This first flamewar, judging from the remaining posts left in the archives, seems to have been a mild one. But that could be deceptive. The archives don't show us the letters sent to Blackbane (where the bulk of flaming occurs), or those posts marked with a request not to be archived. (A request which flamers love to make - it creates the illusion, for the simple minded or uninformed, that the target of the flaming is off ranting by himself, because one sees his (or her) complaints without seeing what it is that the target is complaining about. It keeps those later on from being able to see just how obnoxiously some of those present behaved).

Does it seem likely that there was a mass X- no archiving? Possible, not even that unlikely, but if I was forced to guess, I'd say no, with little conviction. There is a standard pattern to these things - first, a mass attack by "private e-mail". Those who engage in this abusive ganging up are protected from public scrutiny - or so they hope - by the manufactured online custom of prohibiting the recipient of such e-mail from posting such e-mail where everyone can see it. That way, if thinks that one is joining in on a mass e-mailing, and is wrong, one can then lie and deny what one has done. It makes mass trolling much safer for those who like to make it part of their lifestyle. This is combined with another bit of "netiquette" (online ettiquette, invented by - it's never made clear who, with no rationale for the rules offered considered necessary, and no discussion of their reasonability considered by those pushing it). Namely, the "rule" that those posting are obligated to accept e-mail in response to their posts.

So, who invented these "rules"? Why, none other than those who engage in the aforementioned mass trolling. (For those who don't already know, trolling is the practice of either making the written equivalent of obscene phone calls by e-mail, or posting things online for the purpose of outraging those present). They're wonderfully convenient for those who'd rather harass the people they disagree with into leaving, than have to answer their points. And, those who dissent with the establishment of a new rule of "netiquette" can often count on being harassed over this fact, with their system operators often being harassed into discontinuing access, if they take to ignoring those seeking to bully them into silence. It's as if those who held up convenience stores got to write the laws determining how the security systems in the stores they robbed could be designed. Or as if the foxes got to design the chicken coops.

This is a fact, often glossed over in discussions of netiquette. Often, todays's regulars are nothing more than yesterdays's trolls, who've won group support by driving their opponents offline, manufacturing their own majorities. Having done so, they then seek to control discussion in "their groups" by unilaterally setting the rules under which it is to be conducted. It is a form of social engineering. Rather than overtly prohibit the expression of viewpoints they disagree with, they will often, at first, write the "rules" so it is unpleasant or impractical to do so. One is left with the illusion of a free forum being present - leading those tuning in to take the consenses arising more seriously than they otherwise might - without having the messy reality present. Without having to run the risk that an open exchange might lead in a direction that those effectively running the group might not like. Such is the reality of anarchism - it's simply authoritarianism, repackaged.

Now, in the course of a flamewar, while one can easily see that this is so, by watching those present, it is not a thing openly admitted. Honesty and manipulation don't mix well. Yet, it is a thing known to all, and one can see this in the actions of those present, as they respond all too rationally (on a tactical level) to that reality which they deny the presence of. Someone will make a post that is disapproved of. There will be a moment of silence. Then three - almost always three, not four, not five - three of the more prominent regulars will gang up on the one posting. (Notice how many flames Blackbane got on the first round?)

This seems to serve as a signal to the others - the "me too" crowd, who keep their place in the group by going along with what everyone else is saying - that the abuse of the one posting is now 'officially approved', and may safely be done openly, instead of by e-mail. Great jubilation follows, as the cowardly and cowed masses get to take out the frustrations accumulated in their timid little lives, on a single target, from the safe position of one hiding in the midst of a faceless mob. Flaming, for these, is not really a diversion from the business of the group. Look at how little of substance ever gets discussed. Flaming IS the business of the group. It is a chance to win badly craved personal validation by joining in on something that people feel like feeling strongly about.

Are flamewars always so well orchestrated? Usually, but not always. It is not a well adjusted crowd that craves these conditions, and disproportionately many online have issues that they aren't dealing with very well. If you trip across one of these issues, you may trigger a mass flamefest spontanteously, as people lose self control. They must scream NOW. These are the sort that lead to people putting in the no-archiving requests in their headers, just in case the eruption proves unfashionable later on, and the flamers wish to deny that it ever occured. Such a case will arise later, when we discuss the background of one of Blackbane's defenders.

(Aside : Was this such an issue? Did the regulars tend to explode en masse when the reasonability of specific "witchy" practices were questioned? This is a question for further examination, and I leave it to the reader.

Look up the participants in this conflict, follow their discussion with others, and check to see how quickly they tended to fly off the handle when such issues were raised. If a mass eruption was a likely event, then in all likelihood, we saw a mass no-archiving here. If not, if the first response would usually be to defend rather than howl, then a standard flamewar would be the likeliest guess).

1. Bob follows
2. Darklove joins in
3. One of the few sensible responses Raven ever got
4. Backup copies of posts
5. Raven wonders if the group is delusional
6. return to initial hostilities page