I went to a local Target store and looked at the packs of cards. Even Topps sports cards with 'rare' inserts are listing the odds of getting said items on their pack wrappers. DB does do well in telling you the odds of the purple, so kudos to them. They do not do so for other item types, such as schematics, golds, etc.
So they are better than some but not where they need to be.
I can't disagree that more information is always better and should be offered. If the "Best Chance" only increases by .1% then it really isn't an increase. I just don't believe the current environment is true gambling because you are promised specific levels of rewards.
The issue I have is what is the difference between a "Loot Crate" and lets say a pack of cards you buy at a gaming shop? The card pack normally costs $3.00 and promises 1 rare. There is no promise that if you open 10 packs you will get the pack you want or you won't get duplicates.
I think there should be more disclosure on the percentages given, but DB promises a Super Rare if you buy a 10 pack and that is what they are required to give you at minimum.
The biggest issue with the Loot Crates in a lot of games is that they don't guarantee anything and it is impossible to tell how valuable they really can be. IGN did a wonderful video showing how little they got for spending $100.00 in Star Wars Battlefront 2. That to me is a big issue and there should be some guarantees built in or it is simply gambling.
I used Pokemon cards as an example earlier in the thread. You own those cards once you buy them you don't own the Toons you buy like in stt DB owns your crew Quarters and all the crew you bought. Check eBay for Pokemon cards refine search to value set as a minimum of $500-1000 to $10000 you can sell those cards to collectors you can't sell your 5/5's in Timelines or your account as that breaks the Terms of Service.
But perhaps the definition of gambling has to change, because there is simply no other word for what loot boxes are. When gambling was just…gambling, there was no such thing as a “virtual item” that was unable to be assigned a real-life dollar value. And yet, clearly people value these things, as they’re willing to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for the chance at getting them. What is the difference, exactly, between spending $2,000 on a slot machine to win a cash prize, and spending $2,000 on loot boxes in pursuit of a legendary item? Even if you cannot sell that item for cash, clearly, to you, it has a value of at least $2,000, and now EA or Activision or Valve has $2,000 of your cash to prove it.
And if Db increases min age to 17, would it be ok?
It also depends on the wording of the law. It could make "gambling via lootboxes" for adults only (with a possible requirement to make age checks) or ban them completely.
Besides that, there is the "chinese way" which requires to discplose the odds of possible drops.
Hawaii state investigating now whether loot boxes should fall under gambling.
Chris Lee, the Democratic State Representative for Hawaii, held a press conference announcing that Hawaii will be looking into creating legislation that will ban games that encourage the addictive gambling behaviors found with loot boxes.
But regarding the possible EU-legislation about lootboxes, the opinion from the UK Gambling Comission won't matter at all due to Brexit. So their statement will be ignored if other EU countries want to start some sort of legislation process.
There are two different point of views in the legal arguments.
One side argues that virtual items are not worth any money so they are no gambling since gambling has to be about real money. (classic legal gambling definition, current law in almost every country)
The other side argues that virtual items may not be sellable and have no direct worth but subjectively perceived by the customer they are worth the money they have spent to get lootboxes/the items in them. (new wider gambling definition which should replace the existing gambling definition)
The whole reason we have laws that regulate gambling is because people can and do get addicted. The psychology of buying a 10 pack in STT is exactly same as plopping down chips on a roulette table, and people can, and are getting addicted to it. It's not about whether you get hard cash or something else in return, it's about shady companies taking advantage of addictive tendencies. For that reason it should be treated exactly the same as gambling regardless of the legal definition of gambling.
The whole reason we have laws that regulate gambling is because people can and do get addicted. The psychology of buying a 10 pack in STT is exactly same as plopping down chips on a roulette table, and people can, and are getting addicted to it. It's not about whether you get hard cash or something else in return, it's about shady companies taking advantage of addictive tendencies. For that reason it should be treated exactly the same as gambling regardless of the legal definition of gambling.
The legal definition of something defines the legal consequence - what is allowed and what is not allowed -, so it is necessary to change the legal definition of gambling to the wider gambling definition or make a special law for lootboxes if you want to treat them like gambling.
