'Twixt'? Anyone remember this guy?
By
7thCynic,
Posted on: 2009-07-06 16:03 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
If you check out the thread on the Champion forums, someone posted the response they received from the university. If Pown has contacted that university as well, then at least 2 individuals from these boards have been in contact with the university.
For others still interested, my letter to the editor is being sent off today, another individual has requested the email addresses the reporter recommended so they can send their own letter, another individual has privately contacted me to offer to send the parts of my original letter that had to be cut out due to wordcount confinement as a separate letter, and I've been offered the chance to post a reply post on the founder of CNet's blog (which I'll be doing today also).
- 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.
Thanks for taking point on this, iltat.
What I have seen so far of your response is exactly what I would want to see from this community - a well-worded counterpoint to "Twixt's" observations from someone involved in the activity in question.
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."
Well, something good that might come out of this episode is that NCSoft might change the Terms of Service and EULA to include a "No research without written consent" clause. The case with Dr. Myers makes very clear that unethical research can certainly happen. With the increasing popularity of MMOs, it might be wise for publishers to be proactive in protecting their players from potential problems related to research. Something for the NCSoft lawyers to think about anyway.
Grizz
"When Chuck Norris can't go on, Petra Majdič perseveres!"
Please limit any further personal attacks on Twixt as it is inappropriate for these forums. Let's be the bigger people in this debate.
-Mod8-
If you are using Latin in your post you are probably trolling
Have a question? Try the PlayNC Knowledge Base
But we ARE the bigger people!
The big BULLIES! 
I'm very glad to see that there is some amount of investigation going on here.
Please read my FEAR/Portal/HalfLife Fan Fiction!
Repurposed
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Untrue, absolutely untrue. Sometimes a scientist NEEDS to experiment on subjects that DON'T KNOW they are the subject of an experiment. The very moment a subject signs a waiver their reactions to stimulus will change. They know they are a part of an experiment and, even if they don't intend to change, they invariably do. Even if there's a handful of people who don't change they are outliers and aren't representative of 'normal' people (the subject of most papers).
[ 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...
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. I also think experiments that don't require signed waivers before at the very least have debriefing sessions that explain to the participant what just happened. I'm not sure is that's required or not, or if TWIXT did this (I doubt it) however.
[ 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.
*SNIP*
[/ QUOTE ]
You also posted it here once before, which was then replied to by MrQuizzles with the following quote (and link).
[ 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
[/ QUOTE ]
To quote a friend of mine who knows more about this subject that I:
[ QUOTE ]
In the field type studies do not need explicit consent of the people involved. They do need to pass the ethics board for not causing lasting harm to those who are involved without their knowledge.
[/ QUOTE ]
She also has informed me that internet alias' count as this sort of coding you refer to (since no personal information is given).
If you would like to continue this argument I can actually do some research myself...but I've been lazy so far. 
Edit: Doh! Wrong quote! 
[ QUOTE ]
Please limit any further personal attacks on Twixt as it is inappropriate for these forums. Let's be the bigger people in this debate.
[/ QUOTE ]
Personally, Mod8, I think it's been pretty level-headed so far, considering the subject. Of course, having Dr. Myers coming in here with an alt account (OPTICAL_ILLUSION) and talking more trash didn't help.
Point of order: Is pointing out that OPTICAL_ILLUSION is a sock puppet considered a personal attack? I don't believe it is, but other opinions may differ.
"OK, first of all... Shut Up." - My 13-Year-Old Daughter
29973 "The Running of the Bulls" [SFMA] - WINNER of the Mighty Big Story Arc Contest !
- The Stellar Wind Orbital Space Platform
[ QUOTE ]
(snip)
To quote a friend of mine who knows more about this subject that I:
[ QUOTE ]
In the field type studies do not need explicit consent of the people involved. They do need to pass the ethics board for not causing lasting harm to those who are involved without their knowledge.
[/ QUOTE ]
She also has informed me that internet alias' count as this sort of coding you refer to (since no personal information is given).
If you would like to continue this argument I can actually do some research myself...but I've been lazy so far.
Edit: Doh! Wrong quote!
