'Twixt'? Anyone remember this guy?
By
7thCynic,
Posted on: 2009-07-06 16:03 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
After reading his blog post from today and the consequent discussion in the comments section therein, he appears to be a gamer who is confused/conflicted/upset about social constructs being implented into games.
Here lies the hubris of his writings - he chose to do this in an MMORPG where community, peer groups, and structure are encouraged and, arguably, promoted as a reason for getting into the game in the first place.
His hopeful conclusion came first, and possibly as a reason for research, then actively conducted his experiments in such a way to encourage the forgone outcome. Therefore, this was done with bias in order to acheive the predicted result. This can also be seen by the examples he gives, wherein the lack of full disclosure is obvious.
He stands behind the defense of games need rules, although these rules are prohibitive to the goals of the game. Fine, that can be accepted. Where he is flawed is that, in a sandbox game of an MMORPG where game rules are the playground of the sandbox as well as the walls of said box keeping the sand inside (even the notion of sand), he neglects that these types of games (MMORPGs) have by nature, automatic extensions of the game (the people that pay to play) which creates a meta-game or even sub-games -- there is a multi-layer system which dynamically evolves (predictably, based on nature of the product?).
The social makeup of the participants gets distributed by of a kind of magnetics - similarity is drawn together creating social groups. This is inevitable and is by design, by the developers and participants agree to it whether knowingly or not.
The professor takes the 'game' mantra too literally within the contexts of his experiment, or rather he uses the wrong lab to conduct it in. Because of this he gets the conclusion he wants and even expected.
COX is more of a carebear game than some MMORPGs by way of the societal makeup which are drawn to it. That is why there is so much disparity in the discussion of PVP. The professor knew this and yet decided to proceed. The game-rules allow all sorts of things which are not exploits, yet can be disruptive to the social-game.
Are these things mutually exclusive? Yes, but not in the context of his experiment. He neglects to factor in the social aspect - skin of the fruit of the game which is surrounding it. He had to peel it way or work his way through it to get to what he wants - partaking in the game-rules without regard for the society surrounding it.
Concurrently, he feels the skin is what is destroying the fruit. I can respect that opinion. He may be correct within a meta-physical landscape of gaming from a philosophical viewpoint.
However, to conduct this action of his within the context of COX one must consider the societal game whether tangible or not -- game-rules are definately tangible. To continue with the sandbox imagery. You can do what you will to the sand or the box as the rules of physics allows, but when there are similar entiities as you in there there are a sub-set of conditions which must be met (societal standards) for you to be accepted. Expanding the sandbox to a beach - there is lots of room, but if you decide to yell, get naked, kick over sandcastles, the consequent reaction is predictable. Or if a person was to piss in the sandbox someone is going to tell them to stop. He does appreciate that his piss won't melt the sand, but if it did he's accept that too. He doesn't accept you telling him to stop because his piss in not affecting the sand.
The professor is myopic and the real conclusion to his study is he likes games although in the case MMORPGs he doesn't like the societal game that goes along with it by default. He doesn't appreciate the default nature of this side of a game or perhaps more importantly, the evolution of the non-tangible of the situation. We, as players, are outside forces (wind, gravitational force, etc) which create waves or the tide to his seashore and likely vice-versa. He/we wants to enjoy the pristine of the waters without these dynamics to enjoy the serentity it brings.
In the situation we have here you have to account for others than yourself or unhappiness of some form will come eventually if you only want to interact with the core when what is surrounding it cannot be avoided and creates an action-reactionary state. That is where he fails.
Twixt was a hero (blueside) player. The fact that the Powers That Be did nothing proves they hate Villains.
--NT
They all laughed at me when I said I wanted to be a comedian.
But I showed them, and nobody's laughing at me now!
If I became a red name, I would be all "and what would you mere mortals like to entertain me with today, mu hu ha ha ha!" ~Arcanaville
[ QUOTE ]
DUAL MEH!
[/ QUOTE ]
Clouded meet Clouded
A very sad story about War Witch and the neglected kitty. http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219670
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Black_Barrier
Guess it's hard to click while actively trying to keep the drool away from the keyboard...
|
[ QUOTE ]
Twixt was a hero (blueside) player. The fact that the Powers That Be did nothing proves they hate Villains.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ban the Devs!
or at least nerf them.
A very sad story about War Witch and the neglected kitty. http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219670
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Black_Barrier
Guess it's hard to click while actively trying to keep the drool away from the keyboard...
|
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
How do you make griefing illegal?
[ QUOTE ]
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?