The whole reason we have laws that regulate gambling is because people can and do get addicted. The psychology of buying a 10 pack in STT is exactly same as plopping down chips on a roulette table, and people can, and are getting addicted to it. It's not about whether you get hard cash or something else in return, it's about shady companies taking advantage of addictive tendencies. For that reason it should be treated exactly the same as gambling regardless of the legal definition of gambling.
The legal definition of something defines the legal consequence - what is allowed and what is not allowed -, so it is necessary to change the legal definition of gambling to the wider gambling definition or make a special law for lootboxes if you want to treat them like gambling.
That's what I meant, they should make a special law for them to treat them as gambling, or modify the legal definition of gambling. One or the other, because they have exactly the same effect on the brain as gambling and should therefore be legally treated as such.
And finally, the legislation process in Germany has started:
The State Government in Bavaria has been asked by the State Congress (by the governing party) to become active. They'll hand it over to the Youth Protection Commission as a first step to decide the next steps and the State Government is forced to make an official statement. It is expected to come early next year.
Depending on the outcome, they will start the legislation process on the federal level and probably in the EU. The proposal by a third, non governing party, to make all games with lootboxes for adults only has been rejected by the Congress.
German page, you might have to use google translate.
Chris Lee aims to prohibit the sale of games with 'gambling mechanisms' to anyone under the age of 21
The video lays out the basics of what Lee has in mind, which includes prohibiting the sale of videogames containing "gambling mechanisms" to anyone under the age of 21. That restriction would cover any situation in which players are purchasing a "percentage chance" to get an in-game item, rather than the item itself, and would apply not just to games sold at retail but also those available via digital distribution channels like Steam and GOG—a relevant point because ESRB ratings are not mandatory for digital storefronts.
The 9:00 shuttle boosts were implemented last year in part as a direct response to concerns raised on the old forum about how harmful the game's 3:00 cycle for shuttles had already become for some players with addictive habits. I mention this partly because I think it's been forgotten, and partly because I felt at the time that it was a constructive and responsible step forward from DB about the very serious concerns about where gaming can go wrong.
By no means did I consider this one thing to mitigate the myriad ways in which Timelines functions as one big casino; there's room for plenty of other constructive, responsible ideas to be implemented. But I did appreciate that it indicated a willingness to respond to player concerns about the matter, and it is my hope that that willingness is still there even in the event that these legislative initiatives don't go anywhere.
Chris Lee aims to prohibit the sale of games with 'gambling mechanisms' to anyone under the age of 21
The video lays out the basics of what Lee has in mind, which includes prohibiting the sale of videogames containing "gambling mechanisms" to anyone under the age of 21. That restriction would cover any situation in which players are purchasing a "percentage chance" to get an in-game item, rather than the item itself, and would apply not just to games sold at retail but also those available via digital distribution channels like Steam and GOG—a relevant point because ESRB ratings are not mandatory for digital storefronts.
game developer will simply raise the min age to 21....
"Once the algorithm identifies a player who's likely to keep spending money to buy that one 'unicorn thing' that they're after ... then they lower the odds and then you keep spending more," he says in the video. "It's absolutely unethical and unfair."
Ah... Now i know why I keep getting only purple/blue crews and schematics with my premium pack pulls
Chris Lee aims to prohibit the sale of games with 'gambling mechanisms' to anyone under the age of 21
The video lays out the basics of what Lee has in mind, which includes prohibiting the sale of videogames containing "gambling mechanisms" to anyone under the age of 21. That restriction would cover any situation in which players are purchasing a "percentage chance" to get an in-game item, rather than the item itself, and would apply not just to games sold at retail but also those available via digital distribution channels like Steam and GOG—a relevant point because ESRB ratings are not mandatory for digital storefronts.
game developer will simply raise the min age to 21....
"Once the algorithm identifies a player who's likely to keep spending money to buy that one 'unicorn thing' that they're after ... then they lower the odds and then you keep spending more," he says in the video. "It's absolutely unethical and unfair."
