I don't remember where, but when I first read about this many months ago I believe there was a basic concent from NCSoft at the time. I can't remember what/when/where, but I remember when I read it I was pretty pissed off that they would support this without giving some type of warning to the players that they could possibly be part of this.
In fact, I believe there was an actual article of some sorts posted by NCSoft in support of this.
Those of you who edited the letter for me, thank you for the input. Here's my pared down version as of now:
[ QUOTE ]
Re: City of Heroes character Twixt becomes games most hated outcast courtesy of Loyola professor , Local News, July 6.
For over four years, I have been an active participant in the City of Heroes community, and I would consider myself to be a decent judge of this 100,000 person community.
Myers portrayed our community as one filled with anger and hate, but a minimal amount of research would quickly find the error in this assessment. Our community includes a player-founded taxi service and emergency medical technicians who voluntarily help new players. Our forums include well-wishes for players who have babies, get married, or go off to war. We have sponsored charities, conventions, and even a few weddings. None of these made it into Myers paper.
Myers presented the extreme negatives of our community as the standard. No one condones the threats that were directed towards Myers, but he leaves out that he verbally attacked, insulted, harassed, and stalked many of these same individuals. Some of his harassments are still present on our forums. He insulted and harassed as many players as he possibly could. Similar to someone who drives 45 MPH in the fast lane on the highway, he followed the letter of the law but disregarded common decency along the way.
Judging our community based entirely on Myers piece is downright offensive. There are always two sides to a story. Just because we get labeled with the term gamers doesnt mean were not people.
NAME NAME
Davis, California
[/ QUOTE ]
Let me know what you think and any changes you think ought to be made. I would like to send this off by tomorrow morning, if possible.
- Ping (@iltat, @Pinghole)
Don't take it personally if you think I was mean to you. I'm an ******* to everyone.
It's a penguin thing. Pingu FTW.
If you can find a way to put back in the care about newborns, going off to war, and the part about our friend winning Who wants to be a super hero....
Other than that, I'm sorry we had to see it so pared down, but I believe it covers the essential important points.
Perhaps you want to contact the reporter himself and see if he'd like to do a followup piece instead of relying solely on the letter to the editor?
We might get more than 200-250 words that way.
Just a thought.
I've never heard of Twixt until now, but I like how he is "disturbed" and "frightened" by death threats over PvP and then procedes to release an article that gives out his name and general location.
[ QUOTE ]
If you can find a way to put back in the care about newborns, going off to war, and the part about our friend winning Who wants to be a super hero....
Other than that, I'm sorry we had to see it so pared down, but I believe it covers the essential important points.
Perhaps you want to contact the reporter himself and see if he'd like to do a followup piece instead of relying solely on the letter to the editor?
We might get more than 200-250 words that way.
Just a thought.
[/ QUOTE ]
The part about babies and going off to war is in there. Unfortunately, to do Detective's accomplishment justice, it takes a whole lot of words.
As for the idea of contacting the reporter, I already did. He told me that he was sure they wouldn't do a follow-up. However, after the storm that this has caused, they might be interested in it.
- Ping (@iltat, @Pinghole)
Don't take it personally if you think I was mean to you. I'm an ******* to everyone.
It's a penguin thing. Pingu FTW.
Can you PM me the contact details you used to talk to them?
I'm at the point now where I'm willing to write my own letter.
[ QUOTE ]
Similar to someone who drives 45 MPH in the fast lane on the highway, he followed the letter of the law but disregarded common decency along the way.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is technically inaccurate. He did not follow the "letter of the law" entirely. While it is not against the EULA to teleport a foe into drones or a mob, his actions were forms of harassment, which violates local and state laws observed by every state.
However, these laws are not always enforced, so it becomes easier to claim that they are not against the rules, like jaywalking.
Also of note, his tactics were considered against the spirit of the game enough to elicit the DEVs to make alterations making such tactics more difficult.
Mercedes Lackey
(address removed)
Dear Sir;
I would like to report what appears to be a serious violation of the APA Code of Ethics by Professor David Myers.
