My paper can be downloaded here: https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2019Open/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Conference_Paper_PDF.pdf
Abstract
This paper investigates how anonymity and pseudonymity affect online gaming spheres, especially in competitive gaming. The approach includes an investigation of gaming history and technologies that allow people to socialise, then compares initial online gaming communities to modern communities to show that the large amount of growth and relative
ease of adopting identities online, coupled with the lack of personal accountability encourages toxicity and adversity.
Introduction
The ability to adopt an anonymous or pseudonymous identity online via mediated spaces or “third places” (Oldenburg, 1999) has enabled Internet users to present numerous presentations of the self (Goffman, 1978) in communities, regardless of racial, social, economic, political and cultural circumstances. In the context of online gaming, Web 2.0 technologies have facilitated places of competition, relaxation and creativity, using different
methods of communication (voice, text chat, avatars etc.) to communicate oneself to others. However, some interactions are exclusionary in nature, leading to toxicity or adversity between players. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the impacts anonymity and pseudonymity have on communities, including the division between “power gamers” and “casuals”, and how that affects the formation of gaming communities. The ease of adopting an anonymous or pseudonymous identity for gaming in a third place can foster unhealthy interactions and relationships between gamers, creating systems of power between elite and casual gamers, as well as themes of toxicity and adversity between individuals.
Brief history of Web 2.0, community mechanics
Web 2.0 communities grew from a mixture of a home brew movement in the ’80s (Wasserman & Stryker, 1980), and people-centric collaboration in the ’90s (Usenet, blogs etc.), based on the foundation of prior military and academic research. Anyone with Internet access could publish rather than consume, engaging with content on numerous topics regardless of geographical proximity or technical skill given the increasingly user friendly implementations found in blogs and newsgroups (Blood, 2000).
Part of the attraction of Web 2.0 is the idea of identity performances or explorations without actually being identified thanks to the way individuals can present themselves freely and anonymously online. Suddenly, people who had been used to the lifestyle of Gemeinschaft (small, close-knit communities where everyone is familiar with each other and abided by a set of morals and values) adopted aspects of Gesellschaft (communities where people could form relationships based purely on some needs contract with others (Tönnies, 1957)), broaching topics considered taboo and possibly illegal in a relatively safe space. Communities of every type began to spring up, many of which catered to individuals looking to coexist and either cooperate or compete in a virtual world in a playful manner.
To define video game communities it is worth considering some of the earliest online video games for a specific epoch from which we can observe the growth of virtual worlds, while at the same time examining the effects that numerous forms and evolutions of communication technologies had on the formation of communities. From this point of reference we can then incorporate the development and characteristics of “third places”, allowing individuals to come together to relax, socialise and possibly compete in simulations of simulacra; virtual worlds constructed from objects that have little-to-no reference to real-world constructs (Baudrillard, 1995).
Following on from third places we can explore the shifting of boundaries generated by new media and what drives people to socialise via these media, the concepts of social capital and weak ties, as well as the exclusionary behaviours exhibited by some in order to create divisions of power, e.g. between “power gamers”, people who form elitist structures within the gaming community, and “casual gamers”, people who generally don’t take gaming too seriously (Di Loreto & Gouaich, 2010). Connecting all of these themes together are the topics of anonymity and pseudonymity, and how they have enabled individuals and groups to incite anger, frustration and sadness within various virtual worlds by using false or misleading reusable identities, leading to toxic environments where adversity between players challenges the idea of several of Oldenburg’s characteristics central to maintaining third places.
A short history of gaming
Huizinga notes that the areas in which game play is constructed occurs within a “magic circle”; a limited, temporal space within which a performance or performances occur as an act apart from the real world, where individuals share the feeling of being apart together in absence of the usual worldly norms while socialising (Huizinga, 1949). While Huizinga references classic games such as chess and the more traditional clubs that form around them, the constructs of sharing social aspects together in a play space has been extended and enhanced with the advent of various networking and Web 2.0 technologies.
Key to the simulation of virtual worlds where multiple people could interact and socialise were two titles: Maze and Spasim (both 1973). The titles were based on the efforts of students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Stanford University, utilising the networking technology of ARPANET and PLATO, both predecessors to the Internet (Moss, 2016). Maze allowed up to eight players to engage each other in the genre known as First-Person Shooter (FPS), where the player fights other players (or computer generated and controlled robots or “bots”) to complete objectives and score points. Spasim allowed up to thirty-two players to engage each other in space combat, and, together with Maze, the two titles introduced platforms upon which many people could experience performances that were impossible in real life; a perfect example of Baudrillard’s “hallucination of the real” (Baudrillard, 1995).
One of the most famous examples that would drive the innovation behind online gaming and socialising was Zork, a single-player role-playing game (RPG) written by a group of MIT students in 1977 (Anderson, 2009). Zork put players in the shoes of an unnamed adventurer who delves into dungeons filled with treasure and all manner of creatures. It was from this that Roy Trubshaw, a student from the University of Essex, developed the first Multi-User Dungeon or MUD, running on a British academic network known as JANET (Bartle, 1990). MUD1 as it came to be known (Mulligan & Patrovsky, 2003), allowed individuals on the network to chat via text input anonymously or with a pseudonym in various spaces and explore the simulation of various environments, generating a third place by bringing together arguably all of Oldenburg’s characteristics (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009).