Ah... Now i know why I keep getting only purple/blue crews and schematics with my premium pack pulls
I absolutely want this point about the possible use of such an algorithm to direct our results from purchases (and, I would presume, other drops such as Gauntlet streaks) addressed specifically and directly by DB.
I absolutely want this point about the possible use of such an algorithm to direct our results from purchases (and, I would presume, other drops such as Gauntlet streaks) addressed specifically and directly by DB.
From the article:
Lee also expresses concern about game publishers who adjust the odds of various items dropping in loot boxes in order to take advantage of people who really want them. He acknowledges that his information is third-hand and unverified (and I've only ever heard of the opposite happening, in the form of "pity timers" that increase the odds of a good drop the longer a person goes without one), but nonetheless does a pretty good job of making it sound like an all-but-established fact.
So it's a general claim without any basis. I wouldn't expect any specific, direct, response from DB.
I absolutely want this point about the possible use of such an algorithm to direct our results from purchases (and, I would presume, other drops such as Gauntlet streaks) addressed specifically and directly by DB.
From the article:
Lee also expresses concern about game publishers who adjust the odds of various items dropping in loot boxes in order to take advantage of people who really want them. He acknowledges that his information is third-hand and unverified (and I've only ever heard of the opposite happening, in the form of "pity timers" that increase the odds of a good drop the longer a person goes without one), but nonetheless does a pretty good job of making it sound like an all-but-established fact.
So it's a general claim without any basis. I wouldn't expect any specific, direct, response from DB.
I'd just like someone to say, "We don't use such an algorithm." I'm not asking for DB to answer for the entire gaming industry or wade into the other matters raised by this thread. But I do agree that it's unlikely to receive such a statement, and I'm burnt out from plenty of other and bigger fights. I don't have it in me to make a big deal out of this.
The regulations being proposed here would mean that it would be fine to sell a sword in a game for $200 – an example used in the video. What wouldn’t be OK is to sell a percentage chance to win that sword.
The distinction is that if you’re buying something that you know what you’re getting, then it’s a transaction. If you’re buying a chance at potentially getting something, then it’s ‘gambling’, and therefore shouldn’t involve under-21s.
This is what Chris Lee is pushing for regarding legislation of loot boxes
Chris Lee aims to prohibit the sale of games with 'gambling mechanisms' to anyone under the age of 21
The video lays out the basics of what Lee has in mind, which includes prohibiting the sale of videogames containing "gambling mechanisms" to anyone under the age of 21. That restriction would cover any situation in which players are purchasing a "percentage chance" to get an in-game item, rather than the item itself, and would apply not just to games sold at retail but also those available via digital distribution channels like Steam and GOG—a relevant point because ESRB ratings are not mandatory for digital storefronts.
game developer will simply raise the min age to 21....
"Once the algorithm identifies a player who's likely to keep spending money to buy that one 'unicorn thing' that they're after ... then they lower the odds and then you keep spending more," he says in the video. "It's absolutely unethical and unfair."
Ah... Now i know why I keep getting only purple/blue crews and schematics with my premium pack pulls
I absolutely want this point about the possible use of such an algorithm to direct our results from purchases (and, I would presume, other drops such as Gauntlet streaks) addressed specifically and directly by DB.
While we've all wondered about a bad luck algorithm I don't think one exists even under NDA if staff were ever to leave under certain circumstances there's a risk of that information getting loose therefore I can't see it being a thing apart from player bias
EA, known for the Fifa series, Mass Effect and Sims, has seen over $3billion (£2.2 billion) wiped from its value over the last month as many raged at its aggressive in-game purchase strategy in the new game Star Wars Battlefront II.
After paying over £60 for new title Star Wars Battlefront II gamers were furious about decisions to hide popular characters like Darth Vader, Yoda and Luke Skywalker behind a paywall.
On October 31, shares in EA were up to 119.60 but have now collapsed to 105.49, which, according to A CNBC report translates to a $3billion slash to the firm’s stock value.
Don't push a community of die hard fans of a franchise into paywalls of their favourite characters from the franchise or risk the wrath of the fans/gamers uniting under various forms of media. $3b is small change for a large company like EA smaller studios run the risk of going bust.
