Who gets to define what's "normal" for gamers?

[General Ma Chao]

EULAs of multiplayer games have always said that using it for crime planning is forbidden. Like I said, I doubt this project is manageable. Even if they do get a project off the ground, I doubt they're gonna find much of interest.

 

[InProgress]

This is as big as a cocksickle can get. The US Goverment is trying to 'prevent' terrorists, but, the fact is, that they can't even catch the present ones (The Hunting Party is a good movie about this subject). And this will create something resembling the Overwatch or the 'Big Brother' from 1984(excuse me if I'm wrong about this, but I'm hoping to start reading it soon). And as others said: How can you tell if someone's devious? I once pretended to be a girl in MMOs to get some laughs from guble players. Does that make me a future terrorist? And letting the US Goverment choosing the definition of 'normality' is like letting a happy-person(glee...) choose your fate. I don't play WoW, but I still think this idea is VERY bad. The so called 'freedom of choice' (as well as other freedoms) will disappear in time. It's going to be Nazi Germany all over again!

 

[xMacx]

I'm having trouble dealing with the fact that for all the big words and ideas being thrown around, no one seems to have followed the links to the original Wired article.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/nations-spies-w.html

If you're still too lazy to click on it, the headline is:

"U.S. Spies Want to Find Terrorists in World of Warcraft"

Now I don't have a stance on Big Brother watching me frag one way or another, but the point is that this doesn't seem to have anything to do with "normality" outside of establishing the difference between a clan fighting over loot and people using WoW to plot terrorist acts.

The wired article is not the original - the article the wired post is based on a publicly available report - that's what I read and based my judgments on. My information above is based from the report, not the wired blog.

But since you want people to read it, they did pull out one of the main objectives:

"The cultural and behavioral norms of virtual worlds and gaming are generally unstudied. Therefore, Reynard will seek to identify the emerging social, behavioral and cultural norms in virtual worlds and gaming environments. The project would then apply the lessons learned to determine the feasibility of automatically detecting suspicious behavior and actions in the virtual world."


Hence establishing normality. Though a lot of people here are getting statistical normality and cultural definitions of normality confused. The two are inter-related in the Reynard project, which is understandable, given some of their goals.

I'm guessing the majority of people posting on it have not seen the source material, only the headline that you quoted - which is true, but slightly misleading as to the project's stated objectives.

 

[xMacx]

outside of establishing the difference between a clan fighting over loot and people using WoW to plot terrorist acts.

But I do partially agree with your final statement.

 

[[HD]Rob Inglis]

Fuck those Spies, crazy people exist everywhere. What are they oging to do, hunt people donw who don't do everything else that everyone else is doing?
Gamer 1: "Man, I'm going to go fight the same snail 10000000000000 times to get exp, just like everyone else! =)
Gamer 2: I'm gogin to complete quests and try to better my character in the proper way!
Spies: We found our guy, take him down!!!
*they trace IP, break into house and beat him to the ground*
Government people and communites: Why'd you do that?
SPies: He was different from the other gamerz, lolz!!1!1

 

[academic_gamer]

Thank you for editing my quotes so it did not include areas where I agreed with you. But I feel I must clarify a few things.

No, really, they don't. Talk with some people with PhD's who do research in the world and see how many identify themselves with the title "academic" before whatever it is they do. Requiring refereed sources is not the same as calling yourself academic_anything.

Yes they do, I studied social research, and talked with various professors. The one criteria that stayed above all of my work, despite how grass roots my research may take me, was to consider it within an academic standing. Academic as an adjective pretty much describes what is expected of you in any educational institution. Also, again I feel myself the great need to repeat this, I never said I was purely academic, nor the greatest authority on the video game community. I indicated earlier that I rely on responses, such as yours (thank you by the way), to measure, gauge, and provide indicators for where exactly my research base should begin and is taking me. Responses to this kind of research provide an approach to the understanding to the community.

Also not true. In the HCI community, there is a painfully frequent amount of research done on online community behavior. And amazingly, there is work done about online behavior in MMO's. Check out the following article from CHI about player behavior in WoW: http://www.parc.com/research/publications/details.php?id=5599
or another paper on social activity in WoW:
http://darrouzet-nardi.net/bonnie/pdf/fp199-Nardi.pdf

Thank you for the sources, I will begin analyzing them soon.

Please show me in your earlier post where you explicitly referred to the argument that data mining has previously been used negatively in social research.

I didn't, that's why I apologized for it, and explained it more clearly.

