6: A Rainbow of Delight and Disgust

Take a look at these videos (if you're over 18):

Most Controversial Clips on TV (disclaimer: contains some offensive material and adult content, don't watch if you don't want to)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGL6mUJSsZg

Crazy Baby Laughing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z02ox6ttIjg

YouTube is one of the most popular and open forums in which people across the globe can express their opinions, or show off their or someone else's "amazing" skills (amazement, mind you, is in the eye of the beholder). We are all well aware of the wide variety of videos which we can access on YouTube - everything from Japanese game shows to Britney Spears bombing her performance at the VMA awards can be seen on this site. I have provided the above links to show the range of material that can be viewed on the site. While testing the range of what can be found on YouTube, I searched for "controversial" and found that I had to approve my birthdate before I could access the first shocking video. Although YouTube's Leviathan has deemed me mature enough to view its content, it was enjoyable for all of about 5 seconds. On the other end of the spectrum, many of us have seen the Crazy Baby Laughing video, and wouldn't hesistate to share this wholesome videos with our mothers.

Despite the vast variety of videos one can post on YouTube, people who long for their 10 minutes of fame (that's how long a YouTube video can be) learn about their limits on the site. Under the YouTube Community Guidelines, the Tube Team asks that users respect the site, however, not "the kind of respect reserved for nuns, the elderly, and brain surgeons. We mean don't abuse the site." Every new community involves a certain level of trust and responsibility, especially when it is viewed by millions, young and old, around the world. Different kinds of subject material are not allowed on YouTube, such as pornography, sexually explicit content, and videos showing illegal acts (i.e. animal abuse, drug abuse, or bomb making). Other things aren't allowed that give some room for interpretation are videos displaying graphic or gratuitous violence (i.e. showing someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated), and videos posted simply for shock value (i.e. "gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies and stuff like that"). The latter may come as a surprise since the first video I posted is entirely composed of shocking material. Finally, to the dismay of college students everywhere, we cannot post copyright material. Although I have heard of people posting entire movies on YouTube, I haven't seen on yet.

Now that you know what you can and can't do, what happens when you post a video of your cat attached to a homemade bomb? When YouTube users find videos that they find offensive and that violate the Terms of Use policies, then they can "Flag" these videos "as Inappropriate". The community itself acts as a Leviathan, since it perpetuates definitions of what behaviors are OK and what behaviors receive punishment. These videos then get reviewed by the YouTube Team to see if they do, in fact, breach the site's policies. Videos that are flagged are not immediately taken down. However, much like the Wikipedia review board, the YouTube team acts as the ultimate Leviathan in deciding what material stays on the site, and what gets thrown into the internet trash can. The Tube Team warns, "If we remove your video after reviewing it, you can assume that we removed it purposefully, and you should take our warning notification seriously." Severe violation of YouTube's policies results in permanent suspension of your account.

We conform to the norms and beliefs to the other people in this online community, as stated by Wallace, to maintain order that humans love so much. The standards, namely the YouTube Community Guidelines and YouTube Terms of Use, are created by the YouTube team in order to maintain cohesiveness on the site, as colorful and diverse as its members can be. Because YouTube is a site many people go to for entertainment or information, the non-conformists on the site, the people who show the most creative and fantastic videos, are nurtured and supported by viewers. However, once you breach policy and show videos of that dead body in your backyard, you may find yourself in your own YouTube graveyard.

Comment 1: http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-hunting-leviathan-of-wikipedia.html

Comment 2: http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-peaceandquietcornelledu.html

6.1 - Hunting the Leviathan of Wikipedia

One online phenomenon that has come to amaze me is the free encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Now that I come to think of it, I don’t even know when it was that I switched to using Wikipedia as a primary source to find information about anything and everything. Wikipedia’s rank of one of the top ten most-visited websites worldwide definitely suggests that it has come to be a standard source of significant, legit information. The fact that when you google any topic and have its Wikipedia entry show up definitely ceases to amaze me. In terms of the norm of Wikipedia, it is widely accepted that most of the information posted in articles is true. However, knowing that the encyclopedia is collaboratively constructed by volunteers worldwide and many of its articles can be edited by anyone with Internet access, users also know to believe all information at their own risk.

According to Wallace, “The Leviathan might simply be a system of government that we empower to resolve disputes, justly we hope. It emerges in our eagerness to establish some groups as “moderated”. The anointed moderator, almost always an unpaid volunteer, can choose which messages to censor and which to pass along to all subscribers, and can edit as he or she sees fit” (Wallace, Chapter 4). In search of the Leviathan on Wikipedia, I found two interesting pieces of information that emphasize the notion of an existent Leviathan.

(1) When articles on Wikipedia contain information that is not cited, they inform the reader of the issue with a note on the top of the article that looks like this:

*** This article does not cite any references or sources. (April 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This little note gives us some comfort in the fact that there is an authoritative figure out there that can verify the information in a given article and remove any false information. This portrayed moderation that Wallace speaks of saves the credibility of Wikipedia and enforces the norm of trusting that Wikipedia produces legit information.

(2) After the tragic deaths of wrestler Chris Benoit and his family, I remember an article over the summer that challenged the credibility of Wikipedia and enforced the Leviathan.

Following is a link to an article that articulates the story.

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/06/28/chris-benoits-wikipedia-entry-knew-nancy-benoit-died-before-the/

After the news of Benoit’s murder-suicide leaked, it was speculated that Chris Benoit’s Wikipedia entry had been altered to include the death of his wife before it was reported to have occurred. The quick speculation of this issue definitely gave me comfort in the fact that additions to Wikipedia entries are taken seriously and any discretion in terms of credibility are handled promptly. In light of Wallace’s theory of the Leviathan, I definitely believe that the Leviathan is essential to mediate group cohesiveness on the internet and enforce a sense of purpose to all members of a group.

6 PEACEANDQUIET@cornell.edu

Back when college applications were our biggest problems, my generation was indoctrinated into the Cult of the Extracurricular Activity. “If you can’t play the saxophone with your mouth and the nose flute with your nose while leading a cheer and scoring record points for the sports team you captain, you’re really not worth my time. Our time.” That’s the best I can remember the speech from the Berkeley admissions officer I met. Their neighbors in Palo Alto tried to be more laid-back about the situation but, when pressed, admitted that earning an Eagle Scout badge wasn’t interesting until I had also captured, tamed, and raised a real eagle and its eaglets, learning a life lesson or three along the way.

Long story short, the eagle didn’t make it, and neither did I (hello, Ithaca), but that need to be involved in activities, activities, activities held up, leading to the point: my inbox is never empty. I get at least ten e-mails a day from the respective listservs of the different things I’m involved in here: clubs, music group, eagle care training, fraternity, etc.

E-mail strikes up a great deal of emotional interest. If you haven’t heard of e-mail addiction, it’s probably because you’re too busy hitting “send/receive” in your Outlook; if you’ve never spent a frustrating morning cleaning spam out of your inbox, you probably don’t have the necessary skills to read this blog. Everyone wants: messages that directly concern them; messages they find entertaining; nothing else. Everyone gets: messages they didn’t really need; messages that try and fail to be entertaining, and then try, try again; everyone once in a while a gem that was worth their time. The conflict between these, the E-mail Dream and the E-mail Reality, is what drives the populist Listserv Leviathan. (I use “Leviathan” in the sense Wallace uses when citing Hobbes.)

