'Twixt'? Anyone remember this guy?
By
7thCynic,
Posted on: 2009-07-06 16:03 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
twitter is cancer
[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering why nobody has been spamming his Twitter page. After all it's within the rules.
Also, Prof. Myers made a post on his blog about this, sort of. Some of his replies to comments below the post are more intriguing than the actual post.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, someone named Paul G copied my comment and Myers responded by...calling me names?
- 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.
(QR)
Not going to comment on the controversy surrounding any of this (not my place, at all) other than to say the following:
Twixt was a rank amateur compared to Fansy the bard.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering why nobody has been spamming his Twitter page. After all it's within the rules.
Also, Prof. Myers made a post on his blog about this, sort of. Some of his replies to comments below the post are more intriguing than the actual post.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, someone named Paul G copied my comment and Myers responded by...calling me names?
[/ QUOTE ]
And does so in pseudo kiddie-speak.
He's like, so gnarly, and, like, totally mature to the max. 
the walls in the mall are totally totally tall
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering why nobody has been spamming his Twitter page. After all it's within the rules.
Also, Prof. Myers made a post on his blog about this, sort of. Some of his replies to comments below the post are more intriguing than the actual post.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, someone named Paul G copied my comment and Myers responded by...calling me names?
[/ QUOTE ]
Confirming that he is, in fact, reading these threads - since I have to assume the penguin jokes referenced your avatar.
I can't believe that's a grown man teaching at a Jesuit university.
From Loyola of NO's website, for those who aren't familiar with Jesuit philosophy:
[ QUOTE ]
Jesuit education is a call to human excellence, to the fullest possible development of all human qualities. This implies a rigor and academic excellence that challenges the student to develop all of his or her talents to the fullest. It is a call to critical thinking and disciplined studies, a call to develop the whole person, head and heart, intellect and feelings.
The Jesuit vision of education implies further that students learn how to be critical, examine attitudes, challenge assumptions, and analyze motives. All of this is important if they are to be able to make decisions in freedom, the freedom that allows one to make love-filled and faith-filled decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Myers' behavior in conducting the study may or may not have been ethical. Probably was, in a technical sense. Participant observation research has always been hinky.
His behavior in the aftermath, however, seems seriously at-odds with the philosophy of his employing institution. This is "a call to human excellence"? Trolling people until they display their worst sides? This is a man whose school charges him to educate people to be able to make "love-filled" and "faith-filled" decisions? A man who spends his free time trying to make people angry?
Amazing.
My postings to this forum are not to be used as data in any research study without my express written consent.
and they said you had to go to school to teach 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering why nobody has been spamming his Twitter page. After all it's within the rules.
Also, Prof. Myers made a post on his blog about this, sort of. Some of his replies to comments below the post are more intriguing than the actual post.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, someone named Paul G copied my comment and Myers responded by...calling me names?
[/ QUOTE ]
And does so in pseudo kiddie-speak.
He's like, so gnarly, and, like, totally mature to the max.
[/ QUOTE ]
His comments are definitly not what I would call academic.
Also puzzling is how Myers can be so mean and be a 'reverand' at the same time. You heard me, a reverand, as in a minister or priest. That's a bit of a paradox is it not?
Another point: his university bio only mentions that he is a Rev. and a teaching proffessor. I could not find his acamedic credentials to see what Bachelor's, Master's, or even PhD he has. It's not listed, so is he really a Doctor? Has he really studied Scoiology?
I smell something foul, and it's not just his trash talk.
Grizz
"When Chuck Norris can't go on, Petra Majdič perseveres!"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering why nobody has been spamming his Twitter page. After all it's within the rules.
Also, Prof. Myers made a post on his blog about this, sort of. Some of his replies to comments below the post are more intriguing than the actual post.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, someone named Paul G copied my comment and Myers responded by...calling me names?
