The Lawbringer: Avatar rights as expectations
by Mathew McCurley 
Apr 15th 2011 at 2:00PM
Last week, I introduced the concept that the denizens of a virtual world may have gained, over time, the right to rights within that virtual world. Raph Koster, the lead developer of Ultima Online, explored the idea over 10 years ago when the MMO genre was in its developmental infancy. These rights synced up with a world where there was a distinction between free-to-play MUDs and for-pay subscription worlds in the U.S. and European markets. Today, the MMO has transformed into a new beast from the close-knit communities of MUDs and the relatively forgiving user base of EverQuest and Ultima Online.
The people who made WoW are the contemporaries of Raph Koster and children of the MMO genre that EverQuest cemented as important. How then, in over 10 years, has Koster's declaration of the rights of avatars held up to the incredible growth of the industry and Blizzard's own impressive growth? The short answer: The code of conduct you follow in World of Warcraft is pretty lenient, all things considered. The long answer: Well, there's always a long answer.
I believe that the rights of avatars in the modern MMO setting are less about player demands and more about player expectations. I ask myself this question: What can I expect as I engage myself in the World of Warcraft?
A clear code of conduct
In my opinion, one of the most important rights in Koster's bill of avatar rights is the expectation of a clear code of conduct. Blizzard's record with code of conduct violations is a pretty good one. For the most part, the system is transparent and fair. The people who deserve reprimand in our virtual society are given that reprimand. And, probably most importantly, the punishment usually fits the crime. Bans are for days, not months, unless the offense is so severe that severing the player from the game is warranted.
There is one odd duck in the violations acted upon by Blizzard, though. This violation is a little too opaque, never as transparent as people would like. I speak of the dreaded economy issue -- a player who is removed from the game for "exploiting the economy." Over time, we've gleaned a little information about what constitutes an economy exploitation ban.
Players who engage in a large amount of gold trading or gold purchasing seem to be the targets of most of these bans, and while Blizzard doesn't expressly state that it bans or takes action against against gold buyers, many of these players coincidentally have some type of gold buying in their history. Others who have been banned under the economy exploitation rule deal in massive amounts of gold from the auction house or trade between characters, potentially setting off the software looking for gold buyers and sellers in the WoW economy.
Where Koster states that the playerbase should have input through representation into the code of conduct is a different story when dealing with such a large game and such a large corporation as WoW and Activision Blizzard. The players' representatives are the players themselves, being able to voice their opinions on official forums and through suggestion submission forms. The avenues to discuss code of conduct issues with Blizzard is fairly open. In recent history, the only game to not have official forums was Warhammer Online, with an eventual opening of official Mythic forums.
The rules set by players
Over time, World of Warcraft has changed substantially thanks to the input of players and pressures from the community. Koster's rights seem to have an undercurrent of player involvement, as well as a clear delineation between player and support staff who facilitate the continued existence of the virtual world. Do you as a player have a right to impact the world in ways that differ from just existing within it?
Players have set the rules in WoW for a long time, through shared experience and societal norms. Before Frozen Orbs were made greed-only, players from various realms had already created a ruleset that dictated how pickup groups would deal with these specific items. Players who did not adhere to the rules were ostracized in one of many different ways.
Before Blizzard made it standard practice to investigate loot ninjas in pickup raids, after clear rolling requirements and rules were stipulated, players took it upon themselves to work out the rules and the punishment. Ninjas were rarely seen in those raids again, clutching their oft-stolen Deathbringer's Wills to their chest, never to return to a pickup group on the server again.
Loot rules have been and still are being directly influenced by players to a large degree, demanding a certain amount of fairness. The rights of the party leader and the abilities of a group leader in the random dungeon finder are limited because of the criticisms of players and the outspoken nature of WoW. If rights are a set of expectations, players have the right to a fair instance run because of the uneven amount of innate greed of people and the ease of changing the rules to mitigate that greed.
The random dungeon finder in general is a response to the player concern of "here's what I want to do after work," for the most part. People wanted better and easier dungeon run facilitation, and they got it. A unique aspect of the MMO genre is the "sharding" of people across various realms. Games like EVE Online don't have this problem, obviously, but the traditional setup of shards or realms makes population balance tricky. Enter the random dungeon finder, a way to negate the realm disparity issue while allowing server community to flourish in its common forums. Players wanted a larger pool of people looking for dungeons, and they got it.
Reacting to player demands is part of the ecosystem of the MMO service and expected of world facilitators. For over a decade, players have expected to be in the spotlight while making demands of the virtual worlds they inhabit. Again, if rights are expectations, then players can expect the game world to change constantly for the better of players in ways that the players themselves want, like the new dungeon finder loot roll rule for BoE items, as well as ways Blizzard feels the game world will be bettered, like the new Call to Arms feature.
