Morgan

Brett Morgan

Ms. Martinez

ENC 1101

11/30/13

The Anatomy of a Group of DOTA Players:

How Its Lexis Keeps It Closed

1

Morgan

1. IntroductionAs I strolled into my roommate’s room my attention was drawn to the two

large computer monitors that my roommate sat behind. On one screen I saw what

appeared to be a virtual reality computer game and on the other what I knew to be

Facebook Chats. I heard my roommate talking rapidly to other individuals, whom I

knew from prior knowledge were his friends and fellow DOTA players. He was

sitting in a chair behind his desk with a headset haphazardly placed over his head.

He was rapidly clicking his mouse while he talked into the headphone and typed on

his keyboard. Looking around I quickly spotted a chair and sat down. As I opened

my laptop my eyes were drawn to my roommate. In any given moment my he could

be, searching YouTube for new music, talking to his friends, and using Facebook and

Skype, all while still preparing to play DOTA. I couldn’t fathom how he could process

and respond to such a large amount of sensory information at once. My mind drifted

back to the reason I was there, to observe my roommate and his friends play a game

called DOTA. DOTA, which stands for defense of the ancients, is an action real-time

strategy game popular among young adults. I quickly refocused my attention on

what was happening in front of me and soon slipped back into my work.

The first game of DOTA began with a bang as all at once my roommate ceased

his multi-tasking and become solely focused on the task at hand, winning the game

of DOTA. As the action increased I focused in on my roommate’s computer screens.

2

Morgan

However, I quickly realized that I was at a loss to describe what was happening on

the screens as everything was happening so fast. Intuitively I began to focus on what

my roommate said and how he said it. I heard words and phrases such as triple pull,

hex, solo bot, and farm (See Appendix A). These words, which were pure gibberish

to me, were easily understood and acted upon by roommate and his fellow DOTA

players. At key points in the game the players would become extremely animated

and begin to shout and scream at their fellow teammates who would respond in

kind with a mix of curses and more words whose meanings I couldn’t decipher.

These unscripted outbursts of emotion showed me that these players were truly

invested in playing DOTA. As the game wore on the players began to rely almost

entirely on lexis specific to the community. As such, I began to hear words such as

tepee, sentries, and support (See Appendix A). I felt as though the more I listened to

the players talk the less I understood of what they were actually saying. When the

game finally ended, I sat back in my chair and let out a loud gasp as the highly

energized atmosphere of the game had finally come to an end. My first observational

session with my chosen discourse community had come to an end. As I

decompressed, I drifted into thought and began my first of many attempts to

decipher what I had just witnessed.

I believed that my roommate and his friends made up a discourse community

within the larger DOTA gaming discourse community. A discourse community as

defined by John Swales, the former head of the University of Michigan’s English

Department is, “A group of people that share common goals, participatory

mechanisms, information exchange, community specific genres, a highly specialized

3

Morgan

terminology and a high general level of experience,” (Wardle and Downs 475).

What truly makes up discourses communities is still debated by those in academia,

but Swales six characteristics are a widely accepted definition. Multiliteracy is, in

basic terms, an individual’s ability to not only understand information presented to

them in written text but also their ability to use and understand other ways of

presenting information such as new technology or music. I was able to observe my

roommate effectively communicate within the game of DOTA and with me during

casual conversation. However, since I observed the members of the DOTA discourse

community in a closed setting, I was unable to interview or observe them outside of

the DOTA game community. Thus, I cannot say that they utilize multiliteracy and as

such, multiliteracy will not be referenced in this paper.

2. MethodsMy roommate and his friends are elite DOTA players, who compete together

as a team in tournaments and casual games. I realized this would be an interesting

community to study, as I believed no one had thought to study the discourse

community before. In order to study the community, I knew I would have to sit in on

a meeting of its members. However, its members never met face-to-face, instead

they communicated online in large group chats. The DOTA community in fact is very

similar to the “Hong Kong Study Circle” that John Swales presented as a Discourse

Community in his writing entitled, “Discourse communities, genres and English as

an international language.” The Hong Kong Study Circle was a group of individuals

4

Morgan

from all parts of the world that were fascinated by postage stamps originating in

Hong Kong (474). The group, much like the DOTA community, never met in person,

it instead communicated via journals and newsletters published by members of the

community, “The main mechanism, or ‘forum’ for intercommunication is a bi-

monthly Journal and Newsletter…without the Journal/News-letter I doubt the

discourse community would survive” (474). Luckily my chosen discourse

community communicated via audio chat, which allowed me to readily observe their

communication. The data that will be mentioned throughout the paper was

gathered during three separate 45 minute long observation sessions between the

times of 8:30 and 10:30PM during school nights in my roommate’s room.