This Leviathan rears its ugly head when a particular abuser of listserv privileges sends one too many chain letters or inside jokes out to people who don’t need or want them. It can strike as a Citizen’s Arrest, when an angry listserv member lets the whole group know what is and is not appropriate for a forwarded message (“YOU ARE NOT FUNNY, [name removed at Jim’s request]”), or as a Ninja Strike, when a listserv administrator blocks the offending writer from ever e-mailing the group again. (I invented these terms; eat your heart out, Wallace.) The Citizen’s Arrest both enforces the standard (unless the convict gets sassy) and reminds everyone on the listserv what the rules are. Public shame is just as effective over e-mail as in person. The Ninja Strike is quieter, but its threat is potent. When I was younger and more foolish, I abused one of my listservs to the point that I, myself, received this threat; it worked. After that, I wrote to that listserv like my eagle ate salad (never). Wallace’s concept of the “raised eyebrow” can enter into the gray area of e-mails that disparage listserv abuse as a sidenote, but my experience has been that the annoyance usually just builds up to a breaking point before a raised eyebrow can quiet things down. Then, the conformity Wallace mentions follows immediately.

There are a couple more areas of listserv abuse and Leviathan responses I’d like to discuss, such as which Citizens are more likely to make Arrests (older, more settled-in and influential members of the group that owns the listserv address), or when the Leviathan fails (it’s the Cornell Fear-of-Confrontation Club ’serv, i.e., the members are too timid or polite to respond to the irritating authors), but I’m more interested in hearing if you guys have had similar experiences. After all, it’s possible that I’ve just gravitated toward the listservs that have loud members....

Assignment 6.1 - Online RPs

Recreational roleplay (or 'RP') far predates the advent of the Internet. You act as a pre-created/selected character and interact with others in a given environment, building in-character relationships and an over-arching plot.

If there was a golden rule of roleplay, it would have to be the "no god-modding" policy. God-modding generally has two levels. The first involves a sentiment that freely taking control of another individual's character is a major breach of RP etiquette and should never be done. The second is contingent on the nature of the roleplay; in the case of a setting where the characters have supernatural or otherwise abnormal abilities, this policy also refers to the creation of an "invincible" character that is impervious to the magic or physical attacks of the others.

Both instances are frustrating to encounter because of the threat to group cohesion and negative atmosphere god-modding tends to create. To use Livejournal-based roleplay communities as a specific example, some list "no god-modding" as a rule, whereas others leave it unspoken since the policy pre-dates internet RPs and is therefore expected to be common sense at this point. In the first case, this is what Wallace refers to as 'the sign on the door,' since it's listed among the basic rules of the roleplay and players are expected to uphold those standards. An example of what Wallace describes as 'the arched brow' effect, however, would involve the understood policy about always remaining in-character (or IC); there are subtle ways the other players try and correct this behavior, ranging from having their character comment IC that so-and-so is doing something that "isn't like them," to anonymous comments left on the player's journal.

In Thomas Hobbes' book The Leviathan, he identifies the primary enforcer of rules and regulations and the source of absolute authority in society by using the mythical sea creature as an allegory. The idea is that we subject ourselves to governance for the sake of maintaining societal order. Since the aforementioned roleplay communities function on a similar level as traditional asynchronous discussion forums, the Leviathan makes itself known in the form of GMs and "moderators," who monitor and facilitate the progression of the game. Sanctioning takes the form of firm warnings, loss of specific characters, or complete removal/banning from the game. In most cases, however, there is no need for a moderator to take direct action because the other players will attempt to modify the offensive behavior through indirect means, and the potential for ostracism from such a close-knit community is usually enough to force compliance.

6.1 Our Professor, the Leviathan

As a society, we have learned to respect education and the environment in which we learn. Schools are notorious for their disciplinary action against the non-conformists or the “bad apples.” From a teacher, discipline can range from a verbal reprimand to a dreadful detention. The punishment of people who disobey the social norm, to respect others (especially their teacher), is important to maintaining a positive learning environment for students who wish to learn; and the teacher is at the forefront of enforcing the norm.

As we leave adolescence, and make the decision to attend an institute of higher learning, such as Cornell University, we experience less censorship of our thoughts and actions; but there is still an overall respect for the environment in which we learn. The idea of mediation and censorship can be translated into a Psychology of Social Computing class taught by Professor Jeff Hancock. Blogging is an essential part of his students’ grades and to enforce the expectations (and to clarify the norm), the professor published “Blog Instructions and Guidelines” on the class website. He informs the class that they must:

“Be courteous and respectful of [their] peers.
Absolutely no profane or blatantly atagonistic posts will be tolerated.
Disrespectful posts will result in a loss of credit towards the assignments at
the discretion of the instructor. Post only constructive criticism and
commentary in your comments and other posts.”

With these words, our Professor has outlined the law of the classroom—to respect others.

According to Thomas Hobbes our Professor is a Leviathan, a “mortal god, to which we owe under the immortal God; our peace and defense.” Since I feel somewhat uncomfortable referring to my Professor as a god, I think I will stick with MacKinnon’s definition of online Leviathan: “one to which most people willingly give up freedoms in order to preserve the value and energy of the medium itself.” I guess it could be argued that we do not willingly give up our freedom, only under threat of punishment (i.e. deduction in grade) do we heed the word of our Leviathan. On the other hand, one always has the freedom to drop the class, if one does not appreciate the infringement one’s liberty. Although, I personally have not felt the wrath of the Leviathan I know that he is monitoring me and my grade dangles helplessly in his grasp.

Our professor, the Leviathan, is needed the most to monitor episodes of group polarization. “Extremism” is prominent online; where people would typically argue the middle ground, they tend to take their beliefs or arguments to the extreme online. In an online education environment, this could cause heated debate. At this point, the presence of the Leviathan keeps the debate at moderate levels. Instead of immature “flame wars,” the Leviathan maintains the expectations of an educational environment by enforcing “constructive criticism” as the tool to convey one’s point.

Conforming to the Norm

As a user of online services such as facebook and instant messaging I could not help but notice the social norm of people letting anyone who is online know exactly where they are, who they are with, and what they are doing. The trend seems to be leaving it as part of their name or having it as their current status. Wallace describes the Leviathan is the power that enforces our adherence to conform to societies norms. I know that I am guilty of it as well and even when I read a friend's name that says "Kody-gone to the gym, then going out tonight...call the cell" I can not help but think "thanks for the update Kody I was wondering what your plans were for the day." At the same time I am thinking that his name or status is completely unnecessary I am writing in my name before I leave home for the day "Gally-classes until noon, library, practice...be home late." So although I am thinking about how most people really do not care about what I am going to be doing today I write it anyway.

