One Monk e-mailed me and said he wanted to post, but felt he was too new of a monk to have his contribution seriously considered. While I disagreed (I feel that Monks take into account the quality of the post rather than the level of the poster), I could understand his reluctance. I asked permission to reprint what I thought were some excellent points. Here they are:

Your every point was spot-on. Lack of civility, even when spun as "well meant," brings on more of the same. How often have I heard people defend their incivility by saying they "believe in" free speech, or that no one has a right to police their speech? Answer: too often--and invariably the appeal to free speech was a puny and uncompelling defense of those folks' desire, simply, to flame other folks for the sheer fun of it.

I almost never go to /., but the few times I've been there have persuaded me not to bother going back very often. Egad. What a cesspool of nastiness.

For several years I moderated a nationally "broadcast" sexual-politics-issues forum on one of the networks (not Usenet). I had hard-and-fast rules about flaming. Attack ideas if you wish; but belay the rude remarks. This worked for a while until the flame-junkies found the conference. People who would surely have been more or less polite to one another face-to-face were willing to say the most vile things; and the nastiness escalated over time. It was a steamroller going downhill with the brakes off. It could not be "physically" moderated after the fashion of newsgroups, and my efforts aside, I lost control of the threads. Finally, when the atmosphere became too poisonous, I gave it all up. Let someone else play the parent, I thought. It was sad...

Incidentally, I was chatting with another Monk about this topic and realized that people who are rude online are probably doing it because we can't retaliate. If someone steps in front of me on the sidewalk, I'm likely to say "excuse me" and go on my way. If the same incident occurs, but we're both in cars, I might curse up a storm.

In another case (I tried desperately to find the reference to this), a university was doing a study of prison guards and assigned students to be "guards" and others to be "prisoners." The guards soon learned that they were pretty much invulnerable and the study had to be halted prematurely due to how the guards were treating the prisoners. (And anyone who lives in a major city can probably think of a police story or two which illustrates this).

The common thread that I have seen in every example has been freedom from retaliation leading people to act obnoxiously. People are showing what they are really made of. We expect no retaliation, so we do what we will. Our true level of maturity comes out.

---

---

• Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
• Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:

  <code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>

• Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
• Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.