According to this article:
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2...fessor_be.html
Professor Myers engaged in what is at best dubious activities in a multiplayer online game, ostensibly for the purpose of sociological/psychological research. However, according to the APA Code of Ethics--
3.10 Informed Consent
(a) When psychologists conduct research or provide assessment, therapy, counseling, or consulting services in person or via electronic transmission or other forms of communication, they obtain the informed consent of the individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons except when conducting such activities without consent is mandated by law or governmental regulation or as otherwise provided in this Ethics Code. (See also Standards 8.02, Informed Consent to Research; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments; and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy.)
He must first have obtained informed consent from the players of that game. He did not do so. In point of fact, none of these players were aware he was conducting this research until the announcement of his book publication was made in this newspaper.
There is no indication that he conducted this research with the consent of the owners and operators of the game, which is another violation of ethics. The owners and operators of this game have been informed of this breech of ethics, which may violate their EULA (End Users Licensing Agreement).
As you can see from the context of the article, he deliberately enraged the other players, possibly causing them substantive harm. He did not offer therapeutic counseling to these players, as also mandated by the APA Code of Ethics.
Now that they are aware of this, it is possible they may consider Professor Myers and Loyola University legally liable for that harm.
Thank you for your attention
Mercedes Lackey
Ms. Lackey,
Dr. Miron, Dean of the College of Social Sciences, forwarded your email dated today to me because I am Chair of Loyolas IRB. Thank you for your inquiry about yesterdays article in the Times Picayune regarding David Myers research into online gaming.
I initiated an internal review of this matter that is in the information-gathering stage. At this point we cannot comment on an active investigation. Be assured that we take the matter seriously and will seek to achieve a resolution that complies with University policy and professional research ethics as well as state and federal human subjects protection regulations.
Sincerely,
George E. Capowich, Ph.D.
Vice Provost
Marquette Hall 301
Office of Academic Affairs
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue
Campus Box 091
New Orleans. LA 70118
Telephone number removed
Author of: GOOD TASTE: A Frequent Die-ers Guide to the Turf, Sand and Carpet of Paragon City
Funny how [censored] goes down.
I would take that guy's phone number off the bottom though, I won't be the first one to consider prank calling him.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, with that said, there needs to be some grave cleanups concerning his research. First and foremost, this is not an experiment. There are no variables. There is no control. There is no causality. Nothing in this man's research even remotely fits the model for a psychological, sociological, anthropological, or scientific mode of experimentation.
This is a case study. It has no applied value, no heuristic value, nor theoretical value. It is, for all intents and purposes, an observational case study. However, it is not natural observation. The researcher heavily involved himself in the carrying out of his case study to such an amount that its value is lost. He became, as he details, emotionally invested in his research. That is the first, and cardinal, rule of research -- don't get involved.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT
I'm still seeing the words 'research' and 'study' being thrown around a lot. Generally, when one conducts a study, or some kind of experiment, there is a clear objective in mind, a 'purpose' if you will, that relates to a measurable outcome. You might want to state some sort of hypothesis, and announce the method you are going to use, outlining controls and variables that can be later used as a basis of comparison such that the results may be interpreted in an objective manner. I've yet to see anything that resembles a study or experiment, or any kind of premeditated structure used to conduct said research.
To me, it is simply the story of a professor's experience participating in a leisure activity. The fact that he is a professor does not make what he does in his free time 'research'. The fact that he is a professor does not make everyone he has an encounter with a 'test subject'. The results of his 'study' are nothing more than a collection of observations. Furthermore, he has chosen to report the worst of those observations and draw conclusions.
Leader of Renaissance de la Veritas
Moderator of ChampioNexus
Amygdala's Guide to the Cathedral of Pain Trial
[ QUOTE ]
Mercedes Lackey
[/ QUOTE ]
She writes some great books.
A Guide to Champion Drama
My Videos
Ashcraft been published.
Anyone know the right people at his university to go after for an ethics claim. I was fifteen when he "gauged my reactions." It did no mental damage i'm aware of, but i'm mad as heck that this guy harassed me "for science."
lol @ all the butt-hurt over this.
Seriously.....
[ QUOTE ]
Mercedes Lackey
(address removed)
Dear Sir;
I would like to report what appears to be a serious violation of the APA Code of Ethics by Professor David Myers.
