Game Theory on Botting, discuss the stigma.

[Mattaru]

Game theory – A mathematical approach to analyzing strategic interactions between two or more players.
Usually used to describe/predict actors decisions in a socio, economic, and political sphere.

Values are used to describe Utility values for players by choosing to bot.

-------------------------[No Bot]--------LS-Y-------------[Bot]


[No Bot]-----------------{10,10}-----------------------{-2, 20 (-1-p)}
!
LS
X
!
[Bot]------------------{20 (-1-p), -2}--------------{9 (-1 – p), 9 (-1 – p)}


Breakdown of the game: The actual numbers in this game are somewhat arbitrary, as they are in most games but are used to show a ratio of utility values which are not arbitrary.

The gaming environment where no one is botting and there is two fairly equal LS’s or people camping an NM will have an equilibrium of utility values, because their claims on the mob will in the long run generally be split (if LS’s aren’t equal what would happen would there wouldn’t be an equilibrium under not botting and the less equal LS would gain a greater utility from defecting than the other LS would…which would still gain a greater utility assuming the other LS wouldn’t bot, but not as much comparatively). The other values where only one LS defects (from the ToS) shows the shift in utility gained by camping.

The LS that doesn’t bot has a negative utility because their chance to claim is for all intents and purposes gone and they are wasting their time and money via opportunity cost. The LS that does bot gains a significantly higher utility value, double since it is guaranteed vs. 50%; the modifiers on this number are -1 for possible reparations (botting as far as what I’ve been told is not very detectable unless you are doing stupid shit at the same time) and –p : p is a variable that is representative of people’s personal reservations against botting which is generally the greatest modifier in the decision due to a stigma…yet in concrete values botting is almost a logical choice as will be explained.

The last is the equilibrium provided if both LS’s bot the base values of equilibrium are lesser because an artificial mechanism is now used to equal the playing field which is inherently of less utility than just not botting and having a level playing field. The negative variables are the same as before.

Logical actors nonetheless will choose to bot (the p value is so variable that assigning it a large value makes it kind of pointless in actually discussing the use of bots), because if one group chooses to bot your utility is drastically reduced, so even if the equilibrium value for botting is less than not botting it mitigates the risk that your opponent is going to bot and receive a much greater utility.

Obviously, the equilibrium of not botting is best for the commons but because there isn’t a large concrete reparation against it that makes the botting equilibrium have negative values equal to or greater to the negative utility of one LS botting and the other not botting.

The greatest impediment to botting is the p value nonetheless, because of the social stigma applied, but I am sure there are enough jaded endgamers out there who really could give a shit about the p value and are therefore all up in your Aery ninjaing yo Ridills and abjs, because they are not willing to let a situation happen where one person is botting and they are not.

Yes this is a modified Prisoner’s Dilemma, but different in the outside external negative values which give it more of a commons standpoint.

Also, what you will see in playing multiple rounds of the same game is that even if one LS has a huge value for p, over time the negative utility by camping an LS that bots will constantly increase while the p value remains static or decreases, so in the long run the LS either bots...or stops camping the given NM.

Discuss.

PS. I don't bot so don't throw around accusations at me.

 

[Mattaru]

Totally thought this thread wasn't going to ... suck. Move to end-game disc. or something I guess.

 

[Taravel]

Your post doesn't suck, it's just too involved for me to read carefully while I am at work.

 

[Mattaru]

Your post doesn't suck, it's just too involved for me to read carefully while I am at work.

Yeah, I just figured a thread that says its only logical to bot in most endgame situations because there is no binding reason that stops people from defecting would spark some sort of discussion or argument.

Guess I was mistaken.

 

[Firestreak]

Yeah, I've said this before. The greatest advantage a claim botter has is that competition is unwilling to use it as well. If we think someone uses it, should just agree and let be open and let everyone use it, rather than only letting the most deceitful people always win.

