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.
Monday, October 1, 2007
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)