Researcher Trolls MMO, Surprised When Players Hate Him 895
D1gital_Prob3 writes with this excerpt from a story about David Myers, a Loyola professor who spent some time studying superhero MMO City of Heroes/Villains:
"... he aimed the pointer at his opponent, the virtual comic book villain 'Syphris.' Myers, 55, flicked the buttons on his mouse and magically transported his opponent to the front of a cartoon robot execution squad. In an instant, the squad pulverized the player. Syphris fired an instant message at Myers moments later. 'If you kill me one more time I will come and kill you for real and I am not kidding.' ... As part of his experiment, Myers decided to play the game by the designers' rules — disregarding any customs set by the players. His character soon became very unpopular. At first, players tried to beat him in the game to make him quit. Myers was too skilled to be run off, however. They then made him an outcast, a World Wide Web pariah that the creator of Syphris — along with hundreds of other faceless gamers — detested."
Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
So, a researcher enters a foreign land. He obeys the strict letter of the law, but ignores the customs and rules of polite behavior. Even more, he specifically sets out to break those customs and rules of polite society. The natives push back, telling him that he is being rude. He continues to break the customs and rules of polite society, offending large numbers of people on a regular basis. The natives seek every legal avenue and socially acceptable method to drive him away. He continues to offend. Some natives start pushing what is social acceptable, and skirting the edges of legality.
Wow, color me surprised. Those nasty natives! How dare they try to keep you down!
Perhaps as followup research he can start referring to people of other ethnicity using racial slurs.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
I like your suggestion:
because it is entirely ridiculous and indicative of what the users (how can you call them players, when they ignore the intent of the game) are doing. Basically, he played the game (actually fighting villains) and was hated for it. Not because he was being vile or crude (indeed, completely contrary to what you suggest) but by violating game defeating "customs." Why the hell have a city full of heroes and villains, if the villains and heroes just idly chat and don't actually fight each other?
And when someone does play the game, the natives get pissy as all get out. Sounds like a bunch of crybabies inhabit those games if you ask me.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
The attitude of the CoH community sounds a lot like the Saberists from JK2. They had all these 'rules' for dueling online and would clog up the deathmatch servers, vote kicking anyone that didn't play their way. Rather than actually play the game, they'd just chit chat in the corner and have duels between the players. Never mind the fact that in deathmatch mode there was a duel key that prevented the agreeing duelists from being harmed by outside forces, the Saberists preferred to just completely overtake servers and ruin game after game with their forced upon "honor" (boy I wish I was making that up). Sure you could try and find a different server, but eventually they had run off everyone else and trying to get a real game going was nigh impossible. Anyone that just wanted to play JK2 (and JK: Academy later on) straight and have a good time was hailed as a griefer, a troll and turned into a pariah.
Is what Myers did wrong? Absolutely not, he was playing as any newcomer would. I know my immediate impression would be: "An arena where the forces of good and evil do battle in order to see who's the best? Sounds like a blast! Wait, all they do is talk to each other and have their robots fight? What the fuck?"
Groups such as the CoH arena community, and the Saberists community before them deserve to be screwed with. While community rules for fair play can indeed be an important part of a game (for instance, acknowledging a certain mechanic is broken and not using it until it's fixed just out of good sportsmanship), when they're twisted around as to essentially ruin the intent of the game, then they've gone too far.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:3, Funny)
Didn't start with Jedi Outcast.
People'd get so pissed in Dark Forces: Jedi Knight when you'd force pull their weapon away then lightsaber them to death before they could do anything. Like, boot-you-from-the-server pissed. WTF? Play in a non-force-powers game then, ya jerks!
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically just find a group of people that play the way you want to or be prepared to be disliked. In games like Jedi Knight especially it's easy to find a server that does what you want. There's servers that emphasize teamwork, servers for no-holds-barred 1337 kids, servers where people just want to pretend they're jedi and play act lightsaber duels or whatever. No real reason to linger on one when you can just head to another.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, what is "vile or crude" but violation of customs? While some "customs" are based on well-demonstrated concepts (like Robert's Rules of Order running a meeting), many are simply courtesies and apparently arbitrary rules (don't put your hat on the bar, e.g.).
It sounds like he was extremely "vile or crude" because he chose to violate the customs of the people in the game deliberately. His bad.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
because it is entirely ridiculous and indicative of what the users (how can you call them players, when they ignore the intent of the game) are doing. Basically, he played the game (actually fighting villains) and was hated for it. Not because he was being vile or crude (indeed, completely contrary to what you suggest) but by violating game defeating "customs."
Not to defend what the other players were doing (harassing the guy obviously went way too far), but even in real life there are "customs" in societies that disallow certain actions even though said actions are legal. If you're going to be a part of a community, any community, you have to follow the unwritten rules of that community or you're going to be mighty unpopular. Just because it's a game doesn't mean the community can be ignored, and you do so at your own peril. If you read the article it noted that players at first gently informed him that he was breaking custom, and he ignored them and continued to do so. After that the players gradually increased the attacks on him trying to force him to conform.
And when someone does play the game, the natives get pissy as all get out. Sounds like a bunch of crybabies inhabit those games if you ask me.
Just to give a real world comparison, in most places it'd be perfectly legal for me to sit on my front porch and cuss out everyone who happens to walk down the street. But if I do so all my neighbors will begin to hate me and do whatever they can to discourage my behavior. Sound like a bunch of crybabies to you? Or am I being an unrepentant asshole who deserves to be hated by his neighbors? If you don't want to be part of a community, fine, but don't whine about the repercussions. That's what this professor's doing, he ignored the customs of the community he was in, and he faced the consequences and whined about it. He's the crybaby, not the other players.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they're not playing games they're standing around chatting it up. It's IRC with graphical avatars.
Re:Who makes the "rules" of a community? (Score:5, Insightful)
This
and this
are arguing opposite sides. The developers are the ones who set the speed limits/laws, and not surprisingly, entering a Player vs. Player arena is explicitly saying "I want to PvP."
