that in order to coax people to listen to you, begin by agreeing with them all completely and enthusiastically from the very beginning. Keep your opinions to yourself! It's for your own good, dear...

Zen is yet another handy, ever popular and ubiquitous pretext for pseudo-engagement and  "Soft--flame" The age old question persists: Is Zen a religion? Well, certainly along with motivational Behavior Modification, Zen qualifies no less as yet another rancid flavor to Marx's famously proverbial opiate of the sheeple, a force for inaction likewise so often faddishly prescribed to dull Proletarian discontent. Surely all such exhortation to sublime apathy or willful positivity even by means of Behavioral Modification is actually initiated from the controlling parental ego state of Transactional Analysis. Indeed, how callow and self serving to castigate, ostracize and even terminate from gainful employment, those deemed excessively critical or negative. How judgmental they all are against judgmental people! And what poor judgment thereby. Indeed, how cruel and lonely, how bereft of all animal compassion, to deny those who suffer, even dying cancer patients, their fear and anguish all in the name of relentlessly willful positivity! Why, in any public discourse as on every online forum, any salient agenda such as any quest whatsoever for happiness by actually seeking to improve one's actual circumstances in order better to fulfill Intrinsic values, or any call to stand to against the debilitating oppression of continual and destructive serial bullying, is regularly quashed and tabooed by immediate puerile "Soft--flame" outcries of Zen Nihilistic value-destruction in blanket invalidation, admonition instead only to search within for sublime apathy. Bah, humbug!

Q. Why do you disregard such feedback that you only dismiss? Just who do you think you are?

A. I once actually received two enthusiastically favorable email responses to CliqueBusters, one for the wealth of information resources and the other one in profound personal emotional resonance to my prose. Both, however, absolutely refused to discuss the central topic of CliqueBusters, active nonviolent but even covert action to thwart and expose bullying. Neither, however, felt howsoever incited to resort to soft-flame tactics at all. People simply read whatever howsoever interests and influences them.

Regardless of consensus, catering to whatever silly and picayune rationalizations for veiled inappropriate disapproval will never truly assuage the denied actual motivation to heteronymous tabooistic trepidation, aversion and hostility. Only genuine criticism, however frank and harsh, is either worthy or informative to progress, which is ongoing correction and improvement. Indeed, I often find that for prose, often only direct and wholehearted involvement it rewriting sympathetic to authorial intent much abets miscommunication repair to begin with among anyone interested to listen in the first place.

One can hardly expect assistance from one who so gravely disapproves, yet every benefit of open controversy remains possible only given any modicum of honesty.

The ambiguities of teasing

Q. But what about just kidding around, teasing or dropping a hint? 

A. If actually in any doubt, it's a joke if it's meant make the other party laugh, a prank if it's for one's own amusement at another's expense.

The point has often been advanced that that there is teasing meant in fun that is friendly and by which one is included, and there is also teasing, fun at another's expense, which is just malicious by which the target is edged out, cold shouldered, driven away, excluded. And the threat of exclusion is also known as peer pressure.

But only the sheer irrelevant hostility of  flaming actually and justifiably needs to be excluded.

"Consistent with these perspectives, we approach the issue of flaming (and related types of interactions) with a focus on how it occurs, why it occurs, and what function it serves, rather than with a preconceived value judgment. Just as there may be anti-social motivations for hostile messages, there may be a number of pro-social motivations and outcomes associated with aggressive or hostile messages. For example, harsh language could be used to provoke a reticent individual into a healthy, constructive conflict. A criticism could be used to establish the sender's credibility by demonstrating a willingness to offer critical comments and not just bland, agreeable feedback."

 

An Interactional Reconceptualization of "Flaming" and Other Problematic Messages

Patrick B. O'Sullivan & Andrew J. Flanagin

That is why, in the preservation of any trustworthy society, at some point the Moderator or chairperson should call conversation to order or call whatever question. -In order ever to advance the plot of character growth in true life drama, to press whatever topic and also to bring to the surface whatever submerged issues onto an open agenda subject to criticism, or even points of order before they drown completely or in any way only become ugly and melodramatic, needlessly!

Q. What choice have we?

A. As long as there is free will, no conversational response should be treated as predetermined by whatever expression to which it responds. At most, any given communication may simply trigger whatever particular response. Nevertheless, there remains free choice afterwards and full responsibility. Objectively, everything may well be determined, but for any practical purpose the interactions are simply too complex except to be estimated at best. Hence, subjectively at least, one reacts in response, by free choice, not from simple inexorable causality, however ill definable or classifiable.

"Look what you made me do!" is nothing but Existential fraud in the context of the conduct of mere conversation without physical compulsion or tangible stakes. "See how you've provoked me" may be fair enough, given human limitations. And yet, even after the lapse of provocation, a vast range free choice and therefore full responsibility returns and remains.

There are no conversation stoppers as such, but only those who fall silent and terminate conversation as is their good right, even as may be fair and only prudent. Nevertheless, there is no point too rude to answer, only people, however in their wisdom or folly as ever may be, freely choosing either simply to withdraw, to stand upon their affront, or to give vent thereto, or strive for the  self mastery of a thoughtful and even sensitive reply.

