A research paper on Gaming Communities (Like HG)

[stuv 101]

(Note, this is a research paper written by me, hope you like it)

 

 

 

Aaron Wagoner

L Wilcox

English 102

4/5/2012

Research Paper

 

Gaming communities

 

Video games and the depth of their game play in the past were not nearly as complex as they are today. They were simple, shallow in storytelling, short in length, and uncommon in society. The graphics were two dimensional and the controllers were clunky and hard to use. However, today’s video games are infinitely more common and are far more complex in game play and storyline. The graphics are three dimensional and incredibly realistic while the controllers are now smaller and much faster response time. According to the Entertainment Software Association, over 68% of households in America play video games (ESA). This factor makes video games one of the most common pass time in today’s society. One of the biggest franchises of gaming is massive multiplayer online games. This is another aspect of video gaming that was unheard of in its history.

Within these massive multiplayer online games there are groups called gaming communities; which are groups of gamers who know each other and play the same games together via the internet. These individuals go to a community and create a persona or some call them avatars and that is the character they interact and play the game as. Gaming communities offer a friendly environment for gamers to relax and interact with other people with the same interests. To understand why and how these communities do this, I had an interview with Gaming Community Leader, HG Rizon, at Hells Gamers. He stated “The community uses leadership as a way of influencing the members of the community. This leader encourages the community members to follow the rules with good sportsmanship. Once members start following the rules of the game, they will begin to communicate with one another in order to win or progress through the game; this then creates friendships within the community†(HG Rizon). In other words, gaming communities use teamwork, and good communication to help enhance the experience of the game; then from those two elements, players will want to continue to play with each other and get to know one another as friends. I myself, am a member of Hells Gamers, and have experienced this process and I have made many friends.

There are many people who feel that these online communities cause gamers to be less social. They say that the online community isn’t real and so the friendships they make aren’t real. The gamers argue that their online gaming friends are very much real, but they just don’t see them face to face. They see it as the same as having a friend who lives far away and you only communicate by phone. I believe that these online communities are a great source of friendships and that they give just as much support and interaction as face-to-face groups. I think that this research will show that there are many positive aspects of gaming communities.

Many of the people who are opposed to online gaming feel that the games teach poor sportsmanship. Massive multiplayer online games are structured and organized with rules just like any other game like football or soccer. The communities are sub-divided into smaller groups called divisions. The leaders of the divisions set all the ground rules, and run all the events and activities in that group. The ground rules cover the actual rules of the game and the social rules of the community. The social rules of the community enforce good sportsmanship and moral code; for example, players can be expelled from the game for foul language. There is a reason why they enforce social rules. Most online multiplayer games outside the communities can be harsh. Players can be harassed and abused with racial slurs. Most players prefer the safe environment that online communities provide. Knowing that there is someone overseeing the game and that there are rules of conduct, help make gaming communities a great place to play.

Opponents of video games also feel that video games can cause gamers to lose cognitive skills. Video games themselves have benefits as they are played. According to the article “A Survey of Video Game Players in a Public Urban Research University†author Sandra Lopez states: “On another positive note, a majority of students (70.3%) agreed that playing video games has improved their ability to “memorize information.†Other studies have found that playing video games does improve the ability of players to recall visual information†(Lopez). More over Lopez’s research has also found that playing video games can improve abilities and skills like problem solving, team management, following and giving directions, and coordinating the actions of others. Gaming can also slightly increase the skill level in areas like drawing, dancing, playing music, and arithmetic. Lopez’s research showed that playing video game increased a person’s ability to coordinate thoughts and actions quickly. Other research on this subject seems to back up this claim. In the article, “Playing Pro-social Video Games Increases the Accessibility of Pro-social Thoughts†first published in The Journal of Social Psychology, authors Tobias Grietemeyer and Silvia Osswald, did a study on pro-social thought through pro-social video games. They found that individuals who play pro-social video games are more likely to think positive; the individual is also more likely to help another individual or enter into social conversation (Greitemeyer). Contrary to what the opponents to video game believe, research seems to show that video games can actually improves a person’s cognitive skills.