[/ QUOTE ]
Confirming that he is, in fact, reading these threads - since I have to assume the penguin jokes referenced your avatar.
[/ QUOTE ]
The penguin thing is just part of me, and as I said in my original comment, I've had limited interactions with Twixt before. He just remembers me, I would believe.
However, it does mean something else. Namely, he's reading either the paper's comments section (where I posted my comment with my username) or these boards. I don't know who Paul G is, but it certainly isn't me, and Twixt sure knew who wrote the comment.
I'm surprised any university would be accepting of one of their professors participating in what amounts to a flame war with people responding to their work.
- 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.
[ QUOTE ]
(QR)
Not going to comment on the controversy surrounding any of this (not my place, at all) other than to say the following:
Twixt was a rank amateur compared to Fansy the bard.
[/ QUOTE ]
That translates in my head to this...
"Twixt was a ho"
Did I misinterpret? I dont think so
[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering why nobody has been spamming his Twitter page. After all it's within the rules.
Also, Prof. Myers made a post on his blog about this, sort of. Some of his replies to comments below the post are more intriguing than the actual post.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like how the longer he talks the more he goes from academic-speak into PvP-speak. Definitely a gamer caught playing on university dollar.
Edit: A little bit more about the guy...
His only degree appears to be an SJ, which is "Society of Jesus".
Here's his homepage: http://www.masscomm.loyno.edu/~dmyers/
Check out his seemingly impressive list of publications: http://www.masscomm.loyno.edu/~dmyer...rch_goals.html
This guy's a game addict who holds down a professorship in communications at a private religious university by combining technobabble and psychobabble.
[ QUOTE ]
An aesthetics of anti-aesthetics does not imply a negation of aesthetics. Rather, it is intended to refer to negation itself and an accompanying aesthetics of negation, or, alternatively, an aesthetics of opposition, or, alternatively, an aesthetics of the anti. Bolter and Grusin (2000) have popularized the notion of remediation as fundamental to the function of digital media, and here the emphasis is similar. I wish to consider the origin, nature, and pleasures of digital game representations and the resulting anti-ness of
digital game forms.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.masscomm.loyno.edu/~dmyer..._MYERS_v1a.pdf
Clearly has no background in sociology or anthropology, or he would have noticed the huge errors in research and data collection he's made. (I minored in anthropology and recognized his errors immediately.)
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/ethstmnt.htm
[ QUOTE ]
In research, anthropologists' paramount responsibility is to those they study. When there is a conflict of interest, these individuals must come first. Anthropologists must do everything in their power to protect the physical, social, and psychological welfare and to honor the dignity and privacy of those studied.
a. Where research involves the acquisition of material and information transferred on the assumption of trust between persons, it is axiomatic that the rights, interests, and sensitivities of those studied must be safeguarded.
b. The aims of the investigation should be communicated as well as possible to the informant.
c. Informants have a right to remain anonymous. This right should be respected both where it has been promised explicitly and where no clear understanding to the contrary has been reached. These strictures apply to the collection of data by means of cameras, tape recorders, and other data-gathering devices, as well as to data collected in face-to-face interviews or in participant observation. Those being studied should understand the capacities of such devices; they should be free to reject them if they wish; and if they accept them, the results obtained should be consonant with the informant's right to welfare, dignity and privacy.
(1) Despite every effort being made to preserve anonymity, it should be made clear to informants that such anonymity may be compromised unintentionally.
