Apathetic Villagers and the Trolls Who Love Them

Abstract

Players are sometimes understood to hold an 'amoral' stance in games, morally disengaging from game content and in-game player behaviours because 'it's just a game'. This amorality is often seen as problematic and in need of refuting or amendment, particularly if we wish to encourage more ethical play online. However, few studies have approached a theory of player amorality from the player's perspective in multiplayer games. This study aims to address this gap by conducting 20 in-depth interviews with a wide range of multiplayer game-players, exploring players' ethical views towards problematic or disruptive in-game behaviours. Preliminary results show that while players do exhibit a certain amorality regarding in-game actions, players express, justify and explain this amorality in a variety of considered ways that go beyond notions of 'it's just a game' and the 'sociopathic griefer', and step outside the framework of moral disengagement. This paper puts forward a preliminary framework of player amorality termed 'Apathetic Villager Theory', encapsulated by six key attitudes/themes that highlight the nuances involved in the (un)ethical standpoints of a range of players. It is hoped that this framework will be useful in approaching and responding to player amorality in a way that gives due recognition of the various voices and understandings involved in multiplayer digital gameplay.

Don’t You Know That You’re Toxic: Normalization of Toxicity in Online Gaming

“…Our work informs possible concrete solutions that may benefit from consideration or implementation in competitive multiplayer contexts. We note that Sparrow et al suggest that normalization may stem from a lack of faith in reporting systems [47]; to this end, we posit that cultivating open, transparent communication with playerbases (e.g., revealing what is and isn't working, and providing evidence of progress) can help to establish a relationship of trust. This may allow developers to rebuild player faith and agency in moderation infrastructure, and could prove especially motivating for players who opt not to report for reasons detailed in Typical of Games-wherein players alluded to a perceived pointlessness in reporting.…”

“…Recent research efforts have explored moral disengagement in online games, and position the topic as a critical avenue for further investigation. A study by Sparrow et al [47] provides a preliminary framework of player immorality termed 'Apathetic Villager Theory', highlighting six themes (i.e., reactive morality, village reputation, masochism and schadenfreude, response paradox, threat threshold, and dark mirror) regarding player's ethical standpoints on behaviors in games. The authors suggest that further research should consider how the attitudes identified in 'Apathetic Villager Theory' interact in multiplayer games by adapting these considerations to larger-scale quantitative works and questionnaires.…”

Virtuality engineering in esports

“…In the virtual space, we have various implementations of games, esports, dynamic and brutal environments, but also ones attempting to resemble the real world, e-learning, fitness, tourism, mild entertainment, culture, and art. Acting in the virtual world of gaming and esports also revolves around some ethical issues presented to the user daily; users can be honest and noble by adhering to the ideology of fair play, but the relative anonymity can also make way for the users to act out in non-ethical ways leading to socalled toxic behaviors [36][37][38][39] or cheating [40,41]. Esports has known instances of cheaters on the highest levels of play.…”

The Ethics of Multiplayer Game Design and Community Management

“…4,15]. These kinds of player behaviours are often examined through the framework of 'moral disengagement', in which players of both single-player games [47,54] and multiplayer games [30,35,79] are understood to morally distance themselves from their in-game behaviours with the claim that 'it's just a game'. However, scholars have also begun to explore the ways in which players can derive value from behaviours that are sometimes understood to be unfair or unethical, exploring their potential to offer players a way to transgress or subvert norms [3,6,57], experiment and play with in-game freedoms [25,26], and derive particular kinds of value and enjoyment [16,18].…”

“…'Toxic' gaming communities marked by high levels of abusive chat, targeted harassment, scamming, and cheating are widely acknowledged as a familiar part of many multiplayer gaming experiences [2,29,49]. Despite the multitude of efforts on the part of game companies to combat such behaviours, players continue to express a sense that developers are ultimately helpless in curbing the inevitable tides of toxicity [79]. Such behaviours are sometimes understood to be the direct result of "antagonistic" game design [51], and there are a growing number of high profile criticisms of game companies for failing to address in-game behaviours appropriately [23] or for implementing dubious mechanics [5].…”