Although most probably feel the same way I do about names and status, most people probably do the same thing that I do as well; which is read all of them and think about how pointless they are, yet we still waste our time reading them. According to Wallace we are willing to conform so easily that the Leviathan emerges without any difficulty. Not only is it the Leviathan but in some cases it almost becomes the right or wrong way to do something. For example, most voicemails now sound pretty similar. Society develops a norm or even a standard and people just conform to to it, not only because it is the norm, but probably because they feel it is the right way to do it. Once a norm such as voicemail or short hand writing in instant messaging or texting has emerged or developed, it is highly unlikely that it will change because society gets used to that norm which is why it is so popular.

6: In Search of the Leviathan (The Quest to Discovery)

Hunting the Leviathan:

The standard online convention which I chose to explore was Facebook, and practices relating to
"Facebook etiquette". Upon first registering with Facebook, one is presented with a list of "Facebook rules", which many commonly fail to read. A common practice is to scroll down and click on the button that says "I agree". While failure to be well-versed in the "official" rules of Facebook is clearly not an issue, the inability to align oneself with the proper "Facebook etiquette" can mean anything from online isolation to "de-friending". Through research conducted on Facebook, I discovered a list of "rules" that Facebook users everywhere are expected to be well-versed in. Although different Facebook groups put their own spin on the rules, there were common themes, which I decided to list below. The rules include:

1) You must have a picture. This is not the Question-mark book.

2) This picture should actually look like you. Using a picture in which you appear significantly more attractive than you actually are creates confusion and disappointment.

3) Rule 3 applies to significant others. We're happy about your relationship, but save the cuddling for webshots.

4) Why are you smoking in your picture? It doesn't make you look cool (although drinking does).

5) Confirm all friend requests from your school, even if you have no idea who the person requesting your friendship is. Chances are you hooked up with them while you were drunk.

6) Don't write on your own wall, it makes you look like a loser, unless you do not feel like sending out messages to all those that wished you well on your birthday.

7) You obviously check Facebook every 5 minutes, so please respond to your messages in a timely manner. Chances are you're making the message-sender extremely insecure.

8) Just because there wasn't a question in a message someone sent you does not mean that you do not have to respond. As small talk is virtually eliminated through facebooking, every comment deserves a response.

9) If you are not on Facebook that does not mean that people will think you are cool or mysterious. It means no one is thinking about you at all.

10) Don’t use Facebook as a conversation icebreaker. (Get to know them first, otherwise you either sound like a stalker or a geek with too much free time biotch!)

It is my understanding that people come to know these outlined norms from their peers as well as through their own use of the site. Since its beginnings, the "rules" have changed, in light of the platform changes the site has occurred in the span of a year. However, as things are altered, practices get passed along from network to network and friend to friend. Reflecting on the friend to friend aspect, I recall a time when I took down my profile picture and left a question mark up for a day or so. Almost instantly, my wall was bombarded with comments like "where's your picture", "put a pic up ASAP", and my personal favorite "question marks are for ugly people..put a pic up now julia". Although I thoroughly enjoyed the uproar that ensued from my failure to comply with the norms of Facebook, I realized just how prevalent "Facebook etiquette" is. Not only do we act as monitors for our "friends", we also perpetuate the continuity of the practices.

In light of my findings, I concluded that due to the unmoderated setting characteristic of Facebook, "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" (Wallace, 70). According to Wallace, generally members of cohesive online groups expect new members of the group to follow the "rules" that are in place in the environment. When this does not occur, some sort of consequence ensues. Bascially, what is at stake here is the desire to belong. It is this desire that encourages individuals to adhere to rules, whether unofficial or not. When you think about it, no one wants to be an outcast, especially not in an online setting, when one could arguably control the impression that they desire to portray. With respect to Facebook, anything from "reporting this person" to "de-friending" them can be seen as a social re-buff; one that many agree is undesirable. Extending her analysis, Wallace goes on to explain that the reason why the Leviathan may be increasing in influence is due to the fact that "our contributions to the net are not as fleeting, nor as difficult to trace, as many had supposed" (Wallace, 70). So that means those pictures one posts of that crazy spring break in Cancun, will remain with Facebook, despite the fact that one may abruptly delete it from their album.

In summary, in looking at the concept of "Facebook etiquette", I am not surprised by my aforementioned "scolding" for acting outside of the norm. When thinking about how Facebook has transcended from an online social network site to a cultural staple, it is easy to see how practices have become so inherent. To some degree, this "Facebook etiquette" is almost second nature. To the newbies, it is something that one quickly catches onto.

A6.1 Smoldering in the Flames of Forums

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 17^th 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?

Comment 1

Comment 2

6-1 Voice chat in online games

Many online games include voice chat capability in the interface of their game. Along with this elevation of in game communication has come more social “laws” to define and enforce acceptable use in the online space. One of these rules is do not over use the voice broadcasting feature of a game. It mostly stems from the fact that the primary function of these games is to play the game. Communication is a utility to enhance the game, not the other way around.

There are a few ways people can transgress this rule. One of the easiest ways new players do so is simply talking too much over it. Most players want to concentrate on the game, and prefer to not hear someone else talk constantly about unrelated issues while they are playing. There are instances when this is acceptable, such as when one is mainly playing with friends, or there is a server wide discussion going on, but for the most part players want chat kept to game-relevant chatter.

New players learn of this convention most often through observation when they enter a game. Much like the elevator gag that Wallace mentions in her book, a player who comes into a server where the voice chatter is mainly task oriented and sparse, he will most likely not break the trend. Sometimes game servers also post rules that players see before entering, often including “no mic spam” (which means don't overuse the voice chat feature.)

There are several social mechanisms to enforce this social norm online, collectively referred to as the Leviathan by Wallace. The “virtual eyebrow”, as Wallace calls it, is a subtle nudge from other players that another player is in breach of this rule. Most often this comes in the form of a verbal or text reminder from other players to keep it down. This can often be the most effective form of the leviathan. Online games by their nature sort people into groups (especially in games that put players on teams), but increasing the sense of group among players. In addition, most games provide no continuity for identity between games, meaning each new game is a fresh start. This increases anonymity felt by players. The Postmes study we looked at found that when a group sense and an anonymous condition intersect, the susceptibility of the subjects to priming to encourage conformity increased. Much like that study, the game primes people to feel like part of a group, and that sense of group with anonymity encourages players to conform to the observed social norms inside the game.

cha-comment

cha-comment:the return

Assignment 6, Option 1 (Email Response Time)

One standard online convention I would like to look at is emails, and responding to emails. It is generally the rule to at least check your email once a day (usually it’s multiple times a day—even upwards of five times per day), and it is part of “netiquette” to respond to your emails within twenty-four hours. People come to know this norm because in today’s fast-paced world, people expect quick responses; not only do people expect fast replies, but people know that they are expected to have quick replies—it’s not polite to keep somebody waiting on an answer or email. People have an online image, and they can use self-selection theory to decide what about themselves they want others to know. The typical image, concerning the internet and “netiquette,” is probably that the person wants to be seen as not “internet savvy” but savvy enough to know how to use the internet to keep up with the times; therefore, people will try to respond at their earliest convenience within twenty-four hours. Professors usually announce that students should not expect a response within two hours, but it was reasonable for students to expect a response within twenty-four hours; all of my professors have, in one way or another, announced this in the beginning of the semester. I know that if I were to receive an email from a professor or TA, it would only be polite of me to respond within twenty-four hours.

