'Twixt'? Anyone remember this guy?
By
7thCynic,
Posted on: 2009-07-06 16:03 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Is it normal in social science disciplines to refer to yourself in the third person? I'm just curious because the essay and the website consistently use the character's name in the place of "I."
"Oedipus Tex" wrote this. Then "Oedipus Tex" hit Post.
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone going to sue this dummy? Seems he did a few naughty things besides not getting consent and breaking the EULA.
\
Cant believe he is a teacher. The man isn't to bright.
[/ QUOTE ]
Grounds for a civil suit would be problematic.
You would need to show that there was damage of some sort due to his actions. The only damage that would seem likely here is some sort of emotional or reputational damage.
Reputational damage (generally interpreted as causing damage to your ability to be gainfully employed in your chosen profession) is extremely remote here (other than the reputational damage Dr, Myers may have done to himself by shoddy research methods).
Emotional damage is a popular basis for lawsuits these days, but given that all the people affected were participating in PvP, and by some interpretations of the PvP conventions Twixt's behavior was not outside what happens in a PvP zone, it would be harder to prove actual damages. (Disclaimer - I don't PvP, so I'm relying on descriptions of PvP behaviors in this thread and others provided by PvP'ers.)
I don't want to get off track here, but sometimes folks are too quick to turn to litigation in situations where it isn't the appropriate response.
NCSoft could probably seek some sort of legal action due to misuse of its Intellectual Property, but we certainly won't hear about that unless a suit is actually brought. I'm sure their Legal Department has been looking at the situation to see if litigation might be appropriate - assuming, of course, that Twixt did not have their prior permission to conduct his "research" in their game.
For any of the individuals involved to bring suit would be unlikely to succeed.
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."
If he did get permission to conduct his "research" in game, Paragon studios probably shouldn't let that out. I don't think that would go over well.
<qr>
Study or not. If you grief someone in game you are just lower than low.
If someone disrespects people to the magnitude that he did, and expects others to respect them after the fact that is asking a bit much of anyone.
Why would he be surprised he got the reaction from people that he did. He was intentionally trying to piss them off and managed to it seems.
Doc Mech-Nec (Exalted): 50 Bots/FF MM
Crey Radiation Tank (Exalted): 50 Rad/Rad Corr
Servers: Exalted, Triumph, Champion
Alts: 32
Steam Profile
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
The other quote to which I was responding is germane here. If there was no reasonable expectation of harm (and harm gets defined VERY broadly by IRBs), then this would be approvable research. If there was predictable harm, it becomes more difficult to approve.
I think that what Myers proposed (and he had to propose something; even if he proposed it as exempt research, it had to go through a separate board who had to review it and make sure it qualified as exempt status, based on what's been posted to these forums) would have predictably led to a stress response on the part of those he targeted. I've been at other universities where studies evoking stress responses received heightened scrutiny (I saw one bounced because the person used 42-degree water instead of 45-degree water to create physiological stress...).
If, on the other hand, he never submitted any type of proposal to his IRB, then conducted his research while in their employment and allowed himself to be identified as a faculty member at Loyola while presenting research the university had never reviewed or sanctioned, that strikes me as a pretty big problem. I will act on the assumption that he did submit something, and go from there.
The reality, unfortunately, is that I don't know what Myers proposed/submitted.
With only what's been made public knowledge, I have the following opinions:
I think he made questionable decisions. I do not think the failure to obtain informed consent was one of them that will ultimately be actionable. Naturalistic observation/ethnographic research cannot be conducted if you ask the population, "Will you be in my study?"
It is unclear whether Myers ended his research when he received his "death threat", which should have been a clear indication that things had gone too far and that even if harm had not been anticipated, he was creating more stress and frustration than was healthy. If he stopped at that point, then I put him in the same general camp as Zimbardo, who pulled the plug on his Prison studies when it became clear the reactions were more than anticipated - harm should have been predicted, but at least was acted upon when it became impossible to ignore. It is worth noting that Zimbardo was "too close" to his research to recognize the harm it was causing himself, and had to have it pointed out to him by an assistant. This may be another parallel between Myers and Zimbardo - both may have been too close to their research to recognize the human harm that potentially went along with the situation they created, instead focusing on the study itself. It's possible for scientists to get tunnel vision, after all. Additionally, Zimbardo did at least have group discussions after he was done, to help participants deal with what they'd experienced. If Myers did not stop his research after it became clear that his methods could lead to death threats (and it doesn't sound like he did, since the threat came 2 years ago, and his "quit" blog was November of last year), I think that's a problem.
