💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › bbs › electrop.txt captured on 2023-06-14 at 15:52:49.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
**ELECTROPOLIS:**
**COMMUNICATION AND COMMUNITY**
**ON INTERNET RELAY CHAT**
Elizabeth M. Reid
Honours Thesis
1991
University Of Melbourne
Department Of History
Internet email:
emr@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au
emr@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
IRC:
Ireshi
**ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS**
I would like to thank the History Department for sponsoring my use of
the University of Melbourne's computing facilities, which enabled me
to undertake this research. I would also like to thank Richard Oxbrow
of the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, and
Matthew Higgins of the Department of Engineering Computer Resources,
for allowing me to use the computing facilities of each of those
departments. Lastly, I would like to thank Daniel Carosone (Waftam on
IRC) for his unfailing support, and for his advice on technical
details.
**PREFACE**
_COMPUTER-MEDIATED_COMMUNICATION_
Despite the recent innovations of radio and telecommunications,
communication and language theorists make a sharp distinction between
the spoken and the written word. That distinction is based on a
perception of temporal and spatial proximity in the case of spoken
communication, and distance in the case of written communication.
"Most analyses of linguistic interaction," as Naomi Baron notes, "are
based on the paradigm of two people speaking face-to-face."(1) It is
further assumed that alternative methods of communication -
telephones and letters for example - supplement, as Baron expresses
it, 'normal' face-to-face communication.(2) The underlying assumption
that physical contact is necessarily a part of human communication
pervades social theory. This is understandable. Until recently,
physical contact was almost always a prerequisite for communication,
with letters mainly being transmitted between people who had met in
the flesh. Even the telephone assumes physical contact. It is
generally only in the business world that people phone others whom
they have not met, and personal telephone conversations are, as in
the case of letters, conducted between people who are already known
to each other.
The technology of computer-mediated communication offers an
alternative to this. Computer-mediated communications systems
(CMCS's) use computers and telecommunications networks to compose,
store, deliver and process communication. There are three basic
types of computer-mediated communication systems: email, news, and
chat programs. 'Email', or electronic mail, allows users of computer
systems to send messages to each other. 'News' allows users to send
messages to a database divided under subject headings, facilitating
electronic mail between multiple users on diverse subjects. These two
types of communication are asynchronous - messages, whether private
email or public news, can be created and received at widely separated
times, allowing time for reflection and deliberation in response. The
third type of CMCS is the chat program, which does not store messages
but transmits one person's typing directly to the monitor of another
person or group of people. Chat programs deal in a form of
synchronous communication that defies conventional understandings of
the differences between spoken and written language.
CMCS's are a recent development, with widespread availability only
becoming possible within the last decade. Consequently, little has
been written about them outside of technical considerations of their
design and implementation. The few articles that have addressed the
subject tend to do so from a commercial orientation - discussing the
impact of CMC on problem solving techniques, office communication and
corporate structure.(3) An assumption that is commonly made by
researchers of computer-mediated communication is that the medium is
not conducive to emotional exchanges. As Ronald Rice and Gail Love
state, "the typical conclusion is that as [the communication]
bandwidth narrows, media allow less 'social presence'; communication
is likely to be described as less friendly, emotional, or personal
and more serious, business-like and task oriented."(4) This may have
been found to be the case in some instances, and may reflect the
overall concern among researchers to study CMC in a business
environment. But computer-mediated communication systems are not -
either theoretically or in practice - limited to commercial use. It
is also possible to use them for social interaction. Internet Relay
Chat is one such system. IRC is a multi-user synchronous
communication facility that is available all over the world to people
with access to the 'Internet' network of computer systems. IRC was
not specifically designed for a business environment - the use to
which it is put is entirely decided by those who use it. Work is
certainly done on IRC. It is an excellent forum for consultations
between workers on different points of the globe - everything from
programming to translation to authorial collaboration goes on on IRC.
However, a large part of what goes on on IRC is not work but play,
and it is this aspect of it that I will address.
Communication using the Internet Relay Chat program is written, and
users are spatially distant, but it is also synchronous. It is a
written - or rather, typed - form of communication that is
transmitted, received and responded to within a time frame that has
formerly been only thought relevant to spoken communication. IRC does
not assume physical contact between users - either prior to or
after communication via computer. Users of the system will, as the
medium is international, know in person at most only a few fellow
users. IRC allows - encourages - recreational communication between
people who have never been, most likely will never be, in a situation
to base their knowledge of each other and their methods of
communication on physical cues.
Users of IRC do not, however, have no knowledge of each other. The
people who make up the IRC community are effectively preselected by
external social structures - access to IRC is restricted to those
who have access to the Internet computer network. There are many such
people - the Internet spans countries as diverse as Germany, the
United States, Japan, Israel, Australia and Korea. However, those
individuals who use IRC will be in an economically privileged
position in their society. They have access to high technology. Due
to the nature of the computer network on which IRC runs, the
Internet, they will most likely be members of an academic community,
often students of computer science.(5) Interaction on IRC is then
carried out in the knowledge that users are on a rough equality -
according to conventional economic measures - and members of
similarly privileged social groups. This 'equality' is not intrinsic
to IRC, it is a by-product of the social structures surrounding
computer technology.
Nevertheless, IRC provides a unique field to the social theorist. It
challenges and forces an escape from traditional paradigms of social
interaction by reference to an architecture that allows relative
anonymity. It stands as a challenge to the methods of analysis that
have been directed at computer-mediated communication systems. IRC
was not designed to perform a corporate function, nor has it come to
do so. It was intended to be a tool for social interaction between
spatially disparate people, and as such it cannot be completely
explained or analysed by reference to the methods used by other CMC
theorists.(6)
Interaction on IRC involves a deconstruction of traditional
assumptions about the dynamics of communication, and the construction
of alternative systems. IRC is essentially a playground. Within its
domain people are free to experiment with different forms of
communication and self-representation. Within IRC, "Power is
challenged and supplanted by rituals combining both destruction and
rejuvenation."(7) To paraphrase F.R. Ankersmit, users of IRC do not
shape themselves according to or in conformity with the conventions
of social contexts external to the medium, but learn to "play" their
"cultural game" with them.(8)
This is my central thesis, and I will seek to address it from two
perspectives. My first concern will be the methods by which users of
IRC utilise the medium in the deconstruction of social boundaries. As
I have suggested, users of IRC are a pre-selected community - they
have much in common as far as such considerations as social position
and education are concerned. IRC, however, presents unique problems
for the expression of this community. The methods by which such
groups are usually held together rely on physical proximity. These
methods are not open to users of IRC - computer-mediated
communication challenges and deconstructs these social tools. I will
discuss the means by which communication on IRC does this.
My second concern is the construction of alternative communities on
IRC. Denied or having deconstructed the more traditional methods of
sustaining a community, users of IRC must develop alternative or
parallel methods. Both positive and negative methods of sustaining
community are developed on IRC. Computer-mediated rewards and
punishments are developed, and complex rituals have evolved to keep
users within the IRC 'fold' and to regulate the use of authority.
Discussion of these points will lead to a presentation of the social
discourse of IRC. The challenging of the power of social norms and
their replacement with rituals combining both destruction and
rejuvenation, brings into play areas of discourse that are
postmodern. This connection between postmodernism and that phase of
culture and technology marked by computerisation has been remarked
upon by even those antipathetic to the discourse. Perez Zagorin
describes postmodernism as "a fundamental mutation in the sphere of
culture reflecting the new multinational phase of... [the] electronic
society."(9) Culture, as defined by Schneider, is a "system of
symbols and meanings."(10) Since computer-mediated communication
systems are "designed specifically to affect the transmission of
symbols and meanings", IRC - which is both international and
electronic - has the potential to alter understandings of cultural
analysis.(11) My conclusion is that Internet Relay Chat, by
deconstructing social boundaries and by the ways in which users
construct their own community and culture, is a postmodern
phenomenon.
Cultural criticism in this postmodern age is, as Alan Lui states,
governed by "its belief that criticism can, and must, engage with
context".(12) It is also, as Ankersmit suggests, reflexive, self-
referential.(13) If history is to be able to address the questions
raised by computer-mediated culture, then historians must examine the
impact of that cultural context upon their craft. Historians must ask
what will happen to the practice of history when "societies enter
what is known as the postindustrial age and cultures enter what is
known as the postmodern age"?(14) If computer-mediated communication
problematises cultural criticism by questioning conventional notions
about the construction of the self and of culture, then it also
problematises historiography. If historians continue to take to the
increasingly more complex forms of computerised information exchange
that are being developed then these factors will have ideological
implications for their craft. What will happen to the relationship of
the historian to his text, and what will happen to the historian's
view of texts, once electronic data itself becomes subject to
historical study?
