'Twixt'? Anyone remember this guy?

Judging by the amount of people who still come here to post "Twixt hasn't done anything wrong as a player" after other players who actually interacted with Twixt said he harassed and insulted folks (thus violating the ToS), with forum proof...

The good professor should have done his research and book on how gullible people are, blindly believing everything if it's coming from a "professional".

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can only say this: PROVOKE THE BULL AND GET THE HORNS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I agree.


[ QUOTE ]
Twixt got the horns. From the looks of that "paper" of his, the horns hurt quite a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes he is getting some horns but they are only serving to prove the validity of his paper and helping to create a whole new dimension for his future book.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's devoting an entire book to this nonissue.... *dies laughing*

---

I PvPed on Freedom with Twixt in zone for a long time.

I have had the record chat feature for a good portion of that time.

Yeah I have proof, not just speculation and myth.

---

A very sad story about War Witch and the neglected kitty. http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219670

[ QUOTE ]
As a player, it doesn't sound like Twixt did anything wrong.

As a professor, the guy sounds completely incompetent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I wasn't there, and I have no PvP skills (nor do I want to gain them) I can't comment on that very well.

But his "research" does seem to have some ethical and procedural deficits that cast doubt an any validity to them at all.

O_I is concentrating on whether Twixt as a player in a PvP environment violated any "rules", ignoring the other issue of any scholarly value or lack thereof to his paper and forthcoming book.

Twixt can certainly be a jerk within the strict rules of PvP and still be a hack researcher/scholar.

---

Altoholic - but a Blaster at Heart!

Originally Posted by SpyralPegacyon

"You gave us a world where we could fly. I can't thank you enough for that."

the guy was a prat, TPing people into drones is griefing as others have said, its completely lopsided and a complete waste of time as it doesn't show the facts and of course he's gonna one side the whole issue.

That being said, all its gonna do is make us and this game look bad, thats the only thing I don't like about it. sure have your petty squabbles and ego boosting paper, but don't publish it and call it fact.

---

Combat Kangaroos, Justice Server. First 50's
Jirra Roo Plant/Storm/Stone/Musculature Controller
Combat Kangaroo Rifle/Energy/Mace/Spiritual Blaster
Kung Fu Kangaroo Martial Arts/Reflexes/Body/Spiritual Scrapper
Tribal Arc Shield/Elec/Mu/Spiritual Tanker

I have proof as well. I may not have recorded chat info, but I know for sure that when I was playing on my villain and Twixt was there, he was taunting the opposing side one way or another. So really, that entire article is bull. He's not some innocent guy the story makes him out to be.

Edit: I forgot to add in that he's also a hypocrite.

---

The issue I and many others have with this "research" is the attempt to pass off an Internet fan site as a serious academic essay. Basically, this guy is a video game addict who wrote a paper about his hobby. Because it has footnotes and he has a title, it's supposed to be taken seriously.

At the very least Myers could have changed the names of the people he disparages. That he chose not to makes the paper come dangerously close to offline nerd rage. Angry about being rejected in a video game, he decided to take things to a whole new level by publishing an academic article embarrassing his enemies and consented to media interviews where he repeated the same. It is truly unreal that a university professor would complain about the ethics of players in an online video game and then go on to publish the names of their characters in a much broader public forum. Pot meet anvil.

In his essay, he claims he was within his rights to use droning as a method of dispatching enemies. He says that droning is okay because the developers never specifically stopped him. Then he goes on to complain that other players used game mechanics to get back at him. He was surprised that his super group dumped him. He was sad that other heroes alienated him. There are hints in the article that some heroes would allow villains to cast Confusion on them so they could dispatch him themselves. Yet all of these things were done using available game mechanics. For Meyers it's "within the rules" when he acted like a sociopath, ignoring social convention and obeying only the rules of physics. But when others respond in kind it is no longer "within the rules."

