I don’t find myself in many social communities strictly governing socially “normal” behavior-- that have not already been discussed by our classmates. After telling a friend about my difficulty in finding a subject for this assignment, he suggested that I discuss a network that he was a part of as a photographer, Modelmayhem.com. This website is a network for models, photographers, makeup artists, and other artists. Modelmayhem has a Myspace feel, where artists create profiles posting bios and fill their photo galleries with images. The content of most photos is model photography and predominately nude. Members can participate in a variety of other ways: They can post comments under “Announcements” on the homepage, “Tag” one another’s photos or main profile page, and can also post on discussions forums.
There appears to be different norms for each of these activities. With regard to profiles, members cannot post any pornography, they must abide by copyright laws, and cannot harass other members or use “hate speak”. Members are also prohibited from spamming and using the network for dating. These rules are outlined in a written code of conduct and presented as, what Patricia Wallace terms, a “sign on the door”. A Leviathan emerges here to keep the environment friendly and safe. Conformity to the rules is further enforced by the presence of moderators who have the power to censor, edit, or ban members in the event of nonconformity. When the rules are broken, members might also experience reproaches by other member’s in the form of an “arched eyebrow.” Members might either send a private email or publish a Tag indicating the unacceptable behavior.
The anonymity feature here, created by not sharing any personal information about lives outside of the community, encourages people to become more forthcoming with their artistic preferences, opinions, and interactions with other members. This provides an even greater necessity for the presence of a Leviathan, as seen through the existence of written set of rules, moderators, and the arched eyebrow communicated by other members. Members through these means achieve netiquette, compliance to written and unwritten rules.
People also learn the rules through the powers of observation. Seeing what other people choose to post on their profiles and how others interact in different channels seems to have created standard uses for the various avenues of interaction. For example, people usually post only positive comments on the main page of people’s profiles, articulating approval of artistic expression or desire to collaborate together. Under images, people communicate what they do or do not like about a particular image. And under the Announcements people say simply “hello.”
People give up many of their freedoms in artistic expression or in expressing negative opinions in order to promote a Leviathan that ensures a desirable environment. As Wallace explains, people desire orderly and moderated environments, even the in case of artistic expression.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
6: The Leviathan in an Artistic Community
I don’t find myself in many social communities strictly governing socially “normal” behavior-- that have not already been discussed by our classmates. After telling a friend about my difficulty in finding a subject for this assignment, he suggested that I discuss a network that he was a part of as a photographer, Modelmayhem.com. This website is a network for models, photographers, makeup artists, and other artists. Modelmayhem has a Myspace feel, where artists create profiles posting bios and fill their photo galleries with images. The content of most photos is model photography and predominately nude. Members can participate in a variety of other ways: They can post comments under “Announcements” on the homepage, “Tag” one another’s photos or main profile page, and can also post on discussions forums.
There appears to be different norms for each of these activities. With regard to profiles, members cannot post any pornography, they must abide by copyright laws, and cannot harass other members or use “hate speak”. Members are also prohibited from spamming and using the network for dating. These rules are outlined in a written code of conduct and presented as, what Patricia Wallace terms, a “sign on the door”. A Leviathan emerges here to keep the environment friendly and safe. Conformity to the rules is further enforced by the presence of moderators who have the power to censor, edit, or ban members in the event of nonconformity. When the rules are broken, members might also experience reproaches by other member’s in the form of an “arched eyebrow.” Members might either send a private email or publish a Tag indicating the unacceptable behavior.
The anonymity feature here, created by not sharing any personal information about lives outside of the community, encourages people to become more forthcoming with their artistic preferences, opinions, and interactions with other members. This provides an even greater necessity for the presence of a Leviathan, as seen through the existence of written set of rules, moderators, and the arched eyebrow communicated by other members. Members through these means achieve netiquette, compliance to written and unwritten rules.
People also learn the rules through the powers of observation. Seeing what other people choose to post on their profiles and how others interact in different channels seems to have created standard uses for the various avenues of interaction. For example, people usually post only positive comments on the main page of people’s profiles, articulating approval of artistic expression or desire to collaborate together. Under images, people communicate what they do or do not like about a particular image. And under the Announcements people say simply “hello.”
People give up many of their freedoms in artistic expression or in expressing negative opinions in order to promote a Leviathan that ensures a desirable environment. As Wallace explains, people desire orderly and moderated environments, even the in case of artistic expression.
There appears to be different norms for each of these activities. With regard to profiles, members cannot post any pornography, they must abide by copyright laws, and cannot harass other members or use “hate speak”. Members are also prohibited from spamming and using the network for dating. These rules are outlined in a written code of conduct and presented as, what Patricia Wallace terms, a “sign on the door”. A Leviathan emerges here to keep the environment friendly and safe. Conformity to the rules is further enforced by the presence of moderators who have the power to censor, edit, or ban members in the event of nonconformity. When the rules are broken, members might also experience reproaches by other member’s in the form of an “arched eyebrow.” Members might either send a private email or publish a Tag indicating the unacceptable behavior.
The anonymity feature here, created by not sharing any personal information about lives outside of the community, encourages people to become more forthcoming with their artistic preferences, opinions, and interactions with other members. This provides an even greater necessity for the presence of a Leviathan, as seen through the existence of written set of rules, moderators, and the arched eyebrow communicated by other members. Members through these means achieve netiquette, compliance to written and unwritten rules.
People also learn the rules through the powers of observation. Seeing what other people choose to post on their profiles and how others interact in different channels seems to have created standard uses for the various avenues of interaction. For example, people usually post only positive comments on the main page of people’s profiles, articulating approval of artistic expression or desire to collaborate together. Under images, people communicate what they do or do not like about a particular image. And under the Announcements people say simply “hello.”
People give up many of their freedoms in artistic expression or in expressing negative opinions in order to promote a Leviathan that ensures a desirable environment. As Wallace explains, people desire orderly and moderated environments, even the in case of artistic expression.
Assignment #6
This weekend, my housemates decided that with football season upon us, we will need to buy a bigger TV. I began checking Craig’s List (CL) postings for any good deals and in the meantime, wasted time reading the Rants and Raves sections. CL is an anonymous, asynchronous message board where you can look for apartments, jobs, etc. CL message boards are specific to one particular region, for example there is a CL board for
The Rants and Raves section with where users can post anonymously about absolutely anything they want (hence rants and raves). This obviously leads to problems, so CL has a feature where you can ‘flag’ a posting and if enough people flag the post, it will be removed. Users can flag a post as miscategorized, prohibited, spam, or best-of. So, the Leviathan is present in this online environment with its own users being the moderators. In this way, there is an internal quality check on the postings. On CL, there is no “sign on the door,” as Wallace would say, users can immediately go to CL and start posting, which leads to more lewd postings. Also it is hard to give an ‘arched brow’ because you won’t know if your post is in the process of being flagged until it is and removed from the message board. The only mode of reproach is through anonymous flagging.
One of the norms on CL is not to post looking for drugs in Rants and Raves and otherwise the post will get flagged. Users have come to know that the police read the anonymous boards and thus, trouble can arise. It is generally unacceptable in the CL environment to look for drug dealers or even to use their names. For example, if anyone wants to post about cocaine, instead they refer to it as ‘ski’ or for meth, it would be ‘nina.’ As noted earlier, there aren’t many strict rules on CL and no ‘sign on the door’ and no ‘terms and agreements’ to read. The reproach for such a post would be immediate flagging by the users. New users can learn this norm by observing the flagged posted. Even if a post has been flagged, the subject line of the post remains while its contents are deleted. So users can see if postings entitled ‘looking to ski tonight’ have been removed, then it becomes apparent such subjects are frowned upon.
In this case, conformity to following posting rules is supported by the SIDE theory. Here, users of the Ithaca CL or Syracuse CL feel high group saliency and all are visually anonymous. Therefore, users are more likely to conform to the social norms. Otherwise, all other group members will raise their virtual brows and flag the post.
#6 Feel your face burning with shame yet? Well, you should.
Conformity. Leviathan. These seem so weak and vague on the Internet. With the degree of anonymity, it seems hard that anyone can punish us substantively online. Yet we often continue to follow the set of social norms that we pick up from observing others' behavior in online spaces, even though there are basically little or no consequences if we don't. Like Wallace says, this conformity is the glue that holds a community together. We are willing to give up a lot of freedoms to preserve the sense of community, even if it is only virtual.
Here I have some examples of the consequence-free conformity. The following two reproach episodes occurred in my MMORPG forum. The actual game and the forum are separate; the forum is for members of this particular alliance. We use the forum to coordinate our attack and defense effort. There are threads for more specific role-playing (RP), but RP is prevalent in all aspects of the forum. Since our characters usually hail from different parts of the metaworld, we explain away some threads as radio frequencies with which we communicate, while other more RP-focused threads are "pubs" that we go to for a more relaxed atmosphere. (This designation alone shows strong conformity; it would never have worked if not everyone agreed to RP this way. Now this is the norm everyone follows despite the lack of serious consequences).
The first episode started with the extensive RP of one player in a "frequency" thread mainly used for situation reports that relay combat information. His post was long and colourful and conveyed pregnant, awkward pauses (he did it masterfully) that possibly hinted at his secret admiration for another player. I'm not a moderator, but I'm sort of in charge of the "frequency" so I jokingly told him to take his "crush" to one of the "pubs." He didn't really break any written norms and annoy any players, but it is sort of accepted that the frequencies are more business-like and people tune in to catch the latest combat development. People don't really anticipate the degree of RP he exhibited in this thread.
Telling him off was actually my way of RP, since my character is rather cynical and sarcastic when it comes to romance. But I forgot to show this non-verbal cue by using emoticons. Another player (let's dub him Player #2) thought I was actually accusing Player #1 of clogging up the frequency with RP. Player #2 proceeded to write a long post with lots of descriptive body language to show his irritation (i.e. flicking his cigarette butt after a last drag) that I had stopped someone from RP when the whole game is about RP. He felt that we need to "kick up our skirts once in a while," even on the frequencies, and RP should not be limited to the pubs.
Horrified, I realized that I had broken a more important norm in the forum: be nice to people and refrain from criticisms. The game is about an apocalypse and most of the time the threads already sound depressing enough, so in an unanimous (though unsaid) agreement, we all try our best to lighten up the mood. Also, the apocalyptic setting gives us the sense that we are in this mess together, so we need to stick together, and that includes being nice to each other. We have saved each other's necks numerous times, so we all trust each other and are good friends. Anyone entering this forum usually picks this up quickly, and we all influence each other to go more toward this extreme (like Wallace says). Therefore I have never heard of one incident on this forum where a moderator has to step in and settle a flame war or exercise punishment. Even raised eyebrows are really rare, and I think I just got one from Player #2.
I immediately wrote a response to explain ((Out of Character, of course)) that I was only joking, that I believed in the limitless RP too. I also apologized for this misunderstanding. In real life I'm not usually this... prompt with an apology, but I know that in CMC, anything you don't type out is not there to be perceived (a bit in line with CFO). I also felt that the group connection was all I had in the game, so being ostracized due to ill manners was a much bigger deal online than in real life. I already invested so much time into this (a sign of a group: heavy time demand), so it's really foolish to let people think I'm a jerk just because of one unintentional comment.
Because of these two incidents, our frequency is now much more susceptible to RP. The incidents actually shifted the group norm: we always thought it was okay to RP, but now we all verbally expressed that it was okay, so people know they wouldn't be ostracized for RP. This makes the frequency much more interesting and the overall game much more engaging. Well, I'm glad we've got that off our chests so we can move on now.
Here I have some examples of the consequence-free conformity. The following two reproach episodes occurred in my MMORPG forum. The actual game and the forum are separate; the forum is for members of this particular alliance. We use the forum to coordinate our attack and defense effort. There are threads for more specific role-playing (RP), but RP is prevalent in all aspects of the forum. Since our characters usually hail from different parts of the metaworld, we explain away some threads as radio frequencies with which we communicate, while other more RP-focused threads are "pubs" that we go to for a more relaxed atmosphere. (This designation alone shows strong conformity; it would never have worked if not everyone agreed to RP this way. Now this is the norm everyone follows despite the lack of serious consequences).