The most prosaic aspects of the historian's craft are challenged in a
computer-mediated culture. If primary and secondary sources are
produced and disseminated electronically, what becomes of the
conventions of citation?(15) Under the application of this
technology, historical texts become subject to, as Lyotard describes
it, an "exteriorization of knowledge with respect to the
'knower'"(16) The form which computerised knowledge takes -
electronic encoding, or data files - is not inherently identifiable
with its creator. Electronic data can be modified by anyone who has
the appropriate technology. It is subject to a fluidity that 'hard
copy' is not - it can be changed without that change being
detectable. The context of information changes the relationship
between information and power, between information and discourse. As
John Perry Barlow asks, "What are data and what is free speech? How
does one treat property which has no physical form and can be
infinitely reproduced? Is a computer the same as a printing press?...
Can anyone morally claim to own knowledge itself?"(17)
In examining the Internet Relay Chat computer-mediated communication
system I attempt to write history within the context of the culture
of an electronic, postindustrial, postmodern society.
**INTRODUCTION**
Most people are familiar with personal computers. Although only a
small number are conversant with the technical details of
microcomputer technology, or with computer programming languages,
most people have a rough idea of what a computer looks like, and that
they are used by typing commands into a keyboard and viewing feedback
from the machine on a monitor. Word processing has become so common
that it would be hard to find a person living in the Western world -
especially in an academic community - who had not actually used a
computer.
Throughout this essay I shall assume a basic understanding of the
physical act of computer use. I do not intend to explain any of the
technical details pertaining to my subject - most of them are, at any
rate, beyond my understanding. However I feel that it would be useful
to give some explanation of the historical context within which
Internet Relay Chat has been developed, and necessary to offer a
description of the IRC environment.
_ARPANET,_THE_INTERNET,_AND_AARNET_(18)
The personal computers with which most readers will be familiar - IBM
compatibles, Apple Macintoshes, Amigas and so on - are a relatively
recent phenomenon. It is only within the last ten to twenty years
that computers have become household items. Before that computing was
the domain of governmental or commercial organisations which owned
large - mainframe - computer systems. As usage of these systems
increased, it became common for computers at one geographical
location, or site, to be linked together so that users on each could
have access to the data and facilities contained on all the others.
These local area networks, or LANs, developed into networks
connecting machines at dispersed sites, utilising the telephone line
system. The first of these 'long-haul' networks was the ARPANET,
which came into existence in 1969. This project was funded by the
Advanced Research Projects Agency, an arm of the United States
Department of Defence. ARPANET initially connected machines at the
University of California (Los Angeles and Santa Barbara campuses) and
the University of Utah, and was intended to facilitate research at
those sites. Along the idea of sharing electronic data went the idea
of communication between users. ARPANET originally allowed two
methods of communication between users - email and news.
ARPANET's membership grew, with many other educational institutions
in the United States adopting the new technology. In 1983 ARPANET was
divided into two networks, known as ARPANET (for research use) and
MILNET (for military use). The ARPANET arm continued to grow, with
local area networks at various government, educational and commercial
sites being added to the system. With the advent of satellite
communications, it became possible for computers in other countries
to join the network, and ARPANET became known as the Internet.
Technically, the Internet is not one network, but a number of
networks that communicate with each other, however to the user it
appears to be one big network.
The Australian arm of the Internet is known as AARNet, the Australian
Academic Research Network. AARNet grew out of ACSnet, the Australian
Computer Science Network, which served to connect computers used
directly by computer science researchers. Initially this network was
linked by conventional telephone lines, with machines exchanging data
and mail each night. This has developed into a nationwide system
permanently linking virtually all computers at major academic
institutions, and some commercial and government research
organisations. Initially a link to the Internet was run via undersea
cables to Hawaii, but in early July 1990 the final links were
installed to make AARNet fully operational, and operation of a
satellite connection to the United States West Coast segment of the
Internet was commenced.
The most heavily used forms of inter-user communication on the
Internet are still the asynchronous forms of email and news. On most
computers on the Internet synchronous communication is possible using
a program that enables two users to type directly to each others'
screens, thus having a real-time electronically mediated
conversation. This method of communication is, however, fairly
limited - only two people can 'talk' to each other at once.
It was in response to the limitations of the synchronous
communication programs in existence that Jarkko Oikarinen decided to
write a computer program that would enable multiple users to engage
in synchronous communication across a network. This project was known
as Internet Relay Chat.
_INTERNET_RELAY_CHAT_(19)
Jarkko Oikarinen wrote the original IRC program at the University of
Oulu, Finland, in 1988. He designed IRC as a 'client-server' program.
The user runs a 'client' program from his or her local machine, which
then connects, via the Internet, to a 'server' program which may not
be running on that local machine. There are hundreds of IRC 'servers'
over the world, all of which communicate with each other and pass
information back to the client programs - and users - connected to
them. IRC was first tested on a single machine with less than twenty
users participating. IRC's networking capabilities were then tested
on a suite of three machines in southern Finland. Once tested it was
installed throughout the Finnish national network - FUNET - and then
connected to NORDUNET, the Scandinavian branch of the Internet. By
November of 1988, IRC had spread across the Internet. The latest
listing of countries whose Internet branches host IRC include
Australia, the United States, Italy, Israel and Korea.(20)
IRC differs significantly from previous synchronous communication
programs. Fundamental to IRC is the concept of a channel. 'Talk',
'chat' and 'voice' had no need of such a concept since only two
people could communicate at one time, typing directly to each other's
screen. On IRC however, where two or three hundred users is the
normal population, such a system would create chaos. It was therefore
necessary to devise some way of allowing users to decide whose
activity they wanted to see and who they wanted to make aware of
their own activity. 'Channels' were the answer. On entering the IRC
program, the user is not at first able to see the activity of other
connected users. To do so he must join a channel. Channels are
created or joined by users issuing a command to the IRC program to
join a channel. If there is already a channel of the specified name
in operation, then the user is added to the list of people
communicating within that channel; if such a channel does not exist,
then IRC opens a new channel containing the name of the user who
invoked it, who may then be joined by other users. The user can issue
a commands requesting a list of the users connected to IRC and
which channels they are attached to. IRC keeps track of who has
joined which channels, and ensures that only people within the same
channel can see each others' typed messages. IRC can support an
unlimited number of channels. Channels can have any name, but
generally the name of the channel indicates the nature of the
conversation being carried out within it - 'Finland', 'hottub',
'worker', 'party', and so on. The user who initially invokes a
channel name is known an a channel operator, or 'chanop', and has
certain privileges. He or she may change the mode of the channel -
may instruct IRC to limit usage of the channel to a certain number of
users, may limit entry to the channel to people specifically invited
by him or her to join, may make the channel invisible to other users
by specifying it's exclusion from the list of active channels that a
user may request of IRC, may kick another user off the channel, or
confer chanop privileges on another user.
IRC supports numerous other commands. Once a channel has been joined,
everything that the user types will be by default sent to all other
occupants of the channel. It is possible, however, to alter that
default setting by issuing commands to direct a message to a
particular user, users, channel or channels. A number of other
commands - the ability to send messages to all users or to kick a
user off the IRC system entirely - are reserved for IRC operators, or
'opers', the people who run and maintain the IRC network connections.
Opers also have access to special commands related to the technical
implementation of IRC.
IRC is not an 'official' program. There are few 'official' programs
on the Internet. Most are simply programs that a group of people, who
by virtue of their paid or student work have access to computers on
the Internet, have decided to install on these machines. IRC
operators are people who have chosen to invest the time needed to set
up and maintain the IRC program on their local machines for the
benefit of other local users.
IRC, then, is a multi-user synchronous communications system. It
allows people to choose which person or group of people they wish to
see the activity of, and to whom they wish their own activity to be
transmitted.(21) IRC - the whole Internet - forms a 'virtual
reality'.(22) In the words of John Perry Barlow:
Whether by one telephonic tendril or millions, [these computers are
all] connected to one another. Collectively, they form what their
inhabitants call the Net. It extends across that immense region of
electron states, microwaves, magnetic fields, light pulses and
thought which sci-fi writer William Gibson named Cyberspace.
Cyberspace, in its present condition, has a lot in common with the
19th Century West. It is vast, unmapped, culturally and legally
ambiguous, verbally terse (unless you happen to be a court
stenographer), hard to get around in, and up for grabs... In this
silent world, all conversation is typed. To enter it, one forsakes
both body and place and becomes a thing of words alone... It is, of
course, a perfect breeding ground for both outlaws and new
ideas...(23)
Within this breeding ground, users of IRC invent new concepts of
culture and interaction, and challenge the conventions of both.
**PART ONE:**
**DECONSTRUCTING BOUNDARIES**
Traditional forms of human interaction have their codes of etiquette.
We are all brought up to behave according to the demands of social
context. We know, as if instinctively, when it is appropriate to
flirt, to be respectful, to be angry, or silent. The information on
which we decide which aspects of our systems of social conduct are
appropriate to our circumstances are more often physical than verbal.
