Is online communication possible?

[rj_anderson]

Obviously I think it is, or I wouldn't be online. But even so, I sometimes despair of ever attaining real understanding -- not necessarily agreement, but understanding -- through electronic communication.

It's hard enough in RL, where you can see the person's face, hear their tone of voice, and interrupt them if necessary to ask for clarification or repetition of whatever points they're trying to make. Online communication has the advantage of greater coherency -- if you're a decent writer you can make your case in a much more systematic and thorough way than you could have done in RL -- but sometimes this just results in greater misunderstanding if the reader jumps to a wrong conclusion early on and interprets all subsequent statements in that light.

Plus, as seemag seems to be finding out right now, it's a lot easier for people to be nasty and rude to you if they don't have to look you in the face or hear the hurt in your voice as you reply. I've sometimes been astonished at how blunt and even vicious-sounding some of my RL friends can be in writing. Not to mention the way that humor can be mistaken for malice, or explanation for condescension, if the author (or sometimes, just the reader) isn't careful enough.

So, it's easy to make mistakes when you communicate online, and it's also easy for people reading your comments to assume the worst about what you mean by them. But what I guess I want to know is, whatever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt?

A while back I was part of a discussion list where all the participants were in agreement on all the major issues, or so it seemed. By rights, we should have found it easy to communicate, because there was so little to disagree on. But in fact, what actually happened is that any time somebody made a statement that wasn't quite what the others expected to hear, the whole mailing list turned into a witch hunt. The most amazing accusations and insinuations were lobbed around, and cutting remarks were made. And what boggled me was that nobody ever stopped and said, "Hey, when you said X, it sounded like you meant Y. Is that what you really meant? Or can you explain it a bit more?" They just assumed that the other person was a nutcase, even though the very specialized nature of the list ought to have reassured them to the contrary. And because of that, all hope of positive and profitable discussion was lost, and the list turned into just another source of discouragement, enmity and strife for all concerned.

So many times I've seen this happen online, where huge flamewars could have been prevented and many hurt feelings assuaged if people had been willing to assume the best about others' motives and attitudes, instead of the worst. Yeah, maybe the archivist put your story in the wrong category because she's indifferent or lazy or was trying to tick you off -- but isn't it equally or more likely that it was an honest mistake? Or maybe that comment your friend made seemed awfully like a pointed personal attack -- but isn't it possible that he didn't know you might take it personally? Perhaps LJ User Jane_Doe really does hold the radical opinions you attribute to her -- but mightn't she also have a) been joking or b) expressed herself poorly?

I've seen really hurtful misunderstandings arise even between people who know each other very well, just because one or both assumed the worst and went straight into attack mode, instead of holding back and asking for clarification first. Sure, sometimes it turns out your first impression was right, and the person really is a troll or a nutcase or a garden-variety twit. But you haven't lost anything by giving them at least one chance to prove themselves otherwise.

And getting back to seemag's present troubles (which are, after all, the chief inspiration for this little rant), it amazes me how unappreciative and even downright rude people can be toward archivists, awards hosts, moderators, and the like who put in a lot of time and energy on behalf of their fandoms. Sure, we've all seen badly-maintained archives, bizarre voting procedures, and tyrannical and arbitrary mods. But even in those cases, doesn't it make more sense to offer polite constructive criticism (or even offer to help) than to take it as a personal affront? What's to be gained by showering the archivist/host/mod with abuse and stomping off in a huff? I've seen some beautiful and lovingly maintained archives crumble because the archivist could no longer handle a daily barrage of carping criticism from authors who didn't think she was updating often enough, or didn't organize the archive in the way they were used to, or had no right to give Story X a glowing review and not do the same for Story Y, or whatever. And having been a moderator of several lists, I can also say that whatever you do (or don't) to keep things topical, or promote discussion, or deal with trolls and flamers, somebody is going to think you're doing it all wrong and go off in a snit to start their own "much better" list, or whatever. Which can be very discouraging when all you really wanted was to show your love for fandom and perhaps even make some new friends along the way.

So, all this blathering really boils down to:

1. Please try not to assume the worst about people's attitudes, motives or opinions -- give them the chance to explain themselves, and you may be pleasantly surprised;

2. Don't forget to hug your fandom archivist, awards host, or moderator today. Because odds are they've already got way too many people slapping them in the face.

Here endeth the lesson.

Comments

[peacockharpy.livejournal.com]

It's too easy for people not to feel guilt about their online behavior -- they are talking to people who are faceless and sometimes even nameless (via pseudonym), so some people feel that gives them carte blanche to be a jerk.

But it's not just e-mail/Internet use. People are getting more and more rude. It seems like they've completely lost the niceties of everyday communication.

I've watched people who work at the grocery store put up with incredibly bad/rude behavior from their customers. I've worked at an amusement park, and it's even worse when people are on vacation and feel that they have some sort of entitlement to getting whatever they want. There's no sense of politeness or general everyday courtesy, and I note that more and more, instead of waiting to see if a situation could be resolved by a polite quesiton, they run in waving their (figurative) guns and bearing a chip proudly on their shoulders.

I always go into things overly pleasant -- maybe it's just that I don't like confrontation, but I've found 9 times out of 10 that I will have a much better experience when I go in polite and kind, no matter what the situation. And usually, I get some very *relieved* (and then VERY helpful) reactions. I'll pull out the assertive firmness if I have to (like when the drug store failed to order my prenatal vitamins for the third time in a row!) but I always start soft. Would that everyone did...

[shellebelle93.livejournal.com]

I agree that people are becoming more rude. I worked at Wal-Mart (ick) for eight years and boy, did I ever see the worst in people. Nasty people, sometimes nasty co-workers, it was a terrible place to work. I haven't been involved in very many on-line arguments, but I do keep a very low profile. I can imagine that sometimes people just don't see that other person as quite *real* since they are online and are 'faceless'.

I also agree that going into situations with a very pleasant attitude to start is the best way to get pleasant service and attitudes back. It seems to work for me, anyway.