Abstract

Online as well as offline, elite members of communities may seek to consolidate their power and maintain inequality by employing processes of boundary maintenance. One form of boundary maintenance is hazing, or subjecting potential group members to degrading initiation rituals. This article presents a case study of how one online community employs hazing techniques. Using both quantitative and qualitative computer-mediated discourse analysis, the study examines how the elite members of the community enact violence, withhold cultural capital, and control access as a means to retain their power and maintain their boundaries. The results of this study have implications for understanding boundary maintenance, hazing in online contexts, and online communities in general.

Introduction

According to Schwalbe, Godwin, Holden, Schrock, Thompson, and Wolkomir (2000), the study of inequality has suffered because of researchers' narrow focus on the measurable extent, degree, and consequences of inequality; the interactive, generic processes through which inequality is created and reproduced have received little scholarly attention. Research on inequality has been further hindered by researchers focusing mainly on subordinates' reactions to and resistance to inequality. In contrast, little research has been conducted to explicate elite members' motives for enacting processes of inequality. One method Schwalbe et al. suggest for studying the processes for inequality is examining historical data; they note, "Historical data can reveal process, or at least provide an empirical basis from which to infer it" (2000, p. 1). One generic process discussed by Schwalbe et al. that is amenable to historical analysis is boundary maintenance.

Although Schwalbe et al. (2000) limit their investigation to face-to-face contexts, communities formed through computer networks also demonstrate processes that further inequality such as boundary maintenance. In fact, online communities are perhaps better suited to examining these processes through historical data due to the inherently persistent, textual nature of computer-mediated communication (Erickson, 1999). Online, as well as offline, boundary maintenance processes take many forms. One form is hazing, or subjecting potential group members to degrading initiation rituals. While a frequent topic of research in offline contexts such as fraternities and sororities, hazing has received little attention from computer-mediated communication researchers. This article describes a case study involving the use of hazing to maintain the boundaries of an online community.

To examine why and how this process takes place, the article first reviews the literature on norms, processes of boundary maintenance as outlined by Schwalbe et al. (2000), and hazing. The online group under study is then described, and an incident of hazing is reported and analyzed in relation to the concept of boundary maintenance. In concluding, the implications of the study for research on inequality and on online communities are discussed.

Online Communities

Given the heavy debate currently being waged in the literature, it is difficult to provide a solid definition of the term online or "virtual" community. Scholars have yet to agree if online communities exist, much less agree on what factors constitute an online community.¹ Further discussion of the merits and pitfalls of online communities and what factors comprise them is beyond the scope of this paper. Rather, the intent is to explicate a factor that for some proponents of online communities is a major component for such communities: the existence of norms (Baym, 1998; Cherny, 1999; Kendall, 2000).

Norms

Norms are shared perceptions of appropriate behavior with the power to induce people to behave publicly in ways that may differ from their personal beliefs (Miller, 1999; Miller & Prentice, 1996) but that are socially acceptable (Surratt, 1998). Behavioral norms are an important component for several categories of communities, including those focused on traditions and practices (Baym, 1998; Cherny, 1999) and cooperative action (Gurak, 1997; Swales, 1990). Rheingold (1993) states that formulating norms is "the only alternative to imposing potentially dangerous restrictions on freedom of expression" (p. 54). Because online communities are dependent on self-regulation for survival (Maltz, 1996), members must collectively agree to maintain the common good by monitoring their own behavior and by punishing those who deviate, which is necessary in order for norms to be effective (Cherny, 1999). Online, two types of social norms can be distinguished: netiquette (general) and group-specific norms.

Its origins dating back to Usenet, network etiquette, or "netiquette," is defined as overarching standards that guide proper interaction (Smith, McLaughlin, & Osborne, 1995). Some examples of netiquette include posting enough of a previous message to allow others to follow the conversation effortlessly, avoiding deviation from the global topic of the group, employing emoticons to avoid potential misunderstandings, and avoiding the use of bright colors or hard-to-read fonts when posting. According to Smith et al. (1995), netiquette aids participants in "digest[ing] an immense quantity of information as quickly, efficiently, and economically as possible" (p. 2).

Group specific norms, on the other hand, are particular to individual online collectivities and may or may not differ across groups. These types of norms may be influenced by several factors, including the purpose of the group, the members' characteristics, or the preferences of systems programmers (Baym, 1995). One example of a group-specific norm is that online groups dedicated to the discussion of television shows or movies often utilize the normative device of including the word "spoiler" in the subject line to avoid giving away the plot to those who have not yet seen the movie or program.

Boundaries

Group norms may lead to the creation of boundaries that define groups. Boundaries aid participants in indicating those who are inside and outside a given community; for members of the in-group, boundaries distinguish them from those they are different from, or want to be seen as different from (Cherny, 1999). In a brief review of the topic, Cherny states that boundaries are symbolic and dependent upon abstractions such as perceived similarity between people, rivalry, or friendships. Boundaries, though often not clearly defined, are nonetheless important to groups, as they aid members in defining and defending their existence. Often, groups are unaware of what beliefs or values construct their boundaries; the boundaries remain implicit, and it is not until they are trespassed that in-group members actively articulate and defend them. One of the most famous examples of this phenomenon is Dibbell's (1993) account of a virtual rape that occurred in LambdaMOO.² One of the victims of the rape posted a complaint; in her post, she states, "Mostly [this type of thing] doesn't happen here. Mostly, perhaps I thought it wouldn't happen to me" (p. 87; author's brackets). Although a specific rule warning against the actions that were committed was not explicitly stated, the victim's post claiming such incidents do not "happen here" indicates that it was an implicit norm that had been followed until the outsider's infiltration of the group. Through an ensuing discussion of how to handle the perpetrator, the participants began to articulate explicitly the boundaries they wished to maintain.

However, for online communities to sustain themselves and grow, new members must be admitted occasionally. Newcomers attempting to traverse the boundary by seeking admission to an established community have the potential to threaten the authority of the in-group and thus potentially destroy the community by failing to adhere to established behavioral norms (McLaughlin, Osborne, & Smith, 1995). Failure to adhere to norms may occur for several reasons. First, people typically bring with them into the online realm their own ideas of what constitutes appropriate behavior (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996) and thus may fail to abide by norms established by the elite in-group. Second, newcomers may not be aware of the established norms and as such, may not know to abide by them. For example, Weber (in press) details an incident of a newcomer's ignorance of and failure to abide by norms in a specific Usenet group. The norm for newcomers seeking admission to this group is to utilize politeness strategies; newcomers traditionally employ self-deprecation and express fear and hesitation toward participating when they initially post a message. The deviant newcomer, however, displays hostile behaviors toward in-group members and defense of her actions. Only after the elite rebuked her and offered explicit instruction did the newcomer conform to the norm, apologize, and express self-deprecation in her posts. Weber (in press) argues, "The newcomer did not…recognize that her status as a newcomer was peripheral and contingent on her acting appropriately. After being rebuked, she assumed a style and stance more consonant to her status as a newcomer" (p. 14).