Place and time are perceptions of a physical reality that are not
dependent on statements made by other people. We do not need to be
told that we are at a wedding, and should be quiet during the
ceremony, in order to enact the code of etiquette that our culture
reserves for such occasions. "Being cultured" says Greg Dening, "we
are experts in our semiotics... we read sign and symbol [and] codify
a thousand words in a gesture."(24) In interacting with other people,
we rely on non-verbal information to delineate a context for our own
contributions. Smiles, frowns, tones of voice, posture and dress -
Geertz's "significant symbols" - tell us more about the social
context within which we are placed than do the statements of the
people we socialise with.(25) Language does not express the full play
of our interpersonal exchanges - which, continues Dening, "are
expressed in terms of address, in types of clothing, in postures and
facial expressions, in appeals to rules and ways of doing
things."(26) The words themselves tell only half the story - it is
their presentation that completes the picture.
Internet Relay Chat, however, deals only in words. Computer-mediated
communication relies only upon words as a channel of meaning.(27)
"Computer-mediated communication has at least two interesting
characteristics:" writes Kiesler, "(a) a paucity of social context
information and (b) few widely shared norms governing its use."(28)
Users of these systems are unable to rely on the conventions of
gesture and nuances of tone to provide social feedback. They cannot
rely upon the conventional systems of interaction if they are to make
sense to one another. Words, as we use them in speech, fail to
express what they really mean once they are deprived of the
subtleties of speech and the non-verbal cues that we assume will
accompany it. Internet Relay Chat is synchronous, as is face-to-face
interaction, but it is unable to transmit the non-verbal aspects of
speech that conventions of synchronous communication demand.
It is not only the meanings of sentences that become problematic in
computer-mediated communication. The standards of behaviour that are
normally decided upon by non-verbal cues are not clearly indicated
when information is purely verbal. Not only are smiles and frowns
lost in the translation of synchronous speech to pure text, but
factors of environment are unknown to interlocutors. It is not
immediately apparent, in computer-mediated communication, what forms
of social etiquette are appropriate at any given time.
Kiesler, Siegel and McGuire have described computer-mediated
communication as having four distinct features in comparison to
conventional forms of interaction: an absence of regulating feedback,
dramaturgical weakness, few social status cues and social anonymity.
Conventional systems for regulating interaction fall apart. The
structure of IRC causes its users to deconstruct the conventional
boundaries defining social interaction. "Anonymity [and] reduced
self-regulation" become, as I shall discuss, pronounced in computer-
mediated communication.(29)
_ANONYMITY_
Although the social and economic status generally associated with the
use of such high technology as computer systems offers IRC users, as
I have indicated, some general context within which to place each
other, they know little else about each other, and that little is
open to manipulation by the user.
Users of Internet Relay Chat are not generally known by their 'real'
names. The convention of IRC is to choose a nickname under which to
interact.(30) The nicknames - or 'nicks' as they are referred to -
chosen by IRC users range from 'normal' first names such as 'Peggy'
and 'Matthew', to inventive and evocative pseudonyms such as
'Tmbrwolf', 'Pplater', 'LuxYacht' and 'WildWoman'.(31) The
information which one user can gain about others on IRC consists of
the names by which they choose to be known and the Internet 'address'
of the computer by which they are accessing the IRC program. The
first is easily changed. IRC supports a command that allows users to
change their nicknames as often as they wish. The second is not so
easily manipulated, but still open to tampering provided that the
user has some technical skill. Essentially there is nothing that one
IRC user can ascertain about another - beyond the fact that they have
access to the Internet - that is not manipulable by that user.
Our conventional presentation of self assumes that we cannot change
the basics of our appearance. Physical characteristics, although open
to cosmetic or fashionable manipulation, are basically unalterable.
What we look like, we have to live with. This is, however, not the
case on IRC. How an IRC user 'looks' to another user is entirely
dependant upon information supplied by that person. It becomes
possible to play with identity. The boundaries delineated by cultural
constructs of beauty, ugliness, fashionableness or unfashionableness,
can be by-passed on IRC. It is possible to appear to be, quite
literally, whoever you wish.
The anonymity of interaction in IRC allows users to play games with
their identities. The chance to escape the assumed boundaries of
gender, race, and age create a game of interaction in which there are
few rules but those that the users create themselves. IRC offers a
chance to escape the language of culture and body and return to an
idealised 'source code' of mind.
The changes that a user might make to his or her perceived identity
can be small, a matter of realising in others' minds a desire to be
attractive, impressive, popular:
*BabyDoll* Well, I gotta admit, I shave a few lbs off of my
wieght when I tell the guys on irc what i look like..
However, the anonymity of IRC can provide more than a means to 'fix'
minor problems of appearance - one of the most fascinating aspects of
this computer-mediated fluidity of cultural boundaries is the
possibility of gender-switching. While secondary characteristics such
as hair colour are relatively easily changed in 'real life', gender
reassignment is a far more involved process. This aspect of computer-
mediated communication has had little attention given it. Sproull and
Kiesler note that "unless first names are used as well as last names,
gender information is also missing", but do not discuss the
implications of this.(32) IRC destroys the usually all but
insurmountable confines of sex: changing gender is as simple as
changing one's nickname to something that suggests the opposite of
one's actual gender. It is possible for IRC to become the arena for
experimentation with gender specific social roles:
<Marion> I've tried presenting m,yslef as male on occasion - to
be honest I found itdull
<Barf> Umm, I've gender switched once or twice for about 2 hour
or so - mainly to lead another male up the garden path as a
practical joke; but never a serious gender switch.
<Marion> how did you find being perceived as female?
<Barf> I wasn't really being perceived as female, since I was
basically just calling myself by a female name and utilising my
knowledge of being male to get the other male all stirred up
<Barf> I did find it mildly irritating that I should get so much
attention and be immediately fixated as a sex object simply by
pretending to be female
<Marion> to be honest, I didn't like being male becuaseI missed
the flattery that women tend to get
<Marion> being expected to give attention ratehr than recieve it
was quite a shock!
<Barf> ahh - that is one reason that I tend to dislike unequal
ratios in the sexes - the females get all the attention.(33)
The potential for such experimentation governs the expectations of
many users of IRC. Gender is one of the more 'sacred' institutions in
our society, a quality whose fixity is so assumed that enacted or
surgical reassignment has and does involve complex rituals, taboos,
procedures and stigmas. The attitudes taken by individual users of
IRC differ as regards the possibility for gender concealment. Some
view it as 'part of the game', others are hostile toward users who
gender switch:
<saro> KAREN IS A BOY
<saro> KAREN IS A BOY
<saro> KAREN IS A BOY
<SmilyFace> aros: so?????????
<Karen> yes aros I heard you
<FuzzyB> Takes a relaxed place beside Karen offering her her
favourite drink.
Whatever may be the attitude of individual users of the IRC program
to such examples of gender experimentation, the crucial point is that
it is an inherent possibility offered by the IRC software.
Exploitation of this potential is an accepted part of the 'virtual
reality' - a popular phrase amongst users of the Internet - of IRC.
It becomes possible to play with aspects of behaviour and identity
that are not normally possible. IRC enables people to deconstruct
aspects of their own identity, and of their cultural classification,
and to challenge and obscure the boundaries between some of our most
deeply felt cultural significances. A willingness to accept this
phenomenon, and to join in the games that can be played within it, is
an aspect of the culture of IRC users.
_REDUCED_SELF-REGULATION_
Researchers of human behaviour on computer-mediated communication
systems have often noted that users of such systems tend to behave in
a more uninhibited manner than they would in face-to-face encounters.
Sproull and Kiesler state that computer-mediated behaviour "is
relatively uninhibited and nonconforming."(34) Kielser, Siegel and
McGuire have observed that "people in computer-mediated groups were
more uninhibited than they were in face-to-face groups."(35) Rice and
Love suggest that "disinhibition" may occur "because of the lack of
social control that nonverbal cues provide."(36)
Internet Relay Chat reflects this observation. Protected by the
anonymity of the computer medium, and with few social context cues to
indicate 'proper' ways to behave, users are able to express and
experiment with aspects of their personality that social inhibition
would generally encourage them to suppress:
<Barf> Yes.. Oh well - I'm just saying that I switch
personalities all the time, and my usual personality on IRC and
my usual personality on Fidonet are at extremes, and I've never
really shown my real self on any computer medium.
<Barf> I'm deliberately creating fake personalities instead of
highlighting less obvious parts of my personality, so I do the
opposite of what my real self would do.
<Marion> by doing something it by definition becomes an aspect
of yourself - what you call your 'real self' is most likely the
way you would like to see yourself or the way you usually are
<Barf> I'm experiment in being different people, and that
involves doing things that I don't want to do to make the fake
character consistent and believable
<Barf> No - my fake characters often do things and behave in
such a way that I wouldn't want to ever be like
<Marion> woulsn't want to - perhaps not - but if it occurs to
you to encat it then it is part of your potentiality
<Barf> Ah - but the reason that I experiment with different
characters is so I can see how other people react and then adopt
the good parts of the character that provoked a favourable
response - however I don't compromise my own individuality and
will continue
<Barf> to do things that I like to do that not everyone else
would like me to do.(37)
IRC encourages disinhibition. The lack of social context cues in
computer-mediated communication obscures the boundaries that would
generally separate acceptable and unacceptable forms of behaviour.
Furthermore, the essential physical impression of each user that he
is alone releases him from the social expectations incurred in group
interaction. Computer-mediated communication is less bound by
conventions than is face-to-face interaction. With little regulating
feedback to govern behaviour, users behave in ways that would not
generally be acceptable with people who are essentially total
strangers.
The lack of self-regulation amongst users of IRC can be both positive
and negative, as far as interaction is concerned. The safety of
anonymity can "reduce self-consciousness and promote intimacy"
between people who might not otherwise have had the chance to become
close.(38) It can also encourage "flaming", which Kiesler, Siegel and
McGuire define as the gratuitous and uninhibited making of "remarks
containing swearing, insults, name calling, and hostile
comments."(39)
Users of IRC often form strong friendships. Without social context
cues to inhibit a free exchange between people - to encourage shyness
- computer-mediated interlocutors will often 'open up' to each other
to a great degree. Freedom is given, either to be someone whom you
are not, or to be more yourself than would usually be acceptable. As
one user of the system sums it up:
*bob* by nature I'm shy..
*bob* normally wouldn't talk about such thingsw if you met me
face to face
*bob* thus the network is good.. (40)
Personal relationships amongst participants in computer-mediated
communication systems can often be deep and highly emotional. Hiltz
and Turoff have noted that some participants in such systems "come to
feel that their very best and closest friends are members of their
electronic group, whom they seldom or never see."(41) 'Net.romances',
long distance romantic relationships carried out over IRC, can result
from the increased tendency for participants in CMC systems to be
uninhibited:(42)
Channel Nickname S User@Host (Name)
+custard Ireshi G *@*.*.*.OZ.AU (Libby)
+custard Lori H@ *@*.*.washington.edu (Lori -
Daniel's beloved)
+custard Daniel H@ *@*.*.*.edu.au (Daniel - Lori's
beloved)...
<Lori> After just a few chats on irc, it became obvious to me
that this was someone I could easily become very good friends
with him...
<Lori> The more we talked, the more we discovered we had in
common...
<Lori> By this time, I knew I was starting to have "more than
just a friend" feelings about Daniel...
<Lori> I told him that I was starting to get a crush on him...
<Lori> Anyway, it's grown and grown over the months.
<Daniel> A few mishaps, but we've overcome them, to bounce back
stronger than ever.
<Lori> And, as you know, we'll be getting together for 3 weeks
at the end of November, to see if we're as wonderful as we think
we are.
Such expressions of feeling are not in any way thought to be shallow
or ephemeral. Far from being unsatisfactory for "more interpersonally
involving communication tasks, such as getting to know someone", as
Hiemstra describes researchers of CMC behaviour as having
characterised the medium, IRC has in this instance fostered an
extremely emotional bond between two people.(43) Users of IRC are
able to so dispense with the conventional boundaries surrounding
communication, and cross-cultural exchange, to form deep friendships,
even love-affairs, with people whom they have never met.
Net.romances display computer-mediated relationships at their most
idyllic. However, disinhibition and increased freedom from social
norms have another side. Along with increased broad-mindedness and
intimacy among some users goes increased hostility on the part of
others. 'Flaming', the expression of anger, insults and hatred, is a
common phenomenon in all forms of computer-mediated communication,
and IRC is no exception. Anonymity makes the possibility of social
punishment for transgression of cultural mores appear to be limited.
Attracting the anger of other users of the system is a relatively
unthreatening prospect - although it is possible for users to ignore
a particular user, all that user need do is change his or her
nickname to 'start afresh' with the people whom he or she had
alienated. Protected by terminals and separated by distance, the
sanction of physical violence is irrelevant, although, as I shall
discuss later, social sanctions are present and often in a verbal
form that apes physical violence. The safety of anonymous expression
of hostilities and obscenities that would otherwise incur social
sanctions, encourages some people to use IRC as a forum for airing
their resentment of individuals or groups in a blatantly uninhibited
manner:
!Venice! Bashers have taken over +gblf... we could use some
help...
!radv*! Comment: -Gay_Bashe:+gblf- FUCK ALL OF BUTT FUCKING, ASS
LICKING, CHICKEN SHIT BIOLOGICAL DISIASTERS!(44)
Not all uninhibited behaviour on IRC is either so negative or so
positive. Much of the opportunity for uninhibited behaviour is
invested by users of IRC in sexual experimentation. The usually
culturally-enforced boundaries between sexual and platonic
relationships are challenged in computer-mediated circumstances.
Norms of etiquette are obscured by the lack of social context cues,
and the safety given by anonymity and distance allow users to ignore
otherwise strict codes regarding sexual behaviour. Conversations on
IRC can be sexually explicit, in blatant disregard for social norms
regarding the propositioning of strangers:
*Han* does this compu-sex stuff really happen?
Lola-> *Han* *smooch*
*Han* mmmmmmm......hehehe you alonee ; )?
Lola-> *Han* certianly am! I'm dialling in from home
*Han* me tooo.....are oyu horny today at all ; )?
Lola-> *Han* today? it's the middle of the night where I am...
as for the adjective, well, do what you can ;-)
*Han* mmmmmm......when did you last get off?(45)
Such behaviour is often referred to as 'net.sleazing'. Perhaps
because the majority of the users of IRC are in their late teens or
early twenties, since the Internet primarily serves educational
institutions and thus students, sexual experimentation is a popular
Internet game. Adolescents, coming to terms with their sexuality in
the 'real world', find that the freedom of 'virtual reality' allows
them to safely engage in sexual experimentation. Ranging from the
afore-mentioned gender-role switching to flirtation and 'compu-sex',
IRC provides a medium for the safe expression of a "steady barrage of
typed testosterone."(46)
Disinhibition and the lack of sanctions encouraging self-regulation
lead to extremes of behaviour on IRC. Users express hate, love,
intimacy and anger, employing the freedom of the electronic medium to
air views and engage in relationships that would in other
circumstances be deemed unacceptable in relating to strangers. This
'freedom' does not imply that IRC is an idyllic environment. Play
with social conventions can indeed lead to greater positive affect
between people, as it has between 'Daniel' and 'Lori', and to greater
personal fulfilment for some users. It can, however, also create a
violent chaos in which people feel 'free' to act upon prejudices,
even hatreds, that might otherwise be socially controlled.
_BEYOND_BOUNDARIES_
Users of IRC treat the medium as a frontier world, a virtual reality
of virtual freedom, in which participants feel free to act out their
fantasies, to challenge social norms, and exercise aspects of their
personality that would under normal interactive circumstances be
inhibited. The medium itself blocks some of the socially inhibiting
institutions that users would, under other circumstances, be
operating within. Social indicators - of social position, of age and
authority, of personal appearance - are relatively weak in a
computer-mediated context. They might be inferred, but they are not
evident. Internet Relay Chat leaves it open to users to create
virtual replacements for these social cues - as I shall discuss in
Part Two, IRC interaction involves the creation of replacements and
substitutes for physical cues, and the construction of social
hierarchies and positions of authority. That it is possible for users
of IRC to do this is due to the ways in which the medium deconstructs
conventional boundaries constraining interaction and conventional
institutions of interpersonal relationships. It is this freedom from
convention that allows IRC users to create their own conventions, and
to become a cohesive community.
