Topic: The kill/trade game - page 3. (Read 9332 times)

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...

The goal is to get as many points as possible. Are you sure you want to help a criminal achieve that goal, even a little?

Oh I see..  You did say that the goal is ... well I'm not sure if you want me to just lay it all out there for everyone or not

Well, it's a marginal gain for you, but remember that it's also a marginal gain for him.

I'm not sure here, will it be more profitable to ignore the killer, or trade kills?

This is a fresh start, but people being people, your past actions may influence people's actions in this game.

Fenix is free to continue his alliance.

Are there any watchdog groups that provide some guidance on who is worthy of my trading?

Does this start fresh or continue?

lol... More like poor diet is dangerous, but yeah.

OK!

On that nore, here are the FINAL results of game 1: Round Robin:


Round Five:
Players: 10
Maximum societal points: 84
Maximum individual points: 15

3 Viscera <--> Ekaros 0

2 wdmw <--> Elwar 2

2 Cameltoemcgee <--> myrkul 2
I Trade as well, of course.

0 Foxpup <--> FenixRD 3

2 FCTaiChi <--> Rassah 2

(I considered editing this, but decided it was funnier as is. )

Societal total points: 72
Point totals:
FCTaiChi: 10
Elwar: 10
wdmw: 10
Foxpup: 9
FenixRD: 9
Rassah: 8
Ekaros: 7
Cameltoemcgee: 6
Myrkul 4
Viscera 3

As you can see, while poor ethics lead people to an early lead, in the end those who played nice did better, on average, than those who did not. (Sorry, Cameltoemcgee, you kinda got screwed. A longer game would likely have been kinder to you.)

Game two: Free-for-all starts NOW. Here are the rules:
Players may offer trade with or attempt to kill steal from as many, or as few, players as they choose. If two players both choose to interact with each other, the result is determined normally. If only one player chooses to interact with another, nothing happens (except that the other player now knows you want to trade with him, or tried to steal from him).
As always, I will be an available trade partner, and will always start by trading. What happens from there is up to you.

Just send me a PM with the names of players you want to deal with, and in what manner, and I'll compare the lists and post the results here.

Kill/trade game is dangerous.

Do not fear my loyal subjects, I have not abandoned you! I had to tke a brief visit to the hospital, BUT: things should be back up and running this weekend.

Yep. As best I understand it, from analyzing the game theory implications of the Alliance Playbook rules, the Alliance behaves more like a nonprofit/watchdog organization. There aren't provisions for extra advantages or benefits to declared members... the rules end up the same whether you are trying to be Allied or are just acting independently according to general NAP morality. It's very interesting.

Peace, trade, and honest friendship with all users — entangling alliances with none.

I thought we lived in an autonomous collective?  Help help I'm being repressed!

A king only has power while his subjects choose to follow

Potentially. If I understand your question. Here is an illustration:

Trader X has a previous Ethical Trades balance of (-2). In order to return to (0), X must elect "Trade" twice, while his partner chooses "Kill."

Trader Y has a balance of (0), and is matched with X in the next round, called for illustrative purposes Round T. Y chooses Kill. X chooses Trade. X's new balance is (-1). Y's balance remains (0) because it was a justifiable Kill play. Note that it is irrelevant what was going on "in his head" for X or Y. One or neither must intentionally follow the Alliance recommendations. All that matters is they did.

Trader X is now sitting at (-1). Trader Z has a balance of (-1) also. They are matched for Round U (situation U-01): X chooses Trade. Z chooses Kill. X's balance remains at (-1). X would have been recommended, based on Alliance Rules of Engagement, to choose Kill against another unethical trader (which Z was at this point). Trader X will remain at (-1) after this round. Z will move to (-2).
Written as: Round U (U-01):
X (-1) — Trade
Z (-1) — Kill
Result: X (-1); Z (-2).

Alternate round U (U-02):
X (-1) — Kill
Z (-1) — Kill
Result: X (-1); Z (-1). No penalty (as both would be advised under ROE to choose Kill); but no change toward the positive for either, either.

Alternate round U (U-03):
X (-1) — Trade
Z (-1) — Trade
Result: X (-1); Z (-1).

In U-03: Note that this is societally preferable to U-02, but because it is impossible to know a player's intentions, the results for X and Z are identical. (In terms of their Alliance Ethics balance. They actually received 2 points each, personally. It is technically in their best interests to Trade -- as it usually is!... -- but because of a negative Ethics balance, the Alliance cannot recommend or back this one way or another.) The only way for a negative player to move toward neutrality is to allow a Kill by a neutral player. This is part of the incentive to remain Allied once you are there. It must be marginally disincentivized to become negative ethically, while yet still easily corrected back to neutrality, or players might bounce between (-1) and (0) on a whim or based on dislike for a particular player.

Does the executor get out scot free in cases