Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Philip Zimbardo - The Psychology of Evil
(parts of the video are probably NSFW)
Dr. Zimbardo is the psychology professor who ran the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. In this interesting TED talk, he comments on what happened in that study, the earlier Milgram experiments, and the Abu-Ghraib incidents. I think his findings about anonymity's effect on aggressive and brutal behaviour is applicable, since online games make everyone anonymous to start with. Having human(oid) avatars for characters may tone down the dehumanizing that happens in a game like Eve, but there is still a need for representing social capital. In PFO, I think the reputation system is meant to do this, but with ways to avoid rep loss and even gain rep by abusing other players, I wonder if it will have much of its intended effect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Keovar's link is extremely relevant to any online game (and many online communities in general). We are all anonymous in character and have no real repercussions for our actions...which is why we get the stereotypical online behaviour so dreaded (which in my opinion has nothing to do with RPing a evil guy...unless that RP is just a cover for the behaviour).
This is actually one of the reasons I argued for the "Forced Anonymity" idea. Counter-intuitively, I think it would actually decrease the feeling of anonymity for most people. Let me explain, many people drift through their MMOs. The MMO designers give us just enough information about other characters (and hence a connection to the players) at a mouse click to fulfill our need for social interaction...without having to actually interact in any meaningful way. I do not even need to ever speak to the other players I get grouped with to run an instance.
The hope was, "Forced Anonymity" would require people to actually interact to get that base need (social interaction). And since the interaction is more onerous (than other MMOs), it increases the value of the connections already made. Hence, pushes people to build, keep, and even defend those relationships, promoting actual settlement-like behaviours versus just in-game mechanics.
Personally, I prefer systems that natively evolve toward desired dynamics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goodness...
Too many various issues here to reply without putting the various parts of my response into categories, for lack of a better term.
The Video:
A very important presentation about the potential relationship between unchecked power/authority and how it can cloud people's sense of right/wrong, leading to behavior that those same people would never think of doing in the normal context of their lives.
Online Anonymity:
I agree wholeheartedly that some people hide behind the safety of their screen and act, again, in ways they wouldn't dream of acting if the person they were abusing were standing in front of them. Look at all the abuse on social media, such as Facebook, with people committing suicide because of these activities.
As a middle school teacher, I've seen e-mails to fellow staff written with an arrogant, bullying, condescending tone that I would hope those same parents would not use in person, simply because the teacher wasn't standing face-to-face with thgem. I made it a rule years ago that if I have more than a line or two to say to a parent in an e-mail, that I call them instead, and thus avoid any possible misunderstanding.
Do these same behaviors appear in MMOs - you bet'cha. For many, the phrase, "It's just a game" isn't a reminder that it's not something to get so wound up over, but rather, a liscence to act like a complete jerk since the person they abuse ins't in front of them. The phrase should be extended to, "It's just a game, but that's a real person behind the pixels."
Playing Evil:
I hope no one is assuming that if you role-play an evil character, that you must have some real-life evil tendencies (more than any average person with an imagination). As community oriented as I am and my past main characters have been, as a past D&D DM, I am also used to providing all the nasties that my players encountered. When I started playing UO, I provided the same opportunities for those I played with by often donning the black hat. Does that mean I harbor deep dark desires to be an ax murderer...not that I'm aware of. I don't even own an ax.
The Effectiveness of Reputation Systems:
Unfortunately, those who want to be jerks in an MMO, are likely going to find some way of turning the constraints against them into some form of twisted notoriety. When interviewed on the topic, the original designers of UO admitted that every attempt they made to punish the worst random PKers flopped. For instance, when they first implemented bounties for murderers, the murderer's friends killed them and they split the bounty...their bad behavior was then making them an even better income than before. When they posted wanted boards in towns to show the murderers with the highest bounties (hoping bounty hunters would go punish them), these yahoos viewed them as leader boards, which spurred them into a competition for who could commit the most murders.
I would say any system made to penalize unwanted game behavior has to be very careful not to somehow reward that behavior (which requires thinking like the yahoos think). Unfortunately, every game system I've seen for this either limits realistic player interaction (you can only attack people in certain areas of the game map or you can't even talk to your enemy *cough-WoW-cough* to control smack-talk). Every other system I've seen has failed.
In my opinion, the only way to stop such unwanted behavior is to remove the player. Sure, the player can make another account, but after two or three whacks of the ban hammer, they might get tired of it and go find another game to terrorize. Yes, this requires GMs to monitor the game, which costs more money, but I've yet to see a game mechanic that effectively dealt with these people without hobbling the game play of the well behaved players.
Sorry for the lengthier than usual post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, his book is on my list of "to read". @Bludd, I think you can abstract the reaction or intention of referencing such work. IE drawing common principles of what reduces empathy and equally what might enhance it, especially without "face time" in online interactions.
It possibly (tenuously) also ties into something GrumpyMel has described very USEFULLY: The difference between the player pvp'ing OOC and pvp'ing IC.