According to this article:
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2...fessor_be.html
Professor Myers engaged in what is at best dubious activities in a multiplayer online game, ostensibly for the purpose of sociological/psychological research. However, according to the APA Code of Ethics--
3.10 Informed Consent
(a) When psychologists conduct research or provide assessment, therapy, counseling, or consulting services in person or via electronic transmission or other forms of communication, they obtain the informed consent of the individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons except when conducting such activities without consent is mandated by law or governmental regulation or as otherwise provided in this Ethics Code. (See also Standards 8.02, Informed Consent to Research; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments; and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy.)
He must first have obtained informed consent from the players of that game. He did not do so. In point of fact, none of these players were aware he was conducting this research until the announcement of his book publication was made in this newspaper.
There is no indication that he conducted this research with the consent of the owners and operators of the game, which is another violation of ethics. The owners and operators of this game have been informed of this breech of ethics, which may violate their EULA (End Users Licensing Agreement).
As you can see from the context of the article, he deliberately enraged the other players, possibly causing them substantive harm. He did not offer therapeutic counseling to these players, as also mandated by the APA Code of Ethics.
Now that they are aware of this, it is possible they may consider Professor Myers and Loyola University legally liable for that harm.
Thank you for your attention
Mercedes Lackey
Ms. Lackey,
Dr. Miron, Dean of the College of Social Sciences, forwarded your email dated today to me because I am Chair of Loyolas IRB. Thank you for your inquiry about yesterdays article in the Times Picayune regarding David Myers research into online gaming.
I initiated an internal review of this matter that is in the information-gathering stage. At this point we cannot comment on an active investigation. Be assured that we take the matter seriously and will seek to achieve a resolution that complies with University policy and professional research ethics as well as state and federal human subjects protection regulations.
Sincerely,
George E. Capowich, Ph.D.
Vice Provost
Marquette Hall 301
Office of Academic Affairs
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue
Campus Box 091
New Orleans. LA 70118
TEL: 504-865-3126
[/ QUOTE ]
lolololol..........
[ QUOTE ]
Funny how [censored] goes down.
I would take that guy's phone number off the bottom though, I won't be the first one to consider prank calling him.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. Editing quickly
Look, I don't care about one lousy griefer nerd. What I care about here is that this guy has not only perpetuated several ethics violations of monumental proportions, he is a teacher, and is teaching his own freshmen by example that it is perfectly ok to violate ethics codes.
My degree is in science (biology) from Purdue, and I take my science seriously.
Please, please, please contact the Provost in my upstream post if you were one of the people Twixt /David Myers messed with. Ethics codes are in place for a reason. I grew up in the 50s, and only in the 80s and 90s did we start to find out how many irritating to life-threatening "experiments" were conducted on the general public without their consent or knowledge. When you don't have ethics codes, or they are not enforced, Very Bad Things happen.
The Ethics violations that I have seen so far:
Not obtaining informed consent of adults.
Not obtaining informed consent of the parents of MINORS (!!!!) as well as the minor himself. (Holy carp, that might well violate state and federal child protection laws)
Not offering an opt-out from the "participants."
Not offering therapeutic counseling to those who feel they suffered harm afterwards (and if you are issuing death threats, I would say you have suffered harm.)
Author of: GOOD TASTE: A Frequent Die-ers Guide to the Turf, Sand and Carpet of Paragon City
Allright, so what's with the idea that people will need therapeutic counseling? I'm pretty sure nobody is slitting their wrists at the idea of their defeat by twixt ending up in a book.
I just do not believe this began as an experiment, and the 'experiment' never met any of the scientific (or legal) requirements of an experiment, so it seems highly generous to even reference it that way as I talk about it.
My best guess is that it went something like this: the prof called it an experiment to cover up the creepy, giddy fun he had being an anonymous Internet taunter, to give himself justification and an air of detachment from the wrongs he was doing once he'd gone to far to restore his reputation.
And when he'd left CoX and began to miss the petty hurts he had previously inflicted, writing the article and then getting it publicized, as well as misrepresenting the scope of his notoriety and his acts, let him get the last word in on the community as well as rewriting the events within his educational scope to remove personal taint from them.