During my first observational session with the group I attempted to describe

not only what I heard but also, what I saw happening on my roommate’s computer

screens. This proved an impossible task as everything on the screen changed so

rapidly, that I couldn’t possibly describe what I saw. This left me to think of a new

way to observe the discourse community during my second observational sit-in. As I

mentioned earlier towards the end of my first observational sit-in I focused solely

on the verbal communication members of the group. Eventually decided to continue

this practice for my second and third sit-ins. As I went through my next sit-ins, I

consciously ignored all the stimuli that were present on the computer screens and

simply listened for what words were said and how they were said. As I went through

the sit-ins I began to notice more and more words, such as ward, undying, rage, and

Whisp (See Appendix A), that I was unfamiliar with and that I assumed were specific

to the Discourse community. Upon completing my observational sit-ins I looked

5

Morgan

over my notes and began to formulate questions that I would ask my roommate

during my next stage of data gathering about the community, the interview stage.

The interview portion of my data gathering was conducted in my roommate’s

room a day after my last observational sit-in and lasted about fifteen minutes. The

interview, which I audio recorded, consisted of me asking my roommate to first

define words specific to the discourse community that I had heard during my sit-ins.

Next I asked him how questions, specifically how the game itself was played and

how individuals could enter the community. When the interview was over I played

the audio recording back to myself and typed up a written transcript of the

recording. When the transcript was finished so to was the data gathering stage of

my essay, at which point I began the analysis of my data.

3. Evidence/AnalysisAs I looked at my data I wasn’t sure where to begin. I wasn’t an English

scholar with years of experience and research. Instead, I was a freshman in college

in an English I class. I thought of Swales six key characteristics that made up a

discourse community. I tried to provide an answer to each of the six characteristics

in regards to the DOTA discourse community. The following is a list of the main

points I gathered from my data.

1. The Discourse Community uses levels of membership based on skill level

2. The community is strongly opposed to outsiders

6

Morgan

3. The goal of the community is to win (within the larger DOTA gaming

community)

4. The community’s lexis is extensive and nearly impossible for outsiders to

understand

During my interview with my roommate I asked him how an individual would

advance their skill level in the game and was told,

“There are different tiers of skill level and that’s what match making is based

around. When a team is queued together the game calculates every team

members rating and then matches the team with players of equal skill level” (See

Appendix B).

Additionally, I was also informed that to attain the level of expertise needed

to enter the discourse community would take years of work. James Paul Gee, an

English professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, has spent a great

deal of time studying literacy and in one of his papers entitled, “Literacy,

Discourse, and Linguistics”, he stated that, “There is, no workable affirmative

action for Discourses: you can’t be let into the game after missing the

apprenticeship and be expected to have a fair shot at playing it” (Gee 487). This I

assume helps weed out the less committed individuals and keeps the new

member pool small but strong. I gathered from my observations and interview

with my roommate that his community was in general closed to outsiders.

During my interview, I asked him specifically whether new members would be

7

Morgan

welcome in the group and he responded by saying, “not unless [they] are really

good” (See Appendix B). This led me to believe that new players, with a relative

lack of skill, would be a detriment to the community’s stated goal of winning. In a

later question my roommate followed up on his earlier statement about new

members being accepted in the group by saying, “one bad player can lose a game

for you. It really only takes one person to mess up and the entire game is ruined”

(See Appendix B). His follow up statement to me about new players, further

solidified the connection I believed existed between new players and the

community’s stated goal of winning. At times it appeared as if the group was

even hostile toward outsiders, when I asked him to describe a “noob”, otherwise

known as a novice player, he responded by saying, “a noob is just a new person,

you suck, like what are you doing? Get out” (See Appendix B).

In order to achieve the community’s goal of winning, the group needed to

consist of dominant motivated players in the game of DOTA. To be dominant at

DOTA, a team must utilize timing, efficiency, map awareness, and execution in

the fast-paced game. Additionally, a team must be well organized and have

certain members of the community able to achieve certain roles within the game.

In the game it is the captain’s job to stay well organized and be aware of what is

happening in the game at all times. My roommates DOTA community while it

consisted of motivated and organized players it had no formal leadership

structure. Though the community had no formal leadership structure many of

the members of the community deferred to my roommate during the course of

game play, because he is considered the best DOTA player among them (See

8

Morgan

Appendix A). This informal leadership structure gives the community the

flexibility to effectively operate within the game of DOTA, which in turn

contributes to the group’s goal of winning.

While I understood what it took to win in DOTA and that winning was the

motivating factor behind the existence of the group, I was unable to ascertain

why winning was so important to the group members. Were group members

rewarded with some sort of prize for winning? Was winning in it of itself a prize

to the members? Or did winning fulfill some psychological need to dominate or

be better than everyone else in the game? In the end I decided it was best to

leave these questions unanswered and to focus more on questions that I could

provide the answer too.