I don't think the intention of the reference was any more than understanding that OOC might be a more competitive and confrontational interaction while IC is much more collaborative/cooperative. One positively encourages empathy the other reduces it, with the payoff possibly in griefing ie denigrating the pixel/graphic target that lies prone on the ground - 'why not give it a good kick in the ribs and help send it on it's way to hell?' ;)
Will have to check that link later.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really don't agree with the what the OP is trying to say either. The connotation that 'omg noone can see me online therefore I'm gonna be a complete a&*@##~' is a fallacy in my opinion. Sure people might not be as nice, but what he is saying, is that if we ALL had the option, we would rape and pillage our way across Golarion.
Sure some disturbed people might wish that, but then there are the Hobs's and Nihimons who are intent on playing helpful, good characters, who i'm sure are just as nice in real life as bluddwolf, greedalox, tigari and other players who are going to play evil characters.
In summary it's a huge generalisation, and think it holds very little relevance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Judging from the reaction it hit a nerve. Which is good.
To be honest it would not have it a nerve at all if Keovar did not compare playing a role in a game to What happened in Abu Ghraib. My brigade had oversite of that prison, although I was not stationed there myself. However, the actions of a few, not usually even associated with us (from a different state) tarnished everything that we had done there.
Now to the Thread Title and description.... No where does it mention griefing as the target of the OP's focus. Quite to the contrary if you consider this:
"In PFO, I think the reputation system is meant to do this, but with ways to avoid Rep loss and even gain Rep by abusing other players, I wonder if it will have much if its intended effect."
Once again we have here the assertion that not just griefing, but all non consensual PVP is abusive and conducted by the psychology of evil men, hiding behind heir avatars. Since the Devs have defined certain activities as "not being griefing" especially when used through the use of the various flags, then Keovar is clearly not clued in on what the intended effect is.
PFO is an Open World PvP MMO. That means that you will not always get to choose wen, where and in what circumstances you will be forced into PVP. This does not mean you are being abused by evil men. This means that you are playing a game that is designed to be competitive versus other human opponents.
To still be questioning this design decision is to either be disconnected from the reality of what the intent is, or to be misplaced in this project entirely.
I stand by my label that this was a care bearish attempt to question the encouragement of PVP that this game intends to promote. The OP is also missing the point that the change in the reputation system, allowing for no loss of Rep, while operating under a flag was in response Paladins not wanting to shift to evil or losing rep by killing evil CHRACTERS or players who have flagged their characters with open PvP flags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gah, Zimbardo. What a grotesque hack--he's literally the opposite of science. "Oh Hai guys I am going to ask privileged children at Standord to pretend they are prison guards/prisoners to find out about prison guards/prisoners. Oh wait wut this isn't naturalistic empirical work and is worthless (plus unethical)? Oh then really wut I was doing was exposing evil."
I mean seriously, this guy has been flogging this nonsense for decades, making money out of telling people anecdotes they want to hear ("Who know what eveil lurks in the hearts of men? Zimbardo knows!").
You don't get to pick your data arbitrarily in science. You do pick your data, collection method, analytical methods, etc., but it can't be just random, arbitrary cherry-picking: "Humans are fundamentally evil...umm...let me see...right there, Abu Ghraib!" What is the scientifically plausible reason for taking detention facility A, which used EIT and had amateur custodians who violated civil rights of detainees as data, but NOT taking detention facility B, which used coffee and skittles (literally) for interrogations? There could be a reason, but absent a well articulated data selection rationale, I'm left with "cherry-picking to get confirmatory evidence."
Ultimately Zimbardo's work is worthless in a scientific sense because he makes unsupported generalizable claims. If he wanted to pick out Abu Ghraib and do qualitative analysis, to understand with precision what happened there so as to gain portable insights, ok great. But don't cherry pick one example, ignore all the counter-examples, generalize broadly, and then pretend that's science.
Anyways, with regard to PFO, if we wanted to think through anonymous (or at least mediated) on-line behavior:
1) We can't compare unlike things. Real life social interactions that have life-stakes are fundamentally unlike online interactions. Getting shot and killed in Day Z doesn't tell you beans about how people would interact in civil crisis because it's a friggin' computer game and no one actually gets hurt.
2) If we wanted to systematically work through online interactions, we can't arrive at a conclusion and then work backwards to find confirmatory data: "I'm pretty sure people will be jerks online. Hey, I'm remembering the times when people were jerks on-line, but conveniently forgetting the times they weren't." We'd actually have to gather data in a naturalistic way, and be just as willing to look at cases where on-line interactions are highly social, or a little social, or where people act one way sometimes, and other way other times, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gah, Zimbardo. What a grotesque hack--he's literally the opposite of science. "Oh Hai guys I am going to ask privileged children at Standord to pretend they are prison guards/prisoners to find out about prison guards/prisoners. Oh wait wut this isn't naturalistic empirical work and is worthless (plus unethical)? Oh then really wut I was doing was exposing evil."
