This remnant will be replaced soon. The FAQ is back, with a new design! Got that article by Mark Goldberg? How Hierarchy Functions in a CMC Community A Case Study Mark L. Goldberg, Giles C. Hendrix Northwestern University 3/11/95 Introduction A community is commonly defined as a group of people who have a common interest. Such a group usually entails sharing, participation, fellowship, and conflict. Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) has evolved a new variation of this human tendency. They can be any size, involve limitless participants, and are not bound by physical space (Jones). Members come and go at their convenience. CMC communities can sprout and expand into multiple forms which usually reside on the fulcrum between anarchy and communism. Everyone is free to express their opinions, and each person has an equal voice. Complex hierarchies, power struggles, and social structures quickly explode into a community that can love and hate its members, its topics of discussion, and perhaps itself. Many people call certain newsgroups "home." Howard Rheingold states: "In many different newsgroups, a crowd of regulars emerges . . . the ongoing conversations often create communities among the regular newsgroups." He continues to explain that "the combination of free expression, lack of central control, many-to-many communication access, and volunteer effort has created a new kind of social organization" (1993). Nevertheless, community and computer-mediated communication remains a relatively recent issue. McLaughlin even reminds us that "`What constitutes virtual community?' remains unexplored territory" (1995). Jones discusses unique characteristics of CMC communities, but fails to identify this elusive feeling of belonging (1995). We will examine these issues of virtual community through a case study of a newsgroup and its encompassing sites which has a very strong sense of belonging to many of its members: rec.music.phish, or the Phish.Net. By means of analyzing the hierarchy that exists on the Phish.Net, we hope to clarify how the hierarchy effects and is effected by the evolution of a CMC system. We will also examine some of the controversy that has arisen in this changing community, finally presenting a theory, the Quantitative versus Qualitative Newsgroup Equilibrium. What is the Phish.Net? Before an analysis of our case study may begin, a basic understanding of the various aspects that compromise the community is required. The Phish-Net has grown from a small listserv into a multi-faceted service that provides multiple means of communication, countless megabytes of up-to-date files, facilitation for smaller bands, and user support. The Phish.Net is a forum for discussion, review, and updates concerning the musical group Phish. More importantly, it is a community of fans who communicate through the Internet, trade tapes, and meet before and after shows in net-gatherings. Through donations made by its users, it collectively bought a community server that provides all of the Phish.Net resources and sites for smaller bands in the same musical vein. "Netters" travel across the country and literally share their beds with each other without having previously met face to face (FtF). They even wear Phish.Net t-shirts to identify themselves to each other in real life (IRL). The basis of this close-knit community resides through a common musical interest and computer mediated communication. The Phish.Net is comprised of many resources, most of which have volunteer administrators, and are accessible in several forms: Phish.Net Internet Resources newsgroup: rec.music.phish (also distributed via listserv as a digest) listserv : (tour phish-info-request@phish.net information): archive site: www.phish.net World Wide Web: http://netspace.students.brown.edu:80/phish/ IRC (Internet relay chat): channel #phish *Not including conferences on the WELL, AOL, and various other commercial sites The backbone of this community is the Usenet newsgroup rec.music.phish. With an estimated readership of 50,000 (Locey), the group receives an average of 200 to 300 posts per day. To accommodate those without access to Usenet, the posts are also digestified and sent to members via an email listserv (phish-request@phish.net). These digests are large and are sent frequently throughout the day. Anyone may post to the newsgroup via Usenet or listserv (email to phish@phish.net). The phish-info listserv (not to be confused with phish-request) primarily sends transcriptions of Phish's hot-line phone messages. This usually contains tour, taper, and ticket information. During tours, it also provides a set list from the previous night's performance. Since Phish is known to never play the same show twice, netters love to know what happens at every show that they cannot attend. The World Wide Web site conglomerates most of the resources. In addition, it provides special pages devoted to Gamehendge (a musical land created by the lead singer complete with characters and its own history), on-line viewing of graphics, newsletters, Phish.Net stickers, information on making tapes, hypertext versions of text files, and links to related bands. The Phish.Net archive site contains an abundance of graphic, sound, and text files. People had begun to post categories of information that either kept appearing or were widely in demand. Individually, members of the community began to collect this data for compilation, and one member set up space on a computer at his school to host these files. Members of this community put the time into what has become a very valuable and highly sought resource to Phish fans around the world. These text files are intrinsic to the utility and function of the Phish.Net : A Sample of Phish.Net Archives Text Files Netter's List active members on the Phish net FAQ File frequently asked questions (256K) Lyrics Database a collection of all Phish original lyrics Stories File posted to the net & taken from liner notes Interviews File transcripts of interviews with the band The Helping a collection of set lists, song titles, the discography, & play Phriendly Book statistics Chords File collection of net posts containing song chords Tour Dates File current *verified* tour dates & phone numbers for venues Netiquette File basic pointers about how people should conduct themselves on the net Venue File information on many of the venues played by Phish, including information on hotels, gatherings, and directions The archives also contain all of the past digests from rec.music.phish, and thus a record of all newsgroup postings since August 8, 1991. The FAQ even has a help file, not to mention notices to new users about abbreviations