'Twixt'? Anyone remember this guy?
By
7thCynic,
Posted on: 2009-07-06 16:03 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
I would imagine that any actual ethical scientist wouldn't NEED to ask a board. They wouldn't have DONE it this way.
He's not a scientist.
Please read my FEAR/Portal/HalfLife Fan Fiction!
Repurposed
OK I skimmed his paper and while am not too impressed there were a couple things that really jumped out at me.
While I admit I am not an expert on research it seems to me that there are a lot of statements that there is a suprising lack of actual data. I saw about 30-40 quotes of thigns said in game or in the forums but no numbers as to how players recated.
I admit I'm a numbers guy and I'm not saying I need excrusicating detail but I would think one would have to show at least some data to supoort a conclusion. What percentage of the players or characters told him off after being killed, how many said nothing and kept playing, how many said GF or somethign similar etc. Simply saying the majority reacted with vitrol or that players infrequently supported him seem are simply subjective conclusion (in my opinion) unless you have the data to support the claim.
The other thing is that in the paper he makes two claims that contradict each other within two paragraphs.
(following from page 9 of his paper)
While Twixt was able to effectively team with others just after the introduction of RV to the game, he gradually found himself ostracized from both teams and allies within his own faction. In fact, fairly often, players with multiple accounts (controlling both heroes and villains) would invite Twixt into hero teams that were then used to aid surreptitious villain activities against him. This kind of collusion and increasingly hostile environment forced Twixt to operate largely independently and, over time, habitually refuse team invitations.
These three sets of behaviors rigidly competitive pvp tactics (e. g., droning), steadfastly uncooperative social play outside the game context (e. g., refusing to cooperate with zone farmers), and steadfastly uncooperative social play within the game context (e. g., playing solo and refusing team invitations) marked Twixts play from the play of all others within RV
---------------------
So in the first paragraph he was able to team with people until his behavior led to others no longer wanting to have him on a team. Yet in the very next paragraph he claims that he refused team invitations. One or the other has to be false.
This guy's a sociologist or something, moreover he's a professor.
What he did and how he behaved is the equivalent of an electrical engineer with 15 years of experience sticking a fork in a socket and then being surprised at the outcome.
Brother of Markus
The Lord of Fire and Pain
The Legendary Living Hellfire
Fight my brute!
[ QUOTE ]
This guy's a sociologist or something, moreover he's a professor.
What he did and how he behaved is the equivalent of an electrical engineer with 15 years of experience sticking a fork in a socket and then being surprised at the outcome.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT.
[ QUOTE ]
This guy's a sociologist or something, moreover he's a professor.
What he did and how he behaved is the equivalent of an electrical engineer with 15 years of experience sticking a fork in a socket and then being surprised at the outcome.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well put ... If you do things people don't like, they won't like you. Does anyone know exactly what his point was? because it seems a little elementary or non-exsistant
EDIT: I read the first bit of his paper, he was trying to prove why social order exists and what ways it developed ... a decent point executed like a moron ... One person says 'I don't like this' then one or more people will agree and say 'I don't like this' at some point someone else will come along and say 'I do like this' and proceed to do it disrupting the other parties, effectively proving that if you do things people don't like and stated they don't like they won't like you. Compounded by what everyone I know knows that the anonymity of the internet allows people in many ways to respond to things that anger them with little fear of reprisals, which as even my 60 year old computer illiterate grandmother knows means people will respond as harshly and violently as they please to try to dissuade the other person from their disruptive behavior.
It wasn't a complex system, a group of people felt competing against someone who used exploits in the system and with no gain to themselves set out to hinder the larger group. Such an elementary point would be more easily proven by observing children in a schoolyard ... you know how many are there and know it is safe, more over you are not actively involved inside the system you are observing.
Bret_Cath, I understand there are ethics boards that decide when it has gone too far, I never dealt with them due to my field of study, and moving books or equipment silently is manipulating a system without interaction with the subjects what Twixt did is disrupted the subjects, then taunted them, manipulated them in such a way to get desired results as it is well documented nothing was done the same every time and he never said the same thing. Also in a university library you knowingly are a subject of academia, every student of higher learning knows this and agrees to this. If I am wrong someone from NC Soft can correct me, this game was made for relaxation and enjoyment
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This guy's a sociologist or something, moreover he's a professor.
