WWW.DISSERTATION.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 29 | 30 || 32 | 33 |   ...   | 39 |

«media matters Battlefields of Negotiation Control, Agency, and Ownership in World of Warcraft rené glas amsterdam university press Battlefields of ...»

-- [ Page 31 ] --

For the first time in World of Warcraft’s history, a small handful of players therefore held the key to new formal content as well as when this content would become accessible. By gaining the power to decide when to open the gates, they could also exclude or include other players in the opening event. This power asymmetry between a few raiding guilds and the rest of the player community was granted to them through Blizzard’s design of the event. These raiding guilds, then, acquired a level of agency over the game normally reserved for Blizzard alone, while other players remained powerless.

Before continuing with the battlefield of negotiation that took place prior to and during the opening of the gates in my realm, it is useful to discuss some basic power hierarchies in and around World of Warcraft in terms of agency over the game’s design and regulation or governance of its community. Both the powerful role of the sceptre-holders (and the resulting power asymmetry with other players) and the way the community upheaval was dealt with by Blizzard are strongly linked to the way World of Warcraft’s formal community governance is structured.107 160 battlefields of negotiation Community control, controlling community As I have shown in earlier chapters, players are constantly negotiating the rules of play on the levels of game design, social codes of practice, cultural norms and values, and game contracts, but in many cases the only stakeholder with formal influence over the core game is Blizzard. Players can modify their user interface;

they can play in a divergent or devious manner; they can role-play or produce fan fiction; they can create behavioural norms; but they do not have access to the game’s code. Nor do players have access to the managerial tools of Blizzard, both within the game and on the official forums. Blizzard is not a faceless entity but has an actual presence in World of Warcraft’s community through Game Masters (GMs, primarily active within the game) and Community Managers (CMs, primarily active on the forums). Using the tools at their disposal, these Blizzard employees help, police and in other ways govern and support the player community in ways that players are unable to do so by themselves.

The sceptre-holders during the Gates of Ahn’Qiraj events found themselves in a position between the relatively powerless players and the “all-powerful” Blizzard.

This created a situation in which the distribution of formal power was more varied rather than strictly oppositional, a situation which might not usually be common in World of Warcraft but nonetheless is important, even fundamental, to many of the game’s precursors.

Comparing MUDs and World of Warcraft, game researcher Torill Mortensen points out that when it comes to player creativity, ‘WoW allows it, whereas MUDs depend on it’, explaining that in MUDs ‘new administrators, builders, and developers are recruited from among the player base or from friends of the current developers’ (2006b: 411). In many MUDs, players are not just players, they are also active on various levels of influence over the core game experience. MUDs thus present a hierarchical power order far more complex than just powerless players and all-powerful company employees or, as they are called in many MUDs, “Gods”. In between basic players and Gods, we can find more privileged players including the so-called “wizards”. As the highest achievable title for a person who is not part of the initial design team or in other ways employed by the company, wizards have access to all administrative functions of the MUD except for direct access to the main code. As virtual worlds scholar Elizabeth Reid explains, these privileged players are not democratically elected but often chosen by the Gods on the basis of demonstrated talents, be it imaginative object design or excellence in conquering the game world (1999: 119). As they are so experienced in the game and its challenges, wizards – or “wizzes” as game designer Richard Bartle calls them – are ‘on the whole no longer concerned with the virtual world per se, just in its inhabitants’ (2004: 165-166, emphasis in original). These privileged players actively help to manage both the game and the community, helping out and, if needed, punishing players for any wrongdoing. This part iv claiming the game level of self-governance by players greatly differs from World of Warcraft’s community organization. In MUDs we see a system where basic players can raise considerably their influence as participants, leading to both governance and development becoming a collective effort.

