I wasn’t disputing the common definition of experiment. I’m well aware of it. What I was discussing was how that definition doesn’t really work in online spaces and how, if researchers continue to want to study them (which I think they should), new ethical guidelines need to be laid out. This needs to happen both because the spaces are different and because the nature of the experimental model will have to be different. New spaces bring new challenges. Perhaps I should have stuck to the word “study”, but I’ve found that at least in psychology texts the word “experiment” is often used for research that doesn’t exactly fit the standard experimental model and since they are studying these spaces as much as sociologists like yourself, their practices need to be taken into account in the new rules as well.

Your paragraph on online anonymity and oppression is confusing to me. First of all, I’m not sure what oppressing or not oppressing online anonymity inherently has to do with this. I think the issue is subject privacy, the same as in a regular study where you do know who you are studying. I’m not suggesting that if there was a good reason to reveal someone’s identity it shouldn’t be done, but I question whether that is a material point in this discussion. In studying humans, subjects have the right to remain anonymous – that’s a basic tenant of research ethics. What I’m suggesting is that this basic right laid out in every ethical rule set I’ve ever seen, be it for humanities or hard science research, should be extended to subjects of studies done online and that researchers need a better understanding of what it means to keep someone anonymous given things like screen names and avatars, which are less anonymous than people often imagine them to be.

I would love to see “all parties” discussing this issue, but I rarely see researchers discuss this topic (It happens occasionally, but rarely), and you seem to miss the point entirely. Still, thank you for commenting and allowing me to further clarify a few points that you seem to be persistently confused about.

Just saw this. Since no one has left a comment, I will.

1. The notion that online spaces “belong” to their users may be appealing to those who like to own and control things, but it really doesn’t have much basis in fact. In fact, in the case of CoH, as you probably know, NCsoft owns and controls the rules of conduct within the game as well as all game avatars and, importantly, all avatar names. This is beneficial to users in some respects — it protects them from copyright violations, for instance — but when push comes to shove, I think you will agree that the NCsoft EULA is more likely to determine “belonging” than user wishes/desires.

2. An “experiment” normally has a treatment group and a control group. Further, the experimentalist maintains control over the environment in which the experiment takes place, the subjects of the experiment, and the treatment variable(s) involved. In the study to which you refer, there was neither a control group nor “treatment” variables other than the rules of the game to which all player voluntarily subscribed. I had no control over the environment in which play took place, and I had no control over who entered the RV zone and played the pvp game voluntarily therein. Perhaps you intended the term “experiment” in your post to mean “an innovative act or procedure.” If so, then okay. Otherwise, your use of that term needs qualification.

3. In 1987, I published a study called, in part, “Anonymity is part of the magic.” In that study, I concluded that online anonymity allowed online actors to more fully explore behavior and activities that were oppressed and suppressed offline. Currently, my impression is that online anonymity — cherished and protected by those who have come to the online party a little later, such as yourself — is more often used as a means to oppress than as as means to avoid oppression. While anonymity and user privacy remain valuable and important, there is now evidence to believe that online anonymity and privacy should be tempered with a strong measure of social responsibility.

Some of the evidence:

There’s this story in the Huffington Post: http://is.gd/2usFA-
And this result in London :http://is.gd/2usIJ-
And this from Australia: http://is.gd/2usJR-
And, of course, what happened/is happening to Twixt/me.

Regardless of the benefits and freedoms of anonymity, there are boundaries that the anonymous should acknowledge and respect. It may be useful, therefore, to discuss ethical issues in broader and more realistic and relevant contexts than those you describe. Like you, I would like to see this discussion take place — but only if this discussion can equally and openly include all parties involved.