Because this is an un-moderated setting, “the Leviathan would emerge with more difficulty were it not for human willingness to conform” (Wallace 70). Conformity is the Leviathan here, and it pushes people to conform to a certain “netiquette” when dealing with the internet. Wallace suggests that another Leviathan that may be gaining power is the Leviathan of Internet Service Providers, with their ability to take away your account at any time (71). This is a form of moderation, and while it is not as obvious as a moderator in a chat room, who has the ability to instantly kick a violator out of the chat room, the ISP can take complaints into account and be the ultimate judge of who stays and who goes (Wallace 71). Another Leviathan that, I imagine, plays a vital role in the timeframe of email responses is the negative feedback you will receive (multiple emails requesting the same information, emails from other members, emails emphasizing that time is an issue, emails with a harsh tone of voice, etc.) if you do not respond within a certain timeframe. We learn through mistakes, and after our first mistake, and our first reprimand, we learn that a Leviathan exists, and we must follow its rules.

From my personal experience with emails, and the response of emails, I have found that people oftentimes expect email responses faster than within twenty-four hours. I sit on the board of a few organizations, and usually when somebody needs something, they will email me their request. I usually check my email once every hour (minus the hours I am sleeping!), and will respond as quick as possible, but I have run into situations where even that wasn’t fast enough of a response. At that point, I tell the other members of the executive board that if they need something that is urgent, while email maybe be the most formal (as a written request), cell phone has a much higher tone of urgency. It is hard in CMC to dictate the timeframe for email responses, but it has been a pretty standard norm to reply as soon as possible!

6 Group Norms in Warcraft

Does anyone still play Warcraft 3?  That was the game preceding the MMORPG phenomenon that made Warcraft a household word.  Either way, while reading Wallace's theories on conforming in online groups, I was reminded of the days I used to team up with strangers to battle against other online players.  I usually played a game type where 4 players would occupy one side of a map, and do battle against four players on the other side.  The game involves plenty of strategy as you have to manage buildings, assets, troops, and heroes.  

The very first thing that happened once the game began was a quick dialog explaining to your teammates what your plan was.  It is crucial in this kind of game to have a variety of units (melee guys, range guys, flying guys, magic guys, etc.).  So this kind of dialog exists to make sure that each player is focusing on a different specialty, in order to increase the teams chances of victory.  

I remember the first time I played this game, the other players messaged me with something like this:

Player1:  I got Demonhunter and archers

Player2: Okay, I'll get Blademaster and grunts than

Player3: Mage and priestesses

So I automatically followed suit, the way the people in the candid camera sketch involving conformity in the elavator did.  

Me:  uhh.. I'll get Demonhunter and archers too, i guess?

Immediately I was accosted with all sorts of accusations.  My teammates knew better than me.   Player1:  No you cant do that you have to get air

Player2:  omg freakin newbs i should just leave now

Player3:  Get hippogriffs fool.  

In this instance, my teammates acted as the Leviathan.  The Leviathan, as Hobbes philosophized, is a force that drives conformity.   The norm for this kind of game included players diversifying their troops.  These players, with more experience than I had, knew what strategies were effective.  They imparted the norms they learned from experience upon me, the inexperienced newb.  This reproach was very effective, as I immediately understood what was expected of me.  It only took one instance to learn, but for the rest of my warcraft playing days, I subscribed to this style of plan making.

In chapter 4, Wallace explains how group norms online are often harder to pick up on, because there aren't obvious clues, as to your expected behavior.  This was true in my example, in that I couldn't just look around to see what everyone else was doing, I had to be told.  I believe that this finding falls perfectly in line with the Social Information Processing Theory, which argues that over a period of time, our online impressions will approximate that of face to face.  Just like impression management, understanding group norms can work online, it just takes a little more time.

Assignment 6.1

Almost every teenager in the United States has chatted with friends through instant messaging, a synchronous text-based online space. From discussing homework assignments to setting up a time to meet, IM has become a prevalent space to exchange ideas and opinions. Just like in any other setting though, there are rules to follow and repercussions for those who choose not to. This will be the focus of my post. This week, I will elaborate on conventions found in instant messaging (do not curse excessively), and how these standards are enforced (Leviathan).

A norm is a way of performing or completing a task so that it complies with the standard set by society. These standards are related to cultural factors and depend greatly on the environment and setting where the actions take place. Some of our norms include: shaking the person’s hand when being introduced and giving presents on birthdays. Online spaces follow norms as well. People become aware of these norms over time. The more time one spends online, the more likely he or she is to be knowledgeable of all the standards and conventions. Further observing friends and family use AIM helps understand what is acceptable and what is not. There are no official guidelines but the user can learn the rules from the person he or she is speaking to and by (unintentionally and intentionally) mimicking their use of language.

Playing by the rules is not only important in face to face interactions but also when conversing through instant messaging (CMC). There are several standards that people follow when talking online. For instance, we all know what “brb”, “ttyl” and “tnx” mean. Another norm is that a person might use caps lock to indicate anger and frustration. Finally, one of the most crucial norms is that one should never make excessive use of curse words when talking on IM. Besides being rude and vulgar, cursing might make the other user feel uncomfortable and uneasy. It is a general norm to limit one’s use of improper words. Failing to do so can result in isolation from the rest of the group and exclusion.

In order to maintain a clean and friendly environment, rules must be set. On IM these rules allow the users to know what is acceptable and what is not and makes them feel more secure. Thomas Hobbes proposed the idea of a Leviathan, defined as a “…system of government that we empower to resolve disputes, justly we hope.” (p.69). In an online space, the Leviathan represents the figure who has the power tot enforces our adherence to society’s norms and standards. As stated previously, excessive cursing on AIM is not acceptable. The Leviathan role in AIM is played by the “Warning” function in the conversation window. While talking to person A, person B has the option of sending a warning if the conversation in offensive or unwelcome (too much cursing). This is an example of the “arched eyebrow”, where other users remind the offender that such behavior is unacceptable, before harsher measures are taken (p. 66). Others users can see the number of warnings a person has. Too many warnings can possibly lead to losing the ability to send messages to other users. (www.aim.aol.com).

In conclusion, IM, just like any other space, has rules to follow and enforces (Leviathan) that comply us to follow these norms. Wallace states in chapter 5, that “conforming to social conventions and adhering to laws that restrict our freedoms are…things we need to do to preserve our existence.”, and in this case, the use of IM (p.69).


Comments:
http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-1-voice-chat-in-online-games.html

http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-jew-watch.html

Assignment 6 Option 1: The Almighty Wikipedia?

Every college student has used it, some much more than they should, for everything from getting last minute information for a paper due the next day to simply providing hours of entertainment. Wikipedia.org, one of the most popular encyclopedia sites on the Internet, provides its users with a gateway to information about almost anything they can think of. The site is used by millions each day, and people take the information they see on the site as trustworthy fact. Why do people put so much trust into a site that is written by the everyday man? The answer is that even the almighty Wikipedia has a Leviathan that rules over it. This Leviathan ensures that those who post on the site are posting factual and verifiable information. If it is not valid, it allows for the information to be edited or deleted, creating the social norm of posting accurate information on the site.

