I wouldn’t go so far as to say a language is ‘evolving’ (becoming better) or ‘devolving’, just changing. I’m certainly not qualified enough to say either, and I doubt few people are; though on a side note I hope to be. In any case, the reality is language changes as people find better/easier ways of communicating ideas. A side effect of this is commonly creating little ‘sub-cultures’ where they have their own ‘secret language’.
My beef is where we start splitting hairs between a changing language and a devolving language; I would say (if I had the authority) that a language is, at least in part, essentially evolving or devolving as far as it is becoming easier or harder to understand within it’s culture/context, respectively.
So from that perspective, I’d say when communicative ‘conventions’ develop, especially in a closed community, it can be a good thing, and rarely is a bad thing, as long as it makes it easier to communicate within that ‘language’s’ respective group. And visa versa: If a language’s developing conventions serve to make it less understandable, and only allow lazier speaking, it is as far as the community goes a ‘degradation’ of language.
Another way to look at things might be the distinction between a language and a code: For example, American Sign Language is a language, whereas braille is more of a code. Braille is expressed through a different media, and has its own conventions, it still is essentially a representation of English; whereas ASL has it’s own grammar (syntax) and even expresses most of it’s concepts differently (semantics) thus it is a language.
This situation might be similar in that, while we in the programming and gaming cultures might use ‘specialized’ language, it is still essentially english and helps us to explain concepts unique to us more easily; and thus the ‘degradation’ of the language into LOLspeak might be considered a different kind of code, if a badly written one.
(BTW that example is actually a pretty heated debate between actual ASL ‘authorities’ and non-; though I personally tend to lean towards the people who actually speak and make the language. That’s why I think this might be a similar debate, if less heated (Deaf people are proud of their culture, and the language they used to represent it).)
Now as far as what’s been said before… I agree that LOLspeak tends to represent a lack of reasoning behind what’s being said (or intended to be said…). I think it’s a very clever/funny but true observation, that because we tend to ‘pass over’ poorly written (and by this reasoning, likely poorly thought out) posts, it does serve as a natural quality control. However, on the whole I also think we have a very good standard here; programming might take a certain ability to think through things clearer, who knows.
I could go on for days like this… I get too deep into the theory of things like this. But I will say one thing - I’m one who doesn’t mind seeing, or using a certain amount. It doesn’t have to be formal English, just readable. Besides which, ‘LOL’ expresses a concept we don’t really have a concept for, you’d never type ‘I think that is really funny, so funny that I am willing to type a sentence to point that out to you.’ Or take the phrase, “You can say that again!” - you aren’t telling them to say it again. That would be annoying. It’s just a simpler way of saying, “That is a very true statement you just expressed. I agree with said statement.” In short, it sometimes serves to say more easily or understandably what you mean, especially when it’s a commonly expressed meaning.
Okay, I’m done.
EDIT: Wow, that’s longer than I meant it to be. I’m borderline to breaking the ‘rules’ in a completely different way… Sorry about that.