What makes a good loser? An Ethnographic Study of Toxic Behaviors in Competitive Multiplayer Games

Azul Romo Flores

Supervisor: Isabel Löfgren Södertörn’s University | School of Culture and Education Master’s Dissertation, 30 credits | Spring 2020 Master’s programme in Media, Communication and Cultural Analysis

To Bruno González Vázquez, thank you for your endless support.

1 Abstract

Over the past decades, the scholarly discourse of violent video games as a possible influence for aggressive behaviors has gained much attention, primarily relying on the content of such games This study aims to explore the environment of competitive multiplayer gaming in terms of technicality (e.g. game mechanics), social interactions within a video game, and additional resources outside of the game as possible influential factors for toxic behaviors in competitive multiplayer games. Bourdieusian social theory is applied to gain a better understanding of the relationship between agents (players) and the field (competitive gaming) and the relevance of gaming capital. This study is based on a digital ethnographic approach to gain a comprehensive understanding of the gaming environment, and reports on semi-structured online interviews with 14 participants aged between 17-40, to gain insight on players’ perception and responses towards toxic behaviors in competitive games. This study proposes a spectrum of toxic behaviors in competitive multiplayer games, in which actions may be distinguished based on the form of expression (eg. verbal, physical or in-game). Primary findings suggest there may be a causal relationship between a player’s knowledge of a game and their conveyance of toxicity, regardless of age and gender. The degree of toxicity may vary depending on the player, and is more frequently performed by men. Lastly, toxic behaviors should not be examined in isolation from contextual factors such as game mechanics or social interactions, but need to be further explored as a medium-specific phenomenon.

Keywords: gaming capital, Bourdieu, culture capital, competitive multiplayer games, eSports, ​ competition, trash talking, online harassment, aggressive online behavior, toxic behavior

2 Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Table of Contents 3

1. Introduction 5

2. Previous Research 12 2.1. The Violence Surrounding Games & Games Culture 13 2.2. Toxic Behavior in Games 15 2.3. The Spectrum of Toxicity 18

3. Theoretical Context 22 3.1. Bourdieusian Theory 22 3.2. Theory of Praxis, Doxa and Knowledge of a Field 25 3.3. Gaming Capital 26

4. Purpose & Research Question(s) 29

5. Methodology 31 5.1. Digital Ethnography 32 5.2. Semi-Structured Interviews 35 5.2.1. Interview Guide 36 5.2.2. Participants 37

6. Description of Game Environment 41 6.1. Game Mechanics 41 6.2. Asymmetrical Design 41 6.3. Playstyles 43 6.4. Communication Systems 44 6.5. Ranking Systems & Matchmaking 45 6.6. Code of Conduct, Reporting Tools & Penalties 47

7. Analysis of Empirical Data 51 7.1. Players’ Perception of Toxic Behaviors 51 7.2. Players’ Responses Towards Toxic Behaviors 57 7.2.1. Being the Victim 58 7.2.2. Talking Back, Getting “Tilted” 59 7.3. Code of Conduct in Competitive Games 61 7.3.1. Report Systems 63 7.3.2. Alternate Accounts 64 7.4. Influences Outside of the Game on Toxic Behaviors 64 7.4.1. Social Interactivity Outside of Game 65 7.4.2. Observing Play 66 7.4.3. Difficulty of Games & the Drive of Being Better Than the Enemy 67 7.5. The Supportive Community of Competitive Multiplayer Games 72

3 8. Discussion 73 8.1. Players as Mediators of Toxic Behaviors 74 8.2. Unsportsmanship in Games 75

9. Conclusion 79

Acknowledgements 81

Bibliography 82

Appendix A - Interview Guide 95

4 1. Introduction

What is at stake for these players is not only their enjoyment of the game, then, but the status of gaming and gamer identity in mainstream culture. These are players who, by and large, take gaming seriously in a cultural context that sees gaming as frivolous and unproductive. (Myers, 2019, p.771)

I have played video games since I was about seven years old. I remember going over to my best friend’s house after school and we would spend hours playing different games. Sometimes we would play together simultaneously and sometimes we would pass the controller around. Video games have played an essential role in many young people’s lives in the past twenty to thirty years, serving as a safe space or coping strategy to ‘real’ life (c.f. NakeyJakey, 2018). Although I have not played much during my early years, during my young adulthood in the mid 2010s, I became serious with my gaming habits by buying my own gaming computer and was particularly invested in online multiplayer games.

According to Myers (2019, p.771), the act of playing video games has been considered to be “frivolous and unproductive” in cultural contexts. This belief has been actively discussed in mainstream media, especially after mass shootings in the United States (Copenhaver, 2015; Hegeman, 2019; Kreider, 2012; Pidd, 2012) where causes for such a violent act have been partly attributed to online games that elicit violent and toxic behavior. After the recent mass shootings in the United States, the president claimed that “we must stop the glorification of violence in our society. This includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace." (Griffin, 2019; Voytko, 2019). One thing in this statement may be certain - video games are a commonplace. There are millions of players in online games (c.f. Bailey, 2020; SteamCharts, 2020). People of any gender, age, from any country and cultures, from any stereotype (Ferguson & Glasgow, 2020) can refer to themselves as ‘gamers’ due to their passion for games1. Not all video games are about violence, nor do they cause violence, but it is through a greater understanding of modern video game culture, its audience and this particular medium, that may provide insight as to how digital technologies have come to play an essential role in our everyday lives and in turn, understanding how this medium may affect our behaviors, beliefs and reasoning. As Wagner claims:

One argument in the study of violent video games [Goldstein 20052] has always been that children do not have the competence to make [an evaluation of the consequences of their decisions] when dealing with violence in video games and thus tend to reenact aggressive behavior in real life. According to the presented theoretical framework of interactive media reading literacy, however, it would be exactly the videogames that counteract the very same problem they are supposed to create. (Wagner 2006, p.142).

1 See also Dave T Geek, 2018. 2 Cited in Wagner 2006.

5 However, there are various indicators that advocate games are not unproductive. Scholars Maija Majamäki and Matilda Hellman (2016) have studied how players perceive their time spent on playing video games as productive and meaningful, and if it may cause addictions (as other researchers have claimed in the past; c.f. Majamäki and Hellman, 2016). Majamäki and Hellman conclude that there is a problem with using traditional time as a measurement of MMORPG3-gaming, primarily because we “make simplified judgments about ways to use time in terms of ‘good’’ ways (non-gaming) or ‘bad’ ways (gaming)” and that “these do not correspond to the complexity of time dimensions related to the actual gaming activity. For the gamers themselves the use of time can be both good and bad at the same time.” (2016, p.369)

In contrast, with the rapid development of gaming and communication technologies, gaming has grown from a leisure activity perceived as "frivolous" into an economy of its own where gamers have become a professional category. This has required gaming platforms to develop into complex systems with a staggering number of users, and therefore a development of online gaming as a mass cultural phenomenon. Professional video game players have earned similar base salaries as those earned by traditional athletes, either by competing as a team or individual tournaments (Phillpott, 2020). For example, Sumail who is a 20 year old professional Defense of the Ancients 2 (henceforth Dota 2) player, has won a total of $3.6 ​ million earnings to this day (Ibid.). The International, which is the world championship in ​ ​ Dota 2, raised over $32 million through in-game purchases and donations from players, resulting in a prize pool of a total of $34,330,068 (CyborgMatt, 2020). While the economical aspect of the gaming industry may not be sufficient evidence to disprove the “frivolous and unproductive” argument, it nevertheless indicates a productivity of serious magnitude, that supports eSports (short for electronic sports) to be a legitimate profession and to be taken more seriously. Online multiplayer games can be considered as social games, even though you might spend thirty minutes playing with nine strangers, you are still interacting with a large number of different people and you are coordinating with them in order to successfully win the match, which is not always easy. For people not familiar with digital games, it may come as a surprise that online games have a player base as a major country. Fortnite (Epic ​ ​ Games, 2017) a team based online game surpassed 350 million registered players as of May, 2020 (Bailey, 2020) and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (Valve Corporation, 2016) has an ​ average of 900,000 active players per month (SteamCharts, 2020). Previous studies (Ghuman & Griffiths, 2014; Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Johnson, Nacke & Wyeth, 2015) have shown that one of the main reasons for people to play games is often because of the social engagements which games involve.

In order to understand toxic culture in games, we must first understand where they originate. Originally, games were primarily built in the context of academic teaching and programming research (Smith, 2014) in the 1960s. The earliest documented video game for entertainment was Spacewar! which consisted of controlling a spaceship and shooting moving targets, ​ rotating the ship counter- and clockwise through the use of moving handles on a controller connected to a computer, and firing projectiles with a button on the controller (Graetz, 1981).

3 Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games, a video game genre.

6 From its beginning, video games were primarily produced and developed for white males, who also formed its main market (c.f. DiSalvo, 2016; Dyer-Witheford & de Peuter, 2006; Shaw, 2010; Smith, 2014). Some believe that the original intended purpose for was to facilitate military war tactics, and that the development of gaming consoles and gaming technology has continued to rely on military development, as researcher Dennis Jansen argues:

The success of the [video game] industry has also often relied on military research and development: for instance, Nintendo was able to up the ante in the industry’s self-created push for ever-more powerful machines and ‘realistic’ graphics by including processing chips produced by Silicon Graphics, a technological research company founded by a former military computer scientist. (Jansen, in press).

In addition, when describing the content of video games, it is often argued that the industry is “made by males for males” (Dyer-Witheford & de Peuter, 2006, pp.606-607) which can be seen by typically male-oriented interests such as war, fighting, sports and hero narratives (DiSalvo, 2016, p.107; Thornham, 2011). This notion may be further supported by the production environment where game companies primarily consist of men, as stated by Styhre et al. (2018, p.258; c.f. Dymek, 2012) in a study he conducted on the gendered differences of work in Swedish gaming companies: “the central tenet of the ideology of masculine domination, that is, that work is divided into categories that are gendered, still applies in late modern and technologically sophisticated industries, too.”

Often when ‘gamer culture’ is discussed or defined, it is through descriptions of gamers and a ​ range of categories from which the stereotype stems from, such as who plays video games, how they play them and what they are playing (Shaw, 2010, p.404). Adrienne Shaw argues how “starting with these categories and not looking for a prototypical definition of a gamer identity allows us to see that popular discourses actually offer a much more diverse view of what gaming is than they are generally given credit for.” (Ibid.; Consalvo, 2007).

In many situations, when describing the ‘hardcore gaming’ audience, it is typically seen as the “young, middle-class, white, heterosexual, cisgender, able-bodied men, often also socially awkward, and willing to devote large amounts of time to playing complex video games” (DiSalvo, 2016, p.105) which “[...] does not reinforce either the perceived marginalization of gamers or broader social hierarchies of gender, sexuality, and class.” (Myers, 2019, p.763). In addition, there is a widespread notion that ‘casual gamers’ are not true gamers because they are not dedicated enough and do not play ‘real’ games, even though ‘casuals’ may spend as much time playing ‘non real’ games (Disalvo 2016, p. 115). It is often female gamers who are considered ‘casual gamers’ because of the non-violent games they play, such as puzzle games on a mobile phone (Assunção, 2016).

From personal experience with self-proclaimed ‘hardcore’ gamers, ‘true’ games often require competition and Player versus Player (PvP) modes of play, meaning that players play against other ‘real’ players instead of artificially controlled characters or systems (c.f. Fullerton,

7 2014, pp.56-62), which often result in war-like games such as Call of Duty or Counter-Strike, ​ ​ ​ in contrast to ‘casual’ games which consist of puzzle-like games for smartphones, such as Farmville or Candy Crush (Assunção, 2016; Nguyen & Zagal, 2016). However, according to ​ ​ the Entertainment Software Association (2020), in 2019 46% of gamers were female, and women above the age of 35 constitute a new, growing group of gamers who primarily play “casual” games developed primarily for smartphones (Styhre et al., 2018). Thus, it is no longer possible to claim that a small group of “nerdy boys” are the only ones playing video games. Because of the increased demand of digital games and the millions of players of all ages, cultures and gender who are active playing digital games on a daily basis, I suggest scholars and developers should place greater emphasis on facilitating these tools and platforms for the usage of different target groups. More importantly, to shape and reconstruct social norms and how the users (players) interact with and in such platforms.

For those unfamiliar with video games, the space of game-playing is but one type of space governed by special rules, which has been referred to historically as the “magic circle,” a space of play parallel to the real world (Huizinga, 1955; Juul, 2008). Games often consist of objectives and puzzles which the players need to fulfill in order to progress. Ideally a well-made game places the player in a state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014) where s/he is in balance between focus, involvement and enjoyment. There are many types of games that are defined by their genre, which in turn are developed based on particular traits that build the genre, similar to how genres are defined in literature. In traditional game studies, competitive games are those in which players are required to form strategies that directly oppose those of the other opponent players in the game: “in order to win, all others must lose.” (Nguyen & Zagal, 2016, p.3). In order to succeed with the game’s objective, players require proficiency or “skill”, knowledge of the game and team synchronization in multiplayer games (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Johnson, Nacke & Wyeth, 2015; Märtens et al., 2015; Romo Flores, 2018).

Competitive online games (see Figure 1) often require team-based interaction, whether it is a team of a single person or multiple people, similarly to traditional sports games such as football (soccer) or basketball (Fullerton, 2014, p.62). Games of this nature are typically played as matches, where a “win” represents the team who completed an objective or a set of rounds. For example, in Counter-Strike (Valve Corporation, 2012) the game itself consists of ​ purely graphical menus, and when queuing up for a match, players then enter the playing field, typically referred to as a map (Fullerton, 2014, pp.115-116). In the match, players are divided into two teams of five players (either friends if queuing up together or with strangers if playing alone) through a matchmaking system that randomly connects players of similar skill levels for the match. Each match is played in rounds, whereas each round has the objective of either arming or disarming a bomb, or killing all the opponent players. The match ends when a team has won sixteen rounds.

8

Figure 1. A diagram showing genres and subgenres of games, in order to demonstrate ​ the “location” of competitive online games in the spectrum of games. Note: sizes are not accurate. Source: Author.

Team coordination is not always as simple as it sounds, and adapting to other people’s needs may be more difficult for some than others, and more often than it should players are placed in a position where they are harassed, humiliated and cyberbullied (Kwak, Blackburn & Han, 2015). Scholars have examined digital social interactions for various decades, both in digital media (Davis, 2002; Turkle, 2008) and video games (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Consalvo, 2012), as well as negative interactions and disruptive behaviors (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011a; Adachi & Willoughby, 2911b; ) or violent content at its supposed negative effect on aggression (Anderson et al., 2010; Cooper & Mackie, 1986; Ferguson, 2007). In game studies however, the topic of disruptive, or antisocial behaviors has been partially explored for the past decade and is known as “toxic” behaviors.

The term “toxicity” itself, is defined as the degree to which a (single or mixture of) chemical substance(s) can damage an organism (Merriam-Webster, 2020). In digital spaces, it commonly refers to a large range of ‘bad’ behaviors with the intention of harming others by sending offensive messages (Sinders, 2016; see Image 1), disrupting the online experience or even cyberbullying (Kwak, Blackburn & Han, 2015). According to Kwak and Blackburn (2014) toxic behavior is “[a behavior that] violates social norms, inflicts misery, continues to cause harm after it occurs, and affects an entire community” (2015, p.1). As scholars Mattinen and Macey describe toxic behaviors in online games:

9 [in online game settings] the motives for both trolling and griefing are manifold, and include: aiming to destroy the game, to disrupt gameplay and group proceedings, to harass and provoke other participants, to display power and knowledge, and sometimes even to create culture. (Mattinen & Macey, 2018, p.2).

Since the earliest known publication of aggressive behaviors in video games (Cooper & Mackie, 1986), many studies have focused on the violent content of video games, rather than focusing on other influential factors such as competition (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011a; 2011b) or (social) context (Lee, Jeong, & Jeon, 2019; Tang & Fox, 2016). The aim of this study is to further explore the phenomenon of toxic behaviors in the setting of competitive multiplayer games. While previous research (Kwak & Blackburn, 2014; Kwak, Blackburn & Han, 2015; Thompson et al., 2017; Shores et al., 2014) has aimed to define and explore the verbal expressions of such, the aim of this study is to explore motives, manifestations and consequences of toxic behaviors and provide an analytical tool for highlighting how these behaviors emerge in the setting of competitive games. In other words, this study examines the enactment of toxic behaviors and if it may be medium specific.

Because video games increased in demand, our everyday engagement with digital environments is shaping a new form of “being” and because it is new and dynamic (c.f. Turkle, 2008), it is hard for us people to comprehend to which limits our selves extend to, particularly when interacting online. The Internet is often referred to as the “unreal” world or “not-real-life” (Cross, 2016) and whatever happens in this networked realm is taken less seriously as it is assumed to not have the same effects as ‘real’ and physical social interactions as in traditional games, which can be partially due to online anonymity (Chen, Duh & Ng, 2009; Mattinen & Macey, 2018). It is through denying the reality of the virtual, that Internet users fail to see other users as actual persons, in turn, making it easier for users, people, to express antisocial behavior and suppress any ethical constraints on that behavior (Cross, 2016, p.26). Because of this continuous and transformative virtual environment, it’s important to seek greater knowledge about the cultural impacts of digital games and the experiences and social interactions that are shaped in these environments by the players themselves (Consalvo, 2007, p.84). In this thesis, this phenomenon will be analyzed through the lens of Bourdieu’s terms of social capital and field (1983; 1984; 1990), as reworked by Burkart and Andersson Schwarz (2014) and as applied to games by Consalvo (2007). This may make it possible to reach a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon as a spectrum, by examining the environment in which it occurs (in terms of game mechanics), and how the players act in consideration to their reasoning and beliefs of toxic behaviors.

The research design of this study is based on Sarah Pink’s concept of Digital Ethnography (2012) and semi-structured interviews (Jensen, 2012d) with fourteen active players from various competitive games. The interview guide was separated into two main topics: the first of which aimed to explore players’ perception and response towards toxic behaviors in competitive multiplayer games, the structure was inspired by Burkart & Andersson Schwarz (2014) reworking of Bourdieu’s concepts of praxis, doxa and knowledge of a field (1984). The second interview topic aimed at exploring the medium itself, and if there are influential

10 factors for toxic practices which stem from sources outside of the game – such as social discussions on online platforms, face-to-face contact, game tutorials, amongst other. This latter section is an adaptation of Consalvo’s proposed term ‘gaming capital’ (2007) which suggests players gain capital (Bourdieu, 1984) about games through external resources outside of the game itself, which in turn may be used to shape a players understanding, experience, values and beliefs of a game. The interview was used to gather players’ habits in gaming culture and community (outside of the game), as well as experiences of primarily toxic encounters during play. For a detailed description of the methodology see Chapter 5. A short description of the virtual gaming environment as a result of the ethnographic approach is presented in Chapter 6. Results and analysis of empirical data gathered from the interviews is presented according to the research questions in Chapter 7. Lastly, the discussion of the thesis aims to seam together Bourdieusian theory to game culture, and how players act in regard to toxic behaviors in competitive multiplayer games.

Image 1. A screenshot of a user obtaining a 14 day suspension due to toxic behavior in ​ League of Legends. Note: “kys” is an abbreviation for “kill yourself.” Source: courtesy of an acquaintance to the author, 2020.

11 2. Previous Research

In which ways has toxicity been researched in the broad, multidisciplinary field of digital video games? What is the general understanding of this phenomenon? What definition or definitions have been given to this term? This chapter will focus on providing a background for the current study by summarising existing literature on competitive games, aggression and toxic behaviors.

The presence of toxic behavior in online games has been well documented both by researchers and by the community of such games (Core-A Gaming, 2018; Crowbcat, 2015; Kwak & Blackburn, 2014; Kwak, Blackburn & Han, 2015; Romo Flores, 2018; Shores et al., 2014; TheScore Esports, 2018). Although, based on the on-going debate of whether violent video games causes individuals to express higher degrees of aggression or not, many studies have focused on the violent content of video games, rather than focusing on other influential factors (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011a; 2011b; Lee, Jeong, & Jeon, 2019; Tang & Fox, 2016).

Most of the articles which study social interactions focus on League of Legends (Riot, 2009) ​ and Defense of the Ancients 2 (Valve Corporation, 2013), which are both games of the ​ Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA) genre. Many of the studies on toxic behaviors focus on analysing a large quantity of chat logs and game recordings by using linguistic analysis (Kwak & Blackburn, 2015), sentiment analysis (Thompson, Leung, Blair & Taboada, 2017), amongst other descriptive methods of research, in order to identify particular causes and influences of toxic behavior in games. League of Legends(LoL) and Defense of the ​ ​ ​ Ancients 2 (Dota 2) are some of the most played computer games and thus, I assume it is why ​ they are seen as particularly good objects of reference for studies. However, they do not account for other games in different genres which share the competitive trait and are infamous for having toxic behaviors, such as First Person Shooters (FPS) or Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPG), and it renders it worthwhile to investigate to the extent in which successful games can be seen as mirrors of the societies in which they are produced.

While there are many studies that explore social interactions and communication patterns in MMORPGs (Lin & Sun, 2005) or in FPS (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Halloran, Rogers & Fitzpatrick, 2003; Tang et al., 2012), there is a scarcity in research focusing on similar descriptive approaches as aforementioned, in regard to toxic behaviors. When discussing the Fighting Game (FG) genre, there is even less research (c.f. Brlek, 2014; Harper, 2014) which is surprising due to the nature of games in this genre often include both graphic violence as well as competition, both key indicators for increased aggression in individuals.

In the following section a brief introduction to the debate of whether violent video games cause people to become violent will be presented, furthermore a literary background to the study of toxicity in video games will be examined.

12 2.1. The Violence Surrounding Games & Games Culture

You are going up against gamers. People who are programmed to win, to grind and slog for months for a prize, who can put up with the most horrendous insults being thrown at them. And your plan is to try slander [sic] and outlast these people? Good luck. – GamerGate activist on social media, Cross, 2016, p.23

As a gamer, I have often encountered questions such as “aren’t all video games violent?” and comments such as “but video games make people violent.” While there is a certain truth to such statements, there is evidence which supports the contrary, and in order to better understand the phenomenon of toxic behaviors in games and how it may influence “real life” and our society, it is necessary to discuss the matter of violence in games and on-going debates of how this particular medium may or may not cause aggression, as well as hostile incidents which are related to the gaming community but which have happened in the real world. A few examples of violent crimes which have been related to games culture whilst happening outside of these will be provided, followed by a brief summary of violence in games.

The first case is ‘swatting’, which is when someone reports a fake emergency to the police with the goal of sending a SWAT team to the scene (c.f. Inside Edition, 2019). In late 2019, Kyle "Bugha" Giersdorf, known for winning the world championship in the game Fortnite, ​ ​ was swatted during a live streaming. "Caller said he just shot his father with an AK-47," a dispatcher for Montgomery County Police reported (ABC News, 2019). Luckily, the policemen who responded to the incident recognized Kyle’s father, who opened the door, and understood the call was fake. There have been similar incidents which have ended tragically. In 2017, a dispute between two nineteen year olds led to one of them prank calling a fake emergency to an unrelated location where an innocent man was shot down by the police (Hanna & Lynch, 2019). The dispute is said to have started over a $1.50 bet while the two people involved were playing Call of Duty: WII (Hegeman, 2019).

