Professor by day, griefer by night

[kildorn]

If the team of quadriplegics enters the game with your team fully aware you'll play to the best of your ability and they don't request a handicap, the alternate view could be it's a dick move to pity them and not play at your actual level. As it's apparently not what they want, and it's not like someone is twisting their arm to get them into that game with you.

I see, your that guy! You know, the guy who trashtalks at the company softball game.  The guy who deliberately fouls a 90 pound 14 year old girl in their rec league game.  The guy who comes to nickel poker game wearing sunglasses and sitting stone-faced like he was Chris Moneymaker.

Dude, not every leisure time activity is the Superbowl.  There are rational limits to the degree of competitiveness one exhibits that relate to the activity and circumstance one belongs in.  If you were playing in the NBA finals you would be expected to play far more aggressively then in a pick up game with your 12 year old niece.  Now apply that to video games.  Sure if I was in a competitive league with money on the line folks would expect bringing your A-game and doing everything possible to win.  Sitting around with your level 80 rogue and one-shotting everyone in the Barrens: dick move (I should know, I have done this).  Why can't you understand this?

I am not saying this should be stopped, you may have a very good reason to kill level 20's in the Barrens (maybe to draw out higher level characters in their guild).  But don't pretend your not playing the asshat card, because you are.

Wrong metaphor.  It's one-shotting a level 20 who's standing in Icecrown somehow. 

Anyways, context is everything. 

If your favorite team is playing another in competitive basketball, and they're crushing them 80-0 at the half, do you think they should stop?

Mercy rules are common in non competitive sports. Recall the dustup a while ago over that random school trying to hit 100 points against some disabled school's team. At a point it goes from "playing to win" to "rubbing it in their faces", which regardless of the game's outcome point wise should probably be discouraged under a try to be a generally nice fucking person in life social rule.

[AutomaticZen]

Mercy rules are common in non competitive sports. Recall the dustup a while ago over that random school trying to hit 100 points against some disabled school's team. At a point it goes from "playing to win" to "rubbing it in their faces", which regardless of the game's outcome point wise should probably be discouraged under a try to be a generally nice fucking person in life social rule.

I also recall the coach dropping the full court press at the half.  And the parents and players on the disabled team, going rather specifically, "we're not disabled, and we're perfectly fine the way we played."  The coach even is quote as noting that some of his girls would never be able to play on any other team in the state.

Again, you play competitive sports, then part of the onus should be on you.  Did the coach sub out his starters and stop the full court press?  

Grimes said in his Sunday post that his team stopped applying full-court defensive pressure after the score reached 25-0 three minutes into the game, then dropped into a relatively benign zone defense and began resting its starters in favor of its three bench players.

25 points, three minutes into the first quarter.  Only 12 points made in the last quarter.

Those kids did nothing wrong short of taking players completely out to make it an uneven game.  With no mercy rule, and the other team unwilling to just forfeit, what else were they supposed to do, just hand the ball over?  It's quite possibly the most insulting thing ever.

Looking at the stats with a standard mercy rule of 45-50 points, Dallas would've Mercy ruled out of most of the games they've played.

EDIT:  Other mercy rules in high school basketball:

The Florida High School Activities Association gave its go-ahead and instituted a mandatory mercy rule in basketball. The Sunshine State's mercy rule calls for a running clock when a point spread of 35 is reached after the first half. The clock will run continuously during jump ball possessions, out-of-bounds plays, and free-throw shooting, but will stop for time-outs, injuries, technical fouls, or when the officials need to address a situation that requires excessive time to resolve.

On the table in California is a mercy rule proposal that calls for a running clock if a basketball team is ahead by 40 points at the start of the fourth quarter or anytime thereafter. The clock will continue to run even if the trailing team cuts the deficit to fewer than 40 points.

Michigan has had a mercy rule on an experimental basis for the last three seasons. There, a running clock is used after the first half if a team has a lead of more than 40 points. If the lead dips below 30, regular time resumes.

