Sit up straight. Don’t play with your food. Keep your elbows off the table.
In real life, we accept certain things as common-sense good manners. When you meet someone for the first time, you shake hands, you make eye contact, you smile. Tempting as it may be, you don’t bombard your new friend with sensitive questions, or ask, point blank, whether he’d like to get kinky back at your place. We call this being polite.
In a virtual community like Second Life, however, the rules of politeness are often quite different. How could they be the same? Here, personal information is hardly ever personal, and private encounters rarely stay private. So – in a world where public nudity, open solicitations, and gropings between strangers are all run of the mill – what determines "rude"?
It isn’t rude to interject into someone else’s chat. It isn’t rude to friend someone you met five minutes before. It isn’t even rude to hold three conversations at once. What is rude though is asking about someone’s real-life gender.
Or, at least, so I’ve been taught. When I first started in Second Life, about six months ago, a veteran was kind enough to show me the ropes. And when I asked his advice on that age old question, "R u a guy or a grl IRL?", the answer was simple: don’t ask. It’s just rude.
More recently, I’ve doing research for a study on how male players who present female in Second Life use language to perform femininity. The biggest obstacle has been finding subjects who will admit to being male. Or, more specifically, the biggest obstacle has been even asking. Between me and my research alt, we’ve heard countless theories on how to tell if you’re chatting with a cross-dresser. One blog reader even suggested quizzing the player on women’s shoe sizes. Brilliant.
But no one has said, "Just ask." Not only because you’re likely to get an inaccurate answer, but because it’s impolite.
So I decided to tarnish my own good, Second Life name a little and see what would happen if I did the unacceptable. Specifically, I asked thirty players (20 female, 10 male) the same two questions: "Hello, I’m doing some research. Do you mind if I ask you a question?" and then, "In real life, are you male or female?"
Every single player answered. All but one – a real-life transvestite, who cheerfully pointed out the complication inherent in the question – responded quickly and clearly with a gender that matched that of their avatars. Seven of the thirty asked after the fact what the research was for. One asked before.
No one expressed outrage, or even mild discomfort, at being asked, even the five female escorts polled, who could have easily taken the question the wrong way. The only people who could be said to have been offended were those who didn't answer the initial query – "Do you mind if I ask you a question?" – but who, in all cases, were camping for Linden dollars, and were most likely away from keyboard.
Whether or not these thirty players were telling the truth about their genders is impossible to know, but it’s also irrelevant. What’s interesting instead is their nonchalant reaction to the question.
Perhaps it was the sheer bluntness of my asking that kept the question from being perceived as "rude." Or maybe the fact that it was presented as "for research." Also, it’s important to note that my toon had no standing relationship with any of those questioned. If, instead, I had been asking acquaintances or friends, the players might have felt more pressure to answer honestly, and therefore the question might have been more invasive.
It seems though that there’s another issue at work here as well. When we participate in virtual worlds, we create new forms for ourselves, cyber forms, avatars with certain physical attributes, personality traits, etc. These new forms act, in some ways, as shields for our real-life selves. But often, weo create another new form, a non-cyber form, an imagined back story about the person at the key board. The housewife becomes the eighteen-year-old dancer; the eighteen-year-old becomes the successful mother of two. We are not who we are on screen, but, frequently, we are also not who we say we are. In effect, we set up two lines of defense between the virtual and the real.
Maybe this is why asking a stranger about real-life gender isn’t rude after all. What’s rude, in the end, is what cuts too close to the truth. And the stories many of us keep on the tips of our tongues about our "real lives" are anything but. Even if we tell the truth about ourselves, the understanding that our stories may be mere imaginings seems to buffer us from the sting of intrusion, from the imposition of the impolite.
I suspect that the fact that you phrased the question in terms of research had a large impact on the perceived rudeness of the question. Even in RL, phrasing something in terms of research, or a survey, allows for questions one would usually never ask.
An analagous question in RL might be "How much do you make?" There's a real answer, but the surveyer will never know if you responded truthfully, but upon long-term interaction, its possible to determine that somebody may not have been telling the truth (by seeing their consumption habits). Also, this question is perceived as quite rude. But when an anonymous stranger asks you for this information, to be used anonymously in a research environment, much fewer people have a problem with it.
Essentially, by phrasing it in terms of research, you created a different environment, where etiquitte rules didn't apply. A better etiquitte test would be to go to a SL "cocktail party" and ask a number of people in that context.
Posted by: Charles Wheeler | Apr 07, 2006 at 09:21
Funny, I find it a little rude if someone interjects into my chat (depending on how they do it), and extremely rude to be friended (or have a card shoved in my face) by someone I just met. I would not be at all offended by anyone asking me my RL gender. (Unless, you know, they were openly mocking my quite obvious and overpowering masculin...ack! A spider! It's in my hair! It's IN MY HAIR!!!)
Posted by: Chip Hinshaw | Apr 07, 2006 at 09:24
It’s all custom and practice. Chatting with a friend on the front row of seats while someone is delivering a paper at a conference is rude, chatting in open chat at a SL ‘Thinkers’ meeting is rude.
I don’t know too much theory about how etiquette norms are developed but I assume that that they are developed on-line in much the same way as they are developed elsewhere. Thought I think the details would be interesting e.g. one axis of social norms is gender – mind your language in front of women, open doors etc etc.
I wonder in online spaces how gap between visual gender presentation and, I’m not sure what to call this, let’s say performance, impacts the way that social norms are created. What I mean by this is that a few post-Trukle writers have been suggesting that things like gender performance are more limited than we might thing thus someone that is ostensible female in the physical world will perform a gender roll different that one that is male, but the visual clues might work again this and create an over all presentation that is more mixed than we are used to (or at leas less willing to accept) in the physical world. Hence I guess that our traditional assumptions about power and norms differ.
As far as I’m aware just about all the people with high Social Capital in SL are female, though I’m not sure what gender they present. I wonder if this has a noticeable impact on what is considered rude there. I wonder what the gender stats are for There and whether the norms there are substantially different.
Lastly, my feeling is that the virtual and the physical will get closer in terms of many aspects including what is and is not rude.
A few years ago I spent much of an evening in a canteen in a mall in Singapore, the interactions between groups of teens / twenty somethings was very different from that which I had observed in the west. They all had heavily modified mobile phones (interesting this is still not something that is big in the west) and were very much together / apart, in that they were calling, texting and being together all at the same time. I think that this on-line offline blurring will bring a blurring of the norms that we have for each ‘space’, I’m not saying that they will become the same, but that this notion of disembodiment that seems to underlie some of the feelings about what we do online, will reduce.
Posted by: ren reynolds | Apr 07, 2006 at 10:44
So, here's a question... since I am not entirely familiar with Second Life. Do you find that etiquette changes depending on which physical location you are in the world? Heck, I don't don't even know if Second Life is like ActiveWorlds in that there are a bunch of different realms you can go in... if so, does each realm have its own set of norms?
I ask because I find social norms in World of Warcraft changes very drastically depending on which kind of server one is in and even depending on which zone or continent one is in...
Posted by: Mark Chen | Apr 07, 2006 at 11:11
Don't ask, don't tell. That's why they call it "Second". Keep it "Second" and if you don't like it, get up $5 million and some programming friends and make another world. It's bad enough they put in voice now.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | Apr 07, 2006 at 11:16
Mark, did you say "social norms"? Or "social porn"? If the latter, then you are right on the money with regard to SL.
Posted by: Chip Hinshaw | Apr 07, 2006 at 12:33
Invoking the term "research" opens up the large can of ethics that they expect you to follow. For instance, if you hand someone something to eat and say it's for research, they have a reasonable expectation that it's not poisoned. (Assuming they believe you're an authentic researcher.)
But more pointedly, I think it's worth considering WHY it's rude, not just "It just is." Everything has a reason. Sitting up straight is a sign of good upbringing and attentiveness. Keeping your elbows off the table is actually a part of this; you want to appear polished.
