Normally when a villain tries to kill you, you can at least fight him. He was killing people for which "PvP mode was not enabled".
* Going to PvP-specific areas only (i.e. areas where 'hero' player characters are meant to fight 'villain' player characters)
* Using 'in-character' communication to indicate he wanted to fight villains, like heroes in that area supposedly do. His character was a hero.
* Using a teleport power to move some nearby villain player characters near non-player-characters, who would then kill the villains.
* Subsequently using 'in-character' communication to cheer about having killed villains.
* This was a major issue because many, many players in those player-vs-player (hero vs villain) areas instead would use the areas for 'farming,' i.e. trying to get experience points (or in-character currency) by killing non-player-characters instead.
* The 'written vs. unwritten rules' that he broke were specifically the customs of what players were actually doing in those areas (farming) vs what the game designers had intended them to do (kill each other).
That conflict between the intended purpose of a game's aspects and how others reacted to it being used that way is the main focus of that professor's article. He seemed to expect for people to suspend their disbelief and remain fully in-character, i.e. following the game's ostensible in-character limitations.
And, ah yes, farming! I think I love a player who disrupts that disgustingly boring cycle that ruins the interest in most online worlds. No wonder they hated him, he disrupted their farming!
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding, but he was killing "Villains" as a "Hero" character, at least as his primary personna. He did use "alts" for further testing and just to enjoy the game as well. He did not use glitches or bugs. He did exploit the rules to their fullest, but in most truly competitive games that is expected.
He did kill "Villains" that were not looking for PVP, but he only did so in zones that were designed (or at least had the stated purpose) of being designated PVP areas. I do not play "City of Heroes" or any other MMORPG currently but my understanding from his description of the zone is that at least by the stated purpose anyone in those zones should expected to be attacked.
As I understand it, he was accurately roleplaying a "Hero", albiet a ruthless one.
Looking at it from a storyline point of view, it's really cool. The city is overrun by villians, while the nominal "heroes" of the city rest on their laurels, or cower in their mansions. Then, from nowhere, a true hero: Twixt! The villians try everything they can, including banding together en-masse, but are unable to topple the City's Savior! Biff! Pow! Zap!
I don't think that's right. The original nola.com article (linked to in this one) says: "Eventually, according to the game's design, the players -- who can choose to play as either heroes or villains -- gain access into an area where they should battle each other. The battles are designed to distinguish the most skilled players."
So he plays PvP.
Also, the point of the game (or at least its original concept) was that you have Heroes and Villains and the two factions fight each other. He played as a Hero and fought Villains. As you're supposed to.
The issue is that most players don't want to do that, so instead Heroes become friends with Villains, team up and mix socially.
When this guy comes along and griefs Villains (using underhanded but not illegal methods) he's playing by the rules of the game but not by the social contract of its inhabitants. Their reaction is what makes it interesting.
Other users were using an area designed for free combat as a social zone. Perhaps the designers should have created a safe social zone, if that was such a popular thing to have.
He's doing that because he can't attack them. And they can't attack him either. it says:
> the victim has no chance to retaliate
They mean literally. If he was just attacking people who could attack him, in a zone where PvP is enabled, it wouldn't be called griefing.
Also someone in comments below says they have patched this stuff now. Legitimate behaviors don't get patched.
Having said that, however, he did not engage villains in combat, but rather teleport them to a kill zone. That's unethical, for sure. Had he simply engaged villains, I'd see nothing wrong with that. If other players don't want to kill villains, even if that's their job as heroes, that's their problem.