The first episode started with the extensive RP of one player in a "frequency" thread mainly used for situation reports that relay combat information. His post was long and colourful and conveyed pregnant, awkward pauses (he did it masterfully) that possibly hinted at his secret admiration for another player. I'm not a moderator, but I'm sort of in charge of the "frequency" so I jokingly told him to take his "crush" to one of the "pubs." He didn't really break any written norms and annoy any players, but it is sort of accepted that the frequencies are more business-like and people tune in to catch the latest combat development. People don't really anticipate the degree of RP he exhibited in this thread.
Telling him off was actually my way of RP, since my character is rather cynical and sarcastic when it comes to romance. But I forgot to show this non-verbal cue by using emoticons. Another player (let's dub him Player #2) thought I was actually accusing Player #1 of clogging up the frequency with RP. Player #2 proceeded to write a long post with lots of descriptive body language to show his irritation (i.e. flicking his cigarette butt after a last drag) that I had stopped someone from RP when the whole game is about RP. He felt that we need to "kick up our skirts once in a while," even on the frequencies, and RP should not be limited to the pubs.
Horrified, I realized that I had broken a more important norm in the forum: be nice to people and refrain from criticisms. The game is about an apocalypse and most of the time the threads already sound depressing enough, so in an unanimous (though unsaid) agreement, we all try our best to lighten up the mood. Also, the apocalyptic setting gives us the sense that we are in this mess together, so we need to stick together, and that includes being nice to each other. We have saved each other's necks numerous times, so we all trust each other and are good friends. Anyone entering this forum usually picks this up quickly, and we all influence each other to go more toward this extreme (like Wallace says). Therefore I have never heard of one incident on this forum where a moderator has to step in and settle a flame war or exercise punishment. Even raised eyebrows are really rare, and I think I just got one from Player #2.
I immediately wrote a response to explain ((Out of Character, of course)) that I was only joking, that I believed in the limitless RP too. I also apologized for this misunderstanding. In real life I'm not usually this... prompt with an apology, but I know that in CMC, anything you don't type out is not there to be perceived (a bit in line with CFO). I also felt that the group connection was all I had in the game, so being ostracized due to ill manners was a much bigger deal online than in real life. I already invested so much time into this (a sign of a group: heavy time demand), so it's really foolish to let people think I'm a jerk just because of one unintentional comment.
Because of these two incidents, our frequency is now much more susceptible to RP. The incidents actually shifted the group norm: we always thought it was okay to RP, but now we all verbally expressed that it was okay, so people know they wouldn't be ostracized for RP. This makes the frequency much more interesting and the overall game much more engaging. Well, I'm glad we've got that off our chests so we can move on now.
#6: TYPING IN ALL CAPS = DEATH!
One afternoon while in a frequently visited public chat room, I was chatting and discussing celebrity gossip and such foolish stuff with a few others. All of sudden a new person entered the room with the screen name CraziMoFo87. While my “virtual friends” and I continued to discuss Hollywood madness, CraziMoFo87 interjected numerous times by typing, “HEY GUYS,” “WATS UP PPL,” “HELLOOOOO!” and other message in all uppercase text. Though this did not pester or annoy me, it seemed to really aggravate another chat room attendant. Somebody soon took actions into his (or her!) own hands and typed, “hey CraziMoFo87, DO NOT TYPE IN ALL CAPS!! it’s like you’re yelling… so please STOP… or you will die a painful death!” Though this threat may have been a bit over the top, CraziMoFo87 apologized and immediately began typing in all lower case. CraziMoFo87 soon became an active participant of the juicy gossip.
Why was TYPING IN ALL CAPS such a major issue? Upon entering the chat there are no posted rules or required norms of the chat room; there is no “sign on the door,” as Wallace refers to it. Regardless, it seems to be a generally accepted rule and standard to not type entirely in uppercase text. Exactly why and how did this become a social norm? How do others know all uppercase text is not acceptable, since there is no explicit rule banning such typing? One technique for learning such acceptable behavior is to simply observe the norm of the environment. While in a chat room, an individual can choose to initially not participate and simply survey the types of linguistics used and how they are textually expressed. By observing what the majority of the room is doing, an individual will learn and conform to the norms. In addition, Wallace suggests one possible way for teaching others to not type in such a manner is by way of “the arched brow.” Wallace writes, “if a group participant fails to read the sign or ignores the rules, group members will escalate their pressure to ensure conformity by simply raising a virtual eyebrow… reminding the offender that certain behavior is not acceptable.” If an individual continues to behave in a way that is acceptable, another individual will eventually “raise their brow” (as seen in the situation involving CraziMoFo87).
While there is no official moderator to enforce informal norms (i.e., typing in all uppercase text), the Leviathan still exists in internet environments, including chat rooms. As suggested by Wallace, the Leviathan emerges out of eagerness of people to conform and preserve a welcome and productive group environment. It is a common trend for people to want to fit in and become part of the conversation occurring. They do not want to perform any unacceptable acts that will bring themselves any negative attention. By conforming to the norms of the space, users heighten their chances of being accepted by the majority and welcomed to participate in the conversation.
Social norms and informal rules are practically everywhere in society—including online spaces such as chat rooms. Conformity is essential in most cases to be liked and accepted. So, remember: when in a chat room, do not type in all caps!
-Joshua Navarro
My Comments:
http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-1-revealing-private-information.html
http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-leviathan-and-black-plague.html
Why was TYPING IN ALL CAPS such a major issue? Upon entering the chat there are no posted rules or required norms of the chat room; there is no “sign on the door,” as Wallace refers to it. Regardless, it seems to be a generally accepted rule and standard to not type entirely in uppercase text. Exactly why and how did this become a social norm? How do others know all uppercase text is not acceptable, since there is no explicit rule banning such typing? One technique for learning such acceptable behavior is to simply observe the norm of the environment. While in a chat room, an individual can choose to initially not participate and simply survey the types of linguistics used and how they are textually expressed. By observing what the majority of the room is doing, an individual will learn and conform to the norms. In addition, Wallace suggests one possible way for teaching others to not type in such a manner is by way of “the arched brow.” Wallace writes, “if a group participant fails to read the sign or ignores the rules, group members will escalate their pressure to ensure conformity by simply raising a virtual eyebrow… reminding the offender that certain behavior is not acceptable.” If an individual continues to behave in a way that is acceptable, another individual will eventually “raise their brow” (as seen in the situation involving CraziMoFo87).
While there is no official moderator to enforce informal norms (i.e., typing in all uppercase text), the Leviathan still exists in internet environments, including chat rooms. As suggested by Wallace, the Leviathan emerges out of eagerness of people to conform and preserve a welcome and productive group environment. It is a common trend for people to want to fit in and become part of the conversation occurring. They do not want to perform any unacceptable acts that will bring themselves any negative attention. By conforming to the norms of the space, users heighten their chances of being accepted by the majority and welcomed to participate in the conversation.
Social norms and informal rules are practically everywhere in society—including online spaces such as chat rooms. Conformity is essential in most cases to be liked and accepted. So, remember: when in a chat room, do not type in all caps!
-Joshua Navarro
My Comments:
http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-1-revealing-private-information.html
http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-leviathan-and-black-plague.html
Newbies, Welcome to the World of Message Boards--#6 Opt. 1
Many who decide to sign up to be a member of a message board for the first time often have no idea of the structure, norms, and rules involved. An asynchronous message board or forum usually has a theme or community structure attached to it. Some message boards include themes about a particular artist, movie, religion, technology or specialize in people a certain age, going through a similar situation, or similarly skilled. Members sign up by choosing a username, password, and avatar, as well as any personal information they would like to disclose to other members of the community in their member profiles or "signatures" which are colorful messages, often of brief quotes or pictures displayed after that member posts. After filling in these fields, potential users must read an agreement statement and cornfirm that they have read and agree to the statement.
One of the most important message board conventions is the concept of avaoiding the "freepost" or free post. The number of posts a user makes in a forum is displayed right under a user's name and avatar, and makes an extensive statement of the relative contribution, influence and impact that user has on the message board community. As such, members conform to the philosophy that each post a member makes should contribute to the discussion in some way by self-disclosing, arguing, counter-arguing or bringing up an important point of discourse. If each member posts honestly and fairly in this manner, the post count will indeed be an accurate reflection of each member's importance in the community.
Freeposting, however is looked down upon. Freeposting is the posting of a meaningless, message, devoid of content, time or effort being put in. Sometimes a freepost is an advertisement of a product, in case which the poster is a spammer. Sometimes a freepost is a one-sentence angry pointless rant, often characterized by bad spelling and excessive use of the Caps-lock key, i.e. : "BRITTANEY SPEARS IS A AWEFUL SINGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Freeposts can be more subtle, concealing the lack of effort or thought going into the message by having a longer body, but essentially conveying nothing. However, freeposts may be blatant, coming in many at a time by a single user. For example, users may use a letter a message, spelling out a quick sentence or phrase, often profane, that they would like to communicate.
Sometimes freeposts are accepted by well-regarded members of the board. These members utilize freeposts usually to mock true freeposters, or they may do it simply because they can do it and not be looked down upon by memebers of the message board community.
People usually come to understand the norm by reading and admiring the amount of detail and thought put into each user's message. Since the conversation can range from philosophical, to personal experiences, to opinion, new users to the board, or "newbies" generally come to realize honest and intelligent input is valued over one liners, misspelling, and poorly thought out postings.
The Leviathan, originally defined by Thomas Hobbes as "that mortal god, to which we owe under the immoral God; our peace and defence", is the figure on the internet that we give up freedoms for in return for orderliness. The Leviathan is often a moderator that can edit or censor messages, providing the role of a relaxed authority figure. Message boards often have a moderator, or a higher-up administrator that enforces the norm of no freeposting. The moderator deletes posts that he or she deems as flagrently obvious freeposts, thereby lowering the post count of the member, as well as inflicting a sense of shame on the user. A repeated offender is blocked from the message board, or has his or her account deleted.
Most theories Wallaces states in chapter 4 apply to the norm of meaningful posts in an online message board community. For example, the "sign on the door" Wallace talks about certainly applies. The "sign on the door" is a way to give newbies general rules about behavior and participation to the specific online space before they post in the forum. In message boards, it can be seen by the general agreement one is asked to sign before registering to be a member in the board. As well, there are many "Sticky Threads," or threads that are secured to the top of the forums urging new members to read them. In the threads, there are general rules of thumb to follow on the boards, some of which include no freeposting.
In addition, Wallace describes the arched brow concept. This is the way group members politely, or not so politely remind an offending member, usually a newbie that his or her behavior is out of line. On a message board, most "vet" or veteran, respected members will not be as forgiving of freeposting newbies. When a freepost is made, a usually cutting, sarcastic remark is made first by a vet, and then other members of the board will conform and each add their contributing derisive remark to the freeposter. Especially if the freeposter is new, it takes a long time to build up respect back up among the members. Usually an extremely creative excuse for freeposting or shocking amount of wit/intelliegence in future posts can compensate for violating the earlier norm. In more subtle freeposts, a user is reprimanded in a lighter manner by fellow users. The arched brow method usually works, as new members wish to be accepted by the vets, or existing members want to be respected and one day, elevated ij status as a vet. The few that continue to ignore the norm are subject to action by the Leviathan.
One of the most important message board conventions is the concept of avaoiding the "freepost" or free post. The number of posts a user makes in a forum is displayed right under a user's name and avatar, and makes an extensive statement of the relative contribution, influence and impact that user has on the message board community. As such, members conform to the philosophy that each post a member makes should contribute to the discussion in some way by self-disclosing, arguing, counter-arguing or bringing up an important point of discourse. If each member posts honestly and fairly in this manner, the post count will indeed be an accurate reflection of each member's importance in the community.