for song titles, and advice for when to post and what to ignore. Each of these files has its own voluntary administrator who accepts corrections, updates, and maintains the file for the community. This division of labor allows for a large and reliable archive site that benefits everyone. Lee Silverman also plans to implement a WAIS server on the site. This will allow users to search information, turning the site into a fully functioning database. The site is accessible via email, gopher, or ftp. Some netters meet before shows, breaking the barrier between CMC and FtF contact. A quote from the FAQ prods users to initiate net-gatherings: "Should you?? Why, yes, of course! If there's not someone to be a bit aggressive and say 'hey! wear your net shirts to ___ between __ and ___ before the ___ show,' we'll all remain faceless names with only ASCII to bond by." The band members are not on the Phish.Net, although occasional posts of imitators is all too common. The Phish.Net is separate from the band and its recording label, Elektra. It is run and maintained by volunteers. The one exception to this rule is Shelly Culbertson, an employee of Dionysian Productions, the band's management agency. In addition to assisting in the maintenance of the archive site, she is a frequent poster to rec.music.phish. She is the one official link to the band who regularly posts information and answers questions. Shelly also fulfills the key position of rumor killing. Her position is optimal to the Phish.Net since she provides information but does not have any final control over what is said or done. That is left up to the fans. Does the Phish.Net have an effect on the band and its music? Direct first level effects are doubtful. However, the coordination and distribution of information and tapes through the Phish.Net has unquestionably increased the popularity of the band. Trey Anastastio, the band's guitarist, commented on a second level effect of the Phish.Net phenomenon in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: The Phishnet has really changed the face of the band, because anytime anything happens that's out of the ordinary -- which is practically every Phish concert -- everybody on the network knows about it the next night. We recently premiered six songs -- songs that didn't make our new album -- in the first gig of this tour. A bunch of people taped the show. That night, people put the descriptions of those new songs on the Phishnet -- and [information on] how you could get a copy of the tape. So within days, you've got tapes of these new songs all over the country, which is exactly what we'd want. That way, when we go out on this national tour, people are going to have heard of the new songs, and even heard tapes of the new songs, before we get to the different towns. (1992) Earlier this year, the Phish.Net was even asked to make suggestions for Phish's next live album. The following post was made by Shelly: But, more importantly, he'd [Trey Anastastio, the guitarist of Phish] like to ask the net to do him a favor. He's been spending a lot of time lately listening to tapes that I made for him of the boards from the shows . . . He wanted me to let you know that he is not accustomed to listening to Phish tapes (he usually just listens to Phish live ;-) ), and, though the band certainly has some specific ideas about what they'd like to put on the live album, he would be very interested in some input from folks who *do* spend time listening to Phish tapes (that's you). So, the favor is this: if you have the time to do it, please consider constructing the Phish double live CD that you would like to hear. You can either mail it to me or post it to the net. The former example is only possible through a CMC system. It allows fans to quickly get the information they want. The Phish.Net also provides a medium for Phish fans to meet and coordinate tape trading through tape trees, thus distributing shows throughout the country. In addition, the social aspects of Phish fans enjoying each other's company also reinforces the Phish.Net. The IRC real time chat channel even allows users to "hang out" with each other. The Phish.Net is obviously more than just a forum for discussion, review, and updates concerning the musical group Phish. It is a community that works hard to maintain itself and has grown to become an integral part of the Phish experience, as the latter example illustrates, because of the very medium that it resides upon: computer mediated communication. Phish.Net Hierarchy "Phish IS a band, and does NOT belong to anyone indeed...BUT, all fans are by no means whatsoever necessarily EQUAL!!! Don't make the mistake of thinking they are...it can often aggravate you and make you flame unnecessarily... anyways...this is a community, and as in all communities, there is a hierarchy. Don't think for a minute there isn't. There is one, and it should be observed and RESPECTED!!!" -- Phish.Net poster As in any community, our case study has, over time, developed a genuine sense of hierarchy. This Phish.Net hierarchy has developed from several different perspectives, and what has resulted is a continually changing sense of netiquette. What is proper to post? What is an unacceptable action? How has Phish.Net become self-policing? What does one gain by having the respect of the community? What does one relinquish by losing that respect? The hierarchy, though sometimes loathed, and even downplayed, does undeniably exist. Spears and Lea extend their SIDE model, which examines interpersonal effects in relation to a group or situation, by discussing status issues in CMC (1994). They reinforce a converse of the previously accepted equalization effect. This also coincides with a study by Weisband, Schneider, and Conolly (1992) that found that CMC augments hierarchies. Spears and Lea conclude: To the extent that interpersonal cues are reduced, we argue that the social cues that remain, typically those cues to role, status, and category membership that are often implied in the social context, can become more important and influential rather than less so. (1994) Our case study reflects these findings. If a group of Phish fans meet FtF, those who have less knowledge about the band will not necessarily be excluded from any interaction. However, on the Phish.Net, if someone with less knowledge speaks up they will be judged and told to read the FAQ and other files. No one tells another person FtF that they cannot waste their time talking to someone with so little knowledge. How often does one hear "Go do some more research, then maybe we can hang out." To examine these issues, it is important to first define the roles people undertake