While text chat did allow for basic communication, it did not allow for a full range of social cues to be realised, thus limiting interactions to a primitive state. With the introduction of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) in 1995 (Krane, 2017), Internet users were able to communicate using Web 2.0 technologies and chat vocally, vastly increasing the range of social cues available which greatly improved how people formed interpersonal connections online and thus how they express and develop their identity in a gaming community (Williams et al., 2007). Advents such as avatars (simulated entities representing the player or user) allowed individuals to express extensions of the self or specific performances of their identity further, either somewhat-accurately about their real-life person, or as an anonymous construct.
Weak ties, strong ties and social capital
The development of one’s identity relies on the strength of one’s connections to other people and the accumulation of social capital; a wealth similar to financial capital that is gathered in order to generate a reputation or visibility, amongst other aspects (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). These connections, known as ties, are either strong (close family and friends) or weak (more distant relationships, e.g. friends of friends). While strong ties generally lend more reliable support, weak ties allow for more possibilities of variance in relationships, opening potential gateways to new opportunities. In terms of gaming, having a large friends list gives you more people to play, trade and communicate with, and is also a social status or point of reputation, a mechanic which is visible within various gaming platforms such as Steam, Origins and Uplay. The more friends and items you have, the more you can unlock, which is a driving motivator behind developing weak ties.
Delving into anonymity and pseudonymity
Many people choose to interact via online spaces to perform an aspect of their identity in complete anonymity, or by adopting a pseudonym that carries some meaningful identifier without revealing too much about the individual, using various media to engage experiences that they wouldn’t otherwise, losing their inhibitions to perform aspects of the self to a community. Some exhibit “benign disinhibition”, whereby they interact in a manner that is acceptable offline, while others exhibit “toxic disinhibition”; behaviours that they wouldn’t perform in real life that, given the lack of constraints online regarding courtesy and interpersonal proximity and physical customs (e.g. looking someone in the eyes during conversation), that Web 2.0 affords (Suler, 2004). For example, adopting an identity in the real world to harass others is seen as a social infraction and in some cases a crime, and thus for the majority of people is not something worth pursuing. However, in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (Valve, 2012), the act of using one or more throw-away or “smurf” accounts to harass others or gain an unfair advantage and even cheat is encouraged or even expected, even at the most competitive levels (Talkesport, 2015).
Pseudonymous identities versus anonymous identities can be contrasted by way of “assessment signals versus conventional signals”, or, put more simply, the effort required to build an identity in order to deceive or harass (Donath, 1999). Pseudonymous identities take more time to develop due to a greater level of detail, meaning that it is less likely that they will be discarded for the sake of toxic behaviour, given that a reputation is generally desired with a pseudonym for the purposes of developing one’s identity. By contrast however anonymous identities require little to no effort at all, allowing individuals to display socially unacceptable behaviours with no cost other than to perhaps an email address used to sign up for a service. In the context of online gaming, Valve’s online gaming platform Steam allows people to start up an account with only a verified email account, which is trivial given the number of different services offering recyclable email accounts. Newly created accounts are often used to engage others in toxic behaviour or to break rules, given the ease of acquisition and the relatively cheap cost of games in which this behaviour is common. In contrast are the accounts that have many items, games and friends attached, a reputation that would be too costly to lose, and thus a deterrent against antisocial behaviour (Matulef, 2017).
Regarding anonymity and toxicity, individuals are able to separate out various aspects of their identity by way of dissociation, due to the fact that (with the exception of serious law or vigilante enforcement), their online actions cannot be traced to their real self, granting a sense of freedom to otherwise pursue more questionable behaviours that come at the expense of others, such as trolling or flaming (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015). Individuals visiting a forum may be inclined to invent an identity in order to incite hostility within a community for entertainment purposes, and if found out can simply disappear or return with a new identity. While pseudonymity does afford a similar set of characteristics, the damage can be lessened somewhat by mindful community members given the reputation that is gradually associated with a name. Interestingly, individuals who are anonymous display more aggressive behaviours than those who can be identified, underlining the process of behavioural disinhibition and the increased tendencies towards toxic behaviour (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012).
Why online gaming generates toxicity and adversity
Computer-mediated-communication (CMC) while allowing individuals to communicate, does not afford the richness of face-to-face conversation, due to the lack of psychological and physical cues. Given the relative lack of identifiability, issues such as cyberbullying, “griefing” (deliberately interfering with somebody else or their belongings in a virtual world) and cheating have seen a surge alongside the popularity of multiplayer games, challenging and even perverting the definitions of Oldenburg’s third place.
Firstly is the problem of conversation as the supposed main activity. In competitive FPS games sound is essential to hearing the movements of other players, to the point where anything that is considered “excessive microphone chatter” while a tense moment plays out in-game can rapidly degenerate the team environment and create adversity between the noisy team mate and the team mate trying to concentrate (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).
Secondly is the issue of the third place containing regulars, specifically welcoming individuals. While Oldenburg states that regulars are responsible for attracting new players to a game (Oldenburg, 1999), Blackburn and Kwak have found that the opposite can be true, especially in competitive gaming (Blackburn & Kwak, 2014). The “tone of conviviality” described by Oldenburg is challenged by players who, given the freedoms and lack of responsibility or accountability that CMCs present, instead choose to use exclusionary language such as “noob” (previously a somewhat endearing term from “newbie”, now largely derogatory) and insulting or criticising new players rather than supporting them (Blackburn & Kwak, 2014).