Newcomers who refuse or fail to abide by social norms are dangerous to the elite in-group because they harbor the potential to break down the boundaries of the group. Smith et al. (2000), in a study of conduct control on Usenet, found that participants were less tolerant of those violating group-specified norms (as opposed to netiquette) because they were seen as potentially undermining the communal spirit the group had created for itself. Thus, for the elite to uphold its boundaries, newcomers wishing to join the community must be trained in the group's ways (Tepper, 1997). Boundary maintenance is one method that in-group members may employ.

Boundary Maintenance

Boundary maintenance, according to Schwalbe et al. (2000), is made up of processes that aid in-group members in reproducing the inequality inherent between dominant and subordinate groups. For boundary maintenance to be successful, the elite must work together to "limit Others' access to valuable resources" (p. 8). Schwalbe et al. outline three processes of boundary maintenance: transmitting cultural capital, controlling access, and threat and use of violence.

Transmitting Cultural Capital

Schwalbe et al. (2000), citing Bourdieu (1977), define cultural capital as the "knowledge, skills, habits, values, and tastes that are acquired in the course of socialization that can be turned to one's advantage in particular social situations" (p. 8). Although everyone acquires cultural capital, not everyone is given the opportunity to acquire the cultural capital considered most useful by the elite. Subordinates are excluded and inequality preserved by transmitting cultural capital only to those deemed worthy of receiving it (Schwalbe et al., 2000).

Bourdieu (1986) outlines three forms of cultural capital: embodied, objectified, and institutionalized. Embodied capital refers to what people know and can do. This knowledge can be increased through learning and studying, and as such cannot instantly be transmitted to others. Objectified capital is cultural goods and material objects; this form of capital can be transmitted both materially and symbolically. Finally, institutionalized capital is capital granted by an institution. One common example is the granting of an academic degree. The elite may control transmission of any type of cultural capital to preserve inequality.

As Tepper (1997) states, in online discussion groups, cultural capital "must be accomplished through asynchronous textual production, with none of the verbal or visual cues that are so crucial to traditional notions of subcultural formation" (p. 45). In her study of the Usenet newsgroup alt.folklore.urban, Tepper identifies trolling as a "complicated play of cultural capital" the group employs to distinguish who is in the group and who is not (1997, p. 41). Within this group, trolling serves as a form of embodied cultural capital; those inside the group possess the requisite knowledge enabling them to recognize when a participant is trolling. They can then avoid being baited and appearing foolish in front of other members. Those posters without this embodied cultural capital who argue with the troller identify themselves as outsiders; by demonstrating their inability to spot a troll, they prove that they lack the requisite cultural capital deemed most useful by the elite.

Controlling Access

A second method elite members of a group may utilize to maintain their boundaries is controlling access; Schwalbe et al. (2000) claim this process can work in conjunction with transmitting cultural capital. According to Schwalbe et al., gaining entry into a community is usually facilitated when a newcomer has prior connections to members of the elite. However, after the initial entry there is a period of jockeying by the subordinates and testing by the elite to determine if the newcomer has the proper characteristics to be allowed further access to the group.

Online, controlling access occurs in large part by the elite carefully, and to a certain extent, unconsciously, monitoring who is allowed to participate in the conversation (Connery, 1997). Newcomers who lack the requisite beliefs or characteristics yet are allowed to participate may unduly influence or alter the group in ways elite members may deem negative. Another method for controlling access and gauging if a newcomer is right for a group is to see if the newcomer abides by common norms. In Weber's (in press) discussion of a newcomer who fails to demonstrate politeness and self-deprecation when joining a Usenet support group, the elite refused to accept the member into the group until she conformed to these behavioral expectations and admitted her ignorance of the norms. Weber argues that such disruptions caused by newcomers help communities identify their boundaries; only if newcomers conform can they prove to the elite that they have the right qualifications to be granted membership.

Threat and Use of Violence

The third process that elite members may employ to maintain their boundaries is the threat and use of violence. Perhaps because of their focus on face-to-face interactions, Schwalbe et al. (2000) define violence narrowly as "the application of damaging force to human bodies" (p. 10). Employing violence may be necessary from the elite's point of view to protect their power and privilege by ensuring that their boundaries do not break down. Schwalbe et al. claim that when violence becomes valorized in a group, it becomes a criterion to determine who is allowed membership.

At first glance, the process of enacting physical violence does not appear to transfer to the online realm. However, violence can and does occur online. Herring (2002) outlines four categories of cyber violence, which she defines as "online behavior that constitutes or leads to assault against the well being (physical, psychological, emotional) of an individual or group" (p. 1). The first category is online contact leading to offline harm. Usually, a person intentionally misrepresents themselves to gain someone's trust; the subsequent offline encounter then leads to abuse such as unwanted sexual contact, theft, or beating. The second category of cyber violence is cyber stalking, which Herring (2002) identifies as a form of intimidation that includes the online monitoring of a person's actions with illicit intent. Although there is admittedly a difference between an incident where the victim is within close range of the stalker and an incident where the victim is perhaps thousands of miles away, cyber stalking may cause emotional and psychological trauma, as well as the potential to cross over to an offline context (Gilbert, 1997). A third category of cyber violence is degrading representations, which are online representations in the form of words or images of (usually marginalized) groups that invite disrespectful and/or harmful degradation and objectification. The harm that may arise from such depictions is usually indirect, as the representations are usually not targeted toward a specific individual.

The final category of cyber violence outlined by Herring (2002) is online harassment. Online harassment is the repeated use of computer-mediated gestures, words, or actions that may bother, abuse, or alarm another individual; the harm caused by such harassment may range from disruption of group processes or discussion to defamation of character. Examples of online harassment include virtual rape and explicit threats. Common online behaviors such as trolling, spamming, and flaming, in contrast, are not forms of harassment because they rarely target a specific individual and/or do not persist (Herring, 2002). Much of the literature involving online harassment deals with outsiders harassing insiders (e.g. Dibbell, 1993). However, members of an elite in-group may also utilize violence against outsiders to maintain their boundaries. One method in-group participants may employ is online hazing.

Online Hazing

Herring (personal communication, 2002) categorizes online hazing as a form of online harassment. Although hazing in the online realm has received little attention, hazing in the offline realm is well known, especially in the context of university fraternities and sororities.

