Culture Clash

(June 2005)

W00T, Suxx0rz

ppl who liked this book fall into 1 of 2 categories: ppl who want 2 be like evr1 else, and ppl who want to act smart & impress others. forget the hype – this is NOT harry potter 4 adults. Nothing happens; its long & plodding & never goes anywhere. i discourage evr1 from reading this book… its just pretentious & boring.

That's a quote from an online book review, made especially ironic because many qualified individuals are calling the novel in question of the most compelling, lyrically beautiful contributions to literature in 25 years. The above reviewer clearly has a commanding power over the English language; he or she just chose not to use it.

The ability to speak, write and communicate in general has been painfully eroded in the past several years. Instant messaging, online games and email have all contributed to the cornholing of language – though there's debate on whether that's good or bad. One concern is that much of the jargon is creeping into mainstream communication. While adults who remember a time when “alright” was spelled all right see a distinction, the generation that sprang from the womb thumbing their Sidekick won't. Sure, m4d ph@ 133t5p33k 5x1llz r0xxorz when you're communicating with friends, but it'll get you pwn3d if you try it on a college admissions essay. We need an English-to-Nonsense dictionary to understand IM as it is. Where are we going to be in 20 years?

Concerns over the future sanctity of our language exemplified by the above abomination of a quote are but one problem associated with how new technology has altered communication. But there's another issue more directly related to gaming: the breakdown of our ability to interact in a civil manner. Anyone who plays anything online receives regular reports about their mothers' sexual habits; their own proclivities with animals; their personal, racial and religious shortcomings and any number of other topics not historically discussed at the dinner table. Some just assume that there are more jerks in the world than we'd originally imagined. Others more rightly suggest that the medium itself encourages people to verbalize the abusive, racist, and otherwise obnoxious.

Politicos often try to divert attention from their failure to combat social problems by speculating on the deleterious effect violent games have on kids. Considering the lack of supporting evidence and failure of legislative efforts, one would think they'd try a different tactic. After all, consider the viciousness of insults commonly bandied during, say, a Halo 2 session. We know that most parents don't bother to even wonder what their kids are doing, so it's safe to assume that young people are hearing this inappropriate stuff. Are they going to know that it's not appropriate? Will they be able to differentiate between trash talk and a conversation with their boss or teacher? Headsets and VoIP mean that we're actually saying this stuff now, not just typing it. It's torn down one of the last separators between real conversation and the stuff that goes on in a MUX.

The biggest problem with online games is the people you encounter while playing. Everyone else is just a microphone to the player, and vice versa. There's no societal taboo against telling a microphone that its sister fellates reptiles. The anonymity and consequence-free nature of the communication practically guarantees bad behavior. If it were possible to rob banks without any danger of getting caught, we'd have a lot more bank robbers. The entire human mind is built upon cause and effect, action and reaction – conduct and consequence. It's how we're wired.

Developers, publishers and online services are in no way responsible for regulating the language and behavior of their subscribers. The first argument against that responsibility is that it isn't their problem; the second, that these games are usually intended and rated for grownups. Moreover, it would cost too much and probably offer no tangible return to institute a policing mechanism that punishes players for crossing the line. The simple fact is that just listing the rules doesn't seem to work, and there's no practical reason to enforce a standard of communicative decency.

Which doesn't make the lack of decency okay. A lot of the talk online has become the Rockstar Games of communication – free to say what it says, but often going too far and usually hurting more than it helps. Harmless trash talk is one thing; threats, racism, and explicitly inappropriate behavior is another. There's a real concern that it's going to negatively impact younger generations who play these games. This concern is way more valid than the trite claim that seeing pixels get blown up will turn kids into serial killers. It's put a little tarnish in our ability to function as social animals, and while it won't lead to mass extinction, we could all do without it.

Rather than an expensive, impractical and almost certainly unworkable policing mechanism, developers should consider a simple opt-in protocol. When registering to play online, include queries about the gamer's normal behavior. Make it clear that answering “yes” to I often use profanity or slurs when communicating with opponents won't get you banned; it's just an organizational tool. Then group the like-minded gamers together and give them access only to one another. The immature can call each other cocksticks all they want, while the mature can actually enjoy the game. Given that people tend to like being around philosophically similar individuals, it might be surprising just how honest gamers are willing to be.

Language and manners alike evolve. It happens. We'd all be considered boorish gutter slime by Victorian standards. But evolution, by nature, is organic, and receives widespread societal acceptance. The anonymity and speed of online communication don't encourage such calculated growth, and the real-world risks associated with virtual-world communication might endanger more than just the apostrophe and comma.