One state that is using the mercy rule in limited games this year is Illinois. The Illinois High School Association's Basketball Advisory Committee voted this past spring to use a running clock in the fourth quarter of tournament games when one team is up by 30 points.

Either way, this is a rather large tangent to the real discussion.

[kildorn]

It's slightly a tangent on the whole sportsmanlike conduct angle. The other story on that game is that the coach and assistant coach were goading their players into trying to hit triple digits since they could, and that's somewhat confirmed by the last 4 minutes going by without a single basket. As soon as they hit 100, they just stopped. That's not going all out as best as you can, or taking it easy on the other team. So it fails both our ideas of sportsmanlike conduct.

Did they do nothing wrong? By the rules of the game? Nope. By the social rules attached to be considered honorable and good players? Well, look at the entire controversy and fallout afterwords.

The basic idea is that in a life or death situation, go absolutely nuts. Do anything in your power to live. Are you playing a game? Try not to be a total douche for no reason. Now, you're free to be a douche, but don't expect people to love you for it.

[Nevermore]

If your favorite team is playing another in competitive basketball, and they're crushing them 80-0 at the half, do you think they should stop?

What you're describing is covered under the arena system.  CoX has arenas where premade teams can play premade teams.  The PvP zones aren't like WoW battlegrounds.  WoW battlegrounds you sign up to join and you're matched with roughly equal (in theory) teams.  CoX PvP zones are like the DAoC frontiers: a PvP sandbox where anyone (though somewhat level restricted in CoX's case) can just zone whenever they want. 

It's like going to the local community basketball court for pick-up games just for fun not knowing who else will be there or even know how many people will be there.  You're saying if the Phoenix Suns decide to show up there one day they have every right to play the neighborhood rec center kids as if it's the NBA finals.  They might have the right but they'd be dicks to do so.

In the case of Twixt I'd use this analogy:

Local rec center kids show up for some basketball.  There aren't a lot of them that day so for whatever reason some decide they'd like to play some HORSE.  Twixt shows up and thinks 'Hmm, these are basketball courts!  I'm going to play basketball because that's what these courts are meant for and I'm going to make those guys play with me!'  So he runs up, grabs the ball and makes his shot at the other end of the court.  These guys keep trying to get the ball and play their game of HORSE but this Twixt guy keeps stealing it because he's playing basketball the way these courts are designed to be played, damnit!  The HORSE guys get really pissed off at Twixt and complain to whoever it is that's in charge of a rec center, who shrugs.  'Sorry, basketball court.'  Some of the HORSE guys confront and/or threaten Twixt because he's being, you know, an asshole and eventually they all leave in disgust.  Twixt won the game of basketball!  The way it was meant to be played by the people who designed the basketball courts!  'So why did those guys get so pissed off at me?', Dr. Twixt, PhD wonders.  'I think I'll write a paper about it.  I'll make sure to mention that I beat them at basketball hundreds of times, too.  Obviously they didn't like me because my basketball prowess is so great, which my record of wins vs. losses demonstrates.  And since I wasn't thrown off the court I must be in the right.'

[AutomaticZen]

What you're describing is covered under the arena system.  CoX has arenas where premade teams can play premade teams.  The PvP zones aren't like WoW battlegrounds.  WoW battlegrounds you sign up to join and you're matched with roughly equal (in theory) teams.  CoX PvP zones are like the DAoC frontiers: a PvP sandbox where anyone (though somewhat level restricted in CoX's case) can just zone whenever they want. 

It's like going to the local community basketball court for pick-up games just for fun not knowing who else will be there or even know how many people will be there.  You're saying if the Phoenix Suns decide to show up there one day they have every right to play the neighborhood rec center kids as if it's the NBA finals.  They might have the right but they'd be dicks to do so.

Pick up games?  In Streetball you keep it real.

 

But with the mechanics list above, you are correct.