While you're at it, here's the wiki on data mining. Educate me on what you were referring to there as well. And seriously, wikis are good for a lot of things, but that page on data mining is pretty poor to be basing your argument off of. Are you talking about limitations of modeling decision-making behavior using data mining?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining

Section 1.2. I also never said that wiki was the most credible source for research terms. I did say it was what I was referring to in a nutshell.

See my "moving target" example of earlier. Same fallacy again. You don't know the goals, so you don't know the assumptions. Which makes any criticisms you throw out there pretty much null and void until you can understand the lens through which they're looking at the data.

Fair enough. But...

It seems like you're confusing identifying behavioral trends with deterring extremism. Look, most federally funded projects like this have a far away end goal - usually of being able to produce models that can define possible outcomes or actions...which may someday in the future be used to design societal or strategic defenses. All of the Darpa style projects have some end goal so far in the future it's not even worth arguing whether it will work or not. That's why research like this gets funded - to see if you can do it.

you just said it had an end goal there.

Seriously, I'm doubting you've ever worked on a research team for any period of time or have ever been on a funded research project. Your objection is precisely how research gets done in the states - its all some glossy, airy idea that may never actually come to fruition.

Thank you for the constructive criticism, but I never said that I have worked with a research team. I did say I do research with the information I do come across, and in a form of a "freelance" environment. I also don't get funding. From time to time I do defer to my peers for advice, help, or to cross-reference possible findings.

Also I never said that I was the only researcher for gaming. My comment was that there wasn't enough of a spotlight on them, and instead their research is either ignored or used in a negative context. I also said that they are out there, and on the side of gamers and not politicians who like to go around toting how video games are the bane of society.

And what I meant is that if you're making that statement, then you're clearly not in touch with the research community that does look at games. Games researchers are at GDC, they're at CHI, they're at a slew of venues getting their work and the good word out there. You should probably look into some of the conferences and journals that are regularly published on the topic.

I agree with you, but that's not what I was saying. I said that there isn't enough of a spotlight in the public eye for research in gaming. Instead it is always used for political pandering which may or may not do such research justice. The fact that they are gaining headway towards stopping this, I have no argument against.

Your comments throughout this thread pretty much guarantee that you aren't familiar with the games research professionally. If you want to talk about it, fine, but don't start it off talking about how you "study" them if don't have a formal background in the science behind games study. I'm not rolling up on a physics board with the screen name Academic_Physicist. I'd be misrepresenting myself, and insulting those who have invested a significant portion of their life getting the academic degree that I'd be suggesting that I had. And that would just be wrong.

Never said I was a professional. I do have a formal background in sociology, and that includes studying various communities and social groupings. I also studied history, which provides me with a historical context of developing social groups. I also conducted research in this manner under the guidance of professors and various academics (which I mentioned earlier whom I refer to from time to time). My forum name (and it's just a forum name here) just indicates the context of my posts. You may not agree with it as you wish, because in social research there is always room for contention.

 

[xMacx]

you just said it had an end goal there.

Just to be clear -the lens, range, or short term goal of a single study is different from the end goal of a research program. The first is in the context of a specific bit of data collection/study; the second is a programmatic goal - usually the end goal of some grantor's funding. So they're often related, but different goals. Hope that makes it more clear.


My apologies for the excess vitriol in my earlier posts; it was 2-3 AM, I was a little too punchy to be posting.

 

[academic_gamer]

you just said it had an end goal there.

Just to be clear -the lens, range, or short term goal of a single study is different from the end goal of a research program. The first is in the context of a specific bit of data collection/study; the second is a programmatic goal - usually the end goal of some grantor's funding. So they're often related, but different goals. Hope that makes it more clear.


My apologies for the excess vitriol in my earlier posts; it was 2-3 AM, I was a little too punchy to be posting.

I think we all get a little punchy when it's that early. Sorry if I was too.

Well to get back on topic, I guess my argument is their goal, is biased. In my opinion, I don't think it's a fair assessment of the community, or the potential of this research. I agree that it should be researched, and normalcy to show its way through the data. But when you have a goal, which specifically seeks out negative aspects of a certain community, the research is already being narrowed.

A thought did occur though, in that our source for this project is a news site catered to the gaming community. Portraying a research in a negative light, as you mentioned earlier, garners more interest by its intended audience. I would like to see data on this project though.

 

[broadband]

well i havent readed much comentaries but im just oing to say that if this is mainly for look for possible threats, is just a waste of money in a... opresive and paranoic way i dont know how say it, maybe it wouldnt be so bad if it would be just research for human behavior, but looking for terrorists? thats ridiculous, that would mean that we will have FBI agents raiding hundreds of houses of leet pvpers, campers and that stuff.

sorry if didnt expresed very well.