Lastly is the issue of levelling. While Oldenburg posits that all third places strip participants of world rank and status for an equal footing within the virtual world, the issue of rank is still a matter of contention, especially in competitive gaming where a low rank may be seen as a hurdle to winning (Kwak et al., 2015). While the scale of adversity may differ between day-to-day competitive matches and eSports (a term used to define the professional scene for popular online games where people compete for large cash prizes, trophies and prestige on an international stage), toxicity and adversity manifest due to the competitive nature of both settings (Kwak et al., 2015), with smurf accounts being another example of acceptable social friction (Talkesports, 2015). Being deemed unworthy is a factor in intra-team friction and ostracization for the individuals deemed unworthy or “casual”, versus the individuals who consider themselves superior and thus “power gamers”.
Conclusion and rationalisation of stream
In conclusion, the disinhibition that manifests given interactions via CMCs grants individuals a sense of dissociative anonymity and in some cases pseudonymity, removing psychological checks individuals make when interpreting the fewer social cues available and the people they interact with in various third places. In the case of online gaming, it is clear that Oldenburg’s theory of such places is at odds with modern gaming, especially in competitive scenes where rank, skill and a lack of accountability combined with stakes or tension based on performance can motivate individuals to be toxic or to generate adversity between themselves and others. In the case of the stream of communities and games, while it is clear that online games can allow individuals to perform aspects of the self and socialise with others, it is arguable that anonymity and pseudonymity present many opportunities for individuals to generate toxicity and adversity in third places, especially in a competitive scene.
References
Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1). Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070
Anderson, T. (2009, January 16). The History of Zork. Retrieved March 30, 2019, from
https://web.archive.org/web/20090116035446/http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Infocom/Articles/NZT/zorkhist.html
Bartle, R. (1990, November 15). Early MUD History. Retrieved March 30, 2019, from http://mud.co.uk/richard/mudhist.htm
Baudrillard J. (1995) Simulacra and Simulations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Blackburn, J., & Kwak, H. (2014, April). Stfu noob!: predicting crowdsourced decisions on toxic behaviour in online games. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web (pp. 877-888). ACM.
Blood, R. (2000, September 7). Weblogs: A history and perspective. Retrieved March 29, 2019, from http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S121.
Di Loreto, I. & Gouaich, A. (2010). Social Casual Games Success is not so Casual Research Report #RR – 10017 LIRMM, University of Montplellier – CNRS http://hal.archivesouvertes.fr/docs/00/48/69/34/PDF/FunAndGames2010-03-22.pdf
Domahidi, E. Festl, R. and Quandt, T. (2014). To dwell among gamers: Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behaviour, 35. 107 – 115.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jchb.2014.02.023
Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). New York: Routledge http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Frostling-Henningsson, M. (2009). First-Person Shooter Games as a Way of Connecting to people: “Brothers in Blood” CyberPsychology & Behaviour 12(5).
Goffman, E. (1978). The presentation of self in everyday life (p. 56). London:
Harmondsworth.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Huizenga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London: Routledge & K. Paul.
IBP and NetcodeGuides allegedly involved in a cheating scandal » TalkEsport. (2015, November 25). Retrieved April 29, 2019, from
https://www.talkesport.com/news/ibp-and-netcodeguides-allegedly-involved-in-acheating-scandal/
Koivisto, E. (2003). Supporting Communities in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games by Game Design. Paper presented at the Digital Games Research Association Conference. http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05150.48442.pdf
Krane, D. (2017, August 06). Video Game History: Voice Chat. Retrieved March 30, 2019, from https://sourcegaming.info/2017/08/05/video-game-history-voice-chat/.
Kwak, H., Blackburn, J., & Han, S. (2015, April). Exploring cyberbullying and other toxic behaviour in team competition online games. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3739-3748). ACM.
Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eyecontact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in human behaviour, 28(2), 434-443.
Massanari, A. (2017). # Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19(3), 329-346.
Matulef, J. (2017, July 10). Valve issued its biggest banhammer in history following Steam Summer Sale. Retrieved March 31, 2019, from
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-07-11-valve-bans-over-40k-accountsfollowing-steam-summer-sale
Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behaviour. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moss, R. (2016, February 14). Headshot: A visual history of first-person shooters. Retrieved March 30, 2019, from https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/02/headshot-a-visualhistory-of-first-personshooters/.
Mulligan, J., & Patrovsky, B. (2003). Developing online games: An insider’s guide. New Riders.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: Cafe´s, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You Through The Day. New York: Marlowe & Company
O’reilly, T. (2009). What is web 2.0. ” O’Reilly Media, Inc.”.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Quandt, T., & Kowert, R. (2016). The video game debate: Unravelling the physical, social, and psychological effects of video games. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(4), article 1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x/full
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & behaviour, 7(3), 321-326.
Tönnies, F. (1957). Gemeinschaft und gesellschaft. Theories of society, 1.