The chance for deconstruction of social boundaries that is offered by
IRC is essentially postmodern. On its lighter side, computer-mediated
communication lends itself to irony, pastiche, playfulness and a
celebration of ephemeral and essentially superficial examples of
witty bravado. On its more negative side, the disinhibiting effect of
computer-mediated communication encourages the expression of dissent,
rebellion, hostility, and anti-social chaos. It involves a stripping
away of the social coordinates that let the user know where he or she
is in the cultural network, indeed it encourages this by allowing the
continual invention of new moves to old language games.(47)
Users challenge the boundaries between their differing social
systems, introducing elements of intimacy to meetings with strangers
and foreigners, overstepping the thresholds of social nicety. There
is a continual search for ways to present the unpresentable, to bring
elements technically outside the medium of communication within its
realm. Whether this continual play with the limits of expression is
positive or negative, it involves users of the system in a game that
is essentially postmodern. Engagement with the system involves
immersion in the specific context of the IRC program. There is no way
to interact with IRC without being a part of it - it is interaction
that creates the virtual reality of channels and spaces for
communication. Immersed in this specific, although not 'local' in any
geographic sense, context, players of the IRC game are involved in
turning upside down the taken-for-granted norms of the external
culture. Emotions and behaviours are taken out of their usual
contexts and transposed into the electronic context of IRC, where
they cease to be unproblematic. Faced with the impossibility of
replicating conventional social boundaries in the IRC environment,
users of the system search out and experiment with new and
unconventional ways of relating. It is this "symbolic cultural
ethos... that reflects the postmodern elements of the computer
underground and separates it from modernism... by offering an ironic
response to the primacy of a master technocratic language."(48) The
users of IRC have created a culture that challenges "the sanctity of
an established... authority."(49) To paraphrase Jim Thomas and Gordon
Meyer, speaking on the computer underground of 'hackers', it is this
style of playful rebellion, irreverent subversion and juxtaposition
of fantasy with high-tech reality that impels me to interpret IRC as
a postmodernist culture.(50)
**PART TWO:**
**CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITIES**
In crude relief, culture can be understood as a set of solutions
devised by a group of people to meet specific problems posed by
situations they face in common... This notion of culture as a
living, historical product of group problem solving allows an
approach to cultural study that is applicable to any group, be it a
society, a neighbourhood, a family, a dance band, or an organization
and its segments.(51)
This definition of culture owes much to Geertz's understanding of
culture as a "system of meanings that give significance to shared
behaviours which must be interpreted from the perspective of those
engaged in them."(52) 'Culture' includes not only the systems and
standards adopted by a group for "perceiving, believing, evaluating
and acting", but also includes the "rules and symbols of
interpretation and discourse" utilised by the members of the
group.(53) Culture, says Geertz, is "a set of control mechanisms -
plans, recipes, rules, instructions (what computer engineers call
'programs') - for the governing of behaviour."(54) In this sense the
users of IRC constitute a culture, a community. They are commonly
faced with the problems posed by the medium's inherent deconstruction
of traditional models of social interaction which are based on
physical proximity.
The measures which users of the IRC system have devised to meet their
common problems, posed by the medium's lack of regulating feedback
and social context cues, its dramaturgical weakness, and the factor
of anonymity, are the markers of their community, their common
culture. These measures fall into two distinct categories. Firstly,
users of IRC have devised systems of symbolism and textual
significance to ensure that they achieve understanding despite the
lack of more usual channels of communication. Secondly, a variety of
social sanctions have arisen amongst the IRC community in order to
punish users who disobey the rules of etiquette - or 'netiquette' -
and the integrity of those shared systems of the interpretation.(55)
_SHARED_SIGNIFICANCES_
In traditional forms of communication, as I have already suggested,
nods, smiles, eye contact, distance, tone of voice and other non-
verbal behaviours give speakers and listeners information they can
use to regulate, modify and control communication. Separated by at
least the ethernet cables of local area networks, and quite likely by
thousands of kilometres, the users of IRC are unable to base
interaction on these phenomena. This "dramaturgical weakness of
electronic media" presents a unique problem.(56) Much of our
understandings of linguistic meaning and social context are derived
from non-verbal cues. With these unavailable, it remains for users of
computer-mediated communication to create methods of compensating for
the lack. As Hiltz and Turoff have reported, computer conferees have
developed ways of sending computerised screams, hugs and kisses.(57)
This is apparent on IRC.
Textual substitution for traditionally non-verbal information is a
highly stylized, even artistic, procedure that is central to the
construction of an IRC community. Common practice is to simply
verbalise physical cues, for instance literally typing 'hehehe' when
traditional methods of communication would call for laughter. IRC
behaviour takes this to an extreme. It is a recognised convention to
describe physical actions or reactions, denoted as such by
presentation between two asterisks:(58)
<Wizard> Come, brave Knight! Let me cast a spell of protection
on you..... Oooops - wrong spell! You don;t mind being green for
a while- do you???
<Prince> Lioness: please don't eat him...
<storm> *shivers from the looks of lioness*
<Knight> Wizard: Not at all.
<Bel_letre> *hahahah*
<Lioness> Very well, your excellency. *looks frustrated*
<Prince> *falls down laughing*.
<Knight> Wizard: as long as I can protect thou ass, I'd be utter
grateful! :-)
<Bel_letre> *Plays a merry melody*
<storm> *walks over to lioness and pats her paw*
<Wizard> *Dispells the spells cast on Knight!*
<Wizard> Knight: Your back to normal!!!
<Prince> *brings a pallete of meat for Lioness*
<Lioness> *licks Storm*
<storm> *Looking up* Thank You for not eating me!(59)
The above extract from a log of an IRC session, involving an online
fantasy role-playing game, shows a concentration of verbalised
physical actions and reactions. This density of virtually physical
cues is somewhat abnormal, but it amply demonstrates the extent to
which users of the IRC system feel it important to create a physical
context within which their peers can interpret their behaviour.
Verbal statements by themselves give little indication of the
emotional state of the speaker, and without physical expression to
decode the specific context of statements, it is easy to misinterpret
their intent:
*Whopper* just kidding...not trying to be offensive
<Fireship-> *Whopper* didn't assume that you were...(60)
The corollary of Geertz's definition of culture is that groups of
people who fail to communicate do not compose a common culture. If
meaning is lost in transition from speaker to addressee, then
community is lost - "undirected by culture patterns - organized
systems of significant symbols - man's behaviour would be virtually
ungovernable, a mere chaos of pointless acts and exploding emotions,
his experience virtually shapeless."(61) In order for IRC users to
constitute a community it is necessary for them to contrive a method
to circumvent the possibility of loss of intended meaning of
statements. Verbalisation of physical condition is that method.
Interlocutors will describe what their reactions to specific
statements would be were they in physical contact. Of course, this
stylized description of action is not intended to be taken as a
literal description of the speakers' physical actions, which are,
obviously, typing at a keyboard and staring at a monitor. Rather they
are meant to represent what would be their actions were the virtual
reality of IRC an actual reality. Without some way of compensating
for the inherent lack of social context cues in computer-mediated
communication, IRC would get no further than the deconstruction of
conventional social boundaries. The textual cues utilised on IRC
provide the symbols of interpretation and discourse that the users of
IRC have devised to 'meet specific problems posed by situations they
face in common.' Without these textual cues to substitute for non-
verbal language, the users of IRC would fail to constitute a
community - with them, they do.
The users of IRC often utilise a 'shorthand' for the description of
physical condition. They (in common with users of other computer-
mediated communication systems such as news and email) have developed
a system of presenting textual characters as representations of
physical action. Commonly known as 'smileys', CMC users employ
alphanumeric characters and punctuation symbols to create strings of
highly emotively charged keyboard art:
:-) or : ) a smiling face, as viewed side-on
;-) or ; ) a winking, smiling face
:-( or : ( an 'unsmiley': an unhappy face
:-(*) someone about to throw up
8-) someone wearing glasses
:-P someone sticking out their tongue
>:-O someone screaming in fright, their hair standing on
end
:-& someone whose lips are sealed
@}-`-,-`-- a rose
These 'emoticons' are many and various.(62) Although the most
commonly used is the plain smiling face - used to denote pleasure or
amusement, or to soften a sarcastic comment - it is common for IRC
users to develop their own emoticons, adapting the symbols available
on the standard keyboard to create minute and essentially ephemeral
pieces of textual art to represent their own virtual actions and
responses. Such inventiveness and lateral thinking demands skill.
Successful communication within IRC depends on the use of such
conventions as verbalised action and the use of emoticons. Personal
success on IRC, then, depends on the user's ability to manipulate
these tools. The users who can succinctly and graphically portray
themselves to the rest of the IRC usership will be most able to
create a community within that virtual system.
Speed of response and wit are the stuff of popularity and community
on IRC. The Internet relays chat, and such social endeavour demands
speed of thought - witty replies and keyboard savoir faire blend into
a stream-of-consciousness interaction that valorises shortness of
response time, ingenuity and ingenuousness in the presentation of
statements. The person who cannot fulfil these requirements - who is
a slow typist, who demands time to reflect before responding, will be
disadvantaged. For those who can keep the pace, such 'stream-of-
consciousness' communication encourages a degree of intimacy and
emotion that would be unusual between complete strangers in the 'real
world'. The IRC community relies on this intimacy, on spur of the
moment social overtures made to other users:
/time
*** munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU : Tuesday August 27 1991 -- 00:28 EST
(from munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU)
/join +Sadness
*** Miri has joined channel +Sadness
/away Dying of a broken heart
You have been marked as being away(63)
/topic Heartbreak
*** Miri has changed the topic to "Heartbreak"
*MALAY* What's wrong? Are you OK? <Tue Aug 27 00:36>
*Stodge* Hey, what's happened? Wanna talk about it? <Tue Aug 27
00:36>
*LadyJay* What's the matter Miri? <Tue Aug 27 00:37>
IRC users regard their electronic world with a great deal of
seriousness, and generally with a sense of responsibility for their
fellows. The degree of trust in the supportive nature of the
community that is shown in the above example, and the degree to which
that trust was justified, demonstrates this. Hiltz and Turoff have
described this syndrome of empathetic community arising amongst
groups of people participating in CMC systems. They have "observed
very overt attempts to be personal and friendly" and note that
"strong feelings of friendship" arise between computer-mediated
interlocutors who have never met face-to-face. IRC may encourage
participants to play with the conventions of social interaction, but
the games are not always funny. The threads holding IRC together as a
community are made up of shared modes of understanding, and the
concepts shared range from the light-hearted and fanciful to the
personal and anguished. The success of this is dependant upon the
degree to which users can trust that the issues that they communicate
will be well received - they depend on the integrity of users.