Re:Does entering a PvP ring really mean that at al (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, if you ask the the CS staff, if you play the game and read the beginner's info - yeah, they have. Entering a PvP Zone means you consent to be engaged by anyone anywhere at any when inside the zone. If you want to only PvP against specific people, that's what "City of" has arenas for.
Re:Who makes the "rules" of a community? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the driver's handbook my state publishes specifically says you should only use the left lane to pass. So when some asshole in a Winnebago camps the passing lane at (speed limit minus 10), he really is breaking the law, or at least driving improperly. Like jaywalking and littering, it's something cops don't really care about, so everyone does it, and most people don't even know it's wrong. And then everyone's surprised when they hear the Germans actually enforce rules like that. Sigh...
Re:Who makes the "rules" of a community? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, almost every state/province has laws that prohibit going slow enough to inhibit normal flow of traffic. It's probably up to the traffic cop's discretion what that speed is, but it's illegal nonetheless.
Re:Who makes the "rules" of a community? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, others have pointed out the factual errors, but think about this for a minute man.
This is THE PVP area in a HEROS VS VILLAINS game. He's playing a hero. He goes in to kill villains. And HE is in the wrong?
A better analogy would be that he was doing 55 on a 55 road and really irritated the mob that was trying to use the asphault as a spread for their picnic. Solution - DONT PLAN PICNICS ON THE HIGHWAY SURFACE THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS FOR!
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:4, Informative)
If you RTFA it tells which servers he was on. There were several.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
He had been playing since the game came out in 2004. He knew the customs, he knew the rules. He played the game as designed. He was a hero who defeated villains in a PvP server. He played the game correctly, while everyone else wasn't.
This is the thing with MMOs and really modern gamers. People lament that you can't actually role play in a computer RPG, but here's a guy doing that, and he's an outcast. Heros don't hang out and chat with villains. They fight. What we have here was people that didn't actually want to play the game. They just wanted to rack up (dubious) "achievements".
The prof did exactly right.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you've heard of prisoner's dilemma? Mutual cooperation wins every time. E.g. in the Real World<TM> super heroes and super villains would join forces to do whatever they want (which would almost certainly be less than heroic but short of true villainy).
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
People lament that you can't actually role play in a computer RPG, but here's a guy doing that, and he's an outcast. Heros don't hang out and chat with villains. They fight.
Err, no they don't. Heroes only fight villians to prevent them from doing evil stuff, that's why they're *heroes* and not 'villians employed by our own side'. And if the villians decided to drop the baby-eating stuff and have a nice chat over coffee, a proper hero would go and join them, not beat them up just because "dude, he's like, a villian".
That's the thing with roleplayers I despise the most, that they all 'roleplay' as genocidal maniacs brainwashed into an "us vs them" ideology. No, just because goblins are part of the 'monster' class doesn't mean you should go and chop them up, and just because some guy was classified as part of the 'villians' faction means you're a hero if you go and kick his ass while he's chatting with a friend.
Which is why I and most people playing online don't "roleplay". Its hard, its usually not that fun, and most people who try fail completely at it and become worse players, in the community sense, than those that play it as a mere game. Like TFA.
Correctly? (Score:5, Insightful)
He had been playing since the game came out in 2004. He knew the customs, he knew the rules. He played the game as designed. He was a hero who defeated villains in a PvP server. He played the game correctly, while everyone else wasn't.
How is teleporting people in front of NPC bots designed to enforce a safe zone instead of beating someone up yourself "playing correctly?" Especially when he was attacking people who didn't want to PVP by abusing a mechanism intended to protect people who didn't want to PVP?
The only reason he was "unbeatable" was because he built a character optimized to exploit a cheap trick that didn't rely on his own strength. I mean, he talks himself up as being skilled, but the truth is a little less flattering. Plus, he wasn't as nice and innocently curious of a guy as he pretends to be. An AC below notes that he would taunt people, post bragging kill logs, etc.
He was a griefer who basically bemoans how "haters gotta be hatin'." What a chump.
Re:Correctly? (Score:3, Insightful)
How else would a character whose major power focus was teleportation fight? Huh? The hero is supposed to go fight the villains but refrain from using his only significant power because it's unfair? That's ridiculous. If the teleport power is overbalanced, the game designers need to rework it or remove it, but dont blame the player for using what he has in an intelligent way to achieve his goals.
Re:Correctly? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the drones at both bases are meant to prevent people from the opposing side from spawn-killing people inside the opposing bases.
Doing so does not accrue kill credits to the person doing it, or the side upon which he's playing. It merely creates debt and wasted time for the other player.
With a bit of extra accuracy and lots of range, anyone could do it. It doesn't make for a very productive or enjoyable gaming session.
There's a reason now why certain changes in the PVP system make this tactic less effective now.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
What we have here was people that didn't actually want to play the game. They just wanted to rack up (dubious) "achievements".
Who said the game wasn't about racking up "dubious achievements"? Since the majority of players seem to do it, I would say that IS the game, or at least one of the most significant parts of it. Just because you think it should be played out exactly like a comic book doesn't mean the game should be that way, and anyone else doing anything different is not really playing it. It's a superhero GAME, not a superhero SIMULATOR.
This part in the summary also kind of irked me, and follows what you said:
Myers decided to play the game by the designers' rules disregarding any customs set by the players
COH was far from a first-gen MMO. The designers went in full well knowing the players would develop their own customs, and designed the rules around that. Basically, the players' customs are part of the game design. Those customs are there generally to make sure the game stays 'fair', or perhaps gentlemanly is a better word. It's a game, not a real war between superheros and supervillians. If Clark Kent was real, do you think he would want to kick Lex Luthor's ass all day? No, he'd want to take Lois out to dinner and a movie in hopes that he gets lucky. For a MMO to be fun, it depends a lot on the other players. The designers can't make griefing prevention mechanics for everything without affecting other aspects of the game, so to make it a fun for everyone, players develop their own rules/customs that everyone generally follows to make sure they all have a good time.
