ESPORTS INTEGRITY POLICIES
2021; Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.; Volume: 25; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1089/glr2.2020.0017
ISSN2572-5327
Autores Tópico(s)Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
ResumoGaming Law ReviewVol. 25, No. 4 ArticlesFree AccessESPORTS INTEGRITY POLICIESPeter K. CzegledyPeter K. CzegledyPeter K. Czegledy is a partner at Aird & Berlis LLP in Toronto, Canada. He is a member of the firm's Corporate/Commercial, Intellectual Property, Mergers & Acquisitions/Private Equity, Technology, Licensing, and Gaming Groups and the chair of its Gaming & Esports and Gambling Industry Teams. He is grateful to Damian Lu, an articling student at Aird & Berlis LLP, for his assistance in helping this article come to fruition.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 May 2021https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2020.0017AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail This article was researched and prepared in Summer 2018, and reflects data current to such period. A number of underlying facts may have changed between that time and the date of publication.Esports, by their very definition, are highly competitive activities. Fundamentally, any competitive activity requires a set of rules by which it must be governed. Those rules are inevitably subject to interpretation and, for those seeking additional advantage, subversion—which is even more likely to occur when the activity culminates in definitive, measurable outcomes that attract wagering.1When the underlying fairness, transparency, and honesty of competitive outcomes is brought into question, we refer to the "integrity" of the activity being at risk. Unfortunately, in this respect, esports have already experienced a number of high-profile cases where their integrity has been impugned.2 While these incidents should not be considered as representative of the preponderance of esports activity, they disproportionately create negative perceptions in the financial and consumer marketplace that are critical to the expansion of esports and impair their reputation—thereby limiting their acceptance by the general public.If esports are to continue their current impressive growth as an industry, they have to develop rules, policies, and review oversight and enforcement mechanisms that maintain integrity. Key among these measures is the adoption of what are commonly referred to as "integrity policies." The purpose of this article is to summarize and compare the main components of current esports integrity policies,3 and to make certain recommendations on how such policies should develop if they are to properly serve their intended function.1. THE UNIQUE CHALLENGE OF ENSURING INTEGRITY IN ESPORTSEsports integrity policies, while similar in many ways to the corollary policies that govern traditional sports or other spheres of competitive behavior, have a number of unique characteristics that stem from the particular nature of video game play and the esports industry. These structural elements present challenges that need to be understood in order to appreciate how esports integrity issues have evolved and the issues they need to address.A. The new and changing nature of video gamesThe term esports covers a wide variety of game categories, including first-person shooters, electronic sports, massively multiplayer online games, and role-playing games. Many of these categories of games have special elements that allow the rules of play to vary significantly from game to game. Furthermore, new games are introduced on a continual basis, existing games undergo significant changes via publisher updates, and other games may be terminated (or at least left unsupported) at any time by a publisher. As a result, any policies seeking to address esports integrity must be designed to adapt to a constantly shifting electronic playing field or risk a quick obsolescence.B. The private ownership of video gamesUnlike traditional sports, the underlying activity of esports is privately owned and all play takes place solely on a licensed basis.4 This unique attribute permits game publishers a level of influence and control that does not exist in other competitive activities. When a game can only be carried on under a publisher's license, the publisher has the opportunity to control the rules of play under the terms and conditions of the license. If integrity is judged in part as a matter of compliance with the rules of play, and those rules are changeable at any time, the ability to maintain a clear and consistent understanding of what integrity means when applied to a particular esports game can become challenging.C. The electronic nature of video gamesEsports occurs through an electronic medium. This creates unique types of integrity issues because the activity extends beyond the physical boundaries of the player and his or her equipment (hardware and software), into an electronic persona. This complexity requires us to adopt