Kimbrough (1997) defines hazing as "physically and psychologically painful initiation rituals" (p. 231). Nuwer (1999) offers an additional component, stating that hazing occurs when a group that is perceived to have power over a person (usually a newcomer to a group) requires that individual to perform some (usually degrading) action to gain entrance to the organization and be held in esteem by the in-group. Offline, hazing may take the form of forcing newcomers to engage in servitude, run errands, perform favors, suffer from sleep deprivation, eat or drink something unusual or objectionable, or endure kidnapping or abandonment. Elite members of the in-group may haze by employing derogatory terms to refer to newcomers, using deception or playing mind games, or participating in intimidation, among other activities (Nuwer, 1999).

Hazing may serve several purposes in an organization. By subjugating or degrading newcomers, the elite demonstrates its power and status while instilling in the pledges (in the case of fraternities and sororities) loyalty to the group. While hazing does not signify that newcomers are unwanted (Ramzy & Bryant, 1962), it helps ensure to the elite that newcomers attempting to enter the organization will harbor the requisite loyalty needed to maintain the norms the group has formed. Newcomers may endure hazing for a number of reasons. Nuwer (1999) posits that those individuals that willingly accept abuse usually have insecurities that are not readily apparent and will therefore tolerate any objectionable or dangerous activity in order to be accepted. Ruffins (1998) echoes this idea when he claims that individuals with high affiliation needs will have no choice but to willingly tolerate anything that happens. Others may endure hazing to receive future rewards or to foster a sense of pride at being able to handle the pain (Ramzy & Bryant, 1962).

As stated earlier, hazing in online contexts has been largely ignored in the literature. An exception is Kendall (2000) who, in a discussion of harassment by in-group members of newcomers to a MOO called BlueSky, mentions that some participants consider their harassment to be hazing. Kendall claims such hazing provides an initial ritual barrier that the newcomers must cross in order to be accepted into the group. Through hazing, established members tell newcomers that they must be able to tolerate a certain level of aggressiveness, grossness, and obnoxiousness in order to fit in and be accepted by the BlueSky community.

To explicate the phenomenon of online hazing and examine how it aids elite members of online groups in reproducing inequality, the remainder of this paper presents a case study of the welcoming practices of one online group known as The X-Filesaholics. The next section presents an overview of the community and the methods utilized to elucidate the phenomenon of online hazing.

The Case Study: The X-Filesaholics

The online community under investigation is an America Online-based message board called The X-Filesaholics, a fan site dedicated to the now-defunct Fox television series "The X-Files." "The X-Files" was a science fiction drama that aired from 1993 to 2002, and revolved around two FBI agents' search for extra-terrestrials. The main characters are Fox Mulder and Dana Scully; Mulder is a steadfast believer in the existence of aliens while Scully is a scientific-minded skeptic attempting to dispute inexplicable phenomena with factual evidence. The X-Filesaholics message board displays several behaviors outlined by Herring (2004) as indicative of online communities, including frequent, self-sustaining participation over time, a core group of participants interacting, and common social behaviors, in this case an interest in both the paranormal and the actors of the television series.

Created in January of 1998, the X-Filesaholics message board boasts a membership of 299 members; however, by the end of the period of data collection (April of 2001), only about 40 members posted regularly (at least once a week). The participants are between the ages of fourteen and forty-five with an average age range of sixteen to twenty-two. They are predominantly self-identified females; of the 300 participants, approximately 30 participants self-identified as males during the three year time period. As of November 2002, only about ten members posted during the month; membership and total messages have both been declining since the television series ended.

The members refer to the message board as "Mulder's Apartment," and although the global topic is discussion of "The X-Files," it is normal for members to discuss anything except the television show. In lieu of discussing "The X-Files," members discuss favorite music and other television shows or movies, conduct humorous polls, commiserate about unpleasant events, and celebrate recent achievements. Members of the community value characteristics such as a sense of humor and self-identified lunacy, and newcomers, in an official welcome message posted within the joining thread, are encouraged to "act demented [because] it runs in the family" (The X-Filesaholics, 2001).

Individuals who join the group for the first time are expected to take part in an initiation ritual. Two aspects of the X-Filesaholics' initiation ritual will be examined in this article. The first is granting couch cushions to new members, a tradition that began just a few weeks after the board was created. The importance of the couch is based on an inside joke from "The X-Files." During the first few seasons of the show, Mulder seemingly had no bedroom, preferring to sleep on the couch in his living room. The couch cushion, sometimes labeled "CC," is appointed numerically based on the order in which a participant joins. Couch cushions can be a source of pride for members, as many participants display their couch cushion number in their signatures. The cushions also serve important status and hierarchy functions, as participants can discern how long a person has been a member of the group based on what couch cushion number they have.

The second phenomenon that will be examined in this paper is the toothbrush/ice block welcoming ritual, which began in June of 1998. When a newcomer requests membership, an established member gives them a virtual toothbrush and instructs them to "clean" or "scrub" the [virtual] apartment. The newcomer is also ordered to sit on a virtual ice block in the waiting room of Mulder's Apartment until their couch cushion number is assigned. The norm regarding this activity, though not explicitly stated, is that newcomers will abide by the cleaning directive without resistance and without questioning the established member's motives.

As stated earlier, the purpose of this article is to examine hazing as a process of boundary maintenance in an online community, focusing on elite members' rationale for employing hazing and the actions undertaken to implement it. Due to the text-only nature of the X-Filesaholics community, language is the sole means available through which to enact hazing. This article thus investigates the question: How do the in-group members of the X-Filesaholics discursively utilize the toothbrush/ice block directive to maintain the community's boundaries?

Procedures

To answer this question, the joining and welcoming threads of approximately 300 individuals who posted to the X-Filesaholics message board between January 18, 1998 and March 31, 2001 were collected. This created nearly 4,000 pages of data. The data were examined utilizing computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA) techniques. According to Herring (2004), CMDA is a set of methods (both quantitative and qualitative) whose orientation is language-focused content analysis. Both forms of CMDA were employed in this study; quantitative techniques were used to count and compare the appearance of newcomers and hazing activities while qualitative methods were employed to explicate the actions undertaken by the elite to control newcomers and maintain the salient boundaries of their group.

The research question asks how elite members of the X-Filesaholics discursively convey the toothbrush/ice block directive to maintain the group's boundaries. To answer the 'how,' it was first necessary to find a time period within the three-year history of the group upon which to focus. To accomplish this, quantitative CMDA techniques were employed by counting both the number of newcomers who joined each month and the number of hazing activities per month. Of special interest were instances when the appearance of hazing activities met or exceeded the number of newcomers, as it was judged that these instances might signify times when the elite deemed the newcomers to be a threat to the community.

