Renzatic on 2/12/2009 at 00:49

---

I'll play the middle ground here and say that you can convey sarcasm on the internet quite easily, so long as it's either blatant, or you generally understand a poster's personality (Zylonbane Effect). Dry, subtle sarcasm though, that's a bit harder to communicate via text alone. While not necessary, most of the time you need to be able to hear the sarcastee's tone of voice, see their body language, ect, for it to really sink in. Usually, the more subtle stuff turns into a Dethtoll Airplane situation.

I think that's the reason why everyone around here takes me so seriously when they shouldn't. I'm as dry as overbaked British toast, and really quite dour.

Kolya on 2/12/2009 at 01:32

---

So maybe your accent didn't go unnoticed in face to face but was just contradicted by your appearance. This is hardly conclusive proof that the lack of other clues let them pick up on something they didn't notice before. The fact that they happened to get it right on the phone is down to this rather peculiar situation.
And there are other factors to look at in your anecdote like people feeling more secure to ask such a thing which could expose them to an embarrassing mistake in RL.

Again, this is not how communication usually works, people don't give non-verbal clues that are contradicting to the meaning they intend to convey. Not even when they're sarcastic.

I'm drawing this parallel because it's the topic that started this discussion.
Finally, I'm not trying to make this so controversial. I actually would like to believe that text had inherent qualities that allow us to transcend the missing information without additional effort.
But I've been a poster and chatter for years and I'm quite aware that you have to be far more explicit and outspoken on the net to get your point across than in RL.

kidmystik101 on 2/12/2009 at 07:55

---

I was about to attempt to trump your post by saying "HAHA you can't read faget" but thank GOD I re-read my posts before I do that cause I'm a dickfart who can't put brain-words into text.

What I MEANT to say is that it's pretty damn hard, because the context has to be perfect (or close to) for it to make sense (or at least be non-insulting). Yeah, there's the obvious ones (generally mispelled words, lowercase or allcaps, etc.) but a lot of sarcasm detection (that phrase makes me want to hit myself for some reason) comes down to knowledge of the author. For example, everyone here knows that generally when Dethtoll insults Koki it's not in a super serious manner, but more just for lols, but without the knowledge Dethtoll just looks like a twat (NOTHIN' NEW HERE BOYS, HO HO).

Yes it's possible but arguing that it's easier on forums because of the context is purely 'tarded.



Come on, it's generally pretty obvious purely through voice tone that sarcasm is implied. Unintentional use aside (and I mean how fucking often do you hear people use that tone in normal conversation) it's generally extremly noticable.

And the Aspies thing is irrelevant. We're not talking special cases here.

And here I was trying to be switzerland

kidmystik101 on 2/12/2009 at 08:26

---

I'm a classy lad

Kolya on 2/12/2009 at 12:49

---

It's not that unlikely. You know that, but I'll say it for the rest: By far the largest segment of foreigners in Germany are turks, followed by Italians.
Plus I gave you an alternative explanation for why people rather asked you on the phone about your nationality. Just saying "this is bullshit" is no argument.

Finally I'd like to explain why I like to argue about this shit so much: It's interesting for my studies to learn how the missing communication channels generate misunderstandings and aggression in text-based communication and what strategies exist to alleviate these problems. Basically I'm doing my homework here on several levels (while having fun). I'm sure this discussion itself would have gone down differently if we had been in the same room physically. Personally I like to argue in RL just a much as I do here, but I'm quick to catch up on body language, etc. and tone my arguments appropriately. I guess I'm not the only one to do that, nor am I the only one who accommodates to a text-based environment. Just how this accommodation works exactly is one of the things that interests me. Oh well, I could go on, but I gotta catch a train.