His descriptions of his/Twixt's activities do not make it sound like he remained objective as he engaged in his data collection. Narrative information from others suggest that he was far from it. I point to iltat's posts, and those of others, as references.
I believe that utilizing his manipulation with a population that would predictably include minors was very ill-advised.
I believe that inducing stress and making people angry when he has no way to know whether any of the individuals with whom he is interacting are naturally aggressive (I'm sure that's not true of anyone who PvPs in this or any other game, of course...) or have anger management issues would be a questionable decision.
I think that, despite what he seems to say (the academic in me keeps wanting to cite, but I'm too tired to go searching through all the websites I've read related to this topic in the past few days), systematic norm violation could predictably have led to frustration, anger, and stress responses, particularly in a population where aggression against other players is rewarded, all of which in the eyes of many IRBs constitute "harm" and which may have other unforeseeable side effects.
I think that an internal review at Loyola (which has been reported somewhere around here - was it in the Champion thread?) is the proper response, and trust that the individuals who have full information on precisely what he proposed, and Myers' public behavior since, will be able to reach a satisfactory judgment of his culpability, if there is any.
I think that if Myers submitted a proposal in which he did not specify that the population would include minors, that the population in PvP zones may be more aggressive/competitive than the population average, and otherwise did not adequately describe the group to be targeted with his manipulation, some of the blame must fall on the responsible reviewers for not requesting more detail. An IRB that approves research it does not understand cannot possibly be protecting the interests of participants. I'm not saying this is what happened; I'm just saying that Myers may not be the only one who needs to be held responsible.
If the study were proposed at "face value" - that is, if a professor submitted something that said he intended to repeatedly violate social norms in an online community in order to observe the results - I would like to think that I would not approve it on the grounds that it might result in psychological harm, however minor. Without knowing exactly what Myers proposed, though, it's hard for me to say.
I hope the concerns that I outlined above are sufficient to answer your question. 
tl;dr version: Without knowing precisely what he proposed to do, I'm not sure of the ethics, but have an awful lot of opinions based on the partial information available to those of us outside the study.
My postings to this forum are not to be used as data in any research study without my express written consent.
I love your new sig.
...I forgot what experience means.
Im'ma miss him, he was a rep farm for stalkers when he sat down to tp ppl into groups of LB.
(I think my old claws/dark stalker got his 400th rep off him)
[ QUOTE ]
I still laugh at people who nerd rage over getting beat in a video game (be it by a drone or players).
[/ QUOTE ]
THIS
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
The other quote to which I was responding is germane here. If there was no reasonable expectation of harm (and harm gets defined VERY broadly by IRBs), then this would be approvable research. If there was predictable harm, it becomes more difficult to approve.
I think that what Myers proposed (and he had to propose something; even if he proposed it as exempt research, it had to go through a separate board who had to review it and make sure it qualified as exempt status, based on what's been posted to these forums) would have predictably led to a stress response on the part of those he targeted. I've been at other universities where studies evoking stress responses received heightened scrutiny (I saw one bounced because the person used 42-degree water instead of 45-degree water to create physiological stress...).
If, on the other hand, he never submitted any type of proposal to his IRB, then conducted his research while in their employment and allowed himself to be identified as a faculty member at Loyola while presenting research the university had never reviewed or sanctioned, that strikes me as a pretty big problem. I will act on the assumption that he did submit something, and go from there.
The reality, unfortunately, is that I don't know what Myers proposed/submitted.
With only what's been made public knowledge, I have the following opinions:
I think he made questionable decisions. I do not think the failure to obtain informed consent was one of them that will ultimately be actionable. Naturalistic observation/ethnographic research cannot be conducted if you ask the population, "Will you be in my study?"
