Assignment #6

The social norm that I find interesting is the “Wall” type features found on many online profiles, namely, Facebook and Myspace. On Facebook, The Wall feature allows friends to post on each others’ profiles. On Myspace the analogous feature says to “Leave a Comment.” On both websites the posters profile picture appears next to the post, clicking on the photo will bring you to that users own page.

The reason why I chose to analyze the same feature on both websites is that the social norm seems to differ although the functionality is congruous. On Facebook, the convention followed by most wall posters is to post mostly positive, PG rated comments. This makes sense because these posts are public; everyone in that person’s network can see the post, and even if the person does have a limited profile available, the comments left are still visible to all of their friends (and as people tend to have many “friends” on Facebook, the comment will still be visible to many users). When friends joke around with each other and leave more negative comments, they are usually obviously sarcastic and still not vulgar in nature. However, on Myspace, the wall is often used quite differently. You will often see extremely vulgar posts that unlike Facebook can also include videos and pictures. Many users on Myspace seem to give no thought to censoring their comments, which I find interesting since in general Myspace profiles seem to be more easily available for others to read, given Myspace’s search-ability through engines and given that most users can see everyone else’s profile.

Users come to know the norm on both of these websites in similar manners. The initial "sign on the door", is the User Agreement found on both websites. After joining they see what others post on each others wall. If a faux pas is made, such as commenting on your own wall, writing too formally (especially on Myspace), etc, usually a friend with a "raised eyebrown" will post back pointing out your “noobishness.” I think a big reason why the types of wall posts acceptable vary between these two sites is how they were initially marketed. Facebook opened at first to universities only, everyone in the same school identified with the same group, which seemed to lead to positive posts you wouldn’t mind all of your peers seeing. Myspace however, was opened to anyone and everyone all at once, and many of the users are in their teens, thinking nothing of posting vulgarities.

The Leviathan in both these scenarios are moderators who can remove a users profile if they don’t adhere to the rules. To a greater extent, peers act as the Leviathan as Wallace mentions with the idea of self governing; observing the social norm and conforming seems to be what usually causes people to censor (or in the case of Myspace, not censor) their wall posts.

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-61-hunting-leviathan-on-ebay.html

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/damn-leviathan.html

Assignment 6 Option 1

One social norm is that when playing on certain servers for Counter-Strike, a first person online shooter, which are 'family safe' you abide by the set rules like keeping the language polite and not having any inappropriate sprays. Sprays are graphics which you can post on different parts of the map and all users can see them. Sometimes players will have pornographic sprays but in ‘family safe’ servers they are usually banned.

You will know whether or not the server is ‘family safe’ and or has particular rules because when you enter a server there is an information screen that pops up letting you know all the do's and don'ts of that server. These rules are an example of Wallace's netiquette. They are rules that people should follow when behaving in that specific online space. Certain rules that I have seen include no one under the age of 18, no bad language, no language other than English, and no pornographic sprays. Most servers usually just put two rules, respect all players and respect all administrators.

Administrators (Admins) can be considered the Leviathan on any Counter-Strike server. Admins have the power to kick a player from the server, ban them from using the voice chat system, and even ban them from their server for any length of time. If anyone goes against the rules of the server they have to deal with any consequences that the Admins decide to give them. This could be as small as a simple warning or it could even be a lifetime ban depending on the nature of the scenario.

Conformity and the arched brow are two different issues that Wallace talks about in The Psychology of the Internet and these ideas can also be found within this situation. When playing in a server with rules the majority of players will conform to these rules so that they can continue playing at this server. Misbehaving and not conforming to these rules will usually result in a player being banned and thus won't be able to play there anymore. The arched brow idea is also prevalent because when people don't adhere to the rules there is sometimes general surprise. For example if there is a server that is strictly against bad language, racial terms and or cussing, and if someone comes in a spews a whole sentence of banned terms out there is usually surprise and shock followed by anger by the rest of the group. Most servers with these kind of rules usually have younger players and thus the Admins try to run a 'family safe' server. Overall most players will conform to the rules so as to not experience the arched brow and to continue their survival within a particular server.

Comments

1. http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-option-1-29-unread.html
2. http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/a61-cheaters-game.html

Assignment 6, Option 1: Youtube Leviathan? Uh huh

From completing the ‘hunting the leviathan’ assignment, I realized that online leviathan attitude mirrors leviathan attitude in other mediums. In fact, the norms that are enforced in society are usually confirmed in CMC environment. For example, in discussion, no one wants to hear someone speak inappropriately which is why the youtube administrators, considered the leviathans are the ones who make restrictions and crack down on those who make inappropriate comments on youtube videos. Although the people who watch youtube videos aren’t all part of the same group, they all have to conform to the same norm. That norm is having a respectful, appropriate discussion of whichever video they are watching. The question to ask now is: what is inappropriate? Appropriateness is related to groupness (Wallace, Chapter 4) since the mindset of everyone who is watching is part of the ‘civil society’ and we conform to the norms of this civil society. We come to know what a civil society is based on discussions we have in other facets of life. For example, inappropriate comments on this blog will be handled rather severely; usually with a failing grade in the course. Based on our human nature code of ethics, we can determine what is right and wrong to say on a youtube comment. For example, if you are watching a video about a serious race issue and you were to make a racist comment, many times, you will either have your comment hidden or your account suspended. Also, youtube serves as a forum, similar to that in real life where people can “electronically brainstorm” the ethics relayed in a video pertaining to an issue such as racism. The “sign on the door” that youtube has is in their ‘help center’ under their ‘policy and copyright guidelines’ tab. There, they specifically mention what is “inappropriate” as well as who are “abusive users.” Under this policy, the leviathan has a more structured way of “enforcing law.” The youtube administrators cannot do this job alone, however. This is why they have a ‘report user’ and a ‘thumbs up, thumbs down’ system where viewers can rate whether or not someone’s comments are inappropriate. The aforementioned point is on the lines with the concept of the Arched Brow discussed by Wallace in chapter 4. One idea to think about, however, is the fact that many people may not interpret a comment as “inappropriate” and may have disagreements. This is called polarization, two people on the opposite side of the pole. This is why, in the thumbs up, thumbs down approach youtube has taken, if more people give the comment a thumbs up, chances are that it’s appropriate and vice versa. This concept is on the lines with the minority opinion in online workgroups approach discussed by Wallace in chapter 4. To conclude my statement, I will mention that the leviathan in youtube works in sort of a “checks and balances” method in the sense that he/she not only enforces their rules, but uses the public to help guide their decision of how to enforce the norm. After all, they are public/social norms.

Comments:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=7593157518131515169

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=3131659508350551693

Assignment 6, Option 1: Game Slang

Almost every Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game includes a chat window where players can communicate directly to each other while also receiving messages from players near them and players in one or more selected “channels”. A new player trying to understand most of the chatter on the channels would be completely lost. Game-related messages, whether selling/buying items or trying to find a group to adventure with, are almost always very brief, to the point, and filled with acronyms. For instance “I’m looking to sell a sword with +5 to dexterity for 20 gold pieces” could be written as merely “LTS sword +5 dex 20G”.