While video game addiction is a real danger, the percentage of gamers that becomes addicted is relatively small. In the article, “Online Video Game Addiction: Identification of Addicted Adolescent Gamers†from The Addiction Research Institute authors Antonius J. Van Rooij, Tim M. Schoenmakers, Ad A. Vermulst, Regina J.L.M. an den Eijnden and Dirk van de Mheen reported: “These findings demonstrate the existence of a small subgroup of online gamers who can potentially be classified as ‘online video game addicts. This group is likely to have various psychological and social problems, as game overuse can be severely disruptive to school, work and ‘real-life’ social contacts†(Rooij,Schoenmakers,Vermulst,Eijnden,Mheen). Addictions to anything are something that should be taken seriously. However, most research shows that there are more benefits to video gaming than there are drawbacks; as shown in the article “Online Video Gaming: What Should Educational Psychologists Know?†author Mark Griffiths points out: “For a small minority of people, this may lead to an addiction where online gaming becomes the single most important thing in that person’s life and which compromises all other activities. Currently there is little research indicating how the addiction establishes itself and what people are actually addicted to. Despite this rather negative side of video games, there is much evidence suggesting that gaming can have very positive effects on people’s lives. Online gaming can make people feel psychologically better and help raise their self-esteem†(Griffith) The author points out that there are people who have addictive personalities and for them the threat of an addiction is very real, however, he also shows that for most there are also definite benefits.

For some the real threat of video games is the inactivity that can cause health issues. Americans are becoming progressively overweight and some people blame that on video games. In the article “The Health Benefits of Interactive Video Games Exercise†authors Darren E.R. Warburton, Sharron S.D. Bredin, Leslie T.L. Horita, Dominik Zbogar, Jessica M. Scott, ben T.A. Esch, and Ryan I. Rhodes point out:

“Video games provide a way of relieving stress from school and work and now with interactive video game/virtual reality exercise. The integration of these behaviors seems to reasonable premise for promoting physical activity and removes the discipline required to initiate and maintain a contingency management plan†(Warburton,Bredin,Horita,Zbogar,Scott).

After a hard day, people like to relax in front of the TV or play a video game. This can mean that they are sitting, but with the new interactive video game players and games that is becoming a thing of the past. Nintendo has an interactive console that allows its players to play virtual sports like golf, soccer, bowling and baseball. The person is the controller, so they jump, hop and swing their arms, legs and bodies in order for their avatar to play the game.

Many of the beliefs against video games and video gaming communities are over exaggerated. We have looked at the effects of video games on gamer health. While sitting for long periods of time isn’t healthy, more and more video console companies are creating interactive games. We have examined the effects of video gaming on mental health and cognitive skills. The complex dexterity and agility required to play in a massive multi-player online game actually increases a person’s mental capacity and speed. However, we haven’t talked about the biggest problem most people see with massive multi-player video games, that of the violent content causing violent behaviors.

There is a lot of talk and fear about violent video games causing students to become violent themselves. In the article, “Violent and Nonviolent Video Games Differentially Affect Physical Aggression for Individuals High vs. Low in Dispositional Anger†authors Christopher R. Engelhardt, Bruce D. Bartholow and J. Scott Saults cites, “The effect of brief exposure to violent video games on aggressive behavior was more pronounced among individuals high in trait anger†(Engelhardt,Bartholow) Their research suggested that it was reasonable true that violent video game exposure caused aggressive behavior in individuals who had aggressive tendencies. Their research was a little disturbing because one of their groups was children between the ages of 12 and 15, who would allow someone that age to play a violent video game. All video games are rated, so no one that age would be allowed to buy one of those games. Another article on this subject suggests that there may be a contradiction to this belief of violent video games causing aggressive behavior.