And you can throw out the argument that some people want a superhero simulator. This is true, not everyone likes the same thing. However, COH is not intended to be that 'simulator'. Why? Well first and foremost, MMOs are a business. You make something that you think your target audience will like, and you then generally cater to that target audience to keep them playing and paying. The game is quite mature, so the playerbase most definately represents the target audience at this point...otherwise they would have quit playing long ago. If the game was supposed to be a 'simulator' and not a 'game', the playerbase would be different.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it interesting you say that he 'played the game correctly' since that was the core part of the argument that I thought the professor completely missed in his paper.
Who gets to define the 'correct' way to play? And if we look at the social dynamic of the game world as being larger than merely a 'game', who gets to define the correct way to live life? Can you really do it wrong? Is there anything interesting about that fact that players were put in an environment were they were suppose to compete against one another, and yet collectively choose to cooperate instead?
Certainly, we could make a compelling argument that the game designers and developers are the ones who get to define the 'correct' way to play the game. But I should think an equally compelling argument could also be made that the players also get to make that decision. Or, even, that it is an entirely subjective and personal choice, and not subject to the tyranny of any majority.
Shaka Zulu (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of a scene from the television series "Shaka Zulu [imdb.com]" where a young Shaka eagerly looks forward to proving himself in battle but instead observes a "battle" where the opponents simply dress up, dance, and hurl insults at each other to determine the winner. This method of warfare and Shaka's subsequent shakeup seems to be backed up by WikiPedia [wikipedia.org]:
Not that this has any bearing on the subject at hand but interesting none the less. Or does it?
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:3, Interesting)
What I find interesting about all of this is that City of * had social areas where villains and heroes could socialize without combat, at least while I was last playing about a year ago.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not that your analogy was too complex... it's that it was just flat wrong. Nowhere does it say he was "insulting" anyone. It's like instead of playing basketball, both teams were just standing there chatting about nothing in particular and hogging the public court. He decided to start shooting some hoops, and some moron got hit on the head by the ball because he didn't move. Or perhaps the moron was standing there holding a public basketball that belongs with the court, and he decided to 'steal' the ball and start actually playing. There's plenty of analogies that would fit. Yours was not one.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Head on out to public park where people play pickup games of basketball, or, heck, chess. Once you're welcomed in, start engaging in the most foul insults you can to distract your opponent. Might I suggest racial epithets?
That's a ridiculous comparison, and doesn't relate to how he was playing in-game. It would be a better comparison if you insisted on calling all fouls, obeying all rules, etc. That's more in line with what he was doing online. He wasn't insulting anyone, he was playing strictly according to the rules. He wasn't going around shouting racial epithets and trying to anger people, he was fighting "villains" as a "hero", or, in other words, exactly what the game is supposed to be.
This isn't IRC with 3d models, it's villains vs. heroes. If you insist on comparing this with something real-world, imagine if you showed up on a basketball court to get a game and everyone was just standing around talking, but you just grabbed the ball and started doing layups. Is that really something to get all butthurt about?
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it is. People play MMOs for the social interaction.
If you just want to kill stuff there's plenty single player games for that
Cmon now, look at how every single MMO is marketed.
WoW:
World of Warcraft is a living, breathing online adventure world with over 10 million players. Log into the World of Warcraft and join thousands of mighty heroes in an online world of myth, magic, and limitless adventure.
Eve Online:
No classes, no restrictions - players are not locked into a single path. Changing your career is as simple as learning new skills. All previously learned skills and abilities are still available to you.
Limitless opportunities to excel - player corporations are always looking for another market mogul, savvy diplomat, skilled fighter, or ambitious miner. Advancement among your peers is limitless.
Impact the Game World - Decisions you make have a rippling effect. Market prices, region control, and availability of resources all fluctuate and change based on player choices and behavior.
CoH:
City of Heroes brings the world of comic books alive in this massively multiplayer 3D online universe.
Craft your hero's identity and join millions of Hero characters in a constantly expanding universe, explore the sprawling online metropolis of Paragon City, and battle a host of foes including criminals, villains, and monsters.
In any of those examples, does it talk about standing around and chatting with people? These are marketed as playable games - games in which you join and interact with other characters in the game world to accomplish the tasks of the game, not to chat. When someone buys one of these games, they are buying the game with the expectation that they will be playing it, not chatting. I mean, is that what you really think MMOs have come to?
If you want to play a game, that's why we have single-player, if you want to chat, that's what multi-player is for. Don't mix them.
Let me clue you in on something that you're obviously not aware of: when a lot of people, including myself, play a game such as Counter Strike or Team Fortress, the main reason they play is for the team gameplay. I can play TF2 for several hours and never say anything to anyone (other than possibly trying to get people to do their job). The specific reason I play is for the team interaction. If I wasn't interested in that, I would play an offline game. The reason I prefer online games is so that I can play with intelligent people on my team supporting me or using my support. Not to stand around and chat with everyone. That's just stupid.
I would bet your claim of a win wouldn't be accepted in such a case.
Big deal. Obviously the other people there don't care about the game anyway. But they shouldn't stand in the way of people who do. In other words, if you don't want to play the game, get the hell off the court.
If however it's an informal gathering, and the two teams decided to have an impromptu break and chat with each other
Again, that's not a good analogy. In this case, the only thing the other people were doing was chatting. It wasn't an "impromptu break", it was the norm. It sounds more like a chat client where people might occasionally take an impromptu break to play a game. Which, again, is not what NCSoft is marketing as "City Of Heroes".
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
People chose to use the game differently to how the makers intended. That's fine in itself.
I don't think it is. This is a game people pay for. A game that is marketed in a certain way. If I paid money for this, I want to get what I was promised. I think the biggest fault is with the developers and moderators, not so much the professor or the other players. The developers are guilty because they should have provided a way to do what the people wanted to do (chatting between heroes and villains, which AFAICT is not possible elsewhere). The moderators are guilty because they should not have let the area get so out of touch with its intended purpose.
Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score:3, Funny)
Through Hitler, obviously!
Not trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not trolling (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not trolling (Score:3, Interesting)
Otherwise, fighting and killing aren't bad, unless the game is retarded, which is how the other comments make COH sound...