In the case of Twixt I'd use this analogy:

Local rec center kids show up for some basketball.  There aren't a lot of them that day so for whatever reason some decide they'd like to play some HORSE.  Twixt shows up and thinks 'Hmm, these are basketball courts!  I'm going to play basketball because that's what these courts are meant for and I'm going to make those guys play with me!'  So he runs up, grabs the ball and makes his shot at the other end of the court.  These guys keep trying to get the ball and play their game of HORSE but this Twixt guy keeps stealing it because he's playing basketball the way these courts are designed to be played, damnit!  The HORSE guys get really pissed off at Twixt and complain to whoever it is that's in charge of a rec center, who shrugs.  'Sorry, basketball court.'  Some of the HORSE guys confront and/or threaten Twixt because he's being, you know, an asshole and eventually they all leave in disgust.  Twixt won the game of basketball!  The way it was meant to be played by the people who designed the basketball courts!  'So why did those guys get so pissed off at me?', Dr. Twixt, PhD wonders.  'I think I'll write a paper about it.  I'll make sure to mention that I beat them at basketball hundreds of times, too.  Obviously they didn't like me because my basketball prowess is so great, which my record of wins vs. losses demonstrates.  And since I wasn't thrown off the court I must be in the right.'

I like your analogy better.

[amiable]

I don't think that many people actually enjoy knowing they were deliberately given a handicap because their opponent thought they suck so much they need one, when it wasn't arranged beforehand. Of course ymmv.

Which is why you go easy on them, but don't tell them/rub it in their face.  That's part of sportsmanship too.  The real key to sportsmanship is not grace in losing, it's grace in winning.  Maybe I'm old fashioned but I think showing sportsmanship is a pretty laudable goal, and not showing it is justifiably vilified.  Again, play however you want to, but people respect folks who show respect.

You should understand situations where it will be appropriate to go easy on an opponent and not need it spelled out for you, if you don't you should learn.  This isn't a question of "having a different perspective" its a question of willfully being a jackass and expecting the world to love you for it.  The only thing folks dislike more than a sore loser is an obnoxious winner.  You don't need a PhD. in sociology to figure this out.

[tmp]

Which is why you go easy on them, but don't tell them/rub it in their face.

I.e. not only you decide for them they suck so much they need a handicap, but you also judge them stupid enough not to be able to tell. And take high moral ground while doing so.

Sorry, but while i see how in theory it could be considered good sportmanship... as long as the people on the receiving end aren't indeed total morons this approach feels more dickish and insulting than straight being a dick.

[Lantyssa]

<Bestest anology ever>

Bravo!

Has anyone ever said you write beautifully when trying to beat a concept into someone's head?

[amiable]

Which is why you go easy on them, but don't tell them/rub it in their face.

I.e. not only you decide for them they suck so much they need a handicap, but you also judge them stupid enough not to be able to tell. And take high moral ground while doing so.

Sorry, but while i see how in theory it could be considered good sportmanship... as long as the people on the receiving end aren't indeed total morons this approach feels more dickish and insulting than straight being a dick.

See that highlighted part.  You should work on understanding why that isn't true.

[tmp]

See that highlighted part.  You should work on understanding why that isn't true.

I don't know, maybe you could explain why you think this way? I say this feels more dickish because you're treating your opponent as both inferior and stupid, i.e. combining two different insults in your behaviour while the alternative is "just" one insult that's questionable to boot (giving your opponent a hard match, likely above their level of ability)

[Nevermore]

<Bestest anology ever>

Bravo!

Has anyone ever said you write beautifully when trying to beat a concept into someone's head?

Why thank you!  I'm glad I resisted the temptation of trying to force the tele-ganking into the analogy by giving Basketball Twixt an extendable 20' Inspector Gadget-like arm.  

[tmp]

In the case of Twixt I'd use this analogy:

Local rec center kids show up for some basketball.  There aren't a lot of them that day so for whatever reason some decide they'd like to play some HORSE.  Twixt shows up and thinks 'Hmm, these are basketball courts!  I'm going to play basketball because that's what these courts are meant for and I'm going to make those guys play with me!'  So he runs up, grabs the ball and makes his shot at the other end of the court.  These guys keep trying to get the ball and play their game of HORSE but this Twixt guy keeps stealing it because he's playing basketball the way these courts are designed to be played, damnit!  The HORSE guys get really pissed off at Twixt and complain to whoever it is that's in charge of a rec center, who shrugs.  'Sorry, basketball court.'  Some of the HORSE guys confront and/or threaten Twixt because he's being, you know, an asshole and eventually they all leave in disgust.

One question arising from this analogy -- why is an asshole only the guy who wants to play basketball at basketball court, rather than few guys who'd decided to use the place for some other activity and now demand things stay their way? That is, if continuing this analogy you pictured yourself as a guy who arrives to the court with wish to play a game of basketball but the few people present there were telling you to either play HORSE or get lost... wouldn't you consider their attitude to be that of assholes, too?

[amiable]

See that highlighted part.  You should work on understanding why that isn't true.

I don't know, maybe you could explain why you think this way? I say this feels more dickish because you're treating your opponent as both inferior and stupid, i.e. combining two different insults in your behaviour while the alternative is "just" one insult that's questionable to boot (giving your opponent a hard match, likely above their level of ability)

I'm going to assume you are not trolling or being deliberately obtuse.  Ok look.  There are many interactions we as human beings have with other human beings in which we are not entirely truthful in order to maintain the social contract.  It''s not "insulting" to tell these types of white lies, in fact they are necessary for social harmony and in general considered the hallmarks of being a well adjusted person.

Is it patronizing to open a door for an old lady is she could open it herself with some difficulty?  Is it patronizing to help a young child across a road?  When your wife asks you if she looks fat in a dress and she does, should you tell her?  The literal truth to these questions is yes it is a bit patronizing to do so.  We do these things/tell these lies because it makes getting along in the context of the larger society much easier.

The same is true for sports and games.  Games are not simply a competitive exercise designed to "crush your enemy, have them driven before you and listen to the lamentation of their women.  It serves an important social function as well.  The goal is often to interact as a community and for everyone to have fun.  If you are beating a team 70 to nothing easing up a little is not patronizing, you have proven that you are the superior player continuing to push the envelope seems as if you are trying to "rub it in".

If you are Michael Jordan it is not patronizing to not bring your A game to a 1 on 1 vs a 10 year old.  To a lesser degree this applies to other interactions.  I play tennis with my wife.  She is better than me, but she doesn't power serve to the other side of the court every time she is up because it is pointless, proves nothing and is no fun.   She plays a more relaxed game so we can both have fun.  She plays in tournaments on occasion and when she does she brings her A game, because it is appropriate in that context.

There is a time to be competitive and there is a time not to.  Common sense dictates when these moments are, if you are unable to distinguish you lack certain fundamental social skills.

[Lantyssa]

tmp, you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, right?

[tmp]

tmp, you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, right?

More of a devil's advocate thing. It's an interesting subject and actually having to reconsider basis for one's belief system rather than just fallback on convenient "that's the way things should be and everyone who doesn't agree is just a dick" ... well, that's useful imo. Lack of reflection can easily lead to mob mentality, something that does seems to happen to these 'MMO communities' more often than not.

[Nevermore]

In the case of Twixt I'd use this analogy:

Local rec center kids show up for some basketball.  There aren't a lot of them that day so for whatever reason some decide they'd like to play some HORSE.  Twixt shows up and thinks 'Hmm, these are basketball courts!  I'm going to play basketball because that's what these courts are meant for and I'm going to make those guys play with me!'  So he runs up, grabs the ball and makes his shot at the other end of the court.  These guys keep trying to get the ball and play their game of HORSE but this Twixt guy keeps stealing it because he's playing basketball the way these courts are designed to be played, damnit!  The HORSE guys get really pissed off at Twixt and complain to whoever it is that's in charge of a rec center, who shrugs.  'Sorry, basketball court.'  Some of the HORSE guys confront and/or threaten Twixt because he's being, you know, an asshole and eventually they all leave in disgust.

