\documentstyle[11pt,doublespace]{article}
\author{David Golombek}
\title{A Place to Chat}
\date{\today}
\begin{document}
\maketitle

The three chapters of \underline{The Great Good Place} by Ray
Oldenburg provided refreshingly clean and original insights into the
the changing (and arguably disapearing) role of conversation in modern
American society.  Although the author never mentioned the growing use
of computers as the new ``Third Place'' for many Americans, it is an
increasingly popular place for many to hangout, chat, and relax.
Indeed, it is quite surprising given the recent date of publication
(1989) that the author did not cover this new forum in great detail.

Oldenburg suggests that Americans are losing the art of
conversation through lack of practice.  As the traditional meeting
places which fostered conversation are torn apart by ``modern planners
and designers'', Americans retreat more to their homes, to speak only
with family, rather than the strangers and associates.  And although
talking to family has it's benefits, it is distinctly different than
the discussing random topics with groups of associates and random
strangers, as pointed out in the paper.  For the purpose of this
paper, I'd like to 
accept most of Oldenburgs ideas, and try to see how they fit into the
Internet.  Much has been written on the reemergance of writing as a
communications medium with the coming of email, but the role of time,
so crucial in the formulation of conversation,	has largely been neglected.  
This paper will begin to explore what the differences in timing
between IRC and the real world do to the conversations held in them.

A large part of the popularity of IRC (Internet Relay Chat) can be
attributed to the immediate nature of the protocol; each line is sent
upon the pressing of the return key, and received by other users
extremely soon afterwards.  Users expect other members of the
channel they have joined, or users they are privately conversing with,
to be able to start considering their message and formulating a reply as
quickly as they could in real life.  Actual time for a reply message
depends upon typing speeds of the user, but averages out to roughly the same
time scale as a face to face conversation.  Thus, considering the
purely textual basis of IRC, one might be tempted to compare it to the
telephone, where the entire visual component of conversation has been
removed.  However, even speech is too rich a context, in that a great
deal of inflection can be conveyed via voice that is lost in a purely
textual format.  Furthermore, the average user still types
considerably slower than he speaks, removing much of the immediacy
from the conversation.

Given these restrictions, how to rank IRC as a possible area for the
formation of new ``Third Places''?  Certainly one cannot directly
replace the traditional {\it Green Dragon Pub} with the {\bf
+Green\_Dragon\_Pub} Channel.  The sale and 
consumption of alcohol, the well worn bar, and the bar stools
have completely disappeared, replaced by beige computer monitors, designer
desks, and comfortable chairs.  Yet each environment has it's 
regulars, newcomers stopping by to explore, and particular feel, not
to be reproduced anywhere else.  The regulars of the IRC channel
logged on every day to catch up with friends and 
socialize for a while, much as the regulars of the pub stop by for a
few drinks before heading home.  

The true difference between the two
mediums is in the timing --- the regulars in a bar are paying 100\% to
the conversation around them, trying to keep up with the fast flowing
banter.  A member who gazes off into space will be jostled by his
pals, and invited to ``join the real world''.  Yet members of a IRC
discussion may suddenly disappear, to deal with a phone call, or go
to the bathroom, or even watch some TV, without anyone else on the
channel noticing.  Perhaps the other members might wonder about a
prolonged period of absence while still logged in, but certainly
``real world'' interruptions are accepted by all participants.  This
leads to a shifting of views, from who is {\it present} to who is
{\active} --- the flow of conversation is controlled not by those
logged on at any one time, but rather by those active at that time.
Thus there may be extended lulls in conversations while several people
deal with non-IRC issues.

Another difference is in volume of participants --- in IRC, the
dominant speaker will be he who types fastest, rather than he who
speaks loudest.  Indeed, the IRC equivalent of loud speach
(capitalized text) is frowned upon.  Instead, he who can put out the
most text can fill the most screen space, and thus force other
people's discussions off the screen.  But this is a minor detail, and
one that is usually solved in manners similar to the speaker who
attempts to dominate a conversation. 

Finally, IRC users can be spread across time zones all over the world.
Although this may not appear to be a time issue at first, the
differing times of day have a large effect on what is on people's
minds.  Instead of all the regulars stopping at the bar for a
nightcap, or stopping by a cafe on the way home from work, there may
be a student waking up before classes conversing with a group of
adults home after work conversing with yet another student staying up
late into the night.  The effects of this time shift are hard to
estimate, but are certainly noticeable, and effect discussions on IRC.

Ray Oldenburg presents an interesting description of the way in which
people find and use ``Third Places'' in order to relax and socialize.
IRC shares many of the characteristics of these places, and indeed can
be used as a replacement wholesale.  However, it is not an identical
medium, as found in the difference in time scales between face to face
conversation and IRC chat channels.  While these details might seem
slight, they create a distinctly new atmosphere on IRC chat channels.


\end{document}
