Could I even have complete list of that?
Topic: The kill/trade game - page 2. (Read 9259 times)
So who exactly is in game?
Could I even have complete list of that?
Could I even have complete list of that?
God, that's the second request to add stakes. You guys are like a bunch of poker players. "It's no fun unless it's for real money." 
I just think it would make the game more "honest," and thus more worthy of study. Maybe one of these weekends I'll make a website for it.On the contrary, in fact, I think if the only consequences are in-game, that will result in a clearer result in the end, when I add in the final variation to try and clear up the conflict. Remember that we're modeling the real world, and in the real world, there are no "meta-consequences." Adding such a meta-consequence would, in effect, be modeling the supposition that "religion X is true, and Y behavior will result in a reward in the afterlife." While certainly people act as though that were true in real life, modeling behavior without that incentive would result in an even clearer result.
If you want to make a website for it, and add stakes, that's fine. But, could you let the pure game play out, first?
God, that's the second request to add stakes. You guys are like a bunch of poker players. "It's no fun unless it's for real money."
I just think it would make the game more "honest," and thus more worthy of study. Maybe one of these weekends I'll make a website for it. 
Elwar, you have a task force?
With those stats it looks like confession is the overal winner..?
Yup, in a one-off prisoner's dilemma, the optimal solution is always to defect. As soon as possible. Also, in an iterated game, if you know how long the game is going, it's always optimal to defect in the last round. (And since both people know that, the optimal solution in the next to last round, and thus every preceding round, is also to defect, resulting in a complete breakdown of "society") In an indefinite game, though, the optimal choice becomes to cooperate. Trust is built (or destroyed) from round to round, and the results are remembered. Your reputation becomes important. If you defect, and lose that good reputation, people will start defecting on you and you'll end up worse off than if you had played nice the whole time.
With those stats it looks like confession is the overal winner..?
But it seems like something you would play in a High-Max prison.
More like something you would play in the interrogation room:
I just have to ask but:
Have you ever gone to prison, and then came up with this game?
(Don't get me wrong, it seems like a awesome game. But it seems like something you would play in a High-Max prison.)
(I would actually like to play it, but I'm too lazy.)
Have you ever gone to prison, and then came up with this game?
(Don't get me wrong, it seems like a awesome game. But it seems like something you would play in a High-Max prison.)
(I would actually like to play it, but I'm too lazy.)
God, that's the second request to add stakes. You guys are like a bunch of poker players. "It's no fun unless it's for real money."
We should introduce BTC into this game. Perhaps a buy-in which is distributed proportionally?
However, I suspect that adding real money to the game will make people more conservative and likely to chose "kill." Therefore I think it should be done like so:
For some positive and negative values (which will obviously influence the outcome).
In the case of at least one person having a net negative, everyone's points can be increased by the absolute value of the lowest score:
However, I suspect that adding real money to the game will make people more conservative and likely to chose "kill." Therefore I think it should be done like so:
| Kill | Trade | |
| Kill | (-, -) | (+, -) |
| Trade | (-, +) | (+, +) |
For some positive and negative values (which will obviously influence the outcome).
In the case of at least one person having a net negative, everyone's points can be increased by the absolute value of the lowest score:
| Player | Raw | Scaled | Payout |
| A | -1 | 2 | 14.3% |
| B | -3 | 0 | 0% |
| C | 2 | 5 | 35.7% |
| D | 4 | 7 | 50% |
| Total | 2 | 14 | 100% |
Should I edit my list? I suppose it would be fair if the actions are locked in at the time of PM 
You can add to it, but you can't change your decisions.
Should I edit my list? I suppose it would be fair if the actions are locked in at the time of PM
I'm playing this round. I sent a PM with my strategy to myrkul, so nobody should have to wait on me to close a round.
This is my public decree on how I deal with thieves.
If you steal from me, as an eye for an eye, the next round I will attempt to retrieve my stolen goods by sending in a special task force to steal my points back.
If you choose trade during that round, I will return to trading with you and we will move on with a clean slate.
If you choose steal again, I will continue to send my task force in every round until you choose trade.
If you steal from me, as an eye for an eye, the next round I will attempt to retrieve my stolen goods by sending in a special task force to steal my points back.
If you choose trade during that round, I will return to trading with you and we will move on with a clean slate.
If you choose steal again, I will continue to send my task force in every round until you choose trade.
this is a great idea
If you want to join, just send me a PM with who you want to interact with, and how. Only a few players have responded with round one, we can ask them what they would like to do. 
holy crap, 10500 posts thats amazing
this is a great idea
Heads
Heads
Heads
Heads
Heads
Tails
Heads
Tails
Heads
Heads
Heads
My next round strategy... Helene Schjerfbeck seems to like to have his head appear a lot... All done by fair coin flip.
So can we have a list of people in game now?
Heads
Heads
Heads
Heads
Tails
Heads
Tails
Heads
Heads
Heads
My next round strategy... Helene Schjerfbeck seems to like to have his head appear a lot... All done by fair coin flip.
So can we have a list of people in game now?
Are there any watchdog groups that provide some guidance on who is worthy of my trading?
Fenix is free to continue his alliance.The AEP / I are doing a re-tally factoring in the implications of the new rules and will message partners shortly. There will also be an advisory issued to anyone who winds up on the naughty list. Whether the info contained in those will be different is undecided just yet.
It seems illogical to throw away half my points in an interaction just to punish someone. If the community decides that a person is on the ignore list for punishment I would go along with that. As long as it remains a 1 on 1 exchange, though...
Well, this is one of those spots where the interaction maps poorly to the real world. To make it map more accurately, a steal/steal result should probably result in a -1/-1, indicating wasted resources. But as it stands, the logical action to take with a criminal is to continue to interact with them violently, until they mend their ways. And the logical action for them is to do so as soon as possible, to gain more points in later rounds.
Not everybody acts logically, though.
Jump to: