Silkroad Online Forums

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons



"The Tragedy of the Commons" is an influential article written by Garett Hardin in 1968 that discusses basic human nature and behavior when acting out of self-interest. In the example of a metaphor that Hardin gave, there is a small village with one hundred families living in it that share a common grass plot. Each family owns a few cows that they raise for milk and beef. The villagers follow an unspoken law that each family is allowed to put one of their cows in the commons to graze. On an average day, there are one hundred cows happily grazing on the grass from the common land, and no one bothers to count the cows on the field, so everyone is happy.

Why is this a problem?

The "unspoken agreement" is not as binding as one might think. The grass commons can only sustain one hundred cows; any more, and the field becomes barren, leading to starvation. However, there are no laws in place to specifically allow one cow per family. In their trusting relationships, the villagers assume that everybody will follow the rule. But one day, one villager thinks to himself, "Who's going to notice if I add one extra cow to the pasture? No one's counting." So, the next day, he slips two cows into the pasture. Other villagers notice him doing it, and also think "No one will care if I put an extra cow in there." You can guess what happens next.



Another situation: Beaver skin hats were very popular in colonial America during the 1700s. The Great Lakes region had a large population of beavers to trap and skin for their valuable furs. Now, let's say that there was a general rule of thumb among the trappers: "The maximum number you should trap is ten beavers. If you trap more, the beaver population cannot sustain itself, and will eventually collapse." But who was going to enforce that rule? What if a hunter went out and trapped thirty beavers? Who would stop him? Who would stop others from doing the same?

The decision to put extra cows in the pasture and trap as many beavers as you like is totally rational when you think in terms of self-interest. In both of these cases, however, karma strikes back, leaving the grass commons void of grass and the beaver population extinct. People are encouraged to act irresponsibly because acting responsibly forces them to lose out. When they act irresponsibly (like when you put too many cows in the pasture or get greedy for beaver hats), everyone loses. Ideally, each person would follow the rules so that the common resource is preserved. But, then you will think, "How can I, an individual, make a difference?" It's true; one person acting responsibly makes no difference. When they trap ten beavers while 99 out of 100 others are trapping fifty beavers at a time, are they really doing any good? In this sense, the Tragedy of the Commons is the idea of a prophecy of self-fulfillment that often leads to the demise of the common resource due to the nature of human self-interest.

The question is: Can the principles of the Tragedy of the Commons be applied to Silkroad? Why or why not? Discuss.

Edit: Probably wrote too much. I think people tend to reply to topics that don't require a drawn out intellectual answer @_@

Edit2: Why can't I post images? o_O

In reference to the first example. You talk about an "understood agreement" yet in SRO its not the case. There is a defined law, it's called the TOS. Its set out and it a written law in which violating it can lead in a loss of account.

So no, it can't be applied.

Yes, the TOS does lay down some rules. But, in reality, Joymax really has not done much to enforce them, resulting in players losing faith in them. A rule without strict enforcement becomes merely an empty saying. Without a tangible sign of authority on the horizon, players are not feeling the pressure to follow the rules, and in many cases, ignoring it altogether; in essence, it's a free-for-all without the firm hand of authority from Joymax.

For the sake of the continuation of the discussion, let's assume that Joymax does nothing to enforce the TOS agreements. The common rule is "You should not bot or multiclient because it destroys the community and ruins the gameplay element." The common resource that is at risk is server space and community values.

However, there are clear advantages in botting that satisfy the self-interests of players. 1) It is effortless, 2) They are relatively easy to find and use, and 3) Even if it's not faster, you spend more time playing, resulting in fast leveling. Any "rational" person would listen to their inner demon of self-interest and succumb to botting, right? "Rational" people do what is good for them. This is the justification people use to perform their contraband activities. (Don't interpret this as bot support, geez. It's a perspective.) If everyone bots and multiclients, the server is clogged and no one will play the game as intended, resulting in the theoretical death of Silkroad.

Acting responsibly, in this case, means not botting. What is in it for the one who chooses to do what's right, choosing to play legit while others around them zoom up in levels without the same effort? Are people who don't bot or multiclient acting "rationally"? Is one person that doesn't bot making a difference in the grand scheme of things?

This is probably what many are feeling right now. The Tragedy of the Commons basically states that without firm restrictions, people will tend to act irresponsibility for their own benefit. This is a cynical view of human nature and is still controversial, but arguably realistic.

It has been observed that individuals who want to act responsibly may feel despair because they feel 'alone' in the wake of those who act according to their self-interest. An exception to the Tragedy is a wide, influential movement to advocate responsible behavior. For example, animal rights groups can raise awareness to pass harsh regulations on beaver hunting, which could cause people to act responsibly in groups. An example of this is Avalon union in Venus. If there was not a dedicated group of people to advocate being legit, it's probable that Venus would have turned out like any other server.

Another question: Can the tide against bots ever be reversed? In real life it might be possible, but the fact that Silkroad is played on the internet makes it difficult for the non-botting movement to have much of an impact. Seeing peoples' texts on forums and in game saying "Don't bot, it's bad" makes it very impersonal and unconvincing.

Remember back to the 60 cap when bot bannings occurred regularly, player bots and all. Even now there have been weekly bans against bots. IMO, you bot and eventually you will be banned. The rules are still being enforced.

nice read. and it's obvious many have slipped in more than a cow and it appears they rarely get caught.

"Can the principles of the Tragedy of the Commons be applied to Silkroad? Why or why not? Discuss."

I think no it can't. The differences between your examples of the Tragedy and Silkroad is that there was no one governing the use of the 'resources' and each person that had access to it was expected to act accordingly. It was in their self interest to abide by the rules of thumb, but they did not have to act accordingly and there was no one to enforce regulation.

Silkroad is not a resource and in game there are no such representations of such resources. If a player wants to kill Tiger Girl each day, it does not have an affect on the spawns for the next day, or the next day, or 100 years from then. Overhunting an area only results in a short term slowdown of exp/sp and items. The monsters will respawn. In some cases, such as a few cave rooms, it is virtually impossible to out farm a monster without having a high level AOE int character, while other rooms you kill a few moles and room stays empty for a while.

There is no bound on gold. It is generated infinitly, as well as most other items in the game. The NPCs will never run out of arrows, pots, pills, horses, or weapons/armor. There are hard limits on sox items, but if not for those, they too would eventually fill up a server over time.

Now tell me how 'botting' is destructive to the game world in terms of the Tragedy of the Commmons? I don't see any rational person being able to argue against what I just said except in a point of sox distribution, which I think we can all agree on; the more chars you have out there grinding the better chance you can get a drop.

I don't think that 'botting' is the issue of the dilemma or is even the main focus of such an argument. You are basically saying that botting is the root of all evil for the game and that is a naive argument. If botting were so bad to the game in such a way that JM saw it as truly destructive to the game, they would fix it. Trust me, I've been studying the game design of Silkroad for a while now and it's not your typical mmorpg. It has a very well though out design and as a result of everything that has happened the past few years, it is now more profitable and successful than any other free mmorpg out there save maybe Runescape and a handful of others.

That is not to say that botting does not have any negative affects on the game, because it does. The effects, however, are not of the same type as described in the Tragedy of the Commons dilemma. Instead you have an acceleration of the acquisition of wealth and power in a specific portion of the community that gives rise to an unnaturally 'elite' class of people who have power and money that did not work for it. People naturally look for shortcuts and ways to make life easier, so having something that does all the work for you lowers the standard of quality for the people that play the game.

Now this is common of anything, hacks/cheats come and go, but with Silkroad, it has been around for so long that it is almost rooted into the game core now. It has such an affect on the game that if it were all of a sudden to be eliminated, it would indeed cripple the game and would result in the ultimate demise of the game. It's like if you get an infection and don't intervene with it for a long time and it gets worse and worse. You can't just one day 'fix' the infection without causing personal harm, it's a long healing process. The same is true of Silkroad and has been demonstrated the previous bot ban where people were unbanned.