The reason you don't ask someone's RL gender is the same reason you don't ask their age, their geographic location, whether they're married, what their job is, etc. It's because it's RL.
I mean, take a look at Nick Yee's studies. To say he's asked what RL gender they are is to call a mountain a molehill. =)
Posted by: Michael Chui | Apr 07, 2006 at 14:38
That's a really good post. Online mores are very, very weird. Charles Wheeler (above) is probably right to say that the fact you phrased the question in terms of research helped.
I want to go a bit farther with the question because the question of "What is rude online" for me isn't merely descriptive. I think a lot of people have to lighten up online. Now I can't just go and say "Grow up" to them and expect a positive response, I have to know where what I find problematic is coming from.
So let's catalog what people find rude online, generally:
1. Anything that looks like boasting (this includes winning an argument against people that can't spell).
2. Self-promotion (again, this includes times when what you're promoting is directly relevant to the topic or interesting).
3. Questions about who one really is (exceptions include Yahoo Chess, where people want to hit on each other. The purpose of a site will tell you how the etiquette is structured).
Also, the lynchpin of this argument, what people don't find offensive: I was at Jeff Jarvis' Buzzmachine, and he was telling someone to calm down, and that his blog was like his home, and he wished some respect to be shown. Jeff was exactly right. Why don't we conceive of people's blogs like their property? Why do we think we can say whatever we want however in virtual space?
OK, everything I've said before is biased, but you can see the argument clearly now: I'm arguing that people's netiquette is shaped by a really large force, larger than that of any particular site, although particular sites can redirect it.
That force is our want to assert identity - a purely mental and virtual construct - on everything around us.
Hence, the virtual identity vs. real identity question has a rudeness to it, because it's like being shocked back into reality, a reality where we can't leave a distinct imprint of which we are totally in control on everything.
I guess what I'm saying is that particular rules regarding netiquette and customs online have to be treated particularly. They're stemming from different forces or circumstances in each case, and the closer one looks at the particulars, the more we can learn about people, who really aren't all that mysterious.
Did any of that make sense? I'm going to start trackbacking from now on, too, if you don't mind. I didn't expect this comment to go on this long.
Posted by: ashok | Apr 07, 2006 at 17:28
What a great read!
It gets pointed out sometimes that the emphasis on having a "Second Life" for some gets in the psychological way of using the platform more casually as a "First Life Extension", as opposed to supplanting "reality" with "fantasy" in some cases. (Of course this is a generalization!) A common argument is: "It's your world, your imagination, yet you can't even pick your real last name?"
I think it's going to be great when voice modelling technology advances to the point where, hey, not only can your avatar look like one of the opposite gender, you can convincingly sound this way too.
Something which I've heard is rude, or at least annoying a lot, is IMing a stranger with "Hello" and not saying anything else after that, like a question! I've seen this firsthand for myself, including on Live Help, even tho it asks the asker to state their question nicely. :)
I've nary seen "a/s/l" been asked in SL. I think that's in part because the avatar often provides automatic cues of age, sex, and well, as for location, SL has physical places. "I live in Second Life!"
I think people who are eager to share will, anyway, or after you get to know a friend for awhile, they'll tell you more. I know it's happened to me.
I'm looking forward to more cultures created out of SL... makes me think of the phyles from The Diamond Age or something, but certainly, I've met steampunks who like when I address them back in language consistent with their classy tones, I've come across Goreans who thought I was a priest-king (at the time I was a furry bunny with a really big hat), and sandbox shenanigans run wild.
Posted by: Torley Linden | Apr 08, 2006 at 00:47
I as critical about a couple of Bonnie's posts, so it's only fair that I say that this one is a cracker. Very thought-provoking.
I wonder how huge the gap is here, though, between RL and SL? After all, waking up to someone IRL and saying "excuse me, but were you biologically male or female at birth?" might cause a touch of offence.
PS the clothes sizing tip was mine. Always worked, back in the day.
Posted by: Endie | Apr 10, 2006 at 06:27
I'd think that asking someone in real life if they were male or female would be considered pretty rude, too, albeit for different reasons :)
I think the main reason it's rude online is that you're asking about personal information that has no relevance. The only perceived purpose for asking is so that you can hit on the person immediately after finding out. And in both RL and SL, hitting on someone you just met five seconds ago is generally considered rude. In a sense, asking for a/s/l online *is* equivalent to hitting on the other person, since that's the only reason most people ask.
Providing another reason for asking (research in this case) removes it from that context, and therefore removes the rudeness associated. I suspect you'd get similar responses if you crafted any other reason for asking that wouldn't normally be looked down upon.
Posted by: Ian Schreiber | Apr 10, 2006 at 13:36
Mark: "Do you find that etiquette changes depending on which physical location you are in the world?"
You know, I wondered a lot about that myself -- and considered including in this post an explanation of where groups of subjects were found. I haven't experienced an etiquette shift from place to place myself, but I'll also readily admit my knowledge is much more general, and perhaps, if I studies two regions closely, something would turn up.
ashok: "Why don't we conceive of people's blogs like their property? Why do we think we can say whatever we want however in virtual space?"
Which brings up, in my mind at least, the question of trolls. I know I've had a few on my own blog. They think it's their right to spout out whatever bitterness they please -- and, for better or for worse, a lot of people will stand by that claim. Interestingly, the only reason my trolls has gone away is because a thoughtful poster made the same comment as you: This is private property, so be nice.
Torley: "What a great read!"
Why thank you :-).
endie: "PS the clothes sizing tip was mine. Always worked, back in the day."
And it continues to be brilliant!
Ian: "I think the main reason it's rude online is that you're asking about personal information that has no relevance. The only perceived purpose for asking is so that you can hit on the person immediately after finding out."
Hmm, I never thought of it that way. Maybe it's a matter of perspective: As a (presumably -- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) heterosexual male, you're objective would be, in theory, to weed through the female-presenting men to find real-life women to hit on. Mine though, as a woman but more to the point a researcher, is to find real-life men to study. But I can understand how your side would be a lot more common.
Posted by: Bonnie Ruberg | Apr 11, 2006 at 13:55
Bonnie said:
Agreed - I don't know why (actually I do) so many people think the Internet is FFA. You know, if I walk by Bonnie's house (no, I don't know where you live) and decide to spraypaint something unpleasant on the side of her garage, that's being a TROLL!
Trolling/griefing/being-an-ass online is, to me anyway, the same as vandalism -- and, I would also argue, could potentially be construed as criminal damage to property depending on the fall-out experienced by the owner.
I mean, I'm sure I'm not bringing up anything new in this regard, but a troll posting something nasty in your blog comments could be considered as damaging as a "hacker" who defaces your website. That hacker's actions are certainly criminalized ... why not the troll's?
And I'm not talking about free-speech/censorship issues. I think we all know the difference between a dissenting opinion and someone being an ass (however, spraypainting a dissenting opinion on a garage would still be CDP).
Sorry to stray from the main topic there, Bonnie, but your comment really resonated with me.
Posted by: Chip Hinshaw | Apr 12, 2006 at 12:31
"Trolling/griefing/being-an-ass online is, to me anyway, the same as vandalism -- and, I would also argue, could potentially be construed as criminal damage to property depending on the fall-out experienced by the owner."
It's a delicate topic, because of the free speech issue, and because the "fall-out" is often less physical than emotional. In this line of work, you can't be a softy, but I know I usually still take it hard when someone is unnecessarily mean, even if they're just doing it for kicks. And when it's in your own "home"... like you say, it makes it even worse.
Posted by: Bonnie Ruberg | Apr 13, 2006 at 05:51
I as critical about a couple of Bonnie's posts, so it's only fair that I say that this one is a cracker. Very thought-provoking.
I wonder how huge the gap is here, though, between RL and SL? After all, waking up to someone IRL and saying "excuse me, but were you biologically male or female at birth?" might cause a touch of offence.
PS the clothes sizing tip was mine. Always worked, back in the day.Forex
Posted by: Mike | Nov 08, 2006 at 07:52