Re:Not trolling (Score:4, Insightful)
In Everquest, it went like this.
You started a low level character.
You angered one or more bad monsters and dragged it (them) across the entire zone to the lower level area *Most outdoor zones had a 10 to 15 level spread). Then you zoned or died next to them and they got killed.
For bonus points, you then logged on your twink and took the camp.
This happened on p2p AND on pvm servers.
In Warcraft, it consisted of sneaking a high level character to the opposing newbie area and then killing newbies as they spawned... for hours or until you were banned.
For PvP Everquest, it consisted of camping the respawn spot and killing people *repeatedly until they quit trying to log in*. Often, their next action was to cancel their account.
So I agree, it sounds like the person was being a dick and camping them. Not clear why they could not get out of range of the police. Not clear why they couldn't kill the guy's character and camp him.
Re:Not trolling (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure you read the article where it says,
"he aimed the pointer at his opponent, the virtual comic book villain "Syphris." Myers, 55, flicked the buttons on his mouse and magically transported his opponent to the front of a cartoon robot execution squad. In an instant, the squad pulverized the player."
The other player didn't do anything to him first. There was no way to avoid this while this person was in the game. And it is clear from his own quotes that he repeatedly griefed the same player into insta death.
I don't even play CoH and I'm angry at him and think he's an asshole griefer.
Re:Not trolling (Score:4, Informative)
Your other post here was incorrect when it said he could do that from anywhere in the game. He could only do that if they had already voluntarily entered the area, which is very clearly marked, and even has a 30 second cool down when you enter it to give you time to leave if you did so accidentally.
Furthermore, his range was quite limited as well. He had to catch them, not just in the zone, but on the right side of it - near where heros come into the zone. Villains enter from the opposite side. So his foes were folks that wandered around the PVP zone without a care in the world, relying on this idiotic custom to protect them, and then whined when he took advantage of their lack of caution to whack em.
I dont play COH, I just got off the phone with a friend that did who explained it a little better than the article. Any errors in comprehension are my own.
Re:Not trolling (Score:3, Informative)
You know, outside of the fact that they were in the middle of doing something themselves. Chasing someone out of a zone purely for the 'fun of it' is a dick move, regardless of the game. Doing it via a cheap trick makes it worse. If you want to claim the whole "playing the game it was meant to be played" bullshit, then step up and actually fight.
According to the posts here, he spent most of his time trash talking, and the 'kills' he got from teleporting people into the instakill zones didn't get marked as his, the server claimed the kill.
This isn't "Carebear vs PVP", PVP means you actually throw down. This is "Players vs griefer". It's not playing the game, it's just being a dick.
Ok, so... (Score:4, Informative)
That said, I I think Sirlin [sirlin.net] would have something to say to the scrubs complaining about his tactics.
Carebears (Score:4, Insightful)
Myers, who bought "City of Heroes" when it hit store shelves in 2004, quickly learned that players ignored the area's stated purpose. Heroes chatted peacefully with villains in the combat zone. Instead of fighting each other, members of the two factions sparred with computer-controlled enemies..
What kind of silly carebear game is this? Try Eve, where the time it takes to rid yourself of such nonsense is measured in the time it takes to warm up a railgun.
Not a new concept (Score:5, Informative)
This is not a new concept, it has been covered in one episode of South Park where some guy kills everybody in WOW and the kids get together to defeat him.
I mean, if it has been covered in South Park, I would guess this occurred in other games before. Still interesting to see the similarities with the South Park episode although....
Technically not trolling. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Technically not trolling. (Score:5, Informative)
As a CoH player whom he once publicly called a "piece of shit", I assure you this is not true. Much of his sparring was verbal.
To explain the game mechanics a bit: In the area where he played, there are safe-haven areas at each end of the map, one for each side. If your character gets too close to the opposing faction's base, you'll be killed instantly by their base defenses -- no exceptions. Camping in your own base and teleporting nearby opponents into the automated defenses is generally considered a cheap tactic, but hey, it's part of the game.
"Twixt" did a lot more than employ one cheap tactic, he went out of his way to be an ass.
Re:Technically not trolling. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always thought MMOs should have a karma system where you can grant others positive karma for helping you out or negative karma for pissing you off. The accumulated karma would then bias your "dice rolls" so that if you pissed too many people off, you would never be able to win a battle. Unfortunately, most games instead reward amoral behavior.
Full Court Press (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of the tactics used by this researcher remind me of the full court press in basketball. The rules of basketball allow a full court press, yet to do so never crosses the mind of most players. Playing one side of the court at a time is convention. The full court press is extremely effective, yet if you use it, the other team will no doubt call your win "cheap".
Still, when you are the underdog, and must win at all costs, the press is your only option. I sympathize with those who use it (and recognize that it isn't easy to pull off either).
If people complain that a tactic is cheap, it's really not the fault of the player, but the fault of the game. Past slashdot postings are full of examples where players exploited loopholes in city of heroes (remember the article about player-created missions?). With this in mind, I think it's obvious that City of Heroes was poorly designed to begin with. Game designers should never assume players will be on their best behavior.
Re:Full Court Press (Score:5, Informative)
Some of the tactics used by this researcher remind me of the full court press in basketball. The rules of basketball allow a full court press, yet to do so never crosses the mind of most players. Playing one side of the court at a time is convention. The full court press is extremely effective, yet if you use it, the other team will no doubt call your win "cheap".
Still, when you are the underdog, and must win at all costs, the press is your only option. I sympathize with those who use it (and recognize that it isn't easy to pull off either).
Full court presses are not considered "cheap". They just aren't used all the time because they are only effective under rare circumstances -- either when the offensive team is under a time crunch to move the ball across half court or score, or when weak ball handlers can be trapped and forced into a low-percentage pass.
Otherwise, trying to guard the entire court is not as effective as concentrating your defense in the half where the other team can score points. A full court press is hard because it is basically a man-to-man defence over the entire court, giving the offense plenty of room to maneuver and making it that much harder to double team or switch defensive assignments.