One question arising from this analogy -- why is an asshole only the guy who wants to play basketball at basketball court, rather than few guys who'd decided to use the place for some other activity and now demand things stay their way? That is, if continuing this analogy you pictured yourself as a guy who arrives to the court with wish to play a game of basketball but the few people present there were telling you to either play HORSE or get lost... wouldn't you consider their attitude to be that of assholes, too?

If there were a group of guys playing HORSE and ten more guys showed up wanting to play basketball and that was the only court, then an argument could be made from the point of view that the HORSE guys are monopolizing the court and preventing the basketball guys from playing.  What happens in this case in the context of CoX pvp zones is the basketball guys start playing their game anyway and the HORSE guys really don't have a moral high ground to complain about the basketball play disrupting their game.

That doesn't apply to what Twixt was doing, though.  Twixt never grouped with players on his own side.  So if the only people on the court when he shows are the HORSE guys, there aren't any basketball options for him.  The HORSE guys aren't obligated to play basketball just because a basketball guy shows up.

The thing about Twixt is he was never really a participant even when there was a basketball game going on.  Forgive me for working this into the analogy after all but what Twixt would do is even if there was a pick-up game of basketball going on, he'd be using is 20' Inspector Gadget arm to grab the ball and dunk it while standing on the sideline, disrupting the game for both sides.  That's why his own side hated him as much as the other side did.  He'd have you think that he was the lone basketball freedom fighter in a world of HORSE players who hated and ostracized him for daring to try to play basketball when instead they hated him for disrupting both games because the guy in charge of the rec center let him use the Inspector Gadget arm from the sideline.  Twixt was being a dick to everyone, which is why nobody liked him.

[tmp]

Is it patronizing to open a door for an old lady is she could open it herself with some difficulty?  Is it patronizing to help a young child across a road?  When your wife asks you if she looks fat in a dress and she does, should you tell her?  The literal truth to these questions is yes it is a bit patronizing to do so.  We do these things/tell these lies because it makes getting along in the context of the larger society much easier.

I think the catch here is, with people being individuals you can't define universally good way to handle these social situations. One old lady can be grateful for the help you provide, but another may well cuss you out for it either because she has her priorities set different or she misread your intentions. Similar for other such situations. Therefore it can be quite presumptous to push single model of behaviour to the point of excluding any alternative.

And yes, the same is indeed true for sports and games. When it comes to the computer games over intrawebs it becomes even more tricky because you lose lot of social cues that'd otherwise help to pick your behaviour, and you lose the convenience of being matched just with people of comparable skill like it happens with regular sports. That avatar in front of you may be driven by the old lady, the young child or even your wife for that matter, and you'll usually have very little way to tell (unless you've already played against them enough times) if that's someone who "needs" a handicap from you, someone who wants that handicap or maybe to the contrary, it's someone who could kick your ass three ways to Sunday and/or won't hesitate to do so.

So with this in mind it's pretty difficult for me to write off any case of someone who puts effort in the match as "oh he's a dick, this is not place for this kind of game". That may well be instead them overestimating me, or pegging me as sort of player who wants to be provided with this kind of game. Or they consider my act of entering game zone where 'everything goes' as consent for indeed, anything that can go. Consequently? It's hard for me to treat seriously situations in these MMOs if there's complaints after such game how "oh that's lame, you suck because you didn't go easy on me, you're a dick for doing so". The players don't have their individual expectations and abilities tattooed on the foreheads, and without these any approach you'll take it's going to be at best educated assumption. And assumptions are, welp.

[tmp]

That doesn't apply to what Twixt was doing, though.  Twixt never grouped with players on his own side.  So if the only people on the court when he shows are the HORSE guys, there aren't any basketball options for him.  The HORSE guys aren't obligated to play basketball just because a basketball guy shows up.

