“Bonus Mission #2: Another shot in life”

INTRODUCTION
Second life is an Internet based programme world where users come in and explore the virtual world. In this game, one can travel from Italy to Rome to a strip club – there are no boundaries. People that meet in second life sites can interact, play games and even shop with money. This is virtual reality which is similar to the real world. While Second Life is sometimes referred to as a game, it does not have points, scores, winners or losers, levels, an end-strategy, or most of the other characteristics of games (Wikipedia, “Second Life”, 2007). In this entry, I will discuss why second life is not just a game and describe how second life can bridge the gap between imagination and reality.

BEYOND MERE ENTERTAINMENT
As the shootings we see on TV in Iraq, images come to mind. Our thoughts are framed in a way. As such, second life brings one straight into the picture without further comprehension. Rececca Clareen clearly pointed out in her article “Virtually dead in Iraq”, and brought across the message (Clarren, 2006) that video games do in fact mirror reality. This is because Americans are genuinely affected by the loss of soldiers in the current Iraq war. In this sense, simulation of war games translates into the realistic image of bloodshed in war. Games can be disturbing indeed.

Take for example, although game artist Joseph DeLappe is often shot in “Iraq”, this sight is uncommon. But when a "real name" appears in that game – different agendas are reflected. In other words, the American public is reminded of their stand in Iraq and American soldiers dying everyday. This framing of the mind does not only happen in, “America’s Army”, but various other video games that advocate such agenda setting principles. Thus, games do indeed set an agenda but it does not promote socialization.

On the other side of the coin, Second life promotes community spirit and aids learning. In addition, second life encourages socialization and enables people to think beyond borders. This is its fundamental difference between a video game and second life. In fact, some US universities are adopting learning methods from this programme. Recently, it was reported by newspaper USA Today that, some 90 Harvard law and extension school students are taking the course called, CyberOne :Law in the court of public opinion. These students will receive real college credits and are participating from as far South Korea and China (Lamb, 2006). From this notion, we can see that Second life is receiving recognition from academics and this form of recognition is distinct from video games, which is built primarily for entertainment.

THE MEETING OF AVATARS
Second life is also different from a game because it allows socialization. For instance, the Second life does not promote a single purpose of enjoyment unlike games but it reflects rather, a sense of solidarity between online communities. As law professor Charles Nesson put it, “Second life gives us the capability that to have a classroom experience with the students.”

On this note, some professors teaching communication courses in the United States even joined in these groups in second life and meet their students there, where informal discussions can be carried out. Hence, Second life narrows the gap between teacher and student. Students now also learn more about what they cannot find in the real world – different nationalities, religions, sociopolitical groups (Lam, 2006) through Second life. In essence, this new programme creates a win-win situation where its positive effects will continue to grow beyond traditional online networks.

CONCLUSION
Second life is a new Internet based programme set up recently. While it is still at the pioneering stage, this programme has significant potential in reaching out to the international masses of netizens. Second life has brought netizens into a new dimension where imaginations become closer to reality. It is noted however that Second life is not a game. It is a place where virtual citizens can learn and imagine without being bounded by obstacles found in conventional life. In addition, Second life provides learning environments in its very own way, which traditional games cannot offer.

REFERENCES
C., Rebecca. (2006). Virtually dead in Iraq. Salon.com. Retrieved on 3 April, 2007 from, http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/09/16/americasarmy/

G., M., Lam. (2006). At colleges, real learning in a virtual world. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved on 3 April, 2007 from,
http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+At+colleges%2C+real+learning+in+a+virtual+world&expire=&urlID=19722056&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Ftech%2Fgaming%2F2006-10-05-second-life-class_x.htm&partnerID=1665

Wikipedia. “Second life”. (2007). Retrieved on 3 April 2007, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_life

“QotW10: A New Life.”

Orientation and COM 125 Island. Here I come!

An evening sight in Paolo Rome Italy! A personal favorite.

Met Pianist Mellie for window shopping...

Exploring the Strip Club Casino! Something we can’t find here. Nice!

Changed clothes… Definitely more comfortable

MY AVATAR
My avatar seems to portray a simple man who seeks to find adventure in the virtual world. Typically, I like colored clothes with blond hair. Casual wear is best. I saw a free T-shirt with nice prints in the casino and here I am, kicking ass in second life. Hope this does not sound or look too lame. J

CHOSEN PLACE
I chose a casino in a strip joint. The reason for choosing such an outlet is simple. Strip joints are disallowed in Singapore and according to the theory of Psychological Reactance; we want more when we can’t get something. This is especially applicable.

QotW9: STOMP or STOMPED?”

Citizen journalism, also known as "participatory journalism," is the act of citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information" (Wikipedia, 2007, citizen journalism). STOMP is not considered as an ideal form of citizen journalism because the process of reporting and passing information in this website is restricted tremendously. While this form of journalism recently, within in the last few years exploded into online communities in Singapore, it is still largely controlled by the media. As stated by Gilmor in his book, he mentions that an open source may produce better journalism at the outset, but that’s just the start of a wider phenomenon (Gilmor, 2004). This wider phenomenon is therefore known as citizen journalism. I agree that this statement holds true but sad to say, it does not relate to STOMP.

True enough, the media together with the Singapore government has made holistic efforts to lessen their control over this issue. In fact, we can generally see from some of the initiatives by politician bloggers to respond to the public, which was refreshing and interesting. That was indeed a clever move to evolve with the media environment. Adding on to this initiative, SPH recently also unveiled a new platform to connect citizens, through the use of the Internet to discuss on issues pertinent to the general public. Called STOMP, this website delivers categories of content, ranging from coffee shop talk to discussions on issues happening in Singapore. The purpose of this, I suppose is to allow “release the frustrations of Singaporeans” and allow the new media environment to take effect. After all, resistance to the power of the new media is of no use to any government.

I applaud SPH for trying to connect to the public. But this question constantly lies in mind: “Why do they have to “threaten” people with laws?” If you read the rules of engagement in the website, I believe that many people will be turned off because of those underlying agreements with regard to communication in STOMP. In my point of view, this is also one of the main reasons which will hinder STOMP from achieving ideal standards of citizen journalism because rules actually prevent people from speaking the truth because speaking the truth sometimes has implications behind, be it political or social. Nonetheless, this is what was stated in STOMP’s website:

Rules…and more Rules
You are welcome to use STOMP at anytime. But you must not use it in such a way that will break the law or cause loss to anyone or violate anyone's rights such as copyright infringement and defamation, and laws concerning the publication of unlawful materials. You must not impersonate anyone or post false messages since these activities may be criminal offences. Please also do not use STOMP to spam. [For all these concerns, we reserve the right to ban you.][Please do not give us any reason to ban you from STOMP.] If you cause us to suffer any kind of claims, loss, damage or legal costs, you must indemnify us for such claims, loss, damage and legal costs (on an indemnity basis)……

Of course, I am not saying that rules are wrong. It’s just that by putting these rules up, people will not really speak up, especially on governmental issues. There is indeed a pressing need to look beyond regulatory issues, if we want to achieve ideal standards in citizen journalism. Let’s put this into perspective: If every piece of information were to be filtered, the end message would be different. People know and recognize that. These rules listed above seem like a replication of a policeman interrogating a criminal, who had committed hideous crimes.

I believe there is no such need in a relaxed environment online. How can people report and analyze issues under such conditions, knowing they might be charged by the law and be banned anytime? After all, it is known to all that moderators can restrict messages put online. Based on this premise, there is actually no point in reinforcing known facts. As such, it is unnecessary to display such a “show of force”, it simply puts people off and stifles STOMP from meeting its objectives of reaching out to the masses effectively.

Another point that I wish to highlight are categories that are put up on STOMP. I find most of their topics superficial. First of all, their selection of topics seems to cater particularly to a “healthy” crowd and not the market which in my opinion, this website was set up for – the Singaporeans who are frustrated with daily life, especially those who face difficulties in managing their livelihood. Some topics/questions approved and put in STOMP are:

How can I increase my child’s appetite so that he eats more? (As shown in ST feature)

I have a few questions on Bluetooth technology ….

Please. We are not kids. People are smarter now. These answers can be found in less than 10 seconds when one “Googles” it. That is not to say that SPH does not have relevant topics. Yes, there are some topics that are relevant to students and also some working communities. Talkback and soccer news are some of the categories that are acceptable. But nonetheless, the primary objective of reaching out into the minds and hearts of heartlanders is just not met. The promise was freedom. And for a time, freedom was reality (Gilmor, 2004). I hope one day, that time will come true.