It is unclear whether Myers ended his research when he received his "death threat", which should have been a clear indication that things had gone too far and that even if harm had not been anticipated, he was creating more stress and frustration than was healthy. If he stopped at that point, then I put him in the same general camp as Zimbardo, who pulled the plug on his Prison studies when it became clear the reactions were more than anticipated - harm should have been predicted, but at least was acted upon when it became impossible to ignore. It is worth noting that Zimbardo was "too close" to his research to recognize the harm it was causing himself, and had to have it pointed out to him by an assistant. This may be another parallel between Myers and Zimbardo - both may have been too close to their research to recognize the human harm that potentially went along with the situation they created, instead focusing on the study itself. It's possible for scientists to get tunnel vision, after all. Additionally, Zimbardo did at least have group discussions after he was done, to help participants deal with what they'd experienced. If Myers did not stop his research after it became clear that his methods could lead to death threats (and it doesn't sound like he did, since the threat came 2 years ago, and his "quit" blog was November of last year), I think that's a problem.
His descriptions of his/Twixt's activities do not make it sound like he remained objective as he engaged in his data collection. Narrative information from others suggest that he was far from it. I point to iltat's posts, and those of others, as references.
I believe that utilizing his manipulation with a population that would predictably include minors was very ill-advised.
I believe that inducing stress and making people angry when he has no way to know whether any of the individuals with whom he is interacting are naturally aggressive (I'm sure that's not true of anyone who PvPs in this or any other game, of course...) or have anger management issues would be a questionable decision.
I think that, despite what he seems to say (the academic in me keeps wanting to cite, but I'm too tired to go searching through all the websites I've read related to this topic in the past few days), systematic norm violation could predictably have led to frustration, anger, and stress responses, particularly in a population where aggression against other players is rewarded, all of which in the eyes of many IRBs constitute "harm" and which may have other unforeseeable side effects.
I think that an internal review at Loyola (which has been reported somewhere around here - was it in the Champion thread?) is the proper response, and trust that the individuals who have full information on precisely what he proposed, and Myers' public behavior since, will be able to reach a satisfactory judgment of his culpability, if there is any.
I think that if Myers submitted a proposal in which he did not specify that the population would include minors, that the population in PvP zones may be more aggressive/competitive than the population average, and otherwise did not adequately describe the group to be targeted with his manipulation, some of the blame must fall on the responsible reviewers for not requesting more detail. An IRB that approves research it does not understand cannot possibly be protecting the interests of participants. I'm not saying this is what happened; I'm just saying that Myers may not be the only one who needs to be held responsible.
If the study were proposed at "face value" - that is, if a professor submitted something that said he intended to repeatedly violate social norms in an online community in order to observe the results - I would like to think that I would not approve it on the grounds that it might result in psychological harm, however minor. Without knowing exactly what Myers proposed, though, it's hard for me to say.
I hope the concerns that I outlined above are sufficient to answer your question.
tl;dr version: Without knowing precisely what he proposed to do, I'm not sure of the ethics, but have an awful lot of opinions based on the partial information available to those of us outside the study.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you so much for this point of view I depreciate you taking the time to look into it. This is just a guess but based on his answers to my questions here i don't think he submitted to the Loyola IRB. As far as i can tell this paper was only published on his blog not a journal (if anyone finds it published please post it here as i had a very long experiment today and i couldn't find it) and he did not attach Loyola in the title. He did present it at some meeting in which he probably used his position at Loyola as status.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still laugh at people who nerd rage over getting beat in a video game (be it by a drone or players).
[/ QUOTE ]
THIS
[/ QUOTE ]
heh.
You really haven't bothered to read the thread, have you?
"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
Are we still allowed to cite quotes from the study's author? I hope so, because he's drawn some conclusions that are pretty... intriguing. Moderators, if this is stepping over the line, feel free to shoot me down (have to respect the "game rules"--I should warn you though that as a player it is I who own the much more authoritarian "social rules" and for the good of all gaming you shouldn't trust me.)
[ QUOTE ]
Game rules are prohibitive and paradoxical; social rules most particularly the ones I observed in CoH are authoritarian and static, inhibiting game play. With social rules in effect, the CoH game becomes less a game and more a society. There is less play and more politics.
[/ QUOTE ]
It turns out we players are in complete control. Our opinions are authoritarian and static, which means we are all in complete agreement about the AE, farming, archetype balance, "aura rawking," content difficulty and of course PvP.
[ QUOTE ]
One thing that makes games REAL games work is that everyone is abiding by the same set of rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
As many of us have long suspected, this isn't a "real" game at all.