Hazing activities were measured in the following manner: The data were searched for three key words utilized by established members when ordering newcomers to clean the apartment: clean, scrub, and toothbrush. The unit of analysis was the sentence; thus if two words were employed within the same sentence (e.g., "Clean with a toothbrush"), the utterance was counted only once. However, if the same participant utilized two (or more) sentences to order the newcomer (e.g., "Scrub the urn. ::hands newbie a toothbrush::") then each sentence was coded as containing a hazing activity. The data were then searched and the number of mentions of the term "ice block" and variants ("block of ice", etc.) was counted. Finally, the number of newcomers seeking admission to the X-Filesaholics was counted; this number was determined by how many newcomers received a couch cushion. If a newcomer asked to join yet for whatever reason did not receive a couch cushion, she or he was not included in the final total.

Analysis

Figure 1 below presents the frequency over time of three kinds of behavior: the number of newcomers receiving couch cushions per month; the number of utterances by established members related to the toothbrush directive each month; and the number of mentions by established members ordering newcomers to sit on an ice block per month. These behaviors are charted together for purposes of comparison in Figure 1.

As is evident from Figure 1, there are three main peaks in both the number of newcomers seeking admission to the community and number of instances of the toothbrush cleaning directive: June of 1998 (when the toothbrush rule was created), September 1999, and December 2000. In June, the peaks are of roughly the same height, demonstrating an equal number of occurrences of the appearance of newcomers and uses of the toothbrush directive. In September 1999 and December 2000, however, the instances of the toothbrush directive exceed the number of newcomers; interestingly, in December 2000 there are three times as many toothbrush commands as number of newcomers. Although the ice block directive is not employed as often, it also increases in frequency in December 2000. This increase in hazing activity in the absence of a large influx of newcomers is suggestive. It appears that the established members of the X-Filesaholics may have overreacted to the newcomers who sought admission around December 2000. They may have perceived the newcomers as a threat to their community, and reacted by increasing their boundary maintenance strategies.

To understand what the X-Filesaholics elite may have been reacting to in December of 2000, it is necessary to examine this time period in greater detail. First, an incident where five newcomers sought admission to the X-Filesaholics within four days will be examined; it will then be argued that this incident illustrates Schwalbe et al.'s (2000) three processes of boundary maintenance.

Between December 2 and December 5, 2000, five newcomers sought admission to the X-Filesaholics forum; three joined on December 2, one on December 3, and the last one joined on December 5. All five newcomers were female and were former members of the X-Files Teen board, another AOL-based message board revolving around "The X-Files." Each newcomer, like those before her, was presented with an official welcome thread shortly after posting her request-to-join message. The official welcome post includes a FAQ, a link to the X-Filesaholics' web site and chat room, and the presentation of a couch cushion number. (See Appendix A for the full official welcome post.) The welcome makes no mention of the toothbrush/ice block directive. Rather, established members inform each newcomer of the requirement.

The first two newcomers, upon being presented with the toothbrush/ice block directive, conform to the implicit norm and submit, as the following examples demonstrate:

Example 1:

1. 12/2/00
   hi! i'm new here. […] my name's Kelly. I post on the Teens X-Files board. I have NOT been lurking here for long at all, in fact, i posted the second i got this link. SO i've said who i am, so please don't burn me. I hear you guys like to do that.
   - Kelly [newcomer]
   
2. Don't worry. The only times yoy really gotta worry is if you spam. But, you do gotta clean things with toothbrush and also sit on blocks of ice in the waiting room until you get a couch coushin.
   I haven't forgoten the important stuff! ;D
   - Kori³

In her next post, Kelly has added the following line to her signature:

3. looking for toothbrush on cc#273

By adding this line, Kelly demonstrates her conformity to the expectation and signals to the elite she is following the rule. The second newcomer, Layla, also demonstrates conformity to the toothbrush/ice block directive:

Example 2:

1. 12/2/02
   Okay... I've never posted here before, but I might as well try. I'm Layla, and I post at the XF Teens board, although it is kind of falling apart right now. […] I read the FAQs already, because I didn't want to annoy anyone with newbie behavior, and I know how to quote and stuff. I can act insane, and I guess I might figure out what the 101 lists are.
   - Layla [newcomer]
   
2. Wow. They. Keep. Coming. =)
   ::::hands her a toothbrush::::::
   take your spot next to Kelly, she's in the bathroom scrubbing the floor =)
   - Bethanie
   
3. Umm... thanks?
   >take your spot next to Kelly, she's in the bathroom scrubbing the floor =)
   just as long as I don't get the toilet duty...
   -Layla

Layla, like Kelly, submits to the expectation; however, the question mark after the word 'thanks' in her second post suggests she is confused about why she is expected to scrub the apartment floor. However, she does not question the expectation and demonstrates her willingness to conform with her statement "just as long as I don't get toilet duty." Interestingly, she is allowed by the elite to avoid textually cleaning the toilet-normally considered a dirtier job than cleaning the floor-perhaps because she quickly submits to the hazing. Because of her willingness to abide by the hazing without question or resistance, the elite may consider her less of a threat and thus do not order her to perform the dirtier, less desirable job of scrubbing a toilet.

That same day, a third newcomer from the X-Files Teen board requests to join the X-Filesaholics; however, unlike Kelly and Layla, she displays mild resistance when ordered to clean the apartment.

Example 3:

1. 12/2/00
   Hi everyone!
   I am a newbie, I admit it!! […] Anyways, I am Allison, […]. Some friend from another XF board started posting here, and well, I wanted to drop in as well.
   - Allison [newcomer]
   

2. :::hands her another tooth brush::::: :::::points to the bathroom::::
   Welcome =D
   - Bethanie

Bethanie, who ordered Layla to clean as well, again offers the newcomer a toothbrush. However, this time, she relays the expectation through the nonverbal actions of ":::hands her another toothbrush:::" and ":::points to the bathroom:::" Bethanie's lack of an explicit, "verbal" command suggests she expects the newcomer to automatically know about the toothbrush directive, perhaps because Allison is the third newcomer to join the board in the same day and would presumably have seen the previous toothbrush directives. This time, however, the newcomer resists:

3. :::takes toothbrush::::
   :::peers in bathroom:::
   :::wrinkles nose:::
   :::throws toothbrush back:::
   I think I'll pass. . .
   - Allison

Bethanie deals with the newcomer's resistance in a straightforward, cordial manner.