[/ QUOTE ]
A few comments: field (or observational) studies don't usually require consent, but when a researcher actively takes part, it's no longer a field study. It's an experiment. Also, I'd be careful about the use of character names as identifiers, since they can still be linked to individuals and their use could lead to a person being harassed, embarrassed, whatever, even if just in-game. Identifiers are not limited to real life names, and the consistent use of essentially a nickname could be considered personal information.
[ 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.
*SNIP*
[/ QUOTE ]
You also posted it here once before, which was then replied to by MrQuizzles with the following quote (and link).
[ 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
[/ QUOTE ]
To quote a friend of mine who knows more about this subject that I:
[ QUOTE ]
In the field type studies do not need explicit consent of the people involved. They do need to pass the ethics board for not causing lasting harm to those who are involved without their knowledge.
[/ QUOTE ]
She also has informed me that internet alias' count as this sort of coding you refer to (since no personal information is given).
If you would like to continue this argument I can actually do some research myself...but I've been lazy so far.
Edit: Doh! Wrong quote!
[/ QUOTE ]
You can ask your friend if this is true because i am not in the social sciences I am a biologist for us informed consent is first. In a field study they would as you said debrief the subjects and at that time get informed consent. If they were unable to get the consent i believe that subject needs not be included in the research. I could see them waiving informed consent if there was no interaction, but at that point i don't think you need IRB approval (getting to busy to look that up). In regards to that link posted that is for the URI IRB I posted the federal guidelines. You can go to Loyola's IRB site as well.
The alias thing i think is a bit iffy the name can be tied to a global the global tracked back to an account the account to the person. Also the name is readily identifiable to people who know that toon so not seeing how that is anonymous. Numbers would be better.
And if i had a minor who was one of the people he did this to I would be pissed.
[ QUOTE ]
A few comments: field (or observational) studies don't usually require consent, but when a researcher actively takes part, it's no longer a field study. It's an experiment.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why it's presented to an Ethics Board...maybe that wasn't the best quote (but it was easily available and allowed for me to still be lazy!)
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'd be careful about the use of character names as identifiers, since they can still be linked to individuals and their use could lead to a person being harassed, embarrassed, whatever, even if just in-game. Identifiers are not limited to real life names, and the consistent use of essentially a nickname could be considered personal information.
[/ QUOTE ]
Also, this is why Ethics Boards exist. If TWIXT had presented his study to an Ethics Board prior to his experiment (we have no idea if he did or not at this point) and the Ethics Board decided that he could present his article with the avatar's name rather than placeholders the paper is legit (to the extent, as Dollhouse has pointed out, that the Ethics Board could have made a faulty decision).
All I'm saying is that it is allowable not that it is right. I am not in the position to be able to decide whether or not this paper with ethically sound and I would argue that no one else is on this board (so far as I have seen). Did the paper have faults? YES, huge ones, but that is a different argument all together.
Yep, I agree that it should have gone through a review, and it very well could have. I just wanted to throw out a couple of points in the previous post - this is an interesting event in the ever-evolving world of research ethics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please limit any further personal attacks on Twixt as it is inappropriate for these forums. Let's be the bigger people in this debate.
[/ QUOTE ]
Personally, Mod8, I think it's been pretty level-headed so far, considering the subject. Of course, having Dr. Myers coming in here with an alt account (OPTICAL_ILLUSION) and talking more trash didn't help.
Point of order: Is pointing out that OPTICAL_ILLUSION is a sock puppet considered a personal attack? I don't believe it is, but other opinions may differ.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sock puppet? No.
Instigator? Yes.
I doubt he even believe what he wrote. Just stirring the pot a bit.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Untrue, absolutely untrue. Sometimes a scientist NEEDS to experiment on subjects that DON'T KNOW they are the subject of an experiment. The very moment a subject signs a waiver their reactions to stimulus will change. They know they are a part of an experiment and, even if they don't intend to change, they invariably do. Even if there's a handful of people who don't change they are outliers and aren't representative of 'normal' people (the subject of most papers).
[/ QUOTE ]
This. Sociological and psychological experiments, especially of the type this is supposed to be (but isn't), often require uninformed subjects.