That Myers was threatened with physical violence sucks but is hardly the shocking conclusion he tries to make it. I don't think that in 2009 many of us are shocked to learn that "some people on the Internet are mean." Myers complains that some players took their harassment out of the game, then goes on to [/i]publish an essay and consent to interviews[/i] in a broad public forum. He goes on to claim that he isn't really a jerk, it was all in the name of science--but he knows for a fact his enemies were real!

Under the circumstances its possible they were researchers from a rival university conducting an experiment on a player they assumed to have a mental illness.

[BTW I am not responsible for the content of this message. Although I am a long time player of CoX, I actually have you all fooled. I am an adult learning instructor studying how people react to longwinded message board posts. The content of my essay, in which I will attribute quotes to your avatars in a most unflattering way, will be published in the next few months. By the way I am totally in my right to perform this study. I know so because the message boards allow me to type and my messages haven't been banned. Also, I am quitting the game because the developers are making changes to limit my ability to type and make messages bannable. You can contact me on my Twitter site where I will remind you you do not have my creditentials. Gotta go, the media is calling.]

---

[ QUOTE ]
TPing people into drones is griefing as others have said

[/ QUOTE ]

It's players like you that provided the basis for Twixt's paper. Your above comment goes to prove you know nothing about PvP. If it were illegal TP Foe and Drones would have been removed by the Devs a long time ago.


Read and learn.

Below are quotes from the PvP Guide to Guides posted by Niviene (red name if you didn't know) and updated (now outdated but applicable at the time) by notputzing.

[ QUOTE ]
Q. What can I do if someone is using tp foe on me?

A. An orange inspiration or a kin casting ID on you can prevent you from getting tp foe-d. A few power sets also have access to tp foe protection. Another helpful trick is to always keep jumping. If tped while jumping you’ll often escape any traps they may have set for you and they may not have time to get off an attack before you hop out of range.

Another complaint was that Twixt killed players over and over and interrupted duels and farmers.

Q. Is X cheating?

A. While there are many different things that X can be, generally speaking the answer is no. TPing people into holes in the geometry in PvP zones is a petitionable offense, as is the use of language that breaks the EULA, but other than that, everything goes in a PvP zone. Trailing NPCs to another player is perfectly legal, as is killing someone repeatedly, popping lots of inspirations, interrupting duels and rep farms, stopping someone from getting nukes, using your tier 9 before you go into sirens, or really anything else you can think of.

[/ QUOTE ]

---

A very sad story about War Witch and the neglected kitty. http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219670

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you respond to the issue of ethics violations in Dr. Myers research. Permission is required from any test subject in a Scociology investigation, and no where in his paper does he mention seeking any form of permission( by individuals or by NCSoft). It is also possible that the people that were effected by Twixt's activities were minors, and without actualy conduction interviews, it would be inpossible to know. If Dr. Myers research is unethical, does it invalidate his conclutions?

Furthermore, under no circumstance are you allowed to harm or distress, (physically or psychologically) your research subjects, without their approval and impartial supervision. Dr. Myers had to understand that Twixt's activities would cause harm. Again, how does this effect his conclusion?

Dr. Myers was not an observer to the events that happened in his research. He was the instigator, and his impartiality is questionable. Therefore, his conclusions must also suspect.

As Ive said earlier in this thread, I believe that his research was sloppy and unethical. I think that there were better research opportunities that could have been explored. Opportunities that could have been far more interesting, and more approprate for a Doctoral level investigation.

Grizz

[/ QUOTE ]

While I won't disagree that his methods were sloppy I will point out, as it has already been stated in this thread, that permission is not needed under certain circumstances as long as an ethics board has approved the experiment. Did he get permission from an ethics board to run this experiment? I dunno, and I would certainly suspect the validity and adherence to whatever he did submit to them, but that doesn't mean he didn't have permission to run these experiments without the participants' consent.

As for NCSoft, I can see ToS conflicts throughout this. For example: why did he have to call out players by their names? Couldn't have have blocked out the names and/or replaced them with generic identifiers?