4. ::::::::takes Newbie aside:::::: hon, this is your duty as newbie.
   ::::::Hands her bucket of soapy water and the toothbrush:::::::: clean the bathroom, dear. =)
   - Bethanie

With the aid of a smiling emoticon and employing names like "hon" and "dear" to refer to the newcomer, Bethanie softly rebukes Allison and informs her that cleaning the bathroom with a toothbrush is her "duty as [a] newbie." However, Bethanie still has not made explicit why cleaning the bathroom is Allison's job; she merely expects her to abide by the rule. After the rebuke, Allison adds the following statement to her signature:

5. Reluctantly cleaning bathroom with toothbrush on CC#275

Even though Allison is explicit about her reluctance to submit to the toothbrush hazing ritual, her eventual submission appears to placate the X-Filesaholics elite, and no one else orders her to clean the apartment.

The next day, the fourth newcomer from the X-Files Teen board requests membership in the X-Filesaholics. Her post marks the beginning of the elite's explicit disenchantment with the sudden appearance of newcomers, as they begin to complain about the number of newcomers within the past few days.

Example 4:

1. 12/3/00
   Hey!!!
   I am new here but I have been watching the X-files forever!!! I just wanna say that I LOVE
   the x-files sooooo much!!!! My Favortie is Scully!!!!
   - Madison [newcomer]
   
2. Welcome to the board ::hands newbie a toothbrush and a tranquilizer:: Go sit on
   the ice, have a warm cup of tea and a valium, then go clean.. err, with so many newbies
   this place is spic and span.. ooh, i know, go clean the cieling.. or ceiling.. hell, clean both.
   -Adela

Adela hints that she considers there to be too many newcomers with her statement "with so many newbies this place is spic and span." However, she does not allow Madison to escape the hazing, ordering her to clean the ceiling. Though Adela's tone is overall polite, other established members are not as considerate. They complain both about the number of newcomers, which is beyond Madison's control, and specific features of her post, which, because she utilizes bright colors, numerous exclamation points, and hard-to-read font, is a breach of netiquette. The language the established members employ to demonstrate their dissatisfaction becomes harsher than that which was used to welcome previous newcomers.

3. Im Jill. I dont like bright fonts, big bright sigs, or multiple exclamation points. Therefore, I shall put a filter on you so I dont have to look at your posts. No offense, newbie, but I have limited free time and would rather spend it reading posts that have some sort of point.
   Oh yeah. Welcome.
   - Jill

Jill's "welcome" at the end of her post is quite sarcastic and demonstrates her weariness toward Madison in the overall context of informing the newcomer that she would put her on filter to block any future messages because she did not like posts with bright fonts and no point. Other members of the community also explicitly demonstrate their weariness with the amount of recent newcomers:

4. Anyway, I'm Ariel. Yeah. That's about it. If you want to know more about me, just take a
   look through one of the other thousand welcoming threads. Because there are like...two million of
   them.
   - Ariel
   
5. Welcome. I don't really have any time at all. Over seventy posts -- […] It's the beginning of the end, y'all. Just to prepare you.
   - Ellen

Ariel's directive to read "one of the other thousand welcoming threads" and Ellen's explicit statement of having no time because there are over seventy posts suggest a belief that the number of newcomers is becoming unmanageable. Ellen's cryptic "It's the beginning of the end, y'all" also suggests she believes the sudden influx of newcomers poses a potential threat to the existence of the group, or at least to the established status quo.

Although a few other established members acknowledge Ariel's and Ellen's concerns, it is not until two days later when the fifth newcomer arrives that other elite members' language when enacting the hazing ritual becomes more severe. Though not every established member hazes, a vocal and irritated minority eventually leads to changes within the initiation ritual of the X-Filesaholics.

Example 5:

1. 12/5/00
   Hi everyone! I'm a newbie. I'm from the X-files teen message board. My name is Michelle. […] I'd like to say HELLO EVERYONE!
   - Michelle [newcomer]
   
2. :::sighs::::
   :::::hands Michelle a toothbrush:::::
   scrub the Urn, newbie.....
   WELCOME! I'm Bethanie. I am God.
   - Bethanie

Bethanie once again delivers the toothbrush directive to a newcomer. However, this time her weariness is made explicit by the nonverbal action ":::sighs:::" Also, the instructions to newcomers to clean are becoming more specific. Rather than telling them to clean the floor, she commands Michelle to "scrub the urn", utilizing a stronger verb to relay her message. By telling the newcomer not only what to clean (the urn) but how to clean (scrub), Bethanie limits the newcomer's freedom to decide how she demonstrates conformity to the toothbrush expectation. Her statement "I am God" also suggests that Bethanie believes she, as an elite member, has the authority and power necessary to force the newcomer to submit in her specified manner. Other elite members also explicitly demonstrate their irritation with the influx of newcomers through their language.

3. Um, Michelle? […] here you go. This is a toothbrush. ::hands you a toothbrush much resembling your own:: You can ge tin linebehind the rest of the newbies and clean the bathroom with it. If you want to get back into my good graces (you stpped in at a bad time... admitting you were from the teens board is always a mistake in my eyes), you'll clean the mess emily and I left when we ot married. Not even emily and I have touched it, because we're afraid of it.
   - Crystal
   
4. ::beats newbie into submission with a kayak::
   i am Raymi. bow down and worship me, for thou art unworthy.
   - Raymi

The elite members demonstrate their fatigue both through ordering newcomers to clean areas of the apartment with "a toothbrush much resembling your own" that even the elite would not be willing to clean, and though forcing the newcomer's online persona to undergo harsher punishments like being beaten with a kayak. In example C, Crystal orders the newcomer to clean "the mess emily and I left when we [got] married." After Crystal and emily's online wedding, they role-played consummating their marriage. Thus, Michelle is essentially being ordered to clean sex mess. Through this command, Crystal informs the newcomer that she must work harder to get back in her good graces, even though the newcomer did nothing wrong. Coming from the X-Files Teen board, while not a real crime, is a crime to Crystal and thus means Michelle must perform additional actions to be accepted.

The appearance of five newcomers from the same former board within four days leads to the following discussion:

Example 6:

1. 12/6/00
   Could someone please explain to me why the Teen board is moving here? What was wrong with that board?
   - Julia
   
2. Yeah, we broke up. But we're back together again!
   Ivy [newcomer who joined shortly before 5 present newcomers]
   
3. ...at the wrong board. :X
   ::cries:: That is all. :( ::starting to agree with Ellen:: If we don't fix this it seems to be the
   beginning of the end. :T
   - Gilly
   
4. ::snaps fingers:: not here, i hope. you have your own board, and are quite welcome to go back.
   - Raymi
   
5. And may I remind you that there is an angry lynch mob waiting RIGHT outside the bathroom in
   the event that any of you little peons rebel.
   - Crystal

Raymi and Crystal's responses to Ivy suggest they do not accept her answer to Julia's inquiry; their language continues to intensify, especially Crystal's, who invokes the idea of an "angry lynch mob" waiting to crush a newcomer ("peon") rebellion. Gilly echoes Ellen's earlier warning that if they do not stop the sudden influx of newcomers, they will potentially lose their power and authority as the elite members of the board.

Michelle, meanwhile, demonstrates resistance to the toothbrush directive through an offhand comment to another newcomer from the X-Files Teen board:

Example 7:

1. 12/6/00
   ::hugs Layla:: Yeah, mesa happy too, but that girl wants me to clean the bathroom with a toothbrush. :P
   - Michelle

Her refusal to submit to the hazing, combined with the previous discussion as to why the Teen board was relocating on the X-Filesaholics board, leads one high-ranking X-Filesaholics member, Illeana,⁴ to post the following rant:

2. All newbies have to clean the apartment with a toothbrush. All of them. There should be at least.. what? 10 newbies down on their hands and knees scrubbing their hearts away. Why you ask? Because. Simply because. Because you're a newbie and we've been here forever and a day and you will submit! Garland, I think you should add to everyone's welcome post that they have to clean the apartment. […] And you should hold out on giving everyone their ccs on time. They shouldn't be that lucky! They're lowly newbies. They're scum! And when they're done cleaning, and only then do they graduate to mucus. You have to work hard to make it in this business. Are you sure you really want to be a newbie? Huh? HUH!?! Look at me when I talk to you! You will clean the apartment and you'll like it. Am I making myself CLEAR? ::thursts a toothbrush at her:: Now MOVE!
   - Illeana

Illeana's language contains several features that serve to both subjugate and differentiate the newcomers from established members of the community. First, she refers to newcomers as "lowly" and "scum," stating that only when they have submitted to the toothbrush expectation do they "graduate to mucus." She also states that being a newcomer is not an easy job; newcomers have to "work hard to make it" and that they will "clean the apartment and…like it." She also employs "us versus them" language. She refers to the newcomers as "you," explaining that "you're a newbie and we [the X-Filesaholics elite] have been here forever and a day." Through this statement she provides some rationale for why newcomers must submit to the toothbrush expectation. Though the reason is still not rational, the newcomers are essentially told they will submit to the hazing because the elite say so and have the power to enforce such a command. This post serves as Illeana's attempt to quell the rebellion she perceives as occurring when some newcomers resist the toothbrush directive. Through the post, she attempts to regain the power she believes the elite lost with the arrival of the Teen Board newcomers. She also urges other elite members to back her up, specifically by urging Garland, the member in charge of posting the Official Newcomer Welcome, to implement changes to forestall similar future rebellions.

Illeana's post has two results. The first is that Michelle at last submits to the hazing expectation:

3. ::takes toothbrush:: Oook. Just don't hurt me. I have this thing about pain.
   - Michelle

The second result of Illeana's post is that Garland, in line with her suggestion, changes the official welcome post that is presented to all newcomers.

4. Before, it wasn't necessary because we used to get newbies like what.....once a month? (Maybe more.) But anyways, if anyone has a problem with me witholding CC's tell it to the Uncle.
   - Garland

No one overtly objects to Garland's post and the official welcome is modified and extended to include the following two statements. (The fully modified official welcome can be seen in Appendix B.)

[…]

7. All members of the Holics receive a CC. This stands for Couch Cushion. Now, if you didn't know that, then maybe you need to be around the Holics for a little more. We have such a rich history here, that we feel if you're going to join, you should be taught the way of the Holics and the things that make us happy, irritate us, and will make you feel more at home. Basically, this is a 2 week process, and after this 2 week's, as long as your still here, you will be given your very own CC. (Yes, by now you should know what this is.) During this time, you are given an Ice Block to sit on while you take breaks from scrubbing our apartment with a toothbrush. So, enjoy your time here, and very soon you'll be sitting with the rest of us, on the longest couch in the world, right inside Mulder's Apartment.

8. Take up your position in Couch cousion #
   […]

15. Sure this rule is #14 [sic], but it's the most important. As a newbie, you have to scrub the apartment. I mean, down on your hands and knees and scrub it....with a toothbrush. You can start in the bathroom. That's the dirtiest. ::hands toothbrush::

Through the employment of "us versus them" language and an explicit articulation of the toothbrush/ice block command, the established members of The X-Filesaholics demonstrate both a growing self-awareness of themselves as a community and a more explicit understanding of their boundaries and how they expect newcomers to behave before they are allowed membership in the group. The elite begin to define their interests (for example, of retaining their history by requiring newcomers to wait before being granted a couch cushion) and uphold their rights to maintain their power and enforce inequality between themselves and the newcomers.

Discussion

Schwalbe et al. (2000) claim that to better understand how generic processes like boundary maintenance create inequality, scholars must focus on the elites' motives and actions for enacting such processes. Throughout the discussion of the case of the X-Filesaholics, the status of elite has been ascribed to all the established participants who engaged in hazing behavior. It might be objected that all established members of a group are not necessarily elite. In this instance, however, the evidence suggests that those who engaged in the hazing can be considered elite, for several reasons.

First, only five members (Kori, Bethanie, Adela, Crystal, and Illeana) engage in hazing by directing newcomers to either sit on an ice block or, more frequently, scrub the virtual apartment with a toothbrush. A sixth member, Raymi, also engages in a form of hazing when she textually "beats [a] newbie into submission with a kayak" (example 5D). In contrast, five other established members (Jill, Ellen, Ariel, Julia, and Gilly) express their concerns about the sudden influx of newcomers, but they do not haze them. The six members who engaged in hazing behaviors can be seen as elite members in part due to the amount they posted. In the incident under investigation, while most established members post about once a week, these six members post at least once a day. Bethanie, for instance, posted four times within the welcoming threads; three of those messages were posted on December 2, 2000. In addition, other established members failed to question their actions. The six members engaging in the hazing are never admonished by others to behave civilly toward newcomers or to cease issuing the toothbrush/ice block directive. The failure of other established members to question or attempt to censure these six members' actions suggests that they acquiesced to them, granting them the power and status necessary to control the newcomers' behavior.

One might also argue that the elite members were not trying to protect their own power, but rather were engaging in hazing to protect the online space and the cultural status quo. However, protecting the online space and the norms and culture established within that space necessarily means protecting power. It is those community members who take or are granted power who determine what norms will be enforced and what cultural aspects will be embraced. Exercising power to protect an online space may take varying forms, including reproach and instruction (Weber, in press), trolling (Tepper, 1997), or, as with the X-Filesaholics, hazing.

Schwalbe et al. (2000) identify three processes of boundary maintenance that elite members may employ to maintain inequality and retain their power in face-to-face groups. The elite members of the X-Filesaholics demonstrated each process in December 2000 while attempting to maintain their boundaries in the face of the five X-Files Teen board newcomers. Though the processes took place simultaneously, they will be discussed separately below.