Well, his paper mentions he'd reduce and eventually stop grouping with others over time, as result of both increasing ostracism and cases of people with multi-box setups inviting him to hero groups only to then try to kill him . That would imply the "never grouped with others" thing isn't quite correct.

Also, the not being obligated part is where i think the analogy breaks somewhat -- open PvP zone being what it is, the act of entering it is technically giving consent to become subject of said PvP at any time while in there. Maybe a closer analogy would be something like group of people coming to dodgeball court and then demanding a guy who throws a ball at them to stop it and get lost because they're there to dunno, practice juggling or something equally semi-relevant to original idea?

[amiable]

The players don't have their individual expectations and abilities tattooed on the foreheads, and without these any approach you'll take it's going to be at best educated assumption. And assumptions are, welp.

So you never make assumptions in real life or in a virtual world?    You know damn well you can make educated guesses about your behavior and if you honestly believe this dude did not know he was acting like an asshat you are a fool or a liar.

Edit:  He may also have had some inkling he was being a douche by the fact that all of the other players on both sides of the game were calling him a douche and asking him to stop.  That might be a pretty big clue but hey since you can't read minds they could all be lying.   So to take that as truth would be an assumption, and as you just stated assumptions are welp... 

[Triforcer]

Mandatory Every-Half-Page Sanity Announcement:

PEOPLE WERE IN A PVP ZONE, ONE OF THE VERY FEW AREAS OF THE GAME WHERE PVP IS ENGAGED IN.  THE REST OF THE GAME IS PVE.  TWIXT WAS NEVER BANNED, AND CRYPTIC NEVER ANNOUNCED SUCH TACTIC AS AN EXPLOIT.


This needs to be said every half page in this thread, because that's roughly the amount of time it takes for everyone to forget it again and declare Twixt to be Satan and his victims to be legless orphans, playing from wifi in the streets of Calcutta.


Cryptic could've coded against this.  Cryptic could have banned him.  Hell, if we choose to believe the people in this thread who are saying "THOSE THINGS ARE UNPOSSIBLE CRYPTIC WAS TOO BUSY", then they could have taken 30 seconds to post and say "this is an exploit." 

Cryptic does none of those things?  Too bad, so sad, best of luck with that exp debt.  I'd make further comments about how maybe the "victims" should adjust their tactics so this doesn't happen, but if the last ten years of MMO history has taught me anything its that suggesting PvP victims alter their tactics is pretty much the worst possible sin anyone can commit. 

[amiable]

Mandatory Every-Half-Page Sanity Announcement:

PEOPLE WERE IN A PVP ZONE, ONE OF THE VERY FEW AREAS OF THE GAME WHERE PVP IS ENGAGED IN.  THE REST OF THE GAME IS PVE.  TWIXT WAS NEVER BANNED, AND CRYPTIC NEVER ANNOUNCED SUCH TACTIC AS AN EXPLOIT.

Tri, i think we got a bit far afield on the "sportsmanship" discussion, but this is not the thrust of the thread.  We are mocking him because he is claiming to be "shocked" that his behavior generated a negative response when it is obviously pretty unsportsmanlike even if technically legal (I KNOW PVP HAZ NO RULEZ!!! TWO MAN ENTER ONE MAN LEAVE!!!! TRIFORCER RUNS BARTER-TOWN!!!!).

[Triforcer]

Maybe it started out that way, but the discussion morphed into how he is a terrible person in general.  Mocking his "shock" at the reaction to him is a just a thinly veiled way to criticize him for his underlying playstyle preference.

Bottom line:  If Cryptic can't even be bothered to have one intern take 15 seconds to post on a message board about how a behavior is illegal/an exploit- well, this thread should properly be about their incompetence, not the reaction of ADD-addled 15 year old COX forumites to a very clumsy troll.   