Such abbreviations are the norm for communication in MMORPGs. If players don’t know the abbreviations and how messages structured, they would have a very difficult time finding any assistance. I remember as I was learning to play World of Warcraft, I was trying to find a group to go through a dungeon called “Deadmines”. But no one seemed to be interested. Everyone was doing something called “VC”. Eventually someone explained that “VC” refers to “Van Cleef” the boss of the Deadmines, and that an abbreviation for Deadmines would be “DM” which was already used for a different dungeon. I found that fairly unintuitive but that was how people insisted on communicating. In order to be successful, players must gradually learn and use the slang and style of the in-game communication.

One reason for the existence of all the slang is the anonymity of the online space, especially when the players aren’t in the same physical (well, virtual) region. Writing full sentences to be polite becomes irrelevant when trying to communicate basic information to large numbers of people. In a way it reminds me of how stocks are traded. Players are never reproached for not abbreviating their messages, but it is certainly an oddity in the game. Wallace states that “The Leviathan would emerge with more difficulty were it not for human willingness to conform and our eagerness to preserve a productive online group environment.” Especially the latter reason seems to fit very well with how game communication has developed. Even on specified “role-playing” servers where the intent is for players to communicate as their fictional character, I would say that 99% of the communication is identical to that of the non-role-playing servers. A player speaking in character would be looked upon as an oddity and outside the Leviathan that is every other player. Games with such massive user bases have little need for the administrators that enforce social norms like in the MUD mentioned by Wallace. The quantity of communication that a new user encounters in a modern MMORPG far exceeds the communication in a text-based MUD and therefore the new player is quickly exposed to the norms and is drawn into the Leviathan.

Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-leviathan-of-online-gaming.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-option-1_8127.html

Here's to a loss in individuality you conformists! (that includes me too)

Thomas Hobbes defined leviathan as “that mortal god, to which we owe under the immortal God; our peace and defense.” (Wallace, p69). This simply means a higher power that regulates our actions. It could be a person, or a force that pushes people to acclimate to certain societal norm whether in the web-based atmosphere, or in real-life. An example of a leviathan is AIM.

In this day and age, it is the social norm to write to friends without taking proper grammar into account. I mean, when was the last time you spoke to your friends on AIM with perfect grammar (or grammar to the best of your knowledge)? In my case, if I started to write to my friends with full words rather than 3 letter abbreviations, and with proper apostrophes, quotes, and periods, they would be bewildered. It’s so interesting to note that bad grammar in the online sphere has become the social norm. Upon entering a chat room, we are bombarded with “brb”, “what up”, “Gotta do stats hw. Gonna be in the library 4 a long time.” What is wrong with this? I mean, even if we wanted to follow grammar standards, we resist because it is just not done.

Who is the leviathan? In this case, anyone who uses AIM or some AIM like communicating program has become the leviathan, because one person pushes others to conform in a certain way.

How does the leviathan enforce the norm? Well, in my case, if I began to AIM my friend with perfect grammar, she would probably wonder what is wrong with me. At that point, I would probably drop the perfect grammar, and go back to the conversational, short and sweet messages characteristic of the AIM norm. In this case, my friend- the leviathan, had just arched the brow, reminding me that a certain behavior is not really accepted. Although not verbal, her reproach “whats wrong with u?” is her means of enforcing the societal norm, which is in this case, bad grammar.

How do people come to know the norm? Through the leviathan’s reproaches ranging from mild to vicious, people come to know and follow the norm, thereby reaffirming the societal norm.

It’s a cycle: people like me and you do something out of the ordinary, the leviathan steps in and reproaches us, then we follow the leviathan due to fear, and this in part reaffirms the societal norm, just until someone else does something out the ordinary only to be reproached again…and so the cycle continues again and again making the action you were supposed to do a norm. At the end of the day we are just trying to follow netiquette: the way in which we should behave on the net. We become mere conformists losing our individuality and just living the way society bids we do. How great!

Comments:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=3131659508350551693

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=2138154313012432225

Damn the Leviathan

If you read the titles of the countless blogs below me you will discover that I went against the social norm. Not only did I compose a unique title but I also threw out a four lettered curse word. I am not really looking to damn the leviathan in this post.I was simply trying to prove a point.

This Yellow blog is full of social norms. When composing titles or choosing words we students follow an invisible set of codes. These codes, enforced by the leviathan, constantly determine what we do and what we say. We play it safe; we stick to a straight line.

According to the SIDE theory it is easiest for me, the individual, to stray from the straight line when I am visually anonymous. It is easier for me to say "damn the leviathan" via CMC than it is via FtF. My identity is protected, regardless of the leviathan's reaction, by the huge social space in Computer Mediated Communication.

If distancing breeds individualism why is the leviathan's existence in this very blog successful? Well, no matter how independent and strong-minded an individual is, a psychological need always exists to fit in. People want to be liked, and most important, people want to be accepted. It is this innate desire that makes the leviathan effective. He or she must merely make his or her presense known, often times needing just little voice. The T.A viewing this blog is the perfect example. We know he or she is there, but we don't know when or where. With the prospect of our grade dangling in their hands, we comply to the norms.

Norms usually begin with one individual's action and then branch from there. The very individual who began labeling his or her post with "Assignment__, Option __" set the precedent for the labels of all other blogs. Presumably a student who did so, we clearly see that anyone within a group is capable of creating a norm. The leviathan however is the only one that can truly inforce it. Sometimes physically, but mostly psychologically.

Blog Comments:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=4374189626186885111

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=6169675789471643209

Assignment 6: Option 1 Leviathan!

Hi,

Online social norms are present in a variety of mediums including list serves, which I will analyze. I am a member of a couple of different groups on campus, so I am a part of several list serves all with different rules set by the group. In this case the members of each list serve are the leviathans, or the power that enforces our adherence to society’s norms and standards.

Of two lists serves, one I am a new member two, and the other I’ve been a part of for a while. In the one I’ve been I know the rules of what is acceptable and what is not, and I easily conform. However, in the new one I am hunting the leviathan and slowly determining the social norms that they enforce. Although both are in the same category one list serve is much less goal oriented and encourages random e-mails, while the one I am new to is completely goal oriented and spam e-mail would likely result in an “arched brow”. The arched brow being the form of reproach from the group for disobeying social norms. Because of a desire to fit in with a group and raise my group saliency I carefully observe in the new group to see what other members do before I send out messages. Thus I can determine all the rules of what is acceptable and follow them in order to fit in.