Now, if you want to really argue responsibility, you can sit and point fingers all day long but it won't fix the problem because the problem is not yours to fix, it's Joymax's. Anyone that bots is contributing to the problem, but anyone that doesn't bot is just as guilty. That's right, if you choose to do the right thing and play the game without botting, but still buy silk and just play the game, then you are giving Joymax positive reinforcement in their efforts of not controlling their 'problems'.

A lot of people will call bs on that or it will even make a few angry, but that's ok because they don't understand what responsibility is. If you knew, without a reasonable doubt, that some company X dumped their waste materials into rivers, and still bought their products but criticized their practices, then you aren't acting responsible at all. This current situation with Joymax and how Silkroad is ran is not different.

Arguing against botting is a moot point. Consider the idiom "When in Rome do as the Romans do". If Joymax is actively allowing players to bot (which I'm strongly inclined to believe they are), then you simply cannot blame the people that do it and not hold JM accountable for it. You can, however, not agree with it and speak out against them for lacking certain moral integrity, but sticks and stones.

Look at Warhammer and Blizzard, who openly fight activities they do not condone on their servers. They have active GMs that actually respond to players in game to check out people who cheat, scam, and sell gold. People who choose to break the rules in that game must do so at the risk of facing the consequences. This is not the case with Silkroad. So, until people start being rational and hold the real people accountable who should be, Joymax, continuing to focus on anyone else is a waste of time and effort, but they can do what they please.

So, wrapping up, the Tragedy of the Commons Dilemma is not applicable to Silkroad. I'm sure you could find another paradigm that is, but that one is definitely not. I will admit that things are never as simple as they seem. Simply blaming Joymax won't help, and choosing not to play the game won't help either. Just look at piracy and how incredibly hard companies work with DRM to try and prevent a problem, but it has only backfired and punished the people who choose to do the right thing.

Traditional problem solving will not result in solving every problem. This is true of the case of cheating in games as well, especially Silkroad. It all comes down to what Joymax sees as a problem and whether or not they care about the short term or long term status of the game. With the announcement of yet another server, and probably a few more avatars coming soon, I think that they think they are doing pretty good as it is.

Those are just my opinions on the matter. You don't have to agree with them. Contrary to popular belief, I do not support people who choose to bot. When I have my own game, I'm going to be in the same position as every other company is with having to deal with that problem. The differences for me though will be that I understand the problems that have to be solved. You can't fix a problem if you don't understand it. It's like cutting off the visible portion of a weed, it will just keep growing back. But if you take out the roots, then it will be gone for good. Until Joymax starts attacking the roots, the 'bot weed' will just keep growing back.

The "tragedy of the commons" has been discussed previously in this forum.

What I find more interesting is that the vast majority of people are happy to be selfish if they get ahead of the norm yet this ideal then becomes the norm.

Result: the meek inherit the Earth? Who knows... it happened in diablo 2.

very interesting

as far as i can tell from what i have seen is that botting or botters are not the problem, it is how JM has handles the problem

if you allow it, you cant eliminate it
if you eliminate it after allowing it you lose paying customers (silk)
if you keep it the same, you squeeze out many other players

to totally get rid of botting
you have to change the game dynamic as they are currently are
make some servers not free to play, with things like gold available for silk
you would leave the other servers for botting and those who can not pay to play
you could even sell a limited bot on the not free server
or you could change the exp requirements to lvl so less grinding is required to max out, or change the amount you get from mobs including skill points

just some thoughts for discussion

Good responses Well said, Drew and others.



Don't be a meanie
I guess botting doesn't totally fit the criteria for the Tragedy but it mostly works in my opinion. How about this: server space is definitely a valuable resource. Most people run 1 client and are happy. Others download a multiclient and run multiple clients. Soon, many people are multiclienting because it has advantages to it. Is this applicable?