In contrast with MUDs, World of Warcraft’s “Gods” (the CMs and GMs) usually do not share their power with players. One significant reason is that most MMORPGs form a business, while most MUDs are non-commercial – the companies behind MMORPGs simply cannot afford to have players potentially ruining their game through mismanagement. Comparing this situation to real-world political situations, Castranova compares the dictatorial, non-sharing power of commercial MMORPG companies to despotism (even going as far as to call them tyrants): ‘for reasons involving business competition and the like, the developer state does not make any efforts to legitimize its rule through, say, effective lines of communication or transparent decision-making processes’ (2005: 208). This does not have to be a problem, though, because bad governance in these worlds results in the game’s “citizens” – and paying customers – walking away. This could create a ‘highly efficient despotic regime that, thanks to competition with other despotic regimes [ie. other commercial MMORPGs], does its best to provide legitimate services for the people’ (ibid.). The problem is, these service representatives are spread out thinly and, unlike the wizards of the MUD, are not participating as players in the game. The “government” remains a mostly invisible force that only shows itself when the EULA is broken (such as in the prior case studies of this chapter).108 In the case of World of Warcraft, Blizzard does not use/employ players as ingame customer service assistants or as any other official form of co-governance where players receive more agency in the game or in its community than other players.109 Blizzard’s GMs and CMs do indeed offer valuable help and assistance to the community, but unlike the wizards do not do so out of sheer philanthropy.





They employ service managers whose job it is to uphold the law in the form of the EULA and ToS. Due to the costs of employing all these customer service workers, explains Castranova, a ‘for-profit government will provide just enough service to maintain its population’, which in practice often means that the players are left to govern themselves, without any formal power to actually do so (2005: 214). The fact that all players are equal (be it equally “powerless”) can be an advantage over the more varied power hierarchy of MUDs, where privileges can be used for favouritism (Reid 1999: 126). But without the constant presence of GMs and CMs within the game and on the forums due to constraints dictated by commercial concerns, Castranova ultimately sees not despotism but ‘anarchy spiced with occasional profit-oriented tyranny’ as the most common governmental situation in modern MMORPGs (2005: 210). In the case of the Gates of Ahn’Qiraj event, “profit-oriented tyranny” came to the fore, as some players began to disagree with the notion that they needed to work for content they had already paid for through 162 battlefields of negotiation their monthly subscription. More outspoken opponents of the mass collection of items even called this part of the war effort “slave labour”.

When one particular player or a guild within a MMORPG such as World of Warcraft suddenly does acquire real power that can change or affect the whole community – “being wizard for a day”, so to say – it can lead to unique situations of strife between players. This happened with the opening of the Gates of Ahn’Qiraj. As I show next, in the battlefield of negotiation that ensued in the realm I was observing, despotism and anarchy were felt as different stakeholders both claimed agency over the situation.

With great power comes great responsibility The main actors in the Ahn’Qiraj case were those who, after weeks of intense instrumental group play, finally acquired the means to open the gates in the form of the sceptre. A character named Fang, a member of a Horde raiding guild named Heroes of Thrall (HoT), and Cassandra, a member of an Alliance raiding community called The Alliance League (TAL), became the sceptre holders and decided to join forces to open the gates together.110 Both groups worked intensely to get their hands on the sceptre, and opening the gates together was seen as a welcome inter-faction gesture. As the most vocal sceptre holder on the realms’ forum, part of the dedicated European World of Warcraft forums, TAL’s Cassandra became the most prominent figurehead of the endeavour for the rest of the community. Communication about their progress was made public through the realm forum.

While initially being very open about the whole process, the raiding guilds became more hesitant and even somewhat secretive about the extent of their progress after a negative experience with the realm’s player community. An earlier public announcement of a large event by TAL and HoT that was part of the quest series to reach the sceptre attracted many other players and with them unwanted disruptive behaviour such as ganking and spam in the various chat channels. The

raiders and players interested in the events taking place (the historical re-enactment, the invasion) thought such devious players ruined the experience. As Cassandra later recalled in a forum post:

We made that one public. And I still regret it, as what was supposed to be a really nice event was ruined by people yelling “OMFG, I PAYD 10G IN TRAVEL FOR THIS??”, “LOL DOWN IN FRONT” and finally “GANK THE HORDE!” after everything was done. The people writing back and forth through the event mounted weren’t really helping either (posted on the official EU forums, 1 March 2006).111 part iv claiming the game Expecting the worst with a large public opening of the actual Gates of Ahn’Qiraj – in other realms where the gates had already opened, massive player presence even crashed the realm’s servers – TAL and HoT decided to make the event semi-public through an invitation-only system. The player community was informed through the forum that they could “whisper” (a direct, personal message) either the Horde or Alliance sceptre holders about the date and time of the opening in-game in order to allow access to those interested while discouraging troublemakers. What sounded like a good idea quickly turned sour when someone under the name “Deepfroat” suddenly posted the date and time in a new forum thread called “The AQ Gate Scandal” (posted 2 February 2006).112 As previously explained, players can only post on the official forums by logging in with one’s personal account, and as a result, most players post on the forums as their main characters. Deepfroat can be identified as a pseudonym because this particular character was only level one and as such was in all probability an alternative character created solely for this posting. Although sceptre holder Cassandra later found out who was behind this pseudonym – ‘I know who and hold no hard feelings to him’ (chat interview, 14 June 2006) – her first reaction to Deepfroat’s post was

less forgiving:

Congratulations in ruining it for all those who wanted to see it.