and how they relate to each other to develop this classification. Ronald Rice identifies several traits important to group leaders in CMC (1984). Each of the members in the top half of our Phish.Net hierarchy fulfill these traits as leaders. They facilitate new members by offering files that explain the norms of the group, they provide administrative and system-use comments on rec.music.phish, and keep indexes to comments and files on the site. We begin our analysis of the hierarchy with these leaders. At the top are the Phish.Net administrators. Members of this community will swear up and down that the Phish.Net is for everyone, and no one has any more say than anyone else. To a degree this is true. Anyone has the ability to post to the net; however, there is a certain degree of authority given to administrators of the digestifier, as well as the maintainer of the archive site. Shelly Culbertson and Sean Kennedy administrate the Phish.Net digestifier. For those without access to Usenet News, one must subscribe to receive the digest. Though the digest is automated, these administrators have the power to remove someone from the list, though this seldom happens. Shelly has warned the community that repeated "reposting of the digest," which means responding to a digest by sending it back to itself, thus causing confusion and taking up bandwidth, is grounds for suspension from the list. Shelly is also the Phish.Net's connection to the band. If Shelly posts some information, though on rare occasions she has been incorrect, it is nonetheless taken as fact. Shelly posts any "official" news, and also has been known to jump into a thread regarding factual information and end it with a definitive answer. Sometimes even the opinions offered by Shelly can be taken as fact. Recently when Shelly publicly flamed a poster for his poor netiquette, the netter responded as though he had been judged guilty by the high court: I hope my eyes are deceiving me here...I can't believe I was flamed by Shelly! I have had netters email me and come to my support...but Shelly slams me down. Please, Shelly, tell me my eyes are deceiving me here. Tell me that someone has seized control of your account and posted this, or messed with the reply-line in the header...If not, I am going into lurker.status for quite a while. Sorry for my big ole waste of bandwidth since apparently I am in the wrong until I hear otherwise. Shelly did not ask for this level of respect, and will still call herself "just another netter," which in a way she is. Before she was hired by Phish's management company, Shelly was a respected netter who helped get the net off the ground during its infancy. Shelly's history of leadership corresponds with Rice's theory of loquacity: Rather than low status, late entrance into the information system may restrict access to these resources. How early one enters a communication system may be the major constraint to individual advancement or even survival as an accepted group member. Consider that leaders may be chosen on the basis of early loquacity. Other early founders of the Phish.Net are also respected leaders. When the Phish.Net became a digest instead of a listserv, there was a desire to document the activities of the young community by saving each digest. What also developed over the period of its existence were a number of files which many felt should be archived for use by members at large. Lee Silverman maintains this server which not only hosts these different files and a whole list of other Phish related artifacts, but also serves as host to the communities built by fans of other bands which are similar in style to the music of Phish. Though Lee is no longer a frequent poster to the net, there is no doubt that he maintains a position of respect for his work in maintaining www.phish.net. Those who maintain various files for the archive site often have that position because he or she was the one to take on the responsibility when the net first began. This once again falls in line with Rice's theory of early loquacity. In other instances, the file maintenance has been passed on by this person to another member of the community who has already established a level of respect. Finally, as the need arises, different files or projects are created by any ambitious member of the community. However, with rare exception, these tasks are taken on by one whom the community deems as a reliable, contributing, and active member of the Phish.Net. In any case, these members of the community command a level of respect as having put in a significant contribution to the development of this community. File administrators support the handling of complex documents and permit individual tailoring of the system by those who wish contribute. This is one of the conditions that Ronald Rice cites from previous studies that are important to experienced users and the overall longevity of a successful CMC system. The other factors include long-term communication, which the Phish.Net provides by maintaining lists of regular users complete with email and snail mail addresses, each searchable by location. The Phish.Net allows active user control of the system by welcoming uploads and distribution of files to the archives. The Phish.Net also encourages everyone to make suggestions and take initiative; and as the archivist Lee Silverman points out, "the more people add to the community, the more we feel like a community." At a similar level to file administrators in the hierarchy are the "oldbies" and the frequent posters. The oldbies have been around the net for a while, often over a year, but in many cases for much longer. These members of the community are respected as knowledgeable not only of the band, but also of the accepted norms of the Phish.Net. Oldbies are more often referred to as those who exercise vocal muscle in not only many of the threads, but also in what is acceptable netiquette. In some cases, these posters are ruthless in attempting to maintain the standards acceptable to this community, yet they seldom universally agree on what exactly those are. In many cases these oldbies are some of the most frequent posters, and in others, they are lurkers who peep in on occasion to express some of their wisdom. This does not necessarily mean that all of these members of the community are well respected, in fact, many netters at large accuse these folks of attempting to extend too much control of content on the Phish.Net, and are in turn flamed by netters from various levels of the hierarchy. Frequent posters, who are not necessarily oldbies, also have quite a bit of input in the discussion, often being the most vocal against the establishment