[/ QUOTE ]
Twixts paper simply confirms that in a "free for all" environment where "anything goes" eventually a community/society will emerge complete with its own rules of ettiquette and fair play. If an outsider enters this society and actively disregards these rules on a regular basis, it is likely they will reap the enmity of the society.
A further, more interesting aspect is the fact that since the society in question is a subset of many greater societies with differing rules themselves, (players from all over the world)we will see the rules of this emergent society influenced by the rules of their parent societies to varying levels.
My question though is "why is this significant or even worth the professor's time?" He's essentially gone to great trouble to prove what we already know by virtue of the fact that we don't run around killing each other in the streets willy-nilly. The world is essentially a PvP environment where anything allowed by the laws of physics is technically possible and in this "anything goes" world we've devised standards of honor, fair play, and morality. Should you eschew them for "doing what's physically possible" it will likely earn you the same level of enmity and depending on the society actual publicly sanctioned death.
Where exactly is the revelation?
Revelation lies in the fact he was paid for this. Revel in that...I'm sure Prof. Meyers is.
griefing players is illegal blah blah blah, against the game rules, can get you banned, or perma banned ya know.
TP Foe someone 1 time or 1097836489172649012 times is not griefing or illegal or will not get you banned or will not prevent Santa from coming down the chimney.
A very sad story about War Witch and the neglected kitty. http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219670
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Black_Barrier
Guess it's hard to click while actively trying to keep the drool away from the keyboard...
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DUAL MEH!
[/ QUOTE ]
Clouded meet Clouded
[/ QUOTE ]
OMG, there's two of me?!
[ QUOTE ]
griefing players is illegal blah blah blah, against the game rules, can get you banned, or perma banned ya know.
[/ QUOTE ]
Show me where it says griefing someone is illegal?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
How do you make griefing illegal?
[/ QUOTE ]
In how many instances can "griefing" be agreed to be labelled upon?
Griefing is a subjective title. Highlighted moreso in a PVP environment.
Is prohibiting forms of "griefing" in a PVP environment making it less of a PVP environment?
Is PVP considered a sporting activity? Should many prohibitive devices be imposed upon it?
When/ how is a PVP environment not "free" enough or too strict?
What is the capital of October?
[ QUOTE ]
Revelation lies in the fact he was paid for this. Revel in that...I'm sure Prof. Meyers is.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's more an argument for "fools and their money" than the validity of the study.
[ QUOTE ]
griefing players is illegal blah blah blah, against the game rules, can get you banned, or perma banned ya know.
TP Foe someone 1 time or 1097836489172649012 times is not griefing or illegal or will not get you banned or will not prevent Santa from coming down the chimney.
[/ QUOTE ]
Anarchy FTW!!!!
Ha Ha nice one Chuckles.
A very sad story about War Witch and the neglected kitty. http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219670
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Black_Barrier
Guess it's hard to click while actively trying to keep the drool away from the keyboard...
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 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 illegal by the game's rules, as per EULA. In other words, breaking intended purpose to gain something unfairly or harass another player.
[/ QUOTE ]
This paragraph right here shows that you know nothing of pvp.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
griefing players is illegal blah blah blah, against the game rules, can get you banned, or perma banned ya know.
[/ QUOTE ]
Show me where it says griefing someone is illegal?
[/ QUOTE ]
From the Rules of Conduct for City of Heroes:
[ QUOTE ]
1. While playing City of Heroes , you must respect the rights of others and their rights to play and enjoy the game. To this end, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players.
[/ QUOTE ]
From UrbanDictionary.com (not the most reputable source, but it's accurate enough for my current purposes)
[ QUOTE ]
1. Purposefully shooting or otherwise sabotaging your teammates in an online game.
2. In online gaming where one repeatedly killing the same individual or individuals over and over again, or camping their corpse to prevent them from retrieving it, or otherwise performing actions in a game to prevent the player from enjoying the game.
3. In online gaming, someone who takes pleasure in creating grief for an opponent via various "cheap" tactics.
[/ QUOTE ]
Notice a similar phrase in each quote? Specifically the part where a player isn't supposed to actively prevent a player from having fun? Now, there are a lot of loose words in these definitions...what is 'fun', what does 'prevent' mean, etc. but that's why the GMs exist. Clearly the GMs didn't think TWIXT was doing anything so over the top that he needed to be banned or something, but I'm sure there are examples of lesser infringements that resulted in a player's banning.
In short: it IS illegal to grief, but the conditions under which a player is considered a griefer by the GMs is...fluid and likely changes from GM to GM and certainly changes from situation to situation.
Throwing a fun title aside in here.
'Training of mobs' in PVE zones is against standards of behaviour expected, and depending upon the severity is actionable and HAS been actioned upon.