Please don't take anything I said personally, it's not intended or directed at you or anyone else here. It's just an open minded response

I don't think so either. You can try to argue against multiclient that way, but then you get into issues of whether it's "responsible" or not to use more than one PC per household to be on Silkroad. People who have more than one computer that can legitimately get on Silkroad to stall and grind obviously have the advantage of doing so over anyone who has one computer. Multiclient gives people with one physical computer the benefits that anyone with multiple computers has.

The only perceived problem with multiclient is that of when there is a limitation of slots to login, but that has nothing to do with long term resources either. That's just a matter of supply and demand. There's a supply of X slots yet a demand of X + Y that exceeds it. Consider the other Silkroad versions that do not have an multiclient built in, is it bad in that case for people to connect more than one account when there are legitimate reasons for people to run a few chars for stalling and one for grinding, or even more for pleveling their own characters?

I'm not saying that Multiclient doesn't give advantages to people, because it sure does. But, the advantages and results of those advantages, don't fall under anything with resources and their future.

Since having more computers also means the ability to have more characters on Silkroad, any general arguments of Software based multiclients are just perception arguments when abuse of clients is not the issue, i.e. the difference between two computers running one client and one computer running two clients vs one computer running 10 clients and having 10 computers running one client.

The Tragedy of the Commons Dilemma is certainly an interesting idea though. I just don't think Silkroad has any application of it because of how the game is designed.

I would read a book faster then all that sht ..

Yo this is very true that is why I dont buy silk no more! Im legit but the whole "botting" isnt the biggest problem its the company just like you said. I mean even if all legits didnt buy silk still got alot of "botters" or w/e that still buys it so they will always have money. I like SRO and all but it got alot worse over the years just like at the 70 cap i left for a year I come back I see spammers in the city, ppl dont say hey you bot? They say what type of bot u got lol like really wth. This game is dead dude, I try not to think that cuz I enjoy it but i strongly believe the ppl that play fair will either quit or join the dark side and bot. I just wanna hit 90 on both of my euros and be done.

Thanks for replying

So you have all said that the Tragedy does not apply to Silkroad, and the theory may have just been shot down. But, it pretty much sums up why people choose to bot or not. Regardless of the fact that "everyone who bots will be banned," realistically this has not been the case. Walking around Roc Mountain, I could stand in the most populated grinding spot and yell out "IF YOU'RE HERE, I WILL GIVE YOU 500 MILLION" and no one would answer. It's just my take on things. The fact that bot programs are pretty well known in the community just makes it a temptation.

Also, I previously thought it was perfectly reasonable to state "Acting responsibly means to not bot."
The counter argument:



You're right, botting isn't directly destroying the game world, such as obliterating the virtual towns or landscape, but it's mostly impacting the economy and the level curve (affecting the triangular trade, grinding spots, pvp, etc.), which are things that players deal with. The bolded part is what I found interesting, and it could be debated. Some people say botting is a curse while others say "it has been around for so long that it is almost rooted into the game core now." Does botting bring in more revenue for Joymax than servers full of legit players? Would eliminating bots cause players to come back, thus increasing profit? What does the word "destructive" really mean?

This, too:



Joymax is definitely accountable for the problem because the inability to put on a strong face to the public causes players to disregard what they say.

I don't Farking care if it applies or not applies, drains resource or not drains resource. What I need to know is that the game need to be fixed, and the bots need to go! They've caused too much problem!

The game has too much kiddies and turks, you can't talk about responsible with them.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=84516&hilit=commons%2A
In hindsight I believe an Austrian approach to the issue of explaining why botting and cheating (in general) has a negative effect on the game would have succeeded where a point blank social trap approach fails.. The tragedy of the commons is a social trap applicable to SRO.

edit* Drew's post in shorthand:
You can't turn an oil tanker around in one second. - R.P.

you make me hate austria....