The majority is clearly right to enforce their rules in this instance, since playing by the professor's rules ("anything goes") would make the game not at all fun.
- It sounds like most people in the zone wanted to fight, they just didn't want people to use the professor's specific tactics, which is eminently reasonable, since the professor's tactics were so powerful as to make fighting no fun.
- The game designers do not make the rules in a multiplayer game. They provide an environment, and they might have rules in mind when they do it, but the players make the rules and define their own limits and conditions for victory and defeat. To say that you're playing "by the rules" because what you're doing is possible in the game is absurd. It's akin to beating people up on the street and insisting that you're not doing anything wrong since you aren't breaking the laws of physics, and God has not struck you down with lightning. In both instances, you will suffer the consequences for your antisocial actions.
Wha? Of course they do. All video games (including MMORPGs) are highly controlled environments and good game designers account for different playing styles.
I think a great example of this comes from Eve-Online: There are no friendly fire restrictions, but people generally agree that shooting your teammate is a bad thing, so it's not generally done. However there are some corporations that have a different culture, and your ship is destroyed by your commander to set an example to keep the fleet in line.
This is one of the main reasons I find Eve interesting; The single shard sandbox style brings out a much more interesting social dynamic. The only game I know of that has a daily updated map of player territories, here's a time lapse of almost 2 years of player warefare, ending with the destruction of one of the in game superpowers, in 59sec: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8MuyMlT9hY
According to the article, all the action took place in an area where heroes and villains are supposed to be dueling each other, but the social norm was to not do that.
If that really is the case, why get mad at a guy who's fighting villains in an area that's all about heroes and villains fighting? Or was that aspect misrepresented in the article?
I don't have an opinion; I'm asking questions because I don't have any direct experience in the game.
If the rules in PvP area specify PvP battles and someone wants to battle that way, that's what they're allowed to do. If he did something illegal, it's up to the game designers to correct that. If he did something unethical, like teleporting a villain to a kill zone, he may be disliked.
At no point, though, should he be threatened with bodily harm or being bullied by the "majority". If they had ignored him and/or engaged him in battle, he'd have no data for his study.
Is that an edict handed down from on high? The majority has the power to enforce rules (they can impose social consequences on rule-breakers) and they usually have a good deal of wisdom about what rules are worth enforcing. They clearly do enforce them, and who says they shouldn't?
I think the fundamental reason that they should is that players are the ones playing the game the most, and in my experience, the most active players usually have a more accurate understanding of what's fun and what's fair than the game designers.
I don't condone death threats; bad behavior comes in all flavors.
No. Any decent multiplayer game is designed and, when necessary, updated to prevent or permit certain actions.