Both sides of the mouth.. (Score:5, Interesting)
What seems weird is that he was upset that people were punishing behavior "out of the norm" on one hand, and on the other hand was touting that he was merely following the rules. Huh?
The folks in the game creatively and organically decided to set up their own customs opposed to the rules - Twixt seems more like a street preacher who hates everyone because they don't follow the rules like he does.
Is he a cultural anthropologist (probably not, given that anthropologists are trained to work within the social framework of existing cultures as much as possible)? If not, I'd LOVE to see a cultural anthropologist do a write up on what happened here.
Re:Both sides of the mouth.. (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading the article it seems like he was a griefer who wrote a paper to justify being an asshole. He's "dismayed" and "disturbed" by behavior any anthro 101 student could have predicted from the start. Behavior that would seem like a perfectly natural response to his actions in the "real world".
tl;dr version of his paper: "assholes shunned online as in RL. WTF?"
Re:Both sides of the mouth.. (Score:3, Informative)
Is he a cultural anthropologist (probably not, given that anthropologists are trained to work within the social framework of existing cultures as much as possible)
No, he's a man who simply hates culture. He doesn't want to study it. As he's quoted saying at the end of the article: "I look at social groups with dismay."
And, by the way, the cultural anthropologists' principal of non-interference isn't absolute. In a case like this, employing the scientific method is perfectly valid.
Anti-scoial != Indepedent/Mainstream (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Anti-scoial != Indepedent/Mainstream (Score:3, Insightful)
More like a griefer, which made his antics instant win.
Makes you wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
He gets PAID for this? (Score:4, Funny)
So he gets to play MMOs all day and be a cock in them, AND he gets paid for it?
Shit, all this time I've been doing it for free....
Death threat? (Score:3, Insightful)
What an ass... (Score:5, Informative)
Having read the full article, it appears as though the "researcher" did nothing more than hang out in the combat zones in CoH/CoV and teleport the oposing faction in to a line of guards who would instakill anyone who got too close. (making the line "but he was too skilled to be driven off" extra hillarious).
He would then troll the general chat with stuff like (direct quote here):
I couldn't make this shit up if I were trying.
His grand conclusion?
What's this guy's next "research" project? Going down to the bus station and punching old ladies in the nose?
This guy wasn't doing research, he just wanted a tax write off and a grant to do nothing but sit around and be a dick on the internet.
Re:What an ass... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, I'm not sure which is worse - the fact that what he is getting reviled for doing *exactly* the point of the game (heroes and villians, think about it), or that you looked at the evidence and somehow concluded that he was doing it because he wanted to "be a dick on the internet." Sounds to me like he was playing the damn game. He wasn't even talking trash, for crying out loud! Sure, nobody personally likes the guy that kills them in a game, but the correct response is to try and kill him right back (in game), not whine, make insults, or send real-life threats.
The equivalent "next research project" would be going down to the bus station with a wanted list from the police, and calling the cops whenever he sees somebody on that list. Sure, that person might not have done anything to him personally, but they chose a "side" of society that... you know, this whole analogy is absurd. It's a goddamn PvP game, the objective being to pit player against player. Do you play CounterStrike by any chance? I suggest next time you play as one of the terrorists, you try sitting down for a chat with one of your opponents, and maybe suggest seeing who can throw a grenade the furthest (but not *AT* one another, of course!) You might get a "LOL!!" before he shoots you in the face. Probably only after, though. Quite a bunch of dicks, though counter-terrorists, aren't they!
This reveals a problem in the game's rules... (Score:5, Interesting)
Stunned? (Score:3, Insightful)
I weep for higher education. Here we have a man with a Ph.D. and a teaching position, and he doesn't know the first thing about culture. Is he lying when he says he was stunned?
The professor was disturbed that game rules encouraging competition and varied tactics hardly mattered to gaming community members who wanted to preserve a deeply-rooted culture.
Again, how can an educated man be so ignorant? Ah well, I suppose he's like the Ph.D.s at my mom's job - the ones who regularly send her email hoaxes, viruses, and Howard Dean campaign contribution requests.
some more links, since the post itself was sparse (Score:4, Informative)
the guy's blog [wordpress.com]
He has no idea what he's playing (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like this "professor" really never learned the details about what he's playing.
In this particular game, player vs. player combat is for the most part consensual. The speed of travel in the game is so fast that the only way to kill someone is for them to be willing to slow down and have a fight to the death. The developers go to greath lengths to minimize the ways in which one player can interfere with other players.
Being killed by a player has no penalty in a PvP zone, you're just sent back to the entrance of the zone. However, the computer controlled "cartoon" enemies in the zone will inflict an experience loss(known as "debt") on the players that die by their hand, and this loss takes a considerable amount of time to mitigate. There are players in this zone who are there to defeat the enemies because they give increased experience, they aren't there to fight or interact with enemy players in any way and are left alone instead.
There's no benefit to winning by dropping the enemy into the computer controlled enemies, since the computer takes the credit for killing him. So essentially, he is disrupting the gameplay of the other players, inflicting a loss of time, and for no personal gain aside from schadenfreude. A classic troll.
He's not bucking social norms, he's being a sociopath as far the game world allows. The results are not suprising, interesting, or even insightful. If he wanted to buck social norms, he should play a healer character who focuses only on his weak offensive abilities. That's the game-equivalent of being a social outcast. He's going for the game-equivalent of Charles Manson.
Re:He has no idea what he's playing (Score:3, Insightful)
The game itself is broken, then. Why the hell can you teleport somebody like that in that case?
I actually still find the other player's responses interesting. Instead of trying to use the same (obviously highly effective) tactic against this guy, or forming groups so that he can't do it to thim without dying as well, they're sitting back and whining, name-calling, and sending RL threats (easily enough to get you permabanned in most games).
Mind you, I've no interest in actually playing this game - the way you describe it, the designers must be absolutely retarded to actually permit this strategy - but I do find it interesting, from a societal point of view, that these people would choose to play a game wherin these tactics are possible, but get so very upset (as opposed to simply playing along, either by countering him somehow or replying in kind) when they are used.