Was it really so hard to contact Fang or me if interested?

We’re changing the date. And keeping it completely secret this time.

If you need to blame anyone, blame this guy (posted 28 February 2006).

To recapitulate this complex series of events: the gate-opening event was the main stake for all involved. A broad and varied segment of the realm community wanted to witness it but the raiding community carrying the sceptre to open the gates attempted to find a way to limit the number of players present during the event through a social threshold (the whispering method). Though difficult, it was nonetheless possible for non-raiders to participate in the events; the raiding community attempted to distribute or at least negotiate their hard-won power with other stakeholders (particularly those interested in World of Warcraft’s fiction) without sacrificing the experience of the event itself – that is, until Deepfroat spoiled their plan by announcing the date and time to the entire realm community. This caused the sceptre holders to withdraw from an open process, leaving other stakeholders without any means of knowing when the gates would open.

Suddenly, the sceptre’s power was no longer shared but monopolized by the raiders.

The reaction of the sceptre holders surprised quite a few players, especially those who did contact the sceptre holders through whispers. In hindsight, sceptre holder Cassandra explained her actions as a slight overreaction: ‘I felt hurt and betrayed. No other way to explain it. So I lashed out’ (chat interview). What folbattlefields of negotiation lowed on Cassandra’s post was a slew of reactions either supporting the sceptre holders’ case or flaming commentary about this Deepfroat character. With increasingly more people joining the discussion, opinions on the matter began to shift. While most agreed that what Deepfroat did was inexcusable, the decision to make the opening of the gates a private event was met with antipathy. One of the

first to vent their concerns was a player called Raidor:

It annoys me that TAL and HoT can choose to keep this hidden just for themselv. Doing that scepter quest wasnt that hard work i think, and there were other guilds \ coms [communities] on the server that would be more than glad to do it. This is a WORLD event, not a event for 2 raid communities. Alot of people worked hard to open these gates, and now you’re just screwing everyone over... way to go (if the server will crash at the event. There’s nothing you can do about it, and it will do so even if you keep it secret or not. The place will be packed with tons people 2 minutes after you hit the gong. you guys gonna make a human shield outside the place and say to people invite only.

/shoo?) (posted 28 February 2006).

Another player joined the discussion with a similar comment:



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 29 | 30 || 32 | 33 |   ...   | 39 |


Similar works:

«2010 Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund Yukon River Chum Salmon Baseline Augmentation Final Report for Study 45753 Blair Flannery and Randal Loges U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Genetics Laboratory 1011 E. Tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK 99503 September 2011 Abstract A total of 4,055 Yukon River chum salmon were genotyped at 13 microsatellite loci and added to the existing baseline. Mixed-stock simulation results generally improved. For some reporting groups, 100% simulation accuracy decreased...»

«[Preprint, expected 2008] [in Daniela Berti & Gilles Tarabout, eds., Territory, Soil and Society in South Asia, Delhi, Manohar] (Chapter 7) The Annamanada Case: A Hundred Years of Conflict over Rights and Territories in Kerala GILLES TARABOUT Foreigners coming to the south-western coast of India have produced seemingly contrasting statements in the past regarding the existence of territories there. Two examples may serve as illustrations. Ibn Battûta, who travelled throughout this coast in the...»

«EXTENDED DETENTION BASINS Definition An extended detention basin is a facility constructed through filling and/or excavation that provides temporary storage of stormwater runoff. It has an outlet structure that detains and attenuates runoff inflows and promotes the settlement of pollutants. An extended detention basin is normally designed as a multi-stage facility that provides runoff storage and attenuation for both stormwater quality and quantity management. The adopted TSS removal rate for...»