Recommendations
Where the techniques of achieving freedom of speech are near in Singapore, it can be a delusion from reality. In this new “initiative” by SPH to connect to the public, I propose that SPH rephrase the rules of engagement to a shorter and friendlier version; I also suggest that general questions from the public be fielded away from the main ones, the case in point is talkback. Also, there are just too many diluted categories that don’t make sense that should be removed from the website. Making the website look “full” does not make it a better one. A category/thread on the government issues should be put up because citizens in Singapore have a lot to say on its governance. This should be and I believe is the crux of this website. Although this issue might be shunned before, now is the time to face any immediate queries that citizens have. That way, people can connect better and all Singaporeans will benefit from such a move. At least, their voices can be heard directly instead of ranting in their own blogs, hoping to be heard by someone up there.

In conclusion, freedom of speech is a debatable topic; it has always been so since the mid nineteen century. STOMP is trying to reach out to the masses but in reality, it has not done so. And surely, STOMP is not considered as ideal citizen journalism. It is a shallow website that makes an effort to look good. Hopefully, governments, citizens and the corporate industries can collaborate to bring about a new dimension in sharing of information. As Richard Sambrook put it, “.. when major events occur, the public can offer as much new information as we are able to broadcast to them. From now on, news coverage is a partnership.” (Sambrook, 2005). In essence, it is not the website or information that needs to be changed; it is the people who control the website that needs a informative lecture on citizen journalism and the wider Singaporean society.

REFERENCES
Gilmor, D. (2004). We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People. United States: Oreilly Publishing.

Sambrook, R. (2005). Nieman Reports. The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. 59(4), p12 – 15. Retrieved on 28 March, 2007, from
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/05-4NRwinter/NR05W_Citizen_Journalism.pdf

Wikipedia. “Citizen journalism”. (2007). Retrieved on 28 March 2007, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism

“QotW8: Blogs and Bees”

Name: Siew Kum Hong (See http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/)
Occupation: Nominated Member of Parliament
Date of Birth (Blog): January 2007
Technorati Rank: 174, 414 (78 links from 25 blogs)

SIEW’S TONE
Bees usually make lots of buzz around their nest. In Singapore, these bees are like citizens of Singapore. But they now have Internet connections to other nests. Of course, these buzzing bees know that stirring the hornets nest is unwise. But once in a blue moon, some will try. Mr Siew Kum Hong, a recently nominated MP seems like a bee. Recently, he maneuvered into the hornets nest with this statement,

“The next Parliamentary sitting is on 9 April 2007. I am going to file a PQ on this (against regulations in upgrading). It is not acceptable.”

These were the exact words from his blog dated 19 March named “Pain plus Progress.” Siew Kum Hong was recently Nominated Member of Parliament and had stirred the political blogosphere with his straightforward and honest comments in his journey to help Singaporeans. He highlights the thoughts and difficulties of citizens in a clear and concise manner, thus creating a comfortable atmosphere for mass communication – linking netizens/citizens to the higher echelon of the government. In the political arena of Singapore where political voices are highly dominant, this is especially rare. Hence, I applaud his courage for standing up for the rights of Singaporeans. In his blog, topics ranged from Politics, to National Service to issues on Utube and more. In fact, most comments made from the public were valid ones, which cannot be expressed via normal channels. As the movie “Just Follow Law” might say, “this will take 3 working days to process”. From their frustrations we see in their comments, it clearly shows that the numerous problems that the public faced did not actually surface to the top levels of the government.

But most significantly, his topics paved into Singapore’s heartlanders where social problems at work or life usually arise. Take for example, in one of his most recent blogs, he questioned on the liability of NS on careers of males – a taboo issue that was never brought up by any politician in Singapore history in the public. In this sensational appeal to his higher ups, his comments were responded in a one-way fashion (as usual) from the second defence minister, Dr Ng Eng Hen, But nevertheless, Mr Siew persisted and appealed to the public for initiative on their part to address this issue. This displayed courage and also character from a man of lower rank. In fact, I was particularly impressed about the part when Mr Siew replied to in his blog on this issue in “On Soldiers and Teachers”:

“I ask you to write to the newspapers, to the Second Minister and/or to Mindef, to relate your own experiences and to raise awareness on this issue…It is not enough or convincing for me to simply speak up. If this is important to you, please speak up off-line as well.”

As we so very clearly saw, Mr Siew did not just speak up for people; he widened the channels of communication for Singaporeans to the government, which paradoxically affords a healthy web of redress.