Freeposting, however is looked down upon. Freeposting is the posting of a meaningless, message, devoid of content, time or effort being put in. Sometimes a freepost is an advertisement of a product, in case which the poster is a spammer. Sometimes a freepost is a one-sentence angry pointless rant, often characterized by bad spelling and excessive use of the Caps-lock key, i.e. : "BRITTANEY SPEARS IS A AWEFUL SINGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Freeposts can be more subtle, concealing the lack of effort or thought going into the message by having a longer body, but essentially conveying nothing. However, freeposts may be blatant, coming in many at a time by a single user. For example, users may use a letter a message, spelling out a quick sentence or phrase, often profane, that they would like to communicate.
Sometimes freeposts are accepted by well-regarded members of the board. These members utilize freeposts usually to mock true freeposters, or they may do it simply because they can do it and not be looked down upon by memebers of the message board community.
People usually come to understand the norm by reading and admiring the amount of detail and thought put into each user's message. Since the conversation can range from philosophical, to personal experiences, to opinion, new users to the board, or "newbies" generally come to realize honest and intelligent input is valued over one liners, misspelling, and poorly thought out postings.
The Leviathan, originally defined by Thomas Hobbes as "that mortal god, to which we owe under the immoral God; our peace and defence", is the figure on the internet that we give up freedoms for in return for orderliness. The Leviathan is often a moderator that can edit or censor messages, providing the role of a relaxed authority figure. Message boards often have a moderator, or a higher-up administrator that enforces the norm of no freeposting. The moderator deletes posts that he or she deems as flagrently obvious freeposts, thereby lowering the post count of the member, as well as inflicting a sense of shame on the user. A repeated offender is blocked from the message board, or has his or her account deleted.
Most theories Wallaces states in chapter 4 apply to the norm of meaningful posts in an online message board community. For example, the "sign on the door" Wallace talks about certainly applies. The "sign on the door" is a way to give newbies general rules about behavior and participation to the specific online space before they post in the forum. In message boards, it can be seen by the general agreement one is asked to sign before registering to be a member in the board. As well, there are many "Sticky Threads," or threads that are secured to the top of the forums urging new members to read them. In the threads, there are general rules of thumb to follow on the boards, some of which include no freeposting.
In addition, Wallace describes the arched brow concept. This is the way group members politely, or not so politely remind an offending member, usually a newbie that his or her behavior is out of line. On a message board, most "vet" or veteran, respected members will not be as forgiving of freeposting newbies. When a freepost is made, a usually cutting, sarcastic remark is made first by a vet, and then other members of the board will conform and each add their contributing derisive remark to the freeposter. Especially if the freeposter is new, it takes a long time to build up respect back up among the members. Usually an extremely creative excuse for freeposting or shocking amount of wit/intelliegence in future posts can compensate for violating the earlier norm. In more subtle freeposts, a user is reprimanded in a lighter manner by fellow users. The arched brow method usually works, as new members wish to be accepted by the vets, or existing members want to be respected and one day, elevated ij status as a vet. The few that continue to ignore the norm are subject to action by the Leviathan.
6-Leviathan's warning level has increased to 5%
When communicating in mediated online environments, social norms are understood and maintained as surely as they are in face to face communications. One such set of social norms deal with the interactions of individuals in synchronous chat environments, such as AIM. These rules are enforced by the “leviathan.” This refers to the pressure the online society puts onto each of its members to conform to norms.
One of these social norms is to speak respectfully to other AIM users and not seek to antagonize them with bigotry or profane language. Users have two options they can choose between in order to “raise an eyebrow” at these offenders. They can choose to either block or warn their aggressor.
The decision to block another user acts as a social leviathan. It essentially ends all communication between users. This forces an AIM user to behave in a way in which others will want to communicate with him. If he did not, he would find himself alone in the psychological space, as all other users would block him. Thus, the leviathan forces users to interact politely enough to keep the conversation open.
The decision to warn another user acts as a leviathan as well. Any bigoted or profane comment can be rebuked with a warning. As the warning level of a user builds up, he becomes temporarily unable to send messages. Therefore, the ability to warn other users acts as a social leviathan, preventing offensive comments from being made.
As Wallace states, we are willing to conform to social norms online in order to establish a productive online group environment.
#6) 1 - Revealing private information online: everybody else is doing it so why not??
Trying to find an individual who has grown up in household with a computer, who is not currently a member of any online social network such as facebook, myspace, or online dating sites is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. A few years ago, the opposite statement was true: trying to find an individual who was proudly part of an online social network was certainly not a common occurrence. However in the past few years social networking online has boomed, and become an integral part of the everday lives of most people of a certain age and social status. To be recognized as part of college communities, it is almost socially mandatory to join facebook. To be recognized as an acceptable member of a gaming network, one must join gaming groups and communicate with other members using a certain "netiquette." What I find particularly interesting about the escalation of these online social networks is the degree to which revealing private information online has become a social norm, accepted by all members of a specific online social network.
Take for example, facebook, which started by revealing only generic contact information about individuals wanting to keep in touch with old friends. Little by little, the network has expanded. People reveal their likes and dislikes, photos of themselves, social networks in which they are involved, and even their sexual orientation and status. Not long ago, revealing such private information online was seen as taboo... it was reserved for those weird computer geeks. However today, revealing such information about oneself in an online space is considered more than normal, almost mandatory. For those who haven't been able to access facebook in the past, other online social networks such as myspace have allowed individuals of all ages and backgrounds to reveal these details about themselves, while learning such details about others. Online dating sites went as far as posting height, weight, and race in one's profile, allowing people to pass judgement on one's physical being without having met each other. Yet today, all these instances are considered part of the social norm.
The Leviathan, as defined by Wallace, is the power that enforces our adherance to society's norms and standards. But for an example such as publicly revealing private information in online social networks, who is holding this power and why are we all so eagerly conforming to these standards? I think that the answer lies partially in the size of the user base, which has grown exponentially in recent years. If everybody is doing it, it must be the norm right? But why is this? According to the Social Identity/Deindividuation (SIDE) theory, what social network you belong to determines the most about you. Online social networks provide a space in which individuals can both relate to others based on common (or different) group memberships and thus establish individual salience, while simultaneously providing a space
where a much larger degree of personal anonymity exists. Revealing personal information in online social networks is a perfect model for the SIDE theory-- which netwrok you are a part of and what you choose to reveal about yourself, are what define you as an online individual.
The power of online social networking lies not only in the pressure from people around us to join, but also from the large number of media through which we advertise and encourage the use of such networks. Thus, in our hunt for the Leviathan, we can identify advertisement as a large player in the movement to make revealing personal information online socially acceptable. Watching commercials an TV for online dating sites, hearing news stories on the radio, ads in newspapers... the infiltration of private online netwroks into other facets of our everyday lives have proven its popularity, its necessity for working individuals, and thus its power.
Take for example, facebook, which started by revealing only generic contact information about individuals wanting to keep in touch with old friends. Little by little, the network has expanded. People reveal their likes and dislikes, photos of themselves, social networks in which they are involved, and even their sexual orientation and status. Not long ago, revealing such private information online was seen as taboo... it was reserved for those weird computer geeks. However today, revealing such information about oneself in an online space is considered more than normal, almost mandatory. For those who haven't been able to access facebook in the past, other online social networks such as myspace have allowed individuals of all ages and backgrounds to reveal these details about themselves, while learning such details about others. Online dating sites went as far as posting height, weight, and race in one's profile, allowing people to pass judgement on one's physical being without having met each other. Yet today, all these instances are considered part of the social norm.
The Leviathan, as defined by Wallace, is the power that enforces our adherance to society's norms and standards. But for an example such as publicly revealing private information in online social networks, who is holding this power and why are we all so eagerly conforming to these standards? I think that the answer lies partially in the size of the user base, which has grown exponentially in recent years. If everybody is doing it, it must be the norm right? But why is this? According to the Social Identity/Deindividuation (SIDE) theory, what social network you belong to determines the most about you. Online social networks provide a space in which individuals can both relate to others based on common (or different) group memberships and thus establish individual salience, while simultaneously providing a space
where a much larger degree of personal anonymity exists. Revealing personal information in online social networks is a perfect model for the SIDE theory-- which netwrok you are a part of and what you choose to reveal about yourself, are what define you as an online individual.
The power of online social networking lies not only in the pressure from people around us to join, but also from the large number of media through which we advertise and encourage the use of such networks. Thus, in our hunt for the Leviathan, we can identify advertisement as a large player in the movement to make revealing personal information online socially acceptable. Watching commercials an TV for online dating sites, hearing news stories on the radio, ads in newspapers... the infiltration of private online netwroks into other facets of our everyday lives have proven its popularity, its necessity for working individuals, and thus its power.
Rivals or Fantasy Friends, Connect through the norm
Conforming to the norm happens all over the internet, especially on specific message boards. I was scanning the internet looking at college football, in particularly www.rivals.com, and became very intrigued with how things worked. It begins with a list of topics that other people have responded to, which you can read, until you try to post. That’s when you have to become a member. According to Wallace, this would be considered the start of the “sign on the door.” Watching and observing the way other people have responded and created new questions isn’t random, it takes time to master. Usually you can assume it’s the same people because they have theoretically read the sign on the door and chose to abide by the rules. Proper etiquette and manners are essential to team pride and spirit, which create a sense of a friendly rivalry.
After viewing many posts, rarely anyone applied the “arched brow” effect. After having the forum around for a long time and having a sign up process, rarely were controversial posts posted, rather the forum was filled with responses towards team pride. Issues that brought confrontation were avoided and only questions regarding favorite teams, etc and simple posts letting other sports fan know what is on and what is worth chatting about. Keeping the posts and responses clean, it made the job easy for the leviathan. In this situation, the leviathan could be labeled the poster themselves. Even though they know someone has the veto power to eliminate the post, every post that I read was kept clean and without question.
None of the involved on www.rivals.com tried to begin debates unrelated to the sport they love, football. They all conformed to the norm and with the loyalty to their teams; it brought a hint of group polarization. Even though nothing became heated and dramatic, the debates still occurred regarding opinions of upcoming games and recaps of previous games. Of course there were risky comments posted, but everything was kept within good fun because everyone respected the norm.
After viewing many posts, rarely anyone applied the “arched brow” effect. After having the forum around for a long time and having a sign up process, rarely were controversial posts posted, rather the forum was filled with responses towards team pride. Issues that brought confrontation were avoided and only questions regarding favorite teams, etc and simple posts letting other sports fan know what is on and what is worth chatting about. Keeping the posts and responses clean, it made the job easy for the leviathan. In this situation, the leviathan could be labeled the poster themselves. Even though they know someone has the veto power to eliminate the post, every post that I read was kept clean and without question.
None of the involved on www.rivals.com tried to begin debates unrelated to the sport they love, football. They all conformed to the norm and with the loyalty to their teams; it brought a hint of group polarization. Even though nothing became heated and dramatic, the debates still occurred regarding opinions of upcoming games and recaps of previous games. Of course there were risky comments posted, but everything was kept within good fun because everyone respected the norm.
Assignment #6 option 1
It has become a habit of many college students to wake up on the weekend and notice emails from facebook.com announcing [your friend] has tagged a photo of you! Most students will immediately log on to see whether these pictures are acceptable. Because of recent trend of companies and schools utilizing facebook as a tool to judge students as candidates, facebook monitoring has become more stringent. You look through pictures and make quick judgments on whether you want yourself tagged or not. I found myself with less need to untag, because my friends tag only "good" pictures of me. Rarely do I post discriminating pictures of my friends or actually tag them. It's become a social norm to post positive pictures from own experience. Additionally, most people do not want to be associated with friends engaging extremely discriminating or embarrassing actions.
The Leviathan defined as "that mortal god, to which we owe under the immortal God; our peace and defence" [sic] exists in facebook.com as well. Although not a clear, single figure, administrators maintain the site and wield a considerable power. If a complaint in submitted by other members, they can give you a warning and ultimately excommunicate you from the network.