People come to know that they should post accurate information on Wikipedia due to the fact that the rules for posting are listed when a user attempts to post. Wallace would call this the “Sign on the Door”. Without the subtle cues available in face-to-face interaction, “stronger measures are needed to get the job done, and the blunt sign on the door is one example” (Wallace, 66). The rules are posted in clear view so that any user thinking that they will post false or copyrighted information are reminded of the fact that doing so is not acceptable on the site. With rules such as, “Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*,” (Wikipedia, Online) it is made clear that these actions are intolerable. They also know that if the content they publish that does not conform with the rules it be changed, “If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it” (Wikipedia, Online).

The Leviathan enforces the norm in one of two ways. The first way is by complete removal of a user’s post from the site. If an administrator or viewer of Wikipedia notices that someone has posted false or copyrighted information, they have the ability to delete the whole post or simply the section which contains the problem. Another way to enforce the Leviathan is by editing the post to make it correct or stating that the information may not be completely accurate [ex: “Some information, such as the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known” (Wikipedia, Online)]. Both of these measures are examples of Wallace’s “Arched Eyebrow”, in which, “group members will escalate their pressure to ensure conformity by simply raising a virtual eyebrow, reminding the offender gently-or not so gently-that certain behavior is not acceptable” (Wallace, 66). In the case of Wikipedia, the warning is not so gentle, as when a user’s post is edited or removed.

http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/10/a61-smoldering-in-flames-of-forums.html
http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-is-that-oj-in-that-cup.html

6 What if buttercups ate the cows?

According to The Foundation for Critical Thinking, the goal of substantive writing is to say something worth saying about something worth saying something about. This seems to be the tautological gold-standard for good writing, online and elsewhere. So how is this standard maintained?

If it can be said that the output of social systems is a combination of the intrinsic qualities of the people present and the systemic forces that drive their interaction, and if the people present are fixed in the short term, then it follows that the role of discussion sites is mainly to design a systemic environment that rewards users for saying something worth saying something about and punishes them for saying something not worth saying or something worth saying about something not worth saying it about.

The best discussion sites heavily borrow from social science theory, including the conventions that Wallace outlines. For example, let's say that a user violates social norms by choosing a title that conveys no information about the actual post. This user can be given the "arched brow" by both community members and site moderators. This can be done privately, via email, or publicly, via a reply to the offending post. On many sites, such as Reddit and Digg, users express how much they value the contributions of others by voting them either up or down.

Often, web communities will actually outline the rules in a FAQ. Although Wallace likens this to posting a sign on the door of a supermarket, having a FAQ to refer new members to does seem to increase the average quality of contributions. There are many conventions that casual participants often miss that instantly make sense when made explicit. For example, as the old saying goes,

Because it breaks the flow of conversation

>>Why is top-posting frowned upon?

Similarly, many online communities take advantage of the ways in which group dynamics differ online. For example, Wallace cites evidence that discussions may be more biased online because minority positions receive little support. Online communities work to counteract this by letting users reply directly below comments, so that if even one person can find a flaw in the dominant logic then it's immediately visible to everyone. Furthermore, communities harness "production blocking" by letting others participate asynchronously, replying to others months or even years after the original discussion.

Through creating and enforcing a set of group norms and leveraging the unique features of online group dynamics, communities can architect a system that encourages users to say something worth saying about something worth saying something about.

Assignment 6, Option 1: "Netiquette"

Emails. We all receive and send them, and when we receive emails the norm would be to respond in the similar tone and manner. Just like how Professor Hancock was explaining how he receives emails from students that will vary from: “Dear Professor Hancock…” to “Hey! …” and he will respond in a similar tone. This netiquette is an unspoken rule but is known within the internet world. If someone wrote you a formal email you would not reply with an informal email back filled with slang and jargon. Similarly you would not speak colloquial manner if the person who addressed you was articulating him/herself in a proper tone. This point goes along with Wallace’s view on “The Sign on the Door”. Similar to eating at a fancy restaurant one can read an email in their inbox and then from that know/want to respond in the same manner: conforming to the other person’s tone.

Another theory that Wallace brought up is that of “Conforming on the Net”. I thought it was clever how Wallace stated that emails “fall somewhere between a paper memo and a phone call, even though it could have become something quite different” (p.62). This statement is so true because we respond to each other in similar manners while we and communicating through the phone or paper memo; however, emails are on a different level from these other modes of communication. Let’s break down these two criteria. Phone calls are usually quite personal and this would not be the ideal type of medium to let someone know to meet you for dinner at 6. While paper memos could be linked similar to text messages where they are more informal and to the point (given the short amount of space). Email can be a mixer of the two, as previously stated, but it also something completely different on its own because of the larger space limit, the lack of synchronous cues, as well as many other factors. Another area that Wallace mentions that emailing touches is how people have conformed to abbreviations while using CMC based modes of communication. Abbreviations such as: g2g, brb, ttyl, btw, ppl, asl, thx, etc. have developed into a norm within the CMC spaces and are understood by the majority of people.

Leviathan enforces this norm even though email is not necessarily referred to as a “mediated” source because it is possible for someone to be kicked off an email account by reports to the server which could then deal with the severity at the task at hand and whether it is or is not breaking any violations (p. 70-71).

6. X-Box Live Leviathan

X-Box Live is a means of playing video games and communicating with other people across the world who own an X-Box gaming console. While playing a game such as Madden NFL, for example, online gamers can chose to show pictures, videos, or talk over a microphone. A Leviathan exists in the online-world to make sure people are not abusing their communication privileges, and are playing fairly. In Madden specifically, two Leviathans exist: one to ensure fair play online, and one to ensure fair online communication conduct.

The first Leviathan (or unseen governing body), is built into the game itself, and helps ensure fair-play. This Leviathan is not "seen", but it is very obvious to players that it exists. While playing online games that help determine an individual's rank and skill level, players may not utilize "trick plays" such as a fake-punt or onside-kick in situations that these plays would never be used in during a real-life football game. Almost all football fans agree with this idea, and therefore the Madden community supports these rules, and wants them implemented. This is how people know and understand the norm. Since it would be too difficult for two parties to come to an agreement on these rules for every individual game, these rules are built into the settings of the game by blacking out particular plays in particular situations. The standardization of rules, legitimizes the social norms, and brings a greater sense of identity to groups of players of different skill levels, because it is assumed everybody is playing fairly and your ranking is a good indicator of your actual skill level. In this sense, the Leviathan is a wanted and necessary component of online-gaming in order to standardize rules and promote group identities. The Leviathan, therefore is the actual set of fair rules built into the game itself. Players all conform to the same set of rules, which takes away some creativity, but also makes player rankings legitimate and standardized. It allows players to say they are in the upper echelon of gamers or are simply playing for fun against a friend in a different state.