BLOGS AND DEMOCRACY IN SINGAPORE
The Wee Shu Min outrage last October was the epitome incident that echoed social inequality in Singapore. Hundreds and thousands of people filled with anger hit out back to her and her father, who is MP for Ang Mo Kio. In fact, he had to apologize for his own sensitive remarks in his first “non-apology” (Giam, 2006). This will be remembered for a long time to come, at least online.

The rise of blogs has indeed caused a stir in the playing field of politics in the Singapore government. Blogs opened to ears of the public and spread the word of mouth, which created higher levels of power in public voices’. This is partly due to the rise of connectivity of the netizens and technologies across the globe, particularly in online communications. As reflected by Alinta Thornton, the practical effects (Thornton, 2002) of an ideal public sphere, citizens must have access to information about the issues before they can contribute to debate. In Mr Siew’s blog, this is especially relevant. He clearly demonstrated in depth of normally restricted subjects in Singapore, which is both refreshing and unique.

Blogs are also used as a voice for clarification. This brings about a more balanced power distribution between the public and government. But does this notion bring about democracy? The answer is yes. Democracy in this case, as I interpret it, is the free movement of communication between people. It is the unrestricted voice that allows the public to speak without implications from the dominant party. In a similar view, according to World Affairs correspondent from BBC, he regards the blogosphere as a source of criticism that must be listened to and as a source of information that can be used (Reynolds, 2006). Therefore, blogs create a sense of security for the people; it highlights the notion of the freedom of speech in the virtual platform and balances the weight of political powers.

Finally, while there are moves by the government to stop certain offensive blogs that may spark of political or religious disharmony, it is also vital not to restrict the truth from being heard. Only with an open heart and mind will the public be truly convinced. Nonetheless, blogs do hold power in Singapore today. With power in place to the people, higher levels of democracy will come along because the balance of power is shifted. Bees can be powerful too.

REFERENCES
Giam, G. (2006), “The politics of Singapore’s new media in 2006.” Retrieved on March 23, 2007 from,
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2006/12/31/review-the-politics-of-singapores-new-media-in-2006/

Reynolds, P. (2006). “Bloggers: an army of irregulars”. BBC news. Retrieved on March 23, 2007 from,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4696668.stm.

Thornton, A. (2002). Does Internet Create Democracy? Retrieved on March 23, 2007 from,
http://www.zip.com.au/~athornto/

“QotW7: Page to Place”

When we walk past the hallway in campus or sit in lectures, we often see people on the computer, either on MSN or in some place in the virtual world. In this world where communication is not longer restricted to face to face communication, the Internet and online communities has become even more relevant in our daily lives. But one may still ask: is telephone and e-mail enough to create community? The answer is no. Online communities require more than verbal communication now. In fact, communication in “real time” across various modes and mediums are essential to fill up communication gaps.

According to Chris Edwards, vice president of design at Art Technology Group in his reply at the Harvard Internet conference in 2000, "We have a bias towards real time," Edwards emphasized that communities are built on what he calls "affinity architecture," which embraces qualities such as presence, relevance, activity, response, authorship, and freshness. For instance, a single element of affinity architecture –presence– is invoked by placing the names of present or recent users on every page. In other words, online communities transform the page into a place (Edwards, 2000).

A virtual community or online community is a group of people that communicate or interact via the Internet. Online communities have also become a supplemental form of communication between people who know each other in real life (“Wikipedia: Online Communities”, 2007). In the case of Twitter, it is an online community because it fits all criteria of this definition. With this in mind, the purpose of the online communities in the case of Twitter is to promote the welfare of the overall selected virtual community and to establish a mutually beneficial relationship between its members. This online community helps connect with other members primarily through a wealth of thought and experience via several modes. As espoused by Wellman and Gulia, they highlighted that communities do not have to be solidary groups of densely-knit neighbors but could also exist as social network of kin, friends, and workmates who do not necessarily live in the same neighborhoods (Wellman & Gulia, 1996). This is especially true in the case of Twitter, where networks become a village of communication across electronic spectrums.

Despite its authencity as an online community, Twitter does seem to be highly similar to IRC, where comments or messages can be seen by the public online crowd or directed to specified recipients. It is noted that the dimensions of Twitter, in fact transcend its original premise of being merely an online community. Twitter is also a social network that allows constant communication between selected groups of people in a network. In this community, different modes of communication, i.e. IM, SMS and E-Mail systems and even blogs are leveraged upon to reach the recipient, regardless of time and place.