What he did and how he behaved is the equivalent of an electrical engineer with 15 years of experience sticking a fork in a socket and then being surprised at the outcome.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well put ... If you do things people don't like, they won't like you. Does anyone know exactly what his point was? because it seems a little elementary or non-exsistant
[/ QUOTE ]
A 'scientific' way to be able to play a game while getting a paycheck?
I sit in my zen of not being able to do anything right while simultaniously not being able to do anything wrong. Om. -CuppaJo
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.
It would be interesting for a real scociologist to take a good look at how an online game, such as ours, can positively effect the real world, and seriously ask why that happens. Afterall, our community does generate goodwill, acts of kindness, and charity in the real world. A good line of research would be why a virtual community( most of whom never meet in real life), can be compelled to help each other and help improve the real world. I would like to think that our players, even if they only play villain side, try to live up to the Heroic Idea, even if a litle bit. Has the game 'rubbed off' on us? Or is it human nature to do so?
Grizz
"When Chuck Norris can't go on, Petra Majdič perseveres!"
[ QUOTE ]
It would be interesting for a real scociologist to take a good look at how an online game, such as ours, can positively effect the real world, and seriously ask why that happens. Afterall, our community does generate goodwill, acts of kindness, and charity in the real world. A good line of research would be why a virtual community( most of whom never meet in real life), can be compelled to help each other and help improve the real world. I would like to think that our players, even if they only play villain side, try to live up to the Heroic Idea, even if a litle bit. Has the game 'rubbed off' on us? Or is it human nature to do so?
Grizz
[/ QUOTE ]
That wouldn't sell to people predisposed to hate MMOs or video games ... and lets face it the people who like video games will spend their money on the game, not the book that tells them why they like the game.
On the positive side I have seen a lot of people learn the value of teamwork, some of these individuals would likely never enjoy sports so can't learn it there. and yes it is a stretch but in CoH the theme is to uphold order and defend the downtrodden ... yes not everyone follows by that but really they burn GTA for its 'negative' message why not praise CoH for the positive message? duh ... silly me that wouldn't sell books
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be interesting for a real scociologist to take a good look at how an online game, such as ours, can positively effect the real world, and seriously ask why that happens. Afterall, our community does generate goodwill, acts of kindness, and charity in the real world. A good line of research would be why a virtual community( most of whom never meet in real life), can be compelled to help each other and help improve the real world. I would like to think that our players, even if they only play villain side, try to live up to the Heroic Idea, even if a litle bit. Has the game 'rubbed off' on us? Or is it human nature to do so?
Grizz
[/ QUOTE ]
That wouldn't sell to people predisposed to hate MMOs or video games ... and lets face it the people who like video games will spend their money on the game, not the book that tells them why they like the game.
On the positive side I have seen a lot of people learn the value of teamwork, some of these individuals would likely never enjoy sports so can't learn it there. and yes it is a stretch but in CoH the theme is to uphold order and defend the downtrodden ... yes not everyone follows by that but really they burn GTA for its 'negative' message why not praise CoH for the positive message? duh ... silly me that wouldn't sell books
[/ QUOTE ]
Only three things sells, Disaster, Sex and Superman. People are tired of Disaster, we all know you can't write sex worth a damn so that leaves Superman!
I sit in my zen of not being able to do anything right while simultaniously not being able to do anything wrong. Om. -CuppaJo
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.
[ QUOTE ]
It would be interesting for a real scociologist to take a good look at how an online game, such as ours, can positively effect the real world, and seriously ask why that happens. Afterall, our community does generate goodwill, acts of kindness, and charity in the real world. A good line of research would be why a virtual community( most of whom never meet in real life), can be compelled to help each other and help improve the real world. I would like to think that our players, even if they only play villain side, try to live up to the Heroic Idea, even if a litle bit. Has the game 'rubbed off' on us? Or is it human nature to do so?
Grizz
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a philosophy student (which reminds me, I need to register for courses for the fall) and I've often fantasized about doing my thesis in my final year on some of the proclivities and intricacies, not to mention vagaries of online communities (I sounded like a Monty Python song right there).