The second type of Leviathan in X-Box Live gaming is based more on communication. Microsoft, the company that makes X-Box, has online-gamers agree to a code-of-conduct before allowing gamers to play online. This code of conduct acts as the governing Leviathan to make sure players are not violating social norms and are behaving appropriately in the online medium. Excessive swearing over the microphone, distribution of explicit pictures, and impersonation of another person are just some of the reasons the Leviathan (Microsoft) can suspend or terminate a user's online gaming account. The norms of social conduct are obvious, and nobody wants to be subjected to something crude over the internet where they are looking for a friendly gaming experience. In this case, there is a specific "sign on the door", however, most users likely glance over this sign, and conform to already assumed behaviors. It is the rare case that someone disregards the obvious norms, and that is when the Leviathan must enforce the laws of the particular online-space. Groups of Madden players are online to play the game, and play the game fairly. Some users choose to trash talk and/or interact with the person they are playing against, which is fine, but this interaction must be controlled and monitored. This makes sure people conform to norms and a pleasant online-group experience can be had by all gamers.

Of course, gamers can stick up for themselves by "raising the eyebrow" at someone violating rules. In a situation where a player is swearing in his trash talking, the other player might say, "OK, OK that's enough" and has the ability to warn or report that person to the Leviathan. Groups want to be governed, and are not capable of governing themselves online, so Leviathan's exist all over the Internet to protect groups and help them thrive online. Conformists to the Leviathan's rules enjoy positive gaming experiences, while those who don't conform are rejected from the online group.

Comments:
Comm 245 Blue: 6.1 - Hunting the Leviathan of Wikipedia
Comm 245 Blue: 6-1 Voice chat in online games

6.1 The Leviathan and the Sniper

Description

Counter-Strike is a multiplayer-online game in which participants are split into two teams, the counter-terrorists and the terrorists. The mission objective for both sides is to eliminate the opposing force using various real-world weapons. In the beginning of each round, every player chooses a weapon but there is one that only a novice would choose, the one-shot sniper. It is considered “cheap” to eliminate an opponent with one shot and if one decides to choose this weapon, he/she is usually rebuked and taunted by fellow players until the server moderator decides to boot out the “newbie.”

Analysis

Although some believe that the lack of social cues prevent the emergence of groups and social norms in CMC interactions, the Counter-Strike example shows that not only do virtual groups (collection of three or more people who interact and influence one another through a medium) and norms (unspoken, unwritten rules) exist but that a Leviathan is present on the internet to enforce our adherence. The Leviathan is an elusive power that imposes standards to preserve the value of the medium by emerging when violations are made. To avoid punishment by the Leviathan, internet users conform to norms (changing behavior, beliefs, thoughts or actions to act in accordance with what one perceives to be the norm), which requires one to give up certain individual freedoms.

In Counter-Strike, one should not use the “cheap” sniper because the norm is to eliminate others with great effort, teamwork, and multiple shots. Although there is no “sign on the door” that explicitly guides behavior, group members remind new participants by virtually raising an eyebrow. Raising an eyebrow can mean gently hinting to violators that such behavior is not acceptable or in this case, by sending public messages. At times, stronger measures such as the verbal reproach are needed because the internet, unlike ftf, lacks the physical presence of others to ensure conformity. Verbal reproaches can be effective but if the newbie continues to not comply the Leviathan will emerge. In Counter-Strike, the Leviathan is the authority figure who holds the power to ban a player from his/her server. The Leviathan is able to exist in Counter-Strike because group members are eager to maintain a productive and orderly online group environment.

The existence of the Leviathan in Counter-Strike show that while the computer-mediated environment takes away some of the features that encourage conformity, successful groups do flourish on the internet. In place of physical presence and status cues that indicate who the experts are to enforce adherence, factors such as people’s eagerness to conform, signs on the door, reproaches and the Leviathan exist that allow the internet to thrive. Therefore, snipers beware, for conformity and the internet (for better or worse) go hand-in-hand.

Comment 1
Comm 245 Blue: 6: A Rainbow of Delight and Disgust

Comment 2
Comm 245 Blue: 6- The Leviathan at Yahoo! Answers

Assignment 6

On September 5, 2006, Facebook launched its News Feed feature. You might recall that much fury ensued among Facebook users at the time. Raised eyebrows faced computer screens as users witnessed every step they made on Facebook being "broadcast" to everyone on their friend list. Even Facebook groups were formed regarding support for the removal of the News Feed. The feeds were viewed as an invasion of privacy, and "going too far."

On September 8, 2006, three days after launching the News Feed feature, Facebook's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, issued a public apology in response to the Leviathan:

We really messed this one up. When we launched News Feed and Mini-Feed we were trying to provide you with a stream of information about your social world. Instead, we did a bad job of explaining what the new features were and an even worse job of giving you control of them. I'd like to try to correct those errors now.

In response to the Leviathan, the initial outcry from users opposing the new features, Facebook backtracked and revised their algorithm to give users the ability to customize the level of their presence in the News Feed.

While I do not use Facebook obsessively, I remember asking my friends last semester, "what was on our Facebook home pages before the introduction of the News Feed and Mini-Feed?" We could not recall. Wallace would argue that Facebook users have conformed to accepting the presence of the Facebook News Feed, which occurred even within several months of its introduction. It can be argued that the News Feed has in fact made Facebook what it is today: the focus of obsession of online users all over the world.

The reaction of the Leviathan had a definite effect on Facebook's current state, and their original concern that the News Feed was a breach of privacy has dissipated quite a bit. The Facebook News Feed has become a social norm, while a year ago, it was perceived as invasive.



Comment 1
Comment 2

6/1: The Leviathan at Work - Literally!

One online standard to which I have recently had to pay close attention is the notion of proper e-mail etiquette, or “netiquette.” Having worked in the Forbes Magazine offices this past summer, I was exposed to the netiquette of the corporate world. Certain norms, including formality, the lack of cap-locked writing, no slang, proper signatures and appropriate titles were well understood and highly utilized cues among the members of the Forbes online network.

Employees and interns usually learn the lay of the land via informational seminars and company policy packets. These habits are enforced and internalized over time as individuals become accustomed to the environment’s standards of behavior. As an intern this past summer, I attended an online conduct and e-mail writing tutorial. Before sending any e-mail, I would always check to make sure I had followed company dogma. Through my increased experience as the weeks pressed on, the norms of the company became second nature to me. I even noticed an unintentional increase in formality in my net behaviors with friends and family. I imagine that long-time employees can hardly remember writing e-mails in any other way.

The Leviathan – in this case, social/professional approval or acceptance – is the invisible police force dictating our online behaviors. It goes unnoticed as long as we abide by convention (specifically, Forbes company policy) and only becomes apparent when conduct goes awry. If one fails to exercise proper netiquette, he or she will likely be apprehended by the given medium’s embodiment of the Leviathan. In the case of the Forbes e-mail network, the Leviathan might be the colleague to whom we send an inappropriate e-mail, the superior to whom they forward this e-mail so that action is taken against the non-conformist, or the IT department with access to the entirety of the network’s e-mail system. We self-moderate so as to protect ourselves from social rejection or job threats. We give up freedoms (including using slang to abbreviate messages and informality to ease our writing tasks) for the sake of both maintaining public approval and the online status quo. For, if not, we risk not only reprimand, but the chance to get fired!

6: Is That OJ in Your Cup?