Clearly this is an example of Wallace’s conformity in order to be accepted by the group. I refrain from sending out superfluous e-mails to the new list serve because I know that is against the social norm and will elicit an arched brow response. By following all of the social norms you gain greater group acceptance at the cost of giving up societal freedoms. Also group identity is salient and there visual anonymity which leads to increased social influencing and greater group conformity predicted by the SIDE theory.

assignment 6: option 1

Henry Brooks Adams said "Chaos was the law of nature. Order was the dream of man.” It’s natural for there to disorder, but social conventions and norms create order. For us to preserve this order, Wallace argues that it’s necessary to give up certain freedoms to earthly authorities. Be it government or the concept of respect, there are conventions which keep us safe and allow us to interact. Even though there are not many legal regulations for the Internet, I think there are still many unofficial rules that all savvy users abide by. For example, why is Wikipedia, a user-generated encyclopedia, as accurate as a time-tested, expert-composed Encyclopedia Britannica? (see proof here http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html) Users typically write accurate entries. If not, other users will correct the false entries. This is an external Levianthan in addition to the internal Leviathan of wikiadmins who are moderators.(Thanks, Caryn) It’s understood that you should follow unspoken rules by respecting other users and the reader population by being accurate. On a smaller scale, using ALL CAPS IS TYPICALLY AVOIDED IN CMC (unless you want to be seen as a jerk who is screaming at readers.) We know these norms through experience, but why do we choose to abide by them and self-censor?

I like Wallace’s term “netiquette.” Are we really afraid of raising some eyebrows or being chastised by our peers/moderators? Probably not as much as we have a natural need to have a positive environment in which all members follow accepted customs. This provides a sense of security and safety. We feel comfortable reading Wikipedia only because we know each of our peers is following the rules. That, and not fear, is why we allow ourselves to be corrected or censored by moderators. This also makes sense given what we’ve learned about dishonesty in CMC. People are in need of this framework to provide some sense of trust and regulation if CMC is used in place of FtF. We tend to have more faith in others in FtF than in CMC, so we need a guarantee of security if we are to believe what we read in CMC.

If we all used caps, we would annoy others and decrease the positive environment. People wouldn’t like talking to us, and CMC would become an annoyance. Even if we really like the way caps look, we give it up because we understand how others would feel. No one needs to explicity tell us these rules. We learn through experience and social interaction what's appropriate behavior. Both the Wikipedia and caps examples illustrate the need to keep CMC valuable to all users. This follows MacKinnon’s observation that there is indeed a Leviathan online, and “most people willingly give up freedoms in order to preserve the value and energy of the medium itself.”

As Wallace says, the mere presence of an authority figure can influence users to act appropriately. If we didn’t have authority figures, would we be the CMC version of Lord of the Flies? Well, that might be a little dramatic. The point is, Wallace is right. We have an innate human need to conform and preserve a peaceful environment even if it means sacrificing some freedom. Why is this true? Consider reasons for joining social networks in the first place. Unless we are an anonymous hacker who has a goal of destroying an online community, we are there to interact and share. Thus, we put in an effort to follow the rules and create a civilized environment.

comments:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=260422847976956895

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=7505393556445230494

Assignment 6, Option 1: A multi-headed monster?

Online forums are perfect examples of leviathan controlled sub-communities. Most of these asynchronous message boards have a system of observers and “official” reproachers—a board of administrators, if you will. There are relatively strict social norms in the online community I enjoy lurking in. Off-topic comments and or posts are generally looked down upon, and the site seems to stir artistic or creative discussion, rather than to provide a haven for people to come together and socialize in an online space. In this forum, “mods” and “admin” are given the control to calm potential flame wars, boot trolls from the community, and to serve as figureheads for social web-order. New members who may be infringing on the rules are given friendly warnings, and are usually amiable and smart enough to figure out what the boundaries are after a short period of time. Though this is the basis of many forums, I’d actually like to discuss a different branch of the leviathan concept.

What kind of leadership is necessary to drive a leviathan, and is it just as effective to have multiple moderators and administrators doing their own work as compared to a single consistently informed team? One of my best friends is a mod in this forum and over the past year she has observed various things that seem to contradict some points made in Wallace’s chapter four segment. Though the general idea for the existence of a leviathan rests with the members of a society (i.e. we want a leviathan to exist so that we feel comfortable in our internet environment), the chapter does not really touch on the internal organization of a leviathan in order to efficiently moderate an online space. After I had clarified to my friend that a leviathan was a “mortal God” of sorts (as stated by Hobbes), she added that rather than being a “mortal God”, her admin team was more of like a “multi-headed monster.” Wallace says on page 70, “In many cases, the moderators play a very relaxed role and rarely kill anyone’s contribution.” I feel that roles of administrators have become much more complex than Wallace makes them out to be. My friend declares that a lack of leadership and a lack of a single overruling force results in unnecessary complexity of seemingly simple tasks. For example, a member may be trolling the boards and bothering all the members around him, but he may not have broken any of the forum’s actual rules. Without a single deciding force that is able to ban this member, the board of admin and mods must deliberate, discuss, and make difficult a very simple solution.

Though it’s not a problem that may be addressed anytime in the near future, it seems that it is a factor of the leviathan concept that should be considered.

assignment 6: option 1

There are various social norms and standards that people comply to when online. It’s an almost inherent phenomenon for people to feel the need to conform, whether it’s online or not. People even go the extra length to secure being accepted that people shed their personal beliefs to sustain group identity. No one person sets such social conventions but rather people learn them through experience and familiarity.

In particular, when dealing with class discussion forums, say on blackboard, people, or should I say students, are guided by certain criteria and norms. Using proper grammar and not using inappropriate terminology are innate measures and guidelines we as students follow. These “rules” are not written anywhere but instead are known through intrinsic knowledge. In addition, content posted on such discussion boards should be relevant and pertain to what’s being discussed in class. Obviously one isn’t going to discuss their eventful weekend on their physics discussion board. People certainly have the freedom to write whatever they want however they want but consequences are likely to follow. And thus, in order to avoid such punishment, we obey and fulfill our societal obligations to “fit in” and be a part of a desired group. The professor is the enforcer of such conforming behavior and if one doesn’t abide by the acceptable actions, grades may suffer and an undesirable impression is formed.

The Leviathan describes people as adopting certain behaviors, ideas, and actions to avoid being the outcast and being susceptible to castigation. In The Psychology of the Internet, by Patricia Wallace, the Leviathan is similar to a governmental system enforcing such “rules” that we feel obliged to follow. Moderators ensure compliance to such social standards, such as with my example, to “resolve disputes should they arise”. “The sign on the door concept”, described by Patricia Wallace, is our common sense regarding certain social issues and “rules of behavior” which is learned through years of experience. Behaving in an appropriate and educated manner on school discussion boards is an inherent concept we’ve learned though past experiences. The “arched eyebrow” is another form of enforcement of conformity. This a measure used by many to delicately, or in some cases harshly, enforce socially “acceptable” behavior. Professors act on “misbehavior” and a majority of the time address the issue.

