Finding an identity 71
expositions about netiquette are available, and the topic turns up
regularly in the press.^12 Certain behaviours are universally open
to correction. An example would be the linguistic consequences
of using the technology incorrectly – such as an e-mail which had
a subject heading but no content, or a multiply repeated signa-
ture, or the inadvertent repeated sending of a single message. Also
universally condemned are ethical violations, such as forwarding
private mail without permission, or editing someone else’s mes-
sage without permission. Inappropriate language, such as flaming,
is also widely criticised. Many sites provide advice which users are
encouraged to read before they enter. Chatgroups usually provide
FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) which explain the basic rules
that new participants should follow – for example, which topics
are disallowed, how to refer to others’ messages, and what sort of
behaviour is banned.
People who fail to conform to these guidelines risk sanctions,
such as explicit correction by other participants (from a jocular
chiding to a severe flaming) or, the ultimate penalty, being ex-
cluded from the group (by the group moderator, or, sometimes,
through an automatic filter) or having an account cancelled by
the offender’s service-provider. In virtual worlds, players who are
seriously nonconformist can begaggedortoaded(their fantasy
character is altered to appear ugly: see p. 176). The presence of
moderatorsin chatgroups orwizardsin games is itself an interest-
ing convention – the recognition by participants that some kind of
external presence is needed to avoid anarchy and to resolve internal
disputes, even at the expense of the personal freedom which is sup-
posed to be a feature of Internet presence. Without them, it would
be easy for flaming exchanges to spiral out of control or for lengthy
off-topic discussions to intrude. A degree of linguistic control is
sometimes imposed automatically, as in those programmes which
replace expletives by asterisks or euphemisms. The controls can
also lead to second-order discussions (metadiscussions), in which
participants debate the rules themselves and how they have been
(^12) For example, Shea (1994). On standards of conduct generally, see McLaughlin, Osborne,
and Smith (1994).