He talks about loss in the article, about what it was like when his campaign began to lose him friends and associates online, but he never once empathizes with the people he is messing with. And the writer of the article never calls him on this, either.
I don't feel a moment's pity for him. He had friends who clearly tried to warn him off this path, and he chose to keep going in that direction. Whether or not you believe he really was conducted an experiment, he made a value judgment that it was more important to continue TP Foe'ing enemies into Drones then to hold on to his relationships with friends and associates.
So either he valued his paper more than the friends he'd made, or he valued the the joy of drone-killing and taunting players more than his friends. Either way, he's kind of empty.
[ QUOTE ]
lol @ all the butt-hurt over this.
Seriously.....
[/ QUOTE ]
This...for real.
"Life is about perseverance. It's about slogging through no matter what." - Stormy Llewellyn
Current project - Orgo to Plowshares 42 Kat/Inv Scrap
Main -Orgo 50 Rad/Rad def
[ QUOTE ]
Allright, so what's with the idea that people will need therapeutic counseling? I'm pretty sure nobody is slitting their wrists at the idea of their defeat by twixt ending up in a book.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's standard after any research to offer therapy after you manipulate one's life. It is especially standard in any psychological, anthropological, or sociological studying in which you actively control one or more variables as this gentleman did.
The standard came into being after the Little Albert case in which John Watson conditioned a phobia in a small child that resulted in generalized phobia that severely altered the child's life. He conditioned a fear of small rat by taking advantage of the natural startle response. The child eventually generalized that to all furry things such as dogs or even a Santa beard. The child was never desensitized to the new phobia -- he remained fearful of anything furry.
From that came two important ethical rules set forth by any academic body for research or observation: 1) get informed consent that the subject knows what you're doing, how you'll do it, and what tools will be used to do it. 2) Offer any therapeutic measures needed to undo any psychological or social harm done by your being present.
In essence, we want to be there and do these things, but we want to be able to leave and the participant not be fundamentally changed like Albert was. Even if it is just a game and it is just observation, he was obligated to do both to the participants of his study or observation. Without it, he in clearly in breach of ethical rules set forth by associations and societies by the American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, and many others.
Edit: And as to the question of how to research against his study? You'd just take a personality inventory and self-report of users based upon their aggression, operationally define aggression and measure the instances, then run the appropriate statistical analysis to see if the general population of CoH is as aggressive as the subset PVP group. You could even run a solid two way ANOVA of this bad boy and have PVP and PVE players who identify as aggressive and non aggressive to see which is more aggressive then possibly do a chi-squared to see if the observed frequency of aggressiveness is expected based upon the ANOVA data. I sure as heck don't plan on doing either. 
At the request of a friend, Ive read through this thread, the newspaper article, iltats and VikiVees letters, and Prof. Myers paper. Let me add a few things to the discussion as someone with a background in social research online. I know some of what Im posting isnt going to make some of you following this thread real happy, but dont shoot the messenger bearing the bad news. Im just adding a few points that might be relevant to the discussion. I have a tl;dr at the bottom for those of you who dont want to slog through all of this. 
First off you might be asking, Who is this clown? Im a sociology grad student who is also doing qualitative research into online games. My interest is social support, not deviant behavior, and my methodology is rather different from what Prof. Myers used. For those of you interested in such things, I used participant observation combined with focus groups for my data collection.
I agree with Mysidia that Myers work was more or less an observational case study and not really an experiment in the classic sense of a scientific experiment. It falls out of being a participant observation since this study was not watching the natural social processes in the field, but instead engaged in deliberate set of behaviors in order to provoke a response. Myers paper was a piece of qualitative research more interested in the dialog and actions of the observed rather than the quantitative counting of noses or comparing results between a test and control group.
On the point that Myers did not get informed consent from his observed subjects: Sorry folks, hes probably in the clear on that one. This kind of observational data collection is of behavior taking place in an environment with no expectation of privacy (see NCSofts privacy policy), so as long as he maintained confidentiality by not using anyones real name (in-game and forum handles should be changed as well), he would not be required to gain informed consent from those he observed in game. Same for getting the go ahead from the game company hosting the game. For example, if I was observing mosh pits, I wouldnt be required to get permission from the club owner to watch a mosh pit in their club. I can just pay at the door, go in, and conduct my observations.