While I think Gamer anger has started with EA over the monetisiation of loot boxes to get main characters I think other companies may also get caught up in lootboxgate.
The distinction is that if you’re buying something that you know what you’re getting, then it’s a transaction. If you’re buying a chance at potentially getting something, then it’s ‘gambling’, and therefore shouldn’t involve under-21s.
I think that's a useful distinction and I agree that loot boxes are gambling.
Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money or material goods. Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize.
Any attempt to say it's not gambling based on the distinction between a material good and a virtual item is dubious at best, nefarious in application and dishonest overall. The value of any good, virtual or material is primarily subjective outside of basic needs (food, shelter, clothing...).
If anything, gambling over virtual items is should be even more regulated than gambling for a material good or money, because as others have mentioned, by the TOS those virtual items are non-transferable, you don't actually own them and if they shut down the game they are worthless.
While we've all wondered about a bad luck algorithm I don't think one exists even under NDA if staff were ever to leave under certain circumstances there's a risk of that information getting loose therefore I can't see it being a thing apart from player bias
The first step in avoiding a trap, is knowing of it's existence.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
In the US, our ESRB has determined "loot boxes" are not gambling, as you always receive a prize, useful or not. The only thing that might ever happen here is restricting them from minors. We value freedom in America.
I'm pretty sure all this talk is going to blow over. It makes great sensational headlines, but I don't think enough people are going to take it seriously for anything to gain traction.
Card collectors - eg baseball cards - have always had the chance of getting rare good cards and mostly get mediocre ones in every pack. Nobody has ever called that gambling. This is just virtualizing that type of card collecting.
In the US our ESRB has determined "loot boxes" are not gambling, as you always receive a prize, useful or not. The only thing that might ever happen here is restricting them from minors. We value freedom in America.
“ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling,” said an ESRB spokesperson in an e-mail to Kotaku. “While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want). We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.”
While this is their current stance on the issue it may change as technology evolves faster than we can legislate. Regarding collectible cards v virtual items you own the collectible cards and can resell them on eBay for crazy money (see Pokemon cards on this thread) while virtual items are property of the games studio and you don't own any of there content. If a game company decided to switch off the server you have nothing to show for your money while collectible cards go up in value see baseball cards and rare Pokemon cards etc comparing virtual loot boxes to actual real collector cards is comparing apples to oranges.
The distinction is that if you’re buying something that you know what you’re getting, then it’s a transaction. If you’re buying a chance at potentially getting something, then it’s ‘gambling’, and therefore shouldn’t involve under-21s.
I think that's a useful distinction and I agree that loot boxes are gambling.
Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money or material goods. Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize.
Any attempt to say it's not gambling based on the distinction between a material good and a virtual item is dubious at best, nefarious in application and dishonest overall. The value of any good, virtual or material is primarily subjective outside of basic needs (food, shelter, clothing...).
If anything, gambling over virtual items is should be even more regulated than gambling for a material good or money, because as others have mentioned, by the TOS those virtual items are non-transferable, you don't actually own them and if they shut down the game they are worthless.
While we've all wondered about a bad luck algorithm I don't think one exists even under NDA if staff were ever to leave under certain circumstances there's a risk of that information getting loose therefore I can't see it being a thing apart from player bias
The first step in avoiding a trap, is knowing of it's existence.
If this is a "trap" then all marketing and sales promotions are traps too. Everything that's sold involves a bit of manipulation in the way it's marketed. Companies have always tried to present what they're selling in the most desirable way possible. You see it in everything from "sales" that aren't actually lower prices and the pricing of small, medium, and large popcorn at the movie theater. It's just part of being human. Even if you're aware of what's being done, you are still just as likely to be influenced. And there's nothing wrong with doing things to encourage people to act in a certain way.
Comments
I can't disagree that more information is always better and should be offered. If the "Best Chance" only increases by .1% then it really isn't an increase. I just don't believe the current environment is true gambling because you are promised specific levels of rewards.