a broader approach to integrity, and to appreciate that it is a more nuanced concept than encountered in other areas of endeavor. However, the electronic nature of esports also provides a benefit in applying integrity policies—as gameplay creates a precise record of both the outcome and the factors that influenced it. As a result, the record can be forensically examined to form a comprehensive understanding of what has occurred and how—an optimal position for investigating activity and enforcing integrity policies.D. The limited history of organized video game playThe rules of any competitive activity develop over time. Experience breeds understanding, and understanding breeds rules that balance the ability of competitors to be creative and outcomes to be unpredictable within restrictions that can readily be understood to be fair and reasonable. The same extended experience allows regulators and other administrating bodies to learn to apply and enforce the rules over time in a manner that ensures the integrity of gameplay is upheld. Esports however has a limited history. As a consequence, achieving stringent integrity standards for it is doubly challenging.E. Young participantsEsports has a history of being perceived as an industry dominated by young participants. Although this perspective has been shown to be increasingly inaccurate in many respects,5 it does attract a significantly younger demographic than many other activities. Professional players in particular are often of a younger age.6 Acceptable esports integrity policies therefore must incorporate considerations focused on the vulnerabilities and legal capacity/incapacity in a careful fashion.F. The absence of a central regulator/rules authorityThe regulatory environment for esports is highly fragmented. While some "best practices" have emerged, there remain a multiplicity of groups—games publishers, member-run organizations, league management, state entities, and other parties—that oversee the integrity of esports through what are often divergent or overlapping policies. Furthermore, there is little or no unity of enforcement in the application of policies, with the result that transgressors may easily evade the harsher consequences of penalties, and continue as active participants in other parts of the industry.2. INTEGRITY POLICY ADOPTERSCurrently, esports integrity policies are primarily adopted by two kinds of entities. The first group, which may be referred to as "game-neutral entities," are entities whose policies are intended to apply broadly to a number of esport games, without focusing on any particular one. They may be distinguished from one another by reference to a particular geographic boundary, by country or region. They may originate from and be governed by representatives from a variety of sources, including government agencies, players, teams, publishers, and platform providers, or some combination thereof. Examples include the Esports Integrity Coalition, the International Esports Federation, the World Esports Association, and the Electronic Sports League. The second group of entities that adopt esports integrity policies, which may be referred to as "game-specific entities," are focused on specific games and typically are leagues devoted to the game, most often controlled by that game's publisher. Examples include the Overwatch League, the League of Legends Championship Series, and the Call of Duty League.The foregoing distinction may be an important one, as one might anticipate that the underlying interests and policy goals of the two kinds of adopters of integrity policies are likely to vary—with game-specific entities more likely to consider the protection of intellectual property proprietary technology, corporate reputation, and economic value as core touchstones driving policy. Conversely, game-neutral entities might be expected to have policies that are more focused on individuals and their actions and treatment.3. INTEGRITY ISSUES IN ESPORTSIntegrity issues in esports may be roughly divided into three broad categories: (a) technological issues; (b) player issues; and (c) institutional issues.7A. Technological issuesTechnological issues in esports include: (1) software issues; (2) hardware issues; (3) exploitation of in-game bugs and glitches; and (4) server attacks.i. Software issuesAs the key technology underlying esports is software, there will always be a risk of software manipulation.8 The most prominent forms of cheating software include: (a) "aimbots," which provide players with automatic targeting of their opponents;9 (b) "wallhacks," which allow players to manipulate properties of in-game wall and other opaque environmental elements to easily locate their opponents or other objects of interest; and (c) "extra sensory perception" or ESP, which allows players to receive information beyond what is permitted by the developer, such as information on player health and the location and status of opponents or objects of interest.10Technological defenses are the obvious response to cheating software.11 Valve Corporation's anti-cheat system (commonly known as VAC) works similarly to a virus scanner and maintains a database of previously identified cheat software. It is designed to be triggered once the system detects third-party modifications classified as a cheat or a hack including modifications to a game's core executable files and dynamic link libraries. However, the effectiveness of anti-cheat software should not be overstated. The battle between cheating software and anti-cheating software has been described by some as a perpetual "arms race." As long as the demand for cheating software remains, it is inevitable that new and improved cheating software will be released to avoid detection.Fortunately, using cheating software has been much more difficult in official esports matches as these events are normally run in tightly controlled settings by the event promoter, with the players physically present on location, which provides game administrators with the opportunity to monitor any software that is installed and compare the in-game outputs with the physical inputs of the players.Most esports integrity policies, whether published by game-neutral entities or game-specific entities, contain broadly drafted prohibitions against cheating along with corresponding sanctions.12 The policies generally provide that computers will be prepared and provided to the participants by the administrators, removing the risk that players may bring computers with cheating software preinstalled. Other policies contain provisions that prohibit players from bringing electronic storage devices to competitive matches, which further increases an administrator's control.13ii. Hardware issuesProfessional esports players generally prefer to use peripherals (i.e., keyboard, mouse, mouse pad, headset, or controller) that they are accustomed to in order to prevent any unexpected decreases in performance.14 However, such hardware may also be manipulated to provide an unfair advantage to players. Peripherals can be programmed to contain macro instructions—requests to process a predefined sequence of inputs. Players have also been caught using direct memory access devices to process game data through a secondary computer.15While an absolute ban on outside peripherals may be the most efficient method of ensuring integrity, such a policy could be viewed as unnecessarily disregarding the needs of players and the commercial reality of the sponsorship arrangements that they enter into, which often act as a significant income source. Another approach to address the issue, typified by Section 6.3 of the League of Legends Championship Series 2020 Official Rules, requires that all player-owned or team-owned equipment must be submitted to League Officials in advance for approval. Such equipment is to remain on site with League Officials and is only accessible before the match or at such time as approved by the referee. Unapproved equipment or equipment that is suspected of providing an unfair competitive advantage will not be permitted for use.16 The Overwatch League Official Rules further prevent players from wearing smart devices, fitness devices, or other devices with computing capabilities of any kind other than a digital watch.17iii. Exploitation of in-game bugs and glitchesEven the best-designed software will inevitably contain bugs or glitches, which can describe a wide range of programming failures.18 "Exploiting" a bug or glitch involves using such failures to produce advantages that are unintended by a game publisher. The most problematic of such bugs and glitches are those that are repeatable, making them prone to exploitation.It is commercially unreasonable for publishers to test every possible aspect of the software. While bugs and glitches can be removed through updates, it requires significant time and effort on the part of the publisher. Therefore, if a bug or glitch is first discovered during a competitive match, professional players may have an incentive to use it to their advantage.19One of the most challenging aspects of preventing the exploitation of in-game bugs and glitches is determining intent. Intent is relevant because most would consider it unfair to punish players for the unintended use of a bug or glitch. However, there is some question as to whose intent (the game publisher's or the player's) should be the reference point as well as how such intent is to be determined.A number of esports integrity policies deal with this issue by prohibiting the intentional exploitation of bugs and glitches by the players. Game-specific entities are more likely to phrase such prohibitions so that they focus on whether the actions of the player exploited the game in a manner not intended by the publisher, using the publisher's intent as the frame of reference. Game-neutral entities place more weight on the intent of the players themselves.If the intent of the publisher is considered more critical, players may be punished for the use