Assignment 6 - Option 1

The “Leviathan” as described by Wallace is a system that maintains order on the internet. The Leviathan keeps societal norms and standards in place for the benefit of the community. The Leviathans I noticed took place in email.

The use of email is present in almost everyone’s daily lives. From students to people in the workforce to retirees, everyone uses email. It allows us all to remain in contact in a simple and quick way. I have discovered two instances of social norms existing within the email space.

1) Not sending massive attachments in email (i.e. uncompressed photos)

2) When responding to a list serve, only responding to the person you mean to respond to, rather than the entire list serve

For number 1, people learn this social norm as soon as they get an email with a gigantic file attachment and it either takes forever to open or clogs their entire mailbox. This rule can be enforced by two ways. First, the recipient of the message sends a message back to remind them of the annoyance they just caused. Second, by the sender just remembering how annoying this practice is by remembering the last time it happened to themselves. Unfortunately, my mom seems to be a repeat offender of this social norm so perhaps some people just never learn.

For number 2, the list serve response, I have noticed this particularly in my fraternities list serve. For instance, someone will send out a general email asking certain people to respond back to them, only to have them respond back to the whole list serve. This is generally enforced by a whole bunch of not so nice email reminders telling people to “not hit reply all”. After that, most people get the point and don’t do it again or continue to do it to annoy others.

I feel that these social norms fall under Wallace’s description of the “arched brow”. Wallace describes the arched brow as a friendly reminder of when people on the internet forget to follow the established rules properly. Each of the aforementioned examples contains established rules and a friendly reminder is used to keep the rules intact.

Assignment 6, Option 1

In the study of group conformity, Thomas Hobbes believed that a “Leviathan” was a “mortal god, to which we owe under the immortal God; our peace and defence.” Thus, the Leviathan is an authority that is either external or internal that causes us to conform in order to keep society organized and productive. Externally, the Leviathan can be a governing body that solves issues. Internally, we regulate ourselves in response to societal norms and past experiences.

There are many ways to “hunt the Leviathan”, both in a f2f (face to face) setting and in CMC (computer mediated communication). As the internet has evolved, many online standards have become the norm. Specifically, posting in this blog, Comm 245 Yellow, has a very defined set of standards. Posts must have a specific number of words, use complete detailed sentences, and have titles that help to identify our topics. Some variations have evolved in the posts, as people use hyperlinks, pictures, and excerpts of conversations. Some bloggers choose to add personal touches to their titles, while others maintain the “Assignment #: Option #” format.

Bloggers found out about these norms from two different sources: and external authority figure and the internal community evolution of posts. The external authority figure, Professor Jeff Hancock, outlined the basic standards (post length, formality, titles) for the blog with a “sign on the door” approach. According to The Psychology of the Internet by Wallace, a sign on the door is a tactic used by Internet niches to explicitly explain what is expected of users since there are no outside cues to help out novices. In this case, the “sign on the door” is the instructions we were given on the course website. The slight variations in post format and titles have evolved from the past posts of students throughout the semester. What I consider acceptable to put in my blog is based on what I have seen in my peers’ blogs. I conform to the norms that we as a community have created together because I want the blog to flourish, as predicted by MacKinnon in The Psychology of the Internet.

The Leviathan enforces this blog in many ways. Grades received on posts help reinforce or change the tactics we use when creating the posts. In this example, the Leviathan is the group of teaching assistants that grade the posts. Also, we comment on each others’ blogs to point out the good aspects of each post and what could use more work. Based on the comments of our peers, future posts are altered to conform more to what is expected by the Yellow blogging community.

Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-option-1_8127.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-leviathan-sayeth-dont-touch-your-own.html

Assignment 6-1: Levels of Leviathan on Facebook

Upon receiving Net IDs, every Cornell student is faced with a pressing decision: to make a facebook or not to make a facebook? In high school, it was typical for some people to have facebook accounts and for others to not; however, facebook quickly transformed into a social norm once Net IDs were distributed.

With this emerging norm, the SIDE theory came into play. Students were pressured to find their social identity. Since social identity theory states that people relate to others based on common or different group membership, choosing whether or not to join facebook puts you in a specific social category. The facebook community has a high degree of social influence because many people joined because their friends decided to join. Next came the deindividuation effects, which determine how visually anonymous you are in the online setting. Even though many people include a photograph, facebook still has some deindividuating effects. People write messages on walls that they wouldn’t dare say out loud. They conform to the “crowd behavior” because of the less immediate social cues.

The Leviathan on facebook has multiple levels. Once you agree to the contract to set up an account, you have to adhere to certain standards such as not posting nude pictures and allowing them to give out your e-mail address. People comply with these rules because of the power we have intrinsically assigned to facebook. We don’t want to risk termination of our accounts for fear of social alienation. Friends keep in touch over facebook, students set up meeting times for group projects over facebook, and sometimes dating even starts via facebook. Facebook is ingrained into college student culture, which consequently pressures people to conform and become dependent on this website. Wallace states that because we are eager to preserve a productive online environment, we willingly conform in spite of the freedoms we give up. Succumbing to the power of the Leviathan is often an effective way to preserve order, and in the case of facebook, to maintain efficient communication.

To supplement the contract rules, facebook empowers the participants as a second Leviathan-like force. The participants help ensure that everyone adheres to the terms of usage. Each member of the facebook community can delete posts that they find offensive or inappropriate. Censoring the content of facebook posts translates as a “raised eyebrow” in face to face interaction. Although this may infringe upon free speech, Wallace points out that people are willing to subscribe to a certain level of “netiquette” for their online environment to prosper. This sort of utilitarian attitude overrides individuality in many organized online spaces. People will conform because they understand that standards are meant to preserve a productive online setting for the greatest amount of people.

Although college conditions students strive to uphold values of individuality, students often conform on some level. The Leviathan enforces facebook standards first on an administrative level through the terms of usage that all participants agree to when creating their account. However, the more immediate Leviathan force is the intercommunity censorship. Despite the freedoms of speech that students give up, they follow social standards so that they are allowed to remain part of this vital social network. Violate the terms of usage, and your account will be quickly terminated, leaving you out of the loop of this popular interaction space.

Comments:

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/damn-leviathan.html

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/heres-to-loss-in-individuality-you.html

assignment 6 option 2

In most game communities the unwritten laws regarding conduct tend to be more explicit than in the real world, though . Behavior deemed unacceptable is often met with a very harsh response. My two reproach episodes are pretty nonspecific simply because of how often they occur in game and also because of the commonness of crude responses. Both episodes were observed while playing World of Warcraft.

