And Justice for All: The 10 Commandments of Online Games, and Then Some

This paper examines the rules that players themselves create to govern guilds in massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs) and clans in first-person shooter (FPS) games. Drawing on game studies frameworks and social science theories of groups and norms, the authors analyze 30 rule sets, comprising 20 MMOG guilds and 10 FPS clans, gathered from a convenience sample of online sources. The work's central argument is that these player-authored codes function as a form of governance that fills gaps left by the games' formal rules, particularly around social conduct and fairness, which the authors term "implicit rules." The study's scope is limited to publicly posted rule sets and does not assess how the rules are enforced in practice or what individual players believe about them.

The analysis finds substantial agreement across both genres on conduct norms, most notably a zero-tolerance stance toward racist and sexist remarks, along with shared definitions of cheating. Variation appears chiefly in how sanctions are applied and how strictly commitment is enforced. Nearly all FPS clans stress being a good ambassador, and most discourage "double claning," while MMOG guilds place greater weight on resource distribution, with raiding guilds most focused on loot systems such as DKP and practices like ninja looting, which appears in seven guilds. Raiding guilds and competitive clans display more instrumental, results-oriented structures, whereas MMOG guilds generally prioritize social cohesion and rely on warnings as their principal sanction.

The authors conclude that the two genres share norms of respect and anti-discrimination, but that the online character of MMOGs and the mechanical differences between game types shape distinct rule priorities. FPS clans concentrate more on cheating through code alteration and exploits, often framed by reference to end-user license agreements. The authors also propose distinguishing intra-group from inter-group grief play as a useful analytic step. Because the sanction data in the accompanying appendix is preliminary and drawn from a limited sample, the findings are best read as exploratory.