This expectation of personal integrity and sincerity is both upheld
by convention and enforced by structure.
_SOCIAL_SANCTIONS_
One of the most sensitive issues amongst users is the question of
nicknames. The IRC program demands that users offer a unique name to
the system, to be used in their interaction with other users. These
aliases are chosen as the primary method by which a user is known to
other users, and thus generally reflect some aspect of the user's
personality or interests. It is common for users to prefer and
consistently use one nickname. Members of the IRC community have
developed a service, known as 'Nickserv', which enables IRC users to
register nicknames as belonging to a specific user accessing the IRC
system from a specific computer on the Internet. Any other user who
chooses to use a nickname thus registered is sent a message from
Nickserv telling him or her that the chosen nickname is registered,
and advising them to choose an alternate name. Furthermore, the IRC
program will not allow two users to adopt the same nickname
simultaneously. The program design is so structured as to refuse a
user access to the system should he or she attempt to use the
nickname of another user who is online, regardless of whether their
nickname is registered. The user must choose a unique nickname before
being able to interact within IRC. Names, then, as the primary
personal interface on IRC, are of great importance. One of the
greatest taboos, one that is upheld by the basic software design, is
the use of another's chosen nickname.
The illegitimate use of nicknames can cause anger on the part of
their rightful users and sometimes deep feelings of guilt on the part
of the perpetrators. This public announcement was made by a male IRC
user to the newsgroup alt.irc, a forum for asynchronous discussion of
IRC:(64)
I admit to having used the nickname "allison" on several
occasions,the name of an acquaintance and "virtual" friend at
another university.Under this nick, I talked on channels +hottub
and +gblf, as well as witha few individuals privately. This
was a deceptive, immature thing to do,and I am both embarrassed
and ashamed of myself.(65) I wish to apologizeto everyone I
misled, particularly users 'badping' and 'kired'...
I am truly sorry for what I have done, and regret ever having
usedIRC, though I think it has the potential to be a wonderful
forum and meansof communication. It certainly makes the world
seem a small place.I shall never invade IRC with a false nick or
username again.(66)
The physical aspect of IRC may be only virtual, but the emotional
aspect is actual. IRC is not a 'game' in any light-hearted sense - it
can inspire deep feelings of guilt and responsibility. It is also
clear that users' acceptance of IRC's potential for the
deconstruction of social boundaries is limited by their reliance on
the construction of communities. Experimentation ceases to be
acceptable when it threatens the delicate balance of trust that holds
IRC together. The uniqueness of names, their consistent use, and
respect for - and expectation of - their integrity, is crucial to the
development of online communities. As previously noted, should a user
find him or herself unwelcome in a particular channel all he or she
need do is adopt another nickname to be unrecognizable. The idea of
community, however, does demand that members be recognizable to each
other. Were they not so, it would be impossible for a coherent
community to emerge.
The sanctions available to the IRC community for use against errant
members are both social and structural. The degree to which members
feel, as 'Allison' did, a sense of shame for actions which abuse the
systems of meaning devised by the IRC community, is related to the
degree to which they participate in the deconstruction of traditional
social conventions. By being uninhibited, by experimenting with
cultural norms of gender and reciprocity in relationships, 'Allison'
became a part of a social network that encourages self-exposure by
simulating anonymity and therefore invulnerability. In this case, the
systems of meaning created by the users of IRC have become
conventions with a terrorizing authority over those who participate
in their use. As I shall describe, users of IRC who flout the
conventions of the medium are ostracised, banished from the
community. The way to redemption for such erring members is through a
process of guilt and redemption; through, in 'Allison's' case, a
'public' ritual of self-accusation, confession, repentance and
atonement.
IRC supports mechanisms for the enforcement of acceptable behaviour
on IRC. Channel operators - 'chanops' or 'chops' - have access to the
/kick command, which throws a specified user out of the given
channel. IRC operators - 'opers' - have the ability to 'kill' users,
to break the network link that connects them to IRC. The code of
etiquette for doing so is outlined in the documentation that is part
of the IRC program:
Obnoxious users had best beware the operator who's fast on the
/kill command. "/kill nickname" blows any given nickname
completely out of the chat system. Obnoxiousness is not to be
tolerated. But operators do not use /kill lightly.(67)
There is a curious paradox in the concomitant usage of the words
'obnoxious' and 'kill'. Obnoxiousness seems a somewhat trivial term
to warrant the use of such textually violent commands such as /kick
and /kill. The word trivialises the degree to which abusive
behaviour, deceit, and shame can play a part in interaction on
Internet Relay Chat. The existence of such negative behaviour and
emotions is played down, denigrated - what is stressed is the
measures that can be taken by the 'authorities' - the chanops and
opers - on IRC. Violators of the integrity of the IRC system are
marginalised, outcast, described so as to seem insignificant, but
their potential for disrupting the IRC community is suggested by the
emotive strength of the words with which they are punished. The terms
'killing' and 'kicking' substitute for their physical counterparts -
IRC users may be safe from physical threat, but the community
sanctions of violence and restraint are there, albeit in textualised
form.
Operators have adopted their own code of etiquette regarding /kills.
It is the general rule that an operator issuing such a command should
let other operators, and the victim, know the reason for his or her
action by adding a comment to the '/kill message' that fellow
operators will receive:
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for I4982784 from MaryD
(Obscene Dumps!!!)
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for mic from mgp (massive
abusive channel dumping involving lots of ctrl-gs and
gaybashing, amongst other almost as obnoxious stuff)
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for JP from Cyberman
((repeatedely ignorning warnings to stop nickname abuse))(68)
There is no technical reason why such comments or excuses should be
given - they are purely a 'courtesy'. Those in authority on IRC have
self-imposed codes of behaviour which supposedly serve to ensure that
operator privileges are not abused.
Operators have considerable power within IRC. They can control not
only an individual's access to IRC, but are also responsible for
maintaining the network connections that enable IRC programs at
widely geographically separated sites to 'see' each other. The issue
of whether or not operators have too much power is a contentious one.
While operators are careful to present their /killings as justifiable
in the eyes of their peers, this is often not felt to be the case by
their victims. Accusations of prejudice and injustice abound. IRC
operators answer user's complaints and charges with self-
justifications - often the debates are reduced to 'flame-wars',
abusive arguments between opponents who are more concerned to insult
and defeat rather than reason with each other:
!JP! fucking stupid op cybman /killd me - think ya some kind of
net.god? WHy not _ask_ people in the channle i'm in if I'm
annoying them before blazing away????
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for JP from Cyberman
(abusive wallops)(69)
'Kills' can also be seen as unjustified by other operators, and the
operator whose actions are questioned by his peers is likely to be
'killed' himself:
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for Alfred from Kamikaze
(public insults are not appreciated)
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for Kamikaze from dave (yes,
but they are allowed.)(70)
The potential for tension between operators of IRC is often diffused
into a game. 'Killwars', episodes in which opers will kill each
other, often happen. There is rarely overt hostility in these 'wars'
- the attitude taken is one of ironic realisation of the
responsibilities and powers that opers have, mixed with bravado and
humour - an effort to parody those same powers and responsibilities:
!puppy*! ok! one frivolous kill coming up! :D
!Maryd*! Go puppy! :*)
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for puppy from Glee (and
here it IS! : )
!Chas*! HAHA : )
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for Glee from Maryd (and
here's another)
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for Maryd from Chas (and
another)
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for Chas from blopam (chain
reaction - john farnham here I come)
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for blopam from dave (you
must be next.)
!Chas*! HA HA HA : )
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for Chas from Maryd (Only
family is allowed to kill me!!!)
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for Maryd from dave (am I
still family?)
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for Glee from puppy (just
returning the favor ;D)
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for Maryd from Chas (Oh
yeah?? Oh my brother !!)
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for dave from Maryd (yep,
you sure are : ))
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for Chas from Maryd (8 now)
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for Maryd from Chas (Oh yah
?)