[/ QUOTE ]


From CFR 46.111 Criteria for IRB approval of research.

(a) In order to approve research covered by this policy the IRB shall determine that all of the following requirements are satisfied:

(1) Risks to subjects are minimized: (i) By using procedures which are consistent with sound research design and which do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk, and (ii) whenever appropriate, by using procedures already being performed on the subjects for diagnostic or treatment purposes.

(2) Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research (as distinguished from risks and benefits of therapies subjects would receive even if not participating in the research). The IRB should not consider possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research (for example, the possible effects of the research on public policy) as among those research risks that fall within the purview of its responsibility.

(3) Selection of subjects is equitable. In making this assessment the IRB should take into account the purposes of the research and the setting in which the research will be conducted and should be particularly cognizant of the special problems of research involving vulnerable populations, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons.

(4) Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.116.

(5) Informed consent will be appropriately documented, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.117.

(6) When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects.

(7) When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.

---

I'm not sure how it's making 'us' look bad. The guy specifically and purposely logged into the game just to give people a hard time. This is a game, it's supposed to be fun and he made it to where it was not. But what? Because the guy is a professor and wrote an article his behavior is acceptable? Not to mention the years it took him and the hours logged in just to write some article about how people react when he knowingly and intentionally acted like a turd in the punch bowl. The time he spent on his research could of been spent on something way more important and controversial. Personally I think the guy is *twists index finger around head in a circular motion*

---

<QR>

Guy sounds like a non-gamer who thought he stumbled onto some brilliant gaming revelation which, to the other 99% of the gamers, is common sense.

I've been a part of researchademia, and this guy's "research" seems exceptionally crappy - I guess it may amuse people who know nothing about MMOs, but like to sit above things and pontificate about them.

I just skimmed the "research paper" itself. Really don't think it's something someone deserves to get paid for.

Then again, mixing "common sense" with a bunch of references to other articles is pretty much playing by-the-book...

---

Guides: Dark Armor and IOs | SS/DA | Crabbing | Fortunata

I tp drone people on virtue when I am bored and going for the badges you get in the pvp zones...

and well... I still never heard of this twixt guy so i honestly CAN NOT believe he is the most hated >.>

---

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
(4) Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.116.

[/ QUOTE ]

He never identified himself as a researcher.
He never said he was performing research.
He never sought informed consent.
Therefore, his research cannot be 'objective' and his results are inherently flawed.
Unless, he DID state he was a researcher to NCSoft.
Unless, he DID get informed consent from NCSoft.
If NCSoft gave consent to this 'research', since they own all the 'content' of the game, then he's on solid ground.
However, if NCSoft DID give informed consent to this 'research' and never told the playerbase, that's very much a justification for not renewing my yearly subscription next time it expires.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TPing people into drones is griefing as others have said

[/ QUOTE ]

It's players like you that provided the basis for Twixt's paper. Your above comment goes to prove you know nothing about PvP. If it were illegal TP Foe and Drones would have been removed by the Devs a long time ago.


Read and learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

The drones weren't intended for that purpose. The drones were in place to prevent hospital camping, a form of griefing. Twixt saw a different use for it, an opportunity to take advantage of it, and went for it. What twixt was blissfully unaware of was that it was still punishable in case by case examination. In other words, breaking intended purpose to gain something unfairly or harass another player can lead to trouble with customer support.

Let me describe it a different way:

Within the game's mechanics, droning or the use of other NPCs to gain a personal advantage is possible. Within the general rules of PvP, it's possible and occasionally allowed... Usually as a last resort. However, using such repeatedly is considered cheap among the community, simply because it prevents fighting solely on one's powers and the knowledge of the immediate surroundings. But your right, it's still allowed. Allowed, and can possibly even be done tastefully. What's not allowed is the repeated prevention of a person's enjoyment, otherwise known as harassment, as per the Terms of Service.

