Topic

Never mind.

ETA - Never mind. Ignore this.

Do you save chat logs? If so, would you mind sharing them with me?

I'm looking for some data for a discourse analysis project for my Sociological & Psychological Aspects of Language course. If you'd like to help me, that would be awesome! I will not disclose anyone's real name; I'm just looking for some text, and using chat logs will be much simpler and quicker than reviewing forum posts. My goal is to analyze politeness in our developing speech community. 

Personally, I've found Glitch to be the gosh darn NICEST mmorpg I've ever played. I'd like a chance to prove that with some data. Thanks.

PS - I emailed TS about a month ago asking for some chat logs, but I haven't gotten a response yet. =(

Posted 13 months ago by Tonya Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • I'd love to help out with your project. Can you be more specific about what you are looking for? What kind of locations do you want logs from (streets, groups, IM) and how long a conversation?
    Posted 13 months ago by Meridian Subscriber! | Permalink
  • You can copy the text of your local/group/IM/global chat window by clicking the little arrow and selecting "copy to clipboard" 

    I imagine that's not at all what you're after, but it will get you some text. And I thought it was pretty neat when I found out about it recently. 

    I don't know that TS would give you their chat logs... Not sure their privacy policy covers giving chat logs out for someone else's research (as opposed to them engaging a 3rd party to analyse it for them).  I would certainly imagine that if they were to give you that information, there would need to be legal gubbins defining/restricting your use of that data. 
    Posted 13 months ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Sorry for the delay in replying. Been a busy few days.

    What I'm looking for is just a straight-up "copy to clipboard" junk of text, preferably from global chat. If I could get a few of these from different players covering different game days, that would be incredible.

    I wish the game automatically stored chat logs client-side -- and I wish I would have been keeping global chat all along. FROWNY FACE.
    Posted 13 months ago by Tonya Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I like the spirit of this, but would TS consider this a violation of their privacy policy? I realize there's been no official response, but hopefully this thread will prompt one.

    Personally, I'm not quite sure I'm comfortable with this and may opt to avoid global for the duration of your research. Alternately, if applicable, please remove me from any logs.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I really don't want any of my online conversations used in your research.  This is a private site so I expect you to follow the site's privacy policies.  I especially don't want any of my conversations included in any publications you may create from your research, and I would hope that you'd get permission to include anyone else's private conversations before you publish.  
    Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm kinda with Xev on this one... I like the idea of what you wanna do, but I did not sign up to be part of a study when I signed up to play Glitch. Are there not approved methods and procedures that go along with the collection of this kind of data? Or does that not apply to your situation? F'rinstance, my uni's stance is thus: The “research” projects done by students as assignments in our regular, scheduled undergraduate classes do not require IRB approval. They are considered instructional, and not research. No application need be made, although the instructor is expected to ensure that the same ethical procedures are adhered to as would be expected of a project approved by the IRB. This often includes obtaining consent from subjects who are not students in the class. (emphasis mine.) Maybe I'm getting too serious or judge-y myself, but part of what makes Glitch so gol' durned nice for me is not having to wonder who might be analytically peering at what I'm doing. (whew, wall o' text!)

    If TS decides to give you chat logs, I believe it may well be within their rights as outlined in their TOS. *shrugs* Beyond that, it kinda makes me wriggle uncomfortably in my chair and want to avoid Global even more. I get that you'd like to exhibit our awesomeness in your project, and that's pretty cool, but I don't wanna feel like I have to guard my speech and actions against out-of-context judgements like I do pretty much everywhere else on Teh Intarwebs. 

    KEEP GLITCH AWESOMELY WEIRD! ('tis a silly place!)
    Posted 13 months ago by Jennyanydots Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Kinda have to agree with Xev and jennyanydots on this one...
    Posted 13 months ago by Dahlia DreadNaught Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yeah, sorry, much as I love sociology and this kinda thing in certain contexts, I do not love the feeling that I'm under a microscope.

    I assume you are going about this with the intention of getting consent from those you will be including in your research. I personally decline to be included.

