There is no doubt that pranksters exist on the internet, and that sometimes comments within online communities are made only to cause trouble, display vulgarity and insult. However, these impersonal comments from strangers can almost be deleted as spam, irrelevant internet junk that we skip over in our email and web travels without second thought. More interesting is how hurtful comments can be when written by those considered to be our internet buddies, when they know which of our buttons to push to elicit a reaction and when it feels like the attack is personal. These are flames. The motives driving these kind of flamers are not always malicious, and it’s not just the words that are causing an emotive reaction. In this paper flaming is defined as a written comment, viewed by a persona or virtual community, that is sent or received with hostility. This paper will examine how both the flamer and the reader influence a hostile environment (Thompsen, 1993) and why flaming is not just an amusement of pranksters but a tool employed by users to assert and control their online identity. Most importantly, the paper will show that flaming and associated behaviours are not always driven by malicious intent, but inexperience, frustration, the psychological desire to experience thrill, ease tension and assert dominance (Alonzo & Aiken, 2004) as well as conflict with online community norms (Aakhus & Rumsey, 2010). Flamers can be productive internet citizens, and their opposing personas sometimes overlap.

Internet content often reflects the diverse motives of its users, a mixture of those seeking  information or companionship, those interested in participation or silent lurking. One person may exhibit all these motives in a single online session, highlighting the fact that  many internet users are a myriad of different personas. A user’s identity within each virtual community that they inhabit is unique and complex. When one of these identities causes conflict via flaming or trolling, some users assume that the user has a single motive, to cause trouble with other users. The conflict may indeed be interpersonal but may be with the community itself, too. The tendency to believe that flamers have a single motive comes from associating flames with spam and other types of profane, meaningless internet content. In fact, there is little consistency in the definition of flaming across research, (Thompsen, 1993) in previous research, both profane and personal flames have been grouped together skewing the prevalent data (Thompsen, 1993). This made flaming appear more common than it really is. Personal flames are a more subtle and interesting phenomenon, involving trolling behaviors and flamewars amongst regular community members.

When internet communication was first being assessed, flames were primarily categorised according to their content, that is, a comment with profanity, scathing or personal criticisms was diagnosed as a flame (O’Sullivan & Flanagin, 2003). The intent of the writer was deemed hostile based on the content of the message. As the individual nature of online communities becomes more distinct, new studies are showing that content can no longer be the only criterion used to define hostile messages, instead the context of the message and the intent behind it must be assessed (O’Sullivan & Flanagin, 2003). If the community reading the post does not find it offensive, then even a profane message is not a flame, that is, “a flame is not a flame until someone considers it to be a flame” (Thompsen, 1993, p5). The intent of the writer is often impossible for a third party to determine, but the writers standing within the community and their approach to posting the content are valuable contextual information. Context shows that not all flamers are intentionally hostile, or if they are, the motive is not always malicious and for amusement (Thompsen, 1993).

To examine the context we must also assess the other side of the equation. The audience of a message has an effect on its classification as a flame, too. “Flaming does not exist in a vacuum; it requires the “fuel” of interpersonal interaction and the interpretation of that  interaction by social actors.” (Thompsen, 1993, p5) Flames always have an audience, they are not the internet equivalent of beating on an inanimate punching bag, flaming at its very core always involves a target of some kind, whether personal or an entire group. The audience of a flame have some responsibility in the definition of content as inflammatory, even if that reaction is dictated by personal vales, community values, or even the identity we have created for ourselves.

Early research hypothesised that flames were the result of the impersonal nature of the internet, a lack of social physical cues, the asynchronous nature of the internet and the inhibition present in pouring out your soul to people online or discussing difficult or taboo matters with impunity (Aakhus & Rumsey, 2010). This placed the blame on the communication channel, the internet, rather than the individual. However some researchers are now indicating that flamers are motivated by personality and gratification desires (Alonzo & Aiken, 2004), a conflict with the social norms of a community (Aakhus & Rumsey, 2010; Reinig & Mejias, 2004) and by natural human tendencies to use conflict to establish boundaries and test alliances (Hangwoo, 2005).

If we accept that hostility is not inevitable in computer-mediated communication, if we accept that there is a human element fanning the flames, then flaming may be an accidental or purposeful tool used in construction of a user’s identity online. Alonzo and Aiken identified three motives for flaming behaviour: stimulation, tension reduction, and assertion (2004). Stimulation as a motive suggests that flamers use the relative safety of the internet to act out what they perceive to be exciting, daring verbal attacks that would not be safe to do in real life. (Alonzo & Aiken, 2004) To do this on the internet might reassure the person that they are capable of risky behaviour (when they are the initiating flamer) or capable of defending their pride or the pride of their community (when they are a responsive flamer continuing the hostile thread). These behaviours are closely linked to the concept of the user’s internet identity, especially within a community when defensive flamers are involved. They perceive the need to act aggressively in order to maintain the consistency of their identity and its interactions.

Tension reduction as a motive of flamers explains that an anxious personality might use flaming as a way to diffuse a situation. Tension in this case may have been caused by another party starting an argument. It is not necessarily the motive of the flamer to diffuse this argument, but merely the tension it causes them. Defensive flames in return can soothe the feeling of being attacked for this identity. (Alonzo & Aiken, 2004) Some flamers might see it as the role of their online identity within a certain community to relieve this tension or to use flaming to obscure the fact they have nothing further to contribute, even though the emotional reaction is a real life one. Alternatively, tension might be felt from the communication method itself, such as the asynchronous postings on a message board causing the flamer to feel ignored or left out. In these instances flaming is a way to relieve the stress felt by these events. Flaming for these reasons is an interesting emotional link between the real individual and the identity they have created.

Assertion is probably the most aggressive motive for flaming, and is something commonly associated with flamers. The drive to “have control, dominance, and power over others, which confers status and self-esteem” (Alonzo & Aiken, 2004, p208) is a significant factor in the creation and maintenance of an online identity which wishes to be seen as in control and powerful. Flaming is used in this context to drive away competitors or force them to prove their submission, which is otherwise difficult to assert in online communication (Alonzo & Aiken, 2004).

These motives start to address the reason that we see flamewars even amongst long-term communities. Flaming is being used as a tool to shape an online identity and maintain its power. Communities might be even more prone to witnessing and exhibiting these kinds of behaviour because of the need to create and maintain identities within the group. These community flamewars may not be pleasant for the audience but they do shape the group. The reactions that other community members display will shape their identities, also. Choosing not to participate in flaming makes a statement, just as participation does. “Conflict functions to set up and sustain the identity and boundary of groups” (Hangwoo, 2005, p392). How a community chooses to deal with, react to and make rules about flaming strongly shapes the behaviours, or norms that are typical within the group.

Within internet communities, long term users begin to form and recognize the other personas in the group, but they also start to form written and unwritten rules of behaviour, called social norms (Aakhus & Rumsey, 2010). These social norms come into play when potential flames are viewed in the community. If only the flamers intent were considered, it could be argued that messages which unintentionally break community norms should not be considered flames. However the reality is that many online communities consider posting messages without understanding the community norms, “without lurking first”, as a hostile move itself.

This appraisal of hostility centers around what the community has deemed acceptable social norms. Messages that purposefully attack these norms can be considered flames by community members, even when the message may seem innocuous to a third party observer. The community may classify a post as a flame or at least incendiary device even without the writer having such intent. For example, the message: “You should feed your cat Whiskas cat food, it’s a great food that I’ve had no problems with for 20 years” may seem benign to an outsider. However, the users of a group like Pet Island, within the Something Awful Forums, would see this as a deliberate, hostile message purposefully attempting to start a flamewar, or attempt to troll. The social norms of the Pet Island forum dictate that users understand the difference between high and low (Whiskas) quality foods by assessing the ingredient list, and that when making recommendations to other users, they only recommend high quality brands, or refrain from comment entirely. Failing to understand this norm before making a comment, or purposefully posting content contrary to the rule is viewed as a hostile attack.

Within the same forum, there are other, strict, social norms surrounding the altering of pets and decisions on where to purchase animals. (OFFICAL PI RULES READ THIS FIRST, 2010) These social norms are not always in place because the users all agree on them. In fact, within Pet Island there is an agreement to avoid the topic of allowing cats to roam outside because of violently opposing views (primarily cultural but also personal) amongst otherwise similarly minded users. (Wandering Cat Problem, 2010) Violating these norms is often considered hostile activity, as it causes otherwise co-operative community members to defend and argue their opposing points of view against each other. An internal “civil flamewar”, so to speak.

The adoption of social norms, especially those that are unclear or even ridiculous to an outsider does open up these online communities to flames and other negative behaviours. Further, some communities create and enforce social norms that are detrimental to their diversity as a group. Users who come into the group and are resistant to these social norms frequently cause friction that can easily escalate to flames. Aakhus and Rumsey describe such a case, where a long term user vents about issues they are experiencing in life, and triggers a flamewar over whether such venting is appropriate in the group of which they are a member (Aakhus & Rumsey, 2010).

In that case, the original message was not intended to challenge the social norms of the group, but increasingly community members are creating identities purely for the purpose of challenging these norms and attempting to enact change. In one such case, a user ‘albumleaf’ of the community forums at Basenotes.net posted a number of comments purposefully challenging the conventional social norms of the community:

Honestly I think it’s awfully funny that certain people on this site can’t take the slightest bit of criticism before flipping out. Deleting your posts is so childish I don’t even know where to start. (Re: Aromi’s Reviews, 2009)

While upon first review, the community reacted negatively, banned and removed them from the site, [1] there was an unseen group of supporters that eventually located each other (on another forum), applauded his efforts and agreed with his ideals.

Here, user PorkFat (a user from both forums), realizes that they are communicating with ‘albumleaf’. They respond positively to the behaviour albumleaf/destructo has exhibited on Basenotes because it challenged the accepted social norms there in a way that PorkFat supports.

PorkFat Dec 12, 2009 07:05

“Is your BN username albumleaf by any chance? Always picking on the 5-stars and their retarded meaningless problems that all the others rush in to give their support for? He’s the best troll over there right now.”

destructo Dec 12, 2009 11:07

“Haha, yes that’s me. It makes me sad because the amount of information over at basenotes is so useful but the demographic over there is [animated gif of throwing up]. After I saw your posts I immediately thought I had seen your     username somewhere, and sure enough.”

(The all new unisex fragrance/cologne/perfume discussion thread, 2009)

Communities on the internet are not always formed around like-minded individuals that are committed to supporting each other. Some forums and groups center around television shows, products and informational databases. These are cases where social norms created by dominant majorities in the user base can cause conflict with smaller minorities amongst the user base, leading to flaming on both sides. In these cases the flamers are asserting pressure against the community itself, to change its norms, not necessarily one individual. These issues are critical to the expression of identity online. Often, when a user can’t find a more suitable community than one where they do not agree with the social norms, they either become passive lurkers or aggressive flamers, each a strong reaction to the expectations of behaviour within that community. These types of flamewars may even bring about productive change to the social norms that are more inclusive of all users.

This inclusion within the community or assertion of an identity within the community are often are primary motives for flamers and trolls. Their flames are fueled by inexperience, frustration and rebellion against the community expectations. Flamers are motivated by psychological desires for the creation of an identity within the group as powerful dominant personalities, peacekeepers, defenders and to prove to themselves that they are capable of surviving risky behaviour at another’s expense.

Notes:

[1] For a comprehensive list of the flamers postings in the Basenotes forum, see here:

http://www.basenotes.net/search.php?searchid=566314

However it does require knowledge of the subject matter and social norms of the forum to understand why the user was considered a flamer by that community (and eventually was banned) as well as why he was applauded for his flames by others privately.

Reference List:

Aakhus, M., & Rumsey, E. (2010). Crafting Supportive Communication Online: A Communication Design Analysis of Conflict in an Online Support Group. Journal of applied communications research, 38(1), 65-84.

The all new unisex fragrance/cologne/perfume discussion thread (2009). Retrieved March 20. 2010, from http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3108653&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=33

Alonzo, M., & Aiken, M. (2004). Flaming in electronic communication. Decision support systems, 36(3), 205-213.

Hangwoo, L. (2005). BEHAVIORAL STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH FLAMING IN AN ONLINE FORUM. The Sociological Quarterly, 46(2), 385-403.

O’Sullivan, P. B., & Flanagin, A. J. (2003). Reconceptualizing ‘flaming’ and other problematic messages. New Media Society, 5(1), 69-94.

OFFICAL PI RULES READ THIS FIRST (2010). Retrieved March 21. 2010, from http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3172391

Re: Aromi’s Reviews (2009). Retrieved March 15. 2010, from http://www.basenotes.net/threads/241935-Aromi-s-Reviews?p=1701862&highlight=#post1701862

Reinig, B. A., & Mejias, R. J. (2004). The Effects of National Culture and Anonymity on Flaming and Criticalness in GSS-Supported Discussions. Small Group Research, 35(6), 698-723.

Thompsen, P. (1993). A Social Influence Model of Flaming in Computer-Mediated Communication.

Wandering Cat Problem (2010). Retrieved March 20. 2009, from http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3269707

Flamers have motives, too: why people flame and who they are really targeting by Laura Peacock is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 Canada License.