of a bug or glitch that they were not originally aware of. Providing administrators with a blanket discretion to punish players in such circumstances may be seen as unfair. A potential solution may be to put players on notice of the identified bugs and glitches before and during a match. Once notice has been provided, an administrator would only need to exercise his or her discretion for bugs or exploits that the players did not have prior notice of. Such discretion could be guided by preset objective factors, such as the extent to which the bug or glitch is repeatable.iv. Server attacksDistributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks occur when a network becomes maliciously flooded with traffic or information so that its intended users are unable to access it.20 DDOS attacks have been described as being similar to "a traffic jam clogging up a highway, preventing regular traffic from arriving at its desired destination."21Almost none of the integrity policies published by game-neutral entities address DDOS attacks. While the integrity policies published by some of the game-specific entities mention server attacks, the coverage is generally insubstantial. The reason for such limited coverage may be due to the fact that governing entities consider DDOS attacks as more of a technological issue. However, certain entities have published stand-alone DDOS prevention guides for players.Tables 1 and 2 are anonymized summaries of the technological integrity issues covered by game-neutral entities and game-specific entities. Overall, game-specific entities appear to place more focus on technological issues than game-neutral entities.Table 1. Integrity Policies Aimed at Technological Issues (Game-Neutral Entities)Association nameTechnological issuesSoftware issuesHardware issuesAbusing bugsOnline attacksGame-neutral body A✓✓ Game-neutral body B✓✓✓✓Game-neutral body C Game-neutral body D✓✓✓ Game-neutral body E✓ ✓ Game-neutral body F✓✓✓ Game-neutral body G✓ ✓✓Game-neutral body H Game-neutral body I Game-neutral body J✓✓✓ Table 2. Integrity Policies Aimed at Technological Issues (Game-Specific Entities)League nameTechnological issuesSoftware issuesHardware issuesAbusing bugsOnline attacksGame-specific entity A✓✓✓✓Game-specific entity B✓✓✓ Game-specific entity C✓✓✓✓Game-specific entity D✓✓✓✓B. Player issuesPlayer issues include: (1) doping; (2) match-fixing; and (3) disabling and abusing opponents.i. DopingProper prohibition and/or control over the use of performance-enhancing drugs is a key issue for the integrity of esports.22 The prevalence of doping in esports has been attributed by some to the grueling lifestyles, nonexistent job security, and lack of advocates for professional esports players.23 Many tournaments and leagues operate on a "winner takes all" basis. There are even accounts that professional players' schedules exclude any activity that isn't eating, sleeping, or practicing.24Currently, the Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC) has one of the more comprehensive anti-doping policies in the esports industry. However, very few other game-neutral entities or game-specific entities have independent drug detection or enforcement programs.25 As of early 2020, the ESIC prohibited substances are: 1.Amphetamine sulfate (Evekeo);2.Dextroamphetamine (Adderall and Adderall XR);3.Dexedrine, (ProCentra, Zenzedi);4.Dexmethylphenidate (Focalin and Focalin XR);5.Lisdexamfetamine (Vyvanse);6.Methylphenidate (Concerta, Daytrana, Metadate CD and Metadate ER, Methylin and Methylin ER, Ritalin, Ritalin SR, Ritalin LA, Quillivant XR); and7.Modafinil and armodafinil.26Pursuant to Article 2 of the ESIC Anti-Doping Code,27 anti-doping violations include: (a) the presence of any quantity of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markets in a player's sample (unless the reporting threshold is specifically identified in the prohibited list); (b) the use or attempted use by a player of a prohibited substance, regardless of success or failure; (c) refusing or failing to submit to a sample collection after notification or otherwise evading sample collection; (d) possession by a participant of any prohibited substance, unless the player establishes that the possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemption or other acceptable justification; (e) trafficking in any prohibited substance; (f) administration or attempted administration to any player of any prohibited substance or otherwise assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up, or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation; and (g) admissions by a player of any of the above-mentioned conduct.Drafters of anti-doping policies must balance compliance with fairness to the players. One of the hallmarks of a fair anti-doping policy used in traditional sports is the existence of therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs). In other words, the adoption of a mechanism to allow the use of prohibited substances for legitimate medical