As the laws are currently written, it's not gambling, it's "gambling."
I used Pokemon cards as an example earlier in the thread. You own those cards once you buy them you don't own the Toons you buy like in stt DB owns your crew Quarters and all the crew you bought. Check eBay for Pokemon cards refine search to value set as a minimum of $500-1000 to $10000 you can sell those cards to collectors you can't sell your 5/5's in Timelines or your account as that breaks the Terms of Service.
Most importantly... BEST CHANCE PACKS
Source article:https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/11/22/from-belgium-to-hawaii-potential-battlefront-2-loot-box-legislation-would-be-complicated/amp/
And if Db increases min age to 17, would it be ok?
Event packs and premium packs are loot boxes in a sense that your spending in the hope of a legendary card.
It's not just DB this ruling will just effect it's all games companies on Mobile, Tablets, Pc and console if it gets written into legislation.
It also depends on the wording of the law. It could make "gambling via lootboxes" for adults only (with a possible requirement to make age checks) or ban them completely.
Besides that, there is the "chinese way" which requires to discplose the odds of possible drops.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/7emmyz/i_contacted_the_victorian_commission_for_gambling/?st=jac9q3a9&sh=1992cb39
But does that mean we can get refund?
Chris Lee, the Democratic State Representative for Hawaii, held a press conference announcing that Hawaii will be looking into creating legislation that will ban games that encourage the addictive gambling behaviors found with loot boxes.
Source:https://www.google.ie/amp/www.playstationlifestyle.net/2017/11/21/hawaii-looking-at-legislation-to-ban-loot-boxes/amp/
http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/news/2017/Loot-boxes-within-video-games.aspx
But regarding the possible EU-legislation about lootboxes, the opinion from the UK Gambling Comission won't matter at all due to Brexit. So their statement will be ignored if other EU countries want to start some sort of legislation process.
There are two different point of views in the legal arguments.
One side argues that virtual items are not worth any money so they are no gambling since gambling has to be about real money. (classic legal gambling definition, current law in almost every country)
The other side argues that virtual items may not be sellable and have no direct worth but subjectively perceived by the customer they are worth the money they have spent to get lootboxes/the items in them. (new wider gambling definition which should replace the existing gambling definition)
The legal definition of something defines the legal consequence - what is allowed and what is not allowed -, so it is necessary to change the legal definition of gambling to the wider gambling definition or make a special law for lootboxes if you want to treat them like gambling.
That's what I meant, they should make a special law for them to treat them as gambling, or modify the legal definition of gambling. One or the other, because they have exactly the same effect on the brain as gambling and should therefore be legally treated as such.
The State Government in Bavaria has been asked by the State Congress (by the governing party) to become active. They'll hand it over to the Youth Protection Commission as a first step to decide the next steps and the State Government is forced to make an official statement. It is expected to come early next year.
Depending on the outcome, they will start the legislation process on the federal level and probably in the EU. The proposal by a third, non governing party, to make all games with lootboxes for adults only has been rejected by the Congress.
German page, you might have to use google translate.
http://www.gamestar.de/artikel/lootboxen-csu-spd-und-freie-waehler-mit-eilantraegen-im-bayerischen-landtag,3322957.html
The video lays out the basics of what Lee has in mind, which includes prohibiting the sale of videogames containing "gambling mechanisms" to anyone under the age of 21. That restriction would cover any situation in which players are purchasing a "percentage chance" to get an in-game item, rather than the item itself, and would apply not just to games sold at retail but also those available via digital distribution channels like Steam and GOG—a relevant point because ESRB ratings are not mandatory for digital storefronts.
Source: Pc Gamer
http://www.pcgamer.com/us-lawmaker-who-called-out-star-wars-battlefront-2-lays-out-plans-for-anti-loot-box-law/
By no means did I consider this one thing to mitigate the myriad ways in which Timelines functions as one big casino; there's room for plenty of other constructive, responsible ideas to be implemented. But I did appreciate that it indicated a willingness to respond to player concerns about the matter, and it is my hope that that willingness is still there even in the event that these legislative initiatives don't go anywhere.
game developer will simply raise the min age to 21....