on the net. Ironically, as soon as an alias in the community begins to gain a familiarity, he or she becomes a member of the same category that the netter was criticizing in the first place. Members thus assume that if one is articulating the issues well, or contributing knowledgeably to a thread on a consistent basis, one must be well versed on the protocol of the Phish.Net; or at least one may have been around long enough to figure it out. Whether admired or despised, the oldbies and frequent posters all have established themselves high on the hierarchy due, if for nothing else, to their dedication to the community in the form of frequent participation. As one netter put it: As far as old fans go: DownerMan, Drew, EvilShawn, Mr. Ubiquitous all belong on the net. They are an important reality-check to many quasi-ignorant net denizens...2^3, Xa and others are also important because they fulfill the space between cynic and idiot by understanding both and offering valuable, intellectual comments.... Ironically, as easily one becomes an oldbie, these posters can quickly fade from the hierarchy by lack of participation. Even many of those who helped build the Phish.Net from its beginning stages would hardly be recognized since they have not posted in quite some time. But in some respects, their contribution lives on for those who knew this person when he or she was a more active part of the community. Tapers are for the most part deemed in high regard by all members of the community. These are the members that go to the concerts, tape the shows, and spread the music to the community. They will often administer tape trees, which are an exponential way of exchanging the music so a greater number of people have access with the least amount of effort, or may provide a "seed" for a tree. They may offer trades, or answer "grovels" for certain shows that people want. However, where they stand in terms of the participation hierarchy is a little more ambiguous than the other groups. They may be "lurkers," contributing to discussion rarely, or they may be active posters. They often post with authority on the shows they have taped or been to, which is usually quite many. Similarly ambiguous are the tape traders. Often, those who are the most frequent posters are assumed to have the best tape collection, but this is not necessarily the case. In fact, one may find that some of the best collections are held by the lurkers or even sometimes "newbies." There are sub-groups of tapers, including everything from digital versus analog to what type of tapes one uses. In any case, the quality of your tape collection, as well as your reputation as a good or bad trader, significantly contributes to your standing in the community's hierarchy. Lurkers make up one of the largest groups of the Phish.Net community. They contribute significantly by reading almost everything, yet reserving their posts for special occasions. There are likely thousands of these members whose interest in the community is no less than the frequent posters, they just choose to keep their opinions to themselves. They may still be active contributors to tape trees, or administrate files, or even be new to the community. In fact, it is not unusual to lurk in the community for quite some time before posting your first message. This method of becoming active is seen highly, as it demonstrates a respect for the norms of the community. This way, one may completely avoid the often harsh label of being known as a "newbie," for one only becomes a newbie when they participate without learning what is the acceptable protocol of the community. Lurkers may be on the opposite end as well. Often some of the old timers will become lurkers, popping into a discussion on a rare occasion. One oldbie professes: If only it were that simple ... oh, if only you KNEW! You see, I have no intention picking up where I left off a year ago. Rather, I intend to pick up where EVERYONE ELSE left off three years ago, back when I got, like, 10-20 Phish messages a day. I am moderating in the style inspired by today's capitol hill ... censorship without understanding. I have no illusions that I'll be reading 200-300 messages a day ... I'll just pick and choose by whoever has the snazziest subject lines. As is evident by this example, sometimes the members of the community are driven to lurkdom after becoming either disillusioned by changes in the community, overwhelmed by the traffic, or even bored with participation. Sometimes this frustration will even lead to a complete separation from the community all together, as in the case with this former member: Many "old timers" have left. It is truly pathetic that people cannot learn to grow within the Internet, and that many are just too plain lazy and/or clueless to take the time to READ THE FAQ and to LEARN THE INTERNET before posting. One final category of lurker could be referred to as Phish.Net groupie. These are the members of the community that treat it more like a vacation home. These lurkers are not regular contributors to the Phish.Net, because they read it on a sporadic basis, or on an information basis only. These members of the community do not follow the discussions nor the debates, but sometimes check in for short spurts of time. These netters may only receive the phish-info list, a digest that posts only official information such as tour dates or set lists. It is moderated, and filters out all discussion. Finally, there are newbies. Traditionally, newbies are simply new to the net, and/or new to the community. Lately, the term has become quite derogatory, identifying those ignorant of netiquette, and those who display irreverence for the social norms of the community. Sometimes, the term is generalized for whole domains or categories of participants. To be accused of being a typical AoL'er (America On-Line) has become almost as much of an insult since a flood of newbies hit the newsgroups all at once when the commercial service gained access to Usenet News. The term newbie may still refer to those who are also new to Phish in general. It is considered okay to be a newbie, as long as you do not violate the acceptable protocol of posting. As one netter distinguishes the difference: There are basically two kinds of newbies...the genuine and the trend-followers. The genuine kind is like a larva...it is someone who truly does love Phish and their music. They take the time necessary to study the FAQ, gather other facts and opinions and pay attention with their mouths shut until they can intelligently contribute to any given Phish related topic...these people are vital to our community (and were once a lot like us long-time fans) and