Re:He has no idea what he's playing (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a clearly marked PVP zone, in a game where everyone is on one side or the other and they are supposed to be constantly at war. If you want a farm a zone like that you do it at your own risk, and getting butthurt because someone on the other team was actually playing their character is just absurd and pathetic.
The same kind of idiocy this researcher found in this game definitely goes back a long ways though. I remember encountering it in MUDs way back in the 80s, and the cross-teaming that killed Everquest race-war pvp comes from the same source conceptually as well. These are players with no interest or appreciation for the game at all, who enjoy destroying it for others while chatting with their "friends" on the other side (who should be their mortal enemies) instead of actually playing.
No sympathy for them at all. IMOP they are deserving of the "griefer" epithet, not him.
A minor note: (Score:3, Informative)
This behavior as described by the researcher does not get XP for the player. It does not get drops for the player, either. It simply wastes the opponent's time.
Note also that there are two different behaviors described. One, a pattern of teleporting foes into the 'safe zone guards' was later defined as griefing by the developers, and punishable by pretty much the same punishment as threatening people. The other is a matter of waiting till someone is badly hurt, fighting someone else, and picking them off by teleporting them directly into a boss. This is completely legal, it simply imposes an XP penalty on the person killed. It is also, of course, viewed as 'cheap.'
I suspect strongly that our friend did the 'teleport into guard' trick until the day it was declared griefing, then switched to a new tactic, just to cause the maximum social annoyance.
I have seen this behavior in real life, as well. It is the person who drives in the left lane at ten under the limit, on a road where the convention is twenty over. Much like the behavior described in the game, it is technically legal, unless, of course, the cops decide the driver is intentionally blocking the road.
In this case, I suspect he is both intentionally blocking the road _and_ driving with a hat on, barely able to see over the windshield, if he truly does not understand why his behavior was deemed frustrating.
To put it another way, most of us grew out of this behavior when we were six. It's passive-aggressive, and spiritually the same as "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you."
His survival _after_ this behavior might be an indication of skill... but I doubt he survived for long, simply taking advantage of the lack of death penalty, and various stealth powers to return to play after being killed.
As far as playing by the 'rules', I should note that it has become harder and harder to perform his tactics, due to behavior like this. Why? Because, while the game world may allow it, it was only allowed because the developers didn't actually believe someone would behave like this, to no personal gain and great social cost. As such, they have added equipment, power sets, potions, and direct power changes to make it harder to perform.
Griefer is reviled (Score:5, Insightful)
and writes book describing why it's ok to be a Griefer.
More surprising to me was that in CoH/V PvP is not played as described. I play WoW, on both PvP and carebear servers, and boy do I get ganked whenever I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is no such "polite agreement" between Ally and Horde in WoW. How did one get established in CoH/V?
And while it does indeed suck to get griefed and ganked by the opposing forces, esp when I am no threat to them, if it starts bothering me much I just go do something else for awhile. The Alliance can't be roaming Tarren Mill all of the time? Can they? But it seems like I did have to log in in the Early AM Server Time in order to complete some of those quests.
meaningless statement (Score:5, Insightful)
That's meaningless, the programmed rules of the game are analagous to the laws of physics. Just because you can punch someone on the nose doesn't mean that you should, or that they should just shrug their shoulders and go "well, physics allows it, so I'm ok with it"
see what you're missing in academia... (Score:5, Insightful)
Were I faculty at Loyola, I would find the IRB members who approved this and give them a very hard time, as this is not the kind of research I would want to be associated with. If he has done this without IRB support, I would ask that he be removed from the faculty.
I would point to his academic themed blog (linked to in the article), where he seems to go out of his way to belittle and further antagonize the non-academics who are complaining (he had a separate blog "in character" for his research, this is his "serious academic" blog). His response to an inquiry about the ethics of what he has done is to link to a discussion of similar researchers who seem to reach a conclusion that the ethics in MMO social research are complicated and suggests that transparency and respect of the other players is the best policy (in other words, he links to a blog that suggests he has acted unethically). That he is acting "in character" in his academic blog after the conclusion of the research and is not adhering to the "normal" research conduct of his field is, to me, totally unacceptable.
Re:see what you're missing in academia... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm also less than impressed with his responses. It doesn't come off as very professional.
Re:see what you're missing in academia... (Score:3, Informative)
Is the story the whole story? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm actually a CoH player who PvPed both with and against Twixt (I am not any of the players named, and my verbal interactions with Twixt were quite limited). I'd like to clear up a few things that seem to be missing. Note that I am, in no way, discounting the seriousness of death threats, but maybe a little more understanding of what really took place will allow people to relate better to the frustration.
1) Twixt's actions in PvP translated to an investment of time. By teleporting (the action described) villains into a row of firing squad computer-generated enemies, he would give the other character debt. This debt would impede the character's ability to gain experience by cutting it in half for a certain period of time. Thus, anyone who suffered from what Twixt did would pay for it by having their progress cut in half the next time they got the opportunity to play. A full portion of debt could take upwards of 3 hours of nonstop play to be worked off.
Imagine you go play miniature golf. Directly in front of you is a group of 10 children who have no idea what they're doing. You are unable to skip past them, and as is allowed, they refuse to let you pass. Due to this inconvenience, you only get to play 9 holes (or 4, if you're only on a 9-hole course). Would you be frustrated? I sure would be. They didn't break the rules, but they hurt the fun of my outing by specifically robbing me of the time that I had dedicated to accomplishing my goal. It's not much different than traffic, bowling balls getting stuck in the lanes, people talking during a movie, or any other issue that would rob an individual of their free time. The individuals causing your frustration may not be breaking the rules, but they are affecting your enjoyment.
2) Twixt's account of what took place in the PvP zones he visited just plain isn't accurate.
People did chat because many of the players had played together prior to the release of City of Villains (CoH was released in May of 2004 while CoV in October of 2006). Most of us already knew each other. However, that didn't result in a lack of fighting. Many times, Twixt would simply teleport people from battles already in place to his computer-generated death squads. He's presenting the situation as if he was the only one using the zones correctly when, in actuality, he was just the only one manipulating loopholes to allow him to generally be mean to other players. That's the biggest reason why he was despised.