For even at such juncture, all conceivable free choice remains open. There is nothing too far out of bounds from which to recover, so long as there is a greater desire to continue and even come to terms than there is to be sullen and wounded or to run and hide. There is no truth too ugly to face and no question too stupid to ask or to answer. There is no excuse. The decision remains a decision. So long as there are free choice, and the responsibility of free choice resides completely with the one making the choice freely, no matter the onus upon the other. And all pretense otherwise is nothing but patronizing transfer of responsibility. Conversation, after all, is only conversation, at least if at all that little.

There is, of course, the compulsion and limitation of logic, narrowing the range of reasonable responses. Indeed, there are begged questions outright! And anyone may say the wrong thing at any moment, blank out, fall into confusion, miss the point, blurt out anything stupid, impolite, stray into non sequitur, or even may find themselves provoked to momentary and entirely ingenuous irritation and anger. Anyone may even have a bone to pick or demands to press. And yet, given any iota of good faith, any other party still has a great range of choice, freedom in possible response to hold up their end of the conversation, none the less, one way or another. One bears the full burden of responsibility whether or not to continue, and how so, no matter whatever howsoever the real or perceived transgression of the other.

But all of the above holds true only with the following qualification:

Only sheer non communication, one way or another featuring little or no signal to noise, refusal to communicate including pseudo-engagement, especially in bad faith or unremitting hostility, indefatigable cross-purpose and ulterior agenda, eliminates all hope of actual conversation as such and hence salient free choice in response, hence relieving concomitant responsibility.

Indeed, beyond the most ordinary bypassing, exchange which is not genuine communication simply because it lacks sufficient intersubjectivity and does not carry at all the same meanings or even purpose, intention or point at all between the participants, manipulation outright deviously seeks active control to rob the other of freedom, even beyond simply obstructing the range of expressive free choice, even in seeking to draw in and ensnare the unwary.

For there is no end of covert hostile vaguely accusatory baiting, badgering and meaningless silly tricks that appear to be communication, but are actually only obstruction and maliciously deliberate waste of the other's time. Only in such case, and even without obstructive arrogant condescension, can the other honestly be said to actually render conversation impossible.

 

 

There are a range of basic manipulative strategies of non communication, ranging from various selectively stupid, stone-deaf, or utterly blatant powerplays of sheer stonewalling non response, cowardice, devious ulterior cross-purposes, abuse, hostility as manifest in incessant baiting, actingout , resentment of criticism, unremitting empty abuse as in flaming, stubborn non sequitur evasion as in "soft flame," dishonesty as manifest in pathological lying, denial and delusion, and many flavors of sheer incoherence and obscurantism, even extreme forms of small talk and bluster, however at least seemingly affable. Also, there is radical mistrust, extreme noncooperation, however passive, even sheer eggshell over touchiness, often peer pressure.

And non communication must be truly unremitting and obstructive in order to really constitute utter non communication. And only in such an event of sheer futility, wherein the other simply does not truly communicate, is one truly robbed of any howsoever meaningful conversational free choice, whatsoever, in response and, hence, concomitant responsibility.

At best, the only power to be had in dealing with all such offensive non communication, may be that of whatever opportune Transactional Antithesis exposing and undermining the fraud of all such bullying. Otherwise, the best free choice would often be, indeed, to disengage. -That is, if disengagement is, indeed, an option, as under various actual Circumstances of bullying disengagement is often not really a practical option.

Q. What are the pitfalls of conversational pseudo-engagement and obstruction?

A. The clearest and simplest form of conversational engagement is any serious question (any actual question, and not rhetorical or intentionally ambiguous, damagingly presumptive and linguistically leading), because any sort of answer is actually solicited, perhaps even appreciated.

Indeed, among the many devious headgames, Ulterior Transactions as expounded upon in Transactional Analysis, there are all manner of expressions that provoke and invite howsoever desired response, back and forth, one way or another. The problem is when response is not actually desired, by another who nevertheless desires to speak, for whatever actual reason, motivation or goals as ever put forth, to persuade, one way or another by rudely or deviously obstructing all salient response thus to tax the target into weariness and break down resistance in order to demand compliance, or to press an emotional response, to find acceptance or to cause distress and achieve revenge, or even all the aforesaid at once, however ambivalently! 

And there are all manner of other of sophisticated manipulative engagements to sidestep and invalidate the target, "soft flame" alas, being the least if it.  A common tactic is outright pseudo-engagement, any attempt to involve, bait or inveigle another into an Ulterior Transaction that then only thwarts engagement towards what thereby proceeds as any sort of unidirectional message, hostile if only towards reply, exchange or engagement. The unidirectional message may be hostile or not, but at best, invalidating and domineering, as it provokes but then blocks response. Or one can make announcement of how one didn't engage or pay attention to a preceding message, and expound at length upon whatever picayune ostensible motivations and demand some sort of accounting, or even harp incessantly in angry refusal to discuss anything and keep whatever animus alive and unresolved. 