should be encouraged to get deeper into the band with newbie offers and thoughtful responses to their questions...this way they can mature into responsible, caring fans. The second kind...are worthless...and there are tons of them out there. These are the people that we are talking about when we say newbies suck...because these people do. They whine when nobody is nice to them, and how this is a community etc....BUT flame with insults and threats of personal violence at the first chance possible. These people SHOULD be outcasted and ignored because they are basically selfish, uncaring hypocritical bastards. Newbies are the lowest on the hierarchy of the Phish.Net community. They are looked down upon for violating the norms, yet at the same time looked at with pity, and often helped out by those of higher status. It is not a bad thing to be a newbie, but any member of the community would gladly relinquish this title and move up in the hierarchy. The Hierarchy's Role in the Development of the Community Now that the framework of the hierarchy has been laid out, it is important to discuss how this hierarchy plays a role in the development of this community. The reason that this classification has developed is simple. Those who have been around for a while have contributed to the growth of the community. Each of the issues which have become netiquette, or norms, for the Phish.Net arose when the community agreed that certain things are unacceptable. For example, if a question seems to continually pop up, or if an observation gets discussed again and again, these items will be added to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) file. It has been deemed the responsibility of those who join the community to catch up to these norms by reading the FAQ before ever posting. As a result, a division develops in the community between those who are current in these norms, and those who are not. For example, a particular thread of distaste is to post asking what the lyrics are to a particular song, You Enjoy Myself. To a new member of the community, whether the person has been a Phish fan for a long time or not, these words may be unintelligible. However, to those members of the community who have heard this question asked literally hundreds of times, it is the most basic question that can be addressed. In fact, not only will the person who posts to this thread get flamed, but also, the thread will continue with responses ranging from hostility, to "Don't start this thread again," to completely making a joke of the question and giving mocking answers. This thread is so common, yet so loathed, that it even has its own acronym, WATSIYEM (What are they saying in You Enjoy Myself?). Those who are in on the "joke" are higher in the hierarchy, where as anyone who posts the thread will without a doubt be dubbed a newbie. This example is an extreme, but there are other topics of conversation which are less cut and dry. Often in these cases, the questionable post will be followed up by an explanation as to why this is not unacceptable netiquette. Sometimes these issues do not involve threads at all, but just a violation of what is considered proper posting netiquette. For example, it is extremely frowned upon to post subscribe and unsubscribe messages to the net, as is posting someone's tape list . This action received the following response: Don't post your entire list on the net. It is an extreme waste. Post a note asking for people who want to trade. Then you can respond by sending them your list. Sorry to bitch but the bw is very valuable.... In another example, this poster explains how he feels about how people post: I have noticed that quite a lot of our friends on AOL have developed the rather irritating habit of posting five consecutive one-line posts to the net, rather than one longer one. It's okay, kids, a post can cover more than one subject. There's no need to post separately to grovel for a tape, and comment on another post.... Also, please don't respond to tape offers by posting to the net! Use private email. It's annoying to read a post saying "hey dude, I hope I made it into your tape offer" and nothing else. It is not difficult to move up in status. There are several ways this can be done, the most obvious is to engage in intelligent conversation, contributing to threads that the net deems as valuable. Ironically, another way to move up in the hierarchy is not by participating in discussion, but rather flaming those who are deemed clueless. Certain members of the community base much of their contribution on these grounds. These members of the society take on the role of policing the net to maintain its standards. One has decided to personally email all violators of the norm explaining why what they did is wrong, and how they should do it right. Two other members have taken a more sarcastic approach to getting their point across by literally emailing Phish.Net citations to those violators. A typical scenario follows involving the previous mentioned WATSIYEM thread: Does anyone know the lyrics at the end of "You Enjoy Myself"? After listening to it thousands of times, we've come up with "wash your face and drive me to Valencia" and many others too crazy to mention...please help!!! Thanks! The request seems innocent enough, yet one of the netiquette controllers in the hierarchy responds, "I would just like the net to know that this guy is getting a .citation." What might this citation look like? It is quite intricate and oddly enough is similar in structure to a parking ticket. It covers many of the netiquette faux paus, which come up fairly often. This poster was probably sent one that looks like this: rec.music.phish.citation.with.mods [ ] Acting as if you own this newsgroup [ ] ...unless you are Shelly [ ] ...even if you are Shelly [ ] Being a complete and utter Bonehead [ ] Having an account on [ ] AOL [ ] Compu$erve [ ] Delphi [ ] Prodigy [ ] Groveling for tapes [ ] ...immediately after the show [ ] ...before the show even happens [ ] Posting inaccurate setlists [ ] ...that confuse "Slave" with "Simple" [ ] ...that confuse "Simple" with "Sample" [ ] ...that confuse "Slave" with "Sample" [ ] ...that contain the anachronistic acronym "SOAM" with no further explanation [ ] ...that contain the amusing but very wrong "Hell is Coming" [ ] Comparing Phish with the Grateful Dead [ ] ...and saying the Dead is better [ ] ...and saying Phish is better [ ] Using "ph" in place of "f" [ ] ...more than once [ ] ...more than once per line [X] Failing to have in your possession: [X] A clue [ ] ...about Phish at all [ ] ...about music in general [ ] ...about anything [ ] A life [ ] A logical argument [ ] A coherent statement [X] Posting to a WATSIYEM thread [ ] ...more than once [X] ...and starting the thread [ ] ...and answering the question by: [ ] Repeating, in deep sincerity and helpfulness, the story about the cab driver in Italy [ ] Saying, "Tickle my anus, it drives me to a frenzy" [ ] Asking what WATSIYEM means (WATSWTSWATSIYEM) [ ] Asking what album to find a certain song on [ ] ...if that song is "Rift" [ ] ...if that song is "NICU" [ ] ...if that song is "Sample" [ ] ...if that song is "Simple" [ ] Asking what song mentions a pig with a funny name [ ] ...and asking what album it's on [ ] ...and asking if the Beatles wrote it [ ] Complaining about too many 45 minute long renditions of "David Bowie" [ ] Complaining about too few 4 minute long renditions of "Sparkle" [ ] Discussing Fishman's penis [ ] ...and the smiley face that may or may not have been on it [ ] ... and insisting that you have, in fact, seen the smiley face personally. [ ] Asking when Phish will be playing in Europe [ ] ...and how much the airfare is [ ] ...and grumbling that you are stuck there so you deserve to see a show in your new hometown [ ] Asking for Phish tour plans [ ] ...and your post immediately followed one from Shelly which explained just that [ ] ...even though you've heard that "Shelly isn't always right" [ ] ...and immediately asking if anyone in Colorado has crashspace [ ] You quoted the entire article you were following up to [ ] ...and failed to say anything yourself [ ] ...so you could insult the person who wrote it [ ] ...and said, in effect, "Me too!" [ ] ...and wrote something completely off-topic [ ] You reposted an entire digest [ ] You sent a "subscribe" message to the entire net [ ] You sent an "unsubscribe" message to the entire net [ ] We've heard it all before [ ] ...but last time it was funny As harsh as this treatment is, this does not mean that all members of the community treat newbies in this respect. In the positive connotation of the word, many people of higher net esteem are more than happy to help out new members of the community as long as they follow the proper channels. One person addresses the newbies at large regarding this issue: Newbies: most of us have been newbies before. So we all know what you are going through. But wait for newbie offers or other offers for tapes. No need to grovel. If someone has enough time to spin tapes for people they will tell the net. One of the other ways to build up your reputation and status in the hierarchy is to build up a tape collection so you have something to offer to others. There is the Adopt-a-Phreak program that matches newbies up with old timers who are willing to take a newbie under his or her wing and help the new member of the community start a tape collection. Others will post offering newbie deals for members of the community with fewer than 'x' number of tapes. In a way, the quality of your tape collection acts much like a currency in this community. If you have something that people desire, you are thus in control of the interaction with that person, raising your status in the hierarchy. The more people with whom you successfully trade, the higher your status. Often people will post thanking the person who offered to make tapes for the recipient, and one will gain a reputation as a "good trader." How does this affect one's status? Once one has gained this reputation, one will be quickly offered a return favor should she be seeking a specific trade. Once one has reached a favorable and notable position in the hierarchy, this works that person's benefit. There seems to be a relationship that develops among those who are notable traders and posters, or just respected oldbies. They refer to each other in their posts, often backing each other up when controversy arises. The old timers also tend to help each other when one asks a question or starts a specific thread. Often they have met each other in real life, or have traded and recall whether or not it was a positive experience. It is not uncommon for people to select articles to read based solely on who has authored the post. One poster states: I used to read every post, but now I just scan the subjects and end up reading only 2 or 3 posts per digest. Of course I always skip the juveniles...while searching for grabinski, dirksen or uncle sig. On the other hand, one "Bad Trader Alert" post can scar your image quite seriously. Problems in a Growing Community Recently, many oldbies have expressed their disapproval of how people in general are treated on the net by certain high profile posters. An ongoing debate has raged regarding the future of the Phish.Net, as more newbies join the community, and more old timers get disillusioned. One factor is the growing popularity of the band, coupled with the growing popularity of the Internet. Another factor is the sense that the type of people that make up the community is changing. As one member of the community puts it: The Phish community will also continue to evolve and grow. There will be more and more newbies, and many will be ignorant of the band's history, and many will love the new material more than the old. Some of the older Phish followers will drop from the scene: some because they no longer enjoy it, some because their lives take them in other directions. Some people will complain that some aren't dedicated enough, or aren't as dedicated as they used to be. Some will drop out for a while, then reappear. As in real life communities, the size and growth of the Phish.Net has caused major strife among the members. People become more sensitive to the nature of what is a legitimate thread to post, and what is frivolous waste of bandwidth. Some feel that the influx of newbies has raised the traffic of the Phish.Net while not adding to the quality of the discussion. One old timer expresses this quite tellingly: Well, I am getting really upset. In fact, I am starting to hate the Phish.Net, and that bothers me. Ever since I have started, there have been people who jump in without a clue, people who repost digests, people who post their whole...tapelists, people who ask WATSIYEM, people who post "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" and other rather careless things. While some members of the community have tried to deal with this by either flaming or friendly advice, others deem the effort beyond reach, and either tone down their involvement in the community or even leave altogether. One disillusioned oldbie states why: People *want* to contribute to something worth talking about, but they get frustrated when they have to page through 30 or 40 articles for every one with substance. Then you become trained to page through everything and end up missing some of the good stuff. It's easier to not read at all. BUT since some of us have made many friends here on the net, they want to remain, but they just aren't willing to wade through the mountain of garbage to get to the gold. Still other high status members feel that the flaming and net policing only contribute to the noise and lack of content, and this has exploded at times into a debate over which is the right approach to deal with the evolving community. What largely goes unrealized however, is that these debates are intrinsically self-defeating. By arguing this over the net, both sides are simply contributing to that which they wish to eliminate. Here's an example: What I have never seen until lately is a deliberate abuse of the net. People such as Drew the Penis and Patrick who post repeatedly about non-phish related stuff, posts which are un-original, unfunny, and generally a waste of time. I attempted to explain to them that I felt that the Phish Net was a great resource and that their misuse of it was inappropriate. I did this privately, through email. They continue to post boring pathetic messages, but with an added insult to me. Some contributors realize this problem, but it often goes unnoticed as the debate rages on. One person eloquently states: The net has become an ugly place that is being abused. Granted I could've contributed to it in a small way, but when you feel inclined to post about all the crap you see because it pisses you off you only end up adding to the garbage. Another adds an important point, yet still feeds the fire: I'm sure there are a lot of lurkers who are highly knowledgeable of the band, but don't want to waste the time to contribute the substance because of their lack of net knowledge and the abundance of elitist net policeman. It's time to cut out all the elitist bullshit, you (know who you are) don't own the net and no one asked you to be a "post editor." Yes we all catch the mistakes people make and you can even laugh to yourself about it, but its no reason to make someone publicly look like a fool for them. What is evident is that people are concerned as to the future of Phish.Net as a cohesive community. What is happening could be called the Quantitative versus Qualitative Newsgroup Equilibrium. One member of the community noted that, "since roughly last spring the traffic on rec.music.phish has leveled off at the 200-300 post per day level." If this is the case, why would there be so much strife as of late? Rice addresses this issue by discussing limits: Consider also that given that we have limits on how many people or items we can process, and that time on a CMC system may be longer for a given task than in face-to-face mode, and given that use of the system takes away from other work and social activities, there is an upper limit to how much system communication we can actually commit or afford. So members of groups that operate in electronic space are caught between upper limits on their processing limits and lower limits on the amount of information with which they can survive. Those who cannot read all the posts on the Phish.Net because of the newsgroup's high volume may miss key information. They may then post a question and look uninformed to those who do read everything, thus becoming looked down upon by those who are high in the hierarchy. Theoretically, the posts that people traditionally find irritating go largely unnoticed as long as the level of traffic remains reasonable. As the traffic on a newsgroup increases, many valuable contributors to the community can no longer keep up, thus contributing less and less in terms of what may be deemed as "substance." So while the content level continues to increase, the substance level grows at a slower rate, until the point in which it becomes stagnant. The reason it becomes stagnant may be due to the fact that as the community grows, so does the number of oldbies who stop reading or posting to the newsgroup due to being disillusioned by the content or size of the changing community. Thus if the old timers are disgusted and leave at a rate relative to that of new members joining, the community becomes too young to effectively maintain a composure of acceptable netiquette. This rate reaches equilibrium when the size of the community becomes so large that new members have no interest in trying to keep up with a community to which they feel little attachment. The turnover rate of members of the society remains constant, and thus fewer people stick around to maintain the standards which have been established, resulting in lost substance. This situation may be the opposite of those experienced upon the start of the community, when most people know each other, and are so in tune with the standards, that a newbie might lurk for several months before feeling comfortable enough to contribute to a thread that seems like a conversation between friends. These situations reflect the slow transition from a Qualitative Model community, to a Quantitative Model community that the Phish.Net may have traveled, completing the switch upon reaching the traffic equilibrium. Some members of the community have offered solutions. Several have suggested splitting the net. Some feel a separate net for "grovels" would ease the traffic, others have suggested splitting Phish.Net by social status, one group being for newbies. Another thought that perhaps someone could moderate a slimmed down version of the Phish.Net: Why can't we have 2 different versions of phish.net? Version 1 would be exactly what we have now, uncensored, business as usual. However, Version 2 could be phish.net.lite. Someone would volunteer to read each digest, remove all the noise, and then re-distribute condensed versions. If he/she just removed the subscribes, tape list posts, digest reposts, and blatant NPC [no Phish content] posts, there would only be a few digests a day. These solutions, however, are inherently problematic. The issue as to what is legitimate content for each would only increase. Who is to say who is a newbie, and who is not? Some netters have come to terms with the changing community that is Phish.Net, and suggested finding an answer within what already exists. One calls for a rededication to what Phish.Net and the community is all about: It takes all kinds to form a vibrant community, and Phish certainly seems to draw a diverse group. They will continue to do so. The net will continue to be a terrific meeting place. People will talk about Phish, but they will also talk about other things. Many people are thrilled to find so many kindred spirits, and they bond on many levels-- the music being only one. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I've exchanged info on writers, poets, politics, other musicians, and many other things. I've also formed some personal relationships. We talk about Phish, but we talk about everything else, too. Most of that takes place off the newsgroup, but I see nothing wrong with people occasionally discussing their various diverse interests. There are a lot of interesting people here, and they have a lot of interesting things to discuss. Sometimes they will be interesting, and sometimes they will waste bandwidth, and sometimes different people will react to different posts in different ways. Another member of the community uses one of the debates to challenge everyone to respect each other's views: I think Rosemary and Patrick represent two different approaches, both of which I, personally, welcome and enjoy. I don't always agree with either of them-- and occasionally find myself in sharp disagreement with one or the other's approach-- but that's a matter of my personal tastes. Everyone has them. I can't help but think that the band members themselves occasionally allow their internal tensions to boil. It's very human to do so. I do hope that everyone can respect everyone else, and realize that we all carry our own individual backgrounds and biases, but are united in our love for a band, its music, and the scene that has spontaneously arisen around that music. It is apparent that while Phish.Net continues to change, it is necessary for the members of the community to adjust to the new norms instead of fighting the transformation. This is not to say that hierarchies have no place in the communities, but members of the social elite need to realize that the norms which positioned their status initially may just as easily relinquish their rank. There have been hints to this effect by the backlash against the net policing, which may indicate that either influence is waning, or perhaps a newer hierarchy is stepping up with a different set of standards. Conclusion There are a lot of people who read the phish-net simply as entertainment, some who read and post to get information about the band, and many who simply read because they *like* to read the net. This last group of people are part of an ever-growing group who see the phish-net as something of a place for friends with a common interest (phish) to gather and "hang out", talk about Phish or whatever, and just enjoy the company of other phish-heads. It's because of this group of people (of which I feel like I'm a part) that the phish-net "feels" like a community. As many of you know and have experienced before, people in a community tend to feel more attached to that community when we can make some kind of contribution to the community; when we can spend our time and effort to create something special and then to give it away to our friends. That's why many people like to spend their spare time doing projects for the phish-net. It gives us a sense of belonging to the community, and it makes us feel good about ourselves. We have examined the issues in a virtual community through a case study of the Phish.Net. As the above quote from Lee Silverman concludes, the community has a very strong sense of belonging to many of its members. We argue that such feelings are fostered by the hierarchy. Lea and Spears argue that such a hierarchy in accentuated in CMC. There is no doubt that this is reflected in the Phish.Net. Hierarchies are perhaps the key effect upon the successful evolution of a CMC system. Rice's factors for longevity of a CMC system are each fulfilled, and the system shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, because of the exploding popularity of both the Internet and Phish, the Phish.Net is having growing pains. That is expected of any system, and our Quantitative versus Qualitative Newsgroup Equilibrium theory attempts to explain how this effects its content. Nevertheless, this is only one newsgroup of thousands, and further analysis of other CMC system hierarchies, especially newsgroups, may provide increased insights about CMC communities. Citations Barlow, J. P. (1994). Is There a There in Cyberspace? A special to Utne Reader, No. 68. Goddard, E. (1994). The New Phish.Net FAQ File. Available FTP: Hostname: phish.archive.net Directory: pub/phish/faq/faqascii.txt Jones, S. G.. (1995). Understanding Community in the Information Age. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community (pp. 10-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Locey, B. (1994). Reputation on the Road Makes Phish a Big Catch; Touring the Country in Relative Obscurity Until Recently, The Vermont Quartet is Gaining Fame. Los Angeles Times ( May 12, part J, p. 27). Available FTP: Hostname: phish.archive.net Directory: pub/phish/text/interviews McLaughlin, M. L. & Osborne, K. K. & Smith, C. B. (1995). Standards of Conduct on Usenet. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community (pp. 90-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rheingold, H. (1993). Grassroots Groupminds. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (pp. 118-131). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Rice, R. (1984). The New Media. (pp. 129-154) London: Sage Publications. Silverman, L. (1994). About the Phish-Archives. Available FTP: Hostname: phish.archive.net Directory: pub/phish/text/archivist Silverman, L. (1994). Archive Plans. Available FTP: Hostname: phish.archive.net Directory: pub/phish/text/arhive_plans Spears, R. & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or Panopticon? The Hidden Power in Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research, Vol 21, No. 4. Phish.Net Quotations selected over two month period (1/20/95-3/10/95) from posts by: atcst7+@pitt.edu cdeluci@hubcap.clemson.edu ermadmix@mercury.cis.yale.edu ethein@unix.amherst.edu giorgic@phibro.com granne@acpub.duke.edu human@ix.netcom.com lanew@student.umass.edu POTTER77@snymorva.cs.snymor.edu randy.ward@saclive.com shell@phish.net softdesk!suez!jtr@uunet.uu.ne speno@clam.rutgers.edu tmbg@eden.rutgers.edu "...expressing surprise, and inducing it, is the band's modus operandi. This has earned them a devoted and constant audience. Groupies. Devotion here isn't defined by knowing all the minutiae, seeing all the shows, or collecting all the recordings. it's more about how Phish can do no wrong. ... Really, the worst thin Phish could do to the fans would be to stop making music together. And last October [2000], at the peak of their popularity, that's what they did." -- Jonathan Keifer, "The Moment Ends?", Gadfly Online, 6/02 This page last updated January 24, 2007. All contents © 1992-2007 Ellis Godard. All rights reserved.