    Perhaps creating a group chatroom specifically for this project might be the better way to go. Anyone who wants to be involved can be, and by participating, they knowingly consent.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • don't you need university ethics approval to do that?
    Posted 13 months ago by Geeki Yogini Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yeah, that's the thing. To start with, you'd need IRB approval of your study via your school and you'd probably need consent of every single person that is in the log, too. Everyone would have to sign release forms that explain your study, how the information is used, etc. 

    It's really not as easy as simply asking for chat logs, I'm afraid.
    Posted 13 months ago by Laerwen Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Well, never mind, then.

    *wanders back to the drawing board*
    Posted 13 months ago by Tonya Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I wish the game stored more chat logs.   I hate when data gets deleted and can't be accessed.  
    Posted 13 months ago by Treesa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Msg - from my husband (an academic with an interest in games, game theory and popular culture) to you Tonya

    Folks are right that you'll need ethics approval but don't let that stop you as Glitch could make a really interesting study group for this type of thing. I'm sure that many players here would be happy to provide approval for a study like this (bearing in mind that the ethics approval is as much for their protection as it is for you). In fact looking at doing original research like that is something that most academics would be in favour of and the extra effort in getting academic approval is just a reflection of the validity of your topic.

    And from me Arietty again - good luck with your research project!
    Posted 13 months ago by Arietty Subscriber! | Permalink
  • As an academic in a previous life - if you get ethics approval, go for it!  Just be respectful of people who don't want to be included in your research.  Which could get kind of complicated if one party to a chat declines to participate, particularly in multi-party chats.
    Posted 13 months ago by dmnddgs Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Which is why I think setting up a group chat would work best. Yes, it would lengthen the time required for your research, but it's probably the simplest way to go.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • What I'm looking for is just a straight-up "copy to clipboard" junk of text, preferably from global chat.

    You can do that in precisely the way that I described -  as long as you're online and looking at global chat
    Posted 13 months ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Tonya, there are ethical ways to go about research without consent from every participant! Covert research is often required in circumstances just like this -- the data would be compromised if individuals knew they were being studied.  There are indeed ethics requirements, largely to make sure that you're fully anonymizing people's information, but if you're concerned about how to do that just run it by your professor.  I've done similar sociological research myself back in my undergrad days, so if you've got questions or just want to chat about it feel free to IM me any time.  

    Also, I can't see any real issues with using Global Chat -- that and Live Help are public channels and don't carry any expectation of privacy (that's an important phrase right there).  You know absolutely anyone can access what you say there when you join it.  
    Posted 13 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Magic Monkey - I totally disagree that there is no expectation of privacy in the chats. You need to be a member and have signed on to the TOS to read and participate in chats. While the forums may be publicallly accessable, searchable and viewable, the chats are not. So, releases are necessary.
    Posted 13 months ago by Green Meanie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There's no restrictions on who can sign up, though.  Without a visible breach of the ToS, agreeing to it doesn't mean much of anything -- anyone could get a free email address, use it to sign up, and sit in the chat as a silent level 1 player.
    Posted 13 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Frankly, I think the forums are a better way to go in terms of understanding how the community works and evolves. There's a clear and concrete track record, and it IS public with far less expectation of privacy than the chat.

    In chat, the context is important, and because it's impossible to have the full context of communication in the chat room (and out), I don't think it's half as reliable a source for a study of this kind. 

    The point is moot however, since it seems Tonya has abandoned this idea. But I would have been interested to know more about the scope and goal of the project. That said, this worried me: " and using chat logs will be much simpler and quicker than reviewing forum posts."

    Forum posts represent more reliable and rich data. There's a clear cause and effect relationship between forum posts/threads, and you can track and identify the types of posts as they happen. Yes, it's harder to map chronologically because of a limited search, but keyword search is a boon here.

    Topics that affect the community as a whole are explored in depth on the forums. The subjects explored tend to be topical, rather than irreverent or personal. The "topics" in global tend to be a hodgepodge and would realistically be a nightmare to wade through if you were trying to prove a hypothesis about the community as a whole and how it evolves in terms of "niceness." Niceness being my understanding of the purpose of this study. Additionally, the type of logs that are saved (and have been saved) likely aren't typical of global. That's probably why they've been saved in the first place. Who saves mundane chat logs?