Trepte, S. Reinecke, L. and Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28. 832 – 839. DOI: 10.1016/jchb.2011.12.003
Van Der Nagel, E. and Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3), Retrieved from http://www.ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5615/4346
Wasserman, K., & Stryker, T. (1980, December). Multimachine games. BYTE – The Small Systems Journal, 5(12), 26-42.
Williams, D., Caplan, S., & Xiong, L. (2007). Can you hear me now? The impact of voice in an online gaming community. Human communication research, 33(4), 427-449.
Hi Joel. I really enjoyed reading your essay. It gave me a new perspective on how some online gamers use anonymity for negative reasons such as trolling etc. I’m very aware of cyber bullying but hadn’t thought about purposeful bad behaviour in online gaming communities. Your essay made me wonder if you have experienced this yourself when playing online games. If so, would you be willing to share some of your experiences of the toxicity you wrote about? Thanks Lisa
Hi Lisa, thanks for your reply. There have been numerous times that I’ve been personally affected by toxicity that in some way has been affected by anonymity, as well as others that I have played with. For reference my two main multiplayer games were Counter-Strike and Rainbow Six Siege.
In terms of what I consider to be part and parcel of playing multiplayer games there’s the usual toxicity such as being called a hacker, childish insults etc. that comes with competitive play – in other words (usually) people blowing off steam. Other times I have been banned for having too high a score or for not playing the way a team mate wanted me to, or for voicing a different tactical opinion. In terms of serious toxicity I have been banned off servers that I’ve liked for choosing to not bully other players, which was a bizarre situation. The most serious situation I’ve been in was with a complete stranger that disagreed with me on the rules for a particular game, who then threatened to release my personal information online, such as my address, phone number, social media details etc.
In terms of the most toxic and anonymous behaviour I have witnessed was on a particular Counter-Strike server I used to play on quite a lot. We had a fairly quiet admin who didn’t use her microphone unless necessary (an essential part of gameplay as this particular modded server requires teams to direct each other through obstacle courses), unless she knew everyone on the server, for fear of receiving unwanted attention because she’s female. During one particular match while she was speaking, a newcomer on the server made some disgusting comments towards her (which she ignored), leading to that person finding out her personal information and posting it to various forums. She left the server almost immediately and deleted her Steam account, which was just awful.
Hi Joel,
Thanks for sharing your paper. I’m not all that familiar with today’s online gaming scene, so it was an interesting and informative read.
I was really curious about the comment you posted in reply to Lisa. When you encounter any of these situations, like being banned from a server on unfair grounds or being threatened, are you able to report this, and what’s usually done about it? Does it differ from platform to platform? Are some platforms better than others when it comes to policies around reporting such behaviours and enforcing those policies?
I also like that you highlighted in your paper this idea of “divisions of power” between “power gamers” and “casual gamers”. I actually didn’t know the term “newbie” is seen as a derogatory term now as you mentioned in your paper, but I can see as you say how using the term “noob” or “newbie” can make new players feel excluded rather than welcomed and supported. A few times I’ve thought about joining a multi-player online game, but I’ve found myself not following up on it, partly thinking I’ll most likely tick off the other experienced players if I’m not familiar with the game. So I guess even without being an active online gamer, that division of power you highlight already exists in my head.
I’m curious – as an active online gamer, what’s your experience with noobs in the online gaming world? Do you often find that they’re insulted/excluded? Are some games more welcoming/supportive of noobs than others?
Hi Lana, thanks for your reply.
It depends on the platform and the severity of the situation. For example, if I’m on Steam and I’m banned unfairly then I might leave a negative response on the server’s forum page in the Steam community or on their website, but usually I simply find another server as it’s not worth the trouble, as I’ve found behaviour like that to be a pretty good indication of a toxic community. In the case of being threatened I reported the person responsible and the server it occurred on to Valve, but never received anything more than an automated response, which was pretty terrible.
On Uplay I’ve reported people for cheating which resulted in bans, but never for harassment. Can’t say much for Origin or GoG, as I don’t use Origin and I only have single player games for GoG. Xbox Live has a fairly lackluster reporting system too, but I’ve only ever reported people for suspected hacking, which seems fairly automated. I suppose it does depend on the server I’ve played on, and whether the community has any control and if they’re welcoming of bad behaviour. Some server admins can be quite good in controlling toxic people.
“I also like that you highlighted in your paper this idea of “divisions of power” between “power gamers” and “casual gamers”.”
That’s something tricky I’ve found with how terms like “noob” and “newbie” are used in a specific community. Some communities use it as a levelling tool in order to promote safe spaces for newcomers where they can learn at a relaxed pace, while others use it as a way of excluding those they don’t have the patience to teach.
“A few times I’ve thought about joining a multi-player online game, but I’ve found myself not following up on it, partly thinking I’ll most likely tick off the other experienced players if I’m not familiar with the game.”
I’ve thought the same thing when first joining online communities. If a wall of insults flies at me as I struggle to learn the mechanics then I leave to find a better server. I hope I haven’t made it seem unappealing though aha, as some of my best gaming memories have been formed online.
“I’m curious – as an active online gamer, what’s your experience with noobs in the online gaming world? Do you often find that they’re insulted/excluded? Are some games more welcoming/supportive of noobs than others?”