Swatting does not appear to be known to the public as many other violent events, nor is it seen in the “morning news highlights” like other stories, perhaps because they do not always end tragically. Either way, it is not an excuse to take the matters less seriously, which leads me to the second example: mass shootings, in particular those where the perpetrator(s) have been associated with game-related idols such as PewDiePie (the Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand in 2019, where the perpetrator live streamed the shooting on social media and uttered “subscribe to PewDiePie” at one point during the stream, see Chokshi, 2019) or because they identified as gamers (the 2011 Norway shooting in Utøya where the perpetrator spoke out about having ‘trained’ for the attack by playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, see Pidd, 2012).

These tragic events have been well documented by the media, as in the previous example (c.f. ABC News, 2019; Chokshi, 2019; Hanna & Lynch, 2019; Kreider, 2012; Pidd, 2012), both during the time in which the events took place, and after, following the consequences. The

13 main reason this is discussed, is because these particular events have been associated to game culture in media discourse, primarily because at some point in the discourse, the perpetrator mentioned video games or something related to video games, and thus resulting in media and politicians adhered to the debate of whether video games create killers, or at least cause an increased hostility in individuals.

In the Norweigan case, the perpetrator mentioned having played World of Warcraft (WoW) ​ ​ ‘full-time’ at one point in his life, the media immediately painted this game (Kreider, 2012; Pidd, 2012) as the violent source to his actions, although the culprit at various occasions during his trial stated that: “Some people like to play golf, some like to sail, I played WoW. It had nothing to do with 22 July. It's not a world you are engulfed by. It's simply a hobby." (Pidd, 2012, para. 9) which was later dismissed by an external witness and anthropologist who was brought into the case, who explained that the attacker could not separate what was fiction and reality (Kreider, 2012).

The ongoing debate of whether violent video games cause aggression, or an increased violent behavior, has been on-going for over two decades. Due to the large quantity of material, and endless amount of studies that asserts both sides of the debate, researchers have turned to meta-analyses, resulting however, in more controversy (de Vrieze, 2018). While there is an abundance of evidence that suggests that video games with violent content – such as the well-known series: Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty – causes individuals to express higher ​ ​ levels of aggression in their everyday lives (c.f. Anderson & Carnagey, 2009; Anderson et al., 2004), many of the studies that support these claims have been criticized for irregularities in data and in-appropriate research methods (Ferguson, 2007; Ferguson & Rueda, 2009; de Vrieze, 2018), and that many of these studies vaguely define ‘aggression’ in itself causing a confusion for many scholars as to what these studies are trying to assert (Ferguson, 2007; Ferguson, 2020). In contrast, it is claimed that there is scarce evidence to support the claim that violent video games cause increased hostile behavior, in fact there are studies that indicate there is no long-term association between violent video games and violent crimes, and that playing violent games, like Grand Theft Auto has led to reduced crime in society ​ (Markey, Markey & French, 2014).

However, do these theories apply to video games that do not contain blood or have the in-game goal of killing others? The Madden NFL series (EA Sports, 2019/1988) is a sports ​ video game that is based on the National Football League. In August 2018 during a tournament in said video game, a twenty four year old who was participating as a competitor suddenly opened fire towards two of his contenders amongst other bystanders (Good, Alexander & Sarkar, 2018). Then, did the perpetrator have any influences from a non-violent game, was it a mental instability or some different factor which drove the person to commit such harmful deed?

As mentioned, this debate has been actively discussed for decades and there seems to be no clear answer to the problem. Criminologists may have found a different answer to this, as the public debate lies with politicians’ decision making and the economical infrastructure of the

14 United States, rather than the actual video games (Copenhaver, 2015). In other words, because there is no causal relationship between playing violent video games and aggression, why do politicians continue to blame video games? Copenhaver claims that blaming violent video games “constitutes a moral panic when violent video games are unfairly scapegoated as the source of school shootings” (Copenhaver, 2020), meaning that politicians use violent video games as a performed act with the intention (or awareness of) misleading the audience in order to maintain power and continue generating economy (Copenhaver, 2015, pp.176-177, 181).

2.2. Toxic Behavior in Games

In the context of online interactions there are certain terms which are frequently used to describe particular toxic behaviors, for example “flaming” or “trash talking” which refers to malicious accusations (Lee, Jeong, & Jeon, 2019, p.1) and verbal hostility towards others (Mattinen & Macey, 2018, p.1). Another term is “trolling” which refers to behavior that can “manifest itself as incitement through harsh words and/or feigning ignorance or general stupidity in order to get an emotional response out of others” (Mattinen & Macey, 2018, p.2; Lee, Jeong, & Jeon, 2019). In video games, some refer to these people as griefers (Chen, Duh & Ng, 2009, p.341) who in game situations may for example help the opposing team in a match by feeding, which is a term used to describe when a player deliberately allows the other team to kill them, thus ‘feeding’ the enemies with in-game currency and experience, in turn allowing the opponent to gain an advantage (Kwak & Blackburn, 2014, p.6). An important aspect to be considered is that in online gaming, negative behavior, such as cyberbullying, griefing, mischief, and cheating are often grouped together and called toxic behavior (Kwak, Blackburn & Han, 2015), which may cause confusion and result in a vaguely defined term, since the implications of the aforementioned signify different implications. Informally, in many gaming contexts, the term “salt” is often used to refer to toxic behaviors as well (Core-A Gaming, 2018).

It was previously described that one of the definitions for toxic behavior was cyberbullying, according to Joseph Thompson and his colleagues (2017) the toxicity present in the game Starcraft 2 does not meet the definitions of cyberbullying due to that “players part ways after a fifteen minute game” (2017, p.160) which is an important aspect to many of the modern online games: temporary interactions with strangers. Other studies (Kou & Gui, 2014, p.161) have referred to previous research which reported that temporary teams have a low level of social interaction amongst the players. Considering that most online games consist of at least two players (one player, one opponent player) and that these players may or may not interact or even be toxic, it raises the question of where and why such behavior occurs. ​ ​ Previous research has sought to describe reasons as to why players may become toxic. In my own research, one topic which was discussed by multiple participants was that one possible reason for becoming toxic may be not admitting one’s own flaws and therefore blaming others for their mistakes. In many games, some misplaced actions can have a big impact on

15 the outcome of the match, this will be discussed in a later section of this paper (see Chapter 6; c.f. Romo Flores, 2018). This may be supported by other scholarly work which suggests that toxic players may fail to recognize when they are being toxic (Chen, Duh & Ng, 2009; Kwak & Blackburn, 2014). In a study about queer and bad mannered practices, Brian Myers argues that audiences are “always aware of the various factors that shape their particular understandings of texts or cultural practices.” (2013, p.769). This could explain how players might not recognize their own behavior as toxic, but could identify when others behave like it. On the other hand, Christine Cook and her colleagues (2018) conducted a study with self-reported trolls to investigate the motivations and self-acknowledged toxic behaviors which suggested that trolls behave in an antinormative manner to gain revenge, personal enjoyment and thrill-seeking.

Furthermore, competition itself has been claimed as the greatest influence on aggressive behavior, and not the violence in content (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011; Lee, Jeong, & Jeon, 2019), Kenneth Shores and his colleagues (2014) discovered that players who primarily play more competitive game modes will have a higher negative impact on self and others. Online games usually offer the players different game modes (ways of playing the game) for example: competitive mode (often called “ranked”) – where players are matched against other players with a similar ranking, which is based on an internal system to measure the proficiency of a player; or “casual” mode (unranked) where players can play by the same rules as in competitive mode but without affecting their rank (will be further explained in chapter 6. Analysis of Game Mechanics).

Another influential factor is anonymity (Chen, Duh & Ng, 2009). However, regarding the second aspect, Mattinen and Macey (2018, p.2) argue that behaviours such as flaming and trolling, are not limited to anonymous settings: in platforms such as Facebook where people’s identity is known, trolling can also be experienced.

The most recurring form of toxic behavior is through language, either in the voice- or text-based communication systems (chat function) in the game (Kou & Gui, 2014; Kwak & Blackburn, 2014; Märtens et al., 2015; Thompson et al., 2017). This may be because textual material is the easiest way of identifying toxic behavior, by for example, writing “kill yourself” (or abbreviations of this) in the chat to another player. Additionally, Thompson et al. (2017) identified that toxic players tend to have smaller vocabularies and rarely use emoticons. The usage of emoticons has been proved to indicate sarcasm, however in the context of online games it was rather unclear (Thompson et al., 2017, p.159). Interestingly, even in online card games where no chat function is provided, toxicity can be experienced when for example players befriend other players after a match to access a private chat-room and harass them (Türkay & Adinolf, 2019).

As a result of toxic behaviors, research has indicated that continuous exposure to toxicity or encounters with toxic players in online games may result in degrading the user experience (Kwak, Blackburn & Han, 2015), and may also lead to players quitting the game permanently, as well as scaring away new players (Chen, Duh & Ng, 2009; Shores et al.,

16 2014). These outcomes do not come as a surprise, since the definition of “toxic behavior” implies various degrading actions towards other users. There are some interesting studies focusing on analysing game sessions and match logs to determine at which point during a match, and which influential in-game factors contribute to such behavior. Match length was a significant predictor of discontinuing a game session, meaning that the longer the match went on, the less likely it was for players to continue playing (Shores et al., 2014; Tang & Fox, 2016). This is of significance in games like Dota 2 or CS:GO (Counter-Strike) where players ​ ​ spend forty minutes per match. Scholars Topias Mattinen and Joseph Macey (2018) discovered that when it comes to the age of players, older players (above twenty-seven years of age) tend to take verbal abuse and online harassment more seriously than younger players, ​ and young players do not actively participate in such behavior. Betsy DiSalvo conducted a study to explore how masculinity is constructed in video game environments, and one participant in the age of forty, expressed that bragging about the number of kills in a game for example, would not be socially acceptable for someone his age (DiSalvo, 2016, p.111), which coincides with previous findings. In addition to age, there is also in-game experience. Players are always bound to create an account in order to play an online game, and each account gains points for each match that is played, based on how well the player performed during the game, amongst other factors. Previous research has suggested that high level (experienced) players are more resistant to toxic behavior and not driven away from the game because of it (Shores et al., 2014).

I have spent a lot of time watching video clips and streams of the fighting game scene because many of my friends play games of this genre. Even though I do not play these kinds of games myself, I do understand the basics and enjoy watching funny or impressive moments in videos, occasionally. One thing that I did notice from all these videos, and even in live tournaments I have personally attended (DreamHack 20154) was how players in this community express high levels of toxicity through their physical bodies.

An example of this is an “iconic” moment during a tournament when a professional player lost the match and as a result got so angry he threw his console onto the ground during the live streaming of the event (c.f. Crowbcat, 20155). In the fighting game community, when a player explodes out of their seat following a big moment, it is referred to as a “pop-off” (c.f. Soldatmesteren Junkyard, 2019; theEscore Sports, 20176). Whilst there are many positive reactions to a pop-off as an expression of joy and relief, there are those which may be bad mannered or even “toxic” to an extent, in the sense that the person doing it is talking directly to the player who lost and saying bad things to them, mocking them, insulting them or even going as far as to punching the other person (for reference see Crowbcat, 20157). However,

4 A well-known digital culture festival held biannually in Jönköping, Sweden. There have been extensions of this festival in other parts of the world as well, but it originated in Sweden and thousands of people gathered to watch live tournaments or bring their computers to a massive LAN. See also: Taylor & Witkowski, 2010; or https://dreamhack.com/ Accessed 22 May, 2020. ​ ​ 5 Minute 2:30-2:45. 6 Minute 22:44-25:04. 7 Minute 4:23-4:30.

17 there seems to be little research covering these practices or mentioning physical practices that derive from or surge within gaming related contexts, which is surprising, since such performances are enacted in traditional sports as well and often penalized when deemed unsportsmanlike or disrespectful (c.f. Dunning, Murphy & Williams, 1986; Kniffin & Palacio, 2018; Simons, 2013).

2.3. The Spectrum of Toxicity

Lastly, one aspect which has not yet been discussed is the social and spatial context of toxic ​ ​ behavior. When approaching the community of online gaming, some studies have indicated that the term ‘toxicity’ is perceived differently amongst the players, which accords with the multiple definitions of the term, as well as to the matter of subjectivity. As Yelim Lee (2018) describes: “The definition of ‘toxic’ seems incredibly difficult to narrow down to a rigid and set description at first, as toxicity has different connotative meaning to the members of the same community which may change from situation to situation.“ (Lee, 2018, pp.18-19). In my own study, one of the participants argued that “... there are various kinds of toxic behavior, the most common is when a player is rude and offensive while another type is when players are told what to do and they are defensive and arguing against someone who might be right.“ (Romo Flores, 2018, p.30).

Results from previous research have raised the question of what constitutes abuse and harassment: is it something to be defined subjectively or in objective terms? In the end, it is the targeted person’s interpretation of the behavior who deems the behavior ‘bad’ or not. Therefore, the context of such behavior and the actual meaning of what is being conveyed is of importance when determining toxicity (Davis, 2002; Märtens et al., 2015). For example, there are some variations of ‘fucking’ which are discriminative while the term ‘fucking’ itself is not (Kwak & Blackburn, 2014, p.5).

In the setting of multiplayer games, toxic behavior is that which a player intentionally makes the games less enjoyable for others by the usage of direct insults to a (or multiple) players, refusing to cooperate with the team or by gaining an unfair advantage in the game by cheating or feeding. While this phenomenon is negative and inflicts harm, it is not regarded as negative in many situations either, many players find enjoyment from being or watching others being toxic. By looking at the gaming community on YouTube, it is possible to see that there exists a large amount of player-created content which targets an audience who enjoy observing alternative media (e.g. by having a toxic “host” for a TV show). Channels where people act toxic seem to be a popular form of entertainment. Videogamedunkey (2020), who creates troll-like gameplay videos, has over six million subscribers at the time of writing. Searching for ‘toxic player’ in Google alone creates over 16 100 000 results.

There are two particular cases which I want to describe to better understand the context of toxic behaviors as well as present some indications which suggest toxicity in video games may be medium specific and could be described as a spectrum. The first is “teabagging,” which is a practice in First Person Shooter (FPS) games where a player makes their character

18 crouch repeatedly over another player’s dead character, thus making it look like a tea bag being pounded. This practice was not originally a part of the design of such games, but emerged from the creative use of predesigned gameplay mechanics by players in multiplayer matches (Myers, 2019, p.766). Brian Myers conducted a study about practices of teabagging and meanings of these, where more than fourteen separate types of reactions were identified, and the most frequent response was that teabagging was used to humiliate or dominate a defeated opponent (Ibid., p.770). As one of the participants said: “I think teabagging represents a lower level of FPS play. Time spent teabagging a player could otherwise be used to reach the next objective, defend the area, or go on the offense once more.” (Myers, 2019, p.772). However, Myers argues that the practice of teabagging could also indicate closeness or intimacy among heterosexual male friends, because permitting friends to teabag on players while they are in a vulnerable state signifies trust between the players. Similarly, in Mia Consalvo’s work (2007), she describes that cheating in games is “fascinating” because it demonstrates that players disagree on what is acceptable gameplay, and that there is no correct answer to what constitutes cheating in games. According to Consalvo, this “disagreement” is a valuable thing because it creates research possibilities (2007, p.177). Instead, she suggests that cheating should be described as a dynamic practice where players, game developers and other agents continuously work to shape games both over time and across various situations (Ibid).

The second case is the story of Tyler1, a infamous streamer of League of Legends (LoL), who ​ ​ ​ coincidentally matches the stereotypical image of a “toxic gamer”, he is a White, middle-aged male with a high . He has become famous within the LoL community for being one of the best players (highest non-professional rank) and because of his violent and aggressive behavior. As previously mentioned, multiplayer games normally require for players to cooperate in order to be victorious, in some games — like MOBAs — players need to adapt to a large set of different characters in order to create meaningful strategies in order to have a better chance at winning. Tyler1 only plays one character, which is seen as non-strategic because it might not be a profitable selection, depending on the other characters that have been selected during the match. If a team member bans8 or selects the character which Tyler1 plays; Tyler1 will explicitly tell his team he will “throw” the game, meaning that he will not put effort into winning nor will he play as one would expect (eg. constructive criticism towards others, team synchronization, providing teammates with relevant information and strategies). In addition, he will aggressively exclaim and shout at other players that they are bad or what mistakes they have made. Riot, the company behind the game LoL, permanently banned Tyler1 because of his violent nature, meaning that everytime Tyler1 streamed when he was playing LoL, the account which he played on would be prevented from further use. He would then have to create a new account, with a unique name and an email which had not been registered before, and if he publicly played with that account, it would result in yet another permanent ban. While Tyler1 is famous for his behavior, he is also adept at the game,

8 In games, when a character or function is banned - it means it cannot be used during that match.

19 at least with the character that he plays, which is why many of his followers support and continue to watch him.

There have been plenty of similar cases with other professional in the gaming scene: Low Tier God, a player of the Street Fighter V (henceforth SFV) game was banned from ever ​ streaming on the Twitch.tv platform again, because of his toxic performances (Aquino, 2020; c.f. Crowbcat, 20159). A similar outcome happened to the female fighting game player CeroBlast who got banned from the fighting game community and from participating at any future events due to her tweet containing a SFV video which included racist slurs (Conlan, 2020). Another example is a famous Overwatch professional player by the nickname ​ ​ “Dafran” who during a live streaming encouraged his followers to ruin games and target individual professional players with the intent of “throwing” their game, which he referred to as “Overwatch ISIS” (c.f. Dafran, 2017; D'Orazio, 2019). As a result he has been permanently banned from competing in Overwatch tournaments. Such behaviors in the gaming community ​ ​ are often acknowledged by authorities such as game companies or community managers, based on the spread of information on the Internet (eg. through Twitter or Reddit), thus making this a valuable source of information, both for authorities and to raise awareness amongst the community. On the other hand, because of the large amount of search results for, for example “toxic players”, as previously stated, this highlights the volume of such practices. In other settings, for example in cooking shows, the famous cook Gordon Ramsay is highly popular, not only for his proficiency in gastronomy but for his disrespectful attitude towards his colleagues. Similarly, in video game culture, this enjoyment from observing others behave deviantly from social behaviors may suggest why there is an “underlying acceptance of trash-talking and flaming” in many gaming cultures (Lee, 2018, p.19; Mattinen & Macey, 2018, p.7).

Trolling behaviors have become tolerated across subcultures, to some extent. Caroline Sinders (2016) on the other hand, argues that the word “troll” often describes a digital subculture that combines “an irreverent sense of humor with a kind of abuse” (Sinders, 2016, par.4). She has studied digital memes, movements and events in an attempt to illustrate how “trolling” can range from casual to serious, and from harmful to absurdist, where she concludes that:

Trolling shouldn't be a catch-all phrase. Describing both a rape threat and a prank phone call as "trolling" means a prank call is treated more seriously than it should be and a rape threat treated less seriously. (Sinders, 2016, para.6).

The first case describes a case where a generally toxic practice is not one sided, and can be seen as a practice that indulges positive behavior amongst players, the second case shows how toxic behavior can be encouraged and enjoyed by the community as well as how prevention toward toxic behavior is handled. These are fundamental cases to my research for understanding how players perceive toxic behavior and how the environment for this is dynamic, and that bad behaviors are not always deemed bad. In addition to this, when

9 For reference to Low Tier God, see timestamps: 0:55 and 1:36.

20 considering the multiple actions described as toxic (such as griefing, trolling and mischief), and that scholars suggest there is an underlying acceptance of such behavior, the present research suggests that the phenomenon of toxicity in video games may be better understood as a spectrum. Preliminary evidence suggests that toxicity may be polyvalent and does not exist in isolation from other structures. Because video games are played by people from any cultural background, of any age and gender, we should place greater emphasis on exploring and gaining a better understanding of what happens in virtual environments and how interactions are experienced in these unruled, digital spaces. Because, currently we are seeing the Internet as “unreal,” although we engage with and through it everyday and we “enact meaningful social behavior there and develop strong emotional attachments in spite of the conceit of unreality” (Cross, 2016, p. 26). Nonetheless, both media and games are relatively unregulated tools to facilitate the conveyance of information and ideals, with no indications as of how our performances online may come to affect our “real” selves.

Through the perspective of media studies this study seeks to further explore how individuals are affected by their online interactions and how their potential engagement with digital environments, more in particular video games, is shaped by their own reasoning, beliefs and practices. Considering that previous research on toxicity in games has been studied from other theoretical perspectives such as computer science, this study contributes with additional insight to the phenomenon, originating in fields known for audience and content research.

21 3. Theoretical Context

To understand why all expressions of dominance are not considered equal within the FPS community, it is necessary to account for how the field of gaming is structured and the field of gaming’s relationship to more mainstream fields of cultural production. ─ Myers, 2019, p.771

As discussed in the previous chapter, players behaving unsportsmanlike and expressing toxic behavior is not uncommon in online multiplayer games. However, this phenomenon is yet to be further examined by understanding the reasoning behind such expressions and developing a deeper understanding of a) the environment in which toxic behaviors occur, and b) why it may be tolerated, accepted or even enjoyed in some cases. This study suggests reviewing this phenomenon through the scope of Bourdieu’s theory of social capital (1983; 1984; 1990) as a dynamic practice of resources which distinguishes between social structures. In order to illustrate the degrees of harmful actions that are considered toxic in regard to the players’ perceptions, Burkart and Andersson Schwarz’s (2014) reworking of the concepts of praxis, doxa and knowledge of a field will be used. Through this lens, the relationship between a player’s understanding of a field in relation to their practices and beliefs may provide a more comprehensive explanation as to why toxic behaviors occur in the setting of competitive multiplayer games and the effects of such behaviors in the construction of social capital within gaming communities. Secondly, Consalvo proposed the term “gaming capital” (2007) based on Bourdieu, which refers to the knowledge of games through the use of additional resources outside of a game (such as magazines, guides and forums). These theoretical perspectives will be adapted to the present research as a form of understanding social capital in the context of games, and to what extent it may influence toxic behaviors amongst players in competitive games.

3.1. Bourdieusian Theory

Pierre Bourdieu’s work originates in sociology and philosophy, but has come to extend to many other fields as well, for example Distinction (1984) is well known in media and cultural ​ ​ studies (Hesmondhalgh, 2006, p.214; c.f. Lindell, 2015; Ohlsson, Lindell & Arkhede, 2017). Bourdieu is mostly known for his theory of social capital, which is based on Marxist theory but deviates from the original idea of socio-economic structure that defines social class by adding what he called “cultural” and “symbolic” capital (Danielsson, 2014). Bourdieu believed that the level of education, the manners and behaviors which one is raised with and that the social bonds that we make have an impact on our availability of resources, likings and behaviors, thus creating or dividing us in social classes (Bourdieu, 1984). ‘Class’ in itself is a difficult word, according to Raymond Williams, both because its disperse range of meanings and in its complexity in “that particular meaning where it describes a social division.” (2015, p.26). For Bourdieu, class is not defined based on the division of economical assets and the relation to these, as described in Marxist theory, instead he suggested that class is constructed

22 by the means of symbolic capital, which will be described shortly (Bourdieu, 1990). What he argued for was the problem with social class being dependent on economical assets, and that it does not depend on theoretical constructed classes, meaning that class is constructed by regarding individuals as dependent, and that they have the same prerequisites of being similar to each other in terms of tastes and dispositions and thus relate and have a sense of closeness to each other (Ibid). Bourdieu suggested the theory of cultural production and social distinction based on his own theoretical vocabulary of habitus, capital and field (Bourdieu 1983; 1990).