[ QUOTE ]
I was not so much shocked by my opponents being angry and as what they were angry about. If we were playing chess, and you got very angry that I moved my bishop just moved my bishop, thats all then I would be equally surprised.
[/ QUOTE ]
Makes me wonder what would happen if I cast Teleport Foe on that bishop.
[ QUOTE ]
At this point, Im not so much interested in user models or theoretical frameworks so much as just getting people to focus on the sort of oppressive social regime that exists in mmos, particularly when that oppression is directed at games and game rules. Twixt gets called a griefer and and ethical transgressor for playing a game a consensual game with an explicit and obvious set of rules that he abides by to the letter!? Hard to fathom at some level.
[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed.
[ QUOTE ]
Even more important is that, as I observed things, the fun/milieau rules were often actively opposed to the game rules. They were eating the game rules like some kind of ugly green mold. The point of this post is that game rules are important and need to be observed and, if necessary, protected. Unfortunately, the game rules seem to have few protectors and fun/milieu rules seem to have lots, who, based on the Twixt experience, like to pile on.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you imagine this line of inquiry read in Rorschach's voice, it's almost a persuasive movie-motive for throwing hot grease on someone.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, exploiters, like Fansy the Famous Bard, for instance, never die. They have a guaranteed win strategy. Twixt never had that. Twixt killed a lot of people, believe me, but then a lot of people killed Twixt too. I really dont know where people get these ideas that Twixt was exploiting something.
[/ QUOTE ]
Probably not from articles on nola.com.
[ QUOTE ]
I originally interpreted most of the responses to Twixts breaching play as a form of trash talk, common in many competitive sports. However, there were several incidents that forced a re-evaluation of the context and the seriousness of player reactions to Twixt. The first of these was the rather sudden and unexpected expulsion of Twixt from his Champion-based supergroup.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know this is a repost, but I can't get enough of it. You know things are getting serious when you get kicked out of your supergroup!
[ QUOTE ]
Games are (were, maybe) a unique and important formal aesthetic category. Without games, we would be less. Inside CoH, we are less.
[/ QUOTE ]
DOOOM. With footnotes.
[ QUOTE ]
The CoH game designers and other mmo designers seem to have largely abdicated their responsibility to design a game in favor of providing a sandbox for players to use as they wish. This may be good for game designer jobs, their blog readers, and their pocketbooks, but it is not particularly good for their games. ...
...Most surprisingly of all (maybe only to me), game designers themselves seem no longer interested in their rules. They seem to focus increasingly less on game rules and increasingly more on game rulers. Rulers dont like the game rules? No problem. Eliminate those rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
You heard it hear first. Positron and gang have lost interest in game rules. The worst part about it is they are giving the players stuff they want.
-- Who was the person writing that rebuttal? Sure you hope you respond to some of the professor's conclusions.
(Edited for readability.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The CoH game designers and other mmo designers seem to have largely abdicated their responsibility to design a game in favor of providing a sandbox for players to use as they wish. This may be good for game designer jobs, their blog readers, and their pocketbooks, but it is not particularly good for their games. ...
...Most surprisingly of all (maybe only to me), game designers themselves seem no longer interested in their rules. They seem to focus increasingly less on game rules and increasingly more on game rulers. Rulers dont like the game rules? No problem. Eliminate those rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
You heard it hear first. Positron and gang have lost interest in game rules. The worst part about it is they are giving the players stuff they want.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for pointing out this last quote. What he writes there is quite laughable considering that there are numerous posts and threads on record where the man openly complains about i13's PvP rules recast.
There is little acknowledgment that developers confirmed via public explanations regarding the coming PvP changes of i13 that there was an internal understanding that the system as it stood was broken, demanding an overhaul. It favored too narrow a band of strategies and permitted too many strategies that when employed incessantly amounted to an "i win" (or at least "j00 lose") button. So Dr. Myers received a verdict in his supreme court case and he (and others who overused TP foe) were essentially told by dev action and system redesign, "Actually that strategy is kinda exploitative. Sorry. We're tweaking rules to apply some balanced risk to that strategy from this day forward." The rules were changed. The rules of chess were not born as a complete set either. They too evolved in fits and starts. Maybe in 1000 years, a perfect, flawless and equally elegant ruleset for CoH/V PvP will exist. But not without numerous painful tweaks that completely invalidate or lessen the effectiveness of a variety of strategies along the way.