[UnSub]

Mandatory Every-Half-Page Sanity Announcement:

PEOPLE WERE IN A PVP ZONE, ONE OF THE VERY FEW AREAS OF THE GAME WHERE PVP IS ENGAGED IN.  THE REST OF THE GAME IS PVE.  TWIXT WAS NEVER BANNED, AND CRYPTIC NEVER ANNOUNCED SUCH TACTIC AS AN EXPLOIT.

Tri, i think we got a bit far afield on the "sportsmanship" discussion, but this is not the thrust of the thread.  We are mocking him because he is claiming to be "shocked" that his behavior generated a negative response when it is obviously pretty unsportsmanlike even if technically legal (I KNOW PVP HAZ NO RULEZ!!! TWO MAN ENTER ONE MAN LEAVE!!!! TRIFORCER RUNS BARTER-TOWN!!!!).

As pointed out, it's interesting that 1) he got a negative reaction from his own team, 2) he got kicked out of his SG and 3) he got at least one death threat.

As I said before, in academia, it isn't obvious unless you can quote someone else saying its obvious. The newspaper report and paper might be subjective, but it is worthwhile that he recorded one look at griefing in a MMO. It adds to the body of material in that area.

What I find really interesting as well is that on the CoH/V forum's main thread on this topic, Castle (a dev) came in and called Twixt "a rank amateur next to Fansy", which sent all these people off to look up Fansy and find out about him. A good number of these people came back saying how funny Fansy was doing what he did.

All I can surmise is that when someone is roleplaying a dick, it's funnier when you don't run into them.

[tmp]

So you never make assumptions in real life or in a virtual world?  

No, of course i make them; just generally choose not to bother to cry foul if they turn out to be wrong, especially if it's about behaviours in virtual combat zone where everything goes, one i've entered willingly and knowing i should indeed expect anything in there

But that was just more generic musing about the nature of these social clashes and difficulty in guessing intentions of others -- as far as the professor and his project is concerned his paper makes it pretty clear he was well aware he's playing in ways that go against people's self-imposed rules. It was after all the whole point of the research.

[Koyasha]

On the sportsmanship discussion, I'm going to say I agree with tmp's position so far in that if people are engaging in a game or some other competitive activity, both sides should play to win and give their best effort, unless there's an agreement or some other communication whereby one (or both) of them agree to go easy.  But if I'm playing a game, whatever sort of game that is, unless I specifically say 'Hey I'm not as good as you, go easy on me please.' or something of that sort, I want my opponent to do their best, and would be upset if they did not.  There are situations in which taking it easy is entirely appropriate, but it's not something I want people to just assume for me.

[Lum]

There's quite a bit of discussion about this on Terra Nova, including responses from Dr. Myers himself. (And yes, I quoted Nevermore's post here verbatim. Myers denied its validity, of course.)

http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2009/07/twixt.html

He finally did admit that his paper was better described as a journal of his experiences than an objective research experiment.

[Lantyssa]

He finally did admit that his paper was better described as a journal of his experiences than an objective research experiment.

There's that I suppose.

I also like how Bartle questions the ethics about this like I did.  Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks the method itself was shoddy.

Edit:

Gah.  Now having read his comments I can say this is like the worst idiot professor I've ever encountered.  He speaks of Twixt like some separate entity and using flowery language calls Never a liar.  Yet he takes personal offense at all this, and has been said repeatedly, at people insulting him for behavior his insider knowledge knew would cause such reactions.  I wasn't ever close to being involved and I'm offended just having to listen to his lame, convoluted reasoning.

His idiocy is griefing me.

[Triforcer]

But what if our reaction to his paper is ALSO part of the research experiment?  Proving yet again his point?  I believe several posters in this community over the years have informed us in their last post that their posting style was a deliberate test of our ability to respect different viewpoints, and we failed. 

[Lantyssa]

What's his point?  That he can provoke a reaction?

[Bzalthek]

Much of the topic reminds me of my last online warcraft III.  "OMG NO RUSH, U WAIT 30 MIN, NO RUSH!"  Soft rules are great, and I'm not one to trash social conventions and whatnot, but just because the majority chooses to play one way doesn't mean people who disagree should be removed from the game.  His "shock" is just sensationalizing shit.  Researchers do that to get their research noticed, nothing to see there.