Apart from economical capital, Pierre Bourdieu argued that there exists cultural, social and symbolic capital as well. These he referred to constructs that are not necessarily tangible. Culture capital contains three distinguishable assets, the first is embodied which refers to a ​ person’s skills and tastes. Such traits are key factors for differentiating social classes. The second is objectified capital which refers to material belongings with cultural significance, for example an expensive car often signifies the owner is wealthy. The third and last cultural capital category is institutionalized capital, which refers to any symbol of cultural competence such as an authority, credentials or qualifications (Bourdieu, 1984; 1990). Cultural capital is often a shared trait amongst people, thus creating a collective identity (Bourdieu, 1984; 1990; Danielsson, 2014, p.74). The second concept from Bourdieu is social capital, which mainly ​ ​ describes the social networks which an individual has. Bourdieu believed that individuals could have two types of relationships: those one makes throughout their own lives, and those which are inherited (Bourdieu, 1983; 1984; 2005). Social capital is important because our relationships connect us to resources, such as acquiring a job through an acquaintance or by enhancing our cultural capital by extending to more individuals with similar interests (Bourdieu 1984; 2005; Danielsson, 2014). Economic capital refers to currency which is the ​ ​ most valued capital because it may be exchanged to other resources over time. It is important to mention that currency may vary between cultures and is not always bound to be money but may also include other types of assets (Bourdieu, 1983; 1984; 1990; 2005). Symbolic capital ​ describes the prestige a person has, in other words, the reputation for competence of an individual, this is the collection of cultural, social and economic capital (Bourdieu, 1990; 2005).

Capital enables capital, and the accumulation of material or immaterial resources, is created by agents who put down time and effort to appropriate such resources that generate profits. It is through this ‘time and effort’ that enables capital to transcend the social world’s objectivity (Bourdieu, 1983; 1990; Burkart & Andersson Schwarz, 2014; Danielsson, 2014, pp.75-76). Thus, culture capital is not only defined as a material thing which one acquires to gain social status or class such as money or clothes, but is also an intangible resource which can be traded with other people of the same habits to gain new information, culture or material sources such as money (Bourdieu, 1983; 1990; see also Figure 2).

23

Figure 2. A visual description of the cycle of capital according to Bourdieu. Source: Author. ​ In his work on culture and social constructs, Williams discusses how the development of the term ‘class’ has changed during its first appearance and at one point he describes that in 1656 the term obtained an association with education deriving from the Roman use of class which was ‘an order or distribution of people according to their several Degrees’ (Williams, 2015, p.26). According to Pierre Bourdieu, the level of education had a strong influence on both economic and symbolic capital, he demonstrated through his work in Distinction (1984) that ​ there is a correlation between cultural practices (or the corresponding opinions) to educational capital (measured by qualifications) and social origin (measured by the father’s occupation). He measured that people who find pleasure in “high art”, by visiting art galleries or listening to records, are strongly linked to the educational degree which one has (Bourdieu, 1984, p.14). Additionally, he stated that:

To put ‘education’ before ‘instruction’, ‘character’ before ‘intelligence’, sport before culture is to assert, within the scholastic world itself, the existence of a hierarchy irreductible to the specifically academic hierarchy which privileges the second term in each of these oppositions. (Bourdieu, 1984, p.55)

Field is described as the “place” where one develops symbolic capital, or where one accumulates and gathers social, educational and cultural resources (Hesmondhalgh, 2006, p.212). For example, children who are taught from an early age to be polite, and are rewarded for it, or children who are read to at home and develop a passion for learning and being curious gain cultural capital. The final concept which Bourdieu conceptualized is the habitus, ​ ​ which refers to having a “practical sense” that is gained through experience (Bourdieu, 1990, p.74).

24 3.2. Theory of Praxis, Doxa and Knowledge of a Field Patrick Burkart and Jonas Andersson Schwarz (2014) have written a book chapter on the topic of Internet privacy in relation to Bourdieu’s theory of habitus and field (see above). ​ ​ ​ They argue that “fields intersect vertically and horizontally, and that different forms of capital are translatable into other forms of capital,” which is useful because it proves Bourdieu’s social capital theory is applicable to other fields as well. Furthermore, Burkart and Andersson Schwarz state that “agency is determined by the extent to which the participants are able to make an effective use of the resources they are endowed with; it is a function of the adaptation of their habitus in a specific field.” (p.229), which further explains the notion of “capital enables capital,” as previously discussed.

Also significant is Burkart and Andersson Schwarz’s s argument that the field is not just a set ​ ​ of subjectively experienced ties among individuals, but that “it thrives on collectively shared appreciations of value, and thus on objectivity” (Burkart & Andersson Schwarz, 2014, p.229) as in relation to the shared cultural capital as described by Bourdieu, who argued it shaped a collective identity. This notion may reflect how social structures are shaped within communities with the same internal values, as a hierarchical social structure similar to class in society but within groups. In their chapter, Burkart and Andersson Schwarz differentiate between field-bound beliefs (doxa) and “objective” knowledge, because in their belief, the essence of doxa is fidelity to the field or the investment in its norms, which they consider to ​ ​ be essentially different from knowledge, which implies some external benchmark, or claims to validity. As they describe: “Knowledge could be attributed [as] … the ‘rational’ view, while doxa relates to […] the ‘human’ view.” (p.229). They further argue that the second ought to have value in itself, for example personal dignity in terms of online privacy (pp.229-230). Furthermore, Burkart and Andersson Schwarz argue that actors gain status for their investment in particular sections of a field, perhaps because they seek ‘distinction’ from the rest and thus, there “can be no such thing as disinterested actors within a field” (2014, p.230). The field is reconstituted every time a newcomer tries to enter the field of relations, and in order to challenge the existing doxic beliefs the newcomer is forced to be serious about their involvement in the field and learn its rules (Bourdieu, 1991 cited in Burkart & ​ Andersson Schwarz, 2014, p.230).

What Burkart and Andersson Schwarz developed was an illustration of the different degrees to which people’s knowledge and awareness relate in terms of online pseudonymity (p.228). Through three diagrams that illustrate the relationship between praxis (habits and active engagement of users) and knowledge; doxa (beliefs of enacting in order to support certain views) and knowledge, and finally, the spectrum of praxis and doxa in the field of online privacy (see Figure 3).

25

Figure 3. The privacy Praxis-Doxa spectrum. Source: Burkart & Andersson Schwarz, 2014, ​ p.232.

Although Burkart and Andersson Schwarz have created these illustrations particularly for post-privacy conditions online, their idea may be applied to other fields of research, as there is sufficient evidence which suggests gaming culture may be seen as a hierarchical social construct (will be explained in detail in the next subsection) and that toxic behaviors may be categorized based on the players’ praxis, doxa and knowledge of the field. For example, the praxis of a player (or user) would mean high activity and engaging in the community by being toxic (or going against toxic players), or being quiet and non-participant in heated discussions during a game (low praxis). In regard to doxa, the belief, a high doxa could indicate a player who is well aware of toxic behaviors and finds it important to counteract such behavior, the opposite would imply that the player is not applying it to his everyday practices. Diagrams and visual tools may help us understand the spectrum of emotions and actions which may cause or explain toxic behavior. Therefore, because toxicity consists of different modalities, perhaps it is more convenient to describe the phenomenon according to a new taxonomy rather than basing it on a single, vague definition. This study proposes a new ​ taxonomy to visualize the variety of actions which are considered toxic by the players based on the players’ beliefs and practices.

3.3. Gaming Capital The second Bourdieusian approach is Mia Consalvo’s reworking of “culture capital” into games, which she refers to as “gaming capital” (2007). As previously discussed, Bourdieu describes cultural capital as a system of preferences and dispositions that serves to classify groups by class. Consalvo extends this work by arguing that gaming culture can be classified

26 in the same sense as we classify class, because players and player activities (both in- and outside of games) could be conceptualized as a subculture in the sense that, players identify as belonging to a particular group that shares similar practices, beliefs and a sense of style (Consalvo, 2007, pp.3-4). She further describes how gamers, or those who identify themselves as such, differ from one another based on their gaming preferences in genres and types of games:

[T]he argument could be made that EverQuest players constitute a subculture, as they create fan fiction about the game, have conventions to meet each other, and often play the game together for many hours a week. But where would the avid Counter-Strike player fit in that scenario? A subculture, to be identified as such, must share common symbols, through such things as fashion, music, or aesthetics. Although individual games or genres may spawn such subcultures, games as a whole are too varied to paint their players with such a broad brush. And to trace an adequate history of gameplay, we must confront differences between players—in genre preferences, play styles, and many other areas. (Consalvo, 2007, p.3) ​ ​ Conslavo argues that games are not designed, marketed or played in “a cultural vacuum” (Consalvo, 2007, p.4). In fact, players change over time and are dependent on elements such as age or skill. Likewise, games that are meant to be played linearly10 can be experienced in multiple ways based on the player’s knowledge of past games in that series or similarity in genre, or by previewed information from online forums or the marketing communication’s attempt to draw attention to particular elements of the game. In addition, she argues that player-created content is influential in how we perceive games, in the form of walkthroughs and online guides, and postings and discussions on forums and boards (Consalvo, 2007, p.176). It is in this sense which the field, as expressed by Bourdieu (1983), and not only the intangible resources which one acquires (capital) but also how these resources are exchanged that play an essential role in the shaping of social structures, whereas the idea may be applied to other social structures such as gaming culture.

Players are not entirely free to play as they wish based on the fact that all games have a set of rules, boundaries and limitations to which the players must comply. In addition, when they intend to buy a new game, their expectations are shaped based on previous experiences with games of similar genre or games in a series, with the developer’s work or through advertisements on TVs or through word of mouth, meaning that there exists a sense of intangible resources that shape the player’s interpretation of games (Consalvo, 2007, p.4, 176). Similarly, in Janice Radaway’s work Reading the Romance (1991), where she studied ​ how a groups of women in Smithton relied on Dot, a locally famous book reviewer, for preferences in romance books, she described that: “the Smithton women have discovered that their tastes are better served when the exchange process is mediated by a trusted selector who assembles a more suitable body of texts from which they can safely make their choices.”

10 Linear games refer to those which are narrative driven where the player moves from one point of the story to the next, and little to none possibility of exploring the world or story beyond what is pre-established. c.f. Fullerton, 2014, pp.130-137.

27 (Radaway, 1991, p.50). In consideration to games as fiction, this notion may be applied to games as well.

Paratexts are also important to take into account. As Consalvo describes that although possessing gaming capital is supposed to be about player’s abilities and knowledge about games, these are often gained through consuming paratexts (not the actual games) such as magazines, reviews and similar artefacts (2007, p.38). In conclusion, it is the accumulation and use of all of that knowledge and experience, that shapes gaming capital for a particular player, who in turn helps shape the future of the gaming industry (Consalvo, 2007, p.4):

I believe that the concept of gaming capital provides a key way to understand how individuals interact with games, information about games and the game industry, and other game players. The term is useful because it suggests a currency that is by necessity dynamic—changing over time, and across types of players or games. (Consalvo, 2007, p. 4)

Moreover, Brian Myers describes how there “...exists a segment of the gaming population that expresses a deep commitment to the development of one’s skills as a gamer.” (Myers, 2019, p.771), which can be understood in the same sense as Burkart and Andersson Schwarz show how agency is determined by the adaptation of participants’ habitus in a field. As Myers further discusses:

Teabagging […] is viewed as a ‘cheap’ or unearned method of expressing dominance over another player. Such a practice betrays a limited understanding of not only gameplay mechanics but also the values and dispositions that are deemed appropriate to the context of competitive FPSs. (Myers, 2019, p.771).

This indicates that it is possible that players are actively engaging and caring for their own identity within gaming culture, and in turn, for the gaming culture as well, meaning that players have personal values and beliefs to what is tolerated and appropriate in such communities. As a result, the ways in which toxic behavior in games may be harmful for some more than others, the acceptance of trash-talking and players enjoying or negating such practices may be explained through the players’ understanding of the community and environment in which it is performed.

28 4. Purpose & Research Question(s)

The purpose of this study is to examine the medium and environment of competitive multiplayer games and how toxic behaviors are conveyed by players in this setting. The intent is not to redefine existing definitions of toxic behaviors, but rather to expand and clarify what has been previously established through building an analytical framework to establish a foundation for understanding the phenomenon as a context and not in isolation from other events (see Image 2 and 3), for future researchers, game developers and players.

The research design of this study includes an ethnographic approach (Jensen, 2012b) and semi-structured online interviews (Jensen, 2012d) with 14 players of both genders and from ages 17-40. The environment which will be examined are competitive multiplayer games, and note the particular use of terms here. “Competition” itself has a strong influence on disruptive, toxic behaviors expressed by players (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011a; Lee, Jeong, & Jeon, 2019). Originally the term “competitive online games” was used, and while many online games include the “multiplayer”-factor, because of the inclusion of the fighting game community in this study, such games are more common to play through LAN11. Therefore, the term “multiplayer” indicates: a) games which are played together with other players (not necessarily online); and b) emphasis on the Player versus Player (PvP) trait of games, meaning that humans play against humans and not against the system itself (through time limits, or AI controlled characters (c.f. Fullerton, 2014, pp.83-88)).

The phenomenon of toxic behaviors within the setting of competitive gaming has previously been examined through for example, criminology (Copenhaver, 2015; 2020), linguistic analysis (Kwak & Blackburn, 2014), and amongst other quantitative approaches (c.f. Shores et al., 2014; Thompson et al., 2017). Conversely, this study incorporates the lens of media studies which typically researches media as texts (c.f. Larsen, 2012; Schrøder, 2012), media users (c.f. Jensen, 2012b), and/or media as contexts (c.f. Jensen, 2012a; 2012c). Media studies have studied audiences and how they may shape their environments based on personal taste (c.f. Herzog, 1941; Liebes, 2003), or how messages in media may be interpreted by the receiver, or audience (c.f. Hall, 2001) or that media itself is the message (McLuhan & ​ Lapham, 2014). Video games have been examined from the perspective of media studies, however, more commonly the content rather than the social relationships and interactions which are shaped through these mediums. As McLuhan described: “Games are popular art, collective, social reactions to the main drive of action of any culture. Games, like institutions, are extensions of social man and of the body politic, as technologies are extensions of the animal organism.” (2014, p.255). Therefore, if we consider video games as a medium, examining the audience and the social interactions which emerge from (and in) this particular environment is a legitimate approach from a media and communication studies perspective.

11 Local Area Network, or local play (use of the same console where multiple players interact in the same instance rather than over net play).

29 The research questions which this study aims to answer are the following:

RQ1, user perception: How do players perceive and experience ‘toxicity’ in the setting of ​ ​ competitive multiplayer games?

RQ2, user action: How do players respond (act) to toxic behavior in the setting of ​ ​ competitive multiplayer games? Do users engage and try to prevent, do they encourage such behavior, or other?

RQ3, culture: What aspects of the gaming environment influence or contribute to the players’ ​ ​ perception of toxic behavior in competitive multiplayer games?

Hopefully, the contribution from this study may shed light on new insights to the phenomenon, which would have otherwise been overlooked or not examined in studies stemming from other fields.

Image 2. Screenshots from the chat log of a player who got banned in League of Legends. ​ ​ ​ Source: courtesy of an acquaintance to the author, 2020.

Image 3. Screenshots from a post game session in the game Dead by Daylight. Note: The ​ ​ ​ colors signify different players using the same chat. Source: courtesy of an acquaintance to the author, 2020.

30 5. Methodology

The scope of the present study aims to better understand the practices of toxic behaviors in the setting of competitive multiplayer games (see Figure 4), and requires examination of values, practices and beliefs from a unique group. In this case, because this study is grounded in the particular case of toxic behaviors within the gaming community, ethnography was deemed to be a suitable approach.

Traditional ethnography (Jensen, 2012b), grounded in anthropology, usually focuses on the study of culture of a distinct group within society by discovering major themes that describe that culture, such as patterns or similarities (Jensen, 2012b). In media studies, scholars have used this method to research for example, how people socialize in front of the television or radio and how they behave in regard to these mediums respectively (c.f. Bakardjieva, 2005; Helles, 2012), and to examine the environment and habits of people in regard to digital technologies (Bengtsson, 2006). However, the ways in which players behave and interact through games is rather different from traditional mediums, players are typically more immersed in the virtual worlds and have the possibility to directly interact with the virtual environments and with friends or strangers through the use of, to name one example, the text-based chatting system in the game (Jensen, 2012b, p.177).

Other traditional mediums, such as television or books, promote external social stimuli by discussing a programme with others who follow said programme, but not directly through the television (c.f. Jensen, 2012b). Thus, a different approach was needed for conducting this study because the media type of video games involves a more complex communicative practice involving many senders of messages and many receiving agents (Jensen, 2012a, p.188). According to Jensen (2012c), the ethnographic methodology has been important for the research in media reception and media production (p.213). Additionally, ethnography has frequently been used in the study of cultures and communication (Ibid.). A proposal by Postill and Pink (2012) is ‘Digital Ethnography’ which provides new methods for exploring social media as a research environment. This will be further examined in the following subsection.

In addition, by conducting semi-structured interviews (Jensen, 2012d) with active competitive players, the empirical data would serve as a basis for understanding players’ perception, awareness and responses towards toxic behaviors. These answers would provide material to develop an analytical tool, based on Burkart and Andersson Schwarz (2014) and Consalvo (2007) (see Chapter 3) in order to establish possible degrees and intentions of toxicity. Because the aim of this study is to understand specific practices, obtaining significant results would have been more difficult using traditional ethnographic methods (such as participant observation) due to the unpredictability of its occurrence, hence the interviews with active gamers. Interview structure and participants will be discussed in the second subsection of this chapter.

31 Additionally, because toxicity is heavily dependent on context, it would be appropriate for me (the author) as a gamer and researcher, to dig deeper into the community by playing more multiplayer games. As previously mentioned, many studies and previous research has mainly focused on League of Legends or Defense of the Ancients 2. There have been some studies ​ ​ ​ which focus on First-Person Shooter games like Halo or Counter-Strike because these are ​ ​ ​ also major franchises and well-known games. The purpose with exploring more of these games is to gain a better understanding of how they function, as part of the ethnographic method, but also because they could be discussed during the interviews. Therefore, the aspect of game mechanics, game systems and additional game tools will be discussed in the second subsection, and lastly a brief description of the Terms of Service for some video games will be provided. Since toxic behaviors are defined as behaviors which are deviant from social norms (Kwak, Blackburn & Han, 2015), it is necessary to acknowledge what these “norms” are within the gaming context.

Previous studies (Johnson, Nacke & Wyeth, 2015; Romo Flores, 2018; Tyack, Wyeth & Johnson, 2016) have shown that games that consist of complex systems and require a lot of game knowledge, have an intense learning curve – in turn giving the player enough space for continuous improvement and challenge but also causing more frustration during play. This may in turn, help explain how players can become frustrated because of making mistakes, having a lack of game-related knowledge, or have an “extensive” understanding of the game and blaming others for not having the same knowledge that may cause players to become toxic. Furthermore, toxic behaviors in video games have often focused on verbal analysis by for example, examining chat logs from previous matches (Kwak & Blackburn, 2014; Kwak, Blackburn & Han, 2015). In this study, a more holistic approach will be taken through including the technical aspect of games (such as in-game mechanics, playstyles and meta-gaming, which will be explained shortly) in the interviews. This addition may provide insight to how non-verbal actions could encourage toxic behavior in competitive games.

All the presented images that supplement the text were taken during the observation period, which was conducted during the spring of 2020, or sent to the author by acquaintances during the same period. Image 13, however, was taken during 2015.

5.1. Digital Ethnography

Sarah Pink coined the term ‘digital ethnography’ which refers to a new method for research utilizing digital platforms as environments of study. Because much of our everyday lives involves online interactions, John Postill and Sarah Pink (2012) claim that in many research environments which are based on digital interactions, cannot be defined to a phenomena that exclusively takes place online. Therefore, the Internet itself must be understood as a research site itself, and the research practices for gathering online information are slightly different from traditional methods. Postill and Pink (2012, pp.128-129) describe five key routines in which digital researchers interact and gather data from social media research: catching up ​ (staying up-to-date with current events and situations through Twitter or Facebook), sharing ​

32 (through the ease of distributing links through digital platforms), exploring (following shared ​ ​ links to find potential research sites), interacting (with people in the field, either by giving a ​ ​ ‘like’ on Facebook or having long face-to-face conversations), and archiving (bookmarking ​ ​ sites and submitting files to Google Docs or Dropbox). Thus, digital ethnography is an ethnographic research approach where the data gathering methods are obtained through computer-mediated communication or digital technologies (Postill & Pink, 2012).

In lack of formal research methods for exploring online environments, more in particular digital games, because first and foremost many researchers studying digital games may have little or no knowledge about gaming. When studying particular content one should consider understanding the artefact or mechanism, for example a video game, prior to understanding its effects on subjects. There have been previous cases where researchers may select a game after certain criteria and use it for their study, although the game may contain particular aspects in mechanics, narrative or characters which contradicts or counteracts the original purpose of the study. A clear example of this is Ivarsson et al.’s study on effects of violent and non-violent games on heart rate variability, sleep, and emotions in adolescents (12-15 years of age; 2011, p.167; 13-15 year olds; 2013, p.393). They state that they asked other “experienced gamers” for selecting violent and non-violent games, which resulted in Manhunt for the violent game which is an 18+ rated game that has realistic graphic violence ​ such as torture, murder amongst other horrific actions. Animaniacs, the non-violent game, is a ​ ​ fantasy, cartoon-like game but what the authors fail to mention is that this game also contains scenes of violence where the characters have to take down enemies in order to proceed with the narrative (c.f. chimanruler15, 2015b12). In the scenario where a cartoon-like game contains violence, Paul Adachi and Teena Willoughby (2011b) claim that games such as Super Mario may be labeled as violent due to the main character having to jump on enemies in order to defeat them. However, “due to the unrealistic and tame nature of Super Mario, ratings of violence would likely be significantly lower compared to a game with more realistic and graphic violence, when evaluated on a continuous scale.” (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011b, p.61). There are better examples of games that do not contain any violence at all, for example Animal Crossing (Nintendo, 2020 – first published in 2001). ​ Thus, there is a valuable aspect of knowing games when analysing them, their effects and ​ their communities. Because the overall impression of a game might not represent what the actual game is, and by having knowledge of games, game genres and game history it could facilitate the creation of adequate research designs and conditions for studying games.

The second reason why digital ethnography is a reasonable approach is due to the large amount of data which exists online but has not yet been searched. As previously discussed the case of the Twitch streamer Tyler1, but there are more examples of the popularity of toxic icons and their downfalls. In regard to toxic behavior amongst participants of gaming events, there have been incidents where the audience may behave toxic as well, such as the incident at the tournament “Pound 2019” where a member of the audience threw a dead crab at the winner of the grand finals, the fan has been prohibited from participating in any future events

12 See minute 0:46; and chimanruler15, 2015b, minute 8:42.

33 (Marshall, 2019). As previously described, such behaviors in the gaming community are often acknowledged by authoritarian agents such as game companies or community managers, based on the spread of information on the Internet (eg. through Twitter or Reddit), thus making this a valuable source of information, both for authorities and to raise awareness amongst the community. There are plenty of other online platforms which can be used to discover themes and general discussions of game-related toxicity, which have yet to be implemented in scientific studies, including on-going discussions on Twitter and Reddit to name a few. Christine Cook and her colleagues (2018) have not explicitly stated using digital ethnography in their work, although they describe how crucial these search results and online discussions and entertainment platforms are:

On the fora of popular online game League of Legends, there is an entire section dedicated to player behaviour. Its opening page is filled with questions such as ‘Riot why can people that do this get away with it’ and ‘Why is a player with a history of trolling not banned?’. This latter example also suggests a lack of power on the part of the gaming community to regulate in-game behaviour, as the enforcement resources lie with the game administrators. (Cook, Schaafsma & Antheunis, 2018, p.3326)

It is then, through online platforms (such as official game websites and forums, and games themselves) where additional empirical data will be gathered to supplement the foundation for the interview section covering questions of the live performances of games, such as tournaments and other events. In other words, to better understand how toxic behavior is being handled by the companies producing games where it occurs and how such behaviors are regulated during (live) streams and tournaments. This analysis is presented in the following chapter (see Chapter 6).