The final point I made after reviewing my data was that the community had

specific lexis that was nearly impossible for outsiders to understand or use. I

noticed that while many of the words the team members used would be

considered common words such as, sentries, tepee, ward, and rage, they would

have a completely different meaning when during DOTA. Additionally, it is not

enough just to know a community’s lexis as each word or phrase has a

corresponding action and the way the lexis is presented is different in each

discourse community. Paul Gee gave a great example of this in, Literacy,

Discourse, and Linguistics,

“It is not just what you say, but how you say it. If I enter my neighborhood bar

and say to my tattooed drinking buddy, as I sit down, ‘May I have a match

please?’ My grammar is perfect, but what I have said is wrong nonetheless. It is

9

Morgan

less often remarked that a person could be able to use a language perfectly and

still not make sense. It is not just how you say it, but what you are and do when

you say it. If I enter my neighborhood bar and say to my drinking buddy, as I sit

down, ‘Gime a match, woulda?,’ while placing a napkin on the bar stool to avoid

getting newly pressed designer jeans dirty, I have said the right thing, but my

‘saying-doing’ combination is nonetheless all wrong. (483)”

In this case the man (Gee) did not understand fully the community he was in

and used formal language when he should have used informal language. The

DOTA discourse community is just like the example of the bar discourse

community as all communication between the community members is

completely informal. Tony Mirabelli, a lecturer in the English Department at Cal-

Berkley, in his essay Learning to Serve made a point similar to Gee’s, “the

meaning of words in a menu are embedded in the situation, its participants, and

the balance of power and authority, and this meaning manifests itself in more

than one mode of communication” (Mirabelli 549). Mirabelli was describing how

waiters to truly master their discourse community must not only know the lexis

but know when and how to say the lexis. Additionally, a discourse cannot be

taught in the sense of a traditional classroom setting, Gee states that, “Discourses

are not mastered by overt instruction, but by enculturation into social practices

through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already

mastered the Discourse” (484). This difference should be noted when

considering how one attempts to join a discourse community. The key point to

take away from all of this though is that, though one may know how to play

10

Morgan

DOTA well or may know what the community’s lexis means or even how and

when to use the community’s lexis, if a member does not have a firm grasp on all

three they will not be considered a member of the DOTA discourse community.

4. ConclusionAfter analyzing the data and examples writers such as Swales, Gee, and

Mirabelli provided, I came to the conclusion that, the group’s lexis while having a

multi-faceted purpose, was unknowingly to the group members, a barrier that

helped maintain the group’s goal of winning. The community’s lexis ties into how

the community interacts which is via audio communication as it is used in all of the

communication. Due to the games complexity a highly specified and wide ranging

set of words, acronyms, and phrases was developed over timeby members of the

community to maximize the team’s effectiveness. This in time formed a lexis that

was specific to the DOTA discourse community. As a byproduct of this lexis, the gap

between entry level and experienced players was widened. Though the game has

other barriers, such as a computer generated skill level, these can all be

circumvented. The one barrier that cannot be circumvented is the community’s

lexis, it cannot be taught, either an individual knows it and is fluent in it or they are

not. Thus, if I wanted to become a member of my roommate’s discourse community,

I would have to achieve the required elite skill level, and through years of

11

Morgan

immersion I would have to learn and be able to demonstrate my fluency with the

community’s lexis, specifically what the words meant, when to use the words, and

how to present them. This information while not overly valuable to most of society

does present a good case study of ways groups, whether consciously or

unconsciously, put barriers in place that keep them closed.

12

Morgan

Works Cited

1.Wardle, Elizabeth, and Doug Downs. Writing About Writing: A

College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. Print.

2. Uzcategui, Jorge. Personal Interview. 24 March 2013.

13

Morgan

Appendix AUnique Words:

Sentries Solo Bot Courier pickups Noob Triple Pull Hex Tepee Smoke them out Sk’s “GG” DD – double damage Whisp Offensive tri-lane Puck –hero Bane First Blood Ward Undying Farm Carry Support Rage Midas – item you buy that increases your net work Radiance – item in the game that increases in damage

potential Farm – have to get killing blow on creatures in the game to

gain goldBody Language:

-Fast paced clicking-Demonstrative gestures

Inter Communication: -Very excited communication punctuated by screams and curse words-Players yell at and chide each other for their mistakes

Jorge was the “commander-Gave orders to four other players

14

Morgan

-Others sometimes deferred to him because he is the superior player

Communication between the players consisted of specific words used in the discourse community that outsiders would not know

Group of friends play together to have fun and to WIN Players communicated via headsets Before the game started the five players talked strategy, made

changes to their characters, and engaged in casual conversation Don’t appear to be any rules that must be followed during the

game (everything goes) Group consisted of five players

15

Morgan

Appendix BB: Who has the authority in the group and why?