It's a different world here... as well as other places. Something I've found is that for as much as I'm welcome here, due to my opinions on certain real world issues I'm very, very rarely welcome anywhere else. As far as I can tell it's a combination of things, including my previously mentioned opinions, the fact that most online communities are really old and well established (relatively speaking) and given that most of my interests tend to attract audiences of a vastly more left-wing (not "liberal"... left-wing) disposition than I'm willing to adopt myself. So, I often find myself shunned rather quickly because I'll say something that someone finds... I don't know, sexist or something for example when not only is that NOT my intent, the accusation is logically inconsistent. So, the debate begins, but because I'm the FNG I lose pretty much by default.
It's really, really hard to break into a new online community and find yourself a place where people appreciate you and look forward to reading what you have to say. Any community older than a year or two really is very, very cliquish.
Brother of Markus
The Lord of Fire and Pain
The Legendary Living Hellfire
Fight my brute!
There's definitely issues with his experiment, the IRB at his university is currently investigating it.
Why is this still going on? 40 pages, and I still don't see why it's such a popular topic. I don't get why everybody is torturing themselves over this.
I've seen the same points expressed over and over again by multiple people. It's growing depressing that so much attention is being paid to something so irrelevant, both to the game and to the world at large.
Just like an inflatable Troll balloon, the more attention we pay to this, the bigger (and uglier) it's going to get, but that doesn't mean it has anymore real substance.
My Stories
Look at that. A full-grown woman pulling off pigtails. Her crazy is off the charts.
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming TWIXT approached an Ethics Board before starting the experiment (and they approved the experiment) and assuming he stayed within the limits of what he presented to said Ethics Board TWIXT did nothing unethical.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily. The Ethics board could be wrong. Their determination could have been flawed (and if it authorized non-consensual experimentation on individuals, some of whom were minors, then I think a very good case could be made that they were wrong, assuming they did in fact rule).
In any case, University authorities are very much involved in this matter, and at least one minor has come forward. This is going to get interesting...
"And in this moment, I will not run.
It is my place to stand.
We few shall carry hope
Within our bloodied hands."
[ QUOTE ]
Why is this still going on? 40 pages, and I still don't see why it's such a popular topic. I don't get why everybody is torturing themselves over this.
I've seen the same points expressed over and over again by multiple people. It's growing depressing that so much attention is being paid to something so irrelevant, both to the game and to the world at large.
Just like an inflatable Troll balloon, the more attention we pay to this, the bigger it's going to get, but that doesn't mean it has anymore real substance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because this is the internet and you are taking part in my social experiment. My hypothesis is that as a thread increases in size the chance of somebody mentioning Hitler approaches 1.
So far my data is very interesting and I plan on writing a book about my experience.
Hitler!!!!!!
...................i mean PIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait, do i get a do over? 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is this still going on? 40 pages, and I still don't see why it's such a popular topic. I don't get why everybody is torturing themselves over this.
I've seen the same points expressed over and over again by multiple people. It's growing depressing that so much attention is being paid to something so irrelevant, both to the game and to the world at large.
Just like an inflatable Troll balloon, the more attention we pay to this, the bigger it's going to get, but that doesn't mean it has anymore real substance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because this is the internet and you are taking part in my social experiment. My hypothesis is that as a thread increases in size the chance of somebody mentioning Hitler approaches 1.
So far my data is very interesting and I plan on writing a book about my experience.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oops, sorry, you just borked your experiment by creating the desired outcome yourself (mentioning Hitler) - much like Twixt did by his behaviors in his "experiment" by being a participant and the precipitate instigator rather than a neutral observer.
But, hey, go ahead anf write your paper so we can discuss it further!
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."
[ QUOTE ]
There's definitely issues with his experiment, the IRB at his university is currently investigating it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Where did you get this information?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's definitely issues with his experiment, the IRB at his university is currently investigating it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Where did you get this information?
[/ QUOTE ]the head of their IRB
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's definitely issues with his experiment, the IRB at his university is currently investigating it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Where did you get this information?
[/ QUOTE ]the head of their IRB
[/ QUOTE ]
I would love this to be true ... but you know him? or did he make a public statement? Most people will want to verify this
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Credible researchers use knowing test subjects, subjects they can see what background they have and can monitor other influences that may result in that behavior, also in a closed lab setting it can be accurately monitored how many people are not noticeably affected by the stimulus. In this case that was not maintained ... all this research proved is if you push a random person one or more may lash out ... did that need proving to anyone? Now why was this unethical, many people in game have crappy lives, hard lives, stressful lives ... there are kids who may be frequently abused in game, other people who may rely on this outlet. Pushing these people is NOT SAFE!!! it is dangerous and in an attempt to prove an idiotic point this person put people at risk because he applied a stimulus where it could be harmful all because of ignorance.
[/ QUOTE ]
I, once again, point out that a researcher can get away with knowing diddly about a potential test subject as long as an Ethics Board approves the experiment prior to the start of the experiment. One of my profs used to tell a tale of an experiment that involved usurping a person's chair in a library. They'd effectively move someone else's stuff without prior knowledge of the person or their lives. Did it backfire? Yes. In one case the participant ran out of the library thinking their ex-husband was stalking her. Was it unethical? At the time no, it had been approved by an Ethics Board and the experiment was completely legit. Would it be okay to do that experiment today? I dunno, I'm not on an Ethics Board, but it might (and it might not).
Assuming TWIXT approached an Ethics Board before starting the experiment (and they approved the experiment) and assuming he stayed within the limits of what he presented to said Ethics Board TWIXT did nothing unethical. Yes, these are big assumptions, but they are not things that we can make judgment calls on (to my knowledge...if someone is a part of an Ethics Board somewhere I'd like to hear their thoughts) and must assume he did (otherwise we are making faulty claims as well).
[/ QUOTE ]
I posted most of this on the Justice board
Please note below the governmets guide lines for IRB approval there is a mention of both informed consent and privacy.
This is taken from Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 46.102
(f) Human subject means a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains
(1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or
(2) Identifiable private information.
Intervention includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered (for example, venipuncture) and manipulations of the subject or the subject's environment that are performed for research purposes. Interaction includes communication or interpersonal contact between investigator and subject. Private information includes information about behavior that occurs in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place, and information which has been provided for specific purposes by an individual and which the individual can reasonably expect will not be made public (for example, a medical record). Private information must be individually identifiable (i.e., the identity of the subject is or may readily be ascertained by the investigator or associated with the information) in order for obtaining the information to constitute research involving human subjects.
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.
The use of Internet based research is currently a topic under review by the NIH and the AAS, due to the ethical implications and the perception of privacy(real or imagined). In regards to privacy every time I was working on an IRB approved human experiment the subjects were coded to keep their privacy protected.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenba..._wal_full.html
http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/intres/main.htm
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_m...5/p21435-1.php
http://www.ecscw.org/2005/paper15.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...2004-11287-003
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ql7770203m351763/
http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol10_no1_pages_35-41.pdf
Also i asked him here about IRB and he kind of blew it off he also does declare this as not real research to quote him "I agree, this study is not really an experiment. I label it as a breaching experiment in reference to analogous methods of Garfinkel, but, in fact, neither his nor my methods are experimental in any truly scientific sense."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is this still going on? 40 pages, and I still don't see why it's such a popular topic. I don't get why everybody is torturing themselves over this.
I've seen the same points expressed over and over again by multiple people. It's growing depressing that so much attention is being paid to something so irrelevant, both to the game and to the world at large.
Just like an inflatable Troll balloon, the more attention we pay to this, the bigger it's going to get, but that doesn't mean it has anymore real substance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because this is the internet and you are taking part in my social experiment. My hypothesis is that as a thread increases in size the chance of somebody mentioning Hitler approaches 1.
So far my data is very interesting and I plan on writing a book about my experience.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oops, sorry, you just borked your experiment by creating the desired outcome yourself (mentioning Hitler) - much like Twixt did by his behaviors in his "experiment" by being a participant and the precipitate instigator rather than a neutral observer.
But, hey, go ahead anf write your paper so we can discuss it further!
[/ QUOTE ]
Luckily I have learned from that Twixty Wabbit and know how to maintain my objective distance and lend credibility to my study.
HEY EVERYBODY! Look how he just attacked me!!! Im Sad!!
Works every time.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's definitely issues with his experiment, the IRB at his university is currently investigating it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Where did you get this information?