    Likewise, because global chats have no traceable chronology - they exist out of time for the most part, in the sense that there is no cause and effect - it's tough to prove or disprove any hypothesis as there can never really be an evolution of anything. The same new people questions are asked, and "regulars" have no set pattern or presence. Since you can't get chatlogs by any set date, you couldn't map people's presence to begin with, and certainly not without identifying them, making any anonymity pretty much a joke.

    Without understanding the scope of this now abandoned project, I can't really poke holes in it, but my guess is that a study based on chat logs would be superficial at best. I think a lot of the tricky problems associated with it (including what would be considered an invasion of privacy) can be avoided by focusing on the forums.

    This is especially true since the tone and behavior differs pretty radically between global and forums, and there's a clear context - each thread is its own topic, and the posts within relate to that topic. The topics themselves have a tangible relationship with one another and can be mapped. It's more work, but probably a much better outcome. I'd be ok with being included in THAT type of study.

    Again, I think TS should comment on whether or not that's ok, but forum threads ARE very public. Likewise, it's a lot easier to maintain people's anonymity and focus on the larger evolution of the community.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • What is possible (silent Level 1 player copying chat logs) is not what is ethical.  A student planning a "research" project may need to be reminded of professional ethical restrictions even if the rest of us should be mindful of the ease with which an unethical person could do the same thing.  
    Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree that the student should find another source for discourse samples, and perhaps talk with the professor about ethical considerations for this type of research.  There are ways to collect discourse samples that do not require informed consent.

    Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in global chat?  Personally, I wouldn't count on it. Consider the analogy of being in a private club in a room full of people, and you are talking loud enough for anyone in the room to hear what you say.  Would it be unethical for a journalist to quote you?
    Posted 13 months ago by Splendora Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think there are a few expectations based on what we know about global chat: 

    1) It isn't easy to access. You must be both logged into the site AND in-game in order to have access to the chat.

    2) Presence is anonymous. Your presence is only known if you speak in the chat. There's no way to log who is present and who isn't, and people are frequently kicked mid-conversation. This adds a weird chaos to the entire thing, and makes it very difficult to evaluate participation. More on this in a moment.

    3) There's no archive, and no effective way to log chat activities as a user. (I'm sure TS can).

    4) Blocking now creates ignore functionality for certain players. This makes communication intriguingly ambiguous. It is possible to carry on a communication in the chat room between multiple participants, but not realize it. For instance, if person A blocks person B, and person A says something, person B and person C can respond. Person A can carry on a conversation with person B and C without realizing it, thinking they are only interacting with person C.

    Without knowing who has blocked whom, it's impossible to tell if this is happening, or if any perceived misfire in communication is just that, a misfire.

    It isn't so much an expectation of privacy, but an expectation of context. A third party source will have no way of knowing the various contexts of the communication that takes place there. Sidebar conversations (outside of the chatroom) are also frequent, and those are indeed private. Consequently, it's very difficult for a third party to analyze the community conversation and come up with any concrete results. 

    A vastly more reliable source of context is the forums. There's a clear cut chronology, evolution and context for each and every post. Hell, each post is even timestamped.  Everything that happens here is pretty much above board. It's MUCH less feasible for participants to create a separate context for discussions. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I honestly don't see how privacy applies to Chat, especially if the researcher anonymizes names.

    There's no essential connection between a Glitch name and person in the world, unless the person deliberately chooses to make that public on their profile. But even in that case, if the researcher changes all names and thus anonymizes the data, how could that possibly be construed as unethical?

    I have long wished I could be a fly on the wall (virtually) and have access to the rich data generated by a virtual world such as Glitch. There must be material for many, many theses waiting to be mined therein!
    Posted 13 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It is unethical to do such studies while in school. However major online businesses do these things as part or all of their revenue stream. So wait until there are no peers to (re)view the data you collect, just your boss.
    Posted 13 months ago by Parrow Gnolle Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'd like to point out that presence in a chat is not anonymous as all you have to do to see who is in the chat at a given time is type /who. Unless that command doesn't work in Global, anyway. I've only been in Global once or twice. It works in all other chats I've been in though.
    Posted 13 months ago by Little Miss Giggles Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "each post is even timestamped".