Wallace mentioned different factors affecting the online rules and their enforcement. Facebook does have "the sign on the door" regarding posting pictures. When a user shares pictures in the network, he is required to acknowledge the terms of facebook. More specifically for the profile picture, the user agrees to follow copyright laws and post a nonpornographic picture of himself. An example of "arched bow" is your friend untagging herself from your pictures. If you continue to tag horrible, discriminating pictures of your friends, you will end up "alone" in your pictures. Perhaps no one will want to pose with you at the next party! Another example will be posting a picture directly in violation with facebook terms. It can cause removal of your pictures and even account termination by the Leviathan. Polarization to "all untagger" and "accept all tags" is rare. But group identity helps decide what pictures are acceptable. The major group identity that exists is the school. A range of photos selected and posted depends on the school environment and interests of students.
The Leviathan defined as "that mortal god, to which we owe under the immortal God; our peace and defence" [sic] exists in facebook.com as well. Although not a clear, single figure, administrators maintain the site and wield a considerable power. If a complaint in submitted by other members, they can give you a warning and ultimately excommunicate you from the network.
Wallace mentioned different factors affecting the online rules and their enforcement. Facebook does have "the sign on the door" regarding posting pictures. When a user shares pictures in the network, he is required to acknowledge the terms of facebook. More specifically for the profile picture, the user agrees to follow copyright laws and post a nonpornographic picture of himself. An example of "arched bow" is your friend untagging herself from your pictures. If you continue to tag horrible, discriminating pictures of your friends, you will end up "alone" in your pictures. Perhaps no one will want to pose with you at the next party! Another example will be posting a picture directly in violation with facebook terms. It can cause removal of your pictures and even account termination by the Leviathan. Polarization to "all untagger" and "accept all tags" is rare. But group identity helps decide what pictures are acceptable. The major group identity that exists is the school. A range of photos selected and posted depends on the school environment and interests of students.
Assignment 6: Conforming to Norms and the Leviathan
Unknowingly, people tend to conform to norms in communities, whether online or not, in order to continue to preserve our existence. According to Patricia Wallace, in order to accomplish this we “[conform] to social conventions and [adhere] to laws that restrict our freedoms” (69). Originally proposed by Thomas Hobbes is the idea of the Leviathan, a system of seemingly authoritative power over others in order to create a safe environment. People are therefore careful, for example, about what they reveal about themselves on dating websites or what kind of pictures they put of themselves on Facebook. There may be an unknown being overlooking every picture we place on Facebook to make sure that they are not inappropriate. I have personally never heard of someone being kicked off of the site, but that is because people are not willing to risk putting inappropriate things on the site; we are fearful of that unknown, authoritative, and watchful power. We are forced by an unknown being to “give up freedoms in order to preserve the value and energy of the medium itself” (Wallace 69). It is the social norm to give up some of those freedoms to permit the natural flow of the internet and allow it to progress and flourish.
When thinking about the Leviathan, I immediately thought of Tom, the creator of myspace. When I first heard of this phenomenon, I was very interested and intrigued as to what it was and what the attraction was, so I created my own account. The next time I logged on, I had my first friend request: Tom. As the creator of myspace, he is automatically positioned as a new accounts first friend request. He is therefore everyone’s friend on myspace: Tom is the myspace Leviathan. He is the seemingly “mortal god” (69), that watchful eye that everyone fears. He has final power and authority over every myspace page…or so we think. Is he really watching over everyone’s myspace page? Tom, the Leviathan, emerges as the moderator. We will never really know, but we aren’t willing to test the waters. When one sets up their myspace page, they typically set it up similar to other pages they have seen, such as their friends’ pages. They conform to the social norms and standards of myspace that the Leviathan enforces and censor according to how others have done so. It would be difficult to imagine a computer mediated world without a Leviathan because the Leviathan is who sets the norms and conventions of an online space.
When thinking about the Leviathan, I immediately thought of Tom, the creator of myspace. When I first heard of this phenomenon, I was very interested and intrigued as to what it was and what the attraction was, so I created my own account. The next time I logged on, I had my first friend request: Tom. As the creator of myspace, he is automatically positioned as a new accounts first friend request. He is therefore everyone’s friend on myspace: Tom is the myspace Leviathan. He is the seemingly “mortal god” (69), that watchful eye that everyone fears. He has final power and authority over every myspace page…or so we think. Is he really watching over everyone’s myspace page? Tom, the Leviathan, emerges as the moderator. We will never really know, but we aren’t willing to test the waters. When one sets up their myspace page, they typically set it up similar to other pages they have seen, such as their friends’ pages. They conform to the social norms and standards of myspace that the Leviathan enforces and censor according to how others have done so. It would be difficult to imagine a computer mediated world without a Leviathan because the Leviathan is who sets the norms and conventions of an online space.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Assignment # 6: Netiquette
An example of a social norm online is the use of away messages. This is an important tool in the online world because it lets others know when a user is not available to engage in conversation because they are away from their computer or busy doing other work. The use of the away message is in many ways very similar to a person’s answering machine. It allows people to leave messages when others are not available to talk on the phone. Although the initial purpose of the away message was designed to allow people to stay connected even when away from the computer, it is also used by individuals to screen people’s messages.
People who are unaware of the away message tool, come to understand its use once they try to communicate with others and receive a message conveying that they are not currently available but can leave a message. Over time, they realize that when a notepad graphic pops up next to a person’s screen name, this means that they have an away message posted and are not available to talk. Also, for those new to instant messaging, the internet provides them with guidance by offering several default away messages to use such as “I am away from the computer right now”.
In some cases, people either forget or don’t know to utilize an away message, and remain online while they are in fact away from the computer. As a result, others may try to communicate with them, only to get no response in return. In such a situation, many people become offended by the lack of response. Because of the easy access to use away messages, people tend to resent others who fail to conform to such a standard and assume that those people are “ignoring” them. The Leviathan, therefore, enforces this norm because people feel pressured to conform to avoid sounding rude. Over time, the away message has become a form of etiquette online.
Although there is no official moderator to act as the Leviathan in this form of communication, an invisible one exists. This is because of individuals “…willingness to conform and our eagerness to preserve a productive online group environment…” (Wallace, 70). There is no person to enforce the use of away messages, however, people still conform because they know it will help make online communication more effective.
People who are unaware of the away message tool, come to understand its use once they try to communicate with others and receive a message conveying that they are not currently available but can leave a message. Over time, they realize that when a notepad graphic pops up next to a person’s screen name, this means that they have an away message posted and are not available to talk. Also, for those new to instant messaging, the internet provides them with guidance by offering several default away messages to use such as “I am away from the computer right now”.
In some cases, people either forget or don’t know to utilize an away message, and remain online while they are in fact away from the computer. As a result, others may try to communicate with them, only to get no response in return. In such a situation, many people become offended by the lack of response. Because of the easy access to use away messages, people tend to resent others who fail to conform to such a standard and assume that those people are “ignoring” them. The Leviathan, therefore, enforces this norm because people feel pressured to conform to avoid sounding rude. Over time, the away message has become a form of etiquette online.
Although there is no official moderator to act as the Leviathan in this form of communication, an invisible one exists. This is because of individuals “…willingness to conform and our eagerness to preserve a productive online group environment…” (Wallace, 70). There is no person to enforce the use of away messages, however, people still conform because they know it will help make online communication more effective.
Assignment #6
It took me a while to think of a good topic for this assignment. There are a set of defined norms online just like in face to face communication. I decided to use eBay as my case again since it’s an extremely popular online space with many visitors daily. A frequent eBay user would normally want to achieve good feedback status in order to maintain good sales on the site. They would find it valuable to give their customers good service and in return expect more customers in the future, or recurring customers. This is a social norm in face to face business as well; a successful business has faithful customers and gives good customer service. This is how people know that this is a norm online too, specifically pointed out in the case of eBay.
The Leviathan is the power that enforces our adherence to society’s norms and standards. In this case the Leviathan enforces this norm simply through the scare factor of losing business. People who sell a lot of merchandise on eBay don’t want to get bad feedback comments because this will cause them to lose customers and block potential customers from wanting to commit to a purchase. There is no punishment for getting bad feedback; you don’t get fined or kicked off of the network. The defamation of your name and the online social implications are the punishment for bad feedback.
The social norm can be exhibited on the other side of the sale as well. The person writing the feedback will also feel pressures to conform to the social norm of being reasonable when giving feedback. In most cases, an eBay user who received good, reliable service from someone will give them good feedback because that is what they would expect in return.
The Leviathan is the power that enforces our adherence to society’s norms and standards. In this case the Leviathan enforces this norm simply through the scare factor of losing business. People who sell a lot of merchandise on eBay don’t want to get bad feedback comments because this will cause them to lose customers and block potential customers from wanting to commit to a purchase. There is no punishment for getting bad feedback; you don’t get fined or kicked off of the network. The defamation of your name and the online social implications are the punishment for bad feedback.
The social norm can be exhibited on the other side of the sale as well. The person writing the feedback will also feel pressures to conform to the social norm of being reasonable when giving feedback. In most cases, an eBay user who received good, reliable service from someone will give them good feedback because that is what they would expect in return.
6 - Don't Forget an Away Message!
When thinking about a social norm online, I immediately thought of AIM and proper “AIM” etiquette. One aspect of AIM that has become a standard practice is the away message. When people walk away from their computer or leave their computer for an extended amount of time and stay on AIM, they put up an away message. Away messages give other users information about where people are/what people are doing. They have grown in complexity from being a simple “I am away from my computer” to “Class at 10:10, class at 2:00, work, gym, meeting .. cell.” Away messages now convey information about user’s moods, feelings, beliefs, and activities. When people do not put up an away message, others assume they are at their computer and available to talk.
Where did people learn to even put any message up? While there are no clear “Signs on the Door” when using AIM, I think that people have come to know the norm because of their buddy list and what happens when they do not put up an away message. By looking at one’s buddy list, he/she can see who is available to talk and who is “away.” You can read anyone’s away message and therefore can format your own to look like others. In addition, when you leave your computer without an away message, usually, you come back to find IMs saying hi and then asking “where are you.” This compels people to put up some type of message saying that they are away from their computer.
While there is no “mortal AIM G-d,” I think that the Leviathan emerges in this setting as a result of peoples’ “willingness to conform and … eagerness to preserve a productive online group environment” (70). It makes sense to let people know that you are not at your computer so that they do not IM you or think that you are just ignoring them. Personally, I feel bad on the days I forget to put up an away message and come home to IMs of people asking me questions or giving me information. Therefore, I always try to remember to put up an away message so this does not happen. The away message is effective in signaling to others that you are unavailable and I think that this idea is part of the Leviathan. So while I cannot outright name an authoritative figure on AIM, I think that people do comply with social norms and an underlying Leviathan is definitely present.
Where did people learn to even put any message up? While there are no clear “Signs on the Door” when using AIM, I think that people have come to know the norm because of their buddy list and what happens when they do not put up an away message. By looking at one’s buddy list, he/she can see who is available to talk and who is “away.” You can read anyone’s away message and therefore can format your own to look like others. In addition, when you leave your computer without an away message, usually, you come back to find IMs saying hi and then asking “where are you.” This compels people to put up some type of message saying that they are away from their computer.
While there is no “mortal AIM G-d,” I think that the Leviathan emerges in this setting as a result of peoples’ “willingness to conform and … eagerness to preserve a productive online group environment” (70). It makes sense to let people know that you are not at your computer so that they do not IM you or think that you are just ignoring them. Personally, I feel bad on the days I forget to put up an away message and come home to IMs of people asking me questions or giving me information. Therefore, I always try to remember to put up an away message so this does not happen. The away message is effective in signaling to others that you are unavailable and I think that this idea is part of the Leviathan. So while I cannot outright name an authoritative figure on AIM, I think that people do comply with social norms and an underlying Leviathan is definitely present.
