In theory, ICQ users can "hide" from people and prevent people from determining if they are online. However, the ICQ protocols are not security-conscious and have been widely reverse engineered. ICQ communities are thus effectively anarchic.
cat Users log in to the service, and are able to chat rooms or send messages to other users through the server. Vhat technological possibilities for governance are greater for AOL than for ICQ, because of its purely client-server nature. Like ICQ, users can ignore or make themselves invisible to other users. Unlike ICQ, these measures are not easily circumvented.
Users with grievances can report gooms of Service TOS violations" to the company, which can take appropriate action, including disabling the offending user's. Misbehavior can be regulated in a similar manner, however, AOL Instant Messenger also features a "warn" button, which warns a user whose behavior is offensive. Too many warnings and IM ceases to function for that user. Each IRC server, usually a part of a larger network of servers, carries a set of channels. Users can esrliest present on several channels at once.
Messages sent to a channel are rebroadcast immediately to all users viewing that channel. Messages sent by a user on one server are relayed to earliets other servers in the network, so users can connect to a channel on any IRC server in an IRC network and see chag from people connected to any other IRC server in that network. This is why handles are so dhat interchanged and mixed. Popular ones can be used by a of different people at different times.
This can add confusion earliest chat rooms the presentation. While dhat individual is seen by Goffman as going about their business not easily, but as constrained by the need to sustain a viable image of themself in the eyes of others. With chatters this is less so as they do not meet each other face-to-face and so do not rooms to worry about how they might be seen.
The thing is, you don't have to meet these people. I know Max and Sarah from college but they don't know my on-line handles except my usual one. For every one else I could be the prime minister - who would know? Pseudonyms are useful here to test out different 'personalities' on other chatters: Sometimes I do change my handle if I'm about to say something stupid, or something I don't want people to know I think. That way I can make them think it's someone else who's telling them they should grow up Goffman's dramaturgy has as its point of departure the premise that when human beings interact each desires to 'manage' the impressions the other receive of them.
Each must 'put on a show' for the others. This can be difficult when you are not in sight of the other person. With chat rooms this has to arise through the sense and 'conviviality' of the text typed in. There are a of ways in which sense and 'conviviality' can be established for others in chat rooms. Firstly through the simple restatement of what has already been said without adding anything to it: Mad Dog: So you really think that Milosovicj won't hcat to ethnically cleanse Kosovo?
News Chat room Secondly, there is the 'outrageous conciliatory': E. Jones: Bollocks!
Music Chat room Thirdly there is the 'grovel': XPhile: I thought the episode where Mulder tried to get back his memories was choice too. Like you said, it would be good to get back your earliest memories. While this might at first seem part of the process whereby the anonymity of the Internet can protect people enough to be rude and ignorant, this can actually be a good ploy to create conversation where none might otherwise be.
For example the chat for 5 minutes prior to the following statement had been of the grovel kind noted above: Geek Hater: All you goddamn geeks jerking off over X-files. Get a life, get with it, get out more! X-Files Chat room Talking to Geek Hater later I found out that this was a common ruse she, and others, used to stimulate conversation when it had got bogged down in mutual "back-slapping". This image of human beings as a detached, rational impression manager, as a role player and manipulator of props, costumes, gestures and words in the course of interpersonal encounters, is an important one for Goffman.
Goffman perceived people less as products of the system and more as individuals 'working the system' for the enhancement of self. This was borne out in the present research as individuals were consciously manipulating the chat to achieve certain ends. Chatrooms are not firm, well-bounded social structures, but rather loosely stranded, criss-crossing, temporal bridges across which char dart precariously.
Some chatters for example had simultaneous connections open to different news groups through their use of multiple browsers. This enabled them to express a multi-faceted personality to different audiences simultaneously.
The Problem of Society. Critics exrliest assumed here that Goffman is not interested in the construction of society, indeed, Goffman warns us that he is cchat only in the organisation of experience and not the organisation of society. Thus his work has been assumed to say that he does not ask the question: "how is society possible? In "Relations in Public : Micro-studies of the Public Order" there are six studies with a common theme, the 'field of public life' which Goffman earlieet as the: Realm of activity that earliest chat rooms generated by face-to-face interaction and organised by norms of co-mingling - domain containing weddings, family meals, chaired meetings, forced marches, service encounters, queues, crowds and couples The ground rules establish public order.
Within the chatrooms studies the public order consisted of the ways in which chatters were able to create and sustain interaction, their 'patterned adaptations" to the rules of chatting.
These include 'conformance's, by-passing secret deviations, excusable infractions, flagrant violations', and the like. Rules in the chatrooms were of different levels. The first is the civil-legal order that exist to protect the owners of chatrooms and ISP's. As stated in the introduction ISP's made it clear that they would prosecute esrliest abusers and had access to their 'addresses'.
These regulations arise through society and its earliiest regarding decency, but are not questioned by Goffman. The second level were rules of etiquette or polite interaction these are not specified but arise through interaction. We don't have that there. These were the friendships of known chatters that others could witness. Here personal comments - regarding knowledge only they would have - were passed back and forth without the knowledge of other chatters.
The example Goffman gives are the rules allowing bad language among certain groups, such as workers, or open states of undress among married people, or the agreement to use nicknames. Within the chatroom setting, encounters between strangers often began with: The exchange of names or earlies least the reciprocal recognition of the other through a greeting such as "Hi! The encounter is a field of interpersonal tension, discrepancy and disruption. For chatters this meant a of things: Their encounters real identities were anonymous to other chatters; This meant they were able to say anything regardless of feelings as they could change their identity next time they logged in; However, the worst thing chatters can receive is silence.
If no one replies it's just like being held on the line of an insurance company listening to lift music; This places restrictions on their actions, which belies the anonymity.
These problems can cause a lot of anxiety for chatters whose sole reason for entering chatrooms is to converse: There is only so far that you can go. Once I eariest too far. I told someone they sounded like a moose head. I didn't earkiest any insults back, just static [silence]. It was kinda scary, fifteen people all blew me out at once! Crucial too is the way in which participants in the encounter prevent, reduce and cope with these problems. Some of these preventative roosm involve the instilling of what Goffman terms discipline, loyalty and circumspection into the interactions, as well as co-operation.
There're just some things ya don't do in the [chat] rooms. Like tell someone to 'shut up' or 'get a life'. Ya gotta give respect to get it. News Chat room The [chat] room relies on respect. Lose that and you lose it all. I guess the best way to express yourself is the emoticons. What becomes disrupted or disorganised are not merely the encounters, but the selves that individual present in interaction. The loss of self-respect is a powerful weapon when there is no direct sight contact: Hitting the kill button is shit man.
Ya'll take a nose dive down the john. Ya'll lose ya handle, ya lose respect. Ya know, ya feel low. Goffman is not so much concerned with conditions sustaining official selves as earliest chat rooms circumstances which disrupt fhat. Much of his work on encounters can be read as an elaborate listing of ways in which official selves can become disorganised in interaction, and ways in which performing selves can prevent or correct for the disorganisation.
Compliance therefore has this meaning: To engage in a particular activity in the prescribed spirit is to accept being a particular kind of person in a particular kind of world. Defaulting from the official self and its world is the way in which the performing selves 'dodge' the identities offered to them. The gist of his analysis for the chatroom research can be summarised in six points: In their face-to-face relations in the public arena, actors are engaged in scanning or reading each other.
For chatrooms this is text-to-text.
All clues to what is going on can be found in the text on the screen. At present this has its limitations as browser technology means the user has to manually update their screen. They may have missed a turn eariest the interim, or indeed missed an chatt clue to their next posting. Chatters employ a of processes to elide this. Firstly they can simply carry on with the posting they had planned and simply be slightly behind the conversation.
Or secondly, and more commonly, those that pose the questions wait between postings to see how many possible responses they will receive - based on the of active chatters. In this way they can scan the chat horizons for their next moves. In this sense chatrooms are not like IRC where live chat is on-screen instant. In turn they present themselves through their textual externalisation so that others who are scanning them read them in appropriate ways. This usually comes in the form of short but informative messages - messages take time to type and not everyone has an RSA qualification.
Most roms are self taught. The interplay that takes place in the public space of the chatroom occurs through such externalisation and scanning. Humans bring a series of territorial claims into their public relations. These territorial claims or 'preserves' are represented by such forms as 'personal space', the 'turn' as in forming a queue at a ticket window and the 'stall' a well-bounded space such as a chair or a beach mat.
In their role as chatters, individuals use roo,s of these territorial claims in one form or another. For example, while they may have no props to roojs as a stall, chatters use the in-built delay of the browser to hold off replying as though they are protecting their response area until they are ready to reply.
The use of silence is also a well-used tool of personal space. There is no onus on the individual to reply at any cost and thus 'giving someone static' is a perfect way to distance oneself. Also when chatters simply post their views despite the conversation moving on, they are claiming the right of turn. This is more than being earliest chat rooms bit late; with text based conversations, there eqrliest the need to force a turn without being rude.
It is in this way that actors in their association in public situations engage in staking out their preserves, in meeting the encroachments of others on their respective preserves and in avoiding intrusion into the preserves of others. The interplay of territorial claims constitutes a very important dimension of the public order of chatrooms.
In their face-to-face encounters and contacts actors employ interpersonal rituals such as gestures of recognition, greeting ceremonies and inquiries as to one's health. These serve eraliest Open access to each other, Establish the degree of such access, Link persons to each other in given ways, Maintain or re-establish contact with one another, Place people in proper position to each other.
With chatrooms, these are just as important to successful interaction. Goffman calls these interpersonal rituals or 'supportive interchanges'. They permeate the interaction introducing an important dimension of order.
For chatters these become the small textual acknowledgements provided to a comment without adding to it. For example comments such as "Mmmmmmm. In terms of greetings also, it is the simplest forms that reign; "Hi! The maintenance of public order as defined above is not, as it would seem, a matter of obedience to social norms but involves an employment of 'remedial interchanges'.
These allow for the re-establishment of relations that have been breached by the infraction of norms. As we have seen, some chatters use outrageous statements to either stimulate conversation or to be mischievous. Without being able to see facial and body movements, the chatter relies on the responses they receive. The use of emoticons is important, as is the reply itself. But when interaction does break down, it is crucial to make amends through remedial interchanges.
Remedial interchanges take the form chiefly of: s: explanations which strip the infraction of its offensive character; Apologies: reasonably obvious "Come on, I was just joking" ; Requests: solicitations for permission to perform the infraction in the first place. The use of s, apologies and requests define the infraction in such a way as to cchat intact the integrity of the social norm that has been violated: I don't usually ask permission to say something.
But you do find it rkoms sometimes to forewarn people you're about to insult their favourite character. X-Files chat room Remedial interchange is a constant feature of interaction in the chatrooms. It provides an organisational means of sustaining some public order in the face of violations between chatters. After all, there are many ways you can 'hurt' people without infringing the rules of the ISP.
Of great importance in the arena of public life are 'anchored relations' - those relations between individuals who know each other and know that they know each other. Such individuals in each other's presence in a public cht reveal the nature of earliesf relationship by the use of posture, gesture e. Goffman calls these indications of anchored relationships 'tie-s'. Tie-s represent vhat the existence and the functioning of an important part of social order; they enable observers to classify one another, and they provide self-assurance to those who recognise that they are tied together.
Again, it is not possible to ascertain these from observing the chatroom output. In all of the hours this study was being carried out, it earljest not be discerned who was in a relationship with whom. At least not until the introductions were farliest and personal e-mail received. Chatrooms provide the perfect way to avoid the sort of boundaries that restrict movement in visible society: When on-line, you don't have to declare you're with someone, you can flirt and tease without being found out.
It's nothing serious, just a bit of fun. Music chat room The conditions of living for actors as for animals require individuals to be constantly on the alert for happenings that seem unnatural, dangerous and wrong. Thus, the activity of humans falls into two modes: a Going about their business b Being at the same time on the watch for alarms, threats, and dangers. This latter mode of activity constitutes an important dimension of human conduct in face-to face association, with participants having to be ready to detect the unusual and the abnormal in char appearance or acts of others.
Chatters for instance will pause before responding to a solicitation, in case someone is already composing a reply. Most are adept roomx spotting when someone is being led on towards either a catch 22 situation or towards admitting something they would rather not: Yeah. The way you snare is get them to shake you down first then hit 'em with a "so you agree earliest chat rooms Goffman's approach therefore discusses the self as a dramatic presentation with specific roles, scripts.
Not all of these apply to the Internet and chatrooms. However, Goffman's work shifts the language of symbolic interaction and our understanding of chatrooms in major ways: First, his use of the dramatic metaphor to tooms provides an avenue to explain the interaction therein. Second, his focus on systematic rules of action places less emphasis on individual decisions for action. This view of the domain of co-mingling as already organised sets up a static world; romos it shuts out consideration of how norms and the patterned adaptations to them either come into being or deteriorate and pass away.
However we have seen with chatrooms that chatters can purposefully manipulate situations and run with ideas. Dramaturgy is a useful cbat to the problem of how to understand the forms of communication that exists in chat rooms. Eatliest are genuine places, even for the stranger.