Finally, Koster's 16th article discusses the virtual equivalent of property concerns within the MMO world, and it rings true today in a very interesting fashion. No, we are not talking about account ownership or your right to sell your account or gold. Rather, Koster's point is that data integrity is important because at the end of the day, all you have are bits and pieces, entries into a spreadsheet that must be calculated the same time, every time, for your character to be consistent.
In 2000, the integrity of character data was something that was a limitation on the services and systems. I remember times when MMOs that I would play would have character purges on characters who were not played in a certain time period to make room for more characters. Nowadays, this concept is completely foreign to WoW, where your characters never leave -- they live in perpetuity, even when you are not paying the access the service.
We can extrapolate new meaning from this right -- players have the right, or expectation, that their data will not be compromised. In the new world of account hacking and account compromises, this seems like a big deal and potentially the most upsetting expectation of all. Blizzard could say that you have the right or expectation to a safe, hack-free user experience, and it does provide authenticators for people who have been hacked and previously did not own one. How, then, do we deal with the expectation that players should not have to worry about hacking and compromises to their accounts? Do we really need to include an authenticator in every box?
Back in the day, the only hack I had to worry about was if my little brother found out the password to my Ultima Online account. These days, I'm a little more paranoid over my WoW account. It has value to me. Maybe it isn't monetary value, but there is value associated with it. The point is that players should (and rightfully so) expect a game world free from that paranoia. Is that to say it's Blizzard's fault? No, of course not. However, as a player, you have the right to know that your account matters and the data associated with it matters as well. So far, I think Blizzard has had a great track record of making sure the people who are hacked are made whole.
End of the line
So do players and avatars have rights within the virtual worlds that they occupy? Absolutely. They are enumerated in every code of conduct, terms of use, and EULA that ever passes you by before you quickly hit "I Accept." Raph Koster's articles of avatar rights might not be all relevant these days, but they still ring true to a notion that players could and should have expectations about the virtual worlds they inhabit, and those expectations become those players' rights.
Maybe that's why so many MMOs have failed after World of Warcraft's success. The players' demands for large amounts of content, the right to have an expansive marketplace for auctions and commerce, and the expectations that have dominated the landscape of World of Warcraft and Blizzard's willingness to provide it has created a very hostile MMO environment. This is not because of the costs associated or the perceived-static user base, but because players have actually been trumpeting the demand for the rights they believe they deserve -- bug-free games, consistent content, clear rules, some type of playstyle for everyone, and data integrity.
This column is for entertainment only; if you need legal advice, contact a lawyer. For comments or general questions about law or for The Lawbringer, contact Mat at mat@wowinsider.com.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, The Lawbringer
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
it's not that Apr 15th 2011 2:41PM
Today, the MMO has transformed into a new beast, where the close-knit communities of MUDs and the relatively forgiving user base of EverQuest and Ultima Online.
Where the communities what?
Somebody alert the editor and also your favorite English teacher!
Randy Apr 15th 2011 2:55PM
This expectation of service has limits....in this case it can really only apply to server up time and reliability (ie latency issues that our on their side).
You cannot make a blanket statement since it also implies they have to listen to you when it comes to raids, instances, mechanics, lore, etc. They absolutely do NOT have to do that. It is the developers decision how they want encounters to work and how to balance that is to their discretion alone.
That being said I think they do a good job catering to a wide variety of users, and though many will disagree I think they do a good job receiving our input and hearing our (constructive) thoughts.
frozndevl Apr 15th 2011 3:06PM
"... are a thing of the past." Perhaps that is the ending that is missing.
incoming00 Apr 15th 2011 4:30PM
the only thing i ever expected from WoW was to have fun playing. through all the nerfs, buffs, talent spec changes, race changes, successful raids, wipes, bg victories, arena defeats, dungeons and of course, questing, the most important thing for me as a WoW player is to have fun. so Blizzard reduced the amount of talents in the talent trees or removed ZG and brought it back for 4.1, there has never been a change drastic enough to keep me from having fun. either Blizzard is really good at knowing what people want or the community is doing a great job voicing their opinions, either way i win :D
Badgelooter Apr 15th 2011 5:18PM
Nicely written, but I’m going to take issue with some of the ideas you’ve presented. Like I discussed in my comment to your last post, transparency is the only real check on tyranny. While Blizzard’s approach to dealing with violators may be fair, it certainly isn’t transparent in the sense that the community knows who has committed an offense and what punishment was handed down. I can report BG botters everyday, but the chance of landing in the same BG with that bot aren’t small because the bot has been banned, it’s a function of the statistical likelihood (or unlikelihood) of ending up with a member of the same group and me actually remembering that the feral druid named Happypants from Frostmane is a botter. Why not institute a wall of shame? Newspapers print criminal court actions on a daily basis. What is Blizzard worried about? Libel or slander? If I don’t even know who the hell you really are, how can my perception of your reputation be damaged in a legally cognizable sense?
