Fourth in a multi-part series
Part One, Part Two, Part Three
Me too
Sometime during the summer of '94, we kicked the high-cost, low-speed Prodigy service to the curb and set out to find a better replacement. By this time, I had bought several games, several of which didn't want to run. I needed information, but the only place to get it was online and Prodigy had failed to live up to its promise.
We happened upon a CompuServe box at the BX, so I bought it and
installed it. I was largely unimpressed. It was somewhat faster than Prodigy, but its user interface and navigation scheme got in the way of what I needed to do. All I wanted was to find what I was looking for, but I had to click around through various folders to see if what I needed was there, usually to find that it wasn't and start over again -- if I wasn't disconnected (yet again) and managed to find a phone number that actually worked so I could log back into the service. Considering that every click regularly resulted in a 30 second wait to see the next list of choices, this method of searching was not only time consuming, but expensive as well.
I stuck with CompuServe, but was unhappy with it. After tons of time wasted searching, I finally found a couple of boards where I learned about IRQs, EMM386, and TSRs. I figured out how to create alternate config.sys and autoexec.bat files to boot up the computer in different ways, allowing me to play the games I'd bought. Still, even though I found a lot of useful technical information, I really wasn't satisfied with the community. I figured out how to get Microprose's F-14 Fleet Defender to run, but I would've liked to talk about it or found some tips and tricks from other players.
It was while I was looking for Day of the Tentacle at the BX that I found a box for America Online. Yes, it's true: AOL used to be sold in boxes, just like any other piece of software. I know it's hard to believe, living in a world barely recovered from the decade-long deluge of AOL CD's, but America Online was just another box competing for shelf space. It wasn't expensive, so I decided to give it a whirl to see what it was all about.
I opened the massive box to find a single 3.5" disk and instruction manual. I installed it and was pleased to find
hundreds of local access numbers. I connected on the first try, registered and beheld the Future -- only the Future looked a lot like Outlook. This was AOL 1.5, before it was revamped with all the graphics and glitz. It was completely text-based and looked like a modern Email program. It was also very easy to navigate and it had chat. Oh yes, the chat -- more on that in a minute.
What I liked a lot about AOL was the community feel. Remember, this was still 1994: the large, unwashed masses had yet to descend upon the online world, so people were still relatively polite and friendly. The place policed itself. If someone was being a jerk, they'd get flagged for a TOS violation and their account would be suspended. It was on AOL that I first started participating in discussions about Star Trek, Star Wars, music, computers, and UFOs.
I also started participating in chats as well, but I treated those differently than I did the message boards. On the message boards, I was friendly and earnest, yet I approached the chats differently. I don't know why. There was something about the format and the way people communicated that really brought out the aggressive and sarcastic side of me.
I initially took to observing different chat rooms, yet rarely participating.
The discussions were usually vacuous and forgetful, but I observed the patterns of speech employed, the emoticons people used, and the ebb and flow of conversation. I decided to see if I could effectively have fun with them without getting into trouble. I learned how to go right up to the TOS violation line and remain there without going over.
I would regularly go into Christian chats and claim to be an atheist, then go into an atheist chat as a fundamentalist Christian. The key was knowing a chat was not conducive to intelligent discussion, so everyone always employed the same stock phrases for the same tired arguments. If you threw out a couple of statements as bait, someone would predictably respond. It was like chumming for sharks in South Africa -- I was always guaranteed a hit. For me, the fun wasn't in the argument, it was playing a role and pushing someone's buttons. They would continually try to "win" the argument, yet not a single person ever figured out that by simply taking the bait, they had already lost.
I never directly insulted anyone -- at least, not at this time and place. That would come far later, when I focused my fun on the random internet idiots who started cropping up all over the place. What I learned, by honing my trolling into a satisfying form of entertainment, was that people treated the chat and the participants as if there were really people standing around, watching us argue. If they were to simply give up and stop responding, they would be seen to "lose" by the other participants. This meant they could never stop. Their honor demanded it or something.
Mind you, this is a chat room we're talking about. People would enter and leave at whim, and most other people couldn't care less about what was going on. Everything would be forgotten in two minutes, or you could just go into another chat room where none of the participants had any idea of what just transpired. Still, I rarely encountered a person who could just let it go and not take the bait. They really thought something was at stake.
I eventually took things a step further, sometimes employing friends to join me as ringers in the crowd. I found that a person in a one-on-one confrontation usually felt emboldened if one of the other chatters lent a line of support. It meant, in his mind, that people really were watching and they really were on his side. So, I started fixing things so that if someone
else did pipe up, I would suddenly see a surge of support from the crowd. The advantages were twofold: One, it tended to mute dissenting voices, as most people are herd animals and will go along with whatever they perceive to be popular opinion. Two, the mark would think popular support was against him, leaving him isolated and alone. This would normally be enough for the person to croak some weak insult and resign from the chat. I never really liked going that route, but it was always interesting from a behavioral standpoint.
I always found it odd that hardly anyone couldn't just ignore the ringers and simply focus on me and what I was saying. I never once appealed to the crowd's support in an argument. I actually ignored them and continued my focus on the mark. My opponents never seemed to realize none of it was real and there was nothing on the line, no matter what they said.
I learned more from those AOL chats than I realized at the time. As I said, I didn't mess around with people on the message boards, because they were genuinely interesting and worthwhile. However, my experiences in the chats gave me a lot of insight into how people behaved online. It's where I learned my fundamentals of flaming:
- Always stay on the offensive. Never seriously answer your opponents questions/charges. Simply toss them aside and continue hammering away at them. Use their answers as ammunition.
- Develop a theme and stick with it. If you want to question their intelligence, stay on that theme by finding different and funny ways to say the same thing. Don't go scattershot and try different things. Find one thing and keep at it.
- Be funny and brief. It's one thing to be mean. It's quite another to be mean and funny. People don't like to think they're being laughed at. Also, try to say something in six words or less, using consonant/letter combinations that have the most impact. Never use an insult verbatim that you heard somewhere else.
- If you get bored or tired of it, then stop and leave. This is merely for your own entertainment. Nothing is at stake and sometimes you just get tapped-out and don't feel like continuing the thing.
- Keep them off-balance. The whole point is to control the argument, making them perform the way you want so you can explore different creative avenues. Once they're on the defensive, you own them and can guide the argument to wherever you like.