3) Twixt commonly made fun of players he killed.
He did not simply say random hero-supporting things, he oftentimes bragged openly after using his computer-generated helpers to kill someone. Like any other competitive situation, bragging and talking trash will earn people talking back and becoming more upset. He worked to goad individuals into becoming angrier at what he did.
He mentions the forums as a place where people speculated about parts of his life, but he seems to have left out where he posted kill-logs from his time spent in PvP zones. He posted quite frequently on those boards, and he went out of his way to fuel the hate that developed for him. Professional athletes who do such a thing are widely derided by the media and fans. Twixt worked hard to generate hate, he was not simply an innocent victim.
4) Twixt died. A lot.
Twixt perfected his method of generating debt for other players by dying a whole lot along the way. Statements like, "But no one could stay alive long enough to defeat Twixt..." completely misrepresent what happened.
5) Twixt's research plays a role by examining another realm of society, but his results are predictable.
It's not surprising that people get upset when you're mean to them without reason. On an unmarked curb, it's legal for me to park 5 feet away from the cars in front of and behind me, but it's simply rude to do so. If I did so directly in front of hundreds of different people who were looking for a parking spot, it's not unreasonable to think that these individuals would be angry with me. I would say that's completely predictable. It's also not unheard of for such individuals to threaten others in such a situation. The fact that the anonymity of the internet allows such hotheads to go more extreme with their threats shouldn't exactly come as a shock to anyone either. Thus, while I think research into the societies of online communities can be interesting, I don't think Twixt's can be classified as such.
It's a shame that Twixt is the face of the CoH PvP and gaming community. He presents a very one-sided tale that some folks, such as the writer of this article, have apparently bought into entirely. A whole lot of good takes place in that community, but apparently, writing about that just wouldn't sell a book.
I don't play the game, so I don't know how true it all is, but I find this very believable.
What was his control? (Score:3, Insightful)
He claims to have done an experiment, yet from what I can see, he's tried a grand total of ONE behaviour.
Maybe all players treat everyone like they're an asshole, maybe it wasn't the killing itself, but the obnoxious bragging about it that got people riled.
Maybe it was the color of his pants, or the time of year, or maybe he did something outside of the game itself to bring it on.
And no statement from the developers of the game that what he was doing was how they "intended" the game to be played.
How can he possibly draw valid conclusions from this?
What he wasn't saying (Score:5, Insightful)
The entrance to every zone in COH/COV is an area protected by police robots. The robots have rays that instantly kill anything in the game. The purpose of this is to prevent anyone from greifing people who are in the process of entering the area and don't have control of their characters yet.
If it weren't for these robots, then greifers could drag powerful mobs into the entrance area, or in the PvP area just stand in the enemy entrance area with a buddy or two, and prevent anyone from being able to enter without getting killed before having a chance to fight back at all.
There's also a "teleport foe" skill you can take, which is very handy for pulling, or for when an enemy gets stuck in a wall.
What this guy appeared to be doing was going into the PvP area and using teleport foe to teleport players on the other side into his own insta-death protected entrance area.
It is a very clever way to use the dev's griefer protection tools to grief people. What is most certianly is not is "playing the game by the designer's rules".
If you've ever had a conversation with a game griefer where they dumped their rationalizations for their prickish behavior on you, this article will look very familiar to you.
Re:Not Research (Score:5, Funny)
teleported you to the cartoon robot death squad, did he? ;P
Re:Not Research (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not Research (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not Research (Score:3, Funny)
I think it would be ironic if everyone were made of iron...
Re:Not Research (Score:5, Funny)
no, that would be ferric.
Re:Not Research (Score:5, Funny)
Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!
I think this experiment illustrates quite clearly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think this experiment illustrates quite clear (Score:3, Insightful)
That and that "tyranny of the majority" thing.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, at least it's a new-ish excuse (Score:5, Informative)
Well, as someone who's been on MUDs long before MMOs, and briefly even tried his hand at creating content on one, I can at least say this: I had thought I've heard every excuse before. There was always a segment (the ones Bartle called "killers") who'd whine at length that if you don't let them repeatedly gank newbies:
A. you're infringing upon their freedom of speech. (Never mind that that ammendment is about congress, not about their behaviour on someone else's private property.)
B. ... and their dad is a lawyer and will sue you for it. (Never did somehow.)
C. ... and that's the road to fascism and slavery. (Yeah, right.)
D. You're making roleplaying impossible. (Apparently being an out-of-character griefer is the only possible role to play.)
E. You're depriving those newbies of _fun_. They may not know it, but they secretly _want_ to be ganked repeatedly and otherwise harrassed. If you let them opt out of that instead of being thrown to the wolves from the first minute, they'll all get bored and leave! (I think Everquest 1 disproved that one quite nicely.)
F. Somehow a failure of a human being, along with everyone else who even thinks of being, you know, social in a massively multiplayer game.
And, umm, that's about it off the top of my head.
The research one is actually kind of new. Of course, this "researcher" didn't invent it, but still, it's kinda refreshing to see the douchebags have broadened their repertoire a little. They were starting to sound like a broken record.
Re:Not Research (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it odd that the definition of 'Troll' is 'used a PvP play area in the way it was explicitly designed to be used'
Slandering the man in outside forums the OP is perfectly okay with.
Which used to be a symptom of being a Troll.
Interesting.
Pug
Re:If it's within the rules, it's within the rules (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'm guessing you're an MMO troll yourself with an attitude like that. A subtle but no less interesting point you may have missed here is that in virtual worlds the rules can be set by the players themselves. The developers in this context are enablers, rather than Gods passing down "rules".
Re:If it's within the rules, it's within the rules (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If it's within the rules, it's within the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
And just as with real-world laws, there's a limit to how much you can specify clearly enough, or how many restrictions you actually want to set.