I’ve found that toxicity is definitely more of an issue in competitive or male-dominated communities though such as CS GO, while in communities such as Ark: Survival Evolved communication is a lot more balanced. People tend to be picked on more when they’re alone online, so forming a party in my experience makes it harder to be picked on.
Thanks so much for your reply Joel – that was very informative! 🙂
Hahaha no you haven’t turned me off trying my hand at online gaming! Sounds like I’ll just need to try and find the right platform and game 🙂 Are there any forums/websites available that rank games/platforms according to their quality when it comes to community support and reporting policies?
Shopping around can definitely stop a lot of headaches. 🙂 Depending on the game, I start with sites like battlemetrics.com or gametracker.com, to get an idea of how active the player base is and how many community votes they have, then I’ll hunt around to see if they have a community page or forum on Steam or an external site, or a Discord channel. I’ve found good servers by looking at comments on forums and how people have responded, especially with senior members or admins. Sometimes I’ll jump in to a server and play for a bit, ask in chat if the admins are good and if many people play on the server – great litmus test for how friendly, helpful and supportive the community is. Some communities publish their rules, but whether they enforce them or not is another question.
Happy hunting! 🙂
Thanks for the tips Joel! 🙂
Hi Joel
I found your paper to be very informative for me as I have no experience in online gaming communities and have learned something about online gaming communities. I hadn’t realised that all the bad behaviour found on the social media platforms would cross over into the gaming communities. Really I shouldn’t be surprised as we see bad behaviour from famous sporting stars, Leighton Hewitt and Serena Williams smashing rackets and not to forget David Warner and the sandpaper affair. I read in your answer to Lisa the shocking cyber-bulling of the admin female being subjected to discussing comments from a newcomer. I question why he was playing, obviously he wasn’t interest in playing the game and decided toxic and anonymous behaviour was more his bag.
Hi Robin, thanks for the reply.
Your point about bad behaviour from celebrities and people in gaming communities is interesting, given the pressure to perform and how people don’t handle that well. With regards to that admin, sadly a lot of women that I’ve played with have similar experiences (or at least unreasonably toxic encounters), which just goes to show the uneven level of the playing field in online gaming. In this particular instance the offender was banned from the game, but I don’t think he was ever caught in real life, given that we’ve only recently started to prosecute behaviour like this in the offline world.
Hey Joel!
I loved your paper. I had a point to add regarding something I learned while researching a paper on the social capital of Eports student athletes.
> “The development of one’s identity relies on the strength of one’s connections to other people and the accumulation of social capital; a wealth similar to financial capital that is gathered in order to generate a reputation or visibility, amongst other aspects (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007).”
University of Kansas researchers spoke to 33 students on ESports scholarships;
“College athletics have long been shown to help athletes and students gain social capital on their campuses. When asked if their e-sports participation helped in that regard, respondents said they formed strong relationships with teammates but didn’t necessarily gain capital outside of the team within their university. ”
Do you believe that ESports athletes will ever be considered as ‘Real’ Athletes? And as the social capital of the Gamer rises, what effect do you think this will have on the way we will all perceive video games in the future? Will we look at them the same way we view soccer, football, track and field, etc?
Also,
> “toxic disinhibition”; behaviours that they wouldn’t perform in real life that, given the lack of constraints online regarding courtesy and interpersonal proximity and physical customs (e.g. looking someone in the eyes during conversation), that Web 2.0 affords (Suler, 2004)
I believe something similar happens to people when they get behind the wheel. The inability to see another drivers face, their actions, emotions or tone of voice leads to people disassociating and falling in a fit of road rage. Do you think there are any other scenarios where “toxic disinhibition” play a factor that does not involve a screen?
Hi David, thanks for your reply.
“Do you believe that ESports athletes will ever be considered as ‘Real’ Athletes? And as the social capital of the Gamer rises, what effect do you think this will have on the way we will all perceive video games in the future? Will we look at them the same way we view soccer, football, track and field, etc?”
The eSports phenomenon is quite interesting and seems to be getting more and more attention lately, which I think is a good thing. I’ve noticed a lot of people tend to view gaming as a somewhat silly or wasteful pastime, and the idea that it can actually be a good source of income or a worthwhile career as unrealistic. However, I believe that this is a cultural attitude that is slowly shifting as more people pursue the eSports scene, especially with the rising popularity of CS GO, DoTA 2 and LoL internationals, as well as the rise of multicultural communities and social movements.
While researching I came across the South Korean “PC Bang” movement, where lots of kids, teens and adults spend their time gaming and training to become eSport professionals; a normality compared to other places. Perhaps as exposure to gaming (and perhaps better Internet) grows we’ll see a similar attitude develop elsewhere? I’ve noticed that a couple of people in this conference have expressed interest in gaming, but were limited by access to technology or a fast Internet connection, which suggests that the digital divide is still a very real issue here, while not so much in Europe and Asia, where attitudes towards professional gaming seem different, generally speaking. Certainly PC Bangs support Oldenburg’s idea of a “third place” in that everyone can access the same equipment and environment for online gaming.
Personally speaking, video gaming as a hobby seems to be a much more acceptable thing now than it was 15 years ago, where the idea of booting up an old machine to play AoE at a LAN wasn’t something that a lot of people liked the idea of.