!Alfred! thank you for a marvellously refreshing kill war; this
completes my intro into the rarified and solemn IRCop
godhood.(71)
The ideas of authority and freedom are often in opposition on IRC, as
the newly invented social conventions of the IRC community attempt to
deal with emotions and actions in ways that emulate the often violent
social sanctions of the 'real world.' The potential for tension and
hostility between users and opers arising over the latter's use of
power can erupt into anger and abuse. Disagreement between operators
over their implementation of power can result in the use of
operators' powers against each other. The games that opers play with
'killing' express their realisation of the existence of these
elements in the hierarchical nature of IRC culture and serve to
diffuse that tension - at least among opers - and to unite them as an
authoritative class. But it does not fully resolve these conflicts -
the tensions that are expressed regarding the oper/user power
segregation system point to the nexus point between the
deconstruction of boundaries and the construction of communities on
IRC.
_THE_IRC_CCOMMUNITY_
The emergent culture of IRC is essentially heterogeneous. Users
access the system from all over the world, and - within the
constraints of language compatibility - interact with people from
cultures that they might not have the chance to learn about through
any other direct means. The melting pot of the IRC 'electropolis', as
Hiltz and Turoff term computer-mediated communication networks,
serves to break down, yet valorise, the differences between
cultures.(72) It is not uncommon for IRC channels to contain no two
people from the same country. With the encouragement of intimacy
between users and the tendency for conventional social mores to be
ignored on IRC, it becomes possible for people to investigate the
differences between their cultures. No matter on how superficial a
level that might be, the encouragement of what can only be called
friendship between people of disparate cultural backgrounds helps to
destroy any sense of intolerance that each may have for the other's
culture and to foster a sense of cross-cultural community:(73)
<Corwyn> Eldi: London, Paris, Waterloo, Dublin, Exeter, are all
in Ontario
<eldi> Ontarior!!! haha! Paris, France, London, England, Dublin,
Irelang are all better than SF, CA, US
<yarly> the coffeeshops! :-)
<Corwyn> Eldi: Don't you like San Francisco?
<eldi> well, it's like anything else. if you're around it too
much, there's no novelty in it.
<Corwyn> Eldi: I guess so
<eldi> I'm going to Paris in a few days. I'm gonna this that's
the greatest thing I've ever seen, I'm sure
<Corwyn> Eldi: never been further west than Hannibal, MO I am
afraid
<eldi> but i'm gonna be living with a host family(studenmt echa
exchange) history and philosophy
<eldi> at thier summer home.
<Corwyn> Eldi: parlez-vous francais?
<eldi> Thier regular home is in the suburbs of Paris. I'm
sureParis wouldn't be as exciting to THEM,. and me! see what i
mean?
<yarly> francais!
<eldi> BIEN SUR! j'espere que je puisse communiquer en (a)
Paris!!!
<eldi> of course! I hope thatI will be able to commin
(communicate) in paris,
<yarly> translation please eldi!
<yarly> je ne parle pas francias
<eldi> in french, in paris all
<eldi> of course there is one phrease that is most important for
americans abraoad
<Corwyn> Eldi: what is that? Parlez-vous anglais?
<eldi> "Ne tirer pas! Je suis Canadaien" "Don't shoot! I'm a
canadian"
<eldi> why bother to kill a canadaien? There goverment never
does anything you can protest against! ;-)? (74)
Irreverent, and ironic, this kind of exchange exhibits the
cosmopolitan nature of IRC. Cultural differences are celebrated, are
made the object of curiosity and excitement, while the interlocutors
remain aware of the relativity of their remarks. The ability to
appreciate cultural differences and to welcome immersion in them,
while retaining a sense of ironic distance from both that visited
culture and one's native culture, is the object of interest.
Community on IRC is "created through symbolic strategies and
collective beliefs."(75) IRC users share a common language, a shared
web of verbal and textual significances that are substitutes for, and
yet distinct from, the shared networks of meaning of the wider
community. Users of IRC share a vocabulary and a system of
understanding that is unique and therefore defines them as
constituting a distinct culture. This community is self-regulating,
having systems of hierarchy and power that allow for the punishment
of transgressors of those systems of behaviour and meaning. Members
of the community feel a sense of responsibility for IRC - most
respect the conventions of their subculture, and those who don't are
either marginalised or reclaimed through guilt and atonement. The
symbolic identity - the virtual reality - of the world of computer-
mediated communication is a rich and diverse culture comprised of
highly specialised skills, language and unifying symbolic meanings.
As I have suggested, this community is essentially postmodern. The
IRC community shares a concern for diversity, for care in nuances of
language and symbolism, a realisation of the power of language and
the importance of social context cues, that are hallmarks of
postmodern culture. IRC culture fulfils Denzin's prescription that
the identity and activity of postmodern culture should "make fun of
the past [and of past cultural rituals] while keeping it alive, and
search for new ways to present the unpresentable in order to break
down the barriers that keep the profane out of the everyday."(76)
**CONCLUSION:**
**DISCOURSE AND MORAL JUDGEMENT**
It is tempting to view IRC in moral terms. I have sought to show that
IRC provides a medium in which behaviour that is both outside of and
in opposition to accepted social norms is accepted and even
encouraged. I have demonstrated the ways in which the IRC community
has developed its own distinctive system of significant signs and
symbols. But this is not to imply that the IRC community is
democratic or liberating. This freedom - from old conventions and to
create new ones - can be both positive and negative. 'Positive' forms
of human interaction exist on IRC - there is friendship, tolerance,
humour, even love. There is also hatred, violence, shame and guilt.
The 'freedom' of computer mediated communication is expressed in a
lack of conventional social controls, not in any utopian implication.
I feel that it would be a mistake to project future societal effects
from the kinds of phenomena that I have described as happening on
IRC. But the temptation is there. On this issue, Johansen, Vallee and
Spangler say:
Whenever a new technology emerges, it is tempting to predict
that it will lead to a new and better form of society. The
technology for electronic meetings is no exception. The new
media invite a look at alternative organizations and alternative
societies. Combined with current social concerns, they also
encourage utopian visions... In this vision, electronic media
create a sense of community and commonalty among all people of
the world...(77)
Such a wide-ranging conclusion is unjustifiable. As I have shown, IRC
users can share a sense of community and commonalty, but they can
also exhibit alienation and hostility. It is impossible to say which,
if either, will prevail in IRC's future.
Nevertheless, the cultural play that occurs on IRC does have
implications for individual players beyond the scope of the
virtuality of the computer network. If, as Hiltz and Turoff have
said, users of CMC systems can come to feel that their most highly
emotional relationships are with fellow users whom they rarely or
never see, then this indicates the potential for computer-mediated
communication systems to influence the lives of their users.
Certainly for 'Lori' and 'Daniel', and for 'Allison', the virtual
reality of Internet Relay Chat has strongly affected their
relationships with others and their view of themselves. For them, and
others, 'virtuality' is reality.
IRC has the potential to affect users of the system in many and often
opposing ways. For the shy and socially ill-at-ease, computer
mediated communication can provide a way of learning social skills in
a non-threatening environment. It may also provide a crutch and an
excuse not to develop social skills that can be implemented in the
'real world'. Relationships formed on IRC may be supportive, deeply
felt and may give users much happiness. They may also lead to a
reluctance to form relationships outside the electronic medium, and
may be in themselves painful due to the lack of possibilities for the
expression of more conventional forms of affection. The cross-
cultural, international nature of IRC can create a sense of empathy
and tolerance for differing cultures. It can also provide a medium
for the uninhibited expression of racial hatred. Little is as yet
known about the potential psychological and social effects of
computer-mediated communication. At present we have, as Hiltz and
Turoff admit, "only the skimpiest of insights" into what those
effects might be, and which might predominate.(78)
It would be easy to gloss over the less attractive aspects of IRC and
to stress the more positive side. IRC is, after all - as it was
intended to be - fun. Nevertheless, those unattractive aspects cannot
be ignored. IRC, in common with other examples of computer mediated
communication, has no intrinsic moral implications. It is a cultural
tool, of a kind whose specific discursive background I have located
in postmodernism, that can be used in a number of differing and
contradictory ways.
Moral judgement of IRC is fruitless, since the possibilities are so
balanced that it is unclear which aspects of IRC might be dominant -
if any are. IRC is essentially postmodern, and as such its cultural
subversion can be as effectively channelled at egalitarianism as at
racism, at feminism as at sexism. IRC cannot be made to serve a moral
point - but it can be used to problematise the discourses of many
academic disciplines.
