http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/loyola_university_professor_be.html 

Just because he played by the GAME's rules, he got screwed.  It emphasizes how it's not the games that are the problem but the community. 

this is why i plead for a strict "+25yo IQ>110" rule on internet, subject to capital punishment

---

Originally posted by arcdevil
this is why i plead for a strict "+25yo IQ>110" rule on internet, subject to capital punishment

---

Well the article does sort of make a point that it's not just kids acting like this.

Out of all the times someone ninja'd loot, killed a quest mob or grabbed a resource node (ore vein) before you, or killed/ganked you in PVP, can you honestly say you've never once posted a line of chat expressing your distaste for their actions? Even a simple "you jerk" would be exactly the type of behavior the article describes.

he play the game like a total d-bag what did he think would happen.   lol

Originally posted by arcdevil

this is why i plead for a strict "+25yo IQ>110" rule on internet, subject to capital punishment

Um, you might want to read the article closer and really think about the point it is making.  Here's a particular part that actually makes your reaction ironic ***(and sorry, didn't see axehilt had already pointed this out)***:

Contrary to some stereotypes, people that play online computer games like "City of Heroes" aren't adolescent misfits. They tend to be what most would consider mainstream adults.

Research shows the average gamer is 24 years old. Three out of 10 are women. Most are college students or work in information technology departments. Only 2 percent are unemployed.

Right there it is pointing out the messed up thing about the community's reaction = the gamers are actually older and well-educated than we tend to assume...  On average, gamers ARE NOT a bunch of kiddies addicted to Ritalin, or straight up idiots, like your statement implies.  So, it makes their harsh attempts to force him to play their way all the more scary, even though they are actually the ones ignoring the game's intended Heroes vs. Villains PvP design.

This type of forced conformity by one group against another group. or individuals, is called a "cultural hegemony."  Essentially, it's that notion in high school that wearing this brand is cool, or "all people should go to college" type of thinking...... or, *gasp*, that playing a certain way is "the right way" and deviations from that are not only wrong, but they jeopardize the greater group's fun and solidarity.... so resistance must be eliminated at all costs, even if we have to turn things into a witch hunt...

The best part of all of this is to imagine all the people who hated on the guy, all of them who couldn't take him down or get over themselves and see he was just playing as intended.  Now they have to consider that they were pwned by a sociologist in his 50's who made them his guinea pigs, and the game world his laboratory.  In any case, it definitely puts a big fat smile on my face to think of him just kiling ppl over and over again and saying "yay Heroes" and all of that, that's for sure... heh ;^_^

Awesome stuff and thank you for posting the article, Haggus.

bet ya any of those had an IQ over 110. being a college student  is totally overrated this days

Herd mentality for the loss.   Seen it happen time and time again.

If ya can't take getting beaten, don't pvp.   And if ya get beaten, don't whine and bitch.

This is why I don't pvp, anyway.

Originally posted by arcdevil

bet ya any of those had an IQ over 110. being a college student  is totally overrated this days

Yes, actually I do think many of them had an IQ over 110.  Because, you see... it might be shocking to some, but anybody who knows anything about testing a person's Intelligence Quotient is that the results tell you NOTHING about if they have social intelligence, which is what is really at question here.

There are many people with genius level IQ's who act like out and out spoiled brats and are unable to maintain even normal social relationships, and some would argue that is largely *because* of their so-called "intelligence."  Plus, there are serious doubts about what the actual test tells you about their intelligence for that matter.  The general thinking is that your results on a IQ test just tells you how well you take an IQ test.  Does it tell you how you will act in a video game, especially if a player is doing something that seems to conflict with the values of the entire community?  Eh, not so much.....

The test, and those like it, are imprecise tools, though people seem to equate high scores on those types of test with only positive traits and lower scores = negative traits, always.  However, having grown up taking a lot of those brainy classes in school where you have to pass into the program/classes (and sometimes school) via taking a battery of tests... yes, some that are IQ based... I can tell you my own personal experience taught me that a lot of those who score well on tests or get great grades tended to suffer when it came to the "plays well with others" category.

In other words, high IQ doesn't mean these people would make better community members.  It just means they got a high score on an IQ test.  Also, I noticed you didn't respond to the point about age.  Perhaps age is now "overrated" because the article all but rules it out? (;-_-)

and you seem to think IQ> 110 means genius-like intellect. 110 is just slightly above average, people with that IQ are just normal in all regards,mature and balanced. They arent genius that feel frustrated and misunderstood among their peers and develop antisocial personalities, nor moronic preteens babbling idiots that resume everything in KEWL or NOT KEWL.