In the game, dungeon bosses drop loot (items) that each member of the group rolls for. Those who need the item ask the group before choosing need, otherwise everyone chooses greed or can pass on the item. The practice of ninja’ing is when a person chooses need for an item that someone else also needs, but that they themselves don’t have a use for. In most cases if the ninja wins the roll, they immediately leave group, hence the name ninja. The remaining group members tend to send the ninja angry messages and slander the ninja in the global chat. Ninja’s are more or less blacklisted by the community; some get blocked in chat and others develop a reputation that makes it difficult for them to get groups. In this case the reproach is not just the initial verbal scolding but also the effects the original infraction has on the community. If the person chose need on accident or just didn’t know any better, they’re just scolded and the reproach is generally successful. Those who want to ninja items for personal gains however will not stop until the reproach comes from the community as a whole.

My second example of reproach episode in game involves the typical responses to new players more commonly called noobs. A noob stereotypically asks dumb questions that a person could answer themselves with a little bit of effort. In general being called a noob is insulting as it implies both stupidity and ignorance of how the game works. Its common knowledge that there are countless web resources dedicated to World of Warcraft, and mmogs in general, that allow a person to answer their own questions. People found asking overly simple questions in the game chat channels receive responses ranging from “look it up” to “rofl what noob” to “go kill yourself”. Oftentimes the people who respond directly in the chat channel are the ones reproaching the person in a negative way. Those who are nicer usually send a private message to the person letting them know the answer to their question. Generally new players tend to learn very quickly, that most things they need to know they can find out by themselves. In this case the reproaches are very successful whether positive or negative.

I believe what I’ve observed coincides with Wallace’s findings that when a group participant ignores the rules, others apply increasing pressure to ensure conformity. The in game behavior I witnessed also supports Wallace’s finding that in an online space stronger measures are needed to ensure that everyone follows the rules. I agree that in an online place like a game, where rules of conduct aren’t posted or explicitly defined for new members, the response to infractions tends to be very strong. I think that this tends to force new players to conform very quickly to the game's norm of accepted behaviors.

Assignment 6: Call me Ishmael; One man’s quest to hunt the Leviathan

When looking to try to explain conformity in online group dynamics, many try to “hunt the leviathan”. While this may conjure up images of huge sea monsters and the novel Moby Dick, the term leviathan has a completely different meaning in the context of computer mediated communication (CMC). The Leviathan is the force that causes people to act within the norms and standards of a society. It is the overarching feeling that causes us to act the way we do, despite never being told to do so. One such Leviathan is e-mail etiquette.

Etiquette in any situation carries along a leviathan, and by no means is CMC any different. With a background working at a country club, the first example I can think of is if when talking to a member I addressed them shouting “Hey Bob!” rather than “good morning Dr. Riley”. If I had used the first address, I would have been reproached for my poor behavior. In e-mail communication, there are several distinguished “norms” which are followed. These include; proper punctuation, professional headings, as well as formal language. The failure to use any of these correctly can result in making others uncomfortable and even lead to negative repercussions.

One such instance of e-mail etiquette is proper spelling and punctuation. This norm has moved from traditional mailing etiquette and moved to online communication. If one were to violate these norms, it would cause the receiver of the message to discredit the sender and look down at their message. Even if these errors might be an oversight or a typo, to the receiver this comes across as careless and reckless. From that point on the receiver will not respect the e-mails as much and consider this in context of what the e-mail says. In Wallace’s work, these fall under offenses that would “draw the arched brow” leading to a reminder by the receiver that such actions are looked down upon in the online community.

In Chapter 4 of The Psychology of the Internet, Wallace discusses the Leviathan and why it forces us to conform. While the word conformist sometimes carries negative connotations, Wallace feels that, “conformity is to the large extent the glue that keeps a group, or even a whole society, together.” Simply put, the Leviathan is the convention that keeps us conforming, even when there are weak reasons for us to conform. So, while the tendency to conform may slightly decrease on the internet due to anonymity and lack of physical presence, the Leviathan is still out there, influencing all of our actions in the sea of mediated communication.

Assignment 6.1 - Hunting the Leviathan on Ebay

In hunting the Leviathan online you could find that the Internet is becoming more and more an ordered place. Now that we rely on it for almost every aspect of our lives, we expect it to be safer, more reliable, and more accurate. In exchange for these things we must give up some of the freedom and anonymity that the Internet is so known for. In everyday face to face interactions we are familiar with laws, rules, and even the raised eyebrow as a means of modifying our behavior towards an accepted social norm. In the online world we are becoming more familiar with sites requiring registration, e-mail confirmations, and profile rating systems.

One of the more interesting manifestations of the Leviathan online is the profile rating system on the popular auction website Ebay. Anytime you participate in a transaction on Ebay, you have the opportunity to leave positive, negative, or neutral feedback for that person. You can also include a specific message with your feedback. In this way, reputable buyers and sellers can build a positive reputation online, just as traditional “brick and mortar” stores develop a reputation with their customers.

Ebay's popularity is dependent on the fact that it's users feel safe when they make a transaction. If this were not the case, they would be less likely to use this medium for buying and selling things. Also, other users do not have the final say when it comes to a someone's online reputation. Ebay has the power to modify feedback ratings if for instance someone created a fake account to destroy a competitor's feedback score. All of this conforms to MacKinnon's belief that “the Leviathan is there anyway because we want the Internet to flourish, and sense it will not unless we build a framework of trust...” In this case we can apply this idea specifically to Ebay.

Not only does a seller's rating affect our decision about whether to buy from them, but also affects the way the seller acts during the purchase. Knowing that they will be evaluated on each transaction, buyers and sellers are more likely to pay promptly, respond to questions, and ship as quickly as possible. One of the possible drawbacks to this system is for new users. Everyone has to start somewhere and sometime on Ebay. For new users, especially first time sellers with relatively little feedback, they may be looked upon as a less desirable seller than someone that has an established feedback rating. For those comfortable buying from an un-established seller, Ebay has built in dispute resolution capabilities. This is similar to the example in Wallace where Bill Southerly started a mailing list that at first required a great deal of moderation, but over time evolved into a very professional forum with its own self regulating Leviathan. In this way the Leviathan on the Internet is alive and well, mirroring the Leviathan we are accustomed to in our everyday face to face interactions.

Comments:

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-leviathan-sayeth-dont-touch-your-own.html

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-hunting-leviathan.html

A6.1 A Cheater's Game

It is better to suffer wrong than to do it, and happier to be sometimes cheated than not to trust.

Samuel Johnson
English author, critic, & lexicographer (1709 - 1784)

A game inherently depends on the players to play by the rules, a virtual community whose existence depends on trust. No one wants to play a game when their opponent had an unfair advantage. In the online world, however, cheating becomes as simple as a download. In a soccer game or chess game, cheating can only get you so far, but in an online game, such as Starcraft, invincible units can put you above the level of any professional, and worse, if the cheater is subtle, they may never be caught. Social pressure and open denouncement of hacking, then, is the only effective way to deter cheating.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that cheating isn’t often seen. Often, rules against hacking or cheating are included on the server, or on the game website, but spend any significant amount of time playing an online game, especially an older, popular game, and you’re bound to see someone hacking anyway. It may take a while to realize or it may be blatantly obvious, but once noticed (or suspected), everyone soon hears about it. The cheater in question is often asked to stop, then ridiculed, and finally, hunted down or harassed by the rest of the players. Also, people often leave or avoid games and servers that have cheaters. This excludes the offender from the gaming community, an ostracizing of those who break the rules. This is serves as punishment and as warning to newbies that hacking is not accepted by their fellow gamers.