One very scary social norm of Facebook is users posting photo albums solely of their friends and themselves of parties. Many of us are guilty of it. Most Cornell University students do not spend 90%+ of their time partying in college-town, frat parties, etc. However, according to student’s albums, college Facebook users feel the need to socially conform and display party pictures for everyone to see.

One may wonder how the online social norm of Facebook got to be of people posting lots of pictures of themselves partying. According to Wallace (p. 64), “the lack of physical presence may make our natural tendency to conform weaker”. In many situations, this is true concerning FtF versus CMC conformity. However, when it comes to Facebook, many of those stalking, I mean looking at your Facebook profile are people who actually have a relationship with you “in real-life” and therefore aren’t hiding from you physically. I believe in this circumstance, the social norm of posting party pictures on Facebook must have come about much differently and anonymity had nothing to do with it. For Facebook, I believe the “network” feature has a huge impact on conformity. Since users are friends with their “real-life” friends (who usually share a network with each other), their desire to socially conform and act similarly to their friends escalates.

For example, my younger brother (still in high school) recently created a Facebook profile. When he originally made his profile, he uploaded a “soft” picture that my mother probably took of him with our family pet pomeranian. Shortly after, his friend “Timmy” (who has a default profile picture sporting sunglasses and a cute girl hugging him) wrote on his wall “alex nice gay pic, where are those pics from this summer?” My news-feed informed me that almost immediately he uploaded a new default picture of him and his friends in Las Vegas posing with half-naked women. According to Wallace (p. 66), if someone breaks social norm, online friends will stress individuals to conform “by simply raising a virtual eyebrow”. In this situation, “Timmy” gently reproached my brother to conform to the social norms of their high school Facebook network. Since Facebook is such a broad social network composed of a wide variety of users, my brother was clueless when it came to composing his profile. There was no instructional video for him to watch or FAQs section for him to review. Instead, the reason for his conformity was based on how his friends presented themselves in their profiles as well as critical feedback they offered him concerning his own profile.

In this situation, I believe that the Leviathan enforces the social norm of selectively self-presenting party pictures to display on one’s Facebook because by conforming most individuals are producing a more “productive online group environment” (p. 70). When it comes to social networks, users may want to comply with their online friends because this helps to “distinguish” their selected stereotype more efficiently.

6 Using Rating Sites

The Internet has several types of book purchasing sites, arguably the most popular or widely known of which is Amazon.com.

I am locating the Leviathan by looking at other users ratings of book summaries and reviews. The Leviathan is the invible way that people and organizations enforce societal norms. In CMC, this is different than in face to face, in that the reports are more direct and less "social". An offense generally has to be "reported" in some manner, be it to the administrator, organization, or even other members (as in a MUD). Because this is CMC, this is generally always text or electronically based and there is some record of it.

On Amazon, users are allowed to give book reviews and summaries. In addition, and the subject of my discussion, is the fact that other users may rate these reviews. This is becoming a more and more common technique for guiding and encouraging helpful and positive reviews. Users rate reviews and reviewers based on the quality of their review or summary. On Amazon, this is a simple 1-5 rating, as it is on many other sites. Users reinforce constructive reviews with good ratings, and conversely rate lower quality reviews with lower ratings.

As far as I know, there is no reward system in place, other that the accumulation of stars on individual rates. Amazon might utilize the Leviathan more by giving a reward system for better review ratings. Also, they might consider using a multi-dimensional scale. Alas, I digress with improvements for Amazon. Back to the Leviathan:

I find that users are emphasizing the need for useful reviews and enforcing the "norm" or normative response (as our eloquent study put it) of posting these. This is purely "societal", for there seems to be no active administrative body or punishment system. The only punishment is in the fact that people will ignore reviews that are not of good quality.

I also note that the individual freedom of speech is given up or restricted for the good of the community of book purchasers. The proverbial eyebrow is raised when a rating is 2 or below. However, information is valued in reviews with ratings of 4 or 5.

Maybe, if I am lucky, someone from Amazon will read this post and learn to maximize the Leviathan to better their services or product. Maybe? Please?

6 "Jew-Watch"?????

Last week I received an email from my mom's best friend that seemed like just another chain email that we tend to delete before even opening. However, the fact that it was from my mom's best friend seemed like an enticing reason to actually open the email. Upon clicking "read" I was thoroughly disgusted because the email I received discussed a website by the name of "Jew-Watch". When one enters the word "Jew" into Google search, the second website that comes up is Jew Watch, a hateful website devoted to anti-semitism. This email I was receiving was asking me to sign a petition to ask Google to remove Jew Watch from their search responses.

Google search is an online standard that we all use everyday. Sometimes I do not even notice that I am using it because searching for something has just become so engrained in my mind as an automatic response. Google is the number one website on the Internet so we expect it to always deliver exactly what we need when we are searching for a certain website or piece of information. Google has become a part of our daily lives. We even use the term "Googling" to refer to looking a piece of information up, regardless of whether we even use Google to do so. It has become such a norm in our lives that we do not even notice our extreme usage of Google anymore.

However, when something goes wrong such as finding an anti-semitic website as the second response to typing in the word "Jew", many people's inner alarm systems automatically trigger. We call this the "Leviathan" because it shows up as the enforcer in our adherence to online standards and norms such as using Google search. Being Jewish, I am offended that Google would keep this website so high up on their search. It is offensive and degrading and should NOT be the first thing anyone sees when the search the word "Jew". If Google is the most used website on the Internet, then this is just unaccpetable. When I received the email from my mother's friend, I immediately signed the petition to have "Jew-Watch" taken off of Google's search. I, along with hundreds of thousands of enraged citizens, acted as the Leviathan in this situation by attmepting to correct a violation of society's norms. It is not normal to spread hateful messages and disrespectful remarks. The Leviathan is an invisible concept until something goes wrong, and in this situation, something went wrong. So we Leviathans responded. Google states that they will correc their website if petitions arise of more than 50,000 and so by acting as the Leviathan, the collective group of petitioners hope to get "Jew-Watch" taken down from Google's search.

When using such a popular site as Google, I would hope that it would be "moderated" as Wallace describes in chapter four. However, if sites such as "Jew-Watch" are readily available, then maybe it is unmoderated? Are we the people the moderators? Are we forced to sign a petition everytime there is something offensive on Google? Apparently so. If Google uses a moderation type setting such as Youtube or Wikipedia, who have "authority figures" that censor articles and posts that are either offensive, wrong or inappropriate, then Google would not run into the problem they are having right now. As Wallace says, "we want the Internet to flourish," but there are only so many boundaries that we can cross even on the Internet. Even though the Internet is meant to house all different types of opinions, it cannot be used to spread hate. I am an understanding person that knows people have the freedom of speech to say whatever they want, but we cannot accept this as an excuse for why Google allows "Jew-Watch" to remain an active search response. This is why the Levaithan needs to step in and enforce society's standards. Google has violated a trust, and it needs to be corrected. Like Wallace says, there is a certain standard of "netiquette" that we must follow.

http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-option-1-netiquette.html
http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-option-1-almighty.html

6- AIM convo

A standard or social norm for the online world is saying goodbye to the people you are talking to before you exit off AIM. This is something that most everyone knows and respects. It is something that does not need to be taught, but is the polite and social thing to do. This action lies parallel to the real world. People do not just walk away without saying goodbye or at least saying something to indicate that the conversation is ending. There is always the exception to this rule if two people are in a fight and one walks away angrily without saying goodbye, but usually there is at least a “FINE, bye” or “I’m leaving” which is said. The same is true for AIM. Unless there is a bad fight or a technical problem with the internet and people get kicked off, there is usually some sort of conclusion to the conversation.
In Patricia Wallace’s book The Psychology of the Internet, “Thomas Hobbes proposed the concept of the Leviathan, defined as ‘that mortal god, to which we owe under the immortal God’ out peace and defense’.” (p.69) The Leviathan enforces the norm in a different way on AIM than it does for bulletin boards and other types of chat rooms or gaming sights. There is no overlying power, or supervisor, on AIM. There is however, a system which enables the people involved in the conversation to be their own Leviathan. This includes “warning” the person they are talking with, and for the extreme measures, “blocking” them and allowing no more conversation to take place. These are ways for people to be their own enforcers and police the area they are in.