I mean seriously, this guy has been flogging this nonsense for decades, making money out of telling people anecdotes they want to hear ("Who know what eveil lurks in the hearts of men? Zimbardo knows!").
You don't get to pick your data arbitrarily in science. You do pick your data, collection method, analytical methods, etc., but it can't be just random, arbitrary cherry-picking: "Humans are fundamentally evil...umm...let me see...right there, Abu Ghraib!" What is the scientifically plausible reason for taking detention facility A, which used EIT and had amateur custodians who violated civil rights of detainees as data, but NOT taking detention facility B, which used coffee and skittles (literally) for interrogations? There could be a reason, but absent a well articulated data selection rationale, I'm left with "cherry-picking to get confirmatory evidence."
Ultimately Zimbardo's work is worthless in a scientific sense because he makes unsupported generalizable claims. If he wanted to pick out Abu Ghraib and do qualitative analysis, to understand with precision what happened there so as to gain portable insights, ok great. But don't cherry pick one example, ignore all the counter-examples, generalize broadly, and then pretend that's science.
Anyways, with regard to PFO, if we wanted to think through anonymous (or at least mediated) on-line behavior:
1) We can't compare unlike things. Real life social interactions that have life-stakes are fundamentally unlike online interactions. Getting shot and killed in Day Z doesn't tell you beans about how people would interact in civil crisis because it's a friggin' computer...
The point is real though. The less you associate the set of pixels on your screen with another actual person, the less likely you are to be concerned with their emotional well-being or be considerate of them in any way.
The internet is rife with this, most of the lovely denizens of 4chan rarely treat others in real life with quite the same 'venom'.
The question of how to combat that in PFO is, I would have thought, a fair one. The tricky bit is where to draw the lines on unacceptable behaviour, especially when you are encouraging half your playerbase to take an 'evil' role.
As someone intending to play the bad guys, this is something I'm mindful of. And I think it's fair for people to be concerned. As to how effective a measure reputation will prove to be, until you trial it in-game I suggest it's pointless to worry overmuch.
What is more likely to curtail it however is a strong community who is, for the most part, united against griefing in general.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
..
1) We can't compare unlike things. Real life social interactions that have life-stakes are fundamentally unlike online interactions. Getting shot and killed in Day Z doesn't tell you beans about how people would interact in civil crisis because it's a friggin' computer...
Our favorite pastime medium is as real as any other real thing, such as it is. We do interact in it, and our behaviors are real in it. Our emotions are as valid in response to digitized behavior as they are to corporeal, and the emotional consequences of behavior are also real.
It is inadequate to avoid thinking about it, and conversing over, and coming to realizations about it whether it is a computer game or some other environment. Whether Zimbardo is a quack is irrelevant: human emotional response to behavioral interaction is relevant and real. Your own professional interests are directly impacted.
It would be irresponsible to not consider the ramifications.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
I disagree... It is not real social interaction, it is artificial. It has no ramifications unless the person on the losing end is too wrapped up with in-game consequences. If that is the case, then they are not emotionally capable of playing in a competitive MMO.
Was your response to the OP real or not?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My response to the OP was based on the attempt to connect a real world event to the psychology of players in a fictitious game. One has no relevance to the the other.
I think that the whole, we are hiding behind an avatar so we gravitate to playing like jerks is bunk. Players play the way they do because they understand there are no real consequences in a game. Players who can't see that the events in a game are just that, events in a game, are simply sore losers and should not submit themselves to the emotional distress caused by competition.
But instead of having the maturity of just walking away, they want to change the game experience for everyone else to match what they want. This game has been advertised as an Open World PVP Sand Box MMO. To state disagreement in that design decision is to say, I don't want you to develop the game you want, but the one I want.
This is no minor tweak in the design that is being asked for, it is a complete overhaul of what the game is advertised to be. But, instead of coming out and admitting that desire, the OP is trying to hide behind some thesis that the rest of us are at fault and psychologically twisted, for wanting to play a character that plays within the system and intentions of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to agree with Bluddwolf and Mbando. The crusade against griefing must not blind us to the fact that the foundational principle of Pathfinder Online will be competition. If we worried about the 'emotional well-being' of everyone in everything we did there'd be no Super Bowl, no March Madness. And saying behaviour can be compared to behaviour is tantamount to saying that all behaviour can be compared. That's not the case. To have scientific validity the situations have to be the same. The Stanford prison experiment could also be used as a prime example of the Guinea Pig Effect. I'm not for griefing at all but the game's going to have human interaction in the form of competition as it's chief form of content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My response to the OP was based on the attempt to connect a real world event to the psychology of players in a fictitious game. One has no relevance to the the other...
I wasn't asking what your response was based on: I can read pretty well and understood your point. My question was whether the emotional reaction you expressed so eloquently was real or ruse? If you reacted emotionally, and the emotion behind your reaction was real and not fake (I presume it was real, btw) then you experienced a real effect in your real life and it was caused by something expressed in an online medium.