(2) When professionals or others have used pseudonyms to maintain anonymity, others should respect this decision and the reasons for it by not revealing indiscriminately the true identity of such committees, persons or other data.
d. There should be no exploitation of individual informants for personal gain. Fair return should be given them for all services.
e. There is an obligation to reflect on the foreseeable repercussions of research and publication on the general population being studied.
f. The anticipated consequences of research should be communicated as fully as possible to the individuals and groups likely to be affected.
g. In accordance with the Association's general position on clandestine and secret research, no reports should be provided to sponsors that are not also available to the general public and, where practicable, to the population studied.
h. Every effort should be exerted to cooperate with members of the host society in the planning and execution of research projects.
i. All of the above points should be acted upon in full recognition of the social and cultural pluralism of host societies and the consequent plurality of values, interests and demands in those societies. This diversity complicates choice making in research, but ignoring it leads to irresponsible decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
And from his students:
[ QUOTE ]
Ugh, I just didn't like that he brought this "gaming" into the classroom. His class was a complete waste of time for me. I felt deprived of a real communications course in a school where all of my other courses were wonderful.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He thinks he tries to help you but in actuality, he doesn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
...I forgot what experience means.
[ QUOTE ]
(QR)
Not going to comment on the controversy surrounding any of this (not my place, at all) other than to say the following:
Twixt was a rank amateur compared to Fansy the bard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fansy is, simply put, a master among masters.
Not only did he entertain, but he skewered entire playerbases and rulesets. The MMO world, both PVP- and PVE-oriented, is a better place for having Fansy.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(QR)
Not going to comment on the controversy surrounding any of this (not my place, at all) other than to say the following:
Twixt was a rank amateur compared to Fansy the bard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fansy is, simply put, a master among masters.
Not only did he entertain, but he skewered entire playerbases and rulesets. The MMO world, both PVP- and PVE-oriented, is a better place for having Fansy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I was reading those Fansy pages and even though I have never played EQ i was laughing out loud, while at the same time realizing how infuriating having someone like him in the game would be. I've never seen anything even remotely like that in CoX, and I'm glad. Seen a few Behemoths trained on Portal Corp, but anyone with two functioning synapses can get out of the way of those...
Fansy is like a definition of "antisocial behavior." If Twixt was one-tenth that bad, he has absolutely no one to blame for his vilification than himself... and I feel this is indeed the case.
If you treat other people like that, you're going to catch hell as a result. Fansy seemed to know that and take that in stride, which I can certainly respect more that an entire "scholarly" paper whose subtitle might as well be "QQ."
Strikes me Twixt needs to man up some.
[ QUOTE ]
(QR)
Not going to comment on the controversy surrounding any of this (not my place, at all) other than to say the following:
Twixt was a rank amateur compared to Fansy the bard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Between reading some background to Twixt, then about Fansy the Bard, I swear I have lost IQ points today.
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
those were the useless IQ points if they got lost
[ QUOTE ]
Fansy is like a definition of "antisocial behavior."
[/ QUOTE ]
Having played EQ for a while and having known people in real life who played on Sullon Zek, I think that it's a lot more fair to say that Fansy was flagging problems in the only way the Sony dev team would listen to: making a big enough stink out of it that they had to fix issues or risk losing customers.
Sullon Zek was a 'no rules' PVP server. Anything went. Trains, charm kiting, corpse camping... the whole shebang. The rationale was that players could always 'get help' from allies to self-police griefers.
Of course 80%+ of the server was 'evil team', making it unfeasible or impossible for 'good team' players to actually do that. The people I knew in RL (evils and 1 neutral) who played there were there to grief and nothing more. They were not interested in fair combat of any kind. They wanted to lord their power over weaker players.
Sony's dev team was infamous for refusing to fix problems that didn't affect the bottom line, be they game imbalances, mechanics bugs, or social problems. By making a big enough stink and making life difficult for enough people, Fansy single-handedly did what years of message board ranting could not: He forced Sony to fix game problems.
I didn't know the guy. after reading the article I am left thinking he had an interesting premise but his execution was all wrong. He intentionally altered the results. If he just silently went about doing what he said he was doing he would have gotten a different reaction. Another problem with his research is he only had contact with the few who did get mad enough to start cursing him. What about those that simply left the zone or just didn't get close enough to get droned.