Please go away from the ethical complaints, because the bigger point is that he simply did not conduct the research well.
A game is not supposed to be some kind of... place where people enjoy themselves!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A few comments: field (or observational) studies don't usually require consent, but when a researcher actively takes part, it's no longer a field study. It's an experiment.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why it's presented to an Ethics Board...maybe that wasn't the best quote (but it was easily available and allowed for me to still be lazy!)
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhh I see then at that point they do not need IRB approval. My point is for what he did IRB approval and Informed consent would have be necessary.
Here from Loyola's IRB site:
Exempt Review
All research proposals involving human subjects must be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). If the research falls within one of the categories itemized below, the project may be determined to be exempt. Note that Title 45 CFR Part 46 (Subparts B-D) provides additional protection for several groups of research subjects.
Projects that qualify as exempt pose no risk to extremely minimal risk to participants.
Federal law specifically requires that an investigator, department chair, and/or other supervisor of an investigator may not make the final determination as to whether a project merits the exempt designation.
The IRB has assigned the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) to determine whether exempt status is warranted. At its discretion, the ORSP may choose to submit an exempt protocol to other IRB committee members for review.
Exempt projects still must be conducted in accordance with the general principles of human subjects protection.
Any proposed changes to the research need to be reviewed by the IRB.
Human subjects applications must be reviewed by the ORSP to confirm that they meet the criteria for exempt status. Once an application is received by the ORSP, it will take approximately 2-3 business days to review. The ORSP may send applications submitted as exempt to additional IRB committee members for further review. This review process will take approximately three weeks.
Pure field observation offers no risk and would most likely be exempt from IRB approval. My point is if you need IRB approval then you need informed consent.
On an interesting asside Loyola recieved a non complience letter back in 2002
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR02/sep02c.pdf
To be fair to Loyola though he never put their name on this paper, thus he never attached them to it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Untrue, absolutely untrue. Sometimes a scientist NEEDS to experiment on subjects that DON'T KNOW they are the subject of an experiment. The very moment a subject signs a waiver their reactions to stimulus will change. They know they are a part of an experiment and, even if they don't intend to change, they invariably do. Even if there's a handful of people who don't change they are outliers and aren't representative of 'normal' people (the subject of most papers).
[/ QUOTE ]
This. Sociological and psychological experiments, especially of the type this is supposed to be (but isn't), often require uninformed subjects.
Please go away from the ethical complaints, because the bigger point is that he simply did not conduct the research well.
[/ QUOTE ]
He already admits that himself
"Hi Lisa,
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. This should be obvious in that experimental methods require some sort of control group and there was none in this case. Likewise, experimental methods are characterized by the manipulation of a treatment variable and, likewise, there was none in this case. This is, of course, explained in the paper in the following paragraph
."
[ QUOTE ]
You can ask your friend if this is true because i am not in the social sciences I am a biologist for us informed consent is first. In a field study they would as you said debrief the subjects and at that time get informed consent. If they were unable to get the consent i believe that subject needs not be included in the research.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is the difference. I'm not a Biologist (of the four science wings at my college Biology's was the only one I never entered) so I don't know much about the scientific process of a Biologist. However, I would suspect that the bio field requires access to the physical body of the subject to study (whatever that means). Such a study is much more intrusive and direct compared to a Psych experiment (on average) and would need informed consent (I can't stick a needle into you without you agreeing to it). Likely, if a bio subject signs a waiver they are told exactly what is going to happen to them before the procedure even begins (and possibly why).
In every single Psych experiment I knew about and was involved in (as a participant, I never ran any myself) the participant was either told very little about the procedure, or were misdirected in some way (okay, there may have one or two that told me up front). This was to keep the participant from 'guessing' what the experiment was about and adjusting their answers to 'help' or 'harm' the results. (NOTE: there are disciplines within Pscyh that are more associated with my bio example. This is just would could happen in a psych experiment, not what will...each experiment is different).
