One of the strengths of open technologies is the level of transparency in terms of communication, administration and functioning of the technology itself. Jenny stated, “... moderators are in another colour so you can easily identify them and can see when they’re online so [...] you can go [read their posts] if you need to”. Interestingly, while the moderators have ultimate control over the site content, thereby potentially hindering the openness of the knowledge production process, the fact that users could observe the process by which content was removed contributed positively to feelings of openness. This suggests that, similar to the case of Wikipedia, a clear process through which information is generated, contested, deleted, or accepted is crucial to fostering a transparent and democratic environment. It is perhaps this transparent process that encourages users to interact more frequently within structured forums such as Brave Boards. Further, it can be argued that the recognition gained from frequent interactions contributes to both the transparency and appeal of a forum. As Jenny points out,
“I’m a metal guru [...] it is an automated process that assigns status after a certain number of posts. [Some users] might have been on longer than me, but have posted less and are still at a lower rank.”
We observed elements of technocracy when analyzing super-users’ interactions with other members. Jenny is active in two of the five Brave Boards feedback threads. These threads exist to enable users to give feedback and provide critiques to the administrators of the forum beyond the simple ‘reporting’ feature used to flag trolling behaviours and spam. Jenny contributed to a feedback thread on new vertical advertisements on the site. Brave Boards users disliked this format of advertising and although they realized the site does need to make revenue, there was also a sense of futility in resisting the advertisements. Jenny vented:
“I think it's more the staff not being paid by selling the magazine anymore? Not sure, just speculating ... even if the ads need to be there, why the same ad on both sides? ... And the overlapping is stupid. Sizing needs to be fixed.”
Ultimately, the advertisements did remain on the forum but have been configured so theyinterfere less with the users’ experiences. This is an example of “closedness” on the Brave Boards which does not benefit the users or their heavy metal learning experience. The users dislike the ads and find them distracting, but can only avoid them if they use software such as AdBlock or specific browsers which duplicate this functionality.
The other feedback thread Jenny participated in centers around users exerting control over the content posted in a thread. For example, Jenny contributed to a discussion about a user who disliked photo quotes, and who also complained of being unable to delete past posts. In her response to this user, Jenny was critical of his attitude and motive:
“Why [must you be so] antagonistic? We're a bunch of cool people with a few idiots and trolls. Do you want to be a troll or be a cool guy? It's feedback man, no need to be a douche.”
Afterwards, the original poster is told by a couple of moderators that it is possible to delete past posts, and is asked to be more thoughtful about the content of the thread. It is also made clear to the original poster by these moderators that the site is fine as it is:
“... you have been here 29 days, this version of the board has been active 9 years. If it's not broken, there is no need to fix it. If you really dont like it here, find a new forum.”
“Hey n00b, you dont think in the +9 years this version of the board has been around (or the +12 years that Brave words has had a forum) that there has never been a Jake E Lee Thread? Well excuse us veterans who may not care to add our two cents again to a post like that unless we are bored or choose not to respond to which Iron Maiden record is the best. We have done it before.”
These examples underline the fact that users' contributions are not viewed equally; we explore this inequality in a subsequent section on hierarchies of expertise. Consider also the following example from a thread in the feedback section, by a moderator of Brave Boards called +inertia+, who responds to complaints about the power being exerted by moderators. Below is +inertia+’s response to this criticism:
“... if you feel strongly enough that I don't deserve to run this place, find me a bminimum of 60 users with a post count of 2500 or more that think I'm impartial and "WELL ABOVE (morally speaking) every other poster" and I will gladly step aside. With 3000+ members that's less than 2% of the users.”
In his interview, when viewing a forum topic comparing classic heavy metal albums, Armen reinforces the technocracy exerted by super-users regarding the types of knowledge that can be discussed on the forum:
“... Not this shit again; opinions are not going to change when comparing Iron Maiden to Judas Priest, or [comparing] Megadeth to Metallica ... everyone has seen the classic question posts, so there is nothing new to add.”
This can be interpreted as exclusionary since newer members have not been on the site forseven or ten years and do not know that questions about comparisons between genres of metal as propagated by mainstream bands have been addressed extensively on the forum. Other examples that support technocratic distinctions include a quote from Derek, one of the participants classified as a browser, and a veteran of the metal sub-culture, who stated:
“People get bothered by the post counts. It creates hierarchies. If [one] guy has 200 postsand [another] guy literally has 35,000 posts it is like ‘you newbie, why are you saying this, you have no role here.”
Derek continues to say that he himself would not give a user with a high post count more credibility, but recognizes that other users might. Jenny confirms Derek’s sentiments: “I don’t get picked on that much either because of seniority”. Armen also spoke of the value placed on users with an elevated status, like Neil Kernon, an award-winning music producer:
“... [Neil’s comments] will be held in more importance...I can’t disagree with him... he has a Grammy... people agree with him because he is Neil Kernon.”
- 1306 reads
