electropolos - communication and comunity on irc.txt

黑客培训教程

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