Benutzerdefiniertes Design erstellen
0
reading reflection #5 - Conflict dynamics in CMC
Geschrieben von
thomas t
,
13 Mai 2009
·
598 Aufrufe
Computer-Mediated Communication
Now to flames, the interesting stuff 
I have to say, that I am always astonished when I found out that somebody don't know the term “flame† or “flaming†. So I'd like to explain it.
There are different definitions of flaming. For O'Sullivan it's a hostile and aggressive interaction in CMC. Thrulow et al. presents a list of what is called flaming:
Flames can be classified by the reception of sender, recipient and third party members:
When the sender doesn't think his message is aggressive, but recipient and third party do, than it's called a “Newbie Flame†, because it's possible the sender is a noob.
When the sender wants to be aggressive, but the others don't get it, it is a “Failed Flame†.
A “Missed Flame† on the other is when everyone, except the recipient, see it as a flame.
Only when everyone interpret the message as aggressive it is a “True Flame†.
What the authors, except O'Sullivan, don't mention is the possibility that nobody but the recipient see the message as a flame. I wander what that is called.
There is also the possibility of a “flame war†. Thats when the flame don't stop after a couple of aggressive messages. It spreads over chatrooms and threads and more and more people get involve. Flame wars are extreme rare and always a sign of weak or non existing mods and admins.
Scientists have developed a model, which shows how social factors, like group norms, explain the nature of CMC the best. It's called “interactual-normative framework†. I like to describe it in short:
Developed by O'Sullivan and Flanagin it describes the complex social behavior that lead to online aggression and how they change over time and from one medium to another. It is based on 4 principles:
One last word: Flames are not a CMC specialty. They also happen in real life, but then it's called a “quarrel†, a “beef† or a “fight†. Whats special on CMC is the fact that also messages not intend to be aggressive can feel so due to the lack of emotional and social cues. But that don't mean that there are more flames in CMC than quarrels in RL.
Readings:
Thurlow, C.; Lengel, L. & Tomic, A. (2004). Contextualizing CMC: “flaming† and embedded media. In: Computer mediated communication. Social interaction and the Internet (pp. 69-80). London: Sage
O'Sullivan, P & Flanagin, A. J. (2003). Reconceptualizing 'flaming' and other problematic messages. In: New Media & Society 5 (1) (pp. 67-93). London: Sage
Thomas Templ 0002097
I have to say, that I am always astonished when I found out that somebody don't know the term “flame† or “flaming†. So I'd like to explain it.
There are different definitions of flaming. For O'Sullivan it's a hostile and aggressive interaction in CMC. Thrulow et al. presents a list of what is called flaming:
- incendiary messages
- inflammatory remarks
- rude or insulting messages
- vicious verbal attacks
- nasty and often profane diatribe
- derogatory, obscene or inappropriate language
- overheated prose
- derisive commentary
Flames can be classified by the reception of sender, recipient and third party members:
When the sender doesn't think his message is aggressive, but recipient and third party do, than it's called a “Newbie Flame†, because it's possible the sender is a noob.
When the sender wants to be aggressive, but the others don't get it, it is a “Failed Flame†.
A “Missed Flame† on the other is when everyone, except the recipient, see it as a flame.
Only when everyone interpret the message as aggressive it is a “True Flame†.
What the authors, except O'Sullivan, don't mention is the possibility that nobody but the recipient see the message as a flame. I wander what that is called.
There is also the possibility of a “flame war†. Thats when the flame don't stop after a couple of aggressive messages. It spreads over chatrooms and threads and more and more people get involve. Flame wars are extreme rare and always a sign of weak or non existing mods and admins.
Scientists have developed a model, which shows how social factors, like group norms, explain the nature of CMC the best. It's called “interactual-normative framework†. I like to describe it in short:
Developed by O'Sullivan and Flanagin it describes the complex social behavior that lead to online aggression and how they change over time and from one medium to another. It is based on 4 principles:
- [1] Need for definitional clarity: It is the lack of agreement what a term actually means. It's possible that what is polite for one is hostile for another.
[2] Direct consideration of social and relational contexts: That means that an outsider don't know whats going on between two people. A massage, normally known as impolite, can be standard between two friends. So it's also in the bigger picture. Different communities have different norms and one don't know them unless become part of the community.
[3] Investigations of functions rather than reliance on value judgments: To often messages are judged by the words themselves. But the context is even more important. A flame is only a flame when someone decides it. But who? And a little bit of aggression good, because it is a sign of a healthy and robust debate.
[4]Priorisation of communication over technology: When it's said that flaming is unique to CMC, or even necessarily caused by the technology †¦ well thats nonsense.
One last word: Flames are not a CMC specialty. They also happen in real life, but then it's called a “quarrel†, a “beef† or a “fight†. Whats special on CMC is the fact that also messages not intend to be aggressive can feel so due to the lack of emotional and social cues. But that don't mean that there are more flames in CMC than quarrels in RL.
Readings:
Thurlow, C.; Lengel, L. & Tomic, A. (2004). Contextualizing CMC: “flaming† and embedded media. In: Computer mediated communication. Social interaction and the Internet (pp. 69-80). London: Sage
O'Sullivan, P & Flanagin, A. J. (2003). Reconceptualizing 'flaming' and other problematic messages. In: New Media & Society 5 (1) (pp. 67-93). London: Sage
Thomas Templ 0002097