Insofar as it is digital and over the internet it is still real, and your emotional reaction was real. That girl who killed herself because of online bullying was real. It has domain in reality.
Whether people need to live in a reality-construct where online behavior is somehow unreal then I have to figure that their psychology has some reason to believe it that way. Therefore I'll just drop it, but I do so with great regret because there are real consequences to human behavior and we should each accept responsibility for our actions online every bit as much as we do in meatspace.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I basically feel the same way Bludd and Mbando do as well. The OP is in the wrong. Not just the link, but as Bludd described the hidden intention as well. And yes I do realize there are people behind the pixels. I promise I wont be griefing, but I will be killing and looting becuase it is a game. But I certainly have no desire to be the kid with the magnifying glass on an ant. I am not here to torture PvE players, but if PvE players are this worried about PvP, then maybe Bludd's right and these people (for thier own emotional well being) should move on. If they have this much trouble sorting fiction from reality, then its really for the best.
You guys probably wouldnt want to hear what I think of people in real life. But lets just say, if humanism claims that man is basically good with a tendancy to do evil, my beliefs are the exact opposite. And its only through proper guidance (good moral upbinging/whatever religion) that people become decent human beings. The anonymous nature of the internet or laws of society have nothing to do with it. If someone was never taught any better, never found religion, or basically choose to be evil, then evil is what they become law be damned. Because even law abiding evil citizens will abandon the law the second either an oppertunity to great to pass up presents itself, or the second they think they can get away with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... The crusade against griefing must not blind us to the fact that the foundational principle of Pathfinder Online will be competition...
I PvP. I'm not crusading against competition. I am attempting to generate a spontaneous response in those reading to accept responsibility for our part in online human interaction. Avoid harming the innocent if possible. Confine your competition to those who intend to compete, however well or poorly. Be responsible in your behavior of your own free will, by your own choice, as an expression of conscious liberty.
It is only through responsibility that liberty is possible. If we think that our interactions online are not real, have no consequences, no responsibilities we cannot find real liberty but only irresponsibility.
If you understand that by saying something that angers you here I could prove to an impartial observer that your response was triggered by what I said, then you recognize that is as real as anything gets. So if you can accept that as fact, as real, then understand that what each of us does online can have real consequences in the lives of others.
So I recommend that we each should behave responsibly. Be kind. Nurture our own civilization.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On this same subject, we also have the Online Disinhibition Effect.
Because even law abiding evil citizens will abandon the law the second either an oppertunity to great to pass up presents itself, or the second they think they can get away with it.
That's sort of the point. Internet anonymity gives people the feeling that they can get away with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In addition to what I already said, Id like to clarify that I dont believe all criminal acts equate to evil. It also deends on the intent of the person, as well as the soundness of the law. I couldnt convict a man of being evil because he stole bread to feed his family. Just like I cant back an evil law that punishes or blocks peoples rights and freedoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My response to the OP was based on the attempt to connect a real world event to the psychology of players in a fictitious game. One has no relevance to the the other.
I think that the whole, we are hiding behind an avatar so we gravitate to playing like jerks is bunk. Players play the way they do because they understand there are no real consequences in a game. Players who can't see that the events in a game are just that, events in a game, are simply sore losers and should not submit themselves to the emotional distress caused by competition.
But instead of having the maturity of just walking away, they want to change the game experience for everyone else to match what they want. This game has been advertised as an Open World PVP Sand Box MMO. To state disagreement in that design decision is to say, I don't want you to develop the game you want, but the one I want.
This is no minor tweak in the design that is being asked for, it is a complete overhaul of what the game is advertised to be. But, instead of coming out and admitting that desire, the OP is trying to hide behind some thesis that the rest of us are at fault and psychologically twisted, for wanting to play a character that plays within the system and intentions of the game.
Well I don't know if I would tell a person giving an opinion to 'just walk away'. However it's true many posters continue to campaign for a game that doesn't exist- a Pathfinder themed wax museum MMO. And it's not just the desire to eliminate open world pvp- witness the recent thread on dungeons. A lot of smart people are going on about dungeon design, number of people, instanced or not, etc. Fine. But, Dude-there's not going to be that many themepark dungeons. The content is, day one, me and my peeps go out, learn some skills, start exploiting resources, build a couple hideouts, look for a spot to start a watchtower. We butt heads with some bozos doing the same thing. Now we got a beef. How we handle that is the content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On this same subject, we also have the Online Disinhibition Effect.
Because even law abiding evil citizens will abandon the law the second either an oppertunity to great to pass up presents itself, or the second they think they can get away with it.That's sort of the point. Internet anonymity gives people the feeling that they can get away with it.
No its not.....