The Article “My Avatar Behaves Well and This Feels Right†author Seung-A Annie Jin from Boston College writes, “In contradiction to ample evidence for the deleterious effects of violent games on pro-social behaviors, results gained in this study indicate that playing violent games increased people’s propensity toward pro-social behavior†(Jin6) In this article the author defined pro-social as “any act that benefits others and includes a broad range of actions such as helping, sharing, donating and cooperating†(Jin2) This way of thinking goes along with my description of online gaming communities. The strict moral code and the leadership roles that are upheld in online communities encourage a pro-social environment. The friendships that are forged may be with an avatar persona, but the real person’s personality and voice are very much real. Massive multi-player online games aren’t going away any time soon, nor should they. They have been given a bad reputation, which they really don’t deserve.

 

Works Cited

Engelhardt, Christopher R., Bartholow, Bruce D. and Saults, J. Scott. “Violent and Nonviolent Video Games Differentially Affect Physical Aggression For Individuals High vs. Low In Dispositional Anger†Aggressive Behavior, 37.6 (2001): 539-546. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 Apr. 2012

 

Greitemeyer, Tobias, and Silvia Osswald. "Playing Prosocial Video Games Increases The Accessibility Of Prosocial mThoughts." Journal Of Social Psychology 151.2 (2011): 121-128. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2012.

 

Griffiths, Mark, “Online Video Gaming: What Should Educational Psychologists Know?.†Educational Psychology In Practice 26.1 (2010): 35-40. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Apr. 2012

 

NNIE JIN, SEUNG-A. "My Avatar Behaves Well And This Feels Right": Ideal And Ought Selves In Video Gaming." Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal 39.9 (2011): 1175-1182. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2012.

 

Russell, William D., and Mark Newton. "Short-Term Psychological Effects Of Interactive Video Game Technology Exercise On Mood And Attention." Journal Of Educational Technology & Society 11.2 (2008): 294-308. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2012.

 

Ryan E. Rhodes, et al. "The Health Benefits Of Interactive Video Game Exercise." Applied Physiology, Nutrition & Metabolism 32.4 (2007): 655-663. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2012.

 

Sandra Lopez, et al. "A Survey Of Video Game Players In A Public, Urban Research University." Educational Media International 47.4 (2010): 311-327. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2012.

 

Van De Mheen, Dike et al. "Online Video Game Addiction: Identification Of Addicted Adolescent Gamers." Addiction 106.1 (2011): 205-212. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2012.

[JessicaJoy]

Ctrl + F "JessicaJoy"

 

I r disappoint.

 

But no really ..this is an amazing paper. I hope you do well on it.

[Archer]

Very good write up!

 

Good luck!

[FDR]

It's a great paper. Good luck. It was fun to read.

[ttaM]

This is fun.

 

The Exclusionary Rule: The Impact of Technology on Judicial Rulings

 

M. G.

POLS 353 – Constitutional Rights and Liberties

23 April 2012

 

 

In the opinion of the Court for the case of Elkins vs. United States (1960) Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “It must always be remembered that what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures.†Justice Stewart’s simple recitation of the Fourth Amendment serves as a reminder for what the Supreme Court is often left to decide. However, advancements in technology have further complicated Justice Stewart’s interpretation of the clause. Determining what constitutes a search or seizure as well as if that evidence should be admitted, or prohibited, in a United States court of law has been a question proposed as early as the 1800s. The exclusionary rule is the one way that such decisions can be made. One of the first instances of the rule’s consideration came in Weeks vs. United States (1914), where the Court unanimously decided that evidence was not admissible under a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However this decision did not extend to the states, the Court made a clear statement in siding with the decision in Boyd vs. United States (1886). Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures has been a significant foundation to the liberties of citizens of the United States, and whatever advances in technology may arrive; the Constitution and its Amendments must be honored.