I’ll concede that the rules are transparent in the sense that, by reading the EULA and TOS, you have a pretty good idea of what you can/can’t do in WoW. That has less to do with transparency and more to do with Due Process. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse, but most justice systems recognize that a person has to be on notice that their conduct is proscribed before implementing a punishment. “Secret rules” are anathema to rights in general, and Blizzard has done a pretty good job of addressing the major concerns encountered by the average player. The problem is less with the rules and more with the punishments. You state that the forums are a viable venue for addressing players’ concerns about disciplinary action. I have to take issue with that. Blizzard assiduously polices threads about account discipline, to the point where I see a thread posted but it’s locked in the time it takes me to hover my pointer over the link and click. While the TOS may not preclude account complaints, the forum rules do. I understand that these types of threads are likely to rapidly degenerate into flamefests, and that Blizzard has an interest in preventing that. But this campaign of silence doesn’t square with notions of transparency. The simple solution is to let the community know what has been done. There’s no need for providing space for commentary, just a list of X action has been taken against Y player because of Z offense.
I agree with your train of thought on player created rules, but I disagree with your terminology. You’ve denominated loot distribution systems as rules, but they really amount to customs or acceptable practices. If I need everything that I can, I haven’t broken a “rule” that can lead to discipline (absent making some representation that I would not do so to entice you into the run). However, doing so can lead to considerable “societal” shame, as soon as everyone hearths back to a city and starts lighting up Trade Chat about what a son-of-a-bitch I am. This mirrors what we see in society. Some laws started out as customs held by a select group. Take Blue laws. Certain religious sects thought working on Sundays was sinful, and municipal governments adopted this custom in the form of mandatory closings. In WoW, one such custom implemented by the powers that be is the disenchant option in loots rolls. I remember a time (and countless forum posts) when the enchanter felt entitled to keep some or all of the shards created from unneeded loot drops. Recognizing that many players had a custom of rolling for shards at the end (top roll gets Abyss, everyone else gets a Large Primatic), Blizzard implemented this feature and incorporated into the “rules” of the game.
But the problem of an online world is that there is little shame. There’s not feedback or consequence for repeated bad behavior. For the same statistical reasons I’m unlikely to encounter a terrible player in Battlegrounds, I’m unlikely to see another player in the LFD queue. The LFD ninja can merrily loot away without fear of consequence. If I never see him again, I’ll never know whether he was banned, quit the game, or that fate is smiling on me. Because of the low probability of detection, the player who ignores custom and does what the rest of the player base considers unquestionably rude has little to fear. If, on the other hand, justice in Azeroth was transparent, you’d at least know that someone with the ability to do something had done more than “looked into your report” because they “take violations seriously” so they can “frequently take action to suspend or ban players engaging in scamming, cheating, etc.”
You’re absolutely right that data integrity is important. While I don’t have a legal right to possess any of the digital bits that make up my characters, players who have validly earned their gold, gear, and achievements deserve to keep them. If you’re going to premise advancement on anything other than chance (and I include repetition in order to overcome statistically low chances of acquiring an item), then players have the right to expect their acquisitions will not be arbitrarily stripped away by some unknown actor.
Badgelooter Apr 15th 2011 5:24PM
Sorry, that didn't seem so long when I was typing it.
StClair Apr 15th 2011 5:48PM
Good comment, though.
Eirik Apr 15th 2011 6:15PM
... and Paragraphs! You'd be amazed how many people forget about them. I would forgive you the wall of text-ishness just for that.
Eirik Apr 15th 2011 6:12PM
@Randy: I disagree. You say: "it also implies they have to listen to you when it comes to raids, instances, mechanics, lore, etc. " I say that it specifically does mean they have to listen to you about such things. However, it doesn't mean they have to obey.
Lore: Wildhammer Fact Checker.
Mechanics: Dual spec, threat changes. DPS balancing.
Instances: convenient exits near the end of instances. Streamlined/time-rated instances. Challenging content in heroics.
Raids: Wings. Access to repair.
Blizzard has shown time and again that they do listen, and they do act upon that information. But they recognize that you can't please all of the people all of the time, and so do not.