You took me out of context. If you take what I said in context the person needs to be evil (in most cases) to begin with. The anonymity is just a convinience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In addition to what I already said, Id like to clarify that I dont believe all criminal acts equate to evil. It also deends on the intent of the person, as well as the soundness of the law. I couldnt convict a man of being evil because he stole bread to feed his family. Just like I cant back an evil law that punishes or blocks peoples rights and freedoms.
Yes Law and Good are different things.
Laws are guidelines for those who behave responsibly and boundaries restricting those who would otherwise behave irresponsibly. They also delegate a culture's authority to dispassionately eliminate behaviors that it deems harmful.
Good intentions do not change harmful effects, beyond weighting the compassion of the court deciding between punishments.
Good and Evil is a whole different idealist spectrum.
Dotting for later.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On this same subject, we also have the Online Disinhibition Effect.
Because even law abiding evil citizens will abandon the law the second either an oppertunity to great to pass up presents itself, or the second they think they can get away with it.That's sort of the point. Internet anonymity gives people the feeling that they can get away with it.No its not.....
You took me out of context. If you take what I said in context the person needs to be evil (in most cases) to begin with. The anonymity is just a convinience.
It's not that out of context. Your preceeding statement was to the effect that people naturally default to evil and must be trained to behave otherwise.
But lets just say, if humanism claims that man is basically good with a tendancy to do evil, my beliefs are the exact opposite. And its only through proper guidance (good moral upbinging/whatever religion) that people become decent human beings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are only 3 legit reasons that I can think of why we NEED (RP is not a NEED its a desire) anonymity on the internet. 1) To avoid the abuse of someoes online persona and to protect their personal privacy (ex: that politician that got exposed and ridiculed because she plays WoW). 2) To avoid ID theft. 3) Law enforcement use. (think child predators and what not)
Any other purpose is either trivial (RP) or malicious (acting like an ass or becoming the cause of the 3 legit reasons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... The crusade against griefing must not blind us to the fact that the foundational principle of Pathfinder Online will be competition...I PvP. I'm not crusading against competition. I am attempting to generate a spontaneous response in those reading to accept responsibility for our part in online human interaction. Avoid harming the innocent if possible. Confine your competition to those who intend to compete, however well or poorly. Be responsible in your behavior of your own free will, by your own choice, as an expression of conscious liberty.
It is only through responsibility that liberty is possible. If we think that our interactions online are not real, have no consequences, no responsibilities we cannot find real liberty but only irresponsibility.
If you understand that by saying something that angers you here I could prove to an impartial observer that your response was triggered by what I said, then you recognize that is as real as anything gets. So if you can accept that as fact, as real, then understand that what each of us does online can have real consequences in the lives of others.
So I recommend that we each should behave responsibly. Be kind. Nurture our own civilization.
I think your illustrating my point here, Being. Your parameters for judging the effects of an online, open world pvp, sandbox GAME are a little wide, a little deep. The competition/satisfaction/exaltation/disappointment/frustration axis we're talking about here are along the lines of, say, fantasy football. Not sure what this has to do with actually harming the innocent, personal liberty or the downfall of civilisation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wasn't asking what your response was based on: I can read pretty well and understood your point. My question was whether the emotional reaction you expressed so eloquently was real or ruse? If you reacted emotionally, and the emotion behind your reaction was real and not fake (I presume it was real, btw) then you experienced a real effect in your real life and it was caused by something expressed in an online medium.
Insofar as it is digital and over the internet it is still real, and your emotional reaction was real. That girl who killed herself because of online bullying was real. It has domain in reality.
Whether people need to live in a reality-construct where online behavior is somehow unreal then I have to figure that their psychology has some reason to believe it that way. Therefore I'll just drop it, but I do so with great regret because there are real consequences to human behavior and we should each accept responsibility for our actions online every bit as much as we do in meatspace.
Wow, Being, I'm very surprised you have missed the point. I believe you are over thinking this.
The first bold line:
I reacted to a real world connection, not something that could happen or did happen to a character in a game. The premise behind the link and the allegation is that we hide behind an avatar and carry out our psycological desire to do evil things that can be compared to real world evil, as if the game has real and equivelent consequences.
Your second sentence (bold):
Again, that girl was sufering real world ridicule as a person. She was not responding to what a character in a video game experienced.
I'm astounded that you continue to miss this very clear differentiation.
In your other post you wrote this:
Avoid harming the innocent if possible. Confine your competition to those who intend to compete, however well or poorly.
By entering an Open World PVP MMO, you have given tacit approval to being forced to participate in it.
There are a variety of ways in which a player can avoid all PVP, but they must be proactive in doing so. That is not the same thing as forcing everyone else or the game to do soemhting that the game was not designed or intended to be.
If you want no non-consensual PVP, never join a settlement. Never venture out of the NPC hexes. Never enter into any form of competetive interaction with another player, including trade, because that too is competetive.
A player can do all of these things if they choose to, but then why not just play a single player or non PVP MMO game?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My response to the OP was based on the attempt to connect a real world event to the psychology of players in a fictitious game. One has no relevance to the the other.
