6.1 The Team Killer and the Leviathan

Oftentimes in online games, particularly in first-person shooters, players can harm their teammates by shooting at them or otherwise attacking them – a feature that can often be disabled, but is nonetheless usually implemented in order to increase the realism and difficulty of the game. It is generally understood that a player should apologize if they accidentally harm or kill one of their teammates in the frenzy of a gunfight. If a player neglects to offer an apology, the other players exhibit what Wallace calls the “arched eyebrow,” which is the pressure to conform to the group by looking down on the person (usually via chat) who committed the offense.

Sometimes, however, a rogue player will intentionally kill the other members of their team either for their own amusement, or because they enjoy the power that they can have over others. Most games, like the World War II shooter Day of Defeat, implement what Wallace described as a “sign on the door” technique – a set of established rules provided at the entrance of the game that each member of the group should be aware of in order to avoid punishment from the other members of the group. This warns that players can be kicked or banned if they are caught team-killing. In the early days of online first-person shooters, there was a serious problem with these kinds of games, because they were often plagued with gamers who would mercilessly team-kill one another because it was relatively easy to do so, and there were no real establishments in place to punish the offenders – in-game communication was often absent or very limited back in the early days, so it was difficult to effectively admonish rebel group members. However, as games evolved with more robust communication features, oftentimes including tools like voice chat, a Leviathan emerged. Wallace describes the Leviathan as the figure who enforces norms online in order to preserve the value and integrity of the medium. The Leviathan in this case consists of both intangible and tangible elements – the arched brow of the other players (transmitted through the in-game communication features), and the technologies that evolved in order to maintain conformity, such as a ranking system and the ability to kick or ban players (either through a moderator or by group vote). Wallace would describe the latter as a “mortal god” – the force that moderates online environments by removing, suspending, or blacklisting members that refuse to conform to group standards (a force that, inevitably, sometimes abuses its power).

Wallace refers to Richard Mackinnon’s suggestion that members of a group often willingly give up certain freedoms for the sake of orderliness, or to preserve the value of the medium. This is certainly true in many online gaming environments, where the Leviathan often emerges as a result of the “human willingness to conform and our eagerness to preserve a productive online group environment” (pg. 70). Most players understand that chaos will often occur if there is no Leviathan in place, and so they tend to conform to the group rules in order to keep the community and the online experience intact.

When members in an online community agree to conform to the rules of the group, the identity of the group become more salient – something exists to bind the group together; a sort of pact that they agree to that says something like “we can all have more fun together if we try to follow these rules.” The SIDE theory states that if the group identity is salient and members are visually anonymous, then partners relate on the basis of group membership, which creates an environment where members are more inclined to follow rules and implement a Leviathan, which is essential for the online gaming experience to remain enjoyable.

Comment 1
Comment 2