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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)