«COMMENTS WELCOME June 2009 Morals and Mores: Experimental Evidence on Equity and Equality By JAMES KONOW, TATSUYOSHI SAIJO AND KENJU AKAI* Abstract What rule is fair? This experimental study considers equality and equity (i.e., allocations that are proportional to individual contributions). Impersonal third parties, or spectators, favor equity. Distributive preferences move progressively toward equality, however, with the introduction of personal factors, such as sharing stakes with another...»

«Chapter 2 Self-assembly of InAs Quantum Dot Structures on Cleaved Facets E. Uccelli, J. Bauer, M. Bichler, D. Schuh, J. J. Finley, G. Abstreiter, and A. Fontcuberta i Morral 2.1 Introduction Strain induced self-assembled quantum dots (QDs) have been extensively studied in the past decade. Their unique properties are mainly derived from the carrier confinement leading to atom-like energy level structure [1]. In this context, QDs are nanostructures that are indeed expected to have a great impact...»

«DOI 10.1007/s11015-015-0014-8 Metallurgist, Vol. 58, Nos. 9–10, January, 2015 (Russian Original Nos. 9–10, September–October, 2014) IMPROVING THE METHODS OF ROLL USE ON ROLLING MILLS AT THE ARSELORMITTAL TEMIRTAU V. A. Talmazan,1 O. N. Krivtsova,1 UDC 621.771 Z. S. Gel’manova,1 A. S. Viventsov,2 and A. S. Arbuz3 This article examines ways of reducing the consumption of rolling-mill rolls, extending their service life, improving the use of existing rolls, and introducing new rolls. Among...»

«Contested Memories: Divided and United in Berlin Gerti Wilford Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for an MPhil in Social Anthropology Goldsmiths College, University of London I hereby certify that, except when explicit attribution is made, the work presented in this thesis is entirely my own. Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements List of Illustrations Chapter 1 Introduction Memory and its vicissitudes Berlin as modern conundrum Fields of Memory ‘Last Orders’ Was this a...»

«A Superabundance of Contradictions: The European Union’s PostAmsterdam Policies on Migrant ‘Integration’, Labour Immigration, Asylum, and Illegal Immigration Peo Hansen Peo Hansen Linköping University and The National Institute for Working Life Contact Address: Peo Hansen (PhD, Associate Professor) Department of Ethnic Studies, ITUF Linköping University, Campus Norrköping SE-601 74 Norrköping Sweden Phone: +46 11 218936 Fax: +46 11 218920 E-mail: peo.hansen@niwl.se (Manuscript...»

«MINUTES CITY OF FALLON 55 West Williams Avenue Fallon, Nevada February 2, 2016 The Honorable City Council met in a regularly scheduled Council meeting on the above date in the Council Chambers, 55 West Williams Avenue, Fallen, Nevada.Present: Mayor Ken Tedford City Councilman, Robert H. Erickson City Councilwoman, Kelly Frost City Councilman, James D. Richardson City Engineer, James R. Souba Chief of Police, Kevin Gehman City Clerk, Gary C. Cordes City Attorney, Michael F. Mackedon Deputy City...»

«English Language Teaching; Vol. 8, No. 6; 2015 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Potential of Mobile Learning in Teaching of ESL Academic Writing Arlina Ahmad Zaki1 & Melor Md Yunus1 1 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia Correspondence: Arlina Ahmad Zaki, Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Reko, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. Tel: 603-8921-5555. E-mail: arlinazaki@gmail.com...»

«U.S. Customs and Border Protection CBP Decisions (CBP Dec. 07–80) BONDS APPROVAL TO USE AUTHORIZED FACIMILE SIGNATURE AND SEAL The use of facsimile signatures and seals on U. S. Customs and Border Protection bonds by the following corporate surety has been approved effective this date. Navigators Insurance Company Authorized facsimile signature on file for: Michelle E. Lucaccioni, Attorney-in-fact The corporate surety has provided U. S. Customs and Border Protection with a copy of the...»

«Protecting Vulnerable Groups: Scottish Vetting and Barring Scheme Consultation Paper Response Booklet Responding to this consultation paper We are inviting written responses to this consultation exercise by Tuesday 2 May 2006. We would be grateful if you would indicate clearly in your response to which questions or parts of the consultation paper you are responding. We recommend using this response booklet, if possible. Please complete the respondee information form contained within the...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.