The game I designed is called Gateway. The idea behind the game is very simple. One person pays to get onto the T and everyone else tries to follow. You try to see how many people you can get through to the T without paying. Technically this is illegal so you should be careful when playing, but it is most likely something that almost everyone has done. If you do get caught the odds are that no one is going to get too mad at you and will most likely just make you pay again. Interestingly enough I got this idea when I was home in New York. The New York City MTA loses hundreds of millions of dollars each year due to people hopping the turnstile. Many native New Yorkers who are younger refuse to pay most of the time that they ride the subway instead electing to jump straight over. This causes the government to raise prices on tickets and even raise taxes in order to provide the people with public transit. In the end that means that the people who do pay are paying more for the people who do not. Morally this is wrong however typically the people who would pay are going to be the ones who are more financially stable. This is why it ends up being younger people who are jumping over. In Boston you typically cannot jump over due to the design of the gates however it is easy to walk through after the person in front of you. If no one is around to get you in trouble then who cares. My game involves getting as many people through the gate as possible without getting caught before the gate closes. The record…6. I have probably done more in my time here in Boston but my friends and I rarely take the T anymore and did not feel like getting caught during play testing.

The idea is inspired by DADA. The T is more important for some people than others, for some it may be to go downtown to go on a shopping spree, but for others it could be commuting to work where you are underpaid and you have to spend hundreds of dollars each year that you cannot afford to lose. DADA often stood up against the government for various ideas they did not support, often being anti-regime. I believe this does the same thing. In some way it is meant to symbolize how there is a level of inequality in the payment of the T. Not everyone is paying what they can afford to pay yet they are paying nonetheless because they have to use it. While there is no real solution to this it does seem unfair that people pay the same amount regardless of whether or not they are able to. Transportation is a necessity and while it needs to be funded, some who need to use it cannot afford the build up that it is costing them.

NBA2K25 MyPark Social Behavior Study

Overview

The way this NBA2K25 study looks at how players act online is really similar to what these artists called Fluxus did back in the 1960s. These Fluxus people, especially this guy George Maciunas, would set up these “Fluxus festivals” where they’d basically watch how people acted and reacted to different situations – kind of like a social experiment but they called it art. In the same way, this NBA2K25 study breaks down how players behave in the game, like when someone goes from being toxic to suddenly being nice, or how people act differently when they’re in a group. Just like Fluxus wanted to show that everyday interactions could be worth studying, this project shows that even trash talk and friendships in a basketball video game can tell us something interesting about how people act around each other. Whether it’s people at an art show in the ’60s or gamers on NBA2K today, both projects basically show that you can learn a lot about people by just watching how they interact.

Objective: To observe and document player reactions to changes in social behavior within NBA2K25’s MyPark environment. Location: MyPark voice/game chat Purpose: Analyze how players respond to shifts in communication style and whether toxic behavior can be influenced.

Experiment Scenarios

Initial Scenario 1: Toxic to Nice (Individual) Initial State: Exhibited toxic behavior Progression:

1. Initial toxic interaction
   • Me: “You’re trash at this game, uninstall bro”
   • Them: “Whatever, you’re just spamming cheese”
   • Me: “Grown A** man being this bad at a video game is crazy”
   • Them: “Talk when you learn how to shoot”
2. Post-loss interaction
   • Them: “Hold that L you toxic *****”
   • Me: “That’s what you get for playing like that”
   • Them: “Scoreboard don’t lie”
   • Me: “Your peoples would be real disappointed by this performance”
3. Slight improvement in tone but still condescending
   • Me: “Hey, at least you’re trying. Maybe stick to rookie mode though?”
   • Them: “Still won tho”
   • Me: “Next time do [this, this and that] so you can stop me”
   • Them: “Nobody asked for your advice *****”
4. Second game victory
   • Me: “You getting better man good job!”
   • Them: “Don’t act nice now after being toxic”
   • Me: “Nah fr though, good adjustments”
   • Them: “Whatever man…”
5. Third game being nice
   • Me: “What’s your name how are you?”
   • Them: “Why you switching up now?”
   • Me: “Say you actually pretty good I can’t lie”
   • Them: “Yo, why you trynna be so nice all sudden chill”
6. Outcome
   • Me: “GG man, you’ve tuff. Add me if you want to run some games”
   • Them: “You bipolar or something?”
   • Me: “Nah just tired of the toxic stuff”
   • Them: “Ight bet, but no more toxic stuff”