As for the consent of the parents of minors: When you combine this from the EULA;
[ QUOTE ]
(a) Eligibility. By clicking the "I Accept" button you represent that you are an adult 18 years of age or older or, if under 18 years of age, that you have the consent of a parent or guardian and will provide their details where requested.
[/ QUOTE ]
with the afore mentioned no expectation of privacy, he probably wont get into trouble for that either. His Institutional Review Board (IRB) committee will probably see it something like this: While the game is something the players pay to participate in, the game world they play in isnt like a bathroom where there is that wonderful expectation of privacy. Its more like the nightclub I used in my earlier example. Now if Myers conducted interviews or focus groups, then he would have to get the proper informed consent and have the opt-out option from those participants. My own IRB review covered this extensively, and I specifically talked to the head of the committee about it. Chances are there will be no reprimand based solely on not getting informed consent.
On the other hand, unlike my research, Myers did not just watch people interact while playing. He engaged in provocative action in order to test social boundaries. This is where he hits the line of questionable ethics. His breaching behaviors did cause people distress and made at least one individual mad enough to issue a death threat. Applying that sort of stimulus to a group without informed consent or offering therapeutic counseling to those who feel they suffered harm afterwards may be something he will get reprimanded for. However, since Myers claims he did not break the rules of the game with his bad behavior, only the social rules of the players, he might be able to argue that his breaching behaviors were something players should have reasonably expected. Additionally, he can argue that his actions were the only way to successfully assess those social boundaries. Personally, I think his methods were a bit dodgy here. There are other means of assessing those boundaries without honking people off in a persistent fashion. I can only guess what, if anything, Myers IRB committee will do about this one. My bet, no action.
Now before I get strung up as a heretic, sympathizer, or collaborator, let me say that I wasnt all that impressed with Myers paper or his methods. In the realm of qualitative research, there is an expectation of self-discloser about your role as researcher in conducting the study. To quote iltat:
[ QUOTE ]
Myers presented the extreme negatives of our community as the standard. No one condones the threats that were directed towards Myers, but he leaves out that he verbally attacked, insulted, harassed, and stalked many of these same individuals. Some of his harassments are still present on our forums.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now if this verbal abuse was not approved by his IRB in advance, that could be some hot water right there. Stalking is prohibited under the EULA, which would leave him a leg short in defending his research methods before the IRB. Even if it doesnt result in a reprimand, it constitutes inadequate self-discloser, at least in the reporting, and should be considered sloppy.
Additionally, as most social researchers do when reading an article, I looked over Myers bibliography. The thing that struck me is that we have a grand total of one author in common. Myers did not reference some of the leading names in online research such as Wellman, Rheingold, DiMaggio, Hine, and particularly Williams, who actually did a study of deviant behavior in an online environment already. Part of doing research is doing a literature review to become familiar with what has already been done. Again, sloppy in action.
My last sloppy to cover is something iltat pointed out in his letter to the editor:
[ QUOTE ]
Myers portrayed our community as one filled with anger and hate, but a minimal amount of research would quickly find the error in this assessment. Our community includes a player-founded taxi service and emergency medical technicians who voluntarily help new players. Our forums include well-wishes for players who have babies, get married, or go off to war. We have sponsored charities, conventions, and even a few weddings. None of these made it into Myers paper.
[/ QUOTE ]
iltat is right. Doing research in an MMORPG is doing research in one small part of a very large online world. By only looking at the one small part of what is already a small part of that world without trying to take the larger MMORPG community you are studying into account is doing a disservice to that community and will skew your conclusions.
For those with a case of tl;dr:
Chances are that Prof. Myers is not going to be in trouble with his IRB committee over his research. There is one area I think he pushed the ethical lines, and in my opinion should not have done so, but he may still be on the safe side of not having an ethical violation. (Hmmm, strictly within the letter but outside the intent. Sound familiar?)