Digital ethnography, virtual ethnography, netnography, and similar concepts have been criticized for not fulfilling an essential aspect of traditional ethnographic methods. Stina Bengtsson (2014) argued that the main distinction is the lack of embodied communication (face-to-face contact) as in digital environments one uses Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) methods; in addition the lack of physical presence in the focus group (as in traditional ethnography the researcher needs to travel and adapt to new spaces and culture for research), and constant access to the virtual “location” from the offline are key elements which distinguish traditional ethnographic work from the digital variant (p.874). As Bengtsson quotes: “[a] virtual ethnographer is then, simply, an ethnographer that treats cyberspace as the ethnographic reality” (Bengtsson, 2014, p.866). In addition, Bengtsson (2014) argues that in online ethnography, the researcher is not fully set against the “new” conditions and culture of the group of study, as previously challenged in traditional ethnography. As quoted:

A key difference with the classic anthropological ethnographies is that media ethnography does not, usually, take place fully outside the researcher’s culture. When researchers turn their attention to their own cultures, even some of the more distinct corners of them, some of the – shall we say – sacred characteristics of the

34 classical ethnographic experiences are missing. One does not travel far to be there, the journey and the life is not strenuous, one does not need to learn a new language or wholly unfamiliar customs, values and modes of behaviour; the researcher is not fully isolated from home, in all its senses. (Rothenbuhler and Coman, 2005: 3, cited in Bengtsson, 2014, p.869)

While these implications are crucial points of critique, other scholars such as Sherry Turkle (2008) have argued that people use virtual environments as tools to discover or test alternate versions of one self, which may not have been accessible or possible in the real world. Turkle has further described how virtual environments and the personas that individuals create in them, are a valuable piece for the development of one’s real self, as a result. Furthermore, from personal experience it is quite a challenge for a researcher not familiar with gaming terms, habits, “inside jokes”, amongst other cultural factors, a need to adapt and become familiar with such practices, habits and references. In support of this, the previous example of Ivarsson et al. (2011/2013) misguided choosing of non-violent games which contained violence, for a study. In addition, a common approach to video game studies often includes some sort of ethnographic approach, particularly in design and content analyses, because the researcher needs to submerge in the virtual worlds and experience them in order to analyse their content, may it be narrative, gameplay or other factors (Brown, 2015).

For this thesis, digital ethnography will be used for submerging into a digital culture (online gaming) and exploring how the environment is shaped by identifying key features and patterns in design factors of digital games (such as in-game rules, boundaries and mechanics), and external factors which are relevant for this study (eg. official “Code of Conduct” for a game, referring to how players should behave while playing, at events or in the online community of the game). The results of this game-exploration are discussed in the following chapter. Originally, this study would include participant observation in addition to interviews. Even though there is anecdotal evidence that toxic behavior occurs frequently while playing, it is unpredictable if it would happen during the time of observation. Thus, this study relies on self-reflected observations from players. Additionally, due to the time frame for this study, the observation sessions were disqualified.

5.2. Semi-Structured Interviews

Previous studies of interactions in games have focused on observing participants play a selection of games (Halloran, Rogers & Fitzpatrick, 2003), examine chat logs or previous gaming sessions (Kwak, Blackburn & Han, 2015; Kwak & Blackburn, 2014; Kuo & Gui, 2014; Thompson et al., 2017; Märtens et al., 2015; Leavitt, Keegan & Clark, 2016) or obtain responses through a questionnaire methodology (Chen, Duh & Ng, 2009; Mattinen & Macey, 2018; Lee, Jeong & Jeon, 2019; Türkay & Adinolf, 2019), or a mixed method of questionnaires and additional interviews (Johnson, Nacke & Wyeth, 2015; Tyack, Wyeth & Johnson, 2016). While these studies are effective and reasonable, these approaches are less exploratory, potentially missing phenomenological insights. Therefore, because of the

35 exploratory nature of this study, in-depth semi-structured interviews (Jensen, 2012d) were decided in order to gather more descriptive data on the phenomenon.

Because many games offer complex non-verbal communication systems in the game, it can become more complicated to understand communication practices in online multiplayer gaming environments because “many participants in online games do not communicate with one another verbally, rendering it difficult to observe the interpretive practices of players.” (Myers, 2019, p.769), especially when constructing questionnaires which could be applied to various games. In addition, through having verbal communication with the participants in the study, it renders the possibility of gauging verbal responses, as well as tone of voice, emotional level, and similar factors which are essential for the authenticity of the data.

5.2.1. Interview Guide

A total of 14 interviews were conducted by the author between 26 of March and 26 of April, 2020. The interviews lasted between 34 and 103 minutes and were held over Discord (a ​ ​ communication software) and Facebook Messenger (a communication service). All ​ interviews were recorded with the Open Broadcaster Software (OBS Studio, 2020), and ​ ​ transcribed using oTranscribe (Bentley, 2020). The reason for conducting online interviews ​ ​ was based on three factors: Covid-1913, geographical distances, and anonymity. Because previous scholarship has stated that anonymity is a strong, influential factor for individuals to behave freely without concern for potential consequences (Parent, Gobble & Rochlen, 2019) perhaps having online interviews would provide the participants with a sense of security towards their identity and in turn, give (hopefully) more honest answers.

The interviews started out with a brief introduction to the current study, the aim and purpose, secondly participants were informed of their rights and ethical implications in the study. All participants had the option to exclude any information when stated or to terminate the interview at any point (see Appendix A).

The guide consisted of two sections, excluding demographics: gaming capital and behaviors in competitive games. The first section aimed at gathering information about players’ resources in relation to gaming, based on Bourdieu’s concepts of social and cultural capital (1983; 1984; 2005), and Consalvo’s adaptation of gaming capital (2007). The gaming capital section focuses on social capital of players, in terms of additional players whom they may (or not) discuss gaming with; and cultural capital, which includes external resources to the game such as player-created content on the video platform YouTube and streaming platform Twitch.tv, or resources in the sense of knowledge of the game itself. The second section of the interview guide covered questions about behaviors in competitive games based on three key elements: the player’s awareness, perception, and action. These aspects were based on the

13 Global pandemic which enforced people to socially distance in order to prevent further spread of the virus. c.f. World Health Organization, 2020.

36 research questions and the conclusion drawn from previous literature, as to include questions which could provide more detailed phenomenological insight to previously established topics.

The responses were in turn analyzed and coded first into the pre-established themes: gaming capital and toxic behaviors. Next, the results were re-analyzed based on thematic analysis (Jensen, 2012d), meaning that the data was re-coded into emergent themes and interpreted with particular focus on the cultural assumptions which could be deduced from them. For this analysis, the theory of praxis, doxa and field as proposed by Burkart and Andersson Schwarz (2014) was implemented to gain a structured comprehension of the relationship between a player’s reasoning and actions. For a summary of the distribution of interview questions see Table 1, for the full interview guide see Appendix A. ​

a Table 1. Overview of interview question topics and distribution of topics. =​ some questions ​ ​ include multiple topics, thus the amount does not sum up to the total of questions.

5.2.2. Participants

For this study attempted to gather a theoretical sample (Jensen, 2012d), which is a sample that is selected based on its object of analysis in order to explore concepts (p.269). Participants were recruited through network sampling, such as community pages on Facebook, for example “Female Legends” (which is an association for females and non-binary who share a passion for games), and through various Discord servers, some of which were “hangouts” for some friends of the author, other Discord servers were “official” servers for particular communities, such as the “Smash in Sweden” server. For both Facebook groups and Discord servers the permission of one (or more) moderators or admins was obtained. Some participants were recruited through snowballing techniques through other participants, and groups of friends. All participants were notified that the participation was voluntary and no reward would be given. Instead of targeting particular game communities, participants were recruited based on the following criteria:

a) the participant plays a competitive multiplayer game regularly,

37 b) the participant is active and plays at least six hours per week14,

c) has good spoken English for the (interview)15.

The intent was to gather a sample group from different games, and not focus on one game or genre in particular (based on the lack of research with fighting games and First Person Shooters for example), thus emphasis was placed on gathering a sample with great variation in demographics such as age, gender, and game preferences. Gathering a balanced and varied sample was a difficult task, for example in the recruitment of female, older (above thirty years of age) and self-proclaimed ‘toxic’ players, thus the resulting sample is slightly unbalanced. The last mentioned is typically a hard audience to reach (Cook, Schaafsma & Antheunis, 2018, p.3325) but it is of equal importance to include these players because traditionally, toxic behaviors have been defined through the perspectives of victims or bystanders (Ibid.). Furthermore, the target group for this study includes particularly experienced players, who have a better understanding of the game. It is clear that the sample in this study is not a fully scientifically designed random sample. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from this study were extrapolated with caution to apply to other players perception and engagement with toxic behavior.

Participants have all been anonymized based on GDPR regulations and for ethical purposes. In this essay they will be referred to as “participant x” where x represents their respective letter according to Table 2. Basic demographics of each participant covered gender, age, occupation, and a set of questions covering their gaming routines, which were: most played competitive multiplayer game, weekly play in hours, and total experience with the game in years, and experience with similar games, for further reference see Table 3. The included games for this study, based on the participants game preferences were the following (in alphabetical order):

Game Abbreviation Accessibility

Apex Legends Apex Free

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive CS, CS:GO Free

Destiny - Paid

League of Legends LoL, League Free

Overwatch Ow Paid

Super Smash Bros. Melee SSBM, Melee Paid Table 2. Overview of included games in the present study, based on the gaming preferences ​ of the participants.

14 The average gamer adult in the United States spends 4.8 hours per week with others online (Entertainment Software Association, 2020). 15 In some cases (participants B, E, I) some Swedish was used during the interview, which was translated into English during the transcription process.

38

Platforma Weekly play b Experience c ​ Participant Age Gender Occupation Game ​ ​ Country of residence

Console Apex, (online) A 40 Male Work Destiny d 6-12 >2 Sweden ​ Console (offline) J 17 Male Student SSBM 15-20 4 Sweden Console (offline) M 28 Cismale Work SSBM, CS 5-10 10+ Germany Console (offline) N 26 Male Work (bounce) SSBM 8 5-6 Sweden

Computer Work (online) B 23 Male (warehouse) LoL 6-12 6+ Sweden Computer (online) C 25 Female Work (nurse) Ow 6-12 >4 Sweden Computer (online) D 24 Male Student Ow 6-12 >4 Germany Computer (online) E 25 Female Work CS 6-12 >4 Sweden

Computer CS, (online) F 21 Male Student Destiny d 12+ >2 Mexico ​ ​ Computer (online) G 27 Male Student LoL 12+ 10 Greece Computer (online) H 17 Male Student /work Ow 12+ >4 England Computer (online) I 32 Male Work (Cook) CS 6-12 20 Sweden Computer (online) K 22 Male Student LoL, Ow 35 10 Sweden Computer (online) L 22 Male Student LoL, Ow 35 10 Sweden a Table 3. Overview of participant demographics. ​ = The platform indicates if the game is ​ ​ played on a console (device connected to a TV) or a computer. The majority of older multiplayer console games did not have an online feature, whilst all modern computer games b c d have access to online multiplayer properties. =in​ hours, =in​ years, =​ not a Player versus ​ ​ ​ Player game, but was discussed during the interview (Destiny includes online multiplayer co-operative play against the system).

39 6. Description of Game Environment

This chapter will provide the author’s results from the ethnographic method as well as interpretations and “field notes” as to how the technical aspects of games operate. In game studies, this section would be considered as part of the results, and analysing the design elements of games would require its own methodology and theory. However, because the scope of this study does not require a full understanding of video game structure, a brief description of key terms and in-game actions which are relevant to this study will be provided. All the presented images that supplement the text were taken during the observation period, which was conducted during the spring of 2020.

In my previous research on Multiplayer Online Battle Arena games (Romo Flores, 2018), players described that games of this genre were difficult because of the complexity. There is a lot of game-related knowledge such as specializations of characters, functionality of character abilities, layout of maps, and so forth, that contribute to the players understanding of gameplay as well as defining the individual skill of a player (Romo Flores, 2018). Shores and his colleagues state that “there are several potential game situations where confidence in game-understanding may encourage deviant behavior.” (Shores et al. 2014, p.1362). As part of the ethnographic method, the researcher should submerge in the culture s/he is investigating (Bengtsson, 2014; Postill & Pink, 2012). For this study, the environment which will be explored contains various types of games, and thus, the understanding of how these mechanisms operate and how a player uses such a tool, becomes a central aspect of the research process.

6.1. Game Mechanics Game mechanics commonly refers to all the actions which a player is able to do within the game which are limited by boundaries and sets of rules (Fullerton, 2014, pp.74-77). The character’s movement usually includes forward, backward, crouch, and jump, each of these are considered to be mechanics of the game. Some mechanics are characteristic of genres, for example fighting games usually have characters with many different attack abilities in order to create attack combinations, where the basic attack can be punching or kicking. Whereas for platforming games characters need increased agility and have functions such as a double-jump or wall climb. Additionally, game mechanics can be an ecosystem in the game such as day-and-night cycles or having individual time systems for counting days in the game. Game mechanics are in its most basic form functions, events and design factors through which the player may interact with in the game.

6.2. Asymmetrical Design A typical design factor for online games is their asymmetry. In game production, asymmetrical design refers to players starting with different conditions or resources than other players (Beau & Bakkes, 2016). This can be represented in various ways, for example

40 the layout of the map16 Hanamura in the game Overwatch (see Image 4), where the starting ​ ​ points are different for each of the two teams. In a rally-like game the players would have the same route to drive on, but would start in slightly different positions. When comparing the layout of Hanamura to the layout of the Dota 2 map (see Image 5) it is possible to see the ​ variating degree of asymmetry in map design where the map in Dota 2 is almost symmetrical ​ (less, close to no uneven distribution of resources or conditions) and Hanamura has a high degree of asymmetry thus giving variating advantages to each of the teams (attacking and defending).

Image 4 (left). A top-down view of the map: Hanamura in the game Overwatch. Source: ​ ​ ​ u/Orhin_InsaLan, 2015. Image 5 (right). A top-down view of the map in Defense of the ​ ​ ​ Ancients 2. Source: Screenshot from author, 2020. ​ Another element for asymmetrical design is characters with different roles as well as individual abilities to supplement their character function or to differentiate characters' playstyles (Romo Flores, 2018). Character roles imply that there are different categories for characters depending on what function they serve in a team. Traditional roles include: Tank ​ with the functionality of shielding their team and protecting from incoming damage; Damage ​ Dealers whose priority is, as the title says, to deal damage to enemies; and Support whose ​ main function is to aid their teammates by providing temporary boosts such as additional health allies. Other games, such as Counter-Strike or Rainbow Six Siege may have two roles: ​ ​ ​ attacking or defending, based on the victory conditions of the game. The naming convention will vary between games, but the concept is the same.

The second aspect to asymmetrical characters are their abilities which supplement their role. In games of the Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA) genre, such as LoL or Dota 2, ​ ​ ​ ​ characters have commonly four abilities which are unique to the character. A support character may for example, could have an ability which casts a healing effect upon a targeted

16 A map is often the environment where characters exist and the game is played.

41 ally (see Image 6). What makes these types of games complex, is how characters in a team are combined to take advantage of abilities which work well together. It is also possible to pick characters against others because their abilities are stronger or may cancel particular effects from abilities, which is referred to as “counter picking.” It is common that every ability the characters have are unique to them, in turn having a unique skill set (set of ​ abilities). In other types of games the asymmetrical design may be the distribution of in-game currency to buy weapons or the weapons themselves. An example of this is Counter-Strike: ​ ​ each team represents Terrorists or Counter-Terrorists, where each has a set of weapons exclusive to their faction. Additionally, there is in-game currency from which players may buy these weapons. At the start of the match all players have the same amount, but after each round, depending on the amount of kills, amongst other factors, the players are provided with additional money for the next round.

Image 6. A screenshot demonstrating an ability overview of Overwatch character Mercy. ​ ​ ​ Source: Screenshot from author, 2020.

6.3. Playstyles Next there is the playstyle of characters, which is the intended way of playing a character. The developers commonly design characters to be played in a certain way, for example passively, by standing close to the team and protecting them, or aggressively, by having high agility and rushing towards the enemy team. In MOBA games there are damage dealers which have ranged attacks and high mobility in order to swiftly move around, get a kill, and get out of danger. This type of playstyle in characters often comes with a balance, for example having less armor and health than other characters. (c.f. Romo Flores, 2018).

In gaming terms, “meta” commonly refers to new forms of playing characters or the game, often based on recent updates in the games or the most optimal way of playing based on the design of the game. In modern games, when a character is unbalanced the developers can modify it by making the character stronger if it was too weak previously, referred to as “buffing,” or vice versa which is referred to as “nerfing” (Kica et al., 2016). The meta is often inexplicit and dynamic, meaning that the developers do not advise the players of how to play with the updates, it is the creativity and dedication of players who discover how to combine

42 character abilities or counter-abilities by exploiting the system. However, the meta is dynamic and it may shift over time, since characters are tweaked and altered continuously it affects the result. An example of meta-strategies is for example, selecting a passive tank in Dota 2 and ​ buying in-game artefacts which modify the statistics of said character in order to play it more aggressively than it was originally intended by the developers. Meta-play may also involve which characters that play well with, or against others. In sum, meta-play refers to how players actually play the game, which commonly implies different strategies which have been exploited to gain an advantage of winning. On the other hand, Gandolfi (2018) argues that the interplay between complementary characters moves players to “reflect about specific differences and the effectiveness of teamwork and collaboration, which can work as strong learning drivers.” (p.129)

Thus, the basic mechanics may be described as knowing which buttons to press in order to perform particular actions, such as pressing W on a keyboard to move forward with the character in the game, or pressing A on a controller to jump. “Game awareness” on the other hand, refers to how the player is supposed to think or act during the game (Johnson, Nacke & Wyeth, 2015; Romo Flores, 2018). Where should s/he position themselves in order to shoot an opponent and not get shot back? Or for example glancing over to the side of the screen every four seconds to look at the mini-map17 and see where team members or enemies are. There is then a difference in how video games are supposed to be played, as designed by the developers, and the ways in which players actually play the games. Knowing where to position a character, how to make use of artefacts in-game, which artefacts that are optimal for different situations, everything which is essential to the Player versus Player (PvP) games is not explicitly taught by the developers through the game. This is “game awareness” that the players need to learn for themselves. In my previous research, findings from my study indicated that the basic mechanics of video games were easy to learn, but the game awareness and meta-strategies created enough material for the players to continue developing their skills, making the game hard to master (Romo Flores, 2018).

6.4. Communication Systems The next feature which was analyzed as part of the ethnographic method for this study, were the communication systems in games. Because the study focuses on social interactions, part of this signifies how players communicate with each other during the match. Many online games have implemented a text-based communication system, or a chat, where players may type to either team members or everyone in the match (including opponents). Another system is the voice-chat, where players with a microphone may use this feature to orally communicate to team members. In addition, some games (for example Dota 2, LoL and Apex) ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ have implemented a non-verbal communication called ping (c.f. Leavitt, Keegan & Clark, 2016). This feature allows the player to mark a location on the map and signify to teammates of potential dangers, precautions, or other relevant information. Other games have additional

17 A small overview of the map where the game takes place (c.f. Romo Flores, 2018).

43 tools for non-verbal communication such as voice cues from characters requesting ammunition or back-up (see Image 7).

Image 7. A demonstration of a pinging system in Valorant Beta (Riot Games, 2020b). ​ ​ ​ Source: Screenshot from author, 2020.

6.5. Ranking Systems & Matchmaking Lastly, all competitive games have a ranking system which gives players “ranking points” which are based on an integral algorithm that takes into consideration the individual player performance during a match, outcome of the game (win/loss), amongst other factors. The algorithm of matchmaking systems is proprietary, similarly to Google. Ranking systems are implemented differently based on the type of game and the objectives of games (Véron, Marin & Monnet, 2014). In Dead by Daylight (Behaviour Interactive, 2016), players need to ​ ​ complete various objectives during a match such as repairing generators, cleansing totems (in-game artefact), heal allies, survive from a killer, etc. In turn, players gain a different amount of points for every action they perform during a match. The resulting total points earned during a match are then counted by the system and rearranging the player’s rank (see Image 8 and 9).

Ranking systems are often used for matching players of similar ranks when entering a match, thus to minimize the skill gap between players in order to achieve a balanced performance for the players. Without such regulatory systems, high-skilled players would be matched with new players, and the skill gap would create an outcome where high-skilled and experienced players vanquishes new players, making it less “fun” for both parties, because it does not provide the skilled players with challenge and for the newcomers the challenge is way too difficult.

44 An important factor to mention is that many games offer different play modes, meaning ways of playing the game. There are for example competitive modes where players play to gain ranking points that indicate their proficiency in the game. In contrast, casual mode (often called “quickplay”) is played in the same sense as competitive without affecting the player’s rank. In the second case, players are often matched with and against players of similar “player level” which is an additional system that counts the player’s total experience with the game; or in cases like Overwatch (Blizzard Entertainment, 2015) where in Quickplay, players are ​ ​ matched randomly.

Image 8. Post-match notification in Dead by Daylight for all players and their scores from the ​ ​ ​ game. Note: the numbers on the left side represent the player ranking (where 1 is the highest and 20 is the lowest). Source: Screenshot from author, 2020.

45

Image 9. The ranking tier in Overwatch, ranging from Bronze to the “Top 500” in specific ​ ​ ​ regions. Source: Screenshot from author, 2020.

6.6. Code of Conduct, Reporting Tools & Penalties This last subsection will cover a brief overview of some official rules which are provided under the licenses and Terms of Agreement, meaning a legal agreement between game service provider or game developer/publisher and the user (i.e. player). Again, as part of the ethnographic method for this study, the environment of video games, both in terms of mechanics, such as the tools which players make use of within the game; and external resources such as “Code of Conduct” or “Terms of Agreement” will be described.

Toxic behaviors are considered deviant from social behaviors, in order to understand what is ​ accepted according to the game and the community, we must know the official rules and guidelines for them respectively. Thus, it seems essential to include a few examples of official rules outside of the game, meaning jurisdiction and not in-game rules such as “when holding the left control button on a keyboard the character will crouch until the button is released”. According to Riot Games® Terms of Service (2020; Riot Games as the company ​ behind League of Legends), under Section 7: User Rules, all users comply to, for example: ​ ​ 7.2. Publicly posting identifying info about yourself, Riot Games employees, or other players; 7.5. Transmitting or communicating any content which we reasonably believe to be offensive to players, including language that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, or racially, ethically, or otherwise objectionable; 7.13. Non-participation, logging out or exiting a game during live game-play. Riot Games may track this data over time and issue a temporary ban when a player is determined to have left mid-game too many times. The length of the temporary ban

46 will increase over time if a particular account continues to leave live game play; 7.14. Playing on another person’s account or otherwise engaging in activity intended to “boost” an account’s status or rank;

Some other examples from the Terms of Use of CAPCOM Account (2020; the company ​ responsible for various Fighting Games) are listed below:

- A Member shall, at his/her own cost and on his/her own responsibility, resolve any dispute, such as complaint, inquiry or claim for damages brought by a third party, arising in relation to any act of such Member conducted in the course of use of the Service or an Individual Service. (Section 10. Self-responsibility of Members).

