General Remove the 'Trade with a newbie' objective

• Trying to trade with a new player is like trying to pull teeth, I think I've only ever gotten one other person to trade with me, and that was a long time ago.
  I usually have to coerce my spouse to log on with a low-level class to trade, but that's annoying and not an option for the majority of the playerbase.
  
  I get the concept of engaging with the new community, but it doesn't work. Maybe they're suspicious? Free money isn't generally given away on most servers unless it's a scam...
  
  
• (Yes, I've toggled ghosts to all so I can chat with everyone)

 

I just don't like the concept of having to hunt someone down and force them to commence an* awkward trade with me just so I can complete my daily objective. I'd rather just gather fish 30 times and call it a day

 

can we have kill mobs and open chests as only objectives
ok thanks goodbye

 

give 24 emeralds to newbie to view this post

 

if i was a level 1-10 newbie and some full diamond person came up to me and offered me free money i would assume it to be a scam and just ignore them

besides, 32 emeralds is nothing even at that point in the game

 

well, if you come from hypixel skyblock, of course you will be paranoid of being wiped by getting duped money

 

Hello everyone! Feel free to add on, dissect and critically analyse this :) Feedback is greatly appreciated as reading what I have written myself is associated with interpretational bias.

First of all, as with the other threads I reply to, I would like to thank Paintbrush for creating this thought-provoking thread. Please keep in mind that this new edit does cover the topic of cognitive biases in my reflection and critical response.

Quick Summary:
Biases and fallacies are apparent throughout everyday life. Understanding how they take form in conversations will help us make more informed choices and arguments. As such, this thread has quite a few. After reviewing my answer and the answers of others (taking note of biases and fallacies) I believe we should remove the "trade 24 emeralds with level 1-10 newbie" objective mainly due to the honesty we should uphold as Wynncraft and the player base.

Topic: Should we remove or keep the “Trade 24 emeralds with a level 1-10 newbie” objective?

Before I step into my discussion regarding this topic, I would like to introduce the topic of bias. Personal bias naturally occurs in all situations and can be firstly avoided through identification, then action to minimise it where possible. In revising my responses to the comments I post, I aim to identify a few of these potential biases and fallacies for an educational purpose.

One of the first points of notice that I would like to address is how I got sucked into the anchoring bias of the title. The anchoring bias is the tendency to be overly influenced by the first piece of information we hear. In this case, the term “remove” was an anchoring bias to my initial discussion, impacting my decisions about why we should remove the objective. After revisiting my post several times, I realised the other potential benefits to support keeping the daily objective. As a result, I amended my post to include it.

Negative bias - one’s ability to concentrate on negative experiences and constantly dwell on them - is another factor to consider. Most posts have indeed included this negative bias, which is a big concern. It possibly influenced the following responses, thus, a discussion riddled with bias. An objective discussion aims to provide as many possible perspectives as possible to make the most informed decision. However, the anchoring bias possibly also caused this negative bias due to how the title was worded.

Another significant bias that impacted my post was the confirmation bias. One of the things I value in life is altruism. As a result, I heavily discussed the possible altruistic interpretation of the daily objective. Due to my tendency to support altruistic acts, this initially affected my decision which supported removing the daily objective due to its possible conflict with altruistic acts from my view.

In today’s society, kindness is a trait that is valued and respected by many. It could also be suggested to raise your social standing, due to the respect people will give towards you. Kindness can be demonstrated through altruistic acts; altruistic acts are encouraged if you want to be kind. Due to the societal pressures of promoting kindness (and thus, altruistic acts), the herd mentality bias could also be considered.

One could also suggest that altruism is indeed a value that is inherent to human nature due to research found in this psychology link: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ing-pleasure-in-giving-others-make-us-selfish. Perhaps altruism is an intrinsic bias in everyone. As a side note, we should also consider the potential sampling bias present within the research conducted.

Quoted below are the following words which ignited the confirmation bias to my previous edited posts:

While reading the comment, I likened the words “engaging with” to the word “help.” The action of helping a new community as a more experienced player ignited thoughts of volunteering and altruism due to the associated connotations. As such, confirmation bias possibly occurred in my response. The idea of promoting players through daily objective rewards didn’t agree with me as a result.

Another point of interest from the initial post that should be considered includes the misinformation effect bias and the anecdotal fallacy simultaneously. In the author’s initial response, it was written that

The use of the words “I think” demonstrates low modality and possibly reflects the uncertain accuracy of recalling the anecdotal evidence. We are uncertain as readers what external and internal factors could have altered any memories over “a long time,” as quoted from the response. As such, it could be argued that the evidence presented here is weak, with the likely potential for bias.

The herd mentality is another potential factor influencing the participants' decision-making in this thread. Voting results are enabled for everyone to see after they have voted at the top of the screen, allowing people to change their votes even after viewing the results. The majority (>95% of participants) voted to remove the objective in the results. Not only so, but a large portion of comments discuss their views in a negative light also. A combination of these two factors could have influenced peoples’ decisions while scrolling down to the bottom of the page to post their response. Bias is tough to escape in this scenario unless awareness is apparent of these two factors present.