Before you argue that NPCs can be considered part of the surrounding environment, allow me to stop you. You're right. However, like all rules, the use of an NPC is only allowed to an extent. Happen to start a fight while one person was attacking a few NPCs? Go for it. It adds an element of danger to one or both sides when done strategically. But continuing to use it with malicious intent, all for the benefit of personal gain, changes 'fair game' to ill conduct and 'harassment.' So, while drones were added to prevent griefing, it unlocked new forms of griefing.

And again, while using chat to chat is possible and allowed, provoking another player begins crossing the line of conduct. After which, the continuing use of bad conduct eventually crosses the line of harassment.

Things are allowed, but often to an extent. And just because it's possible, doesn't make it acceptable.

Edit: Edited for clarification.

---

[ QUOTE ]
I PvPed on Freedom with Twixt in zone for a long time.

I have had the record chat feature for a good portion of that time.

Yeah I have proof, not just speculation and myth.

[/ QUOTE ]



please upload them somewhere so I can put the link in comments

---

He should be sued for many reasons.

---

[ QUOTE ]

That Myers was threatened with physical violence sucks but is hardly the shocking conclusion he tries to make it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can hear much worse abuse than what he caught by spending 20 minutes on any random FPS server.

If he wanted some genuinely combustible fuel for his thesis he should have hosted a CounterStrike server running DE_Dust 24/7.
Those chat logs would set his hair on fire.

---

The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.

My City Was Gone

[ QUOTE ]
It's players like you that provided the basis for Twixt's paper. Your above comment goes to prove you know nothing about PvP. If it were illegal TP Foe and Drones would have been removed by the Devs a long time ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if droning is against the official rules. The fact is that by doing it Twixt shot himself in the foot because the people he did it to hated it.

He talks about his strategy for winning RV but ignores how his tactics drew so much attention to himself as a potential target that it sacrificed his ultimate goal. His own faction stopped teaming with him because of his behavior. If winning RV was his ultimate goal and doing so requires teamwork, then doing things to annoy the team are counterproductive to the end goal.

Also, I'm not an expert on PvP zone mechanics but as I understand it the "purpose" of the zone is sort of like a competitive version of the Rikti War Zone pylon mechanics. Which calls into question why you would attack people who aren't even attempting to capture the pill box. Certainly seems like a losing strategy to me.

A comparable situation would be someone joining a mission team and pulling mob after mob on top of the unprepared party, then complaining that no one should get annoyed because pulling enemies is "within the rules" and defeating enemies is the purpose of the game, as evidenced by the fact that the game allows it and no one has responded to /petitions.

---

An amusing read on Twixt over at GM Dave's blog

---

Infatum on Virtueverse

[ QUOTE ]
I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
(4) Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.116.

[/ QUOTE ]

He never identified himself as a researcher.
He never said he was performing research.
He never sought informed consent.
Therefore, his research cannot be 'objective' and his results are inherently flawed.
Unless, he DID state he was a researcher to NCSoft.
Unless, he DID get informed consent from NCSoft.
If NCSoft gave consent to this 'research', since they own all the 'content' of the game, then he's on solid ground.
However, if NCSoft DID give informed consent to this 'research' and never told the playerbase, that's very much a justification for not renewing my yearly subscription next time it expires.

[/ QUOTE ]

Requiring forms of consent is a restriction that can be waived by a university's IRB. In this case, it is very likely that the requirement would be waived.

Here, URI has a nice and informative IRB page: http://www.uri.edu/research/tro/NewS...IRB/index.html

---

Apparently he saved a thread about Twixt, and has some interesting comments to be made. He's Fasque by the way. He seems to get pretty deep into his 'role'.

