So, flooding is bad, right?

I mean, I can see no reason why it would be a good thing for anyone to flood. It doesn’t really contribute to any conversation but it attracts the eye and thereby detracts from the general dialogue.

So, what sort of narcissistic sack of shit would engage in such a pursuit? What benefit do they derive from it?

If I knew what the term flooding meant I’d comment. So I won’t… oh right. Screw it. How else am I going to find out other than asking.


Ooops sorry Xun, I thought this was about the recent problems with the weather or some sort of wierd version of golden showers thread… Sorry,

flooding is when you type a bunch of the same thing and repeatedly send the same message

what it does is make everything everyone else says unreadable due to the scroll movement of the chat application.

In my experience people chat when what is being spoken does not resonate with the persons cognitive abilities. By this i mean that when someone is confronted with something they don’t like or are utterly disinterested in, they might, for example, spam a chat room in an effort to “clean” it of its undesirable attributes.

It’s a mental “fuck you” or an “i don’t care”.

I wager it is insecurity which is the clinching factor which makes or breaks a spammer. Someone mentally secure wouldn’t bother saying fuck you or i don’t care or even be confronted with the cognitive dissonance in the first place.

OK so no golden shower or weather problems.

a flooder sounds like a person that has issues.

Is that like when you got people quoting each other sentence for sentence for pages at a time? I think I know what you’re talking about. Some people just happen to think that they can come to a philosophy forum and change people’s minds by force. I guess they fail to realize that most people here are less susceptible to persuasion than the general public. I dunno.