 

[BlackWatch]

i havent even bothered to read the article or most of these posts because im a lazy abnormal nob, but frankly as far as i can tell this has to be the most utterly pointless waste of time in the US since people actually went out and voted George W in. Why the hell look for terrorists in WoW or any other MMO for that matter, have people become so paranoid about the internet they think games must be the source of all terrorist networking, oh god i can imagine the cleverly disguised clan names now 'A_L_Q*A*E*D*A_PWN'!! The reason we catch so few terrorists is that they arent bloody stupid. Ok so i only live in a tiny suburb in england but i reckon i could have at least 30 shady looking blokes carrying replica AK's round at my house before my elderly neighbours batted an eyelid, who needs team-speak when i could do it in person.

 

[chicgeekchick]

And now I imagine Osama bin Laden sitting somewhere in a cave, planning his budget for the coming fiscal year, and reserving x part of the money for his loyal fans' WoW monthly fee.

Right. Or maybe they're too cheap and would rather use Second Life.

Hmm... Watch out, citizens! Remember that the odd furry going trying to yiff you might, in fact, be a terrorist in a digital hamster suit! STRANGER DANGER!

 

[BlackWatch]

Maybe GW plays and is getting infuriated with the amount of instances where he merely has to kill enemies to succeed and not become socio-pathic governor of their resources ... ooo hard hitting

^^ you are a nutter ... i like it!

 

[hikaxan]

What I don't understand is how they plan on doing this research. I don't believe that blizzard logs every kill, whisper, shout and say you make in the game, and if they do I doubt they keep it for long. It would be much easier to monitor chat rooms (so yes I guess the logs for chat channels would count) where you can pick out text easily. But I doubt terrorists are dumb enough to outright say, even in whisper, that they are going to bomb X at Y time. Some type of code phrase is probably going to be used. The resources it would take to actually monitor real behavior in an MMO, while still being within the correct context, makes me believe that some FBI agents would actually have to start playing the game. (which is an amusing thought in itself. A man in a black suit in sunglasses on a TV commercial "My name is Agent X... and I am a rogue.")

Also (and I understand that this is where the researching comes in) some people act completely different in real life than they do online. The stereotypical shy gamer in the real world could be real confidant and a "supreme commander" or some such jazz OL. Does this mean that a person who randomly kills critters (or characters much lower than them in world PvP) is the same as the future serial killer who tortures squirrels? That's like saying someone who's a good sniper in Team Fortress would make a good one in real life. Or men who play women secretly want to be women when what most of them want is just to not look at a guys butt and to get free stuff.

As far as finding "extremist behavior" I think they are more likely to find disturbed teenagers who, because of many reasons outside of game, could be a threat to themselves or commit a school shooting rather than terrorists. I'm sorry I just don't see a fundamentalist of any kind, terrorist or no, sitting down to play a game that has so many elements in it that could be considered "sinful" just to organize an attack.

 

[werepossum]

Probably this whole thing is the result of some slacker getting caught playing WOW on the clock. I can see it all now...

Boss: What the hell is that on your computer? Are you playing games?

Slacker: Uh... No. No I'm not. I have found some suspects whom I think are terrorists trying to infiltrate our country virtually and indoctrinate our youth. Which are our future.

Boss: Oh. I guess that's all right then. How much money will you need?

 

[Marriot]

Id like to use this thread to say that casual on Gears of War (i think that was normal) was piss easy and i dont think anybody couldnt beat that without challenge.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

(which is an amusing thought in itself. A man in a black suit in sunglasses on a TV commercial "My name is Agent X... and I am a rogue.")

That would be the best WoW commercial ever.

 

[Natural Hazard]

finding a normal trend in world of warcraft?... ok sounds like a plan.

Anyhow i am from the UK, relevance.. i have no idea. But however the whole idea of trying to find a normal trend in a game... is like trying to find a carrot somewhere. Anyhow what i am trying to say is this won't "hold water" instead is will absorb like a sponge till it can't take no more, most gamers i have met online especially in the days are wow... are generally RP.. the keyword Being Roleplaying i.e. being something else... hmmm ok wonder if they took that into account, 2nd what about the people who act like complete idiots? then take the people who play and actually act normal but yet don't say enough in game to find anything about them, then you get those annoying gold spammers.

Why not just i dunno spend money and time protecting borders and increasing security, instead of going on a witch hunt. Meh i don't no jack about politics anywhey but that being said finding a normal trend in wow... well good luck with that