I think that the whole, we are hiding behind an avatar so we gravitate to playing like jerks is bunk. Players play the way they do because they understand there are no real consequences in a game. Players who can't see that the events in a game are just that, events in a game, are simply sore losers and should not submit themselves to the emotional distress caused by competition.
But instead of having the maturity of just walking away, they want to change the game experience for everyone else to match what they want. This game has been advertised as an Open World PVP Sand Box MMO. To state disagreement in that design decision is to say, I don't want you to develop the game you want, but the one I want.
This is no minor tweak in the design that is being asked for, it is a complete overhaul of what the game is advertised to be. But, instead of coming out and admitting that desire, the OP is trying to hide behind some thesis that the rest of us are at fault and psychologically twisted, for wanting to play a character that plays within the system and intentions of the game.
I think you're right Bluddwold, concerning a like-like comparison between those scenarios and online games: It's tenuous. But taking a higher perspective, I think in both the behavior described by Zimbado (I'm going on memory before actually watching that link atm) and the curious phenomenon of "online fkwd" behavior in multiplayer games, there's a similarity: The primitive aspects of our brains demonstrated and what we might call malicious intentions and lack of performing our moral duty in our actions. No need to dwell further on such a comparison, it's enough to know people can act in very primitive ways given certain conditions that trigger this side of their personality. Eg our parents sometimes irk us in disproportionately successful ways, but then they've had our whole lives to practice at it!
To come back to games, I finally found this excellent article that is perhaps a better jumping off point for discussion:
Fixing Online Gaming Idiocy: A Psychological Approach
This personally interested me:
Telling bar patrons that they can't have more alcohol because it is closing time can be an ugly situation. Their solution: many bar tenders give first call about an hour before they close and second call about 15-20 minutes before they close.
This advance warning before last call minimizes the potentially socially difficult (and even dangerous) situation of surprising drunk people with the news that the party is over. Bartenders could do many other things -- call the cops, refuse to serve the annoying patron in the future, etc., but they risk losing the customer if they go to those extremes.
As I'd been telling my brother and his wife that if my nephews are playing a video-game, they should be given two advance warnings of stopping the game... little realising the comparison to drunks & young children turns up trumps again (ref: Dylan Moran)!
League of legends is infamous for bad community which also might affect sales: Modifying player behavior in League of Legends using positive reinforcement
- Honor System (+)
- Tribunal System (-)
Short aside relating to the op, anyone heard of the recent film: 'Compliance'? It is based on a real event and shows certain conditions (lack of moral and epistemic authority aka "common sense") allowing base/crude spiral of debased behavior to occur.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Dario
Yes, but my whole point is that the people who are going to abuse it are already malicious. Anonymity is not an invitation to good people to be evil, otheriwise they were never truly good people.
Back on topic. I sidetracked a bit, but the real discussion is about how people act in a game. And I still stand with Bludd. I am no saint, but Id never hurt a fly and I consider myself a good person. I give to charity, I help out people in my community, I turn the other cheek, and pray for others (even those that are my enemies or I have no great love for). Sometimes my blood gets up, and I say too much, which I ask foriveness for later. But in game I will RP as a bandit, and I will kill and loot you (not grief you til you /ragequit). Because I see it as just a game.
Honestly, I could even see the opposite being true. Im sure somewhere out there, there is a mafia kingpin or a druglord that RPs in some MMO as a warrior of virtue and light. Because its just a game, it doesnt necessarily reflect who is really is. As a kid I am sure many of us dreamed of being the valiant knight that slayed the dragon and rescued the princess. Why cant a Yakuza lie out this dream online?
I guess I have something vested in this, because as a beleiver, I have constantly had to put up with other christians saying ridiculous things like rock n roll is the devils music, and playing D&D is practically consorting with satan. So I am very much opposed to anything that suggests that a game or past time or a style of play essentially equates to evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Wow, Being, I'm very surprised you have missed the point. I believe you are over thinking this.
I don't think I missed your point, Bludd, but if I have I wouldn't know I missed it. What you appear to be overlooking is that I was making a point.
I reacted to a real world connection, not something that could happen or did happen to a character in a game.
I understood that, Bluddwolf. Yet what you read in an online medium triggered a real reaction in you that should be recognized, and what words can do here actions online with player characters can do in a game. The difference between words written online and ingame character actions online is really trivial when considering human social interaction. If what happens online has real world effects then what happens online is also real. If they weren't they could not have an effect on your reality.
The premise behind the link and the allegation is that we hide behind an avatar and carry out our psycological desire to do evil things that can be compared to real world evil, as if the game has real and equivelent consequences.
Right, and I think that 'explanation' misses the mark, and is only a contributing characteristic. What may be more intrinsic as a cause is my point: so long as our online interactive behaviors assume there is no consequence to what we do, online behavior will tend to be irresponsible. It is 'only a game' if there aren't other real people affected by our interactions. If I am soloplaying skyrim it is only a game. If I am playing an MMO then things I say and do can have real consequences for some of the people playing in the same virtual environment. It is no longer 'only a game', it is become social media.