 

[Raesvelg]

Yeah, I've said this before. The greatest advantage a claim botter has is that competition is unwilling to use it as well. If we think someone uses it, should just agree and let be open and let everyone use it, rather than only letting the most deceitful people always win.

Of course, part of the problem is that not everyone in a LS has to bot to win claim, in fact only a few bots are typically necessary to get solid coverage of a pop area. The LS mates of those botters just sit back, reap the rewards, and protest that they don't bot, all the while knowing full well that someone in their LS is cheating and that they're benefitting from that.

Botting is cheating. Period. I personally do indeed make a distinction between "cheating" and "TOS violations".

Windower is a TOS violation, though to be honest I have a computer sitting behind me right now that if I were to run an ethernet cable to it I'd be able to do everything that I could do with Windower. My personal objection to windower has to do more with the fact that it messes with my graphics just enough to make things annoying, and I'm too lazy to take it apart to fix the problem. Most of the Windower plugins like TP-party also fall into that category. Use at your own risk, and don't bitch to me if you get banned, but I'm not gonna think less of you for using them.

Flee-Hacks and Botting are cheating. There's no way to do those things by simply having another PC handy (or playing on PS2 with a PC handy). They offer a distinct, unfair advantage to the people using those programs. But an awful lot of people in endgame, regardless of server, are willing to turn a blind eye to the use of bots/hacks so long as it gets them what they want. In many ways, for me that's even more revolting than the people who actually use them. The blatant hypocrisy of saying "Well, I don't bot, it's just someone in my LS, and who am I to judge?" really annoys me. If your buddy bots, and you benefit, you are cheating. Period.

Which of course means that we could probable call a frighteningly large percentage of this board out for cheating. To which most of them would reply "If I quit the shell, they'd still bot, so it doesn't really matter, and everyone else bots anyway, so I might as well just stick around and get my gear." Cowards.

 

[Mattaru]

So is their a case for ... not botting assuming that one person is suspected of doing it. Why should someone not bot by this logic, and moreover why should someone in the end-game communitty be looked down upon for doing it as they are just practicing good time management given the circumstances when you strip "botting" of its negative connotations.

EDIT: Just saw Raes post, will respond.

 

[Mattaru]

Of course, part of the problem is that not everyone in a LS has to bot to win claim, in fact only a few bots are typically necessary to get solid coverage of a pop area. The LS mates of those botters just sit back, reap the rewards, and protest that they don't bot, all the while knowing full well that someone in their LS is cheating and that they're benefitting from that.

Botting is cheating. Period. I personally do indeed make a distinction between "cheating" and "TOS violations".

Windower is a TOS violation, though to be honest I have a computer sitting behind me right now that if I were to run an ethernet cable to it I'd be able to do everything that I could do with Windower. My personal objection to windower has to do more with the fact that it messes with my graphics just enough to make things annoying, and I'm too lazy to take it apart to fix the problem. Most of the Windower plugins like TP-party also fall into that category. Use at your own risk, and don't bitch to me if you get banned, but I'm not gonna think less of you for using them.

Flee-Hacks and Botting are cheating. There's no way to do those things by simply having another PC handy (or playing on PS2 with a PC handy). They offer a distinct, unfair advantage to the people using those programs. But an awful lot of people in endgame, regardless of server, are willing to turn a blind eye to the use of bots/hacks so long as it gets them what they want. In many ways, for me that's even more revolting than the people who actually use them. The blatant hypocrisy of saying "Well, I don't bot, it's just someone in my LS, and who am I to judge?" really annoys me. If your buddy bots, and you benefit, you are cheating. Period.

Which of course means that we could probable call a frighteningly large percentage of this board out for cheating. To which most of them would reply "If I quit the shell, they'd still bot, so it doesn't really matter, and everyone else bots anyway, so I might as well just stick around and get my gear." Cowards.

Good post. Mainly because it doesn't call out botters so much as people who reap rewards from it and don't take responsibility (an obvious product of the stigma of botting).

Just a question that I pose. How legitimate is a contract (ToS) if it is not actually evenly/effectively enforced, and therefore if you ignore the contract because it carries very little weight is it actually cheating or leveling the playing field. IE because SE can not do anything or refuses to do anything to stop botting am I cheating by botting or am I just making the game fairer than it already is for parties involved because a situation where an equilibrium in the no-botting column can not exist or is unlikely.

 

[Raesvelg]

Just a question that I pose. How legitimate is a contract (ToS) if it is not actually evenly/effectively enforced, and therefore if you ignore the contract because it carries very little weight is it actually cheating or leveling the playing field. IE because SE can not do anything or refuses to do anything to stop botting am I cheating by botting or am I just making the game fairer than it already is for parties involved because a situation where an equilibrium in the no-botting column can not exist or is unlikely.

The point raised here is rather similar to questioning the legality of shoplifting. Very few shoplifters are ever caught, attempts to enforce anti-shoplifting policies are typically far from successful, and the rewards to be reaped by the act are quite tangible indeed. Should we all shoplift? Of course not.

Ineffectiveness in enforcing the contract does not negate its significance. If SE is unable to enforce their terms (due to a variety of reasons, most of them quite legitimate) to a degree most of us would consider adequate, it then falls to us, the players, to enforce that contract through the means available to the community. Means such as blacklists, kicking people from linkshells, and generally exerting massive peer pressure to enforce what the majority of us consider to be "fair".

Sadly, as I mentioned before, most players lack either the inclination or fortitude to do so.

 

[Mattaru]

The point raised here is rather similar to questioning the legality of shoplifting. Very few shoplifters are ever caught, attempts to enforce anti-shoplifting policies are typically far from successful, and the rewards to be reaped by the act are quite tangible indeed. Should we all shoplift? Of course not.

Ineffectiveness in enforcing the contract does not negate its significance. If SE is unable to enforce their terms (due to a variety of reasons, most of them quite legitimate) to a degree most of us would consider adequate, it then falls to us, the players, to enforce that contract through the means available to the community. Means such as blacklists, kicking people from linkshells, and generally exerting massive peer pressure to enforce what the majority of us consider to be "fair".

Sadly, as I mentioned before, most players lack either the inclination or fortitude to do so.

1. The truth of the analogy really depends on the scale we are talking about. If shoplifting is widespread (the status quo if you will) then those who choose not to shoplift do not obtain an item they are looking for, and should shoplift because of the lack of a mechanism to make sure people do not defect from an underlying social agreement. But shoplifting is not the status qou due to the lack of a great enough detterent (a functioning justice system and actualy attempts to recognize and combat shoplifting) and moreover a greater supply of goods. This is not the case here. I can't go to the store and go to aisle 12: E abjuration body. There is a severe limit in the supply of the item in question making the choice to ignore the ToS much greater, and legitimate because the backers of the ToS contract (SE and GMs) do not a) address the issue of availability that hurts gameplay and b) lack of any effort to combat botting.

2. If a contract is being held on one end there is no justifiable reason for the other party to break it. This is just not the case for NA players. For instance you make a contract with a business...negotiating salary etc., then they don't pay you. Are you going to still go ahead and honor that contract?

 

[Raesvelg]

1. The truth of the analogy really depends on the scale we are talking about. If shoplifting is widespread (the status quo if you will) then those who choose not to shoplift do not obtain an item they are looking for, and should shoplift because of the lack of a mechanism to make sure people do not defect from an underlying social agreement. But shoplifting is not the status qou due to the lack of a great enough detterent (a functioning justice system and actualy attempts to recognize and combat shoplifting) and moreover a greater supply of goods. This is not the case here. I can't go to the store and go to aisle 12: E abjuration body. There is a severe limit in the supply of the item in question making the choice to ignore the ToS much greater, and legitimate because the backers of the ToS contract (SE and GMs) do not a) address the issue of availability that hurts gameplay and b) lack of any effort to combat botting.