In fact, I think we'd both agree that it would be a Bad Idea to have all laws be set to match social customs. There is no law against me walking up to your mother and calling her a cunt, and I would not want to live in a place that had such a law -- yet you probably still wouldn't want me to do that, and society in general would probably disapprove.
"Don't be a dick" can't be coded into law, but it's still good advice.
Re:If it's within the rules, it's within the rules (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no law against me walking up to your mother and calling her a cunt
That's what "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" is for.
Re:If it's within the rules, it's within the rules (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you measure the punishment for something you can't measure the crime in?
Re:If it's within the rules, it's within the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
A player was being irritating, which is within the rules.
The rest of the players turned him into an outcast, which is also within the rules.
I don't see the problem here.
Re:If it's within the rules, it's within the rules (Score:5, Informative)
A player was being irritating, which is within the rules.
The rest of the players turned him into an outcast, which is also within the rules.
I don't see the problem here.
You (and the authors of half the comments I've read so far...) must not have read the article. They went beyond attacking or taunting him in the game. Trying to expose someone's identity and falsely accusing them of being a sex offender is WAY outside the rules.
Also, "being irritating" in this case involved playing the game the way it was meant to be played. He wasn't doing things that were merely "technically" allowed. He wanted to roleplay as a hero, so he attacked villains.
The summary headline is inaccurate and inflammatory; its author needs to go back to Fark.
Re:If it's within the rules, it's within the rules (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? Because the game mechanics didnt give him XP that delegitimises his acts? Hardly. He played a hero, removing villains was his goal, not racking up points in a database somewhere!
According to TFA, there are arenas for duels, and a full pvp area as well. Despite this, the custom has evolved that both sides use the full PVP area for farming and duelling, and no true pvp takes place (set duels are not the same thing.) No? Because if that's not accurate then one must wonder why Twixt became so hated, if everyone else was doing the same thing he was...
Re:If it's within the rules, it's within the rules (Score:3, Insightful)
fuck it, i have to post again, your post is just ridiculous.
first off, a griever is someone who causes grieve by interrupting gameplay in an unintended way, griever != whiner, please at least get your mmorpg slang right.
i have played eq, and cross teaming has absolutely nothing to do with this, you're not able to team up with anyone of the opposite faction in cox (only in cooperation zones, but we're talking pvp areas here), you can't heal them etc. i am repeating myself, people in those zones are playing as intended, they are pvping, they are fighting each other with some ooc text in between. twixt is essentially doing what fansy [notaddicted.com] did in eq1, are you getting it now?
Re:If it's within the rules, it's within the rules (Score:3, Insightful)
the anti-twixt folks were the griefers, you should RTFA
I did read the article. Some people used out of game methods to get back at him since his character was too powerful in game. Since your stuck in "RP is All" mode isn't it common practice that the villians would resort to defaming a 'hero' if they can't beat them? In any case, he reaped what he sowed, nothing more, nothing less. Role playing as a blood thirsty 'hero' doesn't absolve him of being an ass.
Re:within the rules doesnt mean its within the rul (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:within the rules doesnt mean its within the rul (Score:3, Insightful)
only if you want to be one of the cool kids who everybody gets along with. independant thinkers should be ridiculed for their non-conformity if the social convention where you are is to fart during a meal as a sign of approval of the meal you'd better stress that rectum into belching out some noxious gasses...
in all seriousness though... fuck socialism. A democratic society is one where you have freedom... this guy went into an online game and did what the game was designed for... heroes fighting villains, he broke no rules, he just pissed off a bunch of idiots that thought "heroes vs villians, that sounds like an interesting place to hang out and chat about shit"...
Re:within the rules doesnt mean its within the rul (Score:3, Interesting)
But who joins City of Heroes to "live in a society"? I've never played, but I thought about it. It wasn't so I could live in a society, but so I could have super powers, choose a side, and then run around kicking the asses of people on the opposing side with said super powers.
When I was a kid, I didn't play Doom so I could learn about demon culture. If I want to live in a society, video games are not the appropriate place for that.
Re:within the rules doesnt mean its within the rul (Score:3, Insightful)
so cut the bullshit about 'its within the rules', and get used to living in a society.
It's not a "society", it's a game.
In real society, people do things you won't like all the time, and they are still "within the rules". Get used to it. YOu don't get to threaten their life.
Re:within the rules doesnt mean its within the rul (Score:3, Interesting)
See, that's why I love Eve Online. We (an alliance of over 1000 players on a server with hundreds of thousands) *make* the rules, at least in our own section of space. Jumping a transport through our space as a neutral pilot (we don't know you and have no standings set) will get you killed where we hang out. Want your loot back? Sure, we'll offer it - but we'll put a steep markup on it compared to what we'd ask from the alliance. If you don't like it, stick to NRDS (Not Red, Don't Shoot, i.e. only kill hostile ships) space. On the other hand, if you want to join us, go ahead and ask - we're usually recriuting to some extent or another. We'll even take in new players and help them bet set up, which a lot of alliances have no interest in doing. Why operate this way? It's how we like to play. Don't like it? Stay out of our way (we occupy about a dozen systems, with presence in perhaps a dozen more, out of many hundreds) or get your own alliance together (or join one) and fight us. Seriosuly, bring it - the game is no fun when you have to fly 40 systems away to get an PvP.
I can totally sympathise with this guy. He was just in the wrong game - apparently City of Heroes/Villians is simply overrun with carebears.
Re:NCSoft do not make the rules. (Score:4, Funny)
And yet, what, they still got their asses handed to them? Methinks they need to spend less time chatting and more time playing the fucking game.
Re:More of a study of Socialogy than Video Games.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The individual. How the fuck can you play baseball with only one person?
Re:More of a study of Socialogy than Video Games.. (Score:4, Funny)
depends - does the guy who wants to play baseball starting pitching the ball at the sunbathers?
Re:They're scrubs... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames.html [xeodesign.com]
Sirlin's essay is correct insofar as it goes, but it ignores 75% of the categories of play. Scrubs are only scrubs if they are applying their socially constructed rules in the Fiero space. Socially constructed rules are normal and expected in the other three play types.