Even if nothing comes of an IRB review of Myers research, I believe it is not up to snuff with much of the preexisting research into online interaction. Unless one of his other articles is far better than this, his work will not be a source for my own research.
This PSA brought to you by Night Mission Enterprises. Dont call us, we wont call you.
---
I've been told that sometimes my lucidity is frightening.
---
Your logic is no match for concentrated stupid. - Organica
---
Current MAs:
Stop the catgirl rampage! #66361
The irony in all this is that hes still getting to people, and people are feeding into it, further perpetuating his observations.
let-it-go
[ QUOTE ]
The irony in all this is that hes still getting to people, and people are feeding into it, further perpetuating his observations.
let-it-go
[/ QUOTE ]
I think at this point the only ones still stirred up by it are the ones offended by his "scientific method" and presenting his findings in a less-than-truthful manner. People got over his actual in-game antics long ago.
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The irony in all this is that hes still getting to people, and people are feeding into it, further perpetuating his observations.
let-it-go
[/ QUOTE ]
I think at this point the only ones still stirred up by it are the ones offended by his "scientific method" and presenting his findings in a less-than-truthful manner. People got over his actual in-game antics long ago.
[/ QUOTE ]
Quoted for truth.
What the IRB board will do, I do not know, although another academic gamer of my acquaintance had a different take on it than NightMission. When you add that at least one of the "subjects" was a minor at the time, it is possible that child abuse laws come into play. This is a Jesuit-run University, and my academic friend pointed out that they are rather...stringent...about ethical standards.
However, he's caught between the proverbial rock and hard place here.
If he backs down and tells the IRB "no, no, it wasn't research, I was just trying to come up with something to publish and all my game trolling came to mind," then Loyola might well want to know why he was gaming on their dollar, and why he then published a book that is so far doing a less than stellar job of showcasing the academic standards of their university. And if it isn't research, CoX's own EULA comes into play. It is possible they can force cancellation of publication or take part or all of the profits from it.
If he says "No, no, it really was research" now he has to explain to his university why he didn't follow the ethics standards, ESPECIALLY with regards to minor children. Remember, this is a Jesuit run university, an institution created by and supported by the Catholic Church. You do the math. He might skate out from under the CoX guns if he sticks to calling it research, but that just means he's under heavier academic scrutiny and censure again.
That's just my thoughts.
Author of: GOOD TASTE: A Frequent Die-ers Guide to the Turf, Sand and Carpet of Paragon City
I laugh when someone says "lol get over it nerds" in this thread, because they don't get it. Nobody wants to murder this guy, we don't wanna flex our e-pecs and go over there and threaten to beat him up at a gas station in Sac-town, and we aren't afraid of furry things because he griefed people.
Iltat seems more concerned with the fact that he slapped the community in the face. VickiVee seems more concerned that his scientific method was sloppy. Others seem concerned with at least one or the other, a good mixture I believe.
The truth is that this guy wrote a "research paper" with little to no intellectual value concerning online communities ("I griefed people, now I'm gonna downplay it and say that they overreacted."). Worst case scenario, folks, he writes a book that nobody will publish. I mean, look at the article! It's done so shoddy, there was no counterpoints or research on the subject...it's almost as if the news office either sent their least capable reporter or the reporter that they sent could care less about some video game he's probably never heard of and some guy winning a lot at it without cheating but everyone says he is cheating. Though it does remind him of the WoW episode of South Park...he likes that episode. I keep seeing a few images in my head when it comes to this thread:
1) The reporter that was contacted rolling his eyes before, during, and after any conversation he has with anyone about this piece.
2) The reporter's boss laughing about sending the reporter to report this sort of thing. The idea of actually interviewing the doctor makes him giggle, because he thinks it's all dumb too.
3) The doctor reading this thread, both laughing and becoming visibly angry. Think this kid.
4) Boobies. I see boobies no matter what subject is on my brain. Think rickroll.
Allright, that's all I gotta say. It's important to some people, but not because our feelings are hurt or anything. It's more or less because if I stood up and gave a press conference saying that this game sucked and that everyone who plays it is a [censored], you would want to stand up and say "Sir, I disagree."
Never saw him.. But GL seeing me in a PvP zone