Here

---

I think what we're seeing with the articles' bias is a combination of 'lack of knowledge' (a reporter writing about a subject of which they have no first-hand knowledge and precious little second-hand knowledge) and the higher-ups having their fingers in the pie. I've seen what happens to articles when the bosses get their hands in, and it can completely alter the first draft of an article to something the reporter may not be proud to own. I'm very unpleased with the articles, but I'm not entirely sure it's the reporter's fault.

Either way, Myers completely failed the point of the game.

---

she who needs no mic
"You couldn't be more wrong if you were upended in a vat full of toxic wrong by Captain Wrong and his Wrongbots and earned a permanent inherent power called Aura of Wrong."-Lady_Sadako

[ QUOTE ]
An amusing read on Twixt over at GM Dave's blog

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Just don't come in and make an [censored] of yourself.

That's what FPSs were designed for.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAWR!

it's funny because it's true....

---

The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.

My City Was Gone

Please PM your post to the Devs and lets get their opinion on it.

[ QUOTE ]
The drones were in place to prevent camping, a form of griefing.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Twixt saw a different use for it, an opportunity to take advantage of it, and went for it. What twixt was blissfully unaware of was that it was still illegal by the game's rules, as per EULA. In other words, breaking intended purpose to gain something unfairly or harass another player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Twixt (was), TP Foe and the drones are still there. Lemme check.
.
.
.
Yup The power and dones are still there.


[ QUOTE ]
Let me describe it a different way:

Within the game's mechanics, droning or the use of other NPCs to gain a personal advantage is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK


[ QUOTE ]
Within the general rules of PvP, it's possible and occasionally allowed... Usually as a last resort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm you are way wrong there. it's either allowed or not allowed by the mechanics. period. not sometimes or once in a while. it is or it isn't. again period.

[ QUOTE ]
However, using such repeatedly is considered cheap among the community, simply because it prevents fighting solely on one's powers and the knowledge of the immediate surroundings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proving Twixt's points in the paper even more about the community enforced rules and ways of PvPing that are acceptable social standards that differ from the actual game play mechanics and rules.

[ QUOTE ]
But your right, it's still allowed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
What's not allowed is the repeated prevention of a person's enjoyment, otherwise known as harassment, as per the Terms of Service.

[/ QUOTE ]

So where was the perma ban for Twixt? Oh I forgot, there was none. You have no point here.

[ QUOTE ]
Before you argue that NPCs can be considered part of the surrounding environment, allow me to stop you. You're right. However, like all rules, the use of an NPC is only allowed to an extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The imaginary community and social "extent" levels do not apply.

[ QUOTE ]
Happen to start a fight while one person was attacking a few NPCs? Go for it. It adds an element of danger to one or both sides when done strategically. But continuing to use it with malicious intent, all for the benefit of personal gain, changes 'fair game' to ill conduct and 'harassment.' So, while drones were added to prevent griefing, it unlocked new forms of griefing.

[/ QUOTE ]


The imaginary community and social rules do not apply.

[ QUOTE ]
And again, while using chat to chat is possible and allowed, provoking another player begins crossing the line of conduct. After which, the continuing use of bad conduct eventually crosses the line of harassment.

[/ QUOTE ]

So where was the perma ban for Twixt? Oh I forgot, there was none.

[ QUOTE ]
Things are allowed, but often to an extent. And just because it's possible, doesn't make it acceptable

[/ QUOTE ]

This game has specific mechanics and rules.

Break the mechanics and rules get banned.

Twixt was never perma banned for any ingame action. He had played since 2004 and no perma bans. none. nada.

So to sum up what you are saying is that these things are legal sometimes and not others. The communities social standards and rules govern this game and not the Devs, GMs and game mechanics and rules.

Your whole post reflects some of the attitues of the players Twixt mentions in his paper and wrote about.

There is no sometimes or maybe it is or is not accepted but when sometimes you can or other times you can't but then again if this circumstance happened then it's ok but if it happens more then 3 times well that's not ok but other times it may or may not be ok. ok?

---

A very sad story about War Witch and the neglected kitty. http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219670

DUAL MEH!

---