- The Company shall not be involved in any trouble between or among the Members. If the Company receives a notice from a Member stating that any other Member has performed any of the prohibited acts set forth in Section 15 and as a result breached the provision of Section 15, the Company shall at its discretion determine the handling of such breach. (Section 17. Troubles among Members).

Another tool in games which is of significance to this study are reporting systems. These are commonly implemented in online multiplayer games in order to regulate the behaviors of players by trusting in the community to submit reports of players for misbehaving, trolling, cheating, amongst others deviant behaviors. Report systems are often designed and implemented differently between games, in some games players are provided a text-feature in order to type a reflection or additional comment as to why the ticket was submitted, for example. Albeit, the intent of regulating and penalizing deviance is the same across games which have implemented reporting systems, and most games provide a selection of reasons to submit a report for. Examples of a report system may be seen in Image 10 and 11).

The consequence of reporting systems is penalizing players, different regulations are applied depending on the game companies. In order to gain a basic understanding of what a penalty may imply, an example of Riot Games (2020a) will be provided. In the official support forum for League of Legends, Riot Games provides a short description of various degrees of ​ ​ mischief and the respective penalty for each (2020a, see Image 1):

● First Offense: 10 Game Chat Restriction ● Second Offense: 25 Game Chat Restriction ● Third Offense: Two Week Suspension ● Fourth Offense: Permanent Suspension

In summary, games consist of rules and boundaries to which the players must comply in order to play. Not only the systematic in-game rules of which dedicated buttons need to be pressed, or which virtual areas that are accessible to a player; but also external boundaries provided by game companies in order to regulate the social interactions which occur between the players in the game. An examination of this relationship is presented in Figure 4.

47

Image 10. The interface for reporting a player in Dead by Daylight (Behaviour Interactive, ​ ​ ​ 2016). Source: Screenshot from author, 2020.

Image 11. Screenshot from Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege (Ubisoft Montreal, 2015). ​ ​ ​ Source: Screenshot from author, 2020.

48

Figure 4. A diagram representing the relationship and interaction for a game and its ​ community. Source: Author.

49 7. Analysis of Empirical Data

This chapter will provide insight to the empirical data which was gathered through semi-structured interviews (Jensen, 2012d, p.272) with fourteen different players. The results will be analysed based on the research questions. Each section contains subsections for each of the pre-established interview themes, and a brief description of the emergent themes within each. Although part of the sample is exclusive to offline, console gaming (referring to players who sit in the same room and play on the same console) and may differ from the online sample, the answers will be included together in each section. For the cases where the responses differ based on the sample groups, the distinction will be noted. Results have been analysed using thematic analysis (Jensen, 2012d, p.277; see Chapter 5) and re-analyzed based on the distinction of practices (praxis), beliefs (doxa), and knowledge of a field, according to Burkart & Andersson Schwarz (2014). The main findings are presented as diagrams at the end of each section to demonstrate the relationship of practices of toxic behaviors in regard to players’ beliefs. The diagrams are a result of the analysis of the interview responses. It was rather difficult to plot toxic behaviors on the same scale as knowledge of games (mechanics, meta-play, game awareness), and knowledge of toxicity. In particular, differentiating between reasons for perceiving toxic practices from a victim’s perspective and from an offender’s perspective within the same diagram was complicated because of contradictory responses; as well as the range or poles of the diagrams could not be placed within the same. This resulted in two separate diagrams demonstrating the difference between how players perceive toxic behaviors as a “justified” practice (in the sense where the player is being toxic) or a bad one (whereas the player is the victim of toxic encounters; see Figures 5-10 in the following subsections).

7.1. Players’ Perception of Toxic Behaviors

Interviewer: What does the term ‘toxic behavior’ mean to you? Participant G: Ouch... You are now opening the Pandora's box.

When asked “what does the term ‘toxic behavior’ mean to you?” all of the participants described their perceptions of toxic behaviors in accordance to the literary definitions of the term which included harassing or insulting other players by sending offensive messages or disrupting the game experience (Kwak & Blackburn, 2014; Shores et al., 2014). However, many responses from the participants provided further explanation to their own beliefs and reasoning of toxicity in competitive multiplayer games. The responses have not been censored from curse words in order to maintain the essence of the participants’ opinions. Thus, caution is advised due to offensive language. In general, participants would have very detailed description of what toxic behaviors meant to them, some answers included:

Having a behavior pattern that hurts people in the community or the community itself. Could be anything from being physically toxic and not wearing deodorant to a

50 tournament18 or that you have an attitude that brings people down, and makes it not fun for people to stay or join the community. (Participant N).

Like 90% of the Russians you end up with are basically assholes. With one 'wrong doing' and you are the target of a СУКА БЛЯДЬ19 rain for the rest of the game. So ​ ​ the first thing that flashes through my mind when I hear toxicity in Counter-Strike, it has to be Russian players, sad to say but yes. (Participant I).

Furthermore, some participants described that there was a difference between flaming, or being toxic to, players who were in the same team and in the opposing team. This distinction was made based on the impact it had on the match. Being toxic towards an opponent would not particularly affect how the allied team played, while trash-talking an ally would often result in a decrease of performance and often result in losing the match. As one of the participants explained:

To be honest, I am no Saint. I've used it myself to try to tilt the enemy player into rage quitting or something like this. I think it's still toxic, doesn't matter if you are doing it for fun or to gain something out of it or not - but I think it's another kind of toxicity. (Participant G).

Most of the participants were aware that this behavior has a negative outcome for one self, other players and/or the result of the match; not because of the action itself but because of the outcome of such behavior. Often, this behavior was associated with child-like behavior because it would not achieve any positive outcome, such as encouragement in development of player skill, as one participant claimed: “Because it's like kids fighting. No one is going to gain anything from it, it's like 'oh you are bad' 'no you are bad' 'no you.’” (Participant B). When players were asked about the frequency of their encounter with toxicity, regardless if it was directed at them or others, the majority who played online responded it happened frequently, mostly in every match in some form or another. In contrast, participants who played on consoles (participants A, J, M, N) did not experience this behavior as often as online computer gamers.

For the players, trash-talking seems to be an essential part of the game, which has been supported by other studies (Conmy et al., 2013; Romo Flores, 2018; Mattinen & Macey, 2018; Shores et al., 2014). One participant explained that “you can trash-talk in games, and this has been an element in sports as well” (participant A). In that sense, how can we distinguish which toxic behaviors are tolerated and which are not?

During the analysis of the results from this study, three forms of toxic expressions could be identified: verbal, physical and in-game related practices. Based on one participants explanation of what toxicity meant for him:

18 It is an “inside joke” of the community because they have had issues with people not caring for their hygiene when participating at events and tournaments. See short documentary by Glink (2019). 19 Translates to “fucking bitch” from Russian.

51 Even if it is minor and doesn't affect the game or the players (like excessive pinging20) it's not very nice and it's a way to show frustration. If you are trying to convey your frustration I think this is the very essence of toxic behavior [...] any medium I use to convey this anger to you, then this becomes toxic. (Participant G).

The main difference between these is the ways in which they are performed, in other words, how toxic actions are executed. The verbal practices for example, are all connected through the use of language, whether it is written in the chat-function of the game or spoken through the voice-chat function. As participant N said: “Words are a tricky thing. It usually depends on what the intent of the person is: are you swearing at a person or are you reacting at whatever?”

In addition to verbal practices of toxic behavior, or toxicity in games, there were various types of harassment which could be distinguished. Primarily, what seemed as accepted verbal toxicity was when a player insulted another player based on their skill or proficiency in the game. As one participant described:

If you directly insult the person for their performance that's fair because you are not criticizing personal traits. [...] If you criticize someone for how they play, they can return the favor, they can criticize your gameplay but you don't know anything about them personally so it doesn't make sense for you to criticize their identity which you don't even know at that point. [...] It doesn't add anything to the banter experience. (Participant K).

Curse words were also considered acceptable when the player was bursting out his/her feelings of happiness or frustration, as a participant mentioned:

Motherfucker is fine. It's more of an expression of anger rather than hate. And it's not as insidious, it's more pure. Maybe cunt is also one of those: 'oh you fucking cunt' you know. You are angry, you are pissed. Someone being angry isn't necessarily toxic. Toxic is slightly more covert and passive aggressive. (Participant L).

The identifiable factor for distinguishing acceptable cursing is the act of targeting someone else. For example, typing “damn it” in the chat will not get a player banned, while writing targeted insults such as “kill yourself” or abbreviations of these, such as “kys”, will get a player automatically banned by the system. Some participants discussed how the banning system could be exploited by finding “loopholes” in order to avoid being banned, for example typing “slit your wrists,” or its abbreviation “syw,” which has an equal meaning to “kill yourself” but is not registered as such by the system.

The second form of toxic expressions which could be identified was physical practices. This requires for the individual to express their aggression through his/her body and onto another object or person, for example hitting the keyboard or punching another person, in other

20 A non-verbal communication system where you can mark locations and give out commands to team members (see section 6.4.; c.f. Romo Flores, 2018; Leavitt, Keegan & Clark, 2016).

52 words, players make use of external stimuli. While this particular category was primarily explored by the participants who played on consoles, it does not exclude the existence of players expressing physical toxicity when playing in front of the computer, the difference is that they might be playing alone in a room and their co-players might not be able to see them perform such actions, perhaps they hear sounds of physical actions through the microphone of the player. As one participant described how physical actions may be bad influence:

If you want to throw a controller into a lake, I think you have all the right to do that, but it should not be at the expense of someone else. Especially if you do it in front of your opponent, I think that is very disrespectful. (Participant M).

Lastly, in-game related practices are those actions conveyed through the mechanics of the game, this may include actions such as: cheating (eg. using aim-bot which is a third party ​ ​ service outside of the game that allows players to gain an unfair advantage with disregard to their own skill, c.f. Consalvo, 2007; Blizzard Guides, 2020); trolling (eg. playing the game in ​ ​ ways which are not intended by the designers, to cause harm in a humorous way); or using other mechanics to disrupt the game experience for one or more other players, particularly players in the same team as the toxic player(s). There were many forms of in-game mechanics which could be described as toxic by the players. However, it was not the mechanic itself which was considered toxic, but the exploitation of the mechanic and the deviation from its original purpose which was bad. For example, characters in games commonly have a crouch- mechanic, however when a player uses the crouch repeatedly over a dead player’s character it’s referred to as tea bagging, because of the similarity to pounding a tea bag, and this action is often seen as bad mannered or to humiliate the dead player (c.f. Myers, 2019). Another example provided by a participant, is where in some games, characters have an ability to revive teammates within a time limit after they have died. While the mechanic exists, it is up to the player and the circumstances if they chose to revive their teammates or not. Although, intentionally choosing not to revive can be seen as a passive-aggressive form of toxicity, as one response said:

If you have a very annoying player and they are screaming or doing nonsense and they get killed, you just don't pick up their banner21 and you continue playing and you kick them out of the game basically. (Participant A).

The majority of players considered toxic practices expressed through in-game mechanics as being the worst form of toxicity. While insults would be offensive, players would typically ignore those players by for example “muting” them (blocking any incoming communication through text- or voice communication in the game, a feature provided in many online games). Mechanics, on the other hand, could not be muted, and became difficult to handle for players. As one participant described:

21 Item in the game Apex Legends that can be picked up by surviving teammates in order to revive the dead player.

53 Because if people are flaming you can mute them, you can't mute someone dying 20 times on purpose you are just going to be stuck with that, there's nothing to do basically. Trolling also leads to flaming, in a sense, if someone is intentionally feeding they will get flamed by someone else and when they lose they will go into the next game being tilted and that leads to that if someone makes a smaller mistake, then they might start flaming that person because they are already tilted or because they had a troll last game. It's just a big bad circle. (Participant B).

Moreover, toxic practices could be separated based on whether the expression has a target or not. Thus, if the person is causing harm directly towards another person, it would imply for ​ ​ example, telling another player they are bad at the game. If the toxic expression does not have a target, it would imply that a player is cursing as an expression, or if the toxic encounter is amongst other players in the same match, in other words, it is indirect exposure to toxic ​ behaviors.

Furthermore, based on the findings from this study, it was possible to establish a preliminary diagram to demonstrate the relationship between praxis and knowledge of toxicity, as well as doxa and knowledge of toxicity. The interview topics and results were analyzed based on Burkart and Andersson Schwarz (2014) adaptation of Bourdieu’s ideology of field, praxis and doxa in the setting of Internet privacy. For this study the concept has been applied to competitive games as a field (Bourdieu, 1984) and correlated based on the interpretation of toxicity in this environment. For a comprehensive illustration of the proposed taxonomy, see Figures 5, 6 and 7.

Figure 5. Illustration of degrees of toxic behaviors (banter - harmful) in relation to targeted ​ actions (direct - indirect). Source: Author.

54

Figure 6. The doxa-knowledge spectrum of toxic practices. Source: Author. ​

Figure 7. The praxis-knowledge spectrum of toxic practices. Source: Author. ​

55 7.2. Players’ Responses Towards Toxic Behaviors

In regard to the second research question which aimed to explore how players respond to ​ toxic practices, interestingly, more players than expected discussed how they could respond both as victims and as offenders. Previously, the majority of the existing research has focused on the perspective from victims or bystanders (Cook, Schaafsma & Antheunis, 2018), this study contributes with new findings as to why players may perform toxic actions even when it does not bring them enjoyment, thrill, or a sense of revenge (which have key factors for toxic players, Ibid.). As one participant stated:

When a situation feels hopeless it's actually more fun to type in the chat then to play the game. At some point when I'm getting too tired and hopeless about the game I start shit talking because it’s way more fun to try to one up the opponent by having a comedic edge on all your insults. It doesn't make it ok, but that's how I entertain myself for those upcoming thirty minutes that's going to be wasted anyways. (Participant L).

While discussing toxic behaviors with the respondents, there seemed to be mixed opinions in regard to which expression would be extreme, some actions would be considered bad mannered and not toxic per se. In contrast, there seemed to be a consensus that toxic behavior between friends was tolerated because there was an “unwritten rule” between them and they would know the limits of the other persons and be careful not to overstep those boundaries. This behavior is referred to as banter. In addition, banter would often be considered funny ​ ​ amongst the players who practiced it. As one participant explained: “We harass each other but that in a jokeful way. Because we know each other so we can say like 'oh you suck’” (Participant E). Or as another participant described:

I don't think that cursing at someone is accepted at all. Sometimes I say stuff to my close friends but they know that I'm joking. We have an agreement that we can say certain stuff to each other. And you can't bring someone down for no reason or just because you feel a bit down yourself. [...] Like we do a lot of banter in our group, but if someone feels it's not cool then we respect that and stop. (Participant N).

However, while banter (jokeful harassment) is accepted amongst friends, it may be possible that this influences positively to counteract toxic behaviors, meaning that playing with friends may keep toxic players at bay because they gain an expected and positive feedback when being toxic towards friends rather than strangers. By positive feedback, I refer to laughter or or disencouragement of toxicity which may be more accepted coming from a friend with “authority” (based on personal bond) rather than a stranger, who one knows nothing of. On the other hand, banter could be the explanation as to why toxic behaviors are tolerated in competitive eSport games, because it signifies that playfully harassing others is acceptable, and in turn, more players act and experience such behavior, regardless if they share the same humor or not. Whereas for toxic players who seeked enjoyment would gamble on whether the targeted person responded in a similar way (positive outcome) or became insulted/humiliated

56 ( negative outcome). This notion may be supported by Nguyen and Zagal’s (2016, p.11) claim to as “People who desire an insult-contest need to find like-minded people, and not force themselves on not like-minded people.”

During the interview, all the participants were asked how they typically responded to toxic behaviors, either when directed at them or when it was directed at other players. Because there were mixed answers from the interviews, the responses are sorted into two categories based on whether the player is the victim or the offender. These will be discussed in the following two subsections of this thesis.

7.2.1. Being the Victim

All participants were asked how they normally engage towards toxic behaviors, both when it concerns other players and when it is directed towards themselves. The vast majority argued they usually did not take offense in such behavior, and some would not respond towards it either, as participant D explained: “Yeah, I get triggered by it sometimes but mostly, I have a thick skin. I don't let it get to me. I don't care, because probably an hour later I've forgotten all about them because it doesn't matter.” Other responses included trying to turn the situation into a joke by saying things like “[if] someone flames me for being trash I’ll just reply with ‘hey I’m the same rank as you so doesn’t that mean we are both trash?’” (Participant H), or having friends intervene, as a female participant described:

I feel more insecure when I play all by myself, because I can easily get tilted when I'm playing alone and my whole team is saying those kinds of things. I just mute everyone and that results in that I don't hear if they say something actually useful for the game. [...] But I'm pretty good at taking those stuff and I usually play with a lot of my male friends, I don't have many female friends that play, and they are very good at having my back. So when someone is toxic or going on personal attacks to me, they immediately, when the opposing team has written like 'suck my dick' they answer like 'ok sure, where do you want me to be' so they reply for me and that's pretty nice. (Participant E).

There were multiple participants who described that while they would acknowledge their own behaviors they were more concerned for others in that environment such as children or new players. Players would repeatedly discuss how the community of their games would be heterogeneous and the importance of being inclusive, they promoted the growth of the community, and sharing their passion for their game. In this sense, toxic behavior would often scare away or hurt others in their community, which was undesired and coincides with previous research (Chen, Duh & Ng, 2009; Kwak & Blackburn, 2014; Kwak, Blackburn & Han, 2015; Mattinen & Macey, 2018; Shores et al., 2014). For example one statement said:

If they are being extremely mean, if to me I don't care because I know how I will react, but I am mostly afraid in a way [for] other players. If they are being toxic to my teammates, not because of that I empathize with them, simply because I am

57 afraid that they will be discouraged and they will get away from the game and we will lose the game. [...] I don't care about the player, I care about my win [...] but if it is between two other people I have no say in this, and this makes me concerned. (Participant G).

As a result, the relationship between how player’s respond towards toxic behaviors, in regard to the player’s beliefs of such practices can be seen in Figure 8.

Figure 8. The spectrum of praxis - doxa, in a competitive gaming setting. Note: Applies to ​ toxic behaviors which are perceived as “bad” by the victim players. Source: Author.

7.2.2. Talking Back, Getting “Tilted”

All of the participants could describe a varied range of actions and reasons for others to become toxic, they also described how it affected them and their community negatively. However, many of them confessed to, and described how and when they would become toxic themselves, in one way or another. This subsection will cover the responses from interviews in regard to how players can be able to act towards toxicity in a negative manner by “throwing gas into the fire.” In other words how they can be toxic as well. As one participant explained:

Since all people might not share my humor, they might find it offensive and then I'm sorry. I'm basically just fishing for a reaction, since I'm losing anyway they have

58 good reason to shit talk me. It's a risky move but it can be a lot of fun. [...] 44:37 If they react similarly then it's fun, but if they are silent or show that they are upset then obviously it does feel bad. And it's not like I'm considering the risk of offending someone when I'm that tilted. I'm upset at that point, I don't care, I just say something in the heat of the moment because I have so little patience anyways. (Participant L).

Most of the participants could acknowledge when they would be toxic themselves, however actions could range from joking back, being annoying in the game or trolling, to kicking people out or typing “kill yourself” to another player. Some participants described they could have been toxic unintentionally and that perhaps they did not notice, or that their actions could have been misinterpreted, and many of them described they would apologize to the victim afterwards if they had noticed it made them upset. Some answers included statements such as:

Depending on my mood and depending on how the game's going I can be very toxic myself. [I] spam ping them a lot. Try to get them to know that they're bad. It's so cringe talking about it when you are not doing it, it's so fucking immature. ​ ​ (Participant B, emphasis based on verbal expression).

Mostly I am the one doing it. I really try hard in PvE22 games. If I'm doing raids with friends in Destiny I like super try-hard23, so if I see that someone isn't doing their job I kick them. I don't care, 'you suck bye' and I invite someone else. It's PvE, it's really easy you just have to follow instructions. In PvP people are better than you and you can't do anything about it and here you just follow basic instructions that are not that hard. (Participant F).

Interestingly, most players who discussed their feelings in regards towards being toxic themselves would mention they felt bad for causing harm upon others, however, in some cases players described how they would become more agitated or saddened by the consequences. As participant M stated: “ [...] And I know how they feel because I have felt terrible after losing some sets, it's not that I can't sympathize with what they are feeling but it's the action that is not ok.” Followed by other participants similar statements:

[Being banned] made me really, really upset. It was the start of the season upcoming the next week. And I know it's my fault and I slipped, but it cost me so much to not participate in fresh-season. I had it coming, I knew it was going to get me in trouble. I was so angry I couldn't contain myself. (Participant L).

22 Refers to Player Versus Environment games, where either one or more players coordinate to battle against the system (in difference to playing against a player). 23 The gaming term “try-hard” commonly refers to players who take the game seriously and thus tries very hard to succeed in winning.

59 Lastly, results based on how players may perform toxic actions have been plotted in a diagram in order to visualize the spectrum of how these practices are performed in regard to the belief of players, see Figure 9.

Figure 9. The spectrum of praxis - doxa, in a competitive gaming setting. Note: Applies to ​ toxic behaviors which are justified or performed by toxic players. Source: Author.

7.3. Code of Conduct in Competitive Games

By accepting toxic behavior in the community you might come across as toxic, even though you might be a nice person, if you let people act in a certain way in your community. Because you are indirectly agreeing with this behavior. (Participant N). ​ While this study focuses on the perception and response of players towards toxic behaviors in competitive multiplayer games, it seemed important to include whether players were actually aware of the official Code of Conduct for the game they play, or the legal agreement between the game service (e.g. game developer or publisher) and the user (e.g. player). This section will provide a brief description of the consequences of toxic behavior in competitive games, both how companies deal with such matters through games and how players contribute to “cleaning the community.” For this section of the interview, all participants were asked if they were aware of any community guidelines or official rules of behavior for

60 the game that they played, most were unsure about whether they knew them or not. Although, while many participants did not know the official rules (see section 6.6.), they did know of their existence and could provide suggestions as to what could be included based on “common sense” (participant N); or through inexplicit mechanics in the game such as the “report system categories.” As some of the participants described:

I haven't really searched for it, I wasn't able to find any information that explicitly [stated] this is what you can do , this is what you cannot do. You need to understand it [from playing the game]. [...] And if you care enough you can look at all the reasons to report somebody, but this applies to you as well. So if you report someone for writing 'easy24' at the end of the game, it means if you do it you'll get banned as well. (Participant G).

These answers refer to the report systems of online games. Many companies have implemented a feature where players can report other players for abusing rules, intentionally disrupting the game experience, or for harassing other players. The implementation and usage of these systems will be further described in the next section. In regard to the participants who were aware of community guidelines, it was primarily those who played as competitors in tournaments. One participant explained the need for particular rules at events as well, such as:

There are rules for how to behave at tournaments. Like if a tournament is going on you can't just hog a set-up and play your casual friendlies25 while they are trying to have a bracket. [...] It happens more than you think. (Participant N).

Additionally, for the participants in the Super Smash Bros. Melee (SSBM) community the ​ main difference from online gaming was that the community was rather small and players would know players directly, or indirectly by reputation or through friends of friends. Thus, toxic behavior would be handled immediately and would not happen as often as by the online gamers. Furthermore, one participant discussed how he believed it was not the rules that shaped the community, but the community which changed the rules over time because the audience of games has shifted over time:

And that is also where you can see how the communities change, if you go back ten years and how people were acting back then and you compare that to now, I don't think there were TO rules that changed, but the attendees changed. It used to be a lot of teenage guys going out together trying to be tough, in the early 2000. Then they grew up, and that was their [inaudible]. Now it's an open community, it's welcome for anyone, we have young kids, even 10 years old who would come in with their parents, but then you also have people who are 30, even 35 years old who have been in the scene since the games came out in the 90's. It's not really a homogenous group

24 Writing “easy” or “ez” often means the match was easy, for example winning 13-5 in a match. This term is often considered bad mannered in online gaming communities. 25 “Casual friendlies” is used to describe a match between friends and not competitively with placements in a bracket.

