I just felt like writing up something to poke your heads with, here's a theory...
The fact that we are having many discussions in our IRC channel, is strong evidence that supports my theory that: if an environment is preserved, managed and tended to, the occupants of that environment bond indirectly to the state of stability of that environment thus either consiously or subconsiously make the choice to spend their socializing time there. On the opposite side, an environment left to run wild with little or no moderation, tending or social involvement from the moderators nurtures very little social bonding with the rest of the occupants.
This is evident in channels that are large in number but low on social interaction, the occupants in those environments seek to establish social bonding by mere presence than interaction, these channels are often delerlict of topic and tend to encourage misbehaviour not only from newbies that randomly wander into the environment, but also regular idlers whom happen upon a chance of scarce activity and use it as an excuse to break silence for a short period. More often than not these short breaks stay short and the flow of social interaction reduces to background levels after a few hours or less.
My theory is that channel management, presence of operators and their interactions are important for the social being of the channel. Sometimes a channel operator can be seen to use force when discussions or individual occupants take a conversation or comment and take it off the rails. This is where balance is important, yet it's not a balance that can be seen or described, it's a feeling that in text-based communication relies on a lot of gut instinct. Obviously this sometimes goes wrong being that text-based comms is often open to misinterpretation, however in a social environment where many occupants witness and are exposed to the same material it is often a matter of watching the reactions of those occupants in context with the issue at hand from which a course of action is decided.
This leads me to the next point, that a set of clearly defined channel rules are important as a base to make sure that operators have a grounding, a platform from which to assist in those decisions. It, in my opinion, also says a lot about a social channel to the unexpeienced user. Reading a set of rules which explain what is and what is not acceptable behaviour should definitly have some influence on their decision to visit it or not.
Many channels I have visited have no clear set of boundaries, or justice system - there are many that believe everyone is entitled to do what they want, and without consequence. I whole heartedly disagree and oppose this stance, why? because if there are no boundaries (stating the obvious here) then whom is to tell whom what to do when a conflict occurs. In a real social environment the existance of a real justice system ensures that the social interactions between people do not cross certain boundaries. In the virtual world I believe these boundaries, albeit tailored for online interaction are imperative to be held, respected and enforced not only by the moderators but also by the occupants of that environment whom partake in the social interactions there. It is their responsibility as much as it is the moderators to communicate with peers what is and isn't acceptable within the boundaries of the channel rules.
Well, there we go. I felt like writing a load of hogwash, so there it is... You can comment on it if you like...
