"OK, I will witness the disaster." (best comeback ever)

So, I was unable to meet for even a disasterous, non-physically-spaced, online class discussion due to a dead car battery. I'm not going to go into details, but I literally had no other choice than to get the problem fixed immediately.

That said, I got a recap from several of you, and having read over the transcript I have a few observations to make that are directly related to the questions Kristen has posed to us:

• Online, synchronous discussions are incredibly language- and socially-biased. They are definitely semiotic domains (Gee) that follow a rule system that will be quite familiar to insiders and perhaps very shocking, or at least a bit off-putting, to outsiders. This rule system is quite different from those that govern other forms of written speech and other situated speaking speech; manners and politeness follow different norms, behavioral expectations are quite different, and the whole notion of turn-taking (nevermind limiting conversations to one topic) gets blasted to hell.
• They are often merciless to non-native speakers/writers of the discussion's primary language. Online discussions often require reading massive amounts of text in a short period of time, and while non-native speakers may be used to this with spoken speech, it's quite likely that they have not often encountered it before with written, synchronous discussion. Also, the subtleties of language (accompanied body language, tonal inflections, speech elongation/shortening, etc.) that are so abundant with spoken speech are completely missing from written speech, thus providing even fewer clues and context for non-native speakers. The emoticon just isn't enough :/
• Anna's (and Jill's) points about silence are thought provoking. While it might be clear in the transcript--who participated, who didn't, and at what times, etc.--it's usually not something one can easily be aware of. At least in classroom discussion, people talk slow enough and usually one-at-a-time, so one can take a moment to consider who hasn't spoken and who has, who's falling asleep and who's leaning on the edge of their seat (waiting for their turn to talk).
• What I enjoyed most (from the transcript) was the multiple attempts, by multiple participants, to allow someone to focus the conversation on one question or topic--followed immediately by the failure of most of these same participants to do so. It's sort of like everyone in a bumper-car rally trying to stop and work together without purposely ramming anyone else. What frustrated me (to the extent I could be frustrated by a transcript) is all the side comments, jabs, comebacks, non-sequiturs, jokes, statements of agreement, and descriptive language that we would all be terribly ashamed of inside the classroom (at least when it reaches this extent and derails the conversation so thoroughly). Had I been there, I probably would have been quite silent (I tend to behave antithetically to how the group is behaving; if everyone's quiet, I talk a lot, if everyone's talking, I shut up and listen closely).

I've seen these discussions before, in many classrooms (though not as an instructor), and the only real difference between this one and others I've seen is that, since everyone's full (real) name appears next to every post, the Greater Internet Dickwad Theory was not at play here. For those who are still unaware of this phenomenon, I'll link the relevant diagram below:

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Dickwad

Thankfully, I think the interface removes that one key component: anonymity; however, it should be noted that anonymity is only an amplifier. Anyway, I certainly won't be using synchronous online discussions as an instructor--for all their problems, where's the benefit?