For example: I participated in an aggression study. The participant was told flat out that it was a taste test, aggression was never mentioned. I signed the waiver with the assumption that my taste buds were being tested when, in reality, my testosterone was being tested based on the saliva samples they took (I was informed of the process of the experiment before hand, so there were no surprises). There was a debriefing session afterward that explained more about the experiment and my prof talked about it during one of my classes (it got national attention and was referenced in our textbook...he was very proud).
This isn't exactly like TWIXT's experiment, but the basic idea is the same. On some level there was a misrepresentation and the people involved couldn't predict the way they were 'supposed' to act and adjust accordingly. Again, though, it's up to an Ethics Board to make the final call (and even they could be wrong).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A few comments: field (or observational) studies don't usually require consent, but when a researcher actively takes part, it's no longer a field study. It's an experiment.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why it's presented to an Ethics Board...maybe that wasn't the best quote (but it was easily available and allowed for me to still be lazy!)
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhh I see then at that point they do not need IRB approval. My point is for what he did IRB approval and Informed consent would have be necessary.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, they still need IRB approval. The IRB and the IRB alone has the authority to determine what sorts of measures need to be taken. Only the IRB can determine if research is exempt or not.
[ QUOTE ]
He already admits that himself
"Hi Lisa,
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. This should be obvious in that experimental methods require some sort of control group and there was none in this case. Likewise, experimental methods are characterized by the manipulation of a treatment variable and, likewise, there was none in this case. This is, of course, explained in the paper in the following paragraph
."
[/ QUOTE ]
I will agree with you to this extent: not all Psychology is based on experiments. The same holds true for Sociology (there was this interesting study on suicide I read once...).
However, he was actively involved which made it an experiment (by definition). This, however, is a credibility issue, not an ethics issue (it could, however, bleed into ethics if he didn't take the appropriate actions because of the erroneous claim on 'not an experiment').
For the aggresion/testosterone one did you sign a new consent at the end? I would think that they would have to allow you to opt out once you knew the true nature of the study.
I understand the need for "blinding" but in your examples there was no harm or stress. IMO it isn't really like what Myers did at all, he purposly stressed these people.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A few comments: field (or observational) studies don't usually require consent, but when a researcher actively takes part, it's no longer a field study. It's an experiment.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why it's presented to an Ethics Board...maybe that wasn't the best quote (but it was easily available and allowed for me to still be lazy!)
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhh I see then at that point they do not need IRB approval. My point is for what he did IRB approval and Informed consent would have be necessary.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, they still need IRB approval. The IRB and the IRB alone has the authority to determine what sorts of measures need to be taken. Only the IRB can determine if research is exempt or not.
[/ QUOTE ]
No I believe it needs to be reviewed by them but then can be exempted from the approval guidlines.
[ QUOTE ]
For the aggresion/testosterone one did you sign a new consent at the end? I would think that they would have to allow you to opt out once you knew the true nature of the study.
I understand the need for "blinding" but in your examples there was no harm or stress. IMO it isn't really like what Myers did at all, he purposly stressed these people.
[/ QUOTE ]
The other problem is that there can be no "misrepresentation" of the purpose of a study when there is no knowledge of being part of a study. So the entire parallel to the taste bud study fails to hold up.
Speaking purely as someone who teaches psychology in a university setting, and who has taught graduate research methods, and is awaiting an appointment to my university's institutional review board, of course.
My postings to this forum are not to be used as data in any research study without my express written consent.
Oh i would love your take on all this then Earth....
I am coming from the Pharmacuticl interpretation and also the current Regulatory affairs classes I am taking for my Masters.
I would love to get your take on the the ethics or lack there of also if he didn't put Loyola on the essay would that opt him out from that responsibility? Also i have made the argument in another thread that this work if it went before a board would not have been approved based on the methodology, the risk/reward ratio, the population used (small and unknown), and the lack of informed consent. I would love to get your take on that as well.
I know people are wishing the ethics would be droped based on the fact it's just bad science, but it's so damn clear it's bad methodology that even he admits it so i don't see the point in discussing that. For me ethics in human research is where i find this particular "experiment" interesting.
[ QUOTE ]
For the aggresion/testosterone one did you sign a new consent at the end? I would think that they would have to allow you to opt out once you knew the true nature of the study.