61 of dudes who all know each other who shit-talk to other regions, it's not that anymore. (Participant M).

7.3.1. Report Systems

And since the system seems to be automated it's hard to take the terms of conduct seriously, since they can be abused so you don't really consider them in the end in the same way that you should. (Participant L). ​ The reporting systems in online games serve the function of reviewing player’s actions and providing penalties to those who misbehave or deviate from the rules. How these systems are implemented and which functions they provide the players with, differ between games (see Chapter 6, section 5). Therefore, this section will provide insight to how players perceive the current penalty system in their respective games and diverse penalties which can be applied. Then, what are the consequences for toxic behaviors in gaming communities and competitive games? One participant described how he, after being banned for the first time, felt a sense of pride and accomplishment:

It was kind of ridiculous, but it was funny that I managed to get banned that quickly because people normally write a lot of stuff before actually getting banned for chat. So it was sort of an achievement. (Participant K).

Most of the participants described that the process for reporting players was quite accessible and easy to follow through. However, most of them commented on flaws of the system either of the overall functionality (based on an algorithm or a person reviewing the case), or because of particular features (such as adding a textbox for manually typing or giving an explanation to why one is reporting another player). Although opinions varied between whether the current report systems were effective or not, many participants described that taking care of reports was “an impossible problem” because of the amount of players playing the games, which could in turn be explained because of the game’s availability, referring to is the game is free to play or a paid experience:

As a paying customer you would have some demands of the quality of service. Perhaps you could get away with it because it is a free experience. (Participant A).

Lastly, the penalties of engaging in toxic behaviors had mixed responses as to if the consequences were appropriate, efficient and serving for change (as to players being less toxic in future situations). On participant described how penalties should be regulated differently:

There are consequences, [...] but I feel the consequences shouldn't end your League of Legends career. Because there you can get banned permanently. [...] Like remove ranking points, banned them from playing ranked, but do something that doesn't stop them from playing the game. You basically pull the plug on their life support. It's too brutal. I mean people spend money on that game. (Participant K).

62 7.3.2. Alternate Accounts

The problem of players acquiring multiple accounts for playing games seemed to be a big issue amongst all online players. The participants would describe how there were various reasons as to why players have multiple accounts, such as having a too high gap between player ranking amongst friends; or as previously mentioned, because the primary account was banned. For every participant who mentioned alternate accounts it was often considered as a bad habit and that it ruined the “order” of the matchmaking system, which pairs players of similar skill level (see Chapter 6, section 5), as one participant explained:

One of the main things that makes it so frustrating is that people just give up and either buy an account that is high ranked so they can have 'higher quality matches' like 'oh I deserve to be in plat26 therefore I'm going to buy a plat account and play with my true equals' but maybe they actually suck and are like silver rank. [...] And just leaving their team with a really bad player and screw over their game. [...] Similarly the other way around, when people smurf and are high rank but intentionally get a low rank account in order to stomp people and that also ruins games. (Participants L).

A majority of the participants discussed whose consequences would either leave no impact on the player because he/she could have at least one secondary account to play from (in regard to temporary bans); or if it would affect them negatively (when obtaining a permanently ban on an account), where in case the player returned with a new account, trolling behaviors would be more common to perform rather than playing to win. As one participant described:

For flaming, I think [penalties are] sort of ok, but bans aren't as harsh as they should be sometimes. Because if you get reported for flaming you get like a two week ban or something and then you are just back. [...] And people like me have like five Overwatch accounts so it's like, banned for two week 'neeeh'. (Participant D). ​ 7.4. Influences Outside of the Game on Toxic Behaviors

The last research question stated: Which aspects of the competitive gaming environment influence player’s perception and response to toxic behavior in competitive multiplayer games? In this study, Consalvo’s reworking (2007) of Bourdieu’s concept of capital (1983; 1984) was implemented. Originally, Consalvo (2007) proposed the term “gaming capital”, which she primarily described as the usage of magazines, marketing techniques, previous knowledge of a game series or genre as key factors which dictate how players understand games and how they play them. However, these external resources are not part of the game itself, but they are paratexts which a player uses in order to shape their gaming experience. For this study, this notion acts as a foundation for the last research perspective, while adding supplemental pillars, such as player-created content and social capital (Bourdieu, 1983; 1984)

26 Short for “platinum” which is a rank in League of Legends, see section 6.5 of this thesis.

63 to the framework. In the section of theoretical context for this study, it was discussed how, according to Consalvo (2007), player-created content may be beneficial when speaking of capital and cultural taste as described by Janice Radaway (1991).

Therefore, the last section of the interview aimed at uncovering the social- and gaming capital of players by gathering information about previous experience with similar games and with the game they currently played; external (outside of the game) interactions with other players; observing the professional scene of eSports (electronic sports); and potential use or influence of paratexts. In regard to the latter, because Consalvo’s work focuses on resources which are slightly outdated (such as DVDs and tapes; 2007, p.59), this study includes the current primary sources for gamers which include YouTube and Twitch, or social media networks such as Twitter.

The online video platform YouTube was primarily used because it serves as a site of participatory culture (Burgess & Green, 2018). This refers to the “apparent link between more accessible digital technologies, user created content, and some kind of shift in the power relations between media industries and their consumers” (Burgess & Green, 2018, p.10). In the case of this study, YouTube may serve as a paratext where players find release dates and trailers for up-coming games (eg. marketing from gaming companies) or where entertainment videos are enjoyed. The streaming platform Twitch.tv was referenced because of its rising popularity as a worldwide entertainment provider with several million monthly viewers and an increasing number of developers, game journalists and opinion leaders in active involvement in the platform (Gandolfi, 2016). In addition, the variety of user-created content ​ on Twitch is massive, and contains anything from live footage of pre-released games, retro-gaming sessions, walkthroughs (step-by-step guides of completing a game) and gaming shows (Gandolfi, 2016, p.64).

7.4.1. Social Interactivity Outside of Game

Even though the majority of participants are frequently active in online gaming communities (YouTube, Twitch and/or Twitter), they all responded they were more of “passive observers” rather than being active in discussing game-related information with others online. Some participants responded they did not engage in online discussions because the medium itself was not particularly made for sharing personal opinions or that “comments mean revenue not interest” as participant I explained. On the other hand, all of the participants discussed how they would be more engaging with friends about talking of game strategies in the beginning of their career, with exception of those participants who currently play in professional teams, but they were not as avid discussing strategies in the present. However, many added that they would still discuss funny moments or references to the games, and if they engaged in some sort of opinion-based discussion it would be through online platforms like Discord, where they knew the people they talked to, because it was easier to develop a discussion with someone familiar than an Internet stranger.

64 7.4.2. Observing Play

Games are primarily made to be played, by one or various players. However, in recent years it has become rather popular to observe others play the game while one is not playing by themselves (Burgess & Green, 2018; Gandolfi, 2016; Taylor & Witkowski, 2010). This is commonly referred to as spectating. Some games provide features where a player may ​ ​ participate in a match as a spectator (observer) and not as a player (meaning s/he is actively playing). The spectatorship of the media is nothing new, as it has been practiced amongst football enthusiasts during live events or through the TV from home, as theater also has been observed or spectated for centuries. Thus all participants were asked if they spectate the game ​ ​ while not playing it themselves. All responded they watched YouTube videos of the games they played, however there were mixed responses as to why they watched player-created videos. The most frequent response was that the participants watched YouTube videos daily or weekly for entertainment purposes, for example watching highlight videos which they may have missed during a tournament, from streamers or gaming professionals they follow. Another reason included watching for learning more about the game in terms of strategies, meta-play or learning about recent updates to the game in order to “stay up to date.” All participants were asked about their experience with professional eSport. There were mixed responses regarding watching professional players and/or following live tournaments. Some participants enjoyed watching official tournaments, particularly those who played Super ​ Smash Bros. Melee (SSBM) and those who seemed to take the game more seriously (regularly or exclusively ranked).

Participants were asked if they had any favorite professionals or top players, which gave mixed responses. For those who did not follow official tournaments, they named streamers who they enjoyed watching and following on social media. Those who did follow official tournaments could vividly discuss both their favorite teams as well as individual players they were fond of, the most common answer to why they followed those persons in particular was the personality of the streamer or professional player and how the player would relate to them. As one participant explained:

[The streamer GeT_RiGhT] seems very down to earth, real. I remember watching one of his videos where he talked about mental health and stuff like that, so I was hooked that way [...] not necessarily because of his gameplay and how he plays, but how he interacts with the community and his fans (Participant E).

Although, while the personality of the streamer or professional eSports player seemed to be an influential factor for preference, this “preference in personality” may result in players behaving similarly. This may be positive, as mentioned, when players disengage from toxic practices, or negative: when players who admire toxic players (reminder or Tyler1) may express similar behaviors.

An additional aspect to the professional scene is having commentators and spectators (the audience) and how they may influence the environment. All participants considered the

65 spectators and commentators to be an essential part to the eSports scene when watching or participating in tournaments. When discussing the essence of commentators most of the players described three particular functions: to describe what is happening in the game, at a very descriptive level for beginners; to describe the context of the game, for example the rivalry between the players themselves; or lastly, to engage the crowd and bring “hype” when advanced strategies or rare plays are performed in the game. In regard to the audience or spectators, participants discussed the valuable experience of having spectators observe a live tournament and how the audience contributes to one’s own feelings of excitement or sadness. In addition, both when spectating games and when playing them, players enjoy sharing the experience with others, which supports Betsy DiSalvo’s claim that the “desire for social play defies [the] stereotype of gamers being a-social, or interested in online relationships more than in world relationships.” (2016, p.111).

The majority of the participants did not participate in any gaming related activities apart from playing the game, however, various respondents had considered going to the digital festival DreamHack27 in Sweden, but had not done so because of other complications in life. Other respondents would include having been or being active as competitors in tournaments.

7.4.3. Difficulty of Games & the Drive of Being Better Than the Enemy I've tried Dota, but it was way too complicated for me. I'm a league player, my brain is too small. (Participant L). ​ The final perspective of this study’s adaptation of gaming capital focuses on the players’ previous experiences with similar games (genre or game developers/ company) as well as their experiences with their most played competitive game (used as a basis of discussion during the interviews). This section was inspired by Bourdieu’s concept of field (1983; 1984) which is described as the “place” where one develops symbolic capital, or where one accumulates and gathers social, educational and cultural resources (Hesmondhalgh, 2006, p.212), as well as Burkart and Andersson Schwarz (2014) reworking of what “knowledge” of a field is, and how this concept is related to the ideas (doxa) and practices (praxis) of an agent in the field. As described in the theoretical context of this study, the field thrives on a collective identity and shared appreciations of value by the agents (Burkart & Andersson Schwarz, 2014, p.229). Here, the field would imply competitive multiplayer games, the agents who act and inhabit this field are the players. In turn, the practices of playing and interacting with others both in-game and outside of the game (eg. at school, a party or a local event) are shaped by the collective values and beliefs of these practices: may it be that toxic behaviors are tolerated, or not, or both.

Previous research (Romo Flores, 2018; Shores et al., 2014; Johnson, Nacke & Wyeth, 2015) has discussed the possibility of game-related knowledge being a key aspect of context as to how players experience the game, and why players may act in a toxic manner. In light of the results gathered from the interviews, many responses regarding the origin or causation of

27 See page 19; Taylor & Witkowski, 2010; or https://dreamhack.com/ Accessed 22 May, 2020 ​ ​

66 toxic practices seemed to relate to a player’s knowledge of the game this section will provide insight to how players’ perceive the difficulty of competitive multiplayer games, the aspect of competing against a human player (and not an AI controlled character), as well the relationship between toxic practices and knowledge of game mechanics.

The majority of the participants argued that the games they played were difficult to play, in one way or another. While some described that for them it was easy because of previous experience with similar games, they could still acknowledge that the games could be difficult for other beginners because there was a lot to learn in terms of game mechanics and strategies. There were mixed responses to why the game seemed difficult to learn, many answers included that the mechanics while they are easy to learn, there is no real end to how far they can be “pushed.” The “basics” of learning the game were compared to the process of learning a new instrument, as one participant explained:

If you take that and compare to Smash it’s so much like learning to play an instrument. When you pick up your first instrument and learn to play your first chord it's going to feel great, then you learn your second and your third. And then perhaps you learn your first three-chord song and you are having fun. And with [Smash] it's kind of the same, you learn how to Wave Dash, you learn how to Dash Dance, you learn how to Shuffle. You practice those for a couple of hours, weeks, and then you think you have learned something but everyone just beats you and four-stocks28 you, and you have no idea because you practiced so much, what did you do wrong? 'I was so much better than two weeks ago, but still I can't win a single game.' So you go back and practice, and learn more things and about the game. Like 'maybe I shouldn't Wave Dash all the time, only when it makes sense.' and it's the same thing as playing an instrument for me. It's like a staircase. (Participant M).

Furthermore, when the players have managed to understand the basic mechanics of a game, which vary from game to game and between genres, there is yet more to learn. Most participants described the importance of “game awareness” (c.f. Romo Flores, 2018), meaning knowing where to position oneself, understanding the map, and knowing what actions are suitable in any situation, being the most difficult aspect of games. These strategies were hard to learn especially because the game does not explicitly tell the player how to perform in such matter. On the other hand, as described earlier in this chapter, external auxiliary resources such as YouTube serve as a platform for learning meta-play and game awareness. As one participant described:

In general that's a problem with the game, it's really hard to understand why you lost the game. A lot of the times you don't know why. Sometimes it's because you played poorly, but a lot of the times it's because you missed something really important.

28 In SSBM each character has four lives (stocks), when a player kills another player without losing any of his/her own lives it is called “four-stocking.”

67 Maybe you got counterpicked29 without knowing it, so you end up thinking you lost because you played poorly but in reality you shouldn't even have tried to fight them because the character counters you. [...] The game isn't really telling them. [...] I normally call this "Lost in Champ Select" (Participant K).

The aspect of playing together with others and efficiently coordinating with other players seemed to be an influential factor both for play and as a cause of toxic behaviors. Thus, being matched with and against players of similar skill level is of high importance in order to achieve a balanced match. However, not only was it deemed difficult to synchronize with other players, but the amount of players one needs to coordinate with may be influential as well. As participant A mentioned: “[in Overwatch] it's a bigger team to synchronize [which has six players in each team], not only three people [in a team, in comparison to Apex].”

When participants were asked about their main reason for starting and continuing to play, most answers included competition and a certain “drive” of being better than the friends in your circle, other opponents or because they were inspired from professional players. The aspect of playing against humans and challenging oneself seems to be a necessary factor for players. Some of the responses included:

The complexity isn't interesting if you can't measure yourself to other players. If you ​ can’t directly prove your competence by showing off your rank, then it just gets boring. The game is not that meaningful to take pride in. You also take pride in being better than other people, or being the best version of yourself in that particular game. And you want a reward for being the best, and that reward is often rating. (Participant L).

This notion of being better then the enemy can be further reflected by the player’s preference in most played or most liked character to play. All the participants discussed how they chose their main characters based on the mechanics and the playstyle, in turn how they felt a sense of relation to the character they were playing. They all described how for example, mobility was important to them (Participants L) because of their comfort in such a role. Some participants added that apart from the functionality or playstyle, they could grow attached to the character based on the appearance or the lore surrounding them (Participant C).

Thus, creative players may exploit the game mechanics and set new limits, giving the players an endless ladder to climb and sufficient material to continue to improve their proficiency over time. This finding indicates that when a player, or agent, enters the field of competitive gaming, s/he must learn the basics of the game, then the strategies and lastly the meta-play in order to reform the current system by creating new forms of play. According to Bourdieusian theory (Bourdieu, 1983, 1984, 2005; Burkart & Andersson Schwarz, 2014; Danielsson, 2014), the field is reconstituted every time a newcomer enters and adapts or challenges the existing beliefs. These patterns may be seen in games culture as well: when a new player

29 In games where characters have unique abilities it is common that some abilities go well with other character’s abilities, or are ‘countered’ by others meaning they do not function as intended or are less good. (see Chapter 6).

68 enters the field of a competitive game, they are bound to “accept” the toxic behaviors which follow, what they then chose to do (if engage in the same behavior or reform it) depends on the player (c.f. Shores et al., 2014). Similarly, Burkart and Andersson Schwarz (2014, p.229) argued that the agency is determined by “the extent to which the participants are able to make an effective use of the resources they are endowed with; it is a function of the adaptation of their habitus in a specific field.” In this sense, when discussing a player’s agency in relation to the field of competitive gaming, it is possible to see the same patterns as in other cultural fields, because they place great time and effort into shaping the collective objectivity of a field (Danielsson, 2014, p.75).

Since competition is one of the central points to this study, understanding the interplay between players and their motivation for “being better than the enemy” is essential since it involves the competitive thrive and distinction of skill between players, rather than competing against the system in terms of time, points, or artificially controlled characters. Results from this study indicate that many players would predict when they would become a target for toxic behaviors because they would underperform during a match. This “underperformance” could be a result of “having a bad day” or because the player missed some vital information for the course of the match or did not play accordingly to what is expected of them. The relationship between knowledge of game mechanics and toxic practices has thus been plotted in a diagram, based on Burkart and Andersson Schwarz (2014) previously described concepts of praxis, doxa, and knowledge of a field.

In regard to this study, the field (Bourdieu, 1983; 1984) was separated into two sectors: toxic practices and game knowledge. Based on the results, it seems as players who are highly active in toxic practices may have a high understanding of game mechanics as well, thus leading to performing “strategic toxic practices” which are not identifiable by the reporting system in the game. Here, I remind of players using “loopholes” in the system by typing “slit your wrists” to another player (equivalent to “kill yourself” but is not recognized by system), and spam-pinging (exploiting and repeatedly using an audio-visual communication system). For an illustration of this relationship, see Figure 10.

69

Figure 10. An illustration of the relationship between knowledge of toxicity and knowledge ​ of game mechanics. Source: Author.

While the interviews for this study did not include questions focusing on player’s expectations of others during play, previous studies (Johnson, Nacke & Wyeth, 2015; Tyack, Wyeth & Johnson, 2016; Romo Flores, 2018) suggest players tend to expect a good performance from other players, in terms of skill, game awareness and team coordination, when playing with others. What was included in the interviews were questions focusing on the players perception of the game’s difficulty and learning curve. Having this in mind, it would be possible to assume that the anger and frustration which players express through toxic actions may be a result from these “expectations” which stem from their own knowledge of the game’s mechanics and meta-play. Because players consider these games to be “easy to learn but hard to master,” when playing competitively (as in playing for points in a ranking system) players are playing with the mindset of winning and thus expecting people in the same rank as them to perform equally. When the expectations are not met, players may thus deviate from established guidelines and inflict harm on others (indirectly, directly, or passive-aggressively).

70 7.5. The Supportive Community of Competitive Multiplayer Games During the interviews, participants discussed how regardless of the toxicity present in the game, they would encounter people who showed emotional support during a match, or people who players have become real-life friends with as well. While the social and positive aspect of competition is not fully explored in this essay, as a gamer I believe it is important to highlight that competitive multiplayer games do not only consist of toxic players, the majority of players are heartwarming and welcoming. Some comments from the participants included:

It's kind of like, shocking how the overall online community has helped. It's kind of like, someone says 'Tracer30 do something' and they can go like 'She got two enemy supports in a Pulse bomb31, what are you talking about?' and it can be things like that. (Participant C).

I was playing against [another player], he is like rank number three in Stockholm, and after we played he said 'man, that was really tough, you are really good at this' and that made me feel so good and gave me more confidence. And I think I even started performing better at tournaments after that. (Participant N).

A few years ago I moved to Germany a few years ago, and it's really hard to settle in a place where you don't know anyone, not even the language. But on the second day, I found a friend through the [country] facebook group for Smash and we are still good friends till this day. And I want to point out that you can be good friends with the community online, it's one thing, but when you are actually in a city in a different region and you interact with the people - you always have a person to find. When I'm in Mumbai, Dallas, San Francisco, Chicago or Sydney, unfortunately not China, I found someone in Brazil who took me to three people who played regularly and one of the guys was a top player in Brazil and he was super excited because they never had visitors, his mom cooked me dinner. It was an amazing experience. And that is why I stayed in the community. Not because of the online community, but for the tournaments and the community you can meet up with. (Participant M).

30 A character in the game Overwatch. ​ ​ 31 Eliminating the supports is often a valuable strategy in team-based, asymmetrical games (see section 6.2.; Romo Flores, 2018), as team members often rely on the supports for healing in order to remain in the battlefield for a longer time.

71 8. Discussion

The paratextual industries associated with games, including magazines and enhancement devices, have helped define how players should play games, in addition to how they might evaluate and think about them. Yet such industries can’t dictate the terms of use; individuals are active in how they choose to use (or not) such items as well as how they view such things relative to the games they play. (Consalvo, 2007, p.84). ​ Borrowing Bourdieu’s concepts of social and cultural capital, and the notion of the cycle of capital (1983; 1984; 1990; 2005); Burkart and Andersson Schwarz’ (2014) reworking of the concept of praxis (practices), doxa (beliefs), and knowledge of a field were implemented in this study to gain a structured perspective of the relationship between the practice of toxicity and the (dis)belief of the same in regard to competitive gaming environments. Gaming capital is a term borrowed from Mia Consalvos work (2007) on cheating in games, and a reworking of Bourdieu’s (1983; 1984) concept of symbolic capital. In this study it was implemented as a way for understanding culture in video games which may reflect on a player's interpretation of toxic behaviors and game related knowledge, not necessarily tied to a particular game but in the sense of previous encounters with a series or genre, marketing strategies, and player-created content. Because Consalvo’s work focuses on resources which are slightly out-dated (such as DVDs and tapes; 2007, p.59), this study includes the current primary sources for gamers which include YouTube (Burgess & Green, 2018) and Twitch.tv (Gandolfi, 2016), or social media networks such as Twitter.

While there was an effort to gather a wide theoretical sample group (Jensen, 2012b, p.269) for this study, there was not an even balanced amount of each category group (such as playing on console, age and gender). However, the obtained results indicate that the implications of toxic behaviors does not variate depending on such traits, it may however be experienced less when gaming on consoles due to the nature of face-to-face (henceforth FTF) contact in older console games, such as Super Smash Bros. Melee. The sense of anonymity has previously ​ ​ been established as a possible influential factor for toxic behaviors in online settings (Chen, Duh & Ng, 2009; Kwak & Blackburn, 2014), thus this study supports that claim and adds the periphery of toxic expressions in FTF settings as well.

Another interesting finding regarding the presence of toxic behaviors, was that it exists both in the game, through verbal or in-game practices; and outside of the game, through physical practices and by befriending other players in order to continue the harassment in a private chat-room subsequent to the match. As previously mentioned Türkay and Adinolf (2019) discussed the existence of toxic behaviors outside of the game itself, in the sense where players befriend others in order to send them private messages and harass them there. This study discovers that this notion is further supported, whereas players may experience similar actions both on consoles and on computer games (in spite of games with a chat function in-game). On console games there is no in-game chat (in the described games of this study), however a virtual keyboard may be provided when being outside of the game in order to

72 communicate through private messages as well. On computer games where games have an in-game chat, players may befriend others to continue harassing them even after the match. Interestingly, players who had experienced this excessive toxicity described it as peculiar because on consoles for example, players need to use a controller to select each individual letter on the screen in order to type out messages; and going through “the effort” of befriending others in order to continue the harassment which seemed as an an extreme action because of the time and commitment required.

