Internet forums are an interesting online space. Digital locations to meet and discuss almost any topic imaginable can give rise to very deft, witty or smart observations on the topic. They can provide information and entertainment in a very low pressure, asynchronous environment. But, what happens when we turn up the heat?
One of the most aggravating quality of forums seems to be there ability generate flame wars which block most attempts at a decent conversation and obscure the original topic of discussion. A flame is when someone personally attacks a previous poster either inadvertantly or purposefully (a troll). A flame war is the collection of counter flames that fill up a thread, rendering it meaningless. As such, the social norm on forums is to be wary when posting so as to not post something too heated. By direct connection, another is to not fan the flames by responding or acknowledging flame posts.
Many forums have posted rules when one signs up that indicates a restriction on flame posts, describing actions and punishments that will be rendered upon being notified of baiting (intentional, but disguised flame posts) or blatant flames. Otherwise people may highlight current flames or publicly point out a flame post to show new posters what to avoid. One could also be privately messaged about a flame post they have made.
Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century philosopher examined societal structures and the ideal state in his book Leviathan. In this examination, the Leviathan, originally a biblical sea creature of great power, represents the absolute authority charged with governance of a society. In our attempt to create a prosperous and peaceful society we give up some rights to the ideal rules of society, and the Leviathan is the immutable enforcer of those rules. Considering that idea, we see in our online space of forums, the Leviathan is in essence, every other member. Some may be more powerful and visible, able to dole out suspensions or banishments and lock or remove threads such as forum moderators or administrators, but the other, 'normal' members can also cast punishment through shunning and ignoring flames. With no fuel and no one to fight with a troller or flame poster loses their willingness to continue. While I concede that it is rare for normal members to be able to exact punishment personally, they can help moderators and admins by reporting flame posts.
What Wallace refers to as 'the sign on the door' and 'the arched brow' appears in forum management and development of the social norm of not trolling or flaming. 'The sign on the door' is simply a direct indication of the rules of a forum and most often contains a rule pertaining to flaming. This helps to inform new members and to warn trollers that their actions are not tolerated. Following the rules, the social pressure to not flame can come to bear by the public examination or sometimes ridicule of flame posts to discourage said actions. In more reserved environments private messages and warnings could also be used to indicate that an unacceptable action has been noticed and not appreciated. These are examples of 'the arched brow'. What would be interesting to look into would be the effectiveness of the digital arched brow in different spaces, or even different examples of a space. Someone on a small private forum may be more inclined to listen to someone else who tells them to stop flaming, whereas in large forums, such as the World of Warcraft forums, these digital arched brows often drive the offender to greater heights of offense until a lasting solution is rendered (a suspension of posting rights to an outright banishment). In addition, what drives people to intentional flame and be a troller? What makes them so inclined to attempt to break up a discussion?
3 comments:
Hey Joe,
I found your post very interesting. I do not have much experience myself with Internet forums, but I can see how what we learned in class applies to them from your descriptions. The rules about repercussions for flame wars and other hostile communication are definitely a great example of the “Sign on the Door” from the Wallace readings and the messages and warnings are good examples of Wallace’s “Arched Brow”. The one thing I find very interesting is that not only can very serious disputes occur online (“flame wars”), but that some people actually go out looking for them (“trolling” or “baiting”). I guess I had never thought about the fact that the Internet can provide a great venue for those who enjoy looking for trouble to find what they are looking for. This brings up the question, does computer mediated communication actually make it easier for conflict to arise? It would be interesting to find that out. Great job on your post!
I find your post raises some great questions. I wish that you had some answers to them. They are quite intriguing.
I am not a user of online forums, but I would think this warning system is similar to that in AIM and chat rooms.
I agree and disagree with your assertion that every person is the Leviathan. I feel that it is the administators' responsibility to be the Leviathan, whereas the social shunning and "warning" by mere users may actually egg on some of these "trolls". I feel that everyone has an equal power to be the Leviathan, some are just more equal than others.
I actually foresee a new system of warning on the horizon. The current one seems outdated. I wonder. . .
How could these online forums (and chat rooms and message boards) utilize the Leviathan to create a new system of norms?
You made some very good points concerning forum flaming in your post. In my experience it seems like most major flame posts have to be "extinguished" (usually locked or deleted) by administrators or moderators on a forum. Perhaps this more severe Leviathan has to do with the intersection of group salient conditions with individually identifiable conditions? It seems like many flames involve one poster insulting another based on a perceived group membership, priming the group condition. Each member in a forum usually picks a unique name, along with a user made profile associated with every post they make, making them more visible, and thus promoting the identifiable condition over the anonymous. SIDE theory predicts that in CMC users in this state will actually buck the trend, so to speak, and go against social norms.
Again, great post.
Post a Comment