Before the evolution of technology, there was the evolution of the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Was there a fear that if the state’s had the right to enforce the exclusionary rule that criminals would simply go free in every instance? In 1949 the case of Wolf vs. Colorado finally incorporated the Fourth Amendment and made it binding to the states, but the exclusionary rule was not. Justice Frankfurter wrote in his opinion “…we must hesitate to treat [the exclusion of evidence] as an essential ingredient to the [protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.†This decision was reversed in the case of Mapp vs. Ohio (1961) and is where the Court extended the Fourth Amendment’s incorporation to the exclusionary rule, all under the umbrella of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Mapp decision laid the foundation for the future of the exclusionary rule, state enforcement was now binding in conjunction with the Fourth Amendment. Justice Potter Stewart, who wrote a concurring opinion in Mapp, ultimately did not see the Court’s justification in the requirement of the exclusionary rule. Stewart argues in “The Road to Mapp v. Ohio and Beyond: The Origins, Development, and Future of the Exclusionary Rule†that “the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence is not a constitutional right but a constitutional remedy.†He goes on to say that such remedies are present to prevent the government from violating the Fourth Amendment. Potter’s assertions are critical to the current and future state of the exclusionary rule in constitutional law. The amendment’s jurisdiction lies on an unreasonable search and seizure, not that the evidence obtained is a violation. Through technology however, the lines have unfortunately grown smaller between this distinctions, as seen in Jones vs. United States (2012).

Decades before Jones, the Court was left to decide Katz vs. United States (1967). For the first time the Court faced a technological advancement, that of a public phone booth, and the federal government’s attempts to use the fact that public places were subject to searches and seizures, and that evidence obtained would be permitted in cases. The Katz case leads to an evaluation of trespassing under eavesdropping, a foreshadowing of what is to come in Jones. The final decision marked Justice Stewart’s all-encompassing transformation of the Fourth Amendment, declaring the protection of “people, rather than places.†In an analysis of the Katz decision and its impact on the exclusionary rule today, author Sharon L. Davies argues, “Exclusion had become the Court’s answer to Fourth Amendment violations… the penalty had evolved from that of non-constitutional policy to a remedy which derived its authority from the Constitution itself.†Davies’ argument is inherently different than that of Justice Stewart, who was involved in these cases. The Katz case opened the Constitution up to an incredibly different set of interpretation, the phone booth itself as well as the government actions that took place in order to obtain such evidence has led scholars to incredible variation in the implications of the decision.

Davies and Stewart both argue that the exclusionary rule is, in some form, a remedy to unreasonable searches and seizures that occur. The issue with such a remedy however is that each case brings questions which challenge the authority of the rule. In 1967 the authority was called into question over the presence of a phone booth, but the 2012 case of Jones vs. United States introduced the use of a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) to oversee movement and collect data of an individual without their knowledge. The key component to both cases is the observation and eavesdropping that occurs, not necessarily against the suspect’s will, but without them knowing it is occurring. The problem created in these instances is that the Constitutional provision and subsequent precedent does not protect against such factors, despite their significance in the cases. The precedent and Fourth Amendment act to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures, which largely is whittled down to the presence, or legality, of a search warrant. With technology and the utility it continues to provide ordinary citizens and officials, the exclusionary rule must adapt to instances where there is a disregard for authority and ignorance to the judicial process.

Such an exception exists and is known under the moniker “good faith exceptionâ€. Established in United States vs. Leon (1983) the good faith exception served three purposes, outlined by Justice White in the majority opinion. He wrote, “…the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct… there exists no evidence that judges or magistrates are inclined to ignore or subvert the Fourth Amendment… exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to a warrant [will not] have a significant effect on the issuing judge or magistrate.†Justice White’s three principles for the inclusion of a good faith exception allows for police to utilize evidence gathered under a faulty warrant in a court of law. Alternatively, Guido Calabresi writes in “The Exclusionary Rule†that “Currently, absent the exclusionary rule, there are almost no incentives for the police to be good actors…†This argument is concurrent with that which is highlighted at the outset of this paper. Further provisions to the Fourth Amendment need not protect the police and provide them with justification with a violation of the Constitution. An unreasonable search and seizure is that which, without probable cause, occurs in absence of a sufficient and acceptable warrant in a court of law.