reasons. Pursuant to Article 4 of the ESIC Anti-Doping Code, players may obtain a TUE if they fulfill the following criteria: (a) the application is made in advance of participation in any match or event; (b) the player would experience a significant impairment to health if the prohibited substance were to be withheld in the course of treating an acute or chronic medical condition; (c) the therapeutic use of the prohibited substance would produce no additional enhancement of performance other than that which might be anticipated by a return to a state of normal health following the treatment of a legitimate medical condition; (d) there is no reasonable therapeutic alternative to the use of the otherwise prohibited substance; and (e) the necessity for the use of the otherwise prohibited substance is not a consequence, wholly or in part, of a prior non-therapeutic use of any substance on the prohibited list. An appeal mechanism for rejected TUE applications, also reflected in the ESIC Anti-Doping Code, could be viewed as another indicator of fairness.28Drafters of anti-doping policies should also consider the privacy of players. Pursuant to Article 5 of the ESIC Anti-Doping Code, only accredited third parties are allowed to collect a body fluid or hair sample from any player covered by the policy. Further, laboratories are only authorized to analyze anonymous samples in accordance with "strict confidentiality obligations set out in a written contractual agreement."29 In addition, game neutral-entities and game-specific entities alike should ensure that there are contingency plans in place to address circumstances where a player's information or bodily samples are inadvertently disclosed.ii. Match fixingMatch fixing, or "deliberately losing a match in order to profit from betting fraud," is another of the more prominent integrity issues in esports. One commentator has identified match fixing as "the most serious risk to the legitimacy and growth of the industry."30Unsurprisingly, most integrity policies reviewed for the purposes of this article prohibit match fixing. Section 2.4 of the Electronic Sports League Rules prohibits "engaging in any action that improperly influences the outcome of a game or match by any means." Sanctions for match fixing include disqualification, player bans, forfeiture of prize money, and monetary fines. Further, the Electronic Sports League Rules is one of the few esports integrity policies that specifically prohibits players from betting on matches in their own competitions.31The core problem in match fixing is detection. Even if a policy prohibits match fixing, it is meaningless without an established mechanism to identify it. The traditional sports industry has looked to betting market patterns to identify match fixing: since evidence of match-fixing is often found in betting market patterns, sportsbooks can serve as useful resources to enforcement agencies, even capturing relevant information about bettors themselves. These types of collaborative efforts already exist in sport: the UK Gambling Commission's Sports Betting Intelligence Unit, for example . … 32Fortunately, similar arrangements are underway for larger esports organizations. For example, the Electronic Sports League recently contracted with Sportradar to provide fraud detection services to identify betting-related manipulations,33 and other event promoters and regulators have followed suit, particularly game-specific entities. While such arrangements may not be commercially viable for smaller esports entities, there may be an opportunity for these entities to pool the costs of detection through partnerships with other organizations.iii. Disabling and abusing opponentsTonya Harding's assault of Nancy Kerrigan is often cited as an example of disabling and abusing sports opponents. In esports, almost all of the game-neutral entities and game-specific leagues contain rules against such behavior. While there have not yet been serious instances of disabling and abusing opponents in esports, the Esports Integrity Coalition has stated that "Esports seems underprepared in terms of physical security arrangements around live tournaments."34 Policies mandating security checks prior to entering esports events along with an improvement to physical security measures may be necessary to increase participant safety to a suitable degree.Tables 3 and 4 are anonymized summaries of the player issues covered by game-neutral entities and game-specific entities. While the integrity policies of both game-neutral entities and game-specific entities touch upon a variety of player issues, the scope of coverage is far more comprehensive for game-neutral entities.Table 3. Integrity Policies Aimed at Player Issues (Game-neutral Entities)Association namePlayer issuesDopingMatch fixingDisabling/abusing opponentsGame-neutral body A✓✓✓Game-neutral body B✓✓✓Game-neutral body C✓✓ Game-neutral body D✓✓✓Game-neutral body E ✓✓Game-neutral body F✓✓✓Game-neutral body G ✓✓Game-neutral body H✓ ✓Game-neutral body I✓ Game-neutral body J✓ ✓Table 4. Integrity Policies Aimed at Player Issues (Game-Specific Entities)League namePlayer issuesDopingMatch fixingDisabling/abusing opponentsGame-specific entity A✓✓✓Game-specific entity B✓✓✓Game-specific entity C✓✓✓Game-specific entity D✓✓✓C. Institutional issuesInstitutional issues include: (1) corruption of technicians and officials; (2) existence of sanctions; and (3) player protection.i. Corruption of technicians and officialsIt is often misunderstood that the corruption of technicians and officials is a de minimis issue in esports as most key determinations in a match are determined by the underlying software. However, as highlighted in the previous sections of this article, match administrators are entrusted with important tasks such as exercising their discretion for bug exploits and inspecting the peripherals provided by teams and players.Most game-neutral entities and game-specific entities have drafted integrity policies that contain narrow prohibitions regarding the corruption of technicians and officials. Section 2.6 of the Electronic Sports League Rules, for example, prohibits "bribing or attempting to bribe a referee or organizer or trying to manipulate the competition."35 ESIC, on the other hand, has drafted a fairly comprehensive Anti-Corruption Code. "Seeking, accepting, offering or agreeing to accept any bribe or other reward to: (a) fix or to contrive in any way or otherwise to influence improperly the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any match; or (b) ensure for betting or other corrupt purposes the occurrence of a particular incident in a match,"36 constitutes an offense. While prohibition of improper conduct is necessary to ensure the integrity of esports, it will likely be insufficient on its own. Training officials to meet broad and clear standards of conduct and decision making should also be promoted—and accordingly integrity policies should require referees and officials to enroll in licensing and educational programs to gain certifications that can provide assurance industry-wide.ii. Existence of sanctionsWhile prohibitions are of limited use without appropriate remedies, sanctions, and other enforcement mechanisms, drafters of esports integrity policies should also ensure that such sanctions are fair and reasonable. An accepted important indicator of a just sanction is whether it is proportional to the offense. Minor violations or mere technical violations should not be subject to the same degree of punishment as more severe violations. In addition, although clearly defined sanctions increase certainty, they may not account for the circumstances of each case. The ESIC Anti-Corruption Code addresses this reality by setting out a non-exhaustive lists of aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in determining the relative seriousness of the offense. Aggravating factors include: (a) whether there is a lack of remorse; (b) the disciplinary record of the offender; (c) the quantum of the monetary gain as a result of the offense; (d) whether the offense substantially damaged the commercial value or the public interest in the relevant match or event; (e) whether the offense affected the result of the relevant match or event; (f) whether the welfare of any person was endangered as a result of the offense; and (g) whether the offense involved more than one participant. Mitigating factors include: (a) any admission of guilt; (b) whether the offender renounced the attempt or agreement prior to it being discovered; (c) whether the offender cooperated with ESIC, a criminal authority, or a professional disciplinary body; and (d) where the participant has already suffered penalties under other laws or regulations for the same offense.37Furthermore, there should be a mechanism to allow the alleged wrongdoer to present his or her case and a right to challenge the decision rendered against him or her. In other words, there should be a right to a hearing and a right to appeal. As an example, Article 4.6.6 of the ESIC Anti-Corruption Code allows the alleged wrongdoer to submit a written request for a hearing and Article 7 of the ESIC Anti-Corruption Code provides an appeal mechanism.38iii. Player protectionIt is generally acknowledged that esports players historically have lacked both agents and unions to represent them. The power dynamics between these (often young) players and teams, leagues, and developers are often one-sided. While collective bargaining may be one solution, independent collective bargaining organizations have yet to appear in esports. Based on one source, esports professionals continue to be "exploited and forced to work for low salaries on less than favourable terms" as a result of the lack of collective bargaining.39The youth and inexperience of the professional esports players require industry standards or governance associations to protect their interests if no other party is willing or able to. Thus, comprehensive integrity poli
Referência(s)