Just as denial and taboo can indeed manifest in blatant mockery and derision and even propaganda appeal to ridicule and even thence to malice outright, denial and taboo may be less blatant and overt. Indeed, perhaps the simplest and most elegant variation of such lets-you-be-reasonable Ulterior Transactions or: headgames, is the stone-deaf powerplay, wherein natural stupidly, apathy and inattention actually all come as a manipulative asset: The sports metaphor is borrowed and readapted from ice hockey: A powerplay or: squeeze play is an aggressive attempt to compel acquiescence by the concentration or manipulation of power especially as wherein advantage may be sought through the use of power or influence, indeed in any circumstance in which one party exploits advantage and howsoever exercises control over another. -In the case of the stone-deaf powerplay or devious headgame, an Ulterior Transaction of passive hostility, by manifestly unethically manipulative deception and pretense all for purposes of shifting an exhausting impossible burden of communication upon the other.

After all, denial is well known even become so complete as to result in utter disbelief, even so completely as to manifest in sheer incomprehension together with whatever fearing and fretful evasive refusal to collaborate and engage together in miscommunication repair. One way or another, the target is maneuvered into any position of reasoning and convincing the manipulator, whence the target finds themselves helpless, beating their proverbial head against the metaphorical wall! And any antithesis will require the target to disengage and claim victory by default, remembering that they, the target, are the one in good faith, unconvinced by another who defaults by refusing to engage. After all, Pseudo-engagement often begins by starting or opening and then blocking one way or another, instead of listening or answering. Or, much pseudo-engagement consists of broad assertions such that open only gainsaying, for example as actually to complain or lambaste the target for not listening or for lacking perception, one way or another. Typical are the empty hostility of abusive non sequiturs, retorts, dismissals or expressions of disinterest, calumniating in baiting and provocation; in a word: flaming!

And so, as my own concise personal Transactional Antithesis to flaming, in case of relational bullying against me, particularly any defamation too damaging simply to let stand, I maintain my own personal FAQ of rebuttal for citation of appropriately selected entries by hyperlink with bookmark, instead of becoming drawn and embroiled into the irksome futility of endlessly repeating myself in response.

Q. What is topic reclamation?  

A. Civility and pertinence are antithetical to flame.

Indeed, any small point of interest even in the worst and most abusive flames and trolls allows for the reclamation of discourse. This may be accomplished by careful snipping, highly selective citation/quotation and follow up to create renewed pertinent interest and meaningful value. -And then diligently continuing the discussion onward from that point forward... This thwarts and frustrates flamers, even optimally extinguishing the behavior by non reinforcement!

 

Even the more so than simple non response, that may still achieve the disruptive ends of at all halting ongoing discourse.

Ongoing controversy persists, over the question of whether or not to reply to flaming posts. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't! Because: To respond to flame, risks only encouraging ever more flame. But to let lies and abuse go unanswered, only lets it stand unchallenged. There is, however, an even more important problem. For some reason, with the unpleasant disruption of flaming, all other conversation often falls silent, an obvious objective of flaming, only reinforcing the behavior. Therefore, aside from whatever interaction or not, with flames, in order to defy and frustrate flaming, it remains crucial that whatever other conversation must continue unabated, indeed if not actually increased and intensified in deliberate defiance of flaming. Flaming, after all, so utterly differs from even the most harsh of criticism, in that flaming is not only so flagrantly abusive, but intentionally and fastidiously without pertinent substance. Indeed, soft flame so deviously schewing overt abuse, remains obstructive, a deliberate and exhausting waste of time in devious pseudo-engagement utterly devoid of pertinent substance. Therefore there remains one amusing tactic to infuriate flamers: Inventively sift the flames for anything at all what so ever contributive, and then thank the flamer profusely! And then there us topic reclamation: 

The Transactional Antithesis that is discourse reclamation depends upon diligent sifting of flames and trollery for any germ of content to quote and discuss, utterly ignoring the rest. No, two wrongs don't make a right, but creative irrelevancy towards willful irrelevancy and abuse, is a negation of a negation that often may bear positive fruit!

And so, all forum participants are kindly requested to commit themselves to such discourse reclamation, no less than to defend one another from bullying and harassment outright, should ever the need arise, for maximum effectiveness.

Indeed, in the spirit of free speech, any reasonable content whatsoever can be answered seriously, positively reinforced, in hopes of drawing out even the most irate back into any more serious and civil exchange, even at the risk of renewed spew of obsessive and even SPAM-like non sequitur or, worse, trollish abuse and manipulation.

• A superb and consummately deft instance of very scholarly topic reclamation

Specialized tactics of thread reclamation to fiction writing, may include constructively adapting flame and abuse into antagonistic or villainous character dialogue, while on the topic of bullying, flames and trolls can be dissected, dispassionately, as specimens for discussion of hostility and dishonesty. 

Thread reclamation recovers our choice of salient free expression amongst ourselves from the injury of intimidated silence.

Indeed, any abusive responses to thread reclamation are to be subjected to further creative thread reclamation.

Copyright 2001 - 2023 by Aaron Agassi