By entering an Open World PVP MMO, you have given tacit approval to being forced to...
I concede your point, but urge that if you engage with other human beings you have a social responsibility, and should consider the possible effects on their lives triggered by the things your interactions say.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm afraid that the only thing I have to offer to this conversation is my own experience. Years ago I was an actor and the times when I felt that I was at the top of my game was when I played a villain. But, I played the villain within the context of the story line of the play. I can remember many times when I or another actor would hit that sweet spot and the energy of the entire cast leaped to a new level. Those were some of the most satisfying events I have ever experienced. But early on there were decisions I made on stage that made another actor look stupid. Not the character the actor was playing, but the actor, the person. Those choices I regret.
At the end of each day I have to ask myself "Have I made choices today that brought me closer to the truths and ideals I value in every area off my life, whether that be in the checkout line, in traffic, or on-line? Or have I made choices that take me farther away from those truths? It is inevitable that I will face players who may not have had enough life experience to be able to maintain a consistent personal code of ethics. I am powerless over that fact. What I can do, as a player, is to strive for those moments when my craft as a player within the context of the game can be good enough that it empowers others to play their best.
Any fool can have fun breaking the rules; someone I would want to follow will show me how to have fun within them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I concede your point, but urge that if you engage with other human beings you have a social responsibility, and should consider the possible...
By entering an Open World PVP MMO, you have given tacit approval to being forced to...
Again, I will say, not to you Being but to those that don't get it...
If you can not separate, emotionally, what happens in a video game from your real life you might want to consider passing a competetive MMO by.
The disconnect that I believe you are still having Being is that I reacted in real life to a comment that was made over this medium about real life.
If someone said my character is psycologically distrurbed or behaves in such a manner because their is anonminity in that he can hide from his actions when not flagged for PVP. That is judging a character for what that character is doing. I have no issue with that at all. Yes, I know I'm controlling the character, but I'm controlling the character as I see he would be role played.
The key is to separate game from emotion, which should be easy because the game has no consequences (certainly not real ones).
I lost a ship the other day in PVP in EVE Online. I was caught by surpise because I had grown complacent, and did not expect that my theft would lead to pvp. He warped in, in a Fleet Issue Stabber, pvp fit - tackler, and my destroyer was fit for ninja loot - salvaging. I was going to lose my ship, and there was nothing that i could do about it. I just waited and spammed my warp to station, so that my Pod would escape before getting locked.
I had a pretty long chat with the guy in local chat. I thanked him for reminding me not to be stupid. We both left the experience satisfied. Sure, I lost a ship, but I was willing to lose it.... otherwise, why play the game?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being
Are we still talking about playing out real world desires to be evil through your avatar and playing with malicious intent? Or are we talking about consequences of competitive play?
If the first, then I still couldnt disagree more. Most people arent griefers, most just treat it as a game/
If the second, yes their are real world consequences, but the same is true with football. There will always be a loser, and if that person or team isnt mature enough to accept defeat then maybe they are the ones with a psychological problem. If someones life rises to heaven or sinks to the depth of the sea based on what happens in a video game, they should probably at the very least move on, and possibly seek some counciling if its severe enough. Did you know there are apparently some places in the EU that specialize in MMO addiction? So I dont think this idea is too far fethced or insinsitive.
The only other alternative is that we all play for "fun" but never keep score or have winners or losers.
When you are defeated in a competitive game, here are appropriate responses:
1. Accept defeat and pick yourself up off the ground.
2. Congratulate the enemy (he must be doing something right)
3. Learn from it.
4. Train harder.
5. Respect and dont underestimate your rival.
6. Minimize your risks, and maximize your rewards.
7. Go forth and defeat your rival
8. Believe that you will (a cant do attitude will never win)
Unappropriate responses to defeat:
1. Getting upset
2. Declaring the winners cheaters, or demanding exceptions
3. Complaining to officials or devs that X isnt fair or needs to be changed
4. Demanding the game be something that its not.
5. Not learning from the defeat.
6. Overly paranoid fear of the enemy (they can be killed as easily as you)
7. Becoming possesed by over-the-top vengeance (get your revenge and move on dont dwell on it, dont let it poison you)
8. Being unprepared.
9. Having a cant do attitude.
10. /ragequiting
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In PFO, I think the reputation system is meant to do this, but with ways to avoid rep loss and even gain rep by abusing other players, I wonder if it will have much of its intended effect.
What you are not understanding is that the intended effect is not what you want it to be. The intended effect is to promote PVP.
The entire flag system was set up to address two concerns: One for players like me, wanting to be Chaotic Neutral without being gimped for playing that way. The second group were the Lawful Good enforcers who did not want to shift to Chaootic Evil and have low Reputation because they wanted to protect the innocent.