I understand the need for "blinding" but in your examples there was no harm or stress. IMO it isn't really like what Myers did at all, he purposly stressed these people.
[/ QUOTE ]
No I did not sign a waiver at the end. There was no need as the study has already been administered (there was, however, a need to debrief in this case). The only thing that I would be doing by opting out is lowering the number of participants in the final examination of that data, my data would still be there just excluded (the exclusion would likely be mentioned in the body of the paper).
Many times you can't predict a participant's reaction. A study on death (another one I participated in), for example, might increase a participant's thoughts on suicide. TWIXT's experiment was mostly 'if you piss people off they will get pissed off...even in an MMO environment'. A person who actively contradicts social norms is going to receive negative responses, it has been documented in experimental and other venues. How strong those negative responses are is unpredictable and can be based on so many factors regarding the situation the 'anti-social' behavior was presented in (people in this thread have wondered what this experiment would by like in WoW for example) as well as the people involved, their culture, and their upbringing (cultural difference have been discussed) that one cannot even begin to plan for the variety of consequences (positive and negative). It becomes 'assuming normalcy, are the consequences of this experiment within reason'.
[ QUOTE ]
The other problem is that there can be no "misrepresentation" of the purpose of a study when there is no knowledge of being part of a study. So the entire parallel to the taste bud study fails to hold up.
[/ QUOTE ]
However, my example regarding the study in the library fits within the realm of TWIXTs study (regarding, specifically, the misinterpretation prior to the explanation/debriefing). There was no waiver prior to the administering of the experiment (which is why the one lady ran out of the library...she didn't know she was a part of a study and came to different, more frightening, conclusion). In this way the misrepresentation is the failure to mention that an experiment is taking place, most people assume they are not participating in experiments during everyday life. Again, though, I must re-iterate that I don't know if said experiment would be permissible today.
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking purely as someone who teaches psychology in a university setting, and who has taught graduate research methods, and is awaiting an appointment to my university's institutional review board, of course.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, I would love to hear your interpretation of the ethics question. If you have never been on a board that would approve these kinds of things you certainly work with and have studied under professors who have and do.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please limit any further personal attacks on Twixt as it is inappropriate for these forums. Let's be the bigger people in this debate.
[/ QUOTE ]
Personally, Mod8, I think it's been pretty level-headed so far, considering the subject. Of course, having Dr. Myers coming in here with an alt account (OPTICAL_ILLUSION) and talking more trash didn't help.
Point of order: Is pointing out that OPTICAL_ILLUSION is a sock puppet considered a personal attack? I don't believe it is, but other opinions may differ.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sock puppet? No.
Instigator? Yes.
I doubt he even believe what he wrote. Just stirring the pot a bit.
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought he was just trolling at first, yes. But when he started posting Twixt's chat files, and talking about Twixt's "leet" PvP skills, It became obvious to me. It's just the same old [censored] that Dr. Myers did when he was using the Twixt handle.
If it walks like a Twixt...
...and it quacks like a Twixt...
...and it cherry-picks it's "evidince" like a Twixt...
"OK, first of all... Shut Up." - My 13-Year-Old Daughter
29973 "The Running of the Bulls" [SFMA] - WINNER of the Mighty Big Story Arc Contest !
- The Stellar Wind Orbital Space Platform
[ QUOTE ]
There's definitely issues with his experiment, the IRB at his university is currently investigating it.
[/ QUOTE ]
@PownUnoobs:
Do you have a source? Not questioning the validity. But I am curious how someone in the general public can find out such information.
[ 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 ]
@Mr_Grey:
Personally, I'm quite engaged by all the discussion regarding ethics, the validity of research in general, etc. Despite how that NOLA article painted our community as a bunch of death-threat-leveling-cyber-neandertals, many folks are maintaining a rather cool-headed and informed discussion on those subjects throughout this thread. One bad scientist has us all talking to each other about what makes for good science. Not a bad thing IMO. YMMV
Edit: No need to reply about the IRB. Read the rest of the thread as I should have in the first place. Interesting.