6- The Leviathan at Yahoo! Answers

It was while I was looking at preseason scores on Yahoo's NHL page that I was attracted to the Answers feature. In a box along the side of the page, there was group of featured questions, one of which was: “Do you think I can slip the hockey players my phone number through the glass?” My attention was grabbed, and I needed to find out the answers.

The idea behind Yahoo! Answers is that users will submit a question, other users will submit a response, and the answer that receives the most votes from the users is deemed the best answer. For incentive, every time a user's answer was selected as the best, that user would receive points. However, I'm uncertain whether the points serve as something more than just a status indicator (the more points you get, the more levels you move up).

Upon further review of this online feature, it seemed as though Wallace's idea of the Leviathan (a symbolic representation of law and conduct in an online space) applied well in a few situations. For example, in terms of the feature which represents which behaviors are and are not acceptable, users have the option of “reporting” any answer. Since I did not want to erroneously report an answer just to see what the feature did, I actually searched the site to see what happens when questions are reported. Interestingly enough, quite a few questions/answers came up involving reporting answers. From what I could gather, a reported answer is investigated and, if it's found to go against the terms of conduct (which I couldn't find, so I just assumed they were the general Yahoo terms of conduct), the answer is deleted. The person who posted the answer risks losing ten points and, if it's a more offensive post, can be banned and lose all of their privileges. It seems as though a similar situation applies to those who are referred to as “abusers”--people who haphazardly report other answers.

Aside from reporting answers, users can also participate in what Wallace refers to as a “raised eyebrow”--a subtle indication that something is not normal. When a user does not agree with an answer, or finds it to be a bit strange, that user can decide to give the post a literal “thumbs down” by clicking on an icon that looks like a thumbs down. On the flip side, if a user agrees with the post, that user may reward the answer a similar “thumbs up.”

In general, it's evident that Wallace's idea of the online Leviathan was in use in Yahoo's Answer page via a reporting feature, as well the virtual raised eyebrow.

6 Hunting the Leviathan: MMOs and Loot

In MMOs such as World of Warcraft there are certain social norms/conventions concerning the distribution of items or “loot” when players form groups and kill creatures that drop items. There is a need or greed based system in place that is supposed to regulate the distribution of items. If the group plays on the need based system, group members that have the greatest need for the item, receive the item. The alternative system is greed based where everyone in the party “rolls” dice and whoever is the highest roller receives the item regardless of who in the group might need the item. In theory, this system works if everyone comes to an agreement on the system being used and respects the distribution. However, this system fails when the accepted social norms/conventions are broken. When someone breaks the norm and takes loot for themselves regardless of the system that is in place and without democratic decision from the group, it is called “ninjaing” the item. This term was adopted because of the method in which the players were taking items, usually by quickly and secretively taking the item and then logging out, leaving the party, or using their “hearthstone” to get back to a remote town of their predetermined choice. So the individual gets the loot they want when they want it. Why doesn’t everyone ninja items then? This is where the Leviathan comes in to play.

The Leviathan is the power that enforces our adherence to society’s norms and standards (Hancock Lecture, 2007). It exists in both face to face and computer mediated communication. In this case, the leviathan is enforcing social norms in a computer mediated context. The GM (game masters) in World of Warcraft have the ability to contact the person that “ninjaed” the item if a complaint is submitted and in certain circumstances, the item can be removed from the players possession and redistributed to the group. Breaking this social norm also builds harmful reputations that result in guilds and other players disassociating themselves from the accused player. Players that have been known to “ninja” items are far less likely to be able to find a group to go into a raid instance with or be able to join a guild for fear that they will break the norm again and important items will not be distributed to the group fairly. Conformity to the social norm is influenced by the desire to advance in the game, be accepted, and to prevent being banned from participation.

My other comments:
Comm 245 Blue: 6.1: OMG WTF H4X!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
Comm 245 Blue: 6- The Leviathan at Yahoo! Answers

6 Pasting > 3 lines? Don't!

As a software developer, I can sometimes be found lurking on IRC channels (essentially chatrooms, for those of you unfamiliar with IRC) related to programming. Programmers in these channels often want to communicate ideas through source code. Pasting large chunks of code (greater than three lines or so) directly into the channel generates a lot of extra noise for everyone, even though only one or two people may be interested in it. It also makes it difficult for everyone else to weave through the conversation logs. To alleviate this problem, it has become the social norm to paste code to a website like pastebin and link to it in the channel, or to send the code to an individual via private message.

This norm is usually displayed in the channel topic, which a user sees as soon as he joins the channel. For example, when I join the #python channel on irc.freenode.net, I’m presented with (emphasis mine):

* Now talking in #python
* Topic is 'The Python Programming Language | NO LOL. | Pasting > 3 lines? Use http://rafb.net/paste | Tutorial: http://docs.python.org/tut/tut.html | #python.web / #wsgi | FAQ: http://effbot.org/pyfaq/index.htm'
* Set by Jerub on Tue Sep 18 20:48:25

Channel operators (or "ops" for short) are the Leviathans in this setting. They can enforce the norm by either kicking and/or banning the offender. When an op kicks a user, he ejects that person from the channel; however, he is allowed to rejoin the channel. Because of this, kicks usually serve as a warning. When an op bans someone, he is not allowed to rejoin the channel until an op lifts the ban.

The note in the topic is what Wallace calls a "sign at the door." It makes all visitors aware of the rules adopted by the Leviathans (the ops). If a user decides to break these rules, typically an op or some other regular will reproach the user. This action is the CMC equivalent to the "arched brow" in FtF. The goal in both cases is to gently let the user know that he is acting beyond the accepted norms of the group. If the user continues to disregard the rule, an op may attempt to kick or ultimately ban him from the channel.

Regular channel visitors don't violate this rule and they reproach new visitors who do, which indicates that the channel members are willingly giving up this freedom for the greater order of the group. This matches Wallace’s argument that a Leviathan is appointed in order to preserve orderliness and efficiency in the group. A given channel member gives up the convenience of being able to paste code blocks directly in return for conversations that are easy to follow without having to wade through heaps of pasted code.

Comment 1
Comment 2