GW devised a system where it severely curtails / punishes griefing, and supports opposing play styles at the same time. What it does not do, is punish all PVP to the point that players are discouraged from doing it at all.
If the Devs had decided that Reputation had nothing to do with settlement / character advancement, and that either a very positive or very negative rep were equal, depending on what type of setlement we were attached to, then I would say ok to your idea (quoted above),but they are not.
You in your quote are complaining that there is an encouragement for PVP. Otherwise you would not have brought up the no loss or even gain of Rep. You also stated that such a systme is still abusing other players. You do not mention griefing, you relate PVP in general as abuse.
If you feel that way, then I say again.. An Open World PVP game may not be for you. I firmly believe that GW has enough measures against griefing and has struck a great balance to both encourage PVP and not make it too painful for any invloved.
IF PVP is always, only when I planned it, the game is boring. I'm not investing in a controlled environment, that is the kind of Theme Park MMO crap I'm sick of.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've said what I had to say. I think I understood your preference to disconnect your virtual actions from real consequences. By that same token it is at best questionable that you took offense at the OP and his link. According to your stated values it wasn't his responsibility to consider how it might affect you, it was your responsibility to take it well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've said what I had to say. I think I understood your preference to disconnect your virtual actions from real consequences. By that same token it is at best questionable that you took offense at the OP and his link. According to your stated values it wasn't his responsibility to consider how it might affect you, it was your responsibility to take it well.
I've made my point as well. Hopefully people will stop trying to make judgements about the people behind the character or stop trying to equate all forms of non consensual PvP to behavior that has to be punished, especially in an Open World PvP MMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, the way I see it, is the OP has a point. BUT that point really doesn't apply to the people on this forum. What I mean is I've encountered people, both online and in RL that I can only mark as evil people. In RL I can spot them within 5 minutes of meeting them, usually. Online it can take longer, but their true colors eventually shine through. These people aren't the type to post logical coherent responses in threads like we engage in here, they can usually be found making someone's life difficult whether its online or in RL. I'm certainly not suggesting that I'm a paragon of goodness. Nor that I can tell unerringly, people's true nature just by chatting with them for a few minutes. But honestly I know we've all met people like who I'm talking about.
That's my take anyway, to borrow a line from GrumpyMel, YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are all anonymous in character and have no real repercussions for our actions...
I would submit that not all of us are really anonymous. There are some who consistently post under the same name, and even have that tied to other social media sites that reveal personal information.
What effect might this have on our online behavior?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are all anonymous in character and have no real repercussions for our actions...I would submit that not all of us are really anonymous. There are some who consistently post under the same name, and even have that tied to other social media sites that reveal personal information.
What effect might this have on our online behavior?
If you are any example, it tends to make us more diplomatic and socially sensitive...a positive imo. Of course, I freely admit, to me, the goal of fostering community trumps that of tolerating sociopathic behaviour. I do not agree that the former must be mutually exclusive to fun, challenge, and/or PvP. I do understand others have different priorities that are just as worthy as my own...as far as opinions go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I posted before going to bed and come back to far more replies than I was expecting, but to be clear, I was not trying to trivialize what happened in Abu Ghraib by saying it was the same as anything in an online game, I just stated what the video was about. Seeing that the incident is in there plus a NSFW warning may have made some people choose not to watch, and that's okay.
Of the three items I mentioned, the Stanford Prison Experiment was probably the most similar in that the participants went into the situation knowing they were playing a role. The Milgram experiment had the element of not seeing the face of the person being 'harmed'.
Mbando had the beginning of a fair point about the SPE's applicability to real-life situations and ethics, but the intentional misspelling meant to mock Zimbardo made me decide to stop reading. There's no need for that, and real-world applicability wasn't the point here anyway.
I don't know what got removed, but the point was to discuss how anonymity of the self and others disinhibits people, because that applies online. If there were personal attacks in the removed posts, that would illustrate the point rather well, but I'd rather people respect the messageboard's rules.
Is it a game?
It's a SERVICE. Not a game. It's a WORLD. Not a game. It's a COMMUNITY. Not a game. Anyone who says, "it's just a game" is missing the point.
Jeff Kesselman's Theorem
A MUD universe is all about psychology. After all, there IS no physicality. It's all psych and group dynamics.
Psychological disinhibition
People act like jerks more easily online, because anonymity is intoxicating. It is easier to objectify other people and therefore to treat them badly. The only way to combat this is to get them to empathize more with other players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The removed post was not a personal attack, but I believe it was a repost if the link that is still on the tread, which contains pretty vulgar language.
As for your response, I'll accept your word that you were not trivializing what happened at Abu Ghraib. I did not see it as trivializing it, I saw it as an attempt to equate online behavior to real world behavior, which leads to an overblown perception of what should be he impact of an online MMO.
The question still remains, what was the intent of posting this thread to begin with? What behavior or game system are you looking to change?