J: It’s not really restricted to one person. It’s more like a team game. It’s usually multiple people put input and then we make a decision out of it. It’s a group decision.

B: But does anyone have final say usually?

J: The one who can bring up the most valid reason really

B: so it’s all about validity?

J: Ya

B: Are their conflicts within the discourse community? I’m sure there are. I observed some.

J: Ya, we argue we have to make decisions. It’s a strategy game so sometimes not everyone agrees especially when things go wrong. Then it’s like a lot of arguing.

B: Do the arguments last or do they blow over pretty quickly?

J: uhh…they blow over pretty quickly because we want to get back into it but we will bring them up over and over again later.

B: Now for the lexis define these words. Sentry?

J: Sentries are things that let you see invisible units

B: Solo bots?

J: huh? Oh solo bot!

B: solo bot, sorry

J: There are three lanes in the game. There is a top lane, a middle lane, and a bottom lane. A solo bot means, it’s a five-player game, and we are only sending one person to the bottom lane.

16

Morgan

B: Courier pickup?

J: There are items in the game for each of your heroes and a courier delivers things

B: Noob?

J: A noob is just a new person, you suck, like what are you doing? Get out.

B: So you would never play with a noob?

J: I mean sometimes you get queued with noobs

B: But random? So usually are things random or do you usually play with players you already know? J: It’s usually random. It’s like match making.

B: So when you play with a group that’s not random?

J: No not on our team

B: What’s a triple pull?

J: Wow how do I describe a pull…there is a jungle on both sides of the field and the jungle has like mobs….like little NPC’s.

B: Which are?

J: You can kill them for extra experience

B: So there are people that you can kill?

J: Yeah, things in the game that you can kill to gain experience and money because money is important. I’m not really sure how to describe this. Should I just show you a picture?

B: We can just move on to another question if you want?

J: Okay yeah, it’s a bad question

B: What’s a hex?

J: There are forms of crowd control in the game, so you can stun somebody in the game and they can’t move or anything.

B: So a hex is like a stun?

17

Morgan

J: Yeah, a hex is like a stun it’s a crowd control

B: So a hex is a type of attack?

J: Like you can’t do anything

B: So if you are a hex you can’t do anything?

J: You can move very slowly but can’t attack back.

B: Okay so does hex mean you are frozen or okay I’m going to hex them?

J: It turns them into a frog so they can’t attack and they move very slowly

B: What’s a tepee?

J: That’s a teleport scroll, it lets you teleport from one side of the map to another

B: Okay so “smoke them out” you kept using that phrase. What does it mean?

J: Smoke refers to an item called “smoke of deceit” and that goes back to sentry wards and there is also something called observer wards. Smoke makes you invisible in a map when you move. Basically smoke lets you effectively kill your enemy.

B: SK?

J: It’s just an acronym for one of the characters in the game called “sand king”

B: And GG is I assume “good game”?

J: Yeah you just say it to be nice

B: How easy would you say it is to join this community? I know anyone can join the DOTA community but I’m referring to your specific community within the DOTA community.

J: There are different tiers of skill level and that’s what match making is based around. When a team is queued together the game calculates every team members rating and then matches the team with players of equal skill level. So we are pretty high up.

B: So to get into your discourse community you have to gradually go through each step to get a higher rating?

18

Morgan

J: Yeah. Technically we can play with people that have a lower rating.

B: But usually you can’t?

J: Yeah, of we do it’s usually a friend of ours.

B: So technically there is an official process?

J: Yeah, we don’t like playing with bad players

B: So if you are an outsider you are not welcome in the game?

J: Not unless you are really good

B: So they are not welcome because they are bad at the game and interfere with the community’s goal to win?

J: Yes, one bad player can lose a game for you. It really only takes one person to mess up and the entire game is ruined.

B: So basically that is why outsiders are not welcome?

J: Yeah, unless they are friend of ours, in which case we will try to make them better.

B: So give me a quick overview of the entire game

J: There are two bases on opposite ends, the name of the game of is DOTA (Defense of the Ancients), your ancient is basically your throne and there are two thrones in the games on opposite ends. There are three lanes to get to the bases (top, middle, bottom). The lanes are defended by a series of towers, which you have to breach to attack the throne.

B: To reiterate something you told me before we started the interview. If you don’t know the game you will not understand what is going on?

J: Yes, you will not understand

B: So the game is very closed to outsiders? You have to have prior knowledge?

J: You have to know a lot of things before you can become good at the game

B: So the common person will have no idea what’s going on?

J: Not a clue. Not even the language

19