You can disagree with the changes to PvP openly and vocally. But them's now the rules. The very rules that the dev team spent a decent amount of time reworking. And this stands in stark opposition to a rather unfair and unflattering public portrait of our developer team Dr. Myers paints.
Additionally, reading that quote makes me think that he's having a hard time separating the concept of virtual world from game. Someone more versed in formal academic discussions of cybernetic gamespaces help me out here. Somebody by now must have written some good analysis regarding how many "games" as traditionally defined for centuries can become nested within the meta-gamespace of a virtual environment. CoH/V is not chess. CoH/V PvP may be the chess or go or rockem sockem robots of CoH/V. While the social rules of the meta-gamespace of CoH/V are not necessarily the CoH/V PvP, they do have import. He's correct there. But similar to the socially defined rules of a chess tournament.
If someone walks into a chess tournament and insists on playing someone right there and then who is they are not scheduled to play and against that opponents will and begins to publicly and loudly castigating this would be opponent for not dropping their current match, many people in the local vicinity, tournament organizers in particular, would come to the victim's defense. If this looney persisted and pulled a chair up to the ongoing match and started moving the other players pieces because they JUST HAD TO CHALLENGE THIS PERSON RIGHT THEN AND THERE OMG!!1! -- someone would call security and throw this person out.
Now this hypothetical nutter could go on about the authoritarian nature of the social order and rules of the tournament attendees and that the tournament organizers simply don't care enough about "real chess matches." But wouldn't that just be crazy talk? Yes some breaching was performed by our tournament crasher. And the others present responded in manners that could be predicted by most developmentally normal five year olds. The whole ordeal sounds more like an episode of Jackass than a controlled science experiment.
Anyways, hoping the servers come up soon. I've got some time this morning and would rather play. Think I've about exhausted my interest in the good Dr.'s groundbreaking research.
Edit: First of many likely fixes for grammar. Oh, and it looks like those servers are back up. Time for an hour or two of fun before heading off to work.
[ QUOTE ]
I was not so much shocked by my opponents being angry and as what they were angry about. If we were playing chess, and you got very angry that I moved my bishop just moved my bishop, thats all then I would be equally surprised.[ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ] Makes me wonder what would happen if I cast Teleport Foe on that bishop.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is hyperbole and it's missplaced. There is no TP Foe in Chess.
What you quoted is actually where he makes a valid point. Which is that people whine even when tactics are used which are within the game rules, but often against social rules. This is compounded by the fact that it is entirely consensual for them to be there (they voluntarily chose to enter a PvP zone).
Furthermore, he is making the point that it is distressing, at least to him, when game rules are changed or removed because of the volume from the social rules.
I'm sure you are not saying that TP Foe should be removed from PvP play nor that using this power is exploitative or 'illegal'. Although one can get the impression that is what you mean.
All of this warrants further discussion, but for the moment I wanted to put some clarity on this.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
03-26-2008 22:18:04 [Broadcast]Twixt: <color #010101>faraq lowlife slimeball farmer, check
03-26-2008 22:19:03 [Broadcast]Ka Faraq Gatri: <color #010101>Twixt!!!! How ya doing my delusional, maniac/depressive, half-wit, moronic, stooge. Been gone for about 3 days recovering the flu. Did you miss me snookem's?
03-26-2008 22:19:27 [Broadcast]Twixt: <color #010101>im ignorning your little slimeball lowlife farmer [censored], gl, miserable cheater pos
[/ QUOTE ]
This was not trolling, nor malicious? Was this also part of RPing Twixt?
[/ QUOTE ]
lol that's me. My farming toon in RV was Ka Faraq Gatri. He use to get SO angry that 99% of the reds in RV left me alone because I was only there to farm NPC's. The majourity of villains that played in RV were my friends and as such would let me do my thing. Twixt hated this and would go out of his way to grief me and insult me in broadcast.
