>>8888496>I don't think that history translates to anonymous imageboard discussions.Aye, I agree with ya here. Anonymity does alter sarcasm interpretation quite a bit, because it's impossible to have that continuum of sincerely held versus falsely held beliefs for a single person that you would have with a published, named author.
However, lurking a certain board for a long enough time helps immensely in accurately answering the eternal question of, "Is this bait?"
Since there is no user history, except in the case of those mostly extinct vermin known as tripfags, the reader should be comparing what he knows about general posting patterns with the potential bait post.
That's why the old adage of "lurk for two years before posting" is pretty valuable in that regard.
If one is 100% focused on reading and interpreting posts instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to some seemingly retarded opinion, then one's bait detection skills will be superior to a newfag jumping right into the discussion.
>I'll add that "this was just sarcasm/trolling" is often used as copeAh yeah, gutless cowards ruin a lot for the rest of us, but it is pretty difficult to learn how to make mistakes graceful, even in a venue as inconsequential as an anonymous imageboard.