Of courses, there are more drastic means to enforce the power of the Leviathan. Often, pressure from their peers may not be enough. Administrators of a game server, like the moderators of forums, can monitor and remove cheaters, either by kicking or IP banning them. A player with administrator privileges goes a long way in discouraging hacking. Also, Valve, the maker of Half Life, Counterstrike, and Team Fortress Classic, uses anti-cheat software (although its effectiveness is questionable), and Maple Story and other games installs something called GameGuard, which has the power akin to a rootkit. A rootkit is a piece of software that that is designed subvert the operating system, and while they are extremely untrustworthy, it is a good way to stop and remove cheaters.

In competitive gaming, where cheating reaps the greatest rewards, cheating must be carefully screened. Because it is difficult to have officials watching each match online, it is common for players to make “demos” of their matches, to submit after the game. Once, in a CAL-I (Cyberathlete Amateur League- Invite level), a new Counterstrike team did suspiciously well during a match. The community, and later the CAL officials, checked the demos of one of the players and saw evidence of a “wall hack,” a cheat for seeing through walls. Not only was the team and players banned from CAL, the Counterstrike community publicly denounced the players for their underhanded actions. This episode illustrates the power of social pressure to conform to a norm, in this case, for the greater good of the society.

6.1: The Leviathan Sayeth: Don't Touch Your Own Wall!

After using Facebook for a while, you come to see some things that just don't fly:
1) Posting 500 pictures of yourself while everyone else has posted 20.
2) Excruciatingly personal confessions /homework questions in a wall post (equally wrong).
3) Changing your birthday every night so that people never stop celebrating you're existence (I've been tempted)
4) Listing 600 bands under your favorite music ('favorite' seems to lose it's meaning after 200...)

and perhaps the subtlest and yet most insidious:
5) Writing on your own Facebook Wall (GASP!) SERIOUSLY!?

Yes. Imagine an alternate reality with me. Back in the beginning when the Facebook was just the Facepamphlet, there was a chance for wall posts to be become virtually anything. They might have evolved to work more like blogs with updates and comments coming in from both the Facebook profiler and his/her allotted friends. They might have even turned into a space strictly allowing ASCII art! However, these options sound preposterous knowing what The Wall is now-- somehow during the whole Facebook shakedown, The Wall worked its way into an entirely guest-based form of communication. If you want to comment on something someone said on your wall, you simply must write it on their wall!

How does this convention come to be known? People start off not knowing exactly what the wall is for, but they quickly find out from observations of how others use it and through first hand experience. Since the entire Facebook environment caters towards the formation of groups, either by locality or by university, it would not be hard to imagine this convention being passed on through online conformity. This situation is very similar to Wallace's description of the conventions that grew to surround e-mail use: E-mails had the potential to be very formal forms of communication with letterheads and strictly enforced linguistics- but instead they became a largely informal means of communication. The development of the wall has followed similar paths resulting in an informal medium whose function is perpetuated by conformity and The Leviathan.

Before we Hunt the big L, let's pinpoint what the offense would be in writing on your own wall. By Margaret McLaughlin's offense types, writing on your own wall would most clearly fall under the category of "Violation of networkwide conventions," where Facebook is the network and the convention is "posting on other people's walls," but the offense might also be considered, "Incorrect/novice use of technology," depending on whether or not the user meant to post on someone else's wall and posted on their own by mistake (whoops! delete.). In either case, The Leviathan resides in the multitude of in-group critics that are quick to expose the violation of convention i.e., The Leviathan is US! As long as we are accepted in the network, we are often expected to follow what Richard MacKinnon termed, "netiquette," and unity is formed and perpetuated by both following this netiquette and by making sure that other people follow it, thus conformity.

But does this really happen? Yes! I have seen many people reprimanded in their first Facebook forays for misusing their walls. It seems likely that this convention emerged because it reinforces social boundaries and exclusivity, while also ensuring that people are reciprocally active in the extent of their communication. People might just seem lazy if they never took the time to swing by someone else's wall and give it a post or two. (But more than three posts in a row and you'll find yourself breaking another convention altogether!)

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/call-me-ishmael-one-mans-quest-to-hunt.html#comment-8452412284872823462
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/damn-leviathan.html#comment-7364520950452244741

Assignment #6: Option 1

The Leviathan is described in Wallace (by a quote from Thomas Hobbes) as a "mortal god." Wallace herself describes it as a "system of government that we empower to resolve disputes." In terms of the Internet, the Leviathan is, in my terms, "that which keeps order."

The Leviathan on the Internet can take many forms, but one with which I have personal experience - and which Wallace also mentions - is that of the moderator of a message board. For a period of several years I served as a moderator (one of 30 or so) on a message board focused on several card games, which has (currently) over 61,000 members.

On a forum that large, the moderators' jobs are daunting. When a user posts something in violation of the (extremely lengthy) forum rules, the mods enforce order by directing that user to the rules and locking the thread. This was the "arched brow" - the gentle reminder that the user had done something unacceptable.

One commonly broken taboo was (and is) posting a question about how to obtain a signature, the answer to which was in the rules thread. The preponderance of such posts reached such a point where the Leviathan expanded. It wasn't just moderators directing these users to the appropriate topic; regular users began doing this as well. A user asking about his signature will, nowadays, receive four or five (usually vitriolic) responses before a moderator steps in and closes (or deletes) the thread. These arched brows are, as Wallace put it, "not so gentle." On this particular forum these actions - sometimes called "mini-modding" - were frowned upon by us real moderators, because would-be moderators were instead asked to utilize the "Report Problem Post" feature, which allowed users to point out troublesome threads to the mods, who would then deal with them.

Although users could, in theory, learn about this taboo by reading the forum rules, these rules were relatively well hidden and I would wager that comparatively few users actually read them. Most users learned not to start such threads by trial and error - they'd post, they'd get corrected (and sometimes flamed), and then they wouldn't do it again. The Leviathan did its job very efficiently.



Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=6169675789471643209
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=5935738659579204781

Assignment #6 Hunting the Leviathan

Hunting the Leviathan refers to finding the enforcing power that causes people to adhere to society’s norms and standards. Although some are obvious, such as laws and policies, others are not as noticeable. These subtle powers include traditions, norms, and group culture. Although not written in stone, many can be learned through simple observation.

Due to the Facebook revolution, a variety of social norms have been created. They all revolve around the common theme of befriending another individual. Although Facebook has become the most useful and public tool when trying to “stalk” someone, one can still take it too far. When you meet someone in class for the first time and only share your first name, it is often weird and freaky when you go home after class to discover they have already asked you to be their friend on facebook.