Scenario 2: Toxic to Nice (Group Setting) Initial State: Group toxicity towards opponents Progression:

1. Initial group toxic behavior
   • Us: “Yall some **** straight garbage fr”
   • Them: “Says the **** with 0 points”
   • Us: “Deleting the game might help your IQ levels”
   • Them: “1v1 me you scared **** “
2. Post-loss interaction
   • Them: “Hold that L bozos”
   • Us: “Y’all got lucky with that **** cheese”
   • Them: “Cry more, skill issue”
   • Us: “Touch grass you **** sweats”
3. Individual shift
   • Me: “Come on guys, they’re not that bad”
   • Team: “Nah **** them they’re dogwater”
   • Them: “At least someone got sense”
   • Team: “You switching sides now? **** outta here”
4. Victory interaction
   • Me: “Good games anyway”
   • Them: “You cool but your squad toxic af”
   • Team: “Still trash tho frfr uninstall”
   • Them: “3-1 scoreboard don’t lie”

Scenario 3: Targeted Toxicity with Defenders Initial State: Group targeting one player Progression:

1. Initial targeting
   • Team: “This PG selling harder than a garage sale”
   • PG: “My bad, I’m new to point”
   • Team: “My grandma got better handles than this ****”
   • PG: “Yall dont gotta be like that fr”
   • Them: “Leave gang alone”
   • Team: “Or what LMAOOOO”
2. Performance criticism
   • Team: “7 turnovers?! Delete the build expeditiously”
   • PG: “Chill bru im new”
   • Team: “Actual NPC behavior right here”
   • PG: “How bout you guard your man instead of ****riding me”
   • Them: “Nah i cant lie you playin like *** gang”
   • Them: “Yea I can’t even defend you”
   • PG: “Bru what??”
   • Them: “LOCK IN DUMB***”
3. Other team jumps in
   • Team: “Yall really bullying your own teammate?”
   • Them: “Wasn’t yall just talkin ya own ****? Mind ya business before you catch these L’s too”
   • Team: “1v1 after this, put your VC where your mouth is”
   • Them: “Bet pull up then”
4. Unexpected turn
   • Team: “Your PG ain’t even bad, yall just ball hogging”
   • Them: “Now we got ops defending sells, I’m done”
   • PG: “Thanks but I don’t need yall pity”
   • Team: “Just saying they toxic for no reason”
   • PG: “Yall the idiots who started it”

Scenario 4: Nice to Toxic (Individual) Initial State: Positive behavior Progression:

1. Initial friendly
   • Me: “Nice shot selection bro”
   • Them: “Thanks fam, you got good IQ”
   • Me: “We could go crazy if we sync up”
   • Them: “No cap, let’s cook”
2. Post-loss shift
   • Me: “Bro what are these passes…”
   • Them: “Maybe if you hit an open shot”
   • Me: “You playing with your monitor off?”
   • Them: “Least I don’t play like I got parkinsons”
3. Full meltdown
   • Me: “My dead dog got better stick skills”
   • Them: “Crazy how you went from nice to **** real quick”
   • Me: “Crazy how you went from decent to selling”
   • Them: “You the type to cry in park cuz you lost yo vc fr”
4. Peak toxicity
   • Me: “You the reason 2K needs parental controls”
   • Them: “All that talk but won’t 1v1”
   • Me: “**** go back to Fortnite kid”
   • Them: “Your mom should’ve closed her legs”

Scenario 5: Nice to Toxic to Nice Initial State: Positive meeting mild toxicity Progression:

1. Initial friendly
   • Me: “Clean moves bro!”
   • Them: “Whatever, you just cheese screens”
   • Me: “Just tryna hoop fr”
   • Them: “You call that hooping? **** pathetic”
2. Energy matching
   • Me: “Shooting bricks like you building a house”
   • Them: “Still dropped 21 on your head”
   • Me: “With 12 shot attempts you **** ball hog”
   • Them: “Better than yo selling ***”
3. Cooling down
   • Me: “We both acting childish rn”
   • Them: “You started being toxic tho”
   • Me: “This community toxic enough already”
   • Them: “Facts, mb for getting heated”
4. Resolution
   • Me: “Run it back? No toxic this time”
   • Them: “Bet, lemme hop on my guard build”
   • Me: “Ight don’t sell tho lmao”
   • Them: “Only W’s from here”
     