“I believe something similar happens to people when they get behind the wheel. The inability to see another drivers face, their actions, emotions or tone of voice leads to people disassociating and falling in a fit of road rage. Do you think there are any other scenarios where “toxic disinhibition” play a factor that does not involve a screen?”
Definitely. Anytime that anonymity or an element that unbalances a situation or environment enters into things seems to allow for more undesirable behaviour. Sports are probably one example I can immediately think of, e.g. where people yell what they might consider to be banter but wouldn’t actually say face-to-face, due to them being fairly anonymous in a crowd. Even waiting in an especially long queue where someone at the front is far enough away for people to make unhelpful comments is probably a workable example. It probably depends on how anonymous you can be in terms of social cues, so toxicity from an online stranger is probably where we can see some of the worst examples.
Huhh, J. S. (2008). Culture and business of PC bangs in Korea. Games and Culture, 3(1), 26-37.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: Cafe´s, Coffee Shops, Community Centers,
Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You Through The
Day. New York: Marlowe & Company
Hey Joel,
>” However, I believe that this is a cultural attitude that is slowly shifting as more people pursue the eSports scene, especially with the rising popularity of CS GO, DoTA 2 and LoL internationals, as well as the rise of multicultural communities and social movements.”
I agree entirely. This as well as the ageing population of people who play video games. There’s a lot of children who play video games now and it is still a growing industry. As the amount of people who play games as a hobby rises and as those people get older I think the viewership of Esports will also go up. I read recently that they were even considering having Esports art the Olympics. (https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/43893891). I think that the acceptance of Esports athletes will grow as the population ages.
>” While researching I came across the South Korean “PC Bang” movement, where lots of kids, teens and adults spend their time gaming and training to become eSport professionals; normality compared to other places.”
I believe I have seen something like this regarding Tekken. There was an arcade in Korea which was packed with Tekken arcade machines and people would go there and train for hours a day to compete in Tekken championships. It was very interesting.
>” are probably one example I can immediately think of, e.g. where people yell what they might consider being banter but wouldn’t actually say face-to-face, due to them being fairly anonymous in a crowd.”
People are also prone to mob mentality which we see play out in things like riots. They believe that they can get away with anti-social behaviour because they are hidden in the mob. We can see examples of this in modern-day America during the more heated political rallies where two groups that disagree meet.
David,
Hi David,
“I agree entirely. This as well as the ageing population of people who play video games. There’s a lot of children who play video games now and it is still a growing industry. As the amount of people who play games as a hobby rises and as those people get older I think the viewership of Esports will also go up. I read recently that they were even considering having Esports art the Olympics. (https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/43893891). I think that the acceptance of Esports athletes will grow as the population ages.”
I hadn’t even considered our aging gaming population, that’s a really good point. I suppose as people like Shirley Curry become more famous gaming will mature quite a bit, especially when they’re added to video games (https://www.techradar.com/news/skyrim-grandma-shirley-curry-will-be-an-npc-in-the-elder-scrolls-6). And Esports being included at the Olympics seems like a very big step forward in legitimising Esports alongside more traditional sports, becoming more inclusive in the process of those who may not necessarily have physical prowess in terms of the usual sporting categories but may be fantastic at other aspects.
“I believe I have seen something like this regarding Tekken. There was an arcade in Korea which was packed with Tekken arcade machines and people would go there and train for hours a day to compete in Tekken championships. It was very interesting.”
Was that for tournaments like EVO etc.? I remember seeing something similar for Street Fighter, Star Craft and DoTA2.
“People are also prone to mob mentality which we see play out in things like riots. They believe that they can get away with anti-social behaviour because they are hidden in the mob. We can see examples of this in modern-day America during the more heated political rallies where two groups that disagree meet.”
That’s also true, the whole idea of social disinhibition by anonymity. Same goes for the gilets jaunes in France; extremist fringe groups used what was otherwise supposed to be a peaceful protest to pursue anti-social behaviour.
Hi Joel,
An interesting paper here and yes it is entirely parallel to my own but I really like how you showed a completely different side to online gaming. I think you might be an online gamer as I am too and have had my fair share of experience with different gaming online gaming platforms and have been in the line of fire of online harassment and cyber bullying, even though I was completely anonymous, my character was female and hence names were thrown around because of the gender of the character.
I know Minecraft’s (Mojang now owned by Microsoft) unofficial servers were not protected by griefing unless you had a specific mod installed on the server which allowed players to mark out a specific area that then became their own and anyone they wished to add to it.
Another game I spent ten years playing was Entropia (MMORPG) and in this game you could not be anonymous as you had to pay to earn your skills, so starting again would be like entering “Noob Island” so to speak. These very skilled players who were well known on social media platforms (youtube and twitch) would sit outside of PVP zones in the entries to space and when someone hit the PVP they would corner them and chase them, taking down their ship. They got skills for damaging someone’s ship and they also got loot if the people were carrying things worth money like mined minerals, fuel or paint. No matter how much players complained about these players, Entropia never banned them or gave them warnings for doing it, because I believe it kept the game in business (you have to pay to do anything or earn skills)
What are your thoughts on games that you have to pay to play and their code of conduct in regards to harrassment/bullying and how they deal with it?
Hi Stacey, thanks for your reply.