The art of Facebook-friending is very delicate, as one false move can have detrimental effects. In the example illustrated earlier, if one feels as though they are getting stalked, they can simply refuse to accept the other as a friend. If he or she still feels their privacy is threatened, they can add the “stalker” to a list of blocked individuals. Through the website’s privacy settings, a participant of this site can decide what, if any, information can be viewed by selected others.

If you were the “friender”, your purely innocent action of asking someone’s permission to be their friend (weird to think about), has now totally backfired. After getting slammed with a rejection, and possible blocked visibility of their profile, that person will learn to not be so intense next time around. The learned group norm would be to wait until you get more information, so one’s execution of examining all mutual friends’ pictures to find one with her in it isn’t exposed.

Facebook friending is right in line with the SIDE theory. The first aspect, social identity, raises the question of group versus individual salience. In the world of Facebook, group identity is salient because many goals of joining facebook and displaying personal information is to belong to a “cool” social network where everyone displays how hip and popular they are. The second aspect is the deindividuation effect, which discusses how certain conditions promote loss of self-awareness. Facebook adheres to this on some level-besides voluntarily posting pictures there is visual anonymity. The SIDE theory states that the combination of group identity salience and visual anonymity leads to members relating more within the group, conformity to norms, and increased social influence. Facebook is a place where people relate to others by creating interest groups, conform to norms (friending, wall posting, picture tagging), and are socially influenced (by caring about their various online statuses).

Wikipedia: We are the Leviathan

Wikipedia can be categorized, along with Google, You Tube, Facebook, and others, as one of the most influencial media on the World Wide Web. The concept of Wikipedia is that it is a free, online encyclopedia in which the site’s users provide its content. Anyone can create and edit content within the site.

According to the Wikipedia entry for Wikipedia, itself, the site has over 8.2 million articles in 253 different languages and is one of the top ten most visited sites on the web (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia)

With so many users who rely heavily on Wikipedia to deliver accurate information, it is accurate to assume that there is someone somewhere responsible for monitoring the information perceived as the truth on Wikipedia. In this case, truthful information can be considered to be the norm. While it is not considered to be “unlawful” to manipulate information on Wikipedia, it can be considered to be undesirable in the eyes of the majority of society. Therefore, Wikipedia relies on two forces that seek to regulate the medium.

The Leviathan found on Wikipedia is two-fold. Firstly, Wikipedia relies on users to self-regulate entries. Additionally there is a team of editors who seek to preserve the validity of Wikipedia entries. In terms of self-regulation, Wikipedia relies on users to revise what they see as inaccurate information by providing users with the ability to edit entries. In this instance, Wikipedia users are the Leviathan, themselves. Wikipedia fans pride the site on this feature, claiming that it allows the site to deliver the most accurate and up-to-date information. Additionally, a team of editors monitor Wikipedia and have the ability to lock articles from being edited, deter editing, or delete pages altogether.

Wallace’s analysis of the search for the Leviathan sites Richard C. MacKinnon’s mention of “netiquette”. Netiquette, he claims, is preserved by Internet users because such individuals want the Internet to flourish. This accurately describes how Wikipedia users serve as the Leviathan by self-monitoring entries on Wikipedia. While vandalism could be easily encouraged by the site’s open nature, it is often curbed by the assumption that most people rely on Wikipedia for accurate information and therefore are discouraged from obstructing information.

MacKinnon also argues that “people willingly give up freedoms in order to preserve the value and energy of the medium itself.” This concept explains how WIkipedia users succumb to the enforcement provided by Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia users must acknowledge that what they are entering on the site as truth, can be edited or removed by the site’s managers. Users, however, accept this feature as it preserves the overall credibility of the site.

Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/assign-6-option-1-online-you-obey.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-option-1-youtube-leviathan.html

6:1 - Hunting the Leviathan

Hunting the leviathan online refers to the act of figuring out which behaviors are okay, and which are not in online spaces. It is about finding out what the results will be if you don't conform to the social norm; in everyday life, the Leviathan could be a cop arresting you for breaking a law, in face-to-face conversation it could be the raised eyebrow, and in CMC, it could be a multitude of things. The Leviathan serves to modify people's behavior - getting the raised eyebrow, or some other subtle sign of distate, means that you are doing something abnormal and not conforming to societal norms.

One common online norm is to type using as many abbriviations as possible (i.e., lol, brb, lmao, ttyl, ect.). This is prevelent in instant messaging, chat rooms, forums, text-messages, and even emails. The use of such abbreviations has become understood as the spoken language in these online spaces and can be seen even in pop culture. The well-known Cingular commercial with the teen girl texting her friends and talking to her mom in these CMC abbreviations ("idk, my bff Jill") plays off this shortened language. In the newer version of the commercial, even the grandma is texting her friends and speaking in this code of sorts ("myob, will ya?" and "idk, my bff Rose").

People have come to know and follow this norm because of its prevelence in online spaces. When people first started using abbreviations, it was just a quick and easy way to get across a feeling (lol = laughing out loud), opinion (nbd = no big deal), or message (g2g, ttyl = got to go, talk to you later). Even shortened version of single words (u = you, or ur = your) became the social norm because of ease and speed. Now, however, people type so quickly that two or three more letters would make no difference in how long it took to type their message. So why do people still talk in abbreviations? Because it has become the online language, the accepted and understand form of communication in online spaces.

The Leviathan is the power that enforces our adherence to society's norms and standards. If people were to break away from this norm and type out full and grammatically complete sentences (gasp!), they may recieve weird reactions ("y r u typing so much?"), the online version of the raised eyebrow, in response. In a chat room, the penalty for typing full sentences could be not being able to keep up with the fast paced, synchronous conversation. Once you have finished typing out a response to someone's comment, the conversation has already branched off in 3 or 4 different directions. In an IM, taking long to type because of not using abbreviations could result in questioning from your friend: "hey whered u go? r u still there?" Although it is unlikely that people online would specifically shun you for using full sentences ("ew what a n00b - im not tlking 2 her"), the subtle enforcment of this social norm would be the need to keep up with the conversation.

This need to follow the social norm is directly related to Wallace's ideas of conformity. Although a person may be well educated and fully capable of typing complete sentences, they may change their typing behavior in order to be more similar to the people around them. By conforming and using abbreviation language, people may feel more accepted by their peers or feel more like a part of the group. They also avoid feeling inferior from the Leviathan. This particular social norm is learned through experience; it wasn't determined by one person, but instead has evolved and changed for decades.

6- Option 1- Hunting the Leviathan

Hunting the Leviathan in an online setting is an inherent skill that we all possess. This process refers to identifying unacceptable online practices. One specific ‘norm’ found online that is deemed unacceptable is using capital letters (CAPS) for all typed text. This norm has become engrained into online societies due to the undertones and connotations that it has. Capital letters produces an uneasy feeling for the person being written to, and the statement must be of great importance or anger. Writing in capitals usually provokes a large and quick response, while grabbing the reader’s attention as to say that something is wrong.