8.1. Players as Mediators of Toxic Behaviors

Jansz (2005) proposed that young males play violent video games because they gain an opportunity to explore emotions typically related to masculinity, for example anger or fear. He further argues that playing violent video games is a popular pastime where male adolescents are eager to spend both time and money on such practices regardless of the fact that violent games are often a subject of public controversy and that young males use games to embody their identities, which may be difficult to reach in the real world, or that the identity may not be ethically accepted in the real world (by for example comitting murder in a game). In addition, Christopher Ferguson an accomplished scholar who has spent the past two decades researching violence in games (c.f. Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009; Ferguson & Glasgow, 2020) recently claimed that the violence which has been correlated with video games stems from “toxic masculinity” (Ferguson, 2018) which is often characterized by a need to dominate, anti-femininity, and homophobia (Ibid; Parent, Gobble & Rochlen, 2019). This notion is further supported by Parent, Gobble and Rochlen (2019), who examined the relationship between social media use, toxic masculinity and depression, and concluded that online interactions are a “potential fertile ground for the proliferation of toxic masculinity” (p.278) and that the use of social media/social networks and toxic masculinity were associated with depression. While games are not a social media platform, it is plausible that games as platforms may have a similar effect. This study did not explore gendered or racist insults in-depth, nor did it account for if toxic players targeted females or people of color in particular, albeit, findings suggest that both male and females, and players of any age group may engage in toxic participation, men perhaps more frequently than women (or at least, men are more noticeable). However, females and younger players may be more targeted which coincides with existing research (c.f. Cote, 2017; Kniffin & Palacio, 2018; Tang & Fox, 2016).

Results from this study indicate that players frequently highlight the diversity of their respective communities, and that these are not homogeneous. The gaming community is dynamic and has been continuously changing over the past decades, as the first generation of “gamers” have grown up and are teaching their children what and how to play, thus integrating a younger audience and spreading the age differences amongst gamers. Not to mention how players come from many different socioeconomic and stereotypical backgrounds, both stated by the participants and by previous scholars (DiSalvo, 2016; Ferguson & Glasgow, 2020; Myers, 2019; Shaw, 2010). This may be further noted by a

73 recent survey which revealed that both female and males aged between 18-34 favored the action video game genre the most, which also was the best-selling genre of 2019 with 26.9% of total sales (Entertainment Software Association, 2019).

It may also be worth noting that age did not have significance towards the perception and understanding of toxic behaviors, whilst older and more (game) experienced players tend to be toxic in ways which may be passive aggressive (implicating an indirect exposure towards toxic behaviors, e.g. not reviving a teammate), it also seems that older players may be more active in regulating the environment which contradicts Mattinen and Macey’s previous research (2018) where they claimed that older players tend to participate more in toxic practices. This may be explained both by the fact that older players most likely have much experience with the game (or similar games) and can easily identify potential problems with strategies or conflicts between people. Findings from this study suggest that older players tend to participate in the way that they defend targeted players or they try to resolve the conflict between other players, in other words, they do not frequently engage as offenders. According to a report from the Anti-Bullying Alliance (2019) the frequency of bullying declines with age.

8.2. Unsportsmanship in Games

Furthermore, findings from this study suggest that players are often disengaging toxic behaviors, as one participant described: if players do not respond to the player being toxic, it will naturally cease. But how does that resolve or eliminate such behavior? Many of the participants of this study would comment on the similarities between traditional sports and eSports (electronic sports), whereas the first takes unsportsmanship seriously: there are strict rules and at least one referee to oversee the match, interactions between players as well as the coaches and audience (Simons, 2013; c.f. Kniffin & Palacio, 2018).

It should be noted however that such measures seem to be implemented in the professional scene for eSports, and to some degree with amateur players. Some games, for example Rainbow Six Siege, have features where specific words are censored automatically from the ​ chat (see Image 12), which strengthens the notion of the frequent presence of toxic behaviors ​ in games and that countermeasures are constantly being developed and implemented. In traditional sports, “toxic” behaviors often include: trash talking, taunting, celebrating, dancing, amongst other actions. Interestingly, Herbert Simons argues that the amount of attention such behaviors receive is often out of proportion to their actual importance, because most of these behaviors take place outside of the real-time competition itself, and have “little if any influence on the outcome of the contest.” (2003, p.7).

Furthermore, he argues that such behaviors are often contradictory, where a certain gesture may be tolerated in one sport but not another, eg. celebrating a score by running around the field is penalized in American football, while in football/soccer it is acceptable (p.6). Conversely, when playing competitive video games Conmy and his colleagues affirmed that trash talking in competitive sports games are influential sources of efficacy information and

74 affective related responses, meaning that players may perform better when having the freedom of trash talking (Conmy et al. 2013). On the other hand, according to Breuer, Scharkow and Quandt (2015) it is an unfavorable outcome (such as losing) which can increase post-game aggression, whereas trash talking by an opponent had no such effect. The second claim is of importance here, because results suggest that toxicity towards opponent players seems to be considered as banter or “playful aggression” in contrast to toxicity towards team members.

Findings from this study also suggest that most players are aware of their intentions, however the degree of harmful actions (verbal or in-game) may be different between players, especially when not knowing strangers’ personal boundaries. This may also indicate that players may relate to how the victims might feel, because this is a repeated behavior, it is common for players to experience toxicity as victims, bystanders or offenders. In this sense, there may be an indication of a collective empathy towards toxic players, because players can relate to why players are being angry, however not all overstep boundaries and act upon their feelings.

In contrast, Nguyen and Zagal (2016) argue that the actions permitted by the game systems in competitive games are partly the cause of aggression as a result of competition, and that competition becomes morally wrong because of this. Due to the competitive nature of games, whether it is Chess or Starcraft, the intent of a person is to act in order to truncate the ​ ​ ​ ​ opponents in-game plans by any means permitted within the game, not referring to the depiction and representation of violence in itself but to the design elements such as “eating” a piece in Chess or killing an opponent in Counter-Strike. As they write: “So consider this ​ ​ ​ simple argument: all competition is wrong, because all competition involves some sort of violence.” (p.4). In that case, where does Tetris, Miss Universe, athletics and spelling competitions fit in and how should we classify such competitive cases?

Image 12. The automated reviewing system of verbal toxicity in Rainbow Six Siege. Source: ​ ​ ​ Screenshot from author.

Furthermore, Nguyen and Zagal (2016) argue that the appeal of the game (not considering marketing and external factors to the game) and how the game is presented through tutorials is of significance for the player to decide whether to play the game or not, considering some games are known in the community for being “toxic” this may scare away players from even trying the game. In turn such aspects may contribute to what type of sense of competition one

75 is trying to achieve (Nguyen & Zagal, 2016 p.13). Because when players decide to play a game it should be because it is fun and challenging in a positive way, players do not sign up to play games in order to get harassed and insulted. As they explain:

If we examine the game as a self-contained experience (ignoring, for example, media campaigns, game reviews, word of mouth, etc.), studying how games structure and present their tutorial and introductory sections could be productive. The focus here would be on understanding if (and how) players learn what the experience of playing the game is like such that we could argue they have provided informed consent when they start playing in earnest. (Nguyen & Zagal, 2016, p.12).

This thesis has presented preliminary data which indicates that games can further be analyzed as a unique culture and that competitive multiplayer games can be explored through ethnographic approaches. However, considering the small theoretical sample (Jensen, 2012b) used for this study, future research should aim to explore a broader sample group in order to strengthen the demographic traits which this study did not fill (an equal distribution of participants age and gender for example). In addition, results from this study suggest that toxic behaviors may be medium specific, or at least an behavior unique to this medium of video games and (e)sport. As stated by Mia Consalvo (2007) and Tang and Fox (2016, p.518): “Different online games foster different cultures, which may be due to game features or the type of players involved in the specific game.” With this in mind, both Wagner (2006) and Kniffin and Palacio (2018) claim that competitive gaming, as eSports and a new phenomenon, should be approached as a completely separate field of study from traditional sports, due to its influential impact on society and culture, and Conmy et al. (2013) suggest that trash talking as an area of research has boundless research potential, but that “the challenge appears to be isolating the specic area that is of most interest, and to that question, only the reader has the answer.” (Conmy, 2013, p.1013).

Based on the findings from this study, it is possible to highlight that players, regardless of their identity and background, when speaking in gaming terms, may express a higher tolerance towards toxic expressions in-game because of the continuity and exposure towards such permitted behaviors. In addition, there seems to be a relation between a player’s familiarity with a game and his/her familiarity with toxic practices; as well as between the performed practices and the beliefs of players in regard to toxic practices, as seen in Figures 5, 8, 9 and 10 (above). As presented in the analysis of this study, the aim of the diagrams is to ​ demonstrate the spectrum of toxic practices in accordance to players’ perception and responses towards such practices. Due to the mixed definitions of “toxic behavior”, this thesis proposes a new taxonomy where distinguished forms of toxic practices in the setting of competitive multiplayer games may be better understood. While the data gathered for this study is not sufficient to establish a complete analytical framework for this setting, it does provide for an adequate foundation for future studies on trash talking and toxic practices in competitive multiplayer games.

76 Lastly, results from this study suggest that an in-game action cannot be deemed as good or bad, in isolation, rather it depends on a broader social context that stems from features outside of the game such as matchmaking systems, community sorting and finding like-minded players. This may explain why the “culture” of toxic practices extends beyond a gendered phenomenon, and why it is proposed by this thesis as medium specific, drawing on Bourdieu’s concept of field (1983; 1984; 2005).

Image 13. A loading screen from an earlier version of Dota 2, with the text “Remain calm. ​ Remember: It’s only a game”. Source: Screenshot from author, 2015.

77 9. Conclusion

Since the earliest publication of aggressive behaviors related to violent video games (Cooper & Mackie, 1986), the field has increased in literature and explorative studies, where most have focused on the content of such games, such as graphical violence and performed acts (eg. virtual murder). There are however studies which indicate the correlational effect of other influential factors for aggressive behaviors, such as competition (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011a; 2011b) and social context (Kwak & Blackburn, 2014; Lee, Jeong, & Jeon, 2019; Tang & Fox, 2016).

This study has explored the latter factors from a media studies perspective by implementing Bourdieusian theory, and reworkings of it (Burkart & Andersson Schwarz, 2014; Consalvo, 2007) into video game culture in order to better understand the relationship between cultural and social capital in regard to players’ perceptions and response towards toxic behaviors in competitive multiplayer games, ‘toxic’ as in any behavior which violates the sportsmanship code in these virtual settings. Through semi-structured interviews with fourteen active gamers, the results were analyzed and illustrated in visual diagrams and figures to better understand the relationship between the practices and beliefs in regard to the knowledge of a Field (competitive games), as theorized by Burkart & Andersson Schwarz (2014). Findings from this study do not redefine the already existing definitions of toxic behaviors, rather, I propose a further explanation as to why these practices occur, how players’ perceive such actions and how they respond towards them in regard to their personal values and the community which they shape.

Primary findings from this study suggest there are three types of methods for performing toxic actions: a) verbal (whether it is written or spoken, in the game), b) physical (such as throwing a controller prior to losing a match), and c) in-game practices (abusing or exploiting game mechanics to gain an advantage over the opponent(s) or to humiliate/harass another player). Furthermore, toxic actions should be regarded in terms of targeted intent, as if a toxic player is insulting another player (direct target) or if s/he is exposing toxicity without a target (eg. cursing).

Previous studies suggest these types of repeated behavior may create culture, and in the case of online gaming, toxicity is an accepted behavior (Mattinen & Macey, 2018). Conversely, results from this study indicate that players do not tolerate toxic behaviors (although many will occasionally participate in such practices to some extent), especially not towards young or new players. On the other hand, ‘banter’ as a jokeful aggression, is tolerated, more in particular between friends where there is a bond of trust and often performed in a humorous manner, this was practiced both by males and females. Consequently, while this study supports the predominance of verbal abuse towards a player’s skill, there is also a prevalence of verbal attacks directed at the identity of another player or with the intent to flex (showing ​ off skills). Future studies could explore the reasoning behind this type of toxic actions, considering this was found as the most harmful action amongst verbal toxicity. Consequently,

78 there remains a need for exploring perceptions of new players as well as females (c.f. Assunção, 2016; Cote, 2017) and why toxic players particularly harass these groups, or make use of their traits (such as femininity or age) to harass others.

Lastly, in terms of gaming capital (Consalvo’s reworking of Bourdieu’s symbolic capital applied to games) there were no concrete results which indicated a relationship between paratexts and actual play. There are however some elements which suggest professional eSports (electronic sports) may have an influence in how amateur players behave. On the other hand, game knowledge and game awareness seems to be strong indicators as to why players become frustrated and angry, which represent the range of emotions performed in toxic practices. This is further explained by “justified toxic behavior” which refers to when a victim may predict becoming a target for toxicity due to underperformance in a match, or in some cases where the victim may have revealed identifiable traits such as being a woman or a young player.

In summation, the ways in which players convey toxicity may have shifted based on the audience who plays these types of games in which toxic practices occur (e.g. competitive multiplayer games). This suggests that toxic practices may be dynamic, transforming the cultural conceptions that may have produced them in the first place. Conversely, as stated by the participants, toxicity will prevail in the setting of competitive games as long as the tools players are provided with encourage the act of measuring and comparing oneself to others.

Designing tools for shaping a fair competition may be a difficult process involving multiple external factors to the game, such as player proficiency, knowledge of meta-play, and finding like-minded players. As results have indicated, there seems to be an existing self-regulating ​ mechanism of toxic behaviors in competitive multiplayer gaming communities while at play. How can game developers, scholars and players help re-shape the increasingly popular gaming environments to be more inclusive, tolerant, fair, and forgiving? From a theoretical standpoint, this study proposes the need for ethical discourses to be developed where ​ competitive gaming is considered a cultural space of complex social interactions. This may pave the way for future interdisciplinary scholarship that examines the ethical implications of what players are indirectly consenting to when participating in competitive gaming, which may further help to define what makes a “good loser”.

79 Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to Mikolaj Dymek, Reece Thompson Munro, Simon Larsson, @SiegeGang, my parents and all the people who continuously sent me valuable links and relevant articles for this study, or that helped me cope with the stress of finishing this thesis. ♥

I am also grateful to all the participants for taking the time to participate and for providing me with rich descriptions of the toxic phenomenon. The help was theirs, any mistakes made are mine.

A special thanks to my supervisor Isabel Löfgren for the continuous feedback and improvement suggestions, as well as Södertörn University for this opportunity.

80 Bibliography

ABC News. (2019, August 13). 16-year-old Fortnite champ 'swatted' during livestream of ​ popular video game. ABC News. ​ https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/16-year-fortnite-champ-swatted-livestream-popular-v ideo/story?id=64940690

Adachi, P. J. C. & Willoughby, T. (2011a). The Effect of Video Game Competition and Violence on Aggressive Behavior: Which Characteristic Has the Greatest Influence? Psychology of Violence, 1(4), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024908 ​ ​ Adachi, P., & Willoughby, T. (2011b). The effect of violent video games on aggression: Is it more than just the violence? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 55-62. ​ ​ https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2010.12.002

Anderson, C. A., & Carnagey, N. L. (2009). Causal effects of violent sports video games on aggression: Is it competitiveness or violent content? Journal of Experimental Social ​ Psychology, 45, 731–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.01 ​ ​ Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., Rothstein, H. R., & Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018251 ​ ​ ​ ​ Anderson, C. A.,Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., & Valentine, J. C. (2004). Violent video games: Specific effects of violent content on aggressive thoughts and behavior. Advances In Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 199–249. ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36004-1

Anti-Bullying Alliance. (2019). Change Starts With Us: A report outlining recommendations ​ to address bullying face to face and online. [Report] Anti-Bullying Alliance. ​ https://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/anti-bullying-week/change-starts-us-anti-bullying -week-report

Aquino, A. (2020, April 19). LowTierGod banned from EVO after transphobic comments ​ against CeroBlast. Ginx Esport TV. ​ https://www.ginx.tv/en/street-fighter-5/low-tier-god-banned-from-evo-after-transphobic-co mments-against-ceroblast

Assunção, C. (2016). “No Girls on the Internet”: The Experience of Female Gamers in the Masculine Space of Violent Gaming. Press Start, 3(1), 46-65. ​ ​ Bailey D. (2020, May 7). Fortnite added another 100 million players in the past year. ​ ​ PCGamesN. https://www.pcgamesn.com/fortnite/fortnite-battle-royale-player-numbers ​

81 Bakardjieva, M., 2005. Internet Society: The Internet in Everyday Life. London, England: ​ ​ SAGE Publications.

Beau, P., & Bakkes, S. (2016). Automated Game Balancing of Asymmetric Video Games. In 2016 IEEEConference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG2016). pp.333-340. ​ Behaviour Interactive. (2016). Dead By Daylight. [PC]. Starbreeze Studios. ​ ​ Bengtsson, S. (2014). Faraway, so close! Proximity and distance in ethnography online. Media, Culture & Society, 36(6), 862–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443714531195 ​ ​ Bengtsson, S., 2006. Symbolic Spaces of Everyday Life: Work and Leisure at Home. Nordicom Review, 27(2), pp.119-132. ​ Bentley, E. (2020). oTranscribe. MuckRock Foundation. https://otranscribe.com/ ​ ​ ​ Blizzard Entertainment. (2015). Overwatch. [Multiplatform]. Blizzard Entertainment. ​ ​ Blizzard Guides. (2020, February 28). What Its Like AIMBOTTING in Overwatch 2020. [video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oVuSukS5Gk&t=529s ​ Bourdieu, P. (1983). The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed. Poetics 12, 311-356. North Holland. ​ Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, ​ ​ Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Polity Press. ​ ​ Bourdieu, P. (2005). The social structures of the economy. Cambridge, UK: Polity. ​ ​ Breuer, J., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, M. (2015). Sore Losers? A Reexamination of the Frustration-AggressionHypothesis for Colocated Video Game Play. Psychology of ​ Popular Media Culture, 4(2), 126-137. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000020 ​ ​ Brlek, A. S. S. (2014). INSIDE THE MIND OF THE MACHINE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF STREET FIGHTER IV PLAYERS. Teorija in Praksa, 51(1), 59-71,187. ​ ​ Brown, A. (2015). Awkward. In P. Lankoski & S. Björk (Eds.), Game Research Methods (pp. ​ ​ 77-92). ETC Press.

Bungie. (2014). Destiny. [PlayStation, Xbox]. Activision. ​ ​ Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2018). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. John Wiley ​ ​ & Sons.

Burkart, P., & Andersson Schwarz, J. (2014). Post-Privacy and Ideology. In A. Jansson & M. Christiansen (Eds.) Media, Surveillance and Identity: Social Perspectives (pp. 218-237). ​ ​ New York, NY: Peter Lang.

82 Chen, V.H., Duh, H.B-L., & Ng, C.W. (2009). Players who play to make others cry: the influence of anonymity and immersion. In ACE '09 Proceedings of the International ​ Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. (pp. 341–344). ​ https://www.doi.org/10.1145/1690388.1690454

Chokshi, N. (2019, March 15). PewDiePie Put in Spotlight After New Zealand Shooting. The ​ ​ New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/technology/pewdiepie-new-zealand-shooting.html

Conlan, D. (2020, April 20). CeroBlast banned from FGC events for using racial slurs just ​ days after Low Tier God clash. Ginx Esport TV. ​ https://www.ginx.tv/en/fgc/ceroblast-banned-from-fgc-events-for-using-racial-slurs-just-da ys-after-low-tier-god-clash

Conmy, B., Tenenbaum, G., Eklund, R., Roehrig, A. & Filho, E. (2013). Trash talk in a competitive setting: Impact on self efficacy and affect. Journal of Applied Social - ​ Psychology, 43(5), pp.1002-1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12064 ​ ​ Consalvo, M. (2007). Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Videogames. Cambridge, ​ ​ Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Cook, C., Schaafsma, J., & Antheunis, M. (2018). Under the bridge: An in-depth examination of online trolling in the gaming context. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3323-3340. ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817748578

Cooper, J., & Mackie, D. (1986). Video games and aggression in children. Journal of Applied ​ Social Psychology, 16, 726–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01755.x ​ ​ Copenhaver, A. (2015). Violent video game legislation as pseudo-agenda. Criminal justice ​ studies, 28(2), 170-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2014.966474 ​ ​ ​ ​ Copenhaver, A. (2020). Violent Video Games as Scapegoat After School Shootings in the United States. In G. A. Crews (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Mass Shootings and ​ Multiple Victim Violence (pp. 243-266). IGI Global. ​ Core-A Gaming. (2018, May 4). Analysis: The Effects of Salt. [Video]. YouTube. ​ ​ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbjSeBOP-MA&t=118s

Cote, A. C. (2017). “I Can Defend Myself”: Women’s Strategies for Coping With Harassment While Gaming Online. Games and Culture, 12(2), 136–155. ​ ​ ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412015587603

Cross, K. (2016). Press F to Revolt: On the Gamification of Online Activism. In Y. B. Kafai, G. T. Richard & B. Tynes (Eds.), Diversifying Barbie and Mortal Kombat: Intersectional ​ Perspectives and Inclusive Designs in Gaming. (pp.23-34). Carnegie Mellon: ETC Press. ​

83 Crowbcat. (2015, March 1). The brilliant fighting game community. [Video]. YouTube. ​ ​ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsJfLKtGlfw

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Play and intrinsic rewards. In Flow and the foundations of ​ positive psychology (pp. 135-153). Springer, Dordrecht. ​ CyborgMatt. (2020). The International 2019. Dota 2 Prize Pool Tracker. ​ ​ https://dota2.prizetrac.kr/international2019

D'Orazio, N. (2019, June 18). "I reap what I sow and I deserve this" -- Dafran banned by ​ Blizzard and kicked from team. Inven Global. ​ https://www.invenglobal.com/articles/2089/i-reap-what-i-sow-and-i-deserve-this-dafran-ba nned-by-blizzard-and-kicked-from-team

Danielsson, M. (2014). Digitala distinktioner: Klass och kontinuitet i unga mänsvardagliga ​ mediepraktiker. (Doctoral Dissertation) Jönköping University. Retrieved from DiVA ​ Portal.

Dave T Geek. (2018, July 12). GamerGate - Everything You Need To Know! What is ​ GamerGate? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beUt5Ke_DqU ​ ​ Davis, J. P. (2002). The experience of ‘bad’ behavior in online social spaces: A survey of online users. Social Computing Group, Microsoft Research. ​ ​ DiSalvo, B. (2016). Constructing Masculinity with Video Games. In Y. B. Kafai, G. T. Richard & B. Tynes (Eds.), Diversifying Barbie and Mortal Kombat: Intersectional ​ Perspectives and Inclusive Designs in Gaming (pp.105-117). Carnegie Mellon: ETC Press. ​ Dunning, E., Murphy, P. & Williams, J. (1986). Spectator Violence at Football Matches: Towards a Sociological Explanation. The British Journal of Sociology, 37(2), 221-244. ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.2307/590355

Dyer-Witheford, N., & de Peuter, G. (2006). “EA Spouse” and the Crisis of Video Game Labour: Enjoyment, Exclusion, Exploitation, Exodus. Canadian Journal of ​ Communication, 31(3), 599-617. ​ Dymek, M. (2012). Video Games: A Subcultural Industry. In P. Zackariasson & T. L. Wilson (Eds.), The Video Game Industry: Formation. (pp.34–56). New York: Routledge. ​ ​ EA Sports. (2018). Madden NFL 19. [Multiplatform]. EA Sports. ​ ​ Entertainment Software Association. (2020). 2019 Essential Facts About the Computer and ​ Video Game Industry. [Report]. ​ https://www.theesa.com/esa-research/2019-essential-facts-about-the-computer-and-video- game-industry/

Epic Games. (2017). Fortnite. [PC]. Epic Games. ​ ​

84 Ferguson, C. (2020, March 3). The American Psychological Association Keeps Getting the ​ Science of Video Games Wrong: There’s no good evidence video games increase aggression. Arc Digital. ​ https://arcdigital.media/the-american-psychological-association-keeps-getting-the-science- of-video-games-wrong-b1539971fbd

Ferguson, C. J. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects literature: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 470–482. ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2007.01.001

Ferguson, C. J., & Glasgow, B. (2020, March 5). Who Are GamerGate? A Descriptive Study of Individuals Involved in the GamerGate Controversy. Psychology of Popular Media. ​ ​ Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000280 ​ Ferguson, C. J., & Rueda, S. M. (2009). Examining the validity of the modified Taylor competitive reaction time test of aggression. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, ​ ​ 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-009-9069-5 ​ Ferguson, C., & Kilburn, J. (2009). The Public Health Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review. The Journal of Pediatrics, 154(5), 759–763. ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.11.033

Frostling-Henningsson, M. (2009). First-Person Shooter Games as a Way of Connecting to People: ‘‘Brothers in Blood’’. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 12(5), 557-562. ​ ​ ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0345

Fullerton, T. (2014). Game Design Workshop (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor ​ ​ & Francis Group.

Gandolfi, E. (2016). To watch or to play, it is in the game: The game culture on Twitch. tv among performers, plays and audiences. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 8(1), 63-82. ​ ​ ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1386/jgvw.8.1.63_1

Gandolfi, E. (2018). You have got a (different) friend in me: Asymmetrical roles in gaming as potential ambassadors of computational and cooperative thinking. E-Learning and Digital ​ Media, 15(3), 128-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753018757757 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Ghuman, D. & Griffiths, M.D. (2014). A Cross-Genre Study of Online Gaming: Player Demographics, Motivation for Play, and Social Interactions Among Players. International ​ Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 2(1), 13-29. ​ https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcbpl.2012010102

Glink. (2019, April 30). Smelly Smash Players. [video]. YouTube. ​ ​ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkZB6YxtWKI&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR10z 3zBNUwlBG98eBateSp9uEGL3vwQt2AeOZzfKKdOBejYOIWViQ66VkI

85 Good, O., Alexander, J., & Sarkar, S. (2018, August 18). Three dead, including suspect, in ​ shooting at Madden tournament in Florida. Polygon. ​ https://www.polygon.com/2018/8/26/17783924/madden-tournament-shooting-jacksonville -florida

Graetz, J. M. (1981). The origin of Spacewar. Creative Computing Magazine. ​ ​ ​ ​ http://www.wheels.org/spacewar/creative/SpacewarOrigin.html

Griffin, A. (2019, August 5). Trump to launch crackdown on violent video games after mass ​ shootings. The Independent. ​ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/trump-video-games-tol edo-shooting-8chan-el-paso-press-conference-today-a9040066.html

Hall, S. (2001/2006). Encoding/decoding. In M. G. Durham and D. M. Kellner (Eds.) Media ​ and cultural studies: Keyworks (2nd ed.), (pp.163-173). ​ Halloran, J., Rogers, Y. & Fitzpatrick, G. (2003). From text to talk: multiplayer games and voiceover IP. In Proceedings of Level Up: 1st International Digital Games Research ​ Conference, 130-142. ​ Hanna, J. & Lynch, J. (2019, September 14). An Ohio gamer gets prison time over a ​ 'swatting' call that led to a man's death. CNN. ​ https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/14/us/swatting-sentence-casey-viner/index.html

Harper, T. (2014). The Culture of Digital Fighting Games: Performance and Practice. ​ ​ Routledge: New York, NY.

Hegeman, R. (2019, September 14). Ohio gamer sentenced to 15 months in prison for ​ 'swatting' incident that killed one person. Business Insider. ​ https://www.businessinsider.com/call-of-duty-gamer-swatting-prison-sentence-2019-9?r= US&IR=T

Helles, R. (2012). Personal media in everyday life. In K. B. Jensen (Ed.) The Handbook of ​ Media and Communication Research (2nd ed.). (pp.265-282). New York: Routledge. ​ Herzog, H. (1941). On Borrowed Experience: An Analysis on Listening to Daytime Sketches. Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, 11(1), 65-95. ​ Hesmondhalgh, D. (2006). Bourdieu, the media and cultural production. Media, Culture & ​ Society, 28(2). 211-231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443706061682 ​ ​ Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens. A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston: Beacon. ​ ​ Inside Edition. (2019, August 13). 16-Year-Old Fortnite Champ Is 'Swatting' Prank Victim. ​ ​ [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmftEF8FXTA ​

86 Ivarsson, M., Anderson, M., Åkerstedt, T., & Lindblad, F. (2011). Playing a violent television game affects heart rate variability. Acta Paediatrica, 100(9), 1283-1283. ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01096.x

Ivarsson, M., Anderson, M., Åkerstedt, T., & Lindblad, F. (2013). The Effect of Violent and Nonviolent Video Games on Heart Rate Variability, Sleep, and Emotions in Adolescents With Different Violent Gaming Habits. Psychosomatic Medicine, 75(4), 390-396. ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3182906a4c

Jamnik, M.R., & Lane, D.J. (2017). The Use of Reddit as an Inexpensive Source for High-Quality Data. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 22(5). ​ ​ Jansen, D. (in press). Ludic Cyborgism: Game Studies, Cyborgization, and the Legacy of Military Simulation in Videogames. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Press Start ​ Journal.

Jansz, J. (2005). The emotional appeal of violent videogames for adolescent males. Communication Theory, 15(3), 219–241. ​ Jensen, K.B. (2012a). Communication in contexts. In K. B. Jensen (Ed.) The Handbook of ​ Media and Communication Research (2nd ed.). (pp.186-202). New York: Routledge. ​ Jensen, K.B. (2012b). Media reception. In K. B. Jensen (Ed.) The Handbook of Media and ​ Communication Research (2nd ed.). (pp.171-185). New York: Routledge. ​ Jensen, K.B. (2012c). The cultural contexts of media and communication. In K. B. Jensen (Ed.) The Handbook of Media and Communication Research (2nd ed.). (pp.203-218). New ​ ​ York: Routledge.

Jensen, K.B. (2012d). The qualitative research process. In K. B. Jensen (Ed.) The Handbook ​ of Media and Communication Research (2nd ed.). (pp.265-282). New York: Routledge. ​ Johnson, D., Nacke, L. E., & Wyeth, P. (2015). All about that base: differing player experiences in video game genres and the unique case of moba games. In Proceedings of ​ the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. ​ 2265-2274). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702447 ​ Juul, J. (2008). The magic circle and the puzzle piece. In Conference Proceedings of the ​ Philosophy of Computer Games. Potsdam: University Press. ​ Kica, A., La Manna, A., O'Donnell, L., Paolillo, T., & Claypool, M. (2016). Nerfs, buffs and bugs-analysis of the impact of patching on League of Legends. In 2016 International ​ Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS) (pp. 128-135). IEEE. ​ Kniffin, K.M., & Palacio, D. (2018). Trash-Talking and Trolling. Human Nature, 29, ​ 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-018-9317-3 ​

87 Kou, Y., & Gui, X. (2014). Playing with strangers: understanding temporary teams in league of legends. In Proceedings of the first ACM SIGCHI annual symposium on ​ computer-human interaction in play (pp. 161-169). ​ https://doi.org/10.1145/2658537.2658538

Kreider, R. (2012, June 6). Prosecutors: Killer Played World of Warcraft 7 Hours Per Day. ​ ​ ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/prosecutors-norway-killer-anders-breivik-played-world-wa rcraft/story?id=16511213

Kwak, H., & Blackburn, J. (2014). Linguistic Analysis of Toxic Behavior in an Online Video Game. In L. Aiello & D. McFarland (Eds.) Social Informatics. SocInfo 2014. Lecture ​ ​ Notes in Computer Science, vol 8852. Springer, Cham.

Kwak, H., Blackburn, J., & Han, S. (2015). Exploring Cyberbullying and Other Toxic Behavior in Team Competition Online Games. In CHI '15 Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ​ ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. (pp. 3739–3748). ​ https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702529

Larsen, P. (2012). Mediated fictions. In K. B. Jensen (Ed.) The Handbook of Media and ​ Communication Research (2nd ed.). (pp.131-152). New York: Routledge. ​ Leavitt, A., Keegan, B.C., & Clark, J. (2016). Ping to Win?: Non-Verbal Communication and Team Performance in Competitive Online Multiplayer Games. In Proceedings of the 2016 ​ CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4337-4350). ​ https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858132

Lee, S.J., Jeong, E.J. & Jeon, J.H. (2019). Disruptive behaviors in online games: Effects of moral positioning, competitive motivation, and aggression in "League of Legends". Social ​ behavior and Personality, 47(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7570 ​ ​ Lee, Y. (2018). E-boys and E-girls: Constructing and Performing Identity in League of Legends. (Dissertation) Honors Thesis Collection, 540. Wellesley College. ​ ​ https://repository.wellesley.edu/thesiscollection/540

Liebes, T. (2003). Herzog’s “On Borrowed Experience”: Its Place in the Debate over the Active Audience. In E. Katz, J. D. Peters, T. Liebes & A. Orloff (Eds.) Canonic Texts in ​ Media Research (pp.39-53). Polity Press. ​ Lin, H. & Sun, C-T. (2005). The ‘White-eyed’ Player Culture: Grief Play and Construction of Deviance in MMORPGs. In DiGRA '05 - Proceedings of the 2005 DiGRA International ​ Conference: Changing Views: Worlds in Play. ​ Lindell, J. (2015). Bourdieusian media studies: returning social theory to old and new media. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 16(3), 362-377, ​ https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2015.1040427

88

Majamäki, M., & Hellman, M. (2016). “When sense of time disappears”—Or does it? Online video gamers’ time management and time apprehension. Time & Society, 25(2), 355-373. ​ ​ ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X15577265

Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., & French, J. E. (2014, August 18). Violent Video Games and Real-World Violence: Rhetoric Versus Data. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. ​ Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000030 ​ Marshall, C. (2019, April 22). Fan assaults top Smash Bros. player with crab at tournament. ​ ​ Polygon. https://www.polygon.com/2019/4/22/18510985/smash-bros-hungrybox-crab-assault-pound -2019-video

Mattinen, T., & Macey, J. (2018). Online Abuse and Age in Dota 2. In Mindtrek '18 ​ Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference. (pp. 69–78). ​ https://doi.org/10.1145/3275116.3275149

McLuhan, M. & Lapham, L.H. (1994). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. The ​ ​ MIT Press.

Merriam-Webster. (2020). Toxicity. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved May 15, ​ ​ 2020 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toxicity ​ Myers, B. (2019). Friends With Benefits: Plausible Optimism and the Practice of Teabagging in Video Games. Games and Culture, 14(7-8), 763-780. ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412017732855

Märtens, M., Shen, S., Iosup, A., & Kuipers, F. (2015). Toxicity detection in multiplayer online games. In NetGames '15 Proceedings of the 2015 International Workshop on ​ Network and Systems Support for Games. https://doi.org/10.1109/NetGames.2015.7382991

NakeyJakey. (2018, January 20). Dark Souls Saved Me. [video]. YouTube. ​ ​ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSJkxLdIlyE

Nguyen, C. & Zagal, J. (2016). Good Violence, Bad Violence: The Ethics of Competition In Multiplayer Games. In Proceedings of 1st International Joint Conference of DiGRA and ​ FDG, 1(13), 1-16. ​ Nintendo. (2001). Super Smash Bros. Melee. [Nintendo GameCube]. Nintendo. ​ ​ Nintendo. (2020). Animal Crossing: New Horizons. [Nintendo]. Nintendo. ​ ​ OBS Studio. (2020). OBS: Open Broadcaster Software (25.0.4, Windows). OBS Studio. ​ ​ https://obsproject.com/

89 Ohlsson, J., Lindell, J. & Arkhede, S. (2017). A matter of cultural distinction: News consumption in the online media landscape. European Journal of Communication, 32(2), ​ ​ 116 –130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323116680131 ​ Parent, M.C., Gobble, T.D., Rochlen, A. (2019). Social media behavior, toxic masculinity, and depression. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20(3), 277-287. ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000156

Park, J., Song, Y., & Teng, C.-I. (2011). Exploring the Links Between Personality Traits and Motivations to Play Online Games. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, ​ 14(12), 747-751. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0502 ​ ​ Phillpott, S. (2020, January 17). eSports Earnings: The Richest Pro Gamers in the World ​ (2020). Career Addict. https://www.careeraddict.com/esports-earnings ​ ​ Pidd, H. (2012, April 19). Anders Breivik 'trained' for shooting attacks by playing Call of ​ Duty. The Guardian. ​ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/19/anders-breivik-call-of-duty

Postill, J., & Pink, S. (2012). Social Media Ethnography: The Digital Researcher in a Messy Web. Media International Australia, 145, 123-134. ​ ​ Radaway, J. (1991). Reading the Romance. London: The University of North Carolina Press. ​ ​ Respawn Entertainment. (2019). Apex Legends [PC]. Electronic Arts. ​ ​ Riot Games. (2009). League of Legends. [PC]. Riot Games. ​ ​ Riot Games. (2020a). Instant Feedback System FAQ. [Forum]. Riot Games. https://support-leagueoflegends.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/207489286-Instant-Feedb ack-System-FAQ-

Riot Games. (2020b32). VALORANT. [PC]. Riot Games. ​ ​ Riot Games® Terms of Service. (2020, January 15). Riot Games. Retrieved May 15, 2020 from https://www.riotgames.com/en/terms-of-service ​ Romo Flores, A. (2018). To Conquer Or To Kill?: A qualitative study on game mechanics ​ and player experience in MOBA games (Bachelor’s Dissertation). Retrieved from DiVA ​ Portal: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1304821&dswid=1014 ​ Schrøder, K.C. (2012). Discursive realities. In K. B. Jensen (Ed.) The Handbook of Media ​ and Communication Research (2nd ed.). (pp.106-130). New York: Routledge. ​

32 Preliminary release date, author accessed the game through Beta (pre-release of game) during the time of writing.

90 Shaw, A. (2010). What Is Video Game Culture? Cultural Studies and Game Studies. Games ​ and Culture, 5(4), 403-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412009360414 ​ ​ Shores, K.B., He, Y., Swanenburg, K.L., Kraut, R., & Riedl, J. (2014). The identification of deviance and its impact on retention in a multiplayer game. In CSCW '14 Proceedings of ​ the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing: ​ (pp. 1356–1365). https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531724 ​ Simons, H.D. (2003). Race and Penalized Sports Behaviors. International Review for the ​ Sociology of Sport, 38(1), pp.5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902030381001 ​ ​ Sinders, C. (2016). An illustrated guide to trolling. Splinter. ​ ​ https://splinternews.com/an-illustrated-guide-to-trolling-1793854790

Smith, A. (2012). People Get Ready, There’s a Train A-Coming. They Create Worlds. ​ ​ https://videogamehistorian.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/people-get-ready-theres-a-train-a-c oming/

Soldatmesteren Junkyard. (2019). MOTHER OF ALL POP OFFS CEO 2019 MK11 Buffalo ​ pops off on Scar. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNUaaPKkip0 ​ ​ SteamCharts. (2020). Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. Retrieved 15 May, 2020 from ​ ​ https://steamcharts.com/app/730#1y

Styhre, A., Remneland-Wikhamn, B., Szczepanska, A-M., & Ljungberg, J. (2018). Masculine domination and gender subtexts: The role of female professionals in the renewal of the Swedish video game industry. Culture and Organization, 24(3), 244-261. ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2015.1131689

Tang, A., Massey, J., Wong, N., Reilly, D., Edwards, W. (2012). Verbal coordination in first person shooter games. In CSCW '12: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on ​ Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 579–582. ​ https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145292

Tang, W.Y., & Fox, J. (2016). Men’s Harassment Behavior in Online Video Games: Personality Traits and Game Factors. Aggressive Behavior, 42, 513–521. ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21646

Taylor, T. L., & Witkowski, E. (2010). This is how we play it: what a mega-LAN can teach us about games. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on the foundations of ​ digital games (pp. 195-202). ​ Terms of Use of CAPCOM Account. (2020). Capcom Account. Retrieved May 15, 2020 from https://game.capcom.com/policy.html

The Escore Sports, (2017, July 21). The Most ICONIC Moments in EVO History (FGC). ​ ​ [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXSfVCQx6eg ​

91 TheScore Esports (2018, October 6). The Story of Tyler1. [video]. YouTube. ​ ​ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bot0QOSwOGY

Thompson, J.J., Leung, B.HM., Blair, M.R., & Taboada, M. (2017). Sentiment analysis of player chat messaging in the video game StarCraft 2: Extending a lexicon-based model. Knowledge-Based Systems, 137, 149-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.09.022 ​ ​ Thornham, H. (2011). Ethnographies of the Videogame: Gender, Narrative and Praxis. ​ ​ Farnham: Ashgate.

Turkle, S. (2008). Always-on/Always-on-you: The Tethered Self. In J. Katz (ed.) Mainstreaming Mobiles: Mobile Communication and Social Change. Cambridge, MA: ​ MIT Press.

Tyack, A., Wyeth, P., & Johnson, D. (2016). The appeal of MOBA games: What makes people start, stay, and stop. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on ​ Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 313-325). ​ https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968098

Türkay, S., & Adinolf, S. (2019). Friending to Flame: How Social Features Affect Player behaviors in an Online Collectible Card Game. In CHI '19 Proceedings of the 2019 CHI ​ Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. (pp. Pages 1–12). ​ https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300567

Ubisoft Montreal. (2015). Tom Clancy’s: Rainbow Six Siege [PC]. Ubisoft. ​ ​ Valve Corporation. (2012). Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. [PC]. Valve Corporation. ​ ​ Valve Corporation. (2013). Defense of the Ancients 2 [PC]. Valve Corporation. ​ ​ Voytko, L. (2019, August 5). Trump Suggests Video Games Connected To Violence. ​ Research Doesn't Support That. Forbes. ​ https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/08/05/trump-blames-video-games-for-sho otings-but-research-doesnt-support-that/#6e85122011dc

Véron, M., Marin, O., & Monnet, S. (2014). Matchmaking in multi-player on-line games: studying user traces to improve the user experience. In Proceedings of Network and ​ Operating System Support on Digital Audio and Video Workshop (pp. 7-12). ​ Wagner, M. G. (2006). Computer games and the three dimensions of reading literacy. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Videogames (pp. 139-142). ​ https://doi.org/10.1145/1183316.1183336

Williams, R. (2015). Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York: Oxford ​ ​ University Press.

92 World Health Organization. (2020). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. ​ ​ https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019

Wu, B. (2019, August 9). Video games don’t cause mass shootings. But gamer culture ​ encourages hate. The Washington Post, Perspective. ​ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/video-games-dont-cause-mass-shootings-but-ga mer-culture-encourages-hate/2019/08/09/655409a0-b9f2-11e9-a091-6a96e67d9cce_story. html chimanruler15. (2015a, September 1). Animaniacs: The Great Edgar Hunt (NGC) 100% ​ Walkthrough - Part 14 - Defeating DeVille. [Video]. YouTube. ​ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPX3_N3CqCI&list=PLMvD7qa3JmdHb7GRTxSf1 WOxJ2IBB_GPo&index=14 chimanruler15. (2015b, September 2). Animaniacs: The Great Edgar Hunt (NGC) 100% ​ Walkthrough - Part 12 - The Epic (2/3). [Video]. YouTube. ​ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3bRucWhwZQ&list=PLMvD7qa3JmdHb7GRTxSf1 WOxJ2IBB_GPo&index=12 de Vrieze, J. (2018, September 18). Meta-analyses were supposed to end scientific debates. ​ Often, they only cause more controversy. Science Magazine. ​ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/meta-analyses-were-supposed-end-scientific-d ebates-often-they-only-cause-more u/Orhin_InsaLan (2015). Maps Layout : Hanamura, r/Overwatch [forum post]. Reddit. ​ ​ https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/3hv60v/maps_layout_hanamura/ u/ttovotsttnt, (2016). Support circle jerk: You are Dazzle. r/DotA2 [forum post]. Reddit. ​ ​ https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/50izr1/support_circle_jerk_you_are_dazzle/ videogamedunkey. (2020). videogamedunkey. [YouTube Channel]. YouTube. ​ ​ https://www.youtube.com/user/videogamedunkey

93 Appendix A - Interview Guide

This study is about gamers’ perception of their game communities and behaviours in it. You will choose one (1) competitive online game that you play regularly, although there will be certain questions where you will have the possibility of discussing other video games. Today’s interview will include various questions about your experience with a competitive online game as well as your personal habits of gaming and engagement with the community of said game. The length of the interview will be approximately one hour but no longer than one and a half hours. During this time, your voice will be recorded for the use of the study. At any point of the interview you may choose to exclude certain information, when stated, or end the interview.

By participating in this study you are complying to Södertörn University processing your personal data. More information about how Södertörn University processes personal data is available here. The data ​ ​ gathered for this study will be used exclusively for Azul Romo Flores’ dissertation in Media and Communication studies. After its publication the data and your personal information will be destroyed.

Demographics Game Participant 1. Game 5. Age

2. Experience with game (in years) 6. Gender

3. Experience with similar games (in 7. Occupation years)

4. Weekly play (in hours)

Gaming Capital 8. How did you first come in contact with [this] game? Did you start playing it right away? What was attractive about the game?

9. Do you have friends who play the same game(s) as you? Or friends who play other video games? Or friends that do not share the same interest in video games as you? Do you discuss [game] with your friends who play it?

10. Do you watch any streams or youtube videos of gameplay, game strategies or upcoming patch notes? How often do you do this? Do you interact with others in the chat/comment section?

11. Have you watched professional [game] such as tournaments, world championships, etc.? What do you find interesting about such events? Do you have a favourite professional [game] player? Why?

12. How do you perceive commentators and spectators during streams or live events?

13. Do you engage in online discussions about the game, for example on Twitter or Reddit? Where do you normally engage in such discussions? How often? What type of discussions do you participate in?

14. Are there other similar activities surrounding [game] which you participate in? For example cosplay, local communities, [game] event?

94 15. What character in [game] do you play or like the most? Why?

16. How do you perceive the learning curve for the game?

Toxic Behaviour 17. If I say ‘toxic behaviour’, what does this term mean to you? What actions do you consider to be ‘toxic’?

18. Have you ever experienced toxic behaviour directed at other players? In which ways? How ​ ​ did that make you feel?

19. What do you normally do in a situation where someone is expressing toxicity?

20. Have you ever experienced toxic behaviour directly to you in the game? Outside of the game? ​ ​ How often do you encounter such behaviour? How did this make you feel?

21. Have you expressed toxic behaviour toward others? What did you do? How did it make you feel?

22. In contrast, have you felt encouraged, supported or cheered on by other players during play? In which ways? What actions did they do to encourage you? How did it make you feel?

23. Have you expressed “positive” behaviour back to them or other players?

24. Are you aware of community rules? How did you obtain information about the rules? What do you think of them? Do you follow them? Do you consider these rules and guidelines to be effective?

25. What do you think of the reporting system in the game?

26. During the interview we have discussed [Summary of discussion topics & responses] Is there anything that you would like to add?

95