     Key Observations

     • Toxic behavior intensifies after losses but often initiates from early-game mistakes (missed shots, turnovers)
     • Players are more likely to become toxic when teammates reinforce negative comments
     • Initial plays heavily influence the match’s social dynamic
     • Solo players tend to adapt their behavior based on group majority
     • Defensive players receive most toxic comments, especially after opponent scores
     • Players maintain toxic behavior longer when supported by teammates
     • Direct confrontation typically escalates toxicity while indirect positivity can de-escalate

     Patterns Observed

     1. Players show strong initial resistance to attitude changes, often interpreting positivity as sarcasm or weakness
     2. Individual reform happens gradually over 3-4 games while group toxicity tends to be self-reinforcing
     3. “Alpha” players (highest rep/score) heavily influence group behavior
     4. Toxicity peaks after game-changing plays (turnovers, missed open shots)
     5. Players are more receptive to positive feedback after showcasing individual skill
     6. Cross-team defenders of targeted players often escalate rather than defuse situations
     7. Victory often softens players’ receptiveness to positive interaction
     8. Early-game toxicity is harder to reform than late-game reactions

Players of competitive online video games know the struggle all too well: chat can be a pretty ugly place. Whether it’s trash talk, someone blaming their own team, or offensive remarks, toxicity is in no short supply. Chat filters, community moderators, and increased awareness of toxicity can curtail this to a degree, but players don’t need to wait for someone else to stop the toxicity for them- they can confront it themselves, and with little effort required.

My online intervention took place in the ROBLOX first-person shooter game “Phantom Forces”. It is a fast paced game where players fight each other in teams with different weapons and if your character dies, you can respawn within a few seconds, creating a competitive and captivating experience.

My strategy was simple: if someone is being toxic, respond to them immediately, and say something. Anything at all. Do not verbally attack them, just respond. My goal is to lower the chat’s hostility level and remind the players to have fun.

But this raises the question: “If it’s a chat and a player is saying things you don’t like, why don’t you just block them?” This is a valid question. I completely understand blocking players who are insufferably toxic or you don’t have the energy to deal with. No player should have to be obligated to respond to every little thing because sometimes we just want to have fun. However, I want to change other people’s behavior. I want to bring to light the fact that people can fight toxicity a different way, by directly confronting it and maybe changing some minds.

For example, if someone says:

• “My team is trash” respond with something like “What do you mean?”
  • This ensures that you acknowledge the toxicity without attacking them.
• “Player X is so bad at this game” respond with something like “It’s just a game, you don’t have to get upset over it.”
  • This emphasizes the fact that they are playing a video game and should not be attacking others over it.
  • This reminds the player not to get upset. Everyone is playing this to have fun!
• If a player says something blatantly offensive, respond with something like “You probably shouldn’t be saying that.”
  • This calls out the offensive remark without escalating the situation further, which might prompt them to continue or say worse things.

I ran this intervention multiple times, in different servers to ensure a fresh set of players each session. I would first play a few rounds saying nothing in the chat as a control, and then I would play the following rounds doing my intervention strategy.

Session C: Changing the Vibes

In my third session of this intervention, I had encountered a server where the game chat had a feeling of frustration and agitation. The game ended with only 3 “good game” messages, and it felt cold and tense.

One player was upset with other players for “camping” in the game, a strategy where you stay in one place hidden and wait for other players to walk past you so you can take them by surprise. As it is a video game, I wanted to emphasize that people have different ways of playing the game so I responded with that and said that it is simply a matter of planning and strategy to counteract players who camp. My chat messages are highlighted in pink.

The match went on and it felt like my comments were ignored, but luckily one of the players who was upset earlier asked a question about one of the weapons in the game, asking if it was good.

I saw this as an opportunity to respond to deflect the attention away from the negativity in the chat and help to open a discussion about the game itself. After many players began to chime in on their opinions of the weapons in the game, the vibe of the match took a turn and it felt like a casual conversation between a bunch of friends, despite the fact we were all strangers.

The vibes had changed so much that by the end of the game, many more players were saying “gg” meaning “good game”, prompting one player to remark “why is everyone saying good game?” out of surprise. The player who was originally complaining about the camping strategy even said goodbye and wished everyone well.

While I doubt that my intervention was responsible for this shift in the game atmosphere, I think that my actions along with everyone else’s to cool the tension and adopt a more playful attitude was certainly powerful. Players often want to do the right thing, but feel uncomfortable being the first one to say something. If you take the first step to counteract a bad chat environment, others might join in. Together, you can all make the game way more fun for everyone.