Threat or Use of Violence

All five newcomers were ordered, in various ways, to clean the apartment with a toothbrush. This directive could be considered emotional abuse, as the online personas of the newcomers are told that they must perform a menial and potentially psychologically degrading act in order to be held in esteem by the elite. However, as each newcomer joins, the directive is presented in increasingly harsher language, and the newcomers are assigned more specific-and dirtier-areas of the virtual apartment to clean. The first two newcomers are indirectly told to clean through statements like "you do gotta clean things with toothbrush" (example 1) and "take your spot next to Kelly" (example 2). In contrast, the fifth newcomer is directly ordered to "scrub the urn" and "clean the mess emily and I made when we got married" (example 5), harsh commands that explicitly limit how the newcomer demonstrates conformity to the toothbrush directive. The elite members also engage in other forms of online abuse, including the virtual violent action of ":::beats newbie into submission with a kayak:::" (example 5). Throughout the five days, the elite's employment of online harassment becomes increasingly more threatening to the newcomers and makes it more difficult for them to gain from the elite the requisite esteem needed to cross the boundaries of the community.

Transmitting Cultural Capital

A change in the transmission of cultural capital can be seen by comparing the official welcome posts from before and after the five newcomers seek to join the group. For the X-Filesaholics, cultural capital takes the form of the couch cushion, a symbol of belonging that is granted to members of the group. This capital is best seen as objectified capital transmitted symbolically through text (Bourdieu, 1977). Before and during the perceived invasion of the X-Files Teen Board members, couch cushions were granted immediately to anyone who requested membership. However, after the perceived invasion, and in response to Illeana's request, a two-week waiting period was instituted before a couch cushion number is assigned. In its place is an order to sit on an ice block and a direct command, now an official requirement, to clean the apartment with a toothbrush. Only after a two-week waiting period during which the newcomer must demonstrate submission to the toothbrush directive do the elite gatekeepers grant him or her the cultural capital of the couch cushion.

Controlling Access

The third process of boundary maintenance outlined by Schwalbe et al. (2000) is controlling access. By changing the official welcome post to include withholding cultural capital and a direct command to clean the apartment with a toothbrush, the elite members of the X-Filesaholics streamline their ability to control who can gain access to their community. Although they still cannot completely control who posts to the board, they are easily able to inform every admission-seeking newcomer of the toothbrush directive without relying on individual members to relay the command. Also, because each newcomer is given the same message, the toothbrush directive is administered equally to all newcomers, making it possible to insure that no newcomer is allowed into the community without first submitting to hazing.

Conclusion

This article has explored the role of online hazing as a process of boundary maintenance in one online community. The elite members of the group under examination developed a directive to perform virtual menial labor and sit on a virtual ice block and expected newcomers to submit without question or resistance. However, when a group of five newcomers from the same former board joined the community within a four day period, some of the newcomers refused to abide by the toothbrush directive or broke common netiquette conventions. These newcomers became a perceived threat to the power and authority of the elite members of the X-Filesaholics. To counter this threat, the elite imposed progressively stronger forms of hazing, and to forestall future threats, they eventually instituted a withholding of cultural capital and codified the toothbrush/ice block expectation in their official welcome post. This move, while not eliminating future threats entirely, streamlined the group's hazing ritual and its ability to control those given access to the community.

This study has implications for group dynamics in both online and offline communities. Schwalbe et al. (2000) claim that processes like those constituting boundary maintenance allow elite members of groups to maintain inequality. The X-Filesaholics were eventually able to re-establish the inequality between themselves and the newcomers by enforcing how the newcomers demonstrated conformity to the hazing ritual. Though three of the newcomers initially resisted the toothbrush directive, each of them eventually submitted and textually demonstrated conformity, thus relinquishing power and authority back to the elite in-group. The study also begins to fill another gap in the literature outlined by Schwalbe et al. (2000): the need to examine generic processes of maintaining inequality like boundary maintenance through the point of view of the elite. Schwalbe et al. claim that too much of the literature has focused on subordinates' reactions and methods of resistance in the face of inequality. By focusing on the elite members of the X-Filesaholics' rationale for hazing and the actions they took to implement and maintain their hazing rituals, this study begins to shed light on how elite members of communities respond to and, in this case, suppress, incidents of resistance by a subordinate out-group.

Finally, the study provides another example of an online community that became more aware of its boundaries after an incident of transgression by outsiders. The perceived threat of the five newcomers from the X-Files Teen board caused the established members of the X-Filesaholics to defend and eventually codify their hazing rituals in an official welcome message presented to each subsequent newcomer. This finding supports the notion that transgressions from outsiders not only help a group establish and defend its boundaries, but can help it gel as a community (Dibbell, 1993). Even though the X-Filesaholics had been in existence for nearly three years prior to the incident described here, the dispute caused them to codify the toothbrush/ice block hazing ritual. In so doing, they began to employ more "us versus them" language to differentiate themselves from outsiders-a discourse behavior that supports the claim that the X-Filesaholics are an online community (cf. Herring, 2004).

Obviously, the results of this study should not be generalized to all online communities; as Cherny (1999) states, "case studies of communities are intended as microcosms of virtual culture as a whole" (p. 14). However, this study may shed light on tactics similar to hazing that other online groups employ to protect their boundaries and power. The results of future ethnographic studies should be compared with these findings to glean a greater understanding of the phenomenon of online hazing.

Notes

1. For an in-depth analysis of the notion of virtual community, see Jones (1998).
   
2. Utilizing a program that allowed him to take control of other members' nicknames, a participant calling himself Mr. Bungle forced two other participants' avatars to perform unwanted virtual sex acts and other violent and degrading actions upon themselves.
   
3. All names and couch cushion numbers are pseudonyms. To minimize confusion, the names of elite members of The X-Filesaholics have been bolded in the examples. All typographical errors in the examples have been maintained as they originally appeared.
   
4. With a couch cushion number under 10, Illeana has been a member of the community almost since the beginning, giving her more power and influence than the average established member.
   

References

Baym, N. (1998). The emergence of online community. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communication and Community (pp. 35-68). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson, (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and Ideology in Education (pp. 487-511). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and Community. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Connery, B. A. (1997). IMHO: Authority and egalitarian rhetoric in the virtual coffeehouse. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet Culture (pp. 161-180). New York: Routledge.

Dibbell, J. (1993). A rape in cyberspace, or how an evil clown, a Haitian trickster spirit, two wizards, and a cast of dozens turned a database into a society. In R. Holeton (Ed.), Composing Cyberspace: Identity, Community, and Knowledge in the Electronic Age (pp. 83-98). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Erickson, T. (1999). Persistent conversation: An introduction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4 (4). Retrieved January 3, 2005 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/ericksonintro.html

Gilbert, P. (1997). On space, sex, and stalkers. Women and Performance, 17, 1-18.

