Imagine this scenario: An unknown person walks into a coffee shop and spots a small group of people sitting off in a quiet corner. They're sipping oversized cups of coffee and enjoying what looks to be fun, friendly conversation. The person, wishing to be part of the fun too, meanders over to the table and boldly sits down at an empty seat to join the party.
Chances are this person's actions are not going to be very well received by the group. The intruder might be removed from the coffee shop for lack of patron consideration, or, what's more, might even face a bit of legal trouble for exhibiting disorderly behavior.
Now, imagine a similar scenario, this time change the backdrop of our imaginary skit to an online chat room while keeping the remaining elements the same. This bold person would again be considered an intruder; a rude, disrespectful individual and violator of the rules of proper online etiquette. But the intrusive person would be, at most, chastised for interrupting and more than likely, only by those whose conversation has been infringed upon.
In society, there are rules in which people adhere to. By choosing not to abide by these rules, we also choose to face the consequences of our actions. Socially acceptable behaviors are understood as people overall, possess a basic sense of morality.
In virtuality, there are also basic rules, but with limited enforcement and punishment. Since it is very difficult to enforce those rules, an argument is likely to ensue until all parties, both offender and offended, have equally exhausted the energy of their upset. For the most part, no consequences will befall anyone if the forum is not moderated.
Wikipedia lists a fairly lengthy rundown of 'netiquette', or network etiquette standards that apply to all facets of internet use, including chat forums, which the website states, "is similar to standard etiquette, with a few adaptations". Reading down the list, one would be in agreeance and consider the list to be logical and appropriate, but doesn't mention infringing on an existing conversation. A more in depth list can be found in the RFC 1855: Netiquette Guidelines.
While the interrupted parties may believe that they have been violated, they may not have been violated at all. Bringing the intruder under scrutiny for social impropriety is not very fitting in this situation because the conversation has been displayed for everyone. Everything that is communicated from one person to another is laid out for everyone else to read. So is the intruder in this case wrong? Not necessarily. A forum by definition is a place to publicly speak.
While some may think the initial intrusion is indeed a violation, it is more likely that any actual offenses begin with the response that is generated by those that were on the receiving end of the unwanted guest.
People are inclined to protect themselves when offended or provoked in chat rooms, which often leads to a heightened level of textual attacking. Because the consequences of wrongdoings are minimal to none, forums are often harboring places for conflictual, offensive banter.
As an online chatter, it is important to understand that the best way to avoid this scenario is preemptively. By limiting intimate conversations in an open forum and sticking with conversation that is better suited for a general audience, the potential for this type of conflict dwindles significantly.
But by all means, if you are interrupted by an intruder while patronizing a coffee shop, let the manager of the establishment know.