In conclusion, Twitter exists as an online community because it attracts mature online communities that wishes to communicate and stay in touch. This is unlike IRC or other forms of online communities where online deception is relatively high and connection is lost once one is logged off. In addition, Twitter is a virtual network where identification of online identities and intentions are more obvious. In such a construct, the social relationships that Twitter operates on are within its specified boundaries or locales, but this community has an ideological component as well such as, a sense of common character, identity or interests (Fernback & Thompson, 1995). Perhaps that is the reason why bloggers and netizens now prefer to use this “3-In-One” form of communication. Benefits clearly exceed costs.

REFERENCES

Edwards, C. “What constitutes "community" online?”(2000). Panelists at Harvard Internet Conference. Retrieved on 15 March 2007, from http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=202

Fernback, J., Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual communities: abort, retry, failure? Presentation. Annual Convention of International Communication Association. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Retrieved on 14 March 2007, from
http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html

Wellman, B., Gulia, M. (1996). Net surfers don’t ride alone: virtual communities as communities. Center for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto. Retrieved on 15 March 2007, from
http://www.acm.org/~ccp/references/wellman/wellman.html

Wikipedia. “Online communities”. (2007). Retrieved on 15 March 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_community

“Bonus Mission 1: Privacy Versus Ignorance."

Did you notice someone trying to peep into your phone screen when you are text messaging? Or perhaps a sneak peek at your computer screen? This is common in our daily lives I suppose. The world is now unlike the past century with the rise of communication technologies. With the click of the button, one can transfer pictures, messages and even videos in an instant. Search engines now pervade the minds of millions and identity coupled with privacy is becoming extinct. According to Bob Sullivan, “Privacy is to be left alone” (Sullivan, 2005). Realistically, this definition cannot be met in modern times, unfortunately. This short write up will show the abuse of authority by Singapore’s traffic wardens and the infringement of their privacy for a good cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v96fSeGWdE
(I cannot embed this because it is disabled by the user. Please refer to the above link to view this video on U Tube)

It was an illegally parked MPV along the double yellow line roads. A pair of traffic wardens took photos an MPV parked vehicle along the “double yellow lines” (This of course, is illegal under the traffic laws of Singapore). Ironically, these wardens who booked this poor guy, despite knowing the traffic rules by heart, broke the rules themselves by parking along the same double yellow line and going to a hawker centre for breakfast. Thereafter, the driver being extremely unhappy used his camera to take a video of this incident and their “baggage”. So what does this incident tell us? Is this a matter of invasion of privacy or does it represent a social problem?

From the reading by Bob Sullivan, it is stated that privacy in the modern age is diminishing over time. Sullivan also focused on the fundamentals, significance and relevance of privacy. The question now is: “How much privacy is one willing to give up in this globalized era?” This issue continues to remain as a constant problem in society and this video blatantly proves it. As the author highlighted (Sullivan, 2006) in his article, “We live in a world where you simply cannot keep a secret.” This is especially true.

In modern times, there are no secrets now and hiding is not a solution. Addresses can be found on the Internet; even websites that users surf can be located easily. With the rise of terrorism and the Patriot Act, there is no doubt that accessibility to private accounts is becoming common. One can never be sure that he or she is not checked upon. On this note, this video on the traffic wardens was just waiting to happen.

Nevertheless, the two wardens eating breakfast do realize that their privacy had been infringed upon. They also understand that there is little that they can do. They reacted like sheep waiting to be slaughtered. Therefore, in line with what Sullivan’s article espouses on keeping secrets in this era, it is not possible to hide secrets today. In times where a cell phone can bring one to the other side of the world instantly and seamlessly, this is especially relevant – secrets are no longer secrets. Secrets are now merely known as unseen information.

I am not saying that they are stupid. But I do believe that they are ignorant about the empowerment of technology to people. This should serve as a wake up call to them and others out there who downgrade the presence of the Internet and modern day technologies, which can serve and also destroy society. As Lao Tzu, an ancient Chinese philosopher said, “To know one’s ignorance is the best part of knowledge.” Without doubt, technology is indeed a double-edged sword in this era. We all must recognize both the competitive advantages and weaknesses of Internet Communication Technologies. As a matter of fact, we don’t really have a choice.