Half the time I just ignored him but every once in a while I would toss out a comment just to further frustrate him. Eventually he realized he wasn't getting to me and that no matter what he did he couldn't persuade the villains in the zone to attack me so he actually put ME on ignore lol Clearly this was part of his 'research' or something. I'm dismayed I was never mentioned in his 'report' 
[IMG]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/2886/coxboardsig.jpg[/IMG][B][SIZE="3"]
The shining world of the seven systems. On the continent of Wild Endeavour. In the mountains of Solace and Solitude there stood the Citadel of the Time Lords. The oldest and most mightiest race in the Universe. Sworn never to interfere. Only watch...[/SIZE][/B]
[ QUOTE ]
This is hyperbole and it's missplaced. There is no TP Foe in Chess.
What you quoted is actually where he makes a valid point. Which is that people whine even when tactics are used which are within the game rules, but often against social rules. This is compounded by the fact that it is entirely consensual for them to be there (they voluntarily chose to enter a PvP zone).
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you that anyone who chooses to enter a PvP zone should expect the possibility of attack, but that isn't my problem with the professor's assumptions. He asserts that "win at all costs" is a game rule, when in fact it is a social rule. There is nothing in the game rules that requires players to attack each other without regard and there are strategic reasons not to do so. The zone makes it possible to attack other players, but doesn't penalize the player if they chose not to.
As a matter of strategy, if attacking your opponents with powers they think are "cheap" draws so much ire out of them (and your own allies) that they band together against you and render you less effective, then your "winning" strategy has failed. Talk of "social rules" isn't necessary when the much simpler explanation is that you blew your cover and got eliminated.
The professor's larger assumption that players should be happy with all existing game mechanics is perplexing. He himself voted with his feet when the new PvP mechanics came out because he thought the changes were "boneheaded" (his words). By his own argument, if the devs were now to change PvP in a way that pleased him, they would be degrading their game. His position is truly as absurd as Teleport Foe existing in chess.
I have to admit, I'm a bit confused by his stance as well.
He claims he was just playing by the spirit of the zone and everything he did was allowed by the rules, and "supported" by the developers. Yet, those who chose to farm the zone using Heavies were also doing things allowed by the rules and "supported" by the developers, and also within the spirit of the zone (I'd probably put money down that farmers captured the zone pillboxes more then PvPers, in general), but he reviled them and called them names, trying to drive THEM from the zone using similar, if not identical tactics he complained people used against him.
Am I missing something in that?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
The other quote to which I was responding is germane here. If there was no reasonable expectation of harm (and harm gets defined VERY broadly by IRBs), then this would be approvable research. If there was predictable harm, it becomes more difficult to approve.
I think that what Myers proposed (and he had to propose something; even if he proposed it as exempt research, it had to go through a separate board who had to review it and make sure it qualified as exempt status, based on what's been posted to these forums) would have predictably led to a stress response on the part of those he targeted. I've been at other universities where studies evoking stress responses received heightened scrutiny (I saw one bounced because the person used 42-degree water instead of 45-degree water to create physiological stress...).
[/ QUOTE ]
What about consent from NCsoft? While I don't think there's anything in the EULA expressly forbidding the use of the game servers for research purposes, I would think that if you're using their service and publishing a paper after your findings that there's a reasonable expectation to inform the owners of the servers.
Admittedly, it's possible that he had gotten the go-ahead, since I haven't seen anything about it one way or the other.
Also, how does this paper relate to the member created content portion of the EULA?
My story arcs: #2370- Noah Reborn, #18672- The Clockwork War, #31490- Easy Money
Sartre once said, "Hell is other people." What does that make an MMO?
Richard Garfield (one of the brains behind Magic) talked about the metagame.
He often played a game where you cut deals and non-aggression pacts, etc with other players. Richard would routinely break these pacts when it was convenient to do so. He found that, despite the games being separate, that less and less people would willingly cut a deal with him, because he had garnered a reputation as a backstabber. Therefore, he lost more and more.
He started honouring his agreements, even when at a disadvantage to do so. He found his win percentage climbing, because, overall, he became known as a guy who wouldn't sell you out.
No game happens in a vacuum.
Games are not always played as their designers intended.
Transgressing norms, whether hard-coded by developers, passed into law by legislation, or socially implied by the community, will create retaliation.
www.paragonwiki.com is a great source of information for this game.
New or returning to the game? Want advice from experienced players who want to help YOU?
The Mentor Project: Part of the New Player Council.