I’m really interested to hear your perspective on online gaming, especially cyber-bullying if you’d like to share? Even though I’ve witnessed a fair bit of discrimination while playing online I feel like it is from the perspective of someone who is privileged in terms of the online playing field. It’s kind of disturbing how self-expression with a female avatar is met with odd comments online, while male avatars in my experience generally don’t have many issues.
“I know Minecraft’s (Mojang now owned by Microsoft) unofficial servers were not protected by griefing unless you had a specific mod installed on the server which allowed players to mark out a specific area that then became their own and anyone they wished to add to it.”
Ah, this takes me back. The joy of having built your own 2×2 hut to get established before immediately getting raided by a 6 person strong group of griefers in full diamond gear. Same thing used to happen in Ark with gigas before they introduced raid protection.
“These very skilled players who were well known on social media platforms (youtube and twitch) would sit outside of PVP zones in the entries to space and when someone hit the PVP they would corner them and chase them, taking down their ship. ”
That sounds like it would have been absolutely awful to get hit if you’d put a decent amount of money and time (especially ten years) into the game. Did this ever happen to you? That and stream-sniping are some truly toxic issues, but you’re definitely on point in saying that developers won’t do anything because of the amount of cash it rakes in.
The only game I’ve really paid to play in a sense would be VIP for Rainbow Six, which is $60 per year from memory. I used to play competitive ranked matches, and so being able to access new operators a week early to figure out the incoming meta of how they worked and how they could be countered was invaluable. However, given that people in ranked would sometimes follow you from match to match and either deliberately lose to affect your rank or vote kick you for a laugh meant that your paid experience was awful at times, something that the Ubisoft developers ignored for more paid item skins etc. I actually left due to the state of ranked matchmaking, due to toxicity at higher levels.
I believe that if you’re unable to experience a game that you’ve paid money to play then you should be able to refund it, especially if the developers cannot or will not fix the problem and you’re being bullied or harassed. I’m not sure how you’d implement that as a rule.. maybe something within the Australian Consumer Law and your entitlements to refunds? E.g. you have a product that is defective if you can’t experience it due to people abusing PvP borders like in Entropia or taking advantage of the vote-kick system. What do you think?
Hi Joel,
My experience with online harassment specifically in Entropia and then Minecraft was all due to the fact that I was using a female avatar. With Entropia, I was gunned down and attacked in space by “space pirates” and when I lashed out after they wrecked my ship I was thrown back with some dirty female centred insults. This was the same in Minecraft – partner and I ran a server and we had random kids come on who didn’t like listening to a female admin so they would insult me then log off (always in a male avatar skin as we had a ghosting mod where you could go invisible and teleport to their location and they didn’t know you were right behind them).
Rainbow Six doesn’t sound like a game I would want to try and play ( I did consider it) but I just don’t like the sound of the ranking system.
I totally agree there needs to be some form refund policy or back logging when things you have paid to have are taken from you. I don’t think giving back items that have been taken will ever become a tihng, because this would leave game creators out of pocket with no money generations for players needing to re purchase items; however in the future I do hope there is a refund policy on games whether they are physical copies or bought online. It just doesn’t seem fair for a player to waste money on a bad gaming experience.
I think steam allows you to refund a game within a specific time frame. I know I refunded a couple I had bought a few years ago, so maybe other developers could learn a thing or two from them. 🙂
“With Entropia, I was gunned down and attacked in space by “space pirates” and when I lashed out after they wrecked my ship I was thrown back with some dirty female centred insults”, “…listening to a female admin so they would insult me then log off …”
I’m not sure why so many male online gamers have an aversion to women playing games, but that theme of “what’s a woman doing here?” rings uncomfortably loud here. In all my time playing games insults hurled at men generally include insults about how bad you are at the game (and of course jokes about your mother), but rare are the comments that initially attack you because of who you are in real life, whereas the opposite seems true in your experience (and other experiences involving women I’ve witnessed). Perhaps it’s the idea of “the boys club” being “invaded”, and the illusion of exclusivity being shattered.
“Rainbow Six doesn’t sound like a game I would want to try and play ( I did consider it) but I just don’t like the sound of the ranking system.”
I understand that. That was actually the reason why I left, with the most definitive reason for uninstalling being that after winning one match in which I got two aces and gained next to no points, I lost the next match by a whisker and dropped several ranks.
“It just doesn’t seem fair for a player to waste money on a bad gaming experience.”
Absolutely, especially with issues like Early Access on Steam, where rubbish games are published and the developers can abscond with money.
“I think steam allows you to refund a game within a specific time frame. I know I refunded a couple I had bought a few years ago, so maybe other developers could learn a thing or two from them”
I think it’s 2 hours played or 2 weeks in your inventory? I’m probably wrong, but I was delighted when Valve was fined for trying to get around the Australian Consumer Law. 🙂
https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/23/valve-steam-fined-2-million-australia-refund-policy/
Hi Joel,
Yeah I have seen verbal abuse thrown both ways, male or female so I don’t think it is only females that have a hard time getting into some online games. At the moment I am playing a very male dominated game (or so it feels in the atmosphere of the social media pages like facebook and instagram and in game) called Path of Exile (it’s on steam and free) and even though the gender barrier is broken by having gender locking on certain classes/characters, when I go into a party to complete a challenge 90% of the players in that party assume I’m male, even though I am using a female character. Things like “boys” “lads” are usually said as we are entering a portal. I don’t find it offensive, but it is funny to see that even when guys are playing “female” characters, they still need to address themselves are male. It hasn’t put me off the game, and I happily play both male and female characters. I have over 2,000 hours play time.
ooh, no I don’t buy early access games. I did once and it was so bad it was not playable.