Finally and personally, this matter shows that communication technologies can be used as a source of real time evidence, despite deception revolving around the virtual world. It also exposes the mentality of some Singaporeans, who just merely wants to “get the job done” with an inability to realize the influence of technology. This matter therefore reflects not on the premise of an invasion of privacy but an invasion on ignorance of some Singaporeans. As one of the traffic wardens put it, “We are just doing our duty”. Perhaps, the driver of that MPV was also doing his duty – but he was doing it for society.

REFERENCES

Sullivan, B. (2006) “Privacy lost: does anybody care? MSNBC Interactive. Retrieved on 9 March 2007 from,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/

"QotW5: Hidden Assumptions in IRC”

INTRODUCTION
Identity is the key to interaction; it also plays a significant role in virtual communities (Donath, 1996). When it comes to communication in the virtual world, identity becomes more complex because there are hidden “faces”, with agendas and deception, which are transparent to the human eye. Against this backdrop, Grazioli and Jarvenpaa (2003) argue that the internet is a fertile territory for deception for two reasons: (1), the internet is a representational environment (i.e. users make a mental representation of the situation and product they want to obtain). (2) the internet lends itself to malicious practice as there may be no tangible existence of the product or store being represented. Based on these reasons and having particpated in Internet Relay Chat (IRC) before, I will attempt to find out more about communication in IRC.

In this blog entry, I will briefly explain what IRC means and demonstrate the meaning of deception by assumming two identities on IRC and subsequently, analyzing their responses. I will also illustrate how differences in identities will elicit different reactions from participants in the chat room and discuss the notion of reputation of these identities.

INTERNET RELAY CHAT (IRC)
IRC is categorized under the umbrella of chat rooms. On this note, chat rooms are environments where a user fills out an online profile that other users can see (Kerbs, 2005). IRC was extremely popular in the 1990s until other Internet communication systems such as MSN or SKYPE exploded into the virtual community, causing its popularity to decline. Primarily, IRC participants communicate via typed words in real time using emoticons or typographical symbols on the computer keyboard (Danet, 2002). People communicate and search for people to communicate via identification of nicknames (see extreme right of figure below).

WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET

The above is a sequence of interaction that I captured while logged onto IRC in February 2007. We can see that most players do not use their real names in the chat room. Rather, they pick on an identity that defines them.

A SIMPLE EXPERIMENT
Using the identity of pilot_29, I tried to chat up with 3 other “ladies” in the chat room but to no avail. A few minutes later, only 1 replied to my prompt. She (I am assumming that it's a she) asked me for direct introduction and we spoke about our hobbies, which lasted for a few minutes.

After witnessing the failure in being a “pilot”, I changed my nickname to hot_chick.

I received 10 prompts (See above) in less than twenty seconds. Amazing.

IDENTITY AND REPUTATION
As espoused by Donath (1996), the most straightforward form of identification is the writer’s account name (i.e. nickname in this case). This is especially true for the nick I chose – hot_chick. The meaning of this nickname is self-explanatory. Of course, this implies a girl with probably a curvaceous figure, long hair and legs. Thus, we can see that people make an assessment via one’s nickname. Their nickname serves as a primary means for identification and standing. On this note, "Hot_chick" received lots of attention because the sexy image it signifies while "pilot" obviously does not seem as attractive.

The relationship between identity and reputation is a close one. In the case of IRC participants, participants can be recognized by their emotions and signals sent out in their texts. For every message, there lies a meaning and an optimal signal, which strengthens their image, good or bad. Therefore, the reputation of that particular identity is determined by the nature of its nickname and the mental images behind it. However, how this image is being portrayed largely depends on its quality – its voice.

VOICES MATTER
The contents of the posting can reveal a great deal more about the writer (Donath, 1996). In IRC, people are most interested in your age, gender and race. This is almost like a common culture in IRC chat rooms. In my escapade to find out more about the inner thoughts of these people, I adopted – a play hard to get– approach in order to reveal the real intentions of participants.

As Cialdini asserts from the rule of scarcity (Cialdini, 2001), “If an item is are or becoming rare, it becomes more valuable.” In other words, it is about the physical image in the virtual world, which we portray that creates and forms value of the virtual participant. To illustrate my point in further, this is how one if conversation went in an IRC chat room:

Ken: Are you really that hot?

Hot_chick: I am as hot as you think I am.

Ken: Wow… that’s cool. Wanna meet?

Hot_chick: You don’t seem to be cool. There are eight guys waiting to ask me out.