[amiable]

On the sportsmanship discussion, I'm going to say I agree with tmp's position so far in that if people are engaging in a game or some other competitive activity, both sides should play to win and give their best effort, unless there's an agreement or some other communication whereby one (or both) of them agree to go easy.  But if I'm playing a game, whatever sort of game that is, unless I specifically say 'Hey I'm not as good as you, go easy on me please.' or something of that sort, I want my opponent to do their best, and would be upset if they did not.  There are situations in which taking it easy is entirely appropriate, but it's not something I want people to just assume for me.

Fair enough, I will concede your and TMP's point that it is sometimes difficult to make these assessments in a video game in the absence of other evidence.  However I do want to point out there are some pretty obvious examples (lol camping 20's in the barrens).  I don't think this is relative in this case however because the community told him pretty clearly to cut it out.

My favorite response to him on Lum's thread:

Twixt knew the rules, he knew what was naughty and nice, he knew the exploits, he was good player, he had been around the block a few times, and then he began playing in this weird way that was different from how an outsider could possibly have played: Twixt began to prioritize outsider values over insider values *with full knowledge of those insider values.*

The consequences of this decision, this choice, I think, were far, far more telling than they would have been if Twixt had not had this knowledge and history and experience inside the game.

Why is there this disconnect between cause and effect that you seem to have? You describe quite clearly that you knew quite well (due to your status as "insider") what the consequences of your actions would be, you did them anyway, and you then suffered those consequences.

Why did this surprise you?

[kildorn]

Maybe it started out that way, but the discussion morphed into how he is a terrible person in general.  Mocking his "shock" at the reaction to him is a just a thinly veiled way to criticize him for his underlying playstyle preference.

Bottom line:  If Cryptic can't even be bothered to have one intern take 15 seconds to post on a message board about how a behavior is illegal/an exploit- well, this thread should properly be about their incompetence, not the reaction of ADD-addled 15 year old COX forumites to a very clumsy troll.   

My commentary on his personality/playstyle entirely stem from his knowing full well in any logical progression (as in, write down steps 1-10 of what you will do, this was the logical and easily assumed case), and continuing to do it anyways, then posturing how he was SHOCKED that anyone would actually take offense at his methods. Knowing full well that he was doing what the social construct in the game would term a "dick move"

Again, just throw out the real life analogies. There's nothing stopping me from showing up at your birthday party with flowers and chocolates for your girlfriend and talking about our hot passionate tryst years ago in gory detail. But the social constructs we have as a society would likely term this a "dick move", and it wouldn't work out well in the end. But it's totally legal to do so!

I'm not seeing how this is passing by people. There is a ton of shit you can do that's entirely within the laws of the country you are in at the moment that are still considered by the society you're surrounded by at the moment as being total douche actions. All he's doing in this "study" is the equivalent of saying "but have you ever been a douchebag... ON THE INTERNET?!"

[jakonovski]

But what if our reaction to his paper is ALSO part of the research experiment?  Proving yet again his point?  I believe several posters in this community over the years have informed us in their last post that their posting style was a deliberate test of our ability to respect different viewpoints, and we failed.  

Occam's Razor. When confronted with seemingly douchebaggy behaviour on many fronts, and given the choices

a) everything is an elaborate experiment designed by a scientific genius, or

b) he's just a douchebag,

I choose b.

[Amarr HM]

Mandatory Every-Half-Page Sanity Announcement: etc.

QFT

[Amarr HM]

Occam's Razor. When confronted with seemingly douchebaggy behaviour on many fronts, and given the choices

Occam's points to the other direction actually, simplest answer being he did it for an ongoing case study. Being a douchebag is far too vague, why would someone especially a college professor continually do a cheap trick over and over just for the sake of it? Being a douchebag leads to far too many other questions or assumptions which is against the principle of Occam's razor as you should know.