People have come to accept and understand this norm based on several factors. The first factor is unusual, but makes sense when thought about in detail. Making text in capital letters is an option. One must physically and psychologically decide to alter the existing text and make it stand out. Putting emphasis on specific information using CAPS has become a sign of specific emotion because the norm differs from this text. The norm is standard text, similar to what is being written in front of you, or all lower-case letters. If capital letters were a standard convention, it would be considered the norm; because CAPS must be chosen to be used, the user has a direct connection to the message and must having meaningful information to state. Lastly, people have come to accept this norm of not using all CAPS because it offends people when used out of context or when it does not hold significance. I have been a part of many scenarios where using capital letters have inadvertently confused my audience and made them disconcerted.

If people violate a norm such as this and use capital letters for all of their online conversations, they will become disengaged with their audience and not accepted. People will question the sender’s motives; I have accidentally used CAPS to friends online, and my audience was concerned with whether I was upset or mad. Such online accidents are unavoidable and are a part of CMC. Lastly, in order to be accepted among an online society, one must give in (conform) to online standards. Using normal text (not CAPS) is such a norm, and fitting in to online communities which follow these norms are regulated by the Leviathan.

In Chapter 4 of The Psychology of the Internet, Wallace discusses conformity and what it means to conform. Conformity is a sense of appeasement or giving in, producing similarity in form or character. Using normal text and not capitalizing letters represents a social conformity in which people abide by. This has become a social norm, and those who do not go along with it seem out of place. At times, people might seem tempted to use CAPS, but they do not in order to go along with the precedent (unless someone wants to get an important point across).

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/heres-to-loss-in-individuality-you.html

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/assign-6-option-1-online-you-obey.html

6: The Leviathan of Online Gaming

I’ve played online games ever since joining the world of Ultima Online back in tenth grade. For most of that time, I’ve been a part of an online group of players (known as a “guild” in the terminology of UO and other similar games). These groups are incredible case studies in the concept of the Leviathan, the theoretical 800-lb. gorilla in the room that forces all people around it to conform to certain accepted norms. For this post, I won’t be talking about my own guild, but about a “clan” (same concept, different game) that one of my friends belongs to.

There are two incidents that particularly stand out in my mind as notable reproach episodes. The first concerns the norm of typing out a “salute” emoticon into the in-game chat box whenever a fellow clan member joins the game. Now, my own guild has a similar practice (in my experience, it’s a fairly common practice amongst online gaming groups to have some such “secret handshake”), so this wasn’t so shocking to me. However, this clan took their salute very seriously; if any guild member didn’t offer or return a salute, they were verbally rebuked in front of the whole group. Conversely, if any non-guild member made the mistake of giving the salute, they were also reproached.

This particular incident was one of those latter cases. An outsider joined the server, and noticed everyone typing out these particular emoticons any time a clan member would join. After participating in the game for several rounds, this player’s visual anonymity and increasingly salient group identity asserted themselves, causing the player to join in and give the salute when a clan member joined the group. He was given Wallace’s “arched brow” in the form of a verbal reproach from the clan leaders.

Another norm for this clan is the use of a microphone for clan members to communicate with one another. Prospective member cannot even be admitted unless they own and actively use their mics, and when a player uses a low-quality microphone or “goes silent” for whatever reason, this earns a reproach. Such an incident occurred while I was observing my friend playing. One of the players was not participating in the voice chat group, and because of this he was rebuked by all of his clan mates—my friend included!

The two incidents turned out very differently. In the first case, when the outside player was rebuked for using the clan salute without being a member, he reverted to his salient individual identity and said some not-so-nice things to the server admin before either quitting or being kicked and banned. In the second case, though, the mic-less clan member eventually (with relatively little pressure) conformed to the groups’ Leviathan and activated his microphone. I believe these episodes demonstrate the differing intensity of two closely-related group identities: “game participant” in the former and “clan member” in the latter. In the former case, the player mistakenly identified the salute as a norm for the “game participant” role, and when he was rebuked, his far stronger individual identity asserted itself. In the latter case, though, the member had already read the “sign on the door” in the form of his membership agreement, and had developed a very strong identity as a member of the clan. When the Leviathan rebuked him for going against those norms, he conceded and fell back into line with the rest of his clan members. These results are entirely consistent with both Wallace and the SIDE theory’s predictions.

Comments:

1. http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6.html#comment-2589486457805575002
   
2. http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-option-1_02.html#comment-6029773486893388131
   

Assignment #6, Option 1: 29 unread messages. ARE. YOU. SERIOUS.

As a member of any type of group on campus, it is common to be a part of an e-mail list serve. This list serve is somewhat of a “mass e-mail” that gives any member of the group an opportunity to send pretty much whatever they want to the entire organization. While members of the group do have the opportunity to send whatever they desire, the social norms of being part of such a list serve is to only send announcements, comments, or questions when it is absolutely necessary to do so. This norm is so prevalent in the list serve world that people actually apologize if they recognize that they have been sending too many e-mails. After all, there is nothing worse than getting a countless numbers of e-mails a day with absolutely worthless information.

People are very quick to learn this online social norm. In some cases, organizations will tell the new members not to “abuse” the list serve. Abuse, in this case, means sending an unnecessary and too large amount of messages to the collective. Moreover, new members of an organization tend to wait and see what others are doing in regards to e-mail before they decide to use it themselves. I distinctly remember waiting over a year to use my sorority list serve, and only did so after I felt that I knew what was appropriate and acceptable to send.

People conform to this social norm in order to avoid punishment and ridicule. They want to be accepted by their peers and group, as it feels good to be part of cohesive, orderly, and accpeting entity. Although, as seen in both the 1955 Asch study and the 1988 Smilowitz study, people conform less in computer mediated communication then in face to face communication due to visual anonymity and social distance, conformity does occur fairly frequently because people want to feel accepted.

What Wallace calls a Leviathan helps enforce the norm described above. This Leviathan can be anything from police officers that enforce the law to an arched brow. An arched brow reminds the offender of a group gently, or not so gently, that certain behaviors are not acceptable. In regards to enforcing the list serve norms described above, the other members of the organization are the Leviathan; when the norms of the list serve are broken, others members tend to arch their brow and remind the offender that sending an unnecessary quantity and quality of e-mails is unacceptable.

Just the other day, some members of an organization that I am a part of were breaking the above social norms. In the 45-minute span that I had not checked my e-mail in, I had 13 unread messages, all from the same list serve. While I did not want to be the Leviathan in this case and arch my eyebrow at the offenders, another member of my group decided to be it. She acted as the Leviathan and sent the simple yet powerful message:

29 unread messages.
ARE. YOU. SERIOUS.

Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-leviathan-sayeth-dont-touch-your-own.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-option-1-leviathan.html