[/ QUOTE ]the head of their IRB
[/ QUOTE ]
I would love this to be true ... but you know him? or did he make a public statement? Most people will want to verify this
[/ QUOTE ]He said it in his reply to a message i sent to him regarding the ethics of this experiment. He didn't say anymore because he cannot comment at this time.
edited for accuracy and whatnot
Lag adjusting.
Ho ho.
[ QUOTE ]
It would be interesting for a real scociologist to take a good look at how an online game, such as ours, can positively effect the real world, and seriously ask why that happens. Afterall, our community does generate goodwill, acts of kindness, and charity in the real world. A good line of research would be why a virtual community( most of whom never meet in real life), can be compelled to help each other and help improve the real world. I would like to think that our players, even if they only play villain side, try to live up to the Heroic Idea, even if a litle bit. Has the game 'rubbed off' on us? Or is it human nature to do so?
Grizz
[/ QUOTE ]
To be fair, things people find ugly and distasteful can be valid topics of research. And not all science need be applied science--inquiry with specific problem solving motives. I personally find basic science, inquiry for the sake of inquiry, to USUALLY be the most interesting. But as others have pointed out, after a couple reads his experiment and paper really seem to lack the rigor required to really shed light on any of the phenomena and dynamics in which he claims to be interested. The most bothersome is the apparent continuous evolution of his "standard" response and set of strategies.
His chosen subject of research for decades has been play, electronic gaming in particular. This is a totally valid area of research. And I see nothing wrong with looking into the darker dirtier corners of this realm. But I'm disappointed both in his research and scholarship. I'd love to have seen a much more rigid set of rules which he actually adhered to, maybe across multiple environments, publishing entire chat logs (in an appendix even) including anything that may shine negatively upon the researcher and then citing those same logs as needed in his paper. I would have loved to have seen him try to stick it out after i13, once what he defined as "natural law" of the system shifted to make his behaviour more difficult to execute. And then analyze how the systematic alienation he experienced shifted, lessened or intensified when his actions (trash talking included) had a modified impact on people within the modified post i13 PvP environment. I think he really walked away from a golden opportunity to validate much of his research right there. And reading his archived posts, he threw quite a public hissy fit over the looming i13 changes. Lastly, many folks here with limited backgrounds in his field have conjectured that what he saw echoes what someone could learn when looking at children on a playground. Why is there not more rigorous scholastic work weaving this into the tapestry of existing knowledge on breaching and cooperative and competitive play coexisting or conflicting with each other.
All these shortcomings lead me to the conclusion that this professor is much more engaged with his gaming than his scholarship. And it makes me kinda sad and embarrassed for the man and the institution that is stuck with him.
[ QUOTE ]
Credible researchers use knowing test subjects, subjects they can see what background they have and can monitor other influences that may result in that behavior, also in a closed lab setting it can be accurately monitored how many people are not noticeably affected by the stimulus. In this case that was not maintained ... all this research proved is if you push a random person one or more may lash out ... did that need proving to anyone? Now why was this unethical, many people in game have crappy lives, hard lives, stressful lives ... there are kids who may be frequently abused in game, other people who may rely on this outlet. Pushing these people is NOT SAFE!!! it is dangerous and in an attempt to prove an idiotic point this person put people at risk because he applied a stimulus where it could be harmful all because of ignorance.
[/ QUOTE ]
I, once again, point out that a researcher can get away with knowing diddly about a potential test subject as long as an Ethics Board approves the experiment prior to the start of the experiment. One of my profs used to tell a tale of an experiment that involved usurping a person's chair in a library. They'd effectively move someone else's stuff without prior knowledge of the person or their lives. Did it backfire? Yes. In one case the participant ran out of the library thinking their ex-husband was stalking her. Was it unethical? At the time no, it had been approved by an Ethics Board and the experiment was completely legit. Would it be okay to do that experiment today? I dunno, I'm not on an Ethics Board, but it might (and it might not).
Assuming TWIXT approached an Ethics Board before starting the experiment (and they approved the experiment) and assuming he stayed within the limits of what he presented to said Ethics Board TWIXT did nothing unethical. Yes, these are big assumptions, but they are not things that we can make judgment calls on (to my knowledge...if someone is a part of an Ethics Board somewhere I'd like to hear their thoughts) and must assume he did (otherwise we are making faulty claims as well).