[ QUOTE ]
What about consent from NCsoft? While I don't think there's anything in the EULA expressly forbidding the use of the game servers for research purposes, I would think that if you're using their service and publishing a paper after your findings that there's a reasonable expectation to inform the owners of the servers.
Admittedly, it's possible that he had gotten the go-ahead, since I haven't seen anything about it one way or the other.
Also, how does this paper relate to the member created content portion of the EULA?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not a legal scholar, so am not sure, but I would suspect that the reason no redname has had an opinion on this (other than Castle stating that Fansy > Twixt) is that their legal department has asked them to step back while legal investigates exactly the questions you raised.
My postings to this forum are not to be used as data in any research study without my express written consent.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about consent from NCsoft? While I don't think there's anything in the EULA expressly forbidding the use of the game servers for research purposes, I would think that if you're using their service and publishing a paper after your findings that there's a reasonable expectation to inform the owners of the servers.
Admittedly, it's possible that he had gotten the go-ahead, since I haven't seen anything about it one way or the other.
Also, how does this paper relate to the member created content portion of the EULA?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not a legal scholar, so am not sure, but I would suspect that the reason no redname has had an opinion on this (other than Castle stating that Fansy > Twixt) is that their legal department has asked them to step back while legal investigates exactly the questions you raised.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
The use of their Intellectual Property to conduct research is a legal issue that no one at PCSoft/Paragon Studios will talk about unless/until some sort of formal legal response has been decided (either they take legal action or do not take legal action, after review of the entire situation).
Anyone part of their organization making any sort of statement at this point jeopardizes any potential legal causes of action. I'm sure they have all been told to "zip it" about Twixt other than something as incosequential as Castle's remark.
I don't know that NCSoft was asked if their IP could be used for this, or if they were, that Dr. Myer's request disclosed what his research entailed. I tend to doubt it based on what seems to be sloppy standards of handling the scientific setup of the experiment (Twixt as participant rather than neutral observer, for example).
This whole "paper" and its associated book are both a PR and a legal situation for NCSoft. And you can bet that Legal will not be letting anyone say much beyond "no comment" until their analysis is through.
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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
03-26-2008 22:18:04 [Broadcast]Twixt: <color #010101>faraq lowlife slimeball farmer, check
03-26-2008 22:19:03 [Broadcast]Ka Faraq Gatri: <color #010101>Twixt!!!! How ya doing my delusional, maniac/depressive, half-wit, moronic, stooge. Been gone for about 3 days recovering the flu. Did you miss me snookem's?
03-26-2008 22:19:27 [Broadcast]Twixt: <color #010101>im ignorning your little slimeball lowlife farmer [censored], gl, miserable cheater pos
[/ QUOTE ]
This was not trolling, nor malicious? Was this also part of RPing Twixt?
[/ QUOTE ]
lol that's me. My farming toon in RV was Ka Faraq Gatri. He use to get SO angry that 99% of the reds in RV left me alone because I was only there to farm NPC's. The majourity of villains that played in RV were my friends and as such would let me do my thing. Twixt hated this and would go out of his way to grief me and insult me in broadcast.
Half the time I just ignored him but every once in a while I would toss out a comment just to further frustrate him. Eventually he realized he wasn't getting to me and that no matter what he did he couldn't persuade the villains in the zone to attack me so he actually put ME on ignore lol Clearly this was part of his 'research' or something. I'm dismayed I was never mentioned in his 'report'
[/ QUOTE ]
I missed this quotation somehow. Wow. With one sentence this Twixt invalidated his entire thesis. You don't get to verbally provoke people like that and then cry foul when they retaliate in any of 1000 ways.
Between this and the actual paper, I am beginning to wonder about this guy's mental status. He really does seem to have issues; these do not strike me as the words or actions of someone who is quite right in the head, when you look at them closely.
[ QUOTE ]
I missed this quotation somehow. Wow. With one sentence this Twixt invalidated his entire thesis. You don't get to verbally provoke people like that and then cry foul when they retaliate in any of 1000 ways.
Between this and the actual paper, I am beginning to wonder about this guy's mental status. He really does seem to have issues; these do not strike me as the words or actions of someone who is quite right in the head, when you look at them closely.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah. this kind of stuff is why the Aspergers posts came about. There were a lot of parallels drawn to how Twixt was acting compared to someone with Asperger's syndrome.