The significant impact technology has had thus far on cases involving the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule are without question going to change given whatever advancements occur in the coming years. In the most recent case, Jones vs. United States, the case hinged on whether or not a search or seizure actually took place with the implantation of a GPS tracking device. Arguments from the case included what constitutes a reasonable expectation to privacy, as outlined in Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz vs. United States. The evolution and newfound uses for technology and their further infiltration into our common lives further urges answers to such questions. Likewise, the issue of a trespass was addressed in Jones, something that has been brought up back to the days of Katz. With a warrant granted (albeit expiring during the time period of the investigation), the authorities were admitted to observe Jones’ behavior during the time span. The technological use of a device such as a GPS draws on conclusions made from other cases. As defined in the Fourth Amendment, individuals hold the right to be secure in multiple areas should an unreasonable search or seizure occur. Upon the Court’s decision to rule the authority’s actions involving Jones and his vehicle a search, the Court took issue with a trespassing violation. This argument is consistent with privacy rights of the accused, despite advances in technology. It states, “…the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test.†Scalia’s majority opinion in Jones highlights the physical intrusion of government officials into Mr. Jones’ person, houses, papers, or effects and hinges on the notion that an unreasonable search took place.

Returning to Harlan’s concurrence in Katz, the accepted “reasonable expectation of privacy†which was cited in Jones, still is unclear in terms of enforcing such a standard. In 2004 Orin S. Kerr argued “the [reasonable expectation of privacy] test is largely circular: a person has [that protection] when the courts decide to protect it through the Fourth Amendment.†At the core of Kerr’s argument is the court system’s ability or inability to rule during the current state of the Fourth Amendment. Interestingly enough, Kerr also delves into property rights and laws to form his argument, writing “New technologies often destabilize the relationship between property and privacy. Some technologies expose information that otherwise might have remained hidden…†The modern era has already seen the use of a satellite to infiltrate through walls and “map†a residence without ever stepping foot inside, this was not at issue in the Jones case, as a physical device was placed, replaced, and removed during the time of Mr. Jones’ surveillance.

Real world application of these cases and the implementation of data can serve as a stepping stone for evaluation of a particular provision of the Constitution. There was an empirical study conducted in Chicago during the 1970s by James E. Spoitto. In this study, Spoitto sought to use the motion to suppress as a mechanism to “measure illegal police practices and the workings of the exclusionary rule.†Spoitto’s specific study into the high crime areas of Chicago leads back to Calabresi’s assertion about members of the police force and the lack of incentive for them to do well. Spottio writes, “…police disciplinary procedures mainly concentrate on brutality, and if a search or seizure incident is neither egregious nor brutal, a citizen’s complaint would probably not result in judicial action.†Spottio’s disapproval of the exclusionary rule is centralized in the possibility of a police officer to give a false testimony to convict a criminal. In his conclusion, Spottio provides alternatives outside of the Court’s jurisdiction, mainly in regards to legislative action to deter police conduct in the form of punishment. In terms of the technological advances and an even greater opportunity for officers to violate the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule serves as an all-encompassing entity in protecting the rights of the accused.

Prior to the Jones decision, which while extremely recent, is a keystone to the technological argument, the Court ruled on Herring vs. United States (2009). Technology played another detrimental role in this case and resulted in the arrest of Mr. Herring, the Court saw a different outcome. In an analysis of the historical implications of the exclusionary rule author Thomas Y. Davies writes, “The creation of the novel “negligence†exception in Herring was a significant departure from earlier proposals for a good faith exception to the rule.†The introduction of a negligence exception leads down a dangerous path. Scientists and engineers work their hardest to prevent flaws in technology; those that have such flaws will be reworked until they are fixed. However, humans are not as easily changed. Those who are in charge of protecting citizens and serving the greater good have often been held to a higher standard, and making an exception for negligence implies that the standard is eroding faster than the privacy laws themselves.

The exclusionary rule has been tailored to the Constitution since the 1800s, and degradation or progress it has made varies depending on which side of the political spectrum the observer falls upon. Technology on the other hand develops regardless of perception, change happens every day. Cases such as Katz vs. United States have left an unimaginable impact on privacy in this country, and while Jones vs. United States is more recent, it will serve as a landmark case for rights of the accused. It is imperative that these cases, as well as the Constitution, be held to such a standard that does not allow for a government entity to overwhelm the citizen with technicalities for breaking the law. In Jones the decision was clear, the actions by authorities constituted a search and with disregard to the procedure Mr. Jones was held accountable for unconstitutional actions by those officials.

The reach of technology is infinite, and it is impossible for the Court to predict where it is headed. Likewise, state and federal governments must recognize the implications of violations of the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule, as a constitutional right and remedy must remain intact if there is hope for both the future of privacy rights in America, and a continued upholding of the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Calabresi, Guido. “The Exclusionary Rule,†Yale Law School. (January 2003): 114. 17 April 2012. <http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2021>

Davies, Sharon L. and Scanlon, Anna B. “Katz in the Age of Hudson v. Michigan: Some thoughts on “Suppression as a Last Resort,â€â€ University of California, Davis. Volume 41, (2008): 1048. 17 April 2012 < http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/41/3/rights-remedies/41-3_Davies-Scanlon.pdf>

Davies, Thomas Y. “The Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away: The Century of Fourth Amendment “Search and Seizure†Doctrine,†The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 100, No. 3. (February 2011): 1034. 22 April 2012. < http://ssrn.com/abstract=1758857>

Kerr, Orin S. “The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution,†Michigan Law Review. (2004): 808. 17 April 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4141982>

Lipson, Andrew Z. “The Good Faith Exception as Applied to Illegal Predicate Searches: A Free Pass to Institutional Ignorance,†University of California, Hastings Vol. 60. (May 2009). 17 April 2012. < http://uchastings.edu/hlj/archive/vol60/Lipson_60-HLJ-1147.pdf>

Maclin, Tracey and Rader, Jennifer Marie “No More Chipping Away: The Roberts Court Uses an Axe to Take Out the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule,†Mississippi Law Journal Vol. 81, No 5. (March 2012). 22 April 2012. <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2025970>

Spoitto, James E. “Search and Seizure: An Empircal Study of the Exclusionary Rule and its Alternatives,†University of Chicago, The Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 2, No. 1. (January 1973): 246, 273, 275-276. 22 April 2012. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/724033>

Stewart, Potter. “The Road to Mapp v. Ohio and Beyond: The Origins, Development, and Future of the Exclusionary Rule,†Columbia Law Review Vol. 83, No. 6. (October 1983): 1384. 17 April 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1122492>

[kimzy]

inb4 I post my 35page long paper on the european parliament

tldr but cool, I did a presentation about prejudices about gamers for my "french for retards" class

Hope you'll get good grades.

And M.G., why are you so smart! :3

[Ethan Mars]

Simply a well done paper work

 

I wish you luck that you'll get good grades on this.

[iDigitaL-]

I don't get how people can write this oO, if i need to do it i'm more like "fuck dat shit" anyways, nice work.

[LazaHorse]

It's always fun writing about a topic you actually have a passion or have experience with. I wrote a paper last week on Korea and the impact economic globalization has had on its economy, and I got to mention K-Pop near the end of it. XD Glad to see your time in HG is having a DIRECT impact on your real life success. What was the prompt for the paper if you don't mind me asking?

[Princess Luna]

This man needs to be promoted, as in, right now!

[Cookie]

I myself, am a member of Hells Gamers

I believe you lied right there sir!

[stuv 101]

to HG | Lazarus:

 

the prompt was more like a criteria; the topic had to be arguable, A.K.A have opposing arguments to the benefits (how video games had some negative effects vs. gaming communities/ video games and their benefits).

[60Seconds]

Very good paper, but your MLA format is wrong. Take out the Research Paper part, and add a header with your last name and the page number to the right side.

[Rick]

finally got a chance to read this, nicely done

 

couldn't you have interviewed someone else though?

 

/me runs from rizon

[Jella]

I wish my papers had cool topics Fuuuuuuuuu health care