2. If a contract is being held on one end there is no justifiable reason for the other party to break it. This is just not the case for NA players. For instance you make a contract with a business...negotiating salary etc., then they don't pay you. Are you going to still go ahead and honor that contract?

1. A greater supply of goods is true, but shoplifting (and other minor crimes) is probably about as common as botting among a similarly broad cross section of the population in question. What is different, as you pointed out, are the rewards in question for unethical behavior. A kid stealing a candy bar is one thing, someone botting to get their E.body is something else entirely. For some reason I'm reminded of Larry Niven's Known Space novels, in which just about every crime but pickpocketing is punishable by death, and pickpocketing is simply accepted as a fact of life. But I digress. Scale isn't an issue in a matter of ethics, only intent.

2. Obviously SE makes at least SOME effort to enforce the TOS, given the periodic rash of bannings we encounter. The problem is that enforcing the rules is extremely difficult without resorting to measures that would probably upset a rather large percentage of the population, such as spyware resident in the game software to detect the use of bots and hacks.

 

[Mattaru]

1. A greater supply of goods is true, but shoplifting (and other minor crimes) is probably about as common as botting among a similarly broad cross section of the population in question. What is different, as you pointed out, are the rewards in question for unethical behavior. A kid stealing a candy bar is one thing, someone botting to get their E.body is something else entirely. For some reason I'm reminded of Larry Niven's Known Space novels, in which just about every crime but pickpocketing is punishable by death, and pickpocketing is simply accepted as a fact of life. But I digress. Scale isn't an issue in a matter of ethics, only intent.

2. Obviously SE makes at least SOME effort to enforce the TOS, given the periodic rash of bannings we encounter. The problem is that enforcing the rules is extremely difficult without resorting to measures that would probably upset a rather large percentage of the population, such as spyware resident in the game software to detect the use of bots and hacks.

1. I have a hard time believeing anything greater than 10% of people go to the store with the intent to shoplift. Now I would be much more inclined to say 25% of LS's use a bot serverwide. And as you said just because only one person in the LS uses a bot to claim, all who know are just as guilty and are therefore not a unique group outside of the one botter. The example wasn't supposed to focus on a reward so much as availability. Shoplifting occurs on a small scale because of the availability of most items, botting occurs because of the rarity, which is why I said your analogy isn't actually applicable to the situation. A contract doesn't hold any moral weight in a deontological (intent-based) sense....at all, a contract gives a compass for a way that someone should act in regards to the fulfillment of the contract, not your intent to fulfill it.

2. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe WoW uses such measures, and as long as SE were to offer a windowed mode I'm sure the gaming public wouldn't mind seeing as WoW is the biggest MMO in the world.

 

[Firestreak]

Here's the things that need to be taken into account about claimbots.

1. They give advantage over claimers not using the bot.
2. They are undetectable and therefore unenforcable. Even the people on your own LS will not know you claim bot unless you say so.

Given this: We can complain about claim bot all we want but it becomes fairly irrelevant. We don't know who does it, we don't know who doesn't. The only people it scares away are the people who don't want to do actions that violate community standards, making people who violate those morals at a disadvantage because of that and nothing else.

Being that we can't all go into a room and agree that we'll never ever use claim bots and 100% trust each other, it almost seems fairer to agree that we'll ALL use claim bots and then the advantage is eliminated.

 

[Raesvelg]

Note that I said shoplifting and other minor crimes. I'd wager that nigh on 100% of the people in the US, for example, exceed the speed limit, jaywalk, etc. Most of us commit about 2-3 misdemeanors over the course of the day without even thinking about it, simply because those misdemeanors offer some advantage (getting somewhere faster) and seem to have no downsides (sporadic and ineffective enforcement, seemingly a victimless crime). Not unlike the arguments some folks use in favor of flee-hacking, actually.