    Except that the time stamp is for the original post.  The original post can be edited, re-written entirely, or deleted except for a single letter, number or punctuation mark.  

    There is no possible way to know whether any of those have happened unless the writer themselves posts details of the changes. 
    Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Pascale, there are ethics rules that apply to research on human beings.  Every university has to follow those ethics rules and work to make sure everyone associated with the university (including students) complies with them.  They risk losing most of their federal funding if they don't.  

    One of those rules is to obtain consent from your research subjects before you collect their data.
    Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Windborn - you're right, the forums are by no means perfect. I'm simply stating they're a more reliable source of data than global chat.

    @Little Miss Giggles - that would be interesting to test out. I'll try it tonight and update, unless someone beats me to the punch. It's still not the most reliable gauge of who's actively in the chat (lurking or no). But since this research would theoretically be anonymous, whether or not a list of participants can be obtained isn't as relevant. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • /who lists the participants in Global

    What it does not list is whether or not that screen is visible to a particular participant.  You can be "present" in quite a few chats without ever looking at them.
    Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Exactly, my point being that it's not a reliable source of information about who is "active." There's no way to tell, even with list functionality.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Windborn, your information is incomplete.  Research does not require informed consent in all cases.  For example: "In social and behavioral sciences, any research involving human subjects requires informed consent if (1) identifying information is recorded and (2) disclosure could place the participant at risk for criminal or civil liability or damage to their financial standing, employability or reputation, or if the research involves a vulnerable population." from http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/montana_round1/human.html#issues 

    None of those things apply here.  Informed consent is not required.  There are no ethical dilemmas for a scientific researcher in obtaining data if there's no risk to participants.

    As to the difficulties in analyzing Global Chat, some can be acknowledged within the paper itself as a limitation of the medium (for example, the disconnects/random chat freezes) and others can be included as factors (silent participants, the inability to know who's listening and who isn't paying attention).  The latter would probably make for interesting research by itself.  Neither of those, though, are massive obstacles to an analysis of politeness.  The only significant impact would be the inability to know why someone stopped responding, but there's also some interesting research to do in noting the varying reactions people have to that.

    Also, while most countries require some sort of similar ethics standards, you should not assume that the individual in question is in the US.
    Posted 13 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Completely unrelated to the posts above me, just wanted to say, Tonya - this isn't an inherently bad idea. It's an interesting topic, and that's why it's kinda spiraled and people are still talking about it. I know you're no longer pursuing this, but I meant it when I said I liked the spirit of this. 

    I think I can speak for all when I say no one meant to discourage you from doing this, per se, but rather address the concerns of the community and see if we could compromise so that you could still conduct research without necessarily upsetting the community. (Someone will always be upset. No matter what). 

    I'm personally very interested to hear more about your hypotheses about this community, especially from a sociological perspective. This entire thing is a pretty fascinating social experiment with lots of potential for study. Though it may not serve for this particular paper, it might be worth it to set the ground work for a more long-term paper. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • When it comes to the consent issue, Magic Monkey is correct.  Windborn is incorrect.  

    As for privacy, anyone can register for the game, and anyone can join any chat channel.  Anyone who has an expectation of privacy is deluded.  Names are pseudonyms to begin with, and it is debatable whether those need to be changed -- identifying a player/avatar is not the same as identifying the individual.  

    You do not need permission to copy public chat logs, and if you add pseudonyms for the pseudonyms there isn't even a debate as to whether it identifies the individuals.  Don't be discouraged by any negative reaction here.  Don't quit pursuing this angle if it still interests you.  It's as fair and ethical as sitting on a bench in a park and anonymously recording conversations you hear.  Such a recording would have no legal standing in my state, but without giving names would violate no laws and need no further ethical considerations or consent.  

    Ignore the peanut gallery.  I would.  
    Posted 13 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink