Dispute resolution across platforms : offshore gambling industry & EVE online

Contemporary online environments suffer from a regulatory gap; that is there are few options for participants between customer service departments and potentially expensive court cases in foreign jurisdictions. Whatever form of regulation ultimately fills that gap will be charged with determining whether specific behavior, within a specific environment, is fair or foul; whether it’s cheating or not. However, cheating is a term that, despite substantial academic study, remains problematic. Is anything the developer doesn’t want you to do cheating? Is it only if your actions breach the formal terms of service? What about the community norms, do they matter at all? All of these remain largely unresolved questions, due to the lack of public determination of cases in such environments, which have mostly been settled prior to legal action. In this paper, I propose a re-branding of participant activity in such environments into developer-sanctioned, advantage play, and cheating. Advantage play, ultimately, is activity within the environment in which the player is able to turn the mechanics of the environment to their advantage without breaching the rules of the environment. Such a definition, and the term itself, is based on the usage of the term within the gambling industry, in which advantage play is considered betting with the advantage in the players’ favor rather than that of the house. Through examples from both the gambling industry and the Massively Multiplayer Role-Playing Game Eve Online, I consider the problems in defining cheating, suggest how the term ‘advantage play’ may be useful in understanding participants behavior in contemporary environments, and ultimately consider the use of such terminology in dispute resolution models which may overcome this regulatory gap.

[1]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[2]  Mia Consalvo,et al.  Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Videogames , 2007 .

[3]  Richard A. Bartle,et al.  Why Governments aren't Gods and Gods aren't Governments , 2006, First Monday.

[4]  Kathy Charmaz,et al.  Grounded Theory in Ethnography , 2001 .

[5]  Bernard De Koven,et al.  The Well-Played Game: A Playful Path to Wholeness , 2002 .

[6]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[7]  Elinor Ostrom Reformulating the Commons , 2000 .

[8]  R. Caillois,et al.  Man, Play and Games , 1958 .

[9]  K. Eisenhardt Better Stories and Better Constructs: The Case for Rigor and Comparative Logic , 1991 .

[10]  Richard H. McAdams,et al.  The Origin, Development, and Regulation of Norms , 1997 .

[11]  Darryl Woodford,et al.  Hanging out is hard to do : Methodology in non-avatar environments , 2012 .

[12]  William V. Wright,et al.  A Theory of Fun for Game Design , 2004 .

[13]  Mark A. Lemley The Dubious Autonomy of Virtual Worlds , 2012 .

[14]  Katherine J. Strandburg,et al.  Privacy, Rationality, and Temptation: A Theory of Willpower Norms , 2005 .

[15]  Lars-Erik Gadde,et al.  Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research , 2002 .

[16]  T. L. Taylor,et al.  Book Review: T.L. Taylor, Play Between WorldS: Exploring Online Game Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006. vii+197 pp. ISBN 0262201631, $29.95 hbk , 2007, New Media Soc..

[17]  Sal Humphreys,et al.  Griefing, Massacres, Discrimination, and Art: The Limits of Overlapping Rule Sets in Online Games , 2012 .

[18]  G. Brady Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action , 1993 .

[19]  Raph Koster,et al.  Developing Online Games: An Insider's Guide , 2003 .

[20]  Chris Crawford,et al.  Chris Crawford on Game Design , 2003 .

[21]  J. Huizinga Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture , 1938 .

[22]  Elinor Ostrom,et al.  Developing a Method for Analyzing Institutional Change , 2007 .