Gurak, L. (1997). Persuasion and Privacy in Cyberspace: The Online Protests over Lotus Marketplace and the Clipper Chip. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, and J. H. Gray (Eds.) Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 338-376). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Herring, S. C. (November 16, 2002). [Personal communication.]

Herring, S. C. (2002). Cyber violence: Recognizing and resisting abuse in online environments. Asian Women, 14 (Summer), 187-212.

Jones, S. G. (1998). Information, internet, and community: Notes toward an understanding of community in the information age. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communication and Community (pp. 1-34). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kendall, L. (2000). Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kimbrough, W. M. (1997). The membership intake movement of historically black Greek-letter organizations. NASPA Journal, 34 (3), 229-239.

Korenman, J., & Wyatt, N. (1996). Group dynamics in an email forum. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 225-242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Maltz, T. (1996). Customary law and power in internet communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2 (1). Retrieved January 3, 2005 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue1/custom.html

McLaughlin, M. L., Osborne, K. K., & Smith, C. B. (1995). Standards of conduct on Usenet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community (pp. 90-111). Thousand Oakes: Sage.

Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54 (12), 1053-1060.

Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (1996). The construction of social norms and standards. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 799-829). New York: Guilford Press.

Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities, Hazing, and Binge Drinking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Ramzy, I., & Bryant, K. (1962). Notes on initiation and hazing practices. Psychiatry, 25, 354-362.

Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (revised edition). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Ruffins, P. (1998). The persistent madness of Greek hazing. Black Issues in Higher Education, 15 (9), 14-19.

Schwalbe, M., Godwin, S., Holden, D., Schrock, D., Thompson, S., & Wolkomir, M. (2000). Generic processes in the reproduction of inequality: An interactionist analysis. Social Forces, 79 (2), 419-452.

Smith, C. B., McLaughlin, M. L., & Osborne, K. K. (1995). Conduct control on Usenet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2 (4). Retrieved January 3, 2005 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/smith.html

Surratt, C. G. (1998). Netlife: Internet Citizens and Their Communities. Commack, NJ: Nova Science Publishers.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tepper, M. (1997). Usenet communities and the cultural politics of information. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet Culture (pp. 39-54). New York: Routledge.

Weber, H. L. (in press). Missed cues: How disputes can socialize virtual newcomers. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Conversation. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Appendix A: Official Welcome Post Prior to December 6, 2000

Subject: Re: don't kill the newbie
Date: 12/2/2000 8:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Garland98

[…]

Okay, here's all the stuff:
1) Read the FAQ X-Filesaholics-FAQ
2) Add this link to your fav places folder and visit often Mulder's Apartment
3) Visit our webpage by GillyPeep World Wide Web
4) Add to the 101 lists!!!!!
5) <optional> See the *How to make kewl letters* place Alt Codes
6) Read our small rule list to help keep things in line... You. Read this now.
7) Take up your position in Couch cousion #283
8) Email me w/ any ?s and your birthdate and month Garland98@aol.com
9) Come chat with us! Mulders Apartment
10) Please, no big fonts, all capital letters or lots of colors. It hurts eyes.
11) Act demented!! <It runs in the family>
12) Want to join the Weekly Holix Newsletter? Well, send mail to the almighty Ellen!
She can be reached at ELC194@aol.com . Ellen runs it, and she puts a lot of work into it.
13) Any questions can be directed to the group (if you feel it's appropriate) or to Julia
and Garland, your Aunt and Uncle, respectively. They can be reached at Juligrl24 Garland98.

~Garland

Appendix B: Official Welcome After December 6, 2000

Subject: Re: Hi im a newbie
Date: 12/18/2000 5:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Garland98

[…]

Okay, here's all the stuff:
1) Read the FAQ X-Filesaholics-FAQ
2) Add this link to your fav places folder and visit often Mulder's Apartment
3) Visit our webpage by GillyPeep X-Filesaholics-Main
4) Add to the 101 lists!!!!!
5) <optional> See the *How to make kewl letters* place Alt Codes
6) Read our small rule list to help keep things in line... You. Read this now.
7) All members of the Holics receive a CC. This stands for Couch Cushion. Now, if you didn't know that, then maybe you need to be around the Holics for a little more. We have such a rich history here, that we feel if you're going to join, you should be taught the way of the Holics and the things that make us happy, irritate us, and will make you feel more at home. Basically, this is a 2 week process, and after this 2 week's, as long as your still here, you will be given your very own CC. (Yes, by now you should know what this is.) During this time, you are given an Ice Block to sit on while you take breaks from scrubbing our apartment with a toothbrush. So, enjoy your time here, and very soon you'll be sitting with the rest of us, on the longest couch in the world, right inside Mulder's Apartment.
8) Take up your position in Couch cousion #
9) Email me w/ any ?s and your birthdate and month Garland98@aol.com
10) Come chat with us! Mulders Apartment
11) Please, no big fonts, all capital letters or lots of colors. It hurts eyes.
12) Act demented!! <It runs in the family>
13) Want to join the Weekly Holix Newsletter? Well, send mail to the almighty Ellen! She can be reached at ELC194@aol.com . Ellen runs it, and she puts a lot of work into it.
14) "Weeb" is the thing that us, Holics, worship. Basically it's a typo that Daala once made in chat and it's become everything to the Holics. It has a different meaning for everyone, and it should mean something to you, too, as a newbie. Things to spread the weeb include: writing it on walls, writing it on money, screaming it on TV, waving a WEEB sign on TRL and Today show. The possibilities are endless. This is the symbol for Weeb ¤
15) Sure this rule is #14, but it's the most important. As a newbie, you have to scrub the apartment. I mean, down on your hands and knees and scrub it....with a toothbrush. You can start in the bathroom. That's the dirtiest. ::hands toothbrush::
16) This is a warning from Illeana and Nickel: "Warning: Reading posts may cause your bladder to spontaneously burst into action." There jas been an incident of Carly crapping her pants, so therefore, please go to the bathroom before reading posts. It save all of us from seeing this and save yourself from embarassment.
17) Any questions can be directed to the group (if you feel it's appropriate) or to Julia and Garland, your Aunt and Uncle, respectively. They can be reached at Juligrl24 Garland98.

~Garland

About the Author

Courtenay Honeycutt earned her master's degree in Communication Arts and Sciences from The Pennsylvania State University in 2002. Her research interests include the formation of online communities, computer-mediated discourse analysis, and online language learning, focusing specifically on the acquisition of Welsh via Web sites.
Address: 820 E. Montclair #127, Springfield, MO, 65807 USA