The risk vs rewards question is the one pertinent to botting. If SE has relatively little chance of catching you (low risk) and botting will get you claim to a HNM that drops something you really want (high reward), then why not bot? What you're arguing is to remove the social stigma of botting, accept it as part of the game, and move on. Frankly, I don't care for that viewpoint, simply because it is simply another way of saying that the ends justify the means, and that leads to all sorts of ugliness that I personally have no desire to experience. If everyone bots, and the playing field is level, someone will escalate the situation to the next level. And we'll have this conversation again, over some other issue, and so on.

There's another issue to the question of widespread botting, of course. Assuming that every LS will have designated bots, how do we decide who those botters will be? While the risk might be low, there is risk entailed in botting. Do we mandate that every single person in the LS should be required to bot equally? Do we then exclude people who refuse to break the TOS?

Personally, I'd prefer stricter enforcement, and the spyware option wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Neither would an official windowed mode, for that matter.

 

[Mattaru]

Note that I said shoplifting and other minor crimes. I'd wager that nigh on 100% of the people in the US, for example, exceed the speed limit, jaywalk, etc. Most of us commit about 2-3 misdemeanors over the course of the day without even thinking about it, simply because those misdemeanors offer some advantage (getting somewhere faster) and seem to have no downsides (sporadic and ineffective enforcement, seemingly a victimless crime). Not unlike the arguments some folks use in favor of flee-hacking, actually.

The risk vs rewards question is the one pertinent to botting. If SE has relatively little chance of catching you (low risk) and botting will get you claim to a HNM that drops something you really want (high reward), then why not bot? What you're arguing is to remove the social stigma of botting, accept it as part of the game, and move on. Frankly, I don't care for that viewpoint, simply because it is simply another way of saying that the ends justify the means, and that leads to all sorts of ugliness that I personally have no desire to experience. If everyone bots, and the playing field is level, someone will escalate the situation to the next level. And we'll have this conversation again, over some other issue, and so on.

There's another issue to the question of widespread botting, of course. Assuming that every LS will have designated bots, how do we decide who those botters will be? While the risk might be low, there is risk entailed in botting. Do we mandate that every single person in the LS should be required to bot equally? Do we then exclude people who refuse to break the TOS?

Personally, I'd prefer stricter enforcement, and the spyware option wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Neither would an official windowed mode, for that matter.

The first two paragraphs: This is muttling my point, if it is even pertinent. The examples of shoplifting that you provided and other crimes were not pertinent to my argument by discussing the risk vs. reward. I said it is a given, it is a fact that there is little risk involved and a reward present. Given that FACT about botting it is only logical to see that people will do it, so if anything your observations on jay-walking and not driving the speed limit are turned in my favor, because they represent empirically that people do behave in this way. Therefore, my argument that I pose is that it serves the interests of all players to shed a stigma against botting and realize that people will do it, and if you want to reduce its impact on the gaming environment you should do it too.
Even if this did work in an ethical framework of "ends justify the means", which it doesn't, the means are not unethical because the ToS is a moot document when unenforced as I pretty much nailed with the example of one party not enforcing a contract yet still binding others to it. The argument is not ends justify means for that reason, for that to hold in weight it is assumed that the means are negative.

If there was a way that the equilibrium of utility with no botting could be maintained then the argument to bot falls. Simple as that. Apply this to changes that could be made by SE.

Concerning LS members: If one person in your LS bots and you gain from it, as you said you might as well be botting. In and of itself if you don't like it, you should leave or you are just as guilty. I would say no one can be coerced into botting by the LS, but if you are against and benefit from it you are just a straight up hypocrite.

 

[Raesvelg]

Btw, the rest of you people fail, Matt and I could have had this conversation in PMs for crying out loud.

Anyway.

Given the lack of social stigma accompanying those little crimes like jaywalking, speeding, and whatnot, of course people do them. They're hardly ever enforced, and nobody cares. Botting, on the other hand, is widespread despite a significant negative association. Which was my point when I talked about a potential mentality shift if we were to accept botting as normal. The same people that bot now would find themselves unable to get the same ratio of claims that they're accustomed to, and would soon turn to other means of ensuring them. If we accept widespread violations of the ToS as a matter of course, people will simply find new ways to violate them, from subtle to overt, and we're back at square one saying "well, maybe doing x should be considered a normal part of endgame" and then it's ZurkaZurka Mohammed Jihad at every Faffy/Wyrm from now until the end of time.