Conducting research by playing the game based on the spirit of the rules is fine. Heroes and not supposed to be chatting it up with Villains, especially in PvP zones. All fine and dandy. Someone who would intentionally attack these villains without goading people about it would be interesting. He would be doing what the zone was designed for. However TP droning people is not within the spirit of the rules. As far as I know it's always been borderline exploit and it doesn't have that skill quality that, by the professors own statement is "The battles are designed to distinguish the most skilled players."
Now there have been times where I've turned a blind eye towards tp droning people. particularly when you have been holed up in your own base. In those instances I would never call such activity skill. If anything it is the drones "skill" defeating the player.
Had he limited himself to actually physically attacking player himself he would have received completely different results as well. for one he would not be very successful. Additionally since he was putting himself at risk he wouldn't have generated the anger he provoked.
Reading the comments to iltat's response, Mr Myers has the whole mechanic behind RV wrong. He keeps repeating that you have to "Kill Villians= Win the Zone". I could go into RV right now and not touch a single person and still win the zone. Taking pillboxes is the only way. Now it might be that in order to take said pillboxes, you might have to dispatch of some opposing forces, but that's just a speedbump in the real primary objective, if that was his true objective all along.
If he really wants to be taken halfway seriously, the facts need to line up. His don't. What he wanted to do was grief, and see the consequences. He played the game long enough to figure out what griefing might mean to others, and then proceeded to play within those "guidelines." Mission accomplished, sir. You learned how best to be ostracized in this game, and then proceeded to do it, on three different servers, no less. GG
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
[ QUOTE ]
Mr Meyers
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhhh, please spell his name right... I don't like to see my good name sullied. 
...I forgot what experience means.
[ QUOTE ]
Had he limited himself to actually physically attacking player himself he would have received completely different results as well. for one he would not be very successful. Additionally since he was putting himself at risk he wouldn't have generated the anger he provoked.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. If his goal was to "win the zone for the heroes," he could just as easily have picked the "I'll actually go up to a villain and attempt to defeat him head on, or with my team (before he was a paraiah)" and gained some respect, and maybe some help in his quest. Instead he chose the low road. He could have rolled up another character that played it straight and compared his experiences (which he probably should have done, to make his research more valid), but he didn't. Instead, he chose to pvp the players behind the characters, as well as the computer-generated pixels in front of him.
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
Fixed...sorry SpaceNut
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
Off-topic: Since you've been over there in EQ, Moo, excuse this stupid question: what in the name of blue blazes is a "loot and scoot"?
sounds like a MMO version of a hit n' run
[ QUOTE ]
Reading the comments to iltat's response, Mr Myers has the whole mechanic behind RV wrong. He keeps repeating that you have to "Kill Villians= Win the Zone". I could go into RV right now and not touch a single person and still win the zone. Taking pillboxes is the only way. Now it might be that in order to take said pillboxes, you might have to dispatch of some opposing forces, but that's just a speedbump in the real primary objective, if that was his true objective all along.
[/ QUOTE ]
Gotta read that better WHF.
Twixt wrote Kill Villains, Win the zone.
not
Kill Villains to win the zone.
or
Kill Villains = Win the zone.
[ QUOTE ]
If he really wants to be taken halfway seriously, the facts need to line up. His don't. What he wanted to do was grief, and see the consequences. He played the game long enough to figure out what griefing might mean to others, and then proceeded to play within those "guidelines." Mission accomplished, sir. You learned how best to be ostracized in this game, and then proceeded to do it, on three different servers, no less. GG
[/ QUOTE ]
So many things are flying by so many heads. Amazing.
A very sad story about War Witch and the neglected kitty. http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219670
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Black_Barrier
Guess it's hard to click while actively trying to keep the drool away from the keyboard...
|
I'm wondering why nobody has been spamming his Twitter page. After all it's within the rules.
Also, Prof. Myers made a post on his blog about this, sort of. Some of his replies to comments below the post are more intriguing than the actual post.