Examples would be pulling Monsters to Portal Corps, and Monsters being pulled to an old style Hami Raid. Actions were from time to time taken against individuals, and the set-up in both those instances were changed to minimize or eliminate the situation.
How then is something like the final event of Triumph training day different ? Not only will no-one have GM actions taken against them, but heck it is part of a Community team sanctioned event.
People (myself amongst them) will be training Kronos Titans to a zone they don't normally appear, that is Kings Row.
Try to define in watertight terms how one is OK and the other is not.
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
He wasn't cyber stalking.
I could see him being banned from chat, or receiving a one to three days suspension on rare occasions, sure. But if all he's doing is provoking people and trying to stir up trouble, he's not going to get 'permabanned'. But that's NOT to say that the GMs won't take action on harassment. The winter events are good examples.
I have received a warning for a... Spirited debate I had in chat (Guilty!), so I have no doubt that Twixt would get into some sort of trouble while he was provoking others. He would never admit to it, though. His paper is on the line. You wouldn't have access to his E-mail or his account, would you? I suppose you wouldn't know without having had access to both.
Fire is a prime example of a person who would petition Twixt and grief him after being TPed into base drones.
There are many poeple in PvP zone who are like this in various ways.
These are perfect examples of the people in Twixt's paper.
They do not now how to PvP. They do not know the rules. They follow the social acceptable norms of PvP in the zone to suit their purpose. They pay money for a game but don't know the rules or how to play it.
All of that makes for an interesting research project for sure.
A very sad story about War Witch and the neglected kitty. http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219670
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Black_Barrier
Guess it's hard to click while actively trying to keep the drool away from the keyboard...
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 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 illegal by the game's rules, as per EULA. In other words, breaking intended purpose to gain something unfairly or harass another player.
[/ QUOTE ]
This paragraph right here shows that you know nothing of pvp.
[/ QUOTE ]
Probably not, I haven't been actively involved in about two years!
But you're right. I caught my error, just give me a moment to edit.
[QR]
Sorry if this has already been said...
The real tragedy is this kind of situation will only make it more difficult for actual (MMO) research to be conducted.
Which is something that is usually considered by institutional boards, BTW.
[ QUOTE ]
Fire is a prime example of a person who would petition Twixt and grief him after being TPed into base drones.
There are many poeple in PvP zone who are like this in various ways.
These are perfect examples of the people in Twixt's paper.
They do not now how to PvP. They do not know the rules. They follow the social acceptable norms of PvP in the zone to suit their purpose. They pay money for a game but don't know the rules or how to play it.
All of that makes for an interesting research project for sure.
[/ QUOTE ]
O_I, it was more than Twixt just tping people into drones. He provoked people to get their reaction. I remember him droning people and then instigating them. Twixt is far from being innocent when it comes to pvping. He knew what he was doing, and did it to get their reactions.
I'm pretty sure if you intentionally piss people off it would make for an interesting essay. I also changed the subject to fit Twixt perfectly for what he is.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 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 illegal by the game's rules, as per EULA. In other words, breaking intended purpose to gain something unfairly or harass another player.
[/ QUOTE ]
This paragraph right here shows that you know nothing of pvp.
[/ QUOTE ]
Probably not, I haven't been actively involved in about two years!
But you're right. I caught my error, just give me a moment to edit.
[/ QUOTE ]
I came off sounding like a d-bag in that sentence. I believe that a dev once said that droning is a valid tactic in pvp. As such, droning is possibly the easiest thing to avoid. Not being near the base, oranges, or a Kin easily negates being droned. It's funny when people get droned then [censored] about it.
I was just thinking that this whole argument is a tad ridiculous, then I remembered the whole Boxxy war. It seems somewhat less stupid now.
*edited for clarity
This is shocking. So he did something not specifically against the rules but no gain to him just hindered other players, and he is surprised?
If I am on a sidewalk and pour out a bunch of water and it soaks your shoes, you will get upset ... its generally not illegal but it is called being a [censored].
So he spent years doing something with the sole purpose of annoying people trying to have fun. There was no gain for him, but it hindered the fun other people are trying to have ... This is research? I want a research grant to go hit people in the face with a baseball bat then when they don't like me say random people get irrationally angry...
Someone should explain social interaction to this guy, if you do things people don't like, they won't like you. This is not research it is common sense, groups of friends don't do certain things to each other because that would make their friends not like them, these things may not be illegal but if you show consideration people like you more.
I pity the people who attend this school, their tuition paid this guy to try to interrupt peoples fun and he found that people don't like that ... when he is having a BBQ I will have to extinguish the fire because fire is dangerous ... he should like me then right?