And yes, I *AM* using the Slippery Slope argument! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Regarding the matter of a LS with botters, yes, I also tend to group those people together under the label of "cheaters", though I'm certain few of them see themselves that way. Personally it would amuse me if at least one of them had the stones to come on and admit that at least *someone* in their Linkshell bots in a public forum. I also wonder how many people have a bot in their linkshell and either don't know, or don't *WANT* to know. For myself, if I ever found out... I'd probably just drop my pearl. :/

 

[Mattaru]

Btw, the rest of you people fail, Matt and I could have had this conversation in PMs for crying out loud.

And yes, I *AM* using the Slippery Slope argument! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Regarding the matter of a LS with botters, yes, I also tend to group those people together under the label of "cheaters", though I'm certain few of them see themselves that way. Personally it would amuse me if at least one of them had the stones to come on and admit that at least *someone* in their Linkshell bots in a public forum. I also wonder how many people have a bot in their linkshell and either don't know, or don't *WANT* to know. For myself, if I ever found out... I'd probably just drop my pearl. :/

Yeah, most everyone does fail Raes I agree.

So if its a slippery slope argument I don't have to refute it right, because slippery slope logic has me laying in a gutter overdosed on heroine and methamphedamines after losing my legit job outside of selling rocks to the brothers. (ps I don't know what else you could do to break the ToS)

I'd drop my pearl if it was obvious we were the only ones botting.

 

[Firestreak]

What I don't like about your slippery slope argument is that the claimbots are undetectable while the escalation(such as MPKing) would be very detectable. As in, we can all agree not to MPK each other because we all know when we're being MPKed. On the otherhand we don't know when someone is using a voke bot against us. Or in the prisoner dilemna scenario, if we can see for each other if we're testifying against the other, then we both know not to because we know that our testifying will result in the same to us.

 

[Raesvelg]

Problematically, as Fire pointed out, nobody really *knows* that the competition is using a vokebot. They get outclaimed and just assume that's the case. The more sophisticated bots that involve pos hacking and whatnot are easy to spot (though for some reason that's never stopped the RMT from using them for months before SE takes notice...) but a simple /ja "Provoke" Fafnir-specific bot... nope. Therefor, until such time as large groups come forth and admit it, it's impossible to prove.

And the slippery slope argument actually does apply in this case, since as I pointed out, the people using the vokebots are using a banned item in pursuit of an unfair advantage. It's unlikely that they would stop seeking that advantage if the playing field were spontaneously leveled.

 

[Firestreak]

You can only go so far as far as cheats are concerned until you pass into the territory where it becomes noticable that you're doing it. Meaning I can voke bot all day long and you can't prove it even if you suspect me of doing it and are watching me do it. I can read hidden NM data and I can have the program automatically perform the actions for me.

Beyond that, you pass into enforcable cheat territory. The purpose of the stigma is to discourage use of the voke bots, but it only discourages people who understand that it's immoral and therefore obey the stigma. People who don't care about morality on the other hand will continue to use it, and the stigma only serves to give moral people a disadvantage as a result.

The only possible solution is to have everyone openly agree to all use vokebots(off game so they can't get banned for it) and therefore the playing field will be level.

Sure, some people will try and go further, but behind those bots all you can really do is teleport hack to claim from anywhere - and that's detectable therefore we can agree not to use teleport hacks to claim NM knowing with confidence that our opponents aren't.

-Or in the case of trying to claim against gilsellers, then I spposed teleport hacking wouldn't be immoral if they're doing it to. Then by NOT doing it you're giving them an advantage.(Although I wouldn't recommend it, you'll get yourself permabanned and you actually care about your account.)