6: YOUtube makes YOU the Leviathan
Until recently, I had never really been exposed to YouTube, and thus knew nothing about the conventions or regulations of this site. I was entering it as would any other newcomer and so I searched for something that would tell me the rules, something that would give me a feeling for the norms of this particular website. So with a little navigation and investigation I hunted down the “Leviathan of the YouTube community,” as I have nominated it.
I was not surprised to find a written “code of conduct,” representative of what Wallace describes as the “sign on the door.” This guide is written extremely informally which becomes very clear in their first statement. “We're not asking for the kind of respect reserved for nuns, the elderly, and brain surgeons.” It appears that they had a great time writing this list of rules with intermittent jokes, which Wallace illustrates is very common among websites now, especially in areas like a code of conduct or Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Their focus was on the concept of trust. They remind users that there is only so much they can do, so in essence, be trustworthy when using their site. The code of conduct then illustrates how they will review videos that have been “flagged as inappropriate,” which any user has the power to do, and then they will decide if the video should be removed.
The final section of the “code of conduct,” and that which I think is the most important is entitled “YouTube is for the community.” We can tell people hundreds of times that they should not post inappropriate videos, but there is no saying they will abide. However, I do think that reminding people that this is a group, a cohesive unit of people that are taking a risk and putting themselves out there for the entire world to see, is an extremely vital feature of the internet community. Put simply, don’t take advantage of others’ vulnerability and do respect the norms of this community that people have come to have faith in it. According to Wallace, the internet community is so vast and filled with so many different types of people that sometimes rules need to be written out as in the “sign on the door.” However, Wallace also demonstrates the key concept that most of what we refer to as the Leviathan actually comes from within ourselves. To preserve these groups that we want so much to be a part of, we will conform to the conventions that they put forth. Though “signs on the door” may be a part of it, we ultimately have an innately human need to fit in and to conform to the norms that society puts forth for us, whether they are explicitly written out on a wall or something we learn simply by time spent in a certain society, such as that of the YouTube.
YouTube is definitely a special case when it comes to the development of trust because some people are truly putting their heart and soul into these videos. They are not simply selling something on e-bay or writing a blog post, but putting up videos of their friends, families, and other things that may be extremely important to them. For this reason, YouTube does have a team to write up a code of conduct and to inspect any inappropriate videos, but it really comes down on us, the users of the site. Not everyone will read this “sign on the door” and not everyone will respect the rules and norms put forth by the team. People will still write terrible things in response to someone’s video, completely bashing their views on the world and everything they put into making it. However, for this site to be the successful place for sharing and communicating that it is, the Leviathan could not simply come from a “sign on the door,” but rather from the users themselves. Since the users of YouTube want the website to perpetuate through time, they will have enough reason to maintain a mutual respect for the norms set forth by the YouTube community.
Assignment 6-The Ever Useful Leviathan
Online communities often have a set of rules and regulations that all users are expected, and in most cases required, to follow. These rules are enforced by what Patricia Wallace, author of The Psychology of the Internet, calls a Leviathan. The term, Leviathan, is derived from the writings of Thomas Hobbes, and refers to those whom we give certain authoritative powers, in exchange for certain personal freedoms, in order to create an environment which is safe and consistent.
One online community were the Leviathan can be seen in action is Goosemoose Pet Portal. This community was designed to provide a forum through which members can discuss different aspects of pet care. The most active forum on Goosemoose is the Rats Rule! forum, where members discuss the care of their pet rats.
Like many online spaces Goosemoose has “a sign on the door”, as Wallace would say. The sign on the door is a set of rules that all members are supposed to read and follow, or else risk being reprimanded by the Leviathan, in this case the moderators, of that particular online space. When these rules are broken by a member, the brow will be arched, and reproaches will be made. These reproaches range from gentle reminders to accounts being banned.
The first example of a reproach on this website can be seen when people attempted to post comments in a thread that is for pictures only. The violation was minor, so the punishment was too. The moderator merely stated, as a reminder, that the comments were not allowed in this section, and then preceded to remove them. The violation was the result of ignorance, rather than malicious intent or unwillingness to conform to the rules of the group.
The second example occurred when a member made a statement that was highly offensive to others. The member said that their rats died because they didn’t feed them, and then placed a smiley face at the end of their post. Considering that this online community is for rat, and animal, lovers, the responses were immediate and intense. The members began yelling, via text of course, at the perpetrator, expressing a range of emotions, including vehement anger and genuine sadness. The original poster would respond with more insensitive and infuriating posts, inciting stronger reactions from the other members. Finally the moderators stepped in, and banned the trouble maker’s account. The message was clear: conform to the rest of the community or risk being kicked out.
Members of Goosemoose give up some of their personal freedoms, for example the ability to post comments in any thread they like, in order to create a Leviathan that enforces a certain amount of conformity within the group. This conformity provides a space relatively free from distress for all members, fostering an online community that is healthy and inviting.
One online community were the Leviathan can be seen in action is Goosemoose Pet Portal. This community was designed to provide a forum through which members can discuss different aspects of pet care. The most active forum on Goosemoose is the Rats Rule! forum, where members discuss the care of their pet rats.
Like many online spaces Goosemoose has “a sign on the door”, as Wallace would say. The sign on the door is a set of rules that all members are supposed to read and follow, or else risk being reprimanded by the Leviathan, in this case the moderators, of that particular online space. When these rules are broken by a member, the brow will be arched, and reproaches will be made. These reproaches range from gentle reminders to accounts being banned.
The first example of a reproach on this website can be seen when people attempted to post comments in a thread that is for pictures only. The violation was minor, so the punishment was too. The moderator merely stated, as a reminder, that the comments were not allowed in this section, and then preceded to remove them. The violation was the result of ignorance, rather than malicious intent or unwillingness to conform to the rules of the group.
The second example occurred when a member made a statement that was highly offensive to others. The member said that their rats died because they didn’t feed them, and then placed a smiley face at the end of their post. Considering that this online community is for rat, and animal, lovers, the responses were immediate and intense. The members began yelling, via text of course, at the perpetrator, expressing a range of emotions, including vehement anger and genuine sadness. The original poster would respond with more insensitive and infuriating posts, inciting stronger reactions from the other members. Finally the moderators stepped in, and banned the trouble maker’s account. The message was clear: conform to the rest of the community or risk being kicked out.
Members of Goosemoose give up some of their personal freedoms, for example the ability to post comments in any thread they like, in order to create a Leviathan that enforces a certain amount of conformity within the group. This conformity provides a space relatively free from distress for all members, fostering an online community that is healthy and inviting.
Assignment 6, Option 2: Reproaches Online
There are many reproaches that are commonly used online between people when someone might not be conforming to society's norms and standards. Some of these include reporting unnecessary pictures that find their way onto websites such as Facebook, using administrators on websites that have the power to suspend members if they act incorrectly, or warning people who act inappropriately while chatting (perhaps on AIM or in chat room).
Two online reproach episodes I've chosen to discuss for this assignment include blocking buddies from AIM Buddylists and reporting inappropriate photos on Facebook. I know that I've blocked users on AIM before, whether it was because a screename I didn't recognize IMed me and began to bother me or perhaps because, in those awkward middle school drama-filled years, a friend annoyed me for a split second and I felt it necessary to punish him or her. In regards to reporting Facebook pictures, I have a friend that had some reported because they contained some content that many did not approve of (even though many of our friend found it extremely comical).
People can usually tell when they're blocked online, and after issues are resolved, or the joke is over with, they can be unblocked and continue with their online social lives. As for Facebook, my friend was strictly warned and she took down the pictures and hasn't posted anything like it since. It seems as though she has learned her lesson.
I think that the Deindividuation Effect can be related to both of these instances. I think that being online can make people feel anonymous. For example, on Facebook, I think people feel anonymous to everyone except the people they are friends with. Therefore, they feel as though they can do things (such as posting pictures) because they think no one will really notice or care. They don't feel as though they're part of a group (for example, people may not post risque photos in a smaller group they belong to within Facebook because they think feel commitment to the other members and hold respect for them). This is the same with people who have screenames. Since many only talk to those who are on their buddylist, if someone else is IMed, they think that they are anonymous - at least until they reveal who they are.
Two online reproach episodes I've chosen to discuss for this assignment include blocking buddies from AIM Buddylists and reporting inappropriate photos on Facebook. I know that I've blocked users on AIM before, whether it was because a screename I didn't recognize IMed me and began to bother me or perhaps because, in those awkward middle school drama-filled years, a friend annoyed me for a split second and I felt it necessary to punish him or her. In regards to reporting Facebook pictures, I have a friend that had some reported because they contained some content that many did not approve of (even though many of our friend found it extremely comical).
People can usually tell when they're blocked online, and after issues are resolved, or the joke is over with, they can be unblocked and continue with their online social lives. As for Facebook, my friend was strictly warned and she took down the pictures and hasn't posted anything like it since. It seems as though she has learned her lesson.
I think that the Deindividuation Effect can be related to both of these instances. I think that being online can make people feel anonymous. For example, on Facebook, I think people feel anonymous to everyone except the people they are friends with. Therefore, they feel as though they can do things (such as posting pictures) because they think no one will really notice or care. They don't feel as though they're part of a group (for example, people may not post risque photos in a smaller group they belong to within Facebook because they think feel commitment to the other members and hold respect for them). This is the same with people who have screenames. Since many only talk to those who are on their buddylist, if someone else is IMed, they think that they are anonymous - at least until they reveal who they are.
Assignment 6, Option 1 - Leviathan = Important
When I have time, I like to visit discussion boards and forums, especially those about my favourite TV shows and movies. They’re very easy to use; someone starts a new post or topic if they wish and the other posters respond with their opinions. A discussion can last for days or weeks, depending on how “hot” the topic is. As a result, the effect of such a discussion is like having an ongoing asynchronous conversation with numerous others over the internet. Despite this being a CMC interaction, online standards still apply. According to Wallace, within this environment, the lack of physicality and cues made it necessary for new conforming strategies. Consequently these boards have “stronger methods to encourage conformity”, which includes basic netiquette. This would cover rules for spoilers within headings, spamming, inappropriate and off-topic messages.
New posters conform usually pretty quickly, since the board rules are presented while creating an account and are also stickied or tagged at the most visible place. They also learn to adapt by watching other people post messages, and see what kind of behaviour and language is acceptable or not. Especially with regards to spoilers, board members request that the headings have a warning, or else the original poster would be lectured.
The Leviathan, which enforces these norms in this case, would be the board moderators. If the moderators feel that certain rules are being disregarded by the board as a whole, they may post reminders and warnings in each board. Wallace also states that such a moderator has the power to “censor, pass along, and edit” posts. If this is exercised correctly and at the right times, it creates a more stable, secure environment. To a lesser extent, the other board members may also be involved, as they are able to raise the “virtual eyebrow” to warn those who exhibit unacceptable behaviour. If the offence is repeated, then the moderator would privately message the offender. The most severe punishment for breaking the norms would be temporary or permanent banishment from the discussion boards.
Since the virtual community differs from a physical, face to face environment, the way that people conform to a group changes but the underlying principles stay the same. Wallace reminds us that society still desires an orderly, “moderated” environment – thus the importance of the Leviathan. The Leviathan holds the responsibility of maintaining this order by forcing others to conform to the society’s norms, conventions and standards. This may be a law system, set of rules, or people who enforce them. This is especially important in CMC, where anonymity is easily achieved, availability of information may be limited, and accuracy of the information may be disputed. Thus, the presence of the Leviathan in a CMC community is necessary.
Comment 1
Comment 2
New posters conform usually pretty quickly, since the board rules are presented while creating an account and are also stickied or tagged at the most visible place. They also learn to adapt by watching other people post messages, and see what kind of behaviour and language is acceptable or not. Especially with regards to spoilers, board members request that the headings have a warning, or else the original poster would be lectured.
The Leviathan, which enforces these norms in this case, would be the board moderators. If the moderators feel that certain rules are being disregarded by the board as a whole, they may post reminders and warnings in each board. Wallace also states that such a moderator has the power to “censor, pass along, and edit” posts. If this is exercised correctly and at the right times, it creates a more stable, secure environment. To a lesser extent, the other board members may also be involved, as they are able to raise the “virtual eyebrow” to warn those who exhibit unacceptable behaviour. If the offence is repeated, then the moderator would privately message the offender. The most severe punishment for breaking the norms would be temporary or permanent banishment from the discussion boards.
Since the virtual community differs from a physical, face to face environment, the way that people conform to a group changes but the underlying principles stay the same. Wallace reminds us that society still desires an orderly, “moderated” environment – thus the importance of the Leviathan. The Leviathan holds the responsibility of maintaining this order by forcing others to conform to the society’s norms, conventions and standards. This may be a law system, set of rules, or people who enforce them. This is especially important in CMC, where anonymity is easily achieved, availability of information may be limited, and accuracy of the information may be disputed. Thus, the presence of the Leviathan in a CMC community is necessary.
Comment 1
Comment 2
#6-option 1: Lookin' pretty on dating websites is basically a norm these days
A social norm or convention that you often see online is people putting up very attractive pictures of themselves on dating websites and lying about their personal information. While this certainly does not necessarily apply to everyone, from the research Catalina went over in class, it is pretty clear that an overwhelmingly large percentage of people follow this social norm. On a website where everyone is trying to attract someone of the opposite (or same) sex, it is natural that this behavior would develop. Conformity is an important way to “fit in” and be well received by other members of the dating community, and the Leviathan helps one make the right decisions as to having a successful profile
When meeting someone for the first time you can use verbal cues, nonverbal cues, and your winning personality to make someone be attracted to you. On a website, however, "what you see is what you get"..or at least, expect to get. Everyone is judged on their picture and the information they provide, which inevitably leads people to want to conform to a successful style of making a profile. Wallace wrote that conformity can often times be weakened on the internet, but "it can also show itself in the emergence of group norms." She used the example of how people conform their writing styles in email to others. Thus, on these dating websites the same concept can be seen. People may write a lot of information about themselves or less information about themselves, or only provide certain information, based on how other people present their information. Also, once everyone is putting up a beautiful/handsome picture, most people want to make sure they look attractive and stand out as well. They may also learn what tactics of presenting themselves are most successful by conforming to the style of other people’s profiles. Perhaps when copying the style of having a fantastic picture and witty self descriptions, they receive more attention from prospective daters.
However, while some social norms develop through conformity and personal learning, other rules of the social norm are learned through the “sign on the door” that is provided by one of the Leviathans. As Wallace explains, the Leviathan is the person in charge of making important decisions that people follow. The website owners and moderators of these dating websites are the Leviathans because they make the regulations that one must follow to be on the site. For example, when signing up to be on a dating site, you often have to sign a Terms and Conditions contract. These state the rules that one must follow that have been set out by the Leviathan, and failure to follow these codes of conduct will get you kicked off the site. This contract that one must sign in order to register is essentially the “sign on the door” that Wallace discussed. They give the rules of no one under the age of 18 can sign up, no phone numbers or addresses can be provided, no profanity can be used etc. This extensive list of rules not only sets some standards of behavior, but also makes one aware of the Leviathan and his power.
Other members off the online dating community, however, can also be viewed as Leviathans. They set the standard for what is a “normal” personal profile. As I was saying before how people want to conform their profile styles to others, part of the reason may be because of the “punishment” they receive from their Leviathan peers. For example, if people stray from the social norms of putting up a nice picture, and instead post one of themselves with a weird and ugly face, they may see the effects immediately. They may not receive any emails from interested people or have many visits to their profile page. The same could be true if they provide very limited and impersonal information about themselves. In a way, being ignored is the same as having “someone arch their eyebrow at you” as Wallace explained. Although providing limited information or posting a silly picture are not unacceptable, the response from others could encourage a person to want to conform. Maybe one day these sites will evolve to have personal videos, and then people can use other tactics to show others their true personality!
My Comments:
1. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=3405256088134093462
2. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=2324943185413005411
When meeting someone for the first time you can use verbal cues, nonverbal cues, and your winning personality to make someone be attracted to you. On a website, however, "what you see is what you get"..or at least, expect to get. Everyone is judged on their picture and the information they provide, which inevitably leads people to want to conform to a successful style of making a profile. Wallace wrote that conformity can often times be weakened on the internet, but "it can also show itself in the emergence of group norms." She used the example of how people conform their writing styles in email to others. Thus, on these dating websites the same concept can be seen. People may write a lot of information about themselves or less information about themselves, or only provide certain information, based on how other people present their information. Also, once everyone is putting up a beautiful/handsome picture, most people want to make sure they look attractive and stand out as well. They may also learn what tactics of presenting themselves are most successful by conforming to the style of other people’s profiles. Perhaps when copying the style of having a fantastic picture and witty self descriptions, they receive more attention from prospective daters.
However, while some social norms develop through conformity and personal learning, other rules of the social norm are learned through the “sign on the door” that is provided by one of the Leviathans. As Wallace explains, the Leviathan is the person in charge of making important decisions that people follow. The website owners and moderators of these dating websites are the Leviathans because they make the regulations that one must follow to be on the site. For example, when signing up to be on a dating site, you often have to sign a Terms and Conditions contract. These state the rules that one must follow that have been set out by the Leviathan, and failure to follow these codes of conduct will get you kicked off the site. This contract that one must sign in order to register is essentially the “sign on the door” that Wallace discussed. They give the rules of no one under the age of 18 can sign up, no phone numbers or addresses can be provided, no profanity can be used etc. This extensive list of rules not only sets some standards of behavior, but also makes one aware of the Leviathan and his power.
Other members off the online dating community, however, can also be viewed as Leviathans. They set the standard for what is a “normal” personal profile. As I was saying before how people want to conform their profile styles to others, part of the reason may be because of the “punishment” they receive from their Leviathan peers. For example, if people stray from the social norms of putting up a nice picture, and instead post one of themselves with a weird and ugly face, they may see the effects immediately. They may not receive any emails from interested people or have many visits to their profile page. The same could be true if they provide very limited and impersonal information about themselves. In a way, being ignored is the same as having “someone arch their eyebrow at you” as Wallace explained. Although providing limited information or posting a silly picture are not unacceptable, the response from others could encourage a person to want to conform. Maybe one day these sites will evolve to have personal videos, and then people can use other tactics to show others their true personality!
My Comments:
1. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=3405256088134093462
2. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=2324943185413005411
6- The Leviathan and the "Black Plague"
For the sixth assignment, I decided to search for the Leviathan in a Christian chat room. My reasoning simple- there would be no toleration for aberrant behavior. Before creating an account, I reviewed the chat room’s terms and uses page, or “sign on the door”. Included are the following …
1. Be respectful of others feelings
2. Do not impersonate a moderator
3. No offensive content
4. No spamming
5. No copyright violations
6. No flooding of message boards
7. Do not demand answers from others
8. All religions held at same standards
9. Homosexuality is a sin
Given this, I began my search for the Leviathan with the name, black plague.
Unfortunately, for this chat room, I was not particularly fond of the ninth rule. Although I am definitely straight, I do have a gay friend who I feel is a great person. Thus, I decided to begin a discussion on my fake sexual orientation…
At first, before I had said anything, a few people went out of their way to welcome me to the group. It seemed most members of the Christian chat community had been members for some time, as social norms, such as only sticking to the topics in the headlines, while referring to others by nicknames seemed prevalent. Additionally, everyone seemed to refrain from the use of profanity, spamming and disrespect.
As a “newbie”, I changed that. Within a matter of minutes I began my own conversation, explaining that I was born gay (lying to see reactions- especially by moderators), but that I am active reader of the Bible and attend church every Sunday. I quickly received “the arched brow” referred to in Wallace’s chapter 4 (p.66&67), as members quickly informed me of the rule that homosexuality is a sin and that I would be kicked out by the moderator. Some members were more pleasant than others, but overall, I received a lot of negative criticism on my orientation “choice”. The experience was quite aggravating.
As many members seek netiquette (compliance with the basic rules, in addition to unwritten norms), my orientation was a violation of the rules, my visit with the Christians was short. The Leviathan apparently does not bother informing rule violators, especially deemed homosexuals, before discontinuing your account. Although Wallace states that, “the moderators play a very relaxed role and rarely kill anyone’s contribution,” that did not seem to be the case here. Apparently, violation of the orientation rule is significant enough to require emergency action.
In addition to “the arched brow”, members of the Christian chat were very polarized. After getting to know each other, the members seemed to accept only ideas held by the entire group and were not interested in learning about other perspectives. As I tried to explain my orientation situation, contending that I am an avid church attendee nonetheless, the group only chose to focus on the fact that I was violating the rule, and wanted me out as quickly as possible. They got what they wanted, as the Leviathan discontinued my account. Regrettably, a “black plague”, i.e. homosexuality, only temporarily disrupted their “Christian” discussions.
1. Be respectful of others feelings
2. Do not impersonate a moderator
3. No offensive content
4. No spamming
5. No copyright violations
6. No flooding of message boards
7. Do not demand answers from others
8. All religions held at same standards
9. Homosexuality is a sin
Given this, I began my search for the Leviathan with the name, black plague.
Unfortunately, for this chat room, I was not particularly fond of the ninth rule. Although I am definitely straight, I do have a gay friend who I feel is a great person. Thus, I decided to begin a discussion on my fake sexual orientation…
At first, before I had said anything, a few people went out of their way to welcome me to the group. It seemed most members of the Christian chat community had been members for some time, as social norms, such as only sticking to the topics in the headlines, while referring to others by nicknames seemed prevalent. Additionally, everyone seemed to refrain from the use of profanity, spamming and disrespect.
As a “newbie”, I changed that. Within a matter of minutes I began my own conversation, explaining that I was born gay (lying to see reactions- especially by moderators), but that I am active reader of the Bible and attend church every Sunday. I quickly received “the arched brow” referred to in Wallace’s chapter 4 (p.66&67), as members quickly informed me of the rule that homosexuality is a sin and that I would be kicked out by the moderator. Some members were more pleasant than others, but overall, I received a lot of negative criticism on my orientation “choice”. The experience was quite aggravating.
As many members seek netiquette (compliance with the basic rules, in addition to unwritten norms), my orientation was a violation of the rules, my visit with the Christians was short. The Leviathan apparently does not bother informing rule violators, especially deemed homosexuals, before discontinuing your account. Although Wallace states that, “the moderators play a very relaxed role and rarely kill anyone’s contribution,” that did not seem to be the case here. Apparently, violation of the orientation rule is significant enough to require emergency action.
In addition to “the arched brow”, members of the Christian chat were very polarized. After getting to know each other, the members seemed to accept only ideas held by the entire group and were not interested in learning about other perspectives. As I tried to explain my orientation situation, contending that I am an avid church attendee nonetheless, the group only chose to focus on the fact that I was violating the rule, and wanted me out as quickly as possible. They got what they wanted, as the Leviathan discontinued my account. Regrettably, a “black plague”, i.e. homosexuality, only temporarily disrupted their “Christian” discussions.
Assignment 6, Option 1... The Leviathan in Counterstrike
The Leviathan is a powerful force in keeping all kinds of online hooligans and digital delinquents in line. However, it is not just one thing. Instead, it is an amalgamation of certain behavioral standards and the forces that pursue and punish those who disobey. In the world of Counterstrike, it plays a key role in keeping the peace.
Counterstrike is an online first-person shooter game. It is round-based team combat, with the Counter-Terrorist team trying to stop the Terrorist team from performing their dastardly deeds, which may include blowing up something important, or killing hostages. Different players may employ different strategies to win, but all players are expected to try and accomplish the predetermined goals through fair gaming. This expectation arose due to the desire of all involved to experience (albeit vicariously) the thrill of mission-based combat.
There are many ways for players to gain an unfair advantage in Counterstrike. Players can "camp," which means staying in one spot that gives a very good strategic advantage. They can also use extremely powerful guns. The biggest threats, however, to an enjoyable game of shooting each other's heads off, are hackers. A hacker is a cheater, someone who is using an altered version of the game code to gain an unfair advantage. This can take many forms, some of which are the ability to see through walls, or "aimbots," which automatically make your gun point at your opponent's head. All of these behaviors are frowned up by the majority of the gaming community. Luckily, the Leviathan has many important tools for dealing with these perpetrators. The first is the server admin, who has control over everything in the game and can remove disruptive players from the game (temporarily or permanently). Some servers also employ automatic controls, such as disallowing the buying of unfair weapons, or automatically killing a player who does not move for a certain amount of time. Above all else, the biggest cheating deterrent is the banning of accounts. Someone who has been caught "hacking" may have their unique game ID number banned from all servers using a specific security protocol (which the vast majority of servers do use).
There are two factors Wallace discusses that help to explain the aversion to unfair play in online games. One is our natural tendency to conform. She explains it as an "eagerness to preserve a productive online environment" on page 70. This is the case in Counterstrike. Most players want to demonstrate their awesome ability at fake-killing, so they conform to the rules laid out for the game in order to prove their worth and have something to brag about later. In other words, while it may be fun to cheat every once in a while, it is not as fulfilling as proving you are the best in a fair fight, so we conform to the rules. Wallace also discusses our fear of the consequences as a reason to abide by the rules. You can be permanently barred from playing on almost every server if you decide to use "hacks," so most players choose not to risk it.
Counterstrike is an online first-person shooter game. It is round-based team combat, with the Counter-Terrorist team trying to stop the Terrorist team from performing their dastardly deeds, which may include blowing up something important, or killing hostages. Different players may employ different strategies to win, but all players are expected to try and accomplish the predetermined goals through fair gaming. This expectation arose due to the desire of all involved to experience (albeit vicariously) the thrill of mission-based combat.
There are many ways for players to gain an unfair advantage in Counterstrike. Players can "camp," which means staying in one spot that gives a very good strategic advantage. They can also use extremely powerful guns. The biggest threats, however, to an enjoyable game of shooting each other's heads off, are hackers. A hacker is a cheater, someone who is using an altered version of the game code to gain an unfair advantage. This can take many forms, some of which are the ability to see through walls, or "aimbots," which automatically make your gun point at your opponent's head. All of these behaviors are frowned up by the majority of the gaming community. Luckily, the Leviathan has many important tools for dealing with these perpetrators. The first is the server admin, who has control over everything in the game and can remove disruptive players from the game (temporarily or permanently). Some servers also employ automatic controls, such as disallowing the buying of unfair weapons, or automatically killing a player who does not move for a certain amount of time. Above all else, the biggest cheating deterrent is the banning of accounts. Someone who has been caught "hacking" may have their unique game ID number banned from all servers using a specific security protocol (which the vast majority of servers do use).
There are two factors Wallace discusses that help to explain the aversion to unfair play in online games. One is our natural tendency to conform. She explains it as an "eagerness to preserve a productive online environment" on page 70. This is the case in Counterstrike. Most players want to demonstrate their awesome ability at fake-killing, so they conform to the rules laid out for the game in order to prove their worth and have something to brag about later. In other words, while it may be fun to cheat every once in a while, it is not as fulfilling as proving you are the best in a fair fight, so we conform to the rules. Wallace also discusses our fear of the consequences as a reason to abide by the rules. You can be permanently barred from playing on almost every server if you decide to use "hacks," so most players choose not to risk it.
Assignment #6 - Hunting the Leviathan in the 245 Blogs
The Leviathan is a powerful force that affects our experiences using the Internet. There are a multitude of methods he can use to make people adhere to the norms of a specific online context. He can simply publicly admonish someone for using inappropriate language in a chat room. He also uses more subtle tactics. For example, the Leviathan is responsible for the uncomfortable you get when someone casually admits to the fact they checked out your Facebook wall to know that you just went from “it’s complicated” to “in a relationship”. It’s just understood that Facebook is reserved to the online world only.
Blogs are a space where the Leviathan is has a strong presence. An example that immediately came to mind was the Comm245 blogs. The Leviathan uses two means to enforce the social norms of the nature of the comments with both explicit and subtle methods. The students were introduced to the set of rules that need to be adhered to in order to participate. In the syllabus, it states, “Absolutely no profane or blatantly antagonistic posts will be tolerated. Disrespectful posts will result in the loss of all credit towards the assignments at the discretion of the instructor.” The consequences for violation of the set rules leads the Leviathan, by the means of either Professor Hancock or one of the TAs, to punish the person responsible for inappropriate posts.
Additionally, the Leviathan also emerges when the bloggers take it upon themselves the task of creating an acceptable social standard for the space. In the first assignment, the students in the class determined the environment of the blog by choosing to write their posts using an informal style, as is typical for online posts. However, once it was suggested in class to formalize the writing technique used, those who continued in the relaxed style might have been advised by their peers in their comments to step-up their level of writing. In this instance, the Leviathan doesn’t employ harsh police power to maintain order, but relies on the subtly of the friendly critiques from group members.
Wallace explains in her analysis to conformity on the net that in general there is less pressure to conform online than in FtF interactions due to the fact that the person is virtually anonymous and is not swayed by physical influences. Because of the this fact, it’s imperative for there to be a Leviathan to regulate what is being said and posted online. Yet, even if there were no distinct Leviathan apparent in a group space (chat rooms, blogs, newsgroups), over time one would appear because of “human willingness to conform and our eagerness to preserve an online group environment”. This supports the SIDE Theory, which states that in when group identity is salient, and the people are visually anonymous, the instance of conformity will increase. The Leviathan, whether officially or implictly,
Blogs are a space where the Leviathan is has a strong presence. An example that immediately came to mind was the Comm245 blogs. The Leviathan uses two means to enforce the social norms of the nature of the comments with both explicit and subtle methods. The students were introduced to the set of rules that need to be adhered to in order to participate. In the syllabus, it states, “Absolutely no profane or blatantly antagonistic posts will be tolerated. Disrespectful posts will result in the loss of all credit towards the assignments at the discretion of the instructor.” The consequences for violation of the set rules leads the Leviathan, by the means of either Professor Hancock or one of the TAs, to punish the person responsible for inappropriate posts.
Additionally, the Leviathan also emerges when the bloggers take it upon themselves the task of creating an acceptable social standard for the space. In the first assignment, the students in the class determined the environment of the blog by choosing to write their posts using an informal style, as is typical for online posts. However, once it was suggested in class to formalize the writing technique used, those who continued in the relaxed style might have been advised by their peers in their comments to step-up their level of writing. In this instance, the Leviathan doesn’t employ harsh police power to maintain order, but relies on the subtly of the friendly critiques from group members.
Wallace explains in her analysis to conformity on the net that in general there is less pressure to conform online than in FtF interactions due to the fact that the person is virtually anonymous and is not swayed by physical influences. Because of the this fact, it’s imperative for there to be a Leviathan to regulate what is being said and posted online. Yet, even if there were no distinct Leviathan apparent in a group space (chat rooms, blogs, newsgroups), over time one would appear because of “human willingness to conform and our eagerness to preserve an online group environment”. This supports the SIDE Theory, which states that in when group identity is salient, and the people are visually anonymous, the instance of conformity will increase. The Leviathan, whether officially or implictly,
Resorting Back to an (Old) New Experience
There are very few online activities I take part in outside of Facebook, e-mail, and research for classes, so I decided to resort back to where many of us found ourselves at the beginning of our class: a chat room. While almost all chat rooms have basic rules about who can chat and how these people should behave in the room, there are certain norms that are outside of the written rules that the participants in the room follow. I used my old nickname from our first two assignments, sat back, and observed the behavior of the chatters.
It seems that there are very few norms that determine how to initiate a conversation. Strategies range from asking the room if anyone is interested in chatting to sending (what seem to be) random private messages to individuals in the room. (I received a total of 23 private message attempts in the 30 minutes that I observed the room). The real norms happen during general chatroom conversation. For instance, if any user starts to "flood" the room by sending repeat messages, the administrators of the room will "boot" the troublesome user and then block them from re-entering. Also, if a user sends a general message that is too explicit (sexually or otherwise), the administrators will take similar action. Through these disciplinarian actions, the
The room administrators act as the leviathan (individual or group that makes sure norms are followed) and enforce the norm (repeated, expected behavior from participants). Through booting users from the room, they remove any activity that is not in line with the accepted normal behavior of chat rooms. As a result, participants in the room adjust to a norm that is determined heavily by the administrators.
It seems that there are very few norms that determine how to initiate a conversation. Strategies range from asking the room if anyone is interested in chatting to sending (what seem to be) random private messages to individuals in the room. (I received a total of 23 private message attempts in the 30 minutes that I observed the room). The real norms happen during general chatroom conversation. For instance, if any user starts to "flood" the room by sending repeat messages, the administrators of the room will "boot" the troublesome user and then block them from re-entering. Also, if a user sends a general message that is too explicit (sexually or otherwise), the administrators will take similar action. Through these disciplinarian actions, the
The room administrators act as the leviathan (individual or group that makes sure norms are followed) and enforce the norm (repeated, expected behavior from participants). Through booting users from the room, they remove any activity that is not in line with the accepted normal behavior of chat rooms. As a result, participants in the room adjust to a norm that is determined heavily by the administrators.
No Stupid S...S...Stuff - Assignment 5
List serves are huge here at Old-Dead-Guy University. I, like many students am on a number of list serves and have seen a number of different examples of people violating the social norms or conventions on the list serv. The particular convention I am talking about is what I will call NSS, or no stupid s...tuff. This is the idea where if a list serve is designed for a specific group or purpose, do not send out emails, wasting people's time, of things that are irrelevant or obnoxious or completely irrelevant to the purpose of the list serve.
There are a couple of different ways that the Leviathan comes to the table and controls and punishes those who violate this norm. There are some list serves that have a hierarchy of people's power. There is someone who has control outside of the list serve that can punish for violating this norm. This person is a boss, professor, or coach perhaps. This person often is also the one posting the most, having the most say, etc. Sometimes however, the more interesting way, is what happens when people control it themselves.
On one specific list serve I am on, people do have regular posts that are primarily functional, and occasionally for outside things. There have been times that someone will post a party invitation, and forget to take certain people who wouldn't want to know off of the list, and have been reprimanded for doing so. This is not a violation of NSS but it is a variation of it, because people need to be careful of who the audience members are or their email will be come SS. Often, people being reprimanded are done so publicly, so new members or old members quickly see the norm by trial and error of themselves and other people.
The Leviathan is the power that makes people conform to the NSS standard. This is not one person often, but can be. Mackinnon believes that the Leviathan exists because we want the environment to exist. People follow netiquette because it is the way to make the environment survive. Wallace mentions that even in unmoderated settings the Leviathan will emerge because of the human willingness to conform in order to survive. I believe that the the reason for the Leviathan is purely because of survival. Those who do not care for something to survive, will not conform. Watching the humiliation of one particular member of a team list serve last year when they posted a completely useless email was a great example of how a group becomes its own Leviathan. Nobody told the person it was wrong, but the email was followed up overnight be almost 20 different emails that were very similar, but clearly sarcastic. The line from page 73 of Wallace's book is perfect: "Through signs on the door, reproaches, and out own willingness to conform, we each become a cell in the body of that mortal god, the Leviathan."
There are a couple of different ways that the Leviathan comes to the table and controls and punishes those who violate this norm. There are some list serves that have a hierarchy of people's power. There is someone who has control outside of the list serve that can punish for violating this norm. This person is a boss, professor, or coach perhaps. This person often is also the one posting the most, having the most say, etc. Sometimes however, the more interesting way, is what happens when people control it themselves.