Some of the evidence was very compelling showing that Twixt does indeed have some serious mental lapses if not a actual mental condition of some sort.
Scary that this guy is a P.H.D. and even scarier that a university is footing the bills for this "research". From everything I have read/witnessed I can only say that I still believe this guy has some mental issues.
Don't we all.
I mean the Edit button is screaming at me in the voice of Archie Bunker. 
According to his own logs he was flaming in the extreme. Here are some logs that he left out of his paper that have been posted on his blog.
[ QUOTE ]
02514: 03-26-2008 20:51:24 [Broadcast]Twixt: well, i would kill you all and win the zone but too many hero farmers
02515: 03-26-2008 20:51:30 [Broadcast]Twixt: hero slimeball lowlife farmers
02518: 03-26-2008 20:51:34 [Broadcast]Twixt: as usuall, vills np
02519: 03-26-2008 20:51:43 [Broadcast]Twixt: but hero lowlife slimeball farmers ruin the zone
02520: 03-26-2008 20:51:46 [Broadcast]Twixt: wat a pity
02530: 03-26-2008 20:52:31 [Broadcast]Twixt: no, little lowlife slimeball farmer boy, U ruin it
02534: 03-26-2008 20:52:48 [Broadcast]Twixt: its trivial to hog the hvys and farm the zone
02535: 03-26-2008 20:52:57 [Broadcast]Twixt: any can do it, any can cheat
02537: 03-26-2008 20:53:04 [Broadcast]Twixt: read the rulez, play the game
02539: 03-26-2008 20:53:10 [Broadcast]Twixt: otherwise, who the f cares
02541: 03-26-2008 20:53:36 [Broadcast]Twixt: congrats, another night of farmer bois
02542: 03-26-2008 20:53:43 [Broadcast]Twixt: wallow in it, little farmer bois
02543: 03-26-2008 20:53:46 [Broadcast]Twixt: you the mans
02879: 03-26-2008 21:18:13 [Broadcast]Twixt: faraq lowlife slimeball farmer, check
02890: 03-26-2008 21:19:35 [Broadcast]Twixt: im ignorning your little slimeball lowlife farmer [censored], gl, miserable cheater pos
03-26-2008 21:19:53 ka faraq gatri is now ignored
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
02934: 03-26-2008 21:28:17 [Broadcast]Twixt: its all about phase
02935: 03-26-2008 21:28:20 [Broadcast]Twixt: nothing but phase
02936: 03-26-2008 21:28:27 [Broadcast]Twixt: thats it basically
02937: 03-26-2008 21:28:29 [Broadcast]Twixt: phase or die
02938: 03-26-2008 21:28:34 [Broadcast]Twixt: phase or die
02954: 03-26-2008 21:29:56 [Broadcast]Twixt: phase or die
02955: 03-26-2008 21:30:00 [Broadcast]Twixt: thats yoru choice
02956: 03-26-2008 21:30:03 [Broadcast]Twixt: make your choice
02957: 03-26-2008 21:30:08 [Broadcast]Twixt: phase or die
02985: 03-26-2008 21:32:26 [Broadcast]Twixt: phase or die
02987: 03-26-2008 21:32:30 [Broadcast]Twixt: make your choice
03-26-2008 21:33:33 You have defeated LongDingus
03002: 03-26-2008 21:33:40 [Broadcast]Twixt: phase or die
03004: 03-26-2008 21:33:43 [Broadcast]Twixt: your choice
03-26-2008 21:34:20 Artic Prodigy has defeated Lu Bu.
03-26-2008 21:34:32 Stellar Moon has defeated Mr Invincible
03016: 03-26-2008 21:34:41 [Broadcast]Twixt: whos gonna phase, whos gonna die
03-26-2008 21:34:50 Gen. PinHead has defeated Arachnos Heavy Blaster
03-26-2008 21:35:44 You have defeated Sue Peerior
03031: 03-26-2008 21:35:55 [Broadcast]Twixt: choice number one is phase
03034: 03-26-2008 21:36:00 [Broadcast]Twixt: choice number two is die
[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone going to sue this dummy? Seems he did a few naughty things besides not getting consent and breaking the EULA.
\
Cant believe he is a teacher. The man isn't to bright.