"Once the algorithm identifies a player who's likely to keep spending money to buy that one 'unicorn thing' that they're after ... then they lower the odds and then you keep spending more," he says in the video. "It's absolutely unethical and unfair."
Ah... Now i know why I keep getting only purple/blue crews and schematics with my premium pack pulls
I absolutely want this point about the possible use of such an algorithm to direct our results from purchases (and, I would presume, other drops such as Gauntlet streaks) addressed specifically and directly by DB.
From the article:
So it's a general claim without any basis. I wouldn't expect any specific, direct, response from DB.
I'd just like someone to say, "We don't use such an algorithm." I'm not asking for DB to answer for the entire gaming industry or wade into the other matters raised by this thread. But I do agree that it's unlikely to receive such a statement, and I'm burnt out from plenty of other and bigger fights. I don't have it in me to make a big deal out of this.
The distinction is that if you’re buying something that you know what you’re getting, then it’s a transaction. If you’re buying a chance at potentially getting something, then it’s ‘gambling’, and therefore shouldn’t involve under-21s.
This is what Chris Lee is pushing for regarding legislation of loot boxes
While we've all wondered about a bad luck algorithm I don't think one exists even under NDA if staff were ever to leave under certain circumstances there's a risk of that information getting loose therefore I can't see it being a thing apart from player bias
After paying over £60 for new title Star Wars Battlefront II gamers were furious about decisions to hide popular characters like Darth Vader, Yoda and Luke Skywalker behind a paywall.
On October 31, shares in EA were up to 119.60 but have now collapsed to 105.49, which, according to A CNBC report translates to a $3billion slash to the firm’s stock value.
Source: https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/finance/city/886367/Star-Wars-EA-stock-paywall-loot-box/amp
If there's a lesson to learn from EA it's this..
Don't push a community of die hard fans of a franchise into paywalls of their favourite characters from the franchise or risk the wrath of the fans/gamers uniting under various forms of media. $3b is small change for a large company like EA smaller studios run the risk of going bust.
While I think Gamer anger has started with EA over the monetisiation of loot boxes to get main characters I think other companies may also get caught up in lootboxgate.
I think that's a useful distinction and I agree that loot boxes are gambling.
Any attempt to say it's not gambling based on the distinction between a material good and a virtual item is dubious at best, nefarious in application and dishonest overall. The value of any good, virtual or material is primarily subjective outside of basic needs (food, shelter, clothing...).
If anything, gambling over virtual items is should be even more regulated than gambling for a material good or money, because as others have mentioned, by the TOS those virtual items are non-transferable, you don't actually own them and if they shut down the game they are worthless.
The first step in avoiding a trap, is knowing of it's existence.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
I'm pretty sure all this talk is going to blow over. It makes great sensational headlines, but I don't think enough people are going to take it seriously for anything to gain traction.
Card collectors - eg baseball cards - have always had the chance of getting rare good cards and mostly get mediocre ones in every pack. Nobody has ever called that gambling. This is just virtualizing that type of card collecting.
“ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling,” said an ESRB spokesperson in an e-mail to Kotaku. “While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want). We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.”
While this is their current stance on the issue it may change as technology evolves faster than we can legislate. Regarding collectible cards v virtual items you own the collectible cards and can resell them on eBay for crazy money (see Pokemon cards on this thread) while virtual items are property of the games studio and you don't own any of there content. If a game company decided to switch off the server you have nothing to show for your money while collectible cards go up in value see baseball cards and rare Pokemon cards etc comparing virtual loot boxes to actual real collector cards is comparing apples to oranges.
If this is a "trap" then all marketing and sales promotions are traps too. Everything that's sold involves a bit of manipulation in the way it's marketed. Companies have always tried to present what they're selling in the most desirable way possible. You see it in everything from "sales" that aren't actually lower prices and the pricing of small, medium, and large popcorn at the movie theater. It's just part of being human. Even if you're aware of what's being done, you are still just as likely to be influenced. And there's nothing wrong with doing things to encourage people to act in a certain way.