Yep, exactly and I hope to see more gaming companies adopt the refund policy. 🙂
Hi Stacey,
“Yeah I have seen verbal abuse thrown both ways, male or female so I don’t think it is only females that have a hard time getting into some online games.”
Very true, it’s super confrontational at times regardless.
“Things like “boys” “lads” are usually said as we are entering a portal. I don’t find it offensive, but it is funny to see that even when guys are playing “female” characters, they still need to address themselves are male. ”
Ah, so that’s not just a Counter-Strike thing? Used to have that all the time when a round started, usually “Rush them boys”or “let’s go lads”, though there are no female avatars there.
“It hasn’t put me off the game, and I happily play both male and female characters. I have over 2,000 hours play time.”
Sounds like a decent community if they’re not judgmental based on your avatar?
“ooh, no I don’t buy early access games. I did once and it was so bad it was not playable.”
Same, bought DayZ Standalone, and still regret it to this day. Would have been handy to have the refund system on Steam working at that point to return the game. 🙂
No bias against males playing a female character, however some of the screen names for the female characters is debatable and very eye rolling. I think if Path of Exile could improve one thing in game, that would be the character names they allow players to create, they can be bad.
Ah yes, DayZ, yes refunds back then would of been handy. I think a lot of people refunded No Man’s Sky as it was hyped up but when released, people were very unimpressed.
I can imagine, though I’ve seen examples of recent clever text analysers that scan player names and ban them for creative or distasteful tags. If more games adopted approaches like Entropia or Siege do you think people would eventually learn, or will it always be the case that some people will choose silly names?
That game was awful. “Totally has multiplayer” – no multiplayer. I’m surprised they managed to avoid being fined in the UK: https://www.polygon.com/2016/11/30/13791782/no-mans-sky-false-advertising-results
Yes Path of Exile should have something kind of technology that can scan and ban. It may stop them but I actually think the developers think the names are funny (Some are, but others are just wrong) and that is why they won’t remove the ability to make these names.
Yeah it definitely was false advertising. I waited so long to get the game and when it was released and saw so many bad reviews I said no.
Shame that the culture is promoted by the developers. Maybe we need some sort of rule in things like the Australian Classifications Board? Could be risky though, given how strict they’ve been with some games.
At least it got universally panned though, as they apparently made some effort to fix it, though too late from what I heard?
Hi Joel.
This is a very well written and informative paper. I personally have had many experiences with toxic behavior (bullying, trolling, hacking…) in online gaming. The worst being hacking. As i have played many free to play games throughout my life, i find these are the worst areas for toxic behavior, since you can make a new account so easily and usually for free. Recently major companies (such as Apex Legends) have started hardware banning people, this way it is much harder for a player to simply make another account, because the unique identifiers on their hardware have been banned (GPU, motherboard etc.). I find this quite interesting as it is a big deterrent for hacking.
I also know companies such as blizzard have gone as far as suing people or companies who deploy hacks for their games. I think this is a big positive for gaming, as a simple IP or Email ban isn’t the only option gaming companies have now.
Reading other comments on your paper, it is obvious on toxicity is a big problem in gaming today, i would like to thank you for highlighting these issues. Do you think forcing every player to link a real identity to their gaming account would be a bad thing? For example, you are required to upload a scanned document (drivers licence) confirming who you are – a person would then confirm your details before allowing you to play the game. I know this sounds tedious, but for larger companies who deploy multiple games, it could be an option?
Thanks for you time.
Hi Joel, I really enjoyed your paper.
I myself am an avid gamer, and after reading some of the experiences you have shared here, I can safely say that I too know these all too well. My two primary games recently have been Rainbow Six Siege and Destiny 2 and both of these games can offer very different gameplay experiences in relation to interaction.
Given Siege’s competitive nature, it is definitely quite common to come across people cheating, exploiting, bullying or smurfing and this can often result in very negative interactions. Similarly with the PvP side of Destiny, people can get angry and abusive if you refuse to play the game how they want you to. Additionally, it is not uncommon for toxic behaviour within these kinds of games to spill into the online sphere of social media and content sharing platforms. From Twitter to YouTube, Instagram and Twitch. These kinds of anonymous “trolls” are everywhere.
This contrasts greatly with my experience in PvE on Destiny. Much of the time when I put a group together, we become quite good friends and often keep in contact for extended periods of time. Within the last year I have made three friends from America through Destiny 2 raiding. My point in bringing this up is that where toxicity is present, communities are often strengthened. As you have already read, my paper covers the idea that gaming communities are the backbones of games and are often sought out for various reasons, including social support. Thus, when toxic characters arise, there is often people available to support and negate the effects of such toxicity. That really is my favourite part of gaming and i find it is often noticeable on Twitch when a “troll” gets shut down by the streamer and the chat rallies around the decision. Explicitly signalling to other present “trolls” that it isn’t okay.
Cheers,
Alex