On one specific list serve I am on, people do have regular posts that are primarily functional, and occasionally for outside things. There have been times that someone will post a party invitation, and forget to take certain people who wouldn't want to know off of the list, and have been reprimanded for doing so. This is not a violation of NSS but it is a variation of it, because people need to be careful of who the audience members are or their email will be come SS. Often, people being reprimanded are done so publicly, so new members or old members quickly see the norm by trial and error of themselves and other people.
The Leviathan is the power that makes people conform to the NSS standard. This is not one person often, but can be. Mackinnon believes that the Leviathan exists because we want the environment to exist. People follow netiquette because it is the way to make the environment survive. Wallace mentions that even in unmoderated settings the Leviathan will emerge because of the human willingness to conform in order to survive. I believe that the the reason for the Leviathan is purely because of survival. Those who do not care for something to survive, will not conform. Watching the humiliation of one particular member of a team list serve last year when they posted a completely useless email was a great example of how a group becomes its own Leviathan. Nobody told the person it was wrong, but the email was followed up overnight be almost 20 different emails that were very similar, but clearly sarcastic. The line from page 73 of Wallace's book is perfect: "Through signs on the door, reproaches, and out own willingness to conform, we each become a cell in the body of that mortal god, the Leviathan."
Assignment #6 Conformist or Non-Conformist?
One online space that I interact with daily is the use of Cornell list-serves. Different organizations each have a different list serve where you can discuss upcoming events and situations with people who are also in the organization. When I started thinking about social norms and standards, this was the space that came to mind. The social norm of the list-serves is to always stay professional. Any inappropriate language, back lashing, or derogatory statements are not tolerated at all. Even if you are criticizing someone's work, you must do so in a professional and polite manner. People come to know these norms by being a part of the organization and reading emails they receive. They learn as time goes by that the emails sent to and from members are never inappropriate and always have a certain decorum.
The Leviathan is the power, or person, that enforces these norms or standards, and consequently punishes those who do not abide by them. In this instance the Leviathan is usually the person in charge of the list-serve. In most cases that is the president or secretary of the organization. The Leviathan enforces these norms by first "arching an eyebrow". If someone goes against these norms and perhaps says something like "your idea is stupid, are you an idiot?" The president or secretary might respond to the e-mail saying "we do not speak to people like that on the list serve, please show respect for all members". The Leviathan can further respond to inappropriate behavior by actually removing the person from the list-serve. The person would no longer be able to send or receive e-mails associated with the organization.
The idea of the Leviathan definitely relates to the theory involving conformity that Wallace describes in Chapter 4. We learn that people on the internet are less likely to conform, than people in face-to-face communication. This definitely explains why there is a need for a Leviathan. Because people are more likely to stray away from social norms, there needs to be a power that keeps the psychological spaces intact. Without a Leviathan, in theory everyone would rebel from norms, and there would be very few structured spaces online where people can communicate effectively. Leviathans are a large part of the internet space, because they allow our interactions to exist. Without Leviathans the amount of non-conformers would grow immensely and we would have no way of controlling it. People would curse each other out on list-serves without having any consequences. People would post pornographic pictures on Facebook, without ever getting reprimanded.
In CMC we are not forced to the see the people we are interacting with and we feel more free to express how we really feel without holding anything back. This freedom also entails more people straying away from norms, and breaking rules or standards that exist. Because people are less likely to conform, there needs to be a Leviathan that keeps some sort of order in place.
The Leviathan is the power, or person, that enforces these norms or standards, and consequently punishes those who do not abide by them. In this instance the Leviathan is usually the person in charge of the list-serve. In most cases that is the president or secretary of the organization. The Leviathan enforces these norms by first "arching an eyebrow". If someone goes against these norms and perhaps says something like "your idea is stupid, are you an idiot?" The president or secretary might respond to the e-mail saying "we do not speak to people like that on the list serve, please show respect for all members". The Leviathan can further respond to inappropriate behavior by actually removing the person from the list-serve. The person would no longer be able to send or receive e-mails associated with the organization.
The idea of the Leviathan definitely relates to the theory involving conformity that Wallace describes in Chapter 4. We learn that people on the internet are less likely to conform, than people in face-to-face communication. This definitely explains why there is a need for a Leviathan. Because people are more likely to stray away from social norms, there needs to be a power that keeps the psychological spaces intact. Without a Leviathan, in theory everyone would rebel from norms, and there would be very few structured spaces online where people can communicate effectively. Leviathans are a large part of the internet space, because they allow our interactions to exist. Without Leviathans the amount of non-conformers would grow immensely and we would have no way of controlling it. People would curse each other out on list-serves without having any consequences. People would post pornographic pictures on Facebook, without ever getting reprimanded.
In CMC we are not forced to the see the people we are interacting with and we feel more free to express how we really feel without holding anything back. This freedom also entails more people straying away from norms, and breaking rules or standards that exist. Because people are less likely to conform, there needs to be a Leviathan that keeps some sort of order in place.
#6 - Option 1 - "Just Wiki It"
An online social convention currently in place is the act of referring to Wikipedia for information and editing topics for correctness and completeness. Online users refer to this site to gain general insight and factual information about an array of topics.
Wallace states that society conforms to conventions and adhere to laws that restrict freedoms but help preserve an orderly existence that is both “predictable and safe”. A name given to this controlling force is a Leviathan. The Leviathan can be a system that creates “our peace and defense” and ensures society, online or other, abides by convention and norm. A major aspect defining the Leviathan is that the people over which the Leviathan exists must also desire a certain order and is willing to sacrifice freedoms to attain this order.
Some key aspects of a Leviathan include the following:
Convention: a convention is an agreed upon standard in terms of actions, etiquette, criteria or rules. The Leviathan maintains social conventions and ensures they are upheld. The convention in regards to Wikipedia would be referring to Wikipedia as a general source of information. It is generally agreed upon that Wikipedia is correct to a point. Those who wish to contribute to Wikipedia should do their best to maintain reliability and accuracy.
Conforming: when people realize, learn, and perform established conventions in the environment. Those who seek to act outside social convention and do not conform are dealt with by the Leviathan. In an online setting such as Wikipedia, more and more people begin to reference Wikipedia as search engines start to return “wiki” topics and others begin to rely on Wikipedia. Accessing Wikipedia site, new users quickly catch on to the language of the information on the site as well as to other users who reference Wikipedia. People begin to understand the vast amounts of information Wikipedia and even pick up slang such as “just wiki it”.
Leviathan: The Leviathan, as discussed before, ensure social norms and conventions are followed. In regards to the online example Wikipedia, disclaimers of correctness and editing policies and guidelines are put in place, enforced by Administrators and an Arbitration Committee; Trivial mistakes and wrong information is expected to be corrected on the assumption that each user seeks to provide most correct, up to date information available. Thus, the social norm of regarding Wikipedia as correct and updating topics with reliable, helpful topics are upheld. Users of Wikipedia sacrifice the freedom of saying whatever they please or believe is correct. Information provided by one user may be edited and removed by other contributors. But this is accepted by users to keep order and unnecessary disputes.
Wallace states that society conforms to conventions and adhere to laws that restrict freedoms but help preserve an orderly existence that is both “predictable and safe”. A name given to this controlling force is a Leviathan. The Leviathan can be a system that creates “our peace and defense” and ensures society, online or other, abides by convention and norm. A major aspect defining the Leviathan is that the people over which the Leviathan exists must also desire a certain order and is willing to sacrifice freedoms to attain this order.
Some key aspects of a Leviathan include the following:
Convention: a convention is an agreed upon standard in terms of actions, etiquette, criteria or rules. The Leviathan maintains social conventions and ensures they are upheld. The convention in regards to Wikipedia would be referring to Wikipedia as a general source of information. It is generally agreed upon that Wikipedia is correct to a point. Those who wish to contribute to Wikipedia should do their best to maintain reliability and accuracy.
Conforming: when people realize, learn, and perform established conventions in the environment. Those who seek to act outside social convention and do not conform are dealt with by the Leviathan. In an online setting such as Wikipedia, more and more people begin to reference Wikipedia as search engines start to return “wiki” topics and others begin to rely on Wikipedia. Accessing Wikipedia site, new users quickly catch on to the language of the information on the site as well as to other users who reference Wikipedia. People begin to understand the vast amounts of information Wikipedia and even pick up slang such as “just wiki it”.
Leviathan: The Leviathan, as discussed before, ensure social norms and conventions are followed. In regards to the online example Wikipedia, disclaimers of correctness and editing policies and guidelines are put in place, enforced by Administrators and an Arbitration Committee; Trivial mistakes and wrong information is expected to be corrected on the assumption that each user seeks to provide most correct, up to date information available. Thus, the social norm of regarding Wikipedia as correct and updating topics with reliable, helpful topics are upheld. Users of Wikipedia sacrifice the freedom of saying whatever they please or believe is correct. Information provided by one user may be edited and removed by other contributors. But this is accepted by users to keep order and unnecessary disputes.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
#6: option 1 -- You probably shouldn't tell people that you Facebook stalk them...
There are many social norms and conventions associated with Facebook (which is essentially the only online space in which I interact with people other than email), but it’s the standards surrounding “Facebook stalking” that stand out the most to me. The most basic rule is that Facebook stalking is socially unacceptable – socially being the key word there. In reality, everyone probably does it (at least when it comes to people we are interested in), we just know enough not to talk about it because that would be inappropriate and creepy. As with most social norms, Facebook users tend to conform to this standard, though there are various exceptions, subtleties, and details associated with the rules that one must learn. From my experience, the conventions go something like this…
In general, one must not admit to Facebook stalking another that he or she does not consider a close friend. It would not be strange to mock my housemate or best friend for adding Hansen to her favorite music yesterday, but it would be strange to do the same to that kid who sits in front of me in Stats class. The standards relax a little when it comes to people with whom you are extremely comfortable, but other than that, you shouldn’t tell acquaintances that you already know all about their weekend because of those photos posted this morning. Along the same lines, you should probably pretend to be surprised when someone tells you all about his interest in sailing – even though you’ve known that for months and have seen all of the pictures too. If you feel comfortable talking, joking or discussing all things Facebook-related and not with a person, then it’s probably alright that you know what their “About me” section says – particularly since you know all about them anyway. The rest of the time, however, it’s best not to mention that your and roommate spent two hours looking at every single post ever written on her “crush’s” wall. Interestingly, many of these inappropriate aspects of Facebook stalking only really become inappropriate when the discussion is moved offline. Hence, commenting on another’s photos, or pointing out a common interest via a wall post might be okay – even if the person is merely an acquaintance – but telling that person these things face-to-face based off what you read on their profile is strictly forbidden.
I think people assume these standards and norms because they are similar to offline social convention. We typically refrain from openly stalking people, and this idea is presumably learned early on in life – otherwise you may be arrested (the law is the Leviathan offline in this case). Obviously, norms become a bit blurred online, and we learn mostly from conforming to other Facebook users, as well as through trial and error. Wallace defines conformity as changing actions, attitudes, and beliefs to match those of a group around you; this leads to acceptance by said group. The Leviathan enforcing Facebook conformity tends to be the social consequences of not conforming. You may be perceived as creepy, strange, or obsessed by breaking Facebook convention. You may even be de”-friended”, or thwart a potential offline friendship. Essentially, the role of the Leviathan rests on the shoulders of conforming Facebook members, and as Wallace notes, most people are willing and eager to conform. In an online space meant to promote friendship and social networking, it makes sense that people would conform in order to avoid ramifications detrimental to these purposes.
Facebook, as an online space, tends to make individual identities salient and people very identifiable. According to SIDE, social influence (which refers to the degree to which members of a group can influence another’s opinions, attitudes, and actions) would not be particularly high or low in these conditions. As such, perhaps knowing and conforming to anti-Facebook stalking norms relates instead to self-presentational goals as outlined by the Hyperpersonal model. Nevertheless, Facebook seems to meet Wallace’s ideas about conformity and the Leviathan. Most people understand that obvious Facebook stalking goes against the norm, and as such has negative social consequences.
comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=8276485216823090713
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=7532310520884376725
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)