You have to look at the complete package, IQ> 100 and +25. above/behind that IQ personality flaws arise, and below that age the maturity level weights more than his IQ

Um, no... I don't think an IQ around 110 is "genius."  Maybe I didn't explain it well, but I was pointing out that people with fairly high IQ's (135ish+) are hardly more socially well-adjusted just because their IQ is higher than that of the general population.

I am trying to point out to you that you're mistaken equating IQ with maturity.

Here, not a definitive treatment on the subject (and quite dated), but touches on what I am trying to say.... and maybe you will listen to somebody else since I'm not sure you want to hear what i am saying.

A player with an IQ of 110+ is no more likely to have accepted the behavior of the professor killing villains than a person with an IQ below 90.  If you want to change your point to EQ, I'm cool with that.  But IQ =/= EQ, nor does it tell us how a person will get along with other people.  It's a common misperception that it does.

* Okay, well I see your edit that points to 125+ as the borderline, but my point remains that your INTELLIGENCE Quotient does not automatically tell us how emotionally smart you are...

And, really, I want to get back to this article.  Do you really think, out of that whole server of people playing with this professor, that NONE of them meet your requirements?  If you think that yes, some were 25+ and had IQ's around 110-125, then how do you explain the reaction he received?

These results surprised the professor?   Sure such extremes are surprising,  Especially when those extremes are magnified by those with a candle to burn IE: a proffessor with nothing better to do than work on proving negetive aspects of video games since 1984.   A community is still a "community" even if it's online, you don't just go in and go against it.

Originally posted by paulscott

These results surprised the professor?   Sure such extremes are surprising,  Especially when those extremes are magnified by those with a candle to burn IE: a proffessor with nothing better to do than work on proving negetive aspects of video games since 1984.   A community is still a "community" even if it's online, you don't just go in and go against it.

i lol'd at his 84 thing cause we all know burger time was teh evil...

this has made my day lol

-end of line-

Originally posted by paulscott

These results surprised the professor?   Sure such extremes are surprising,  Especially when those extremes are magnified by those with a candle to burn IE: a proffessor with nothing better to do than work on proving negetive aspects of video games since 1984.   A community is still a "community" even if it's online, you don't just go in and go against it.

The article does not present what he did or has been doing as working only to prove "negative aspects of video games since 1984".  I thought it spelled it out pretty clearly that the results of what he did showed a dark side of HUMAN NATURE exists even in a game.  It doesn't blame the games themselves (though discusses that online threats/anger probably aren't as serious as RL ones.

Maybe this guy really does hate games or something, so if anybody knows anything about his earlier publications, I'd love to hear it.  I will also poke around and look up stuff on him, but he's probably fairly widely known by some already if he's really one of the first who started studying games.

My gut supposes he is more of a pioneer and gamers should appreciate academics like him who are interested in these kinds of things and are formally studying this social ritual that is MMO'ing (and the importance of games to our culture).  You're very correct that he shouldn't find it surprising, though.  It's a bit like walking into a black church wearing KKK garb.  I don't think the "community" will be very welcoming there, Christian or not... ;-P

In fact, what he did was a smart and kinda disturbing way to provide a tangible example of *your* point that "community is a community even if it's online, you don't just go in and go against it."  I mean, it one thing to just say that as a truism and believe it because common sense says so.  This guy went out and just played a game according to THE GAME'S RULES and was able to prove the power of community, and the darker side of when individuals/outsiders disrupt the perceived glue of that community.

I for one think he saw a novel opportunity given the ruleset and the fact that players were ignoring it, and he smartly used that to show humans are a lot more tribal (and intolerant of aberrant behavior) than some of us realize.  And, again, an actual example from the real world (even if based on something from a fantasy world) allows us to do a lot more than just assuming something is true and operating on that kind of blind faith.

I just found a link to the actual academic paper he published about this subject (as if anybody cares... I do though, so suffer~!... lol):

http://www.masscomm.loyno.edu/~dmyers/F99%20classes/Myers_PlayPunishment_031508.doc

Oh, and it is a .doc file, but I guess that's obvious from the address. ;>_<

Well I'm glad that there are people studying MMO communities, I've even suggest to a few psychologists a couple a things to watch for for some interesting studies(IE watch the goon forums for a "lets all play XXX game" thread to see what happens when a large minority group enters a game, shame they missed their chance with EvE online when they first entered).

