The Rhetorical Construction of Internet Drama: A Richard Vatz Analysis of the ScribbleHub Forum Conflict
The internet is a breeding ground for rhetorical construction, where meaning is not found but created, and where conflicts do not emerge from neutral realities but are brought to life by the framing of discourse. Richard Vatz, in his critique of Lloyd Bitzer’s "rhetorical situation," argues that meaning is not dictated by objective events but is instead constructed through the choices of communicators—what they highlight, what they downplay, and how they define the stakes of a discussion. In this case, the ScribbleHub forum drama, despite its superficial appearance as a simple clash between an obsessive individual (Beast) and a self-righteous crusader (OP), is a textbook demonstration of how rhetorical actors shape conflict.
By applying Vatz’s framework, we can see that this entire internet debacle was not a response to an inevitable reality but rather a deliberately framed narrative created by OP. The choice to spotlight Beast’s obsession, the insistence that it warranted intervention, and the reframing of community participation as "enabling" were all acts of rhetorical selection—without OP’s framing, this situation would have remained a minor footnote in a niche forum’s history. Instead, through OP’s selective emphasis, they transformed an otherwise ignorable quirk of a forum member into an urgent moral and psychological issue, warranting a "public intervention" in the form of an unprompted exposé.
But what does this tell us about rhetoric? What does this tell us about the nature of conflict in digital spaces? And most importantly, what does this reveal about the inherent subjectivity of “problems” and the performative nature of concern in online debates? This essay will explore these questions by deconstructing how OP, Roastmaster, and the broader forum community each acted as rhetorical agents, constructing their own versions of reality and competing for narrative dominance.
Part I: OP and the Rhetorical Creation of "Crisis"
According to Vatz, no event inherently contains meaning; meaning is ascribed to events by communicators who decide which aspects to highlight and how to interpret them. In this case, OP plays the role of rhetorical gatekeeper, deciding that Beast’s obsession with RoyalRoad is not merely an eccentricity or a quirk of personality, but a
serious community issue that must be addressed.
From a rhetorical standpoint, OP’s decision to create a thread, rather than privately messaging Beast or simply ignoring them, demonstrates a conscious act of
agenda-setting. OP was not merely responding to an unavoidable reality—they were
constructing a problem by framing Beast’s behavior as a moral and psychological crisis requiring intervention. This is a crucial distinction: Beast’s repetitive complaints about RoyalRoad had existed for years, yet they only became a crisis
because OP framed them as such.
This is classic Vatz: meaning is not discovered, it is assigned. The moment OP chose to emphasize Beast’s obsession as a
problem rather than a
harmless ranting habit, the conflict was born. The very act of writing a post detailing Beast’s history, listing their alt accounts, and framing their behavior as evidence of mental instability was not a neutral act—it was an act of rhetorical creation. Without OP’s framing, Beast’s behavior would remain just another weird internet thing. With OP’s framing, it became an emergency, demanding action.
And therein lies the first major fallacy of OP’s approach: they assume that by
naming Beast’s obsession as a crisis, they have somehow become an arbiter of truth. In reality, all they have done is introduce an
interpretation, not an objective fact. This is why their argument begins to collapse under scrutiny—what they call "helping," others immediately recognize as
public shaming disguised as intervention.
Part II: Roastmaster and the Reframing of the Debate
If OP was the one who
created the crisis through rhetorical framing, Roastmaster was the one who
deconstructed it through rhetorical inversion. Their primary tactic was to
turn OP’s own logic against them, exposing the hypocrisy inherent in claiming to be concerned about obsession while demonstrating obsession of their own.
From a Vatzian perspective, Roastmaster’s role is particularly fascinating. They do not attempt to
deny Beast’s behavior. Instead, they challenge the very premise that this behavior
warrants intervention at all. In essence, Roastmaster reframes the conversation from
"Beast is unwell, and we must stop enabling them" to
"OP is equally obsessive, and this intervention is an act of self-righteousness rather than genuine concern."
This is a masterstroke of rhetorical counter-construction:
- Where OP frames Beast as a harmful force, Roastmaster reframes OP as the actual aggressor.
- Where OP frames the community as enablers, Roastmaster reframes OP as the true instigator of unnecessary drama.
- Where OP frames the conversation as a necessary intervention, Roastmaster reframes it as pointless moral grandstanding.
By shifting the focus from Beast’s behavior to OP’s
response to that behavior, Roastmaster
denies OP the ability to define the crisis—instead of the conversation being about Beast’s obsession, it becomes about OP’s self-importance.
What we see here is a
rhetorical power struggle over who gets to define reality. OP wants to define reality as:
"Beast is unstable and must be stopped." Roastmaster counters with:
"Beast’s instability is irrelevant; the real problem is OP’s sanctimonious overreaction."
This is why Roastmaster ultimately "wins" the argument—not because they "proved" Beast was rational (they didn’t even try), but because they successfully
shifted the conversation away from Beast and onto OP’s own rhetorical failings. In doing so, they robbed OP of their ability to maintain control over the debate.
Part III: The Chorus, Justabot, and the Death of the Rhetorical Situation
In Vatz’s model, not only is meaning constructed through discourse, but discourse itself must be
maintained for a rhetorical situation to survive. That is, for OP’s argument to matter, it must continue being debated. Once the community refuses to engage, the situation ceases to exist.
Enter the
Chorus—those forum members who chime in not to pick a side, but to roll their eyes at the sheer stupidity of the argument itself. Their response is a signal that the rhetorical framing OP fought to establish is
not taking hold. Instead of rallying behind OP’s crisis, the Chorus members dismiss the entire conversation as ridiculous internet drama.
This, more than any argument made by Roastmaster, is what truly dooms OP’s mission. OP sought to create a "serious discussion" about a community problem. Instead, the community itself
rejects the premise and refuses to treat it seriously.
Finally, Justabot delivers the ultimate verdict—not by engaging, not by debating, but by
shutting the entire conversation down. The moment the thread is locked, OP’s constructed reality ceases to exist. Their crisis dissolves not because it was disproven, but because it was rendered irrelevant by disinterest.
Conclusion: The Internet as a Rhetorical Battleground
The ScribbleHub forum drama is a textbook example of Vatz’s rhetorical theory in action. There was no inherent crisis—only a crisis rhetorically
created by OP and then
reframed by Roastmaster. At every stage, the conflict was shaped by who got to define reality, and ultimately, OP lost control of their own narrative.
The internet is filled with rhetorical battles like this—manufactured outrage, selective framing, and desperate attempts to control discourse. But as we see in this case,
those who create problems do not always succeed in making them matter. OP’s attempt to manufacture an urgent issue was undone the moment the community refused to play along.
In the end, Vatz’s theory holds true:
meaning is not found, it is assigned. And sometimes, no matter how loudly one insists a situation is dire… people just don’t care.