A final point to consider would include the hasty generalisation fallacy. The hasty generalisation fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn with some evidence but inadequate evidence overall to back up against potential counterarguments. In the following quote addressed by the author:

Here, insufficient strong evidence is proposed to support how the author “get(s) the concept of engaging with the new community,” as well as why “it doesn’t work.” Not only so, but the hasty generalisation that “free money isn’t generally given away on most servers” is also suggested to be a generalisation by the very word “generally.” The author fails to explain why the new community might be “suspicious” of trading emeralds to a new player. Only one side of the potential outcome is also stated here: suspicion, making this argument weak. The other possible perspectives are not addressed here clearly.

As a final note, my discussion is definitely riddled with my moral biases involving altruism and honesty.

======================================================================
Quick Summary: Rewarding players for the 24-emerald trade objective, if interpreted as an altruistic act/act of generosity, is immoral because the recipient could be unaware of the financial incentives (daily rewards) stemming from the action. The "donator" potentially receives more net monetary gain than the recipient at their respective levels. However, the objective allows exposure to the trading system, which is something to consider when approaching this issue.

The objective of trading 24 emeralds with a level 1-10 player implies financially assisting new players through an altruistic act. It could be said that this objective is an artificial and financially-induced motive that could potentially benefit the player completing the daily objective much more than the new player. A dominant financial motive, in this case, would be the potential mythic/s from the daily rewards. Would the financial incentives stemming from the action be morally sound? Would such discrepancies in the potential financial gains between the two parties be morally sound? This text aims to explore this issue, and how this affects the community.

As a clarification, new players are people who have limited experience and knowledge in the game. On the other spectrum, pre-existing players often have a sound understanding of the game with a pre-existing monetary saving/net value in the shared ender chest. An example would be an account with a level 84 assassin class, starting a fresh play-through on a level 1 archer class. The in-game objective states 'newbies' as level 1-10 players, which fails to address the potential of completed classes and preexisting monetary gains in the shared bank.

From the perspective of new players, they are often unaware that the objective (24 emeralds to a newbie) exists and are given a falsified sense of an altruistic act if players complete the objective act on the financial incentive, the daily rewards. The only time that a new player would be aware of the objective is through knowledge of it. The financial incentive could undermine the players' autonomous decision-making, encouraging financially motivated decisions over the implied "altruistic" act. Thus, it can be argued that this objective creates a dishonest double-faced act fuelled by monetary gain. This is an immoral practice as it is built on dishonesty. This objective affects the entire Wynncraft community by creating a misinformed image of the existing player base. It could also escalate to an extreme situation where the game's reputation could be impacted.

From how the objective stands now, it could be likened to being hired with financial compensation and rewards. Undoubtedly, the person completing the objective will always have the decision to reject the completion of the objective. In return, however, they will not be able to gain any rewards.

A further point to note is how many players will move to assist others even without this financial incentive from the daily rewards. As such, if the objective's goal is to promote such financial assistance at its core, then perhaps it would not be fulfilling an ethical standard for the CT team. Chests containing monetary gains along the Emerald Trail are already visually appealing due to the spark animation particles and their proximity to the main path. Income can also be achieved as one kills mobs, making this objective almost redundant in its financial aim due to the other factors listed.

Reading with an education/pedagogical lens, a point to note is that this objective does enlighten new players about the trading system present within the game. Experienced players will be encouraged to teach new players how to trade through commands, and the shift right-click shortcut where applicable. This will be useful in the long run as trading constitutes a significant component of community interaction and gameplay such as friendships, raids and trading.

However, one must again consider whether the potential financial gains outweigh or balance out the action of teaching newbies the trading system. Should such a possible reward be considered for this objective? Would it still be ethical and moral to view the objective as a teaching opportunity?

We have also failed to address whether or not new players who are fresh to the community, always require a teaching opportunity. Perhaps players might want to explore and find out these gameplay mechanics on their own? Or maybe, the new players already know of the trading system through other means such as youtube, /help, other players, or the forums? Freedom plays an integral role in society. Perhaps we should help only if they require and/or seek assistance either through words, or through inferences.

All in all, it is pretty clear the objective promotes community interaction and provides knowledge of the game for newbies. However, upon reading the objective through a monetary lens, the objective could be interpreted as an action that conflicts with the moral interest (altruism) of financially assisting new players. Then again, one could just as well not open the rewards upon completing this daily objective if we feel morally wrong doing so. We have a pretty flexible decision to make here, and I believe the decisions we choose for this daily objective could say a lot about our own personality and what we value.

Despite the freedom we have, the lack of transparency for newer players about the financial incentives stemming from this objective aren't very honest. Thus, I propose we remove this objective.

Note: The word "Potentially" was used as the action of players selling any items to the blacksmith could result in a monetary loss

For more information relating to altruism, feel free to check out this link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/altruism

 

Trade 24 emeralds to Level 1-104 newbie

 

i think you definitely gain more even just considering the emeralds found in the daily reward chests

 

Unless something magical happens and you gain less

"Potential" because the blacksmith could rob your money from the rng if players decide to sell it.

 

Trade 24 stacks with level 106 pro Chad gamer

 

What could I say to add on to this? I'm totally clueless as to who the two people who voted "yes" were, and I'm curious about their reasonings.