Session E: Misplaced Anger

In the fifth session of the intervention, I noticed the chat activity was relatively low until a teammate said something toxic against our team.

Their message basically expressed anger at the makeup of the team’s overall skill levels. As part of my intervention, I quickly responded, but realized someone else had beaten me to it.

The toxic player said how everyone on our team was underperforming. I reminded them that we are all just playing to have fun, and that there was no need to get upset about it. This seemed to have an impact on the player, as instead of continuing to be hostile, they began to calmly explain their reasons for why they were upset.

Player B interjected to cool the tensions with a distraction and Player C joined in with my intervention. We wanted to be non-confrontational, but still address the toxicity by shifting their attitude towards doing their best and just playing the game. I tried to show that I was understanding by not verbally fighting them.

At one point, someone on the other team was rude to the formerly toxic teammate and even the teammate was taken aback by this. Other players including myself joined in to calm the situation and assert that there was no need for rudeness in the chat. By now, I felt like the intervention was having at least some effect on reinforcing a positive atmosphere in the game.

Towards the end of the game, the formerly toxic teammate’s concerns about the unbalanced team were addressed. They expressed their reasons for being upset in a civil manner and explained their vision for an improved game experience.

This was huge in the intervention, because it managed to transform what was originally a toxic remark into something that was a civil, neutral discussion but also helpful for the game developers. This made me think that this teammate probably was having a bad day, and took out their anger on the wrong thing. Some toxic players don’t even realize they’re being toxic, but all it takes is a civil discussion and some understanding to get them to express what they really mean.

Conclusion

Throughout the course of this intervention I watched as hostile environments turned into friendly ones. The game chat can shift from negative to neutral to positive with relatively little effort. All it takes is one person to change the vibes, and other players might feel inspired to join in and make a difference too.

This intervention won’t always work, and despite my efforts to be as scientific as I could with my experiment, I can’t definitively prove that it was significant in all my sessions. However, it did prove effective in at least a few simple cases. It all depends on the person: some people will be toxic no matter what you say to them, and in that case, chat filters, moderators, and blocking users is the best course of action. But it doesn’t always have to be that way. Sometimes all it takes for a player to chill out is just a civil conversation like an ordinary human being and reminding them that we all just want to have fun.

Bastión Toledo-Altamirano

By Ruby Harkness

How to play: 

• Option 1: Find a QR code poster around
• Scan it
• Option 2: Listen to me tell you to scan the QR code 
• Scan it 
• Answer the google form question linked to the QR code “How are you feeling? Answer with 1 song title.” 
• Submit the Google form

Artist’s Statement: 

“How Are You Feeling” is an intervention project based on taking a minute to ask yourself how you really feel. People live such busy lives and often don’t take the time to think about how they feel, this project is meant to intervene with that mindset and promote positive self care while people go about their day. I wanted this intervention to be simple, straight to the point, and meaningful for the people participating. Even the act of thinking about how you really feel is something people gloss over in today’s world. I think this is something that needs to be focused on.

Some inspiration from this project came from “Uncle Roy All Around You,” which combines the physical and digital world. I wanted to combine physical and digital as well for my intervention and I used QR codes and posters to achieve that. This intervention played out in two ways. Originally I was only going to put QR code posters up around campus. I did this and waited a few days and got like 4 responses. I learned that people don’t really take the time to scan a random QR code and usually end up going about their day. Although upsetting, I think this is completely normal. I tried to make the posters stand out to increase interest but that didn’t seem to work. The second phase was me intervening in people’s lives. I asked individual people in my classes and even presented the idea in front of the entire class to get everyone’s response. This was a lot more effective and helped me get the majority of my responses. I do think it’s interesting to think about how people don’t seem to take time out of their day to scan QR codes. This could even relate to the project, and provide evidence for how people are constantly on the move. Not only are people struggling to prioritize their feelings, but they also struggle to find curiosity in asking the question “How are you feeling”, which is written all over the posters. 

The project ended with the creation of the playlist: How we are feeling. This playlist is a collection of all 67 responses to the question “How are you feeling” in real song form. I wanted to make a playlist for this project because I think music is definitely a way people connect with each other and themselves. Relating to a song is a great way to think about your own feelings. The cover art for the Spotify playlist was also designed by me, and features organic shapes and lines. I wanted to represent how feelings are fluid, and in constant motion with this design. 

Playlist Link: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4PRgmpObxHkkONEM7Pgpq5?si=97e04311329e4f1e

Documentation: 

Posters: 

Spotify cover art: