Okay let's see if this isn't too ugly. It's obviously not a good paper but will probably prove entertaining for those who remember the thread in question:
Ethnographic Project: Webdiplomacy
The Internet has in the last few years become a unique and unprecedented cultural landscape. Not only has the Internet as a whole acquired a kind of nascent culture of its own, so too do different sections of the internet, often relegated to certain websites, exhibit properties of emergent cultures. One such website, which is the object of my study is “www.webdiplomacy.net,” a gaming website. Its function is as a place for players of the board game “Diplomacy” to gather on the Internet and play electronically with one another. However, the site also has a message board in the format of many other websites, which allows communication between all members of the community. It is this forum, with one thread in particular, that serves as the specific focus of study for this paper (a “thread,” it should be noted, refers to a series of message board postings all under the same topic, which has a discrete beginning and end). Before the thread itself can be properly examined, however, the structure and character of webdipomacy.net should be explained.
Webdipomacy, as was mentioned above, is a site dedicated to the playing of the board game Diplomacy, which is a strategy game based around a map of Europe whose focus is on negotiations between the seven players. The games of Diplomacy played on webdipomacy.net go on for weeks, because each turn takes usually around 24 hours, to provide convenience for the players. A traditional game of Diplomacy can often take several hours at once, so this electronic multi-day format is preferred for convenience by many.
Although communication goes on within the games, it is only between the seven players at a time. For broader community participation and discussions, there is a message board forum. This forum is un-moderated, meaning anyone can post a thread about anything they wish. As a result, there is usually much more being discussed than the game of Diplomacy. Often arguments about politics or history come up, and sometimes there are self-referential threads that discuss the nature of the community itself. It is one of these threads that I chose to study, because I found it to be the most instructive about the site’s broader culture.
The thread in question began when one member of the community, “SantaClausowitz,” took issue with another member’s use of racial slurs and choice language. This user, called “TreeBark,” is known in the community for being brash and rude, apparently for his own enjoyment. On this occasion, on the forum, he called another member of webdipomacy.net, who is open about being Jewish, a “hook-nosed kike.” Though the user being attacked was accustomed to the negative words from this player and prepared to let it pass, SantaClausowitz took TreeBark to task about it, in private. It is important to mention here that those in charge of the site’s operation and the forum, since it is un-moderated, do not censor or sanction anyone for the words they say, including offensive language. The one restriction on speech that is enforced is a written rule against “spamming” which in this context means repeatedly sending messages to the point where it floods out other messages. SantaClausowitz, apparently in retaliation to TreeBark, “spammed” his private messages. This resulted in a warning from the “mods,” or moderators who enforce the rules of the site. Incensed at what he perceived as an injustice, SantaClausowitz took his case to the forum. In a thread titled “Mod Priorities,” SantaClausowitz said:
"Its fine and dandy for a member to call another member a "hook-nosed kike" with impunity, but on the other hand, spam the same member you are liable to discipline. I guess it’s appropriate on this site to describe this site as a fucking disgrace."
The ensuing discussion about the policies enforced in the forum forms the basis for my study.
It should be noted that this kind of thread has happened in the past, usually with regards to what is referred to as a “troll,” or belligerent member of the site. Though the discussions usually change little about the site’s “free speech” policy, they are of course nevertheless encouraged and permitted, that itself being in line with “free speech.”
Quick to jump to the policy’s defense was Stpatrick, and abgemacht, themselves mods. Indeed, few people initially supported SantaClausowitz. This could be in part because the standing policy has been in place and debated many times in the past. I, myself a member of the community, participated marginally, asking for calm, and wondering if such a small issue merited so much vitriol. SantaClausowitz was mostly unreceptive to my post, and the debate continued for several more pages. Rather than summarize the entirety of the back-and-forth here, it should suffice to say that all the involved members eventually weighed in, including TreeBark with his customary brashness. Instead, I will use my own perspective (which is informed by being a mod as well, my pseudonym being “Thucydides”) and the material gleaned from my ethnographic interviews with abgemacht and Draugnar (another member heavily involved in the discussion) for different perspectives. SantaClausowitz could unfortunately not be reached for interview.
The striking thing about these kinds of threads, those which essentially question the judgment of the authorities on the site, is how much the power relationships present on www.webdiplomacy.net come to the fore. According to my own view, and the interview with abgemacht, there are several axes of power on Webdiplomacy:
“I would say, activity in the forums is most important, followed by your prowess as an diplomacy player followed by if you're a mod.”
In his view, his mod status does not confer as much respect as that of being skilled at the game or an active forum participant. It does, however, come out in force when site policy is being discussed, because mods are the site’s enforcers. The creator of the site, kestasjk, is conferred a special level of respect. Though he is mostly absent from the day-to-day affairs on the site, his opinion for the most part is what goes. He has the final say over what written rules are adopted.
It is appropriate here to describe the written and unwritten codes of conduct on www.webdiplomacy.net. As has been mentioned, there are in general few restrictions on offensive language, but players that choose to use it frequently, such as TreeBark, are generally held in universal contempt. There is a set of written rules, but few relate to conduct on the forums. The most direct ultimatum states: “Use common sense and respect other players.” The meaning of this phrase of course is always being debated. The few things that are tacitly off-limits (though infringements have occurred in the past) are looking up players in real life or elsewhere on the Internet, and making genuine physical threats. These issues rarely come up, however. The issue of offensive language though is an area where the members of the community are acutely aware of the site’s culture; some of them actively try to change it.
The outcome of the thread was generally inconclusive. SantaClausowitz, as a result of his argument, seemed to feel alienated by the mods. Some came to his defense, at least in principle. Draugnar, for instance, made clear in his interview that his “purpose in joining in the conversation was to get the mods to agree that there are some things unacceptable and that there should be something the mods can do [about abusive behavior].” As of now, however, no policy has changed on the censoring or moderation of the forum.
Some of the viewpoints about what should be acceptable in the culture of the site are informed by norms in the broader Internet culture. Many other message boards similar to that of Webdiplomacy’s have much stricter moderation policies. This comes up whenever a discussion of policy and behavior is taking place.
This brings up the issue of the cultural influences on the site. The Internet is certainly an important factor. The Internet’s culture, perhaps because of its anonymity, perhaps because of the demographics of its most avid users, has been described in decidedly negative terms. “Flamewars,” or vitriolic insult-swapping exchanges are now considered characteristic of the Internet. Draugnar describes it as “the wild wild west.” Webdiplomacy in general prides itself on being more “civil” and “intelligent” than the wider Internet, or at least that is the perception the members of the community widely share. Numerous threads on intellectual topics ranging from the existence of God, to political theory, geopolitics, historical analysis, and lively discussions of philosophy and literature pepper the forum. In fact, according to abgemacht, “sometimes I feel like Diplomacy is on the back-burner in the forum.” In the eyes of the site’s forum community, these discussions occur with significantly less ad hominem attacks, “flamewars” and “trolling” than is normal elsewhere.
To older members of the community though (older here meaning having been a member for longer, not necessarily referring to real age), this tradition is on its way out. Draugnar, one such member, commented:
"The recent growth of the site has caused the Internet to seriously degrade the quality of the conversations, bringing more and more people who can't argue a point in and making things we used to consider "taboo" to be acceptable. Hell, I can remember when my creative vitriol brought the ire of others down on me. Now my insults are downright tame by comparison."
The ideal, however, remains a strong presence, even if it is thought to be on the decline. This kind of issue is prescient and was, as usual, discussed at length during the course of the thread.
Another important outside impact, which is certainly harder to pin down, is the impact of the culture surrounding the game of Diplomacy on the site’s members. Since the community is brought together by a love of Diplomacy, some perceive that the members tend to have other things in common as a side effect. Diplomacy players often consider themselves intellectual, cunning, and allergic to losing. In abgemacht’s view: “People in the community like to argue and don't like to be wrong and, like to win.” So the factors that attract people to Diplomacy probably have an impact on the culture of the site, and though it is hard to pin down, it too is often discussed in a thread such as this.
The last outside impact is the most overlooked by the community itself. Based on informal self-polling over a long period, the community, or at least the regular forum posters, are overwhelmingly male and middle class or above. The age range is rather large, all the way from teenagers in high school, with a large group of college students, to large numbers of middle-aged men. Draugnar is in the latter group, and abgemacht (and myself of course) fit the student description.
Beyond that, there is a common language: English. Though many users are from non-Anglophone countries, a prerequisite for full participation in the community is English ability. Some non-English speakers use the site, but do not usually participate in the forum. As a result of this, it is the rule rather than the exception that the average member is from an Anglophone country in the West, especially the United States and the United Kingdom. The common higher income, masculine, Western, English speaking outlook certainly contributes to the behavioral norms of the site, though measuring these impacts is perhaps even more difficult than that of the impact of Diplomacy culture. Abgemacht did however point out that these demographics are not unlike the rest of the Internet, and perhaps even more diverse at that, what with the larger middle-aged population. Certainly things like feminism rarely come up, and discussions of romantic relationships are inevitably from a male perspective. The few women that are known to play are sometimes treated differently, albeit often in subtle ways, by the others. Race almost never comes up, though racial slurs are a touchy subject, as evidenced by the thread. It is nonetheless difficult to counter-factually speculate what the community would be like if the site were more diverse.
In all, the culture of webdiplomacy.net is revealed by the thread in question. Above all it is dynamic. Threads like the one examined in this study testify to this reality. The significance of these kinds of threads is literally to help shape the culture. Draugnar commented, “I feel these discussions help to clarify what is and isn't expected and acceptable amongst the [message] board's general populace and helps set the culture.” This is perhaps because the players themselves are aware that the culture they are participating in is in many ways new and malleable, and ever changing, on par with the fast pace of technology. Demonstrating this is the fact that players who have been members for more than a year often feel significantly “older” than the others. The forum of webdiplomacy.net is often a lively place, and is made all the more interesting when the question at hand is the shape and direction of the website’s unique culture.
hellalt does it in NY
)
)
)
)
)