Ken: No… I am really cool. (He carries on and on… about himself)

In the above text, it can be observed that hot-chick is “playing hard to get”. But in addition to this, it also indicates that words do have the power to convince and shape the opinion of the reader. Therefore, in a typical chat room, words count and voices do matter.

CON AND COPY
Through IRC, one can fake an identity for several purposes. In fact, participants can use it to strike up conversations with others and deceive other online users for several reasons. In other areas on the Internet, people use fake identities to publish personal information, which could result in various undesirable consequences including identity theft, identity impersonation and identity assassination (Kerbs, 2005).

In IRC, impersonation exists all the time. That is why, teenagers are advised not to talk to strangers over this form of communication because cases such as rape and molest have happened because of communication via IRC. As you can see, I have proven how “hot_chick” can create wonders. This also goes to show that, in the virtual world, identity cues are not always reliable. The account name/nickname in the header of an internet category can be faked, identity claims can be false and social cues can be deliberately misleading.

Donath reflects that it is certainly easier to pass off as someone since there are relatively few identity cues (Donath, 1996). Similarly, Riqueline and Wang explain that participants may already have an incorrect view of some information, and as such, the presentation of such information may not be at fault because the false beliefs are based on participants’ prior misconceptions (Russo, 1981). Based on this premise, participants in IRC, in my opinion may have been perceived as people who are game for sexual activity and are possibly bored with their present lifestyle. I am not saying that they have immoral values, what I am putting across is that they might be perceived as people looking for a sense of adventure and fun in the virtual world.

ASSUMING COMMAND OF AN IDENTITY
Both virtual theft and deception occurs when one chooses to assume an identity that is not his/hers. The notion of deception is to mask or make up information to convince individuals while stealing in this case refers to an act when one uses another person's personal information to take on that person's identity. For instance, in the case of IRC, identity theft occurs when I use a nickname that is used by someone else in the chat room.

Likewise, someone else could do the same. It is just too easy to assume command of another person’s identity. In fact, most users in IRC subscribes to this theft. Why do they do so? The answer is because they do not want to reveal their own identity. As Donath asserted in her article, “there can be real harm in being “seen” online (Donath, 1996).On this note, people do not reveal their identities for several reasons:

a. Fear of gaining responsibilities
b. Loss of privacy
c. Fear of being exploited
d. Fear of harassment
e. Fear of implications from work, legal and political entities

Because of the above reasons, the chances of one using an online identity in the case of IRC are very high. Additionally, the notion of pluralistic ignorance that Singaporeans are famous for comes into play as well. As the saying goes, “Monkey see, Monkey do”, this is especially relevant.

Identity spans many different situations and purposes. But stealing and deceiving is obviously wrong. With empowerment to the individual in the virtual world, the acts of deception and manipulation are inevitable. Nonetheless, it is also true that the human mind is a rational one. People do subscribe to the law of minimal disclosure. The best solution is to disclose the least identifying information. This is indeed the most stable, long-term solution.

CONCLUSION
The computer and Internet has evolved from a tool used solely for business and research. It is now also used for online interaction. However, with this new technology, virtual worlds also bring with them a cause for concern. These concerns include the loss of identity and privacy. We all have multiple individual identity relationships (one with our employer, one in school, one at home and possibly one in chat rooms/internet); the concern now is how we handle these identities. What is right or wrong? What is good or bad? There is really no answer to this because there is a fine line in deciding which identity is an ethical one. You decide.

REFERENCES

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: science and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Danet. , B. “Play, art and ritual on IRC”. (2002). Paper presented at the third annual meeting, association of internet researchers. Retrieved on 16 February 2007, from
http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/papers/ritplay.pdf

Donath. , J, S. (1996). Identity and deception in the virtual community. MIT Media Lab. Retrieved on 15 February 2007, from
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Grazioli, S., Jarvenpaa, S. (2003). “Consumer and business deception on the internet: content analysis of documentary evidence”. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Vol. 7, No.4, pp. 93-118.

Kerbs, R., W. (2005). “Social and ethical considerations in the virtual world”. The Electronic Library. Vol. 23, no.5, pp. 539-546. Retrieved on 15 February 2007, from
www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-0473.htm

Riquelme, H., Wang. K. “The unintended effects of hidden assumptions: biases on the internet”. (2004). Online Information Review. Vol. 28, No.6, pp. 444-453.

Russo, J.E., Metcalf, B. L. & Stephens, D. (1981). “Identifying misleading advertising”. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 119-31.