What's with this study is the guy literally already knew that online communities where as such(IE: 1984 again).   But what he does is are actions that will only draw a negative response, to see just how negative those responses can get, for the easy end result of free-press to look good when it goes up to a funding commitee(after reading the study that was not the intention at all, but I'm still convinced that it's a nice bonus).   I would be seriously surprised(and humbled) if the professor did the same study in reverse, just to see what it takes to be represented as the positive side of the spectrum(he does have a study to show how easy it is to go for the negetive side, allowing for an interesting future paper to compare and contrast how an individual can "grow" in the community).

First off, IQ doesn't mean anything.

I took an officially administered IQ test in elementry school as a qualification exam for advanced level classes, and scored 134.

This was what I was like 6 or 7. Needless to say I got in to the advanced classes.

I can garauntee you if MMORPG's had existed at the time I would not have been a mature player. I was in my early teens when UO came out and I was just as much of a PK asshat as the older more supposedly "mature" people who played that game. If anything I was more mature and respectful then many of the older players because I wouldn't gank noobs.

Whoever said earlier in this thread that online games are all about social IQ and social maturity is 100% correct.

This professor saught to test that, simply by following the rules outlined by the game systems and NOT following the social norms/means of the community he was blacklisted and exiled.

Very telling.

Even in a game like WoW on a PvE server me and some friends were "blacklisted" and were strung out on our realms forums for killing the flight masters in low level questing areas. Why? Because we disrupted the social norms and interfered with non-PvP players game play.

But the game rules allowed us to do so, so we did and it was fun!

I think in the end many people, especially the adults who play MMOs need to lighten up and realize they are just games and that people vary greatly in terms of what they find entertaining and fun.

Originally posted by paulscott

What's with this study is the guy literally already knew that online communities where as such(IE: 1984 again).   But what he does is are actions that will only draw a negative response, to see just how negative those responses can get, for the easy end result of free-press to look good when it goes up to a funding commitee.   I would be seriously surprised(and humbled) if the professor did the same study in reverse, just to see what it takes to be represented as the positive side of the spectrum(he does have a study to show how easy it is to go for the negetive side, allowing for an interesting future paper to compare and contrast how an individual can "grow" in the community).

LMAO... that's a professor for you. ;^_^

Lazy sods find their "money" idea and milk that golden goose for the rest of their careers.  I should've known... heh heh.

I'm still reading through the paper in question and will track other stuff by him down.  I wonder how he'd go about studying what you describe.  By acting like an asshole and doing things that only would draw negative reactions, he was actually using a common technique that sociologist employ called "Garfinkeling," I guess.  Essentially, you rock the boat to show how inconsistent the "rules" social groups perceive as sacrosanct really are.  And it pisses people off because they don't really have logical reasons for hating you, just that you are violating a custom or something that is just not, by tradition, ever violated.

And, think about it.  He only did things that would be perceived as "negative" by a community that refused to play the game according to its actual rules.  He was following the rules and playing the game as designed.  It's only "negative" actions because players had created an arbitrary "non-aggression" pact of sorts.  The cool part of what he did to me was to show that "negative" and "positive" actions are determined by some pretty arbitrary forces that most players don't even notice, and when they do, they don't question it.

All I know is if I was a Hero and saw Twixt saying "yay heroes!" and killing Villains and all of that, I'd probably go and help him... lol.  Yes, death wish for sure and would be like "betraying my family" if it alienated guild mates and fellow gamers.... But, for sheer entertainment value, what he did sounds hilarious (though it sounds like he hated being hated.... which is no big shock either)...

And THAT obvious fact, that he hated being hated will probably be the "no shit, sherlock"-topic of his next academic paper. =D

he not fight tho he was jus teleportin bad guys on top of npc guards ect ect stuff like that,

is also why he wrote they could never kill him cause he was behind the guards lol that in a nut shell is all he did.

Originally posted by MustaphaMond

I just found a link to the actual academic paper he published about this subject (as if anybody cares... I do though, so suffer~!... lol):

http://www.masscomm.loyno.edu/~dmyers/F99%20classes/Myers_PlayPunishment_031508.doc

Oh, and it is a .doc file, but I guess that's obvious from the address. ;>_<

Wow the poor guy got utterly raped by the reporter.   Over the course of a period that long and gameplay as deviant as  he did.   So few RL death "threats" isn't really that bad.   I can safely say that being as disruptive as he was(wasting 5-15 mins of people's time) in real life you'd get far more death threats and would have far incidents with the "enforcement powers".  

If anything it just proves that MMORPG players are considerably more tolerant in game than the average person would be in RL.  It also proves that people playing a game in their free time are also more likely to follow an "unnatural" 'revenge curve'* if they do decide to take action.

*coined by me.