Interaction on IRC presents many anomalies that cannot be understood
in the light of present discourse. Its mode of communication is
synchronous, yet interlocutors are neither proximate nor necessarily
known to each other. There is a lack of conventional social and
emotive context cues - yet conversation can be highly personalised,
and a social structure has emerged. IRC is a social phenomena, yet
its existence is in the nowhere of electron states and its artifacts
in magnetic recordings. If IRC, and computer-mediated communication
in general, is to be fully understood and analysed, then the
conventions of many disciplines must be deconstructed. Linguistics,
communication theory, sociology, anthropology - and history - are
challenged by the culture shared by the users of IRC. The divisions
between spoken and written, and synchronous and asynchronous forms of
language, are broken down. The idea that as the communication
bandwidth narrows interaction should become increasingly impersonal
does not hold true for IRC. Understandings of cultural significances
as relying on physical display are challenged. Factors of authority,
hierarchy and social control are reconstructed. IRC deconstructs and
reconstructs not only its own structure but also the conventions of
the discourses that might address it.
If these disciplines are to be able to address postindustrial,
postmodern phenomena, they must be able to incorporate the challenges
that those phenomena offer them. IRC is only one example of the kinds
of interaction that are increasingly common in media utilising high-
tech, computerised technology. As it becomes more common - as more
corporations take to electronic mail and news systems to facilitate
communication, as more academics from non-science disciplines begin
to utilise the facilities offered by the Internet, as more people
come to rely on the styles of communication, community and culture
that have developed on Internet Relay Chat - discourse, and therefore
disciplines, must alter to encompass these media.
**APPENDIX_A:_IRC_COMMANDS**
The IRC user interface consists of a status line on the second line
from the bottom of the user's screen, and a command line on the
bottom of the screen on which typed input from the user can be seen.
The remainder of the screen shows the activity of other users,
results of input to the command line, or the results of information
requests of the IRC program. From this interface a number of commands
can be issued. The syntax for a command is:
/<command-name> <command-modifiers>
There are three sets of commands, available to three sets of users.
'User commands' are available to all users of IRC; 'chanop commands'
are available to the initiators of a channel; and 'oper commands' are
available to IRC server operators.
_USER_ COMMANDS_
Away: /away <some-string-of-text> is used when a user does not wish
to leave IRC, but can't attend to the screen for a while. Anyone
who /msg's or /whois's that user will be sent a message saying
that he is away, with his explanatory text string attached.
Msg's sent to him will be there for him to read when he, say,
gets back from lunch, and he will not have given the senders the
impression that he is ignoring them. Msg's sent will be
displayed to the recipient with the time and date received
shown.
Bye: /bye quits IRC.
Clear: /clear clears the screen.
Help: /help <command-name> will give the user detailed instructions
on how to use a specific command.
Ignore: /ignore <nickname> <message-type> makes the messages of a
specified type, from a given user, invisible to the issuer. The
use of 'all' for 'message-type' makes the specified user
invisible.
Join: /join <channel-name> joins a channel of that name, or creates
one if a channel of that name does not exist. There are four
types of channel:
Null channel: when the user initially enters IRC he will be
placed in channel 0, which is the null channel - he cannot
see the activity of any other users on that channel, but he
can issue commands, and receive and send private messages.
This null channel is a necessity considering that there are
usually over two hundred people using IRC at any one time.
Numeric channels: these channels can be of three types - public
channels (that show up on a /list or /names), secret
channels (which don't show up on /list etc., but the users
on them are listed as being on the null channel) and hidden
channels (neither channel name nor users on it will be shown
by any user command). Public channels are numbers 1-999,
secret channels are numbers 1000 and up, and hidden channels
are negative numbers.
+channels: these channels have a text name, prefixed by a '+'
(ie. +mychannel, +hottub and +gblf). The status of the
channel can be selected by the channel operator (see /mode
command).
#channels: these channels have a text name, prefixed by a '#'
(ie. #twilight_ or #report). As with +channels, the channel
status can be set by the channel operator. Unlike '+'
channels and numeric channels, a user may be on more than
one, and up to ten, #channels at one time, in addition to
being on one +channel or numeric channel.
Note that /join will, if issued from a +channel or a numeric
channel, automatically exit the user from that channel before he
can join another + or numeric channel.
Leave: /leave <channel-name> leaves that channel. If the user is not
on any other channels, he is placed in the null channel.
Links: /links lists the currently active set of IRC servers.
List: /list will give the user a list of all active chat channels,
the number of users on each, and the topics associated with each
channel.
Lusers: /lusers will tell the user how many people are on IRC, how
many "have a connection to the twilight zone" (are IRC
operators) and how many channels there are.
Msg: /msg <nickname or channel-name> sends a private message to
another user, or to all users on a specific channel.
Names: /names will list all channels and the nicks of people attached
to them. Chanops will be marked by an '@' sign prefixing their
nick.
Nick: /nick <some-string-of-text> changes the user's IRC nickname.
Note that IRC nicks can only be up to nine characters long.
Query: /query <nickname> opens a private conversation with another
user. Until a second query command, without an argument, is
issued, everything that the user types will be by default sent
only to the specified user instead of to a channel.
Time: /time <servername> will display the time and date local to that
IRC server. If a servername is not specified then the time and
date local to the user's server will be shown.
Topic: /topic <some-string-of-text> will set or change the topic of
the channel the user is on to the string specified.
Wallops: /wallops <some-string-of-text> writes a message to all IRC
operators online. This is useful if, for instance, special help
is needed with IRC.
Who: /who will return a list of the users currently on IRC, giving
their IRC nicknames and host addresses. This command can be
modified to list only users on particular servers, or particular
hosts. For instance. '/who -server *.au' would return a list of
all the people on Australian servers; '/who *' returns a list of
the users is on the same channel as the issuer of the command;
'/who <channel-name>' lists users on a particular channel.
Whois: /whois <nickname> gives detailed information about a user on
IRC.
Whowas: /whowas <nickname> gives detailed information about a user
who has recently logged off the system or recently changed
nicknames.
_CHANOP_COMMANDS_
Invite: /invite <nickname> invites a user to the channel that the
issuer of the command is on. Note that this command can be used
by non-chanops if the channel is not invite-only.
Kick: /kick <channel-name> <nickname> throws a specified user off
that channel and places them in the null channel.
Mode: this command is used by channel operators, who are the people
who initially invoked a channel name or have had chanop status
given them by a chanop. The syntax is: /mode <channel-name>
<modifier> <parameter>. Modifiers are
p - Private channel. Users who are not on the channel will not
see the channel name on a /names or /who list - the members
of the channel will appear to be on the null channel.
s - Secret channel. Users who are not on the channel will not
see the channel name on a /names or /who list, nor will the
names of the people who are on the channel appear on any
listing. The channel and users on it are invisible.
m - Moderated channel. Only chanops can 'speak'.
o - Operator privilege. This bestows chanop status and
privileges to the person (parameter) given. That person then
has access to these chanop commands.
t - Only operators can change the topic of the channel.
l - Limited channel. The number of people in this channel is
limited to the number (parameter) given.
i - Invite-only channel. Users cannot join the channel unless
invited to do so by a chanop.
note that all these modifiers must be used with either '+' or '-
to add or remove a specification from the channel's status.
_OPER_COMMANDS_
kill: /kill <nickname> breaks the specified user's connection to the
IRC network.
Oper: /oper <nickname> <password> users who have the potential for
operator privileges initially invoke those privileges with this
command, where nickname is the nickname under which operation is
intended, and password is the password known to the chat system
for that nickname.
Wall: /wall <some-string-of-text> is used to send a broadcast message
to everyone connected to IRC.
There are a number of other commands available to IRC operators -
/trace, /connect, /squit, /stats for example - pertaining to the
technical operation of IRC, controlling the network connections and
so forth. These commands are numerous and not strictly relevant to my
essay so I have chosen to exclude them from this list.
_MESSAGE_AND_COMMAND_FORMATS_
_IRC_messages_appear_as_follows:_
Private /msgs to a person:
are seen by the sender as: ->*recipient* <text>
are seen by the recipient as: *sender* <text>
Private /msgs to a channel:
are seen by the sender as: >channel> test
are seen by the recipient as: <sender/channel> text
Public messages:
are seen by the sender as: > text
are seen by the recipient/s as: <sender> text
Walls:
are seen by the sender as: #sender# text
are seen by the recipient/s as: #sender# text
Wallops:
are seen by the sender as: !sender! text
are seen by the recipient as: !sender! text
_The_results_of_IRC_commands_appear_as_follows:_
/invite commands produce:
as seen by the inviter:
*** Inviting Waftam to channel +anarres
as seen by the invited person:
*** Ireshi invites you to channel +anarres
/join commands produce:
*** Ireshi has joined channel +anarres
/kill commands produce:
as seen by IRC operators:
*** Notice -- Received KILL message for Ireshi. Path:
munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU!Waftam (You don't know how much this
hurts me..)
as seen by the 'victim':
*** You have been killed by Waftam at
munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU!Waftam
(You don't know how much this hurts me..)
*** Use /SERVER to reconnect to a server
/kick commands produce:
as seen by the kicker and other members of the channel:
*** Waftam has been kicked off channel +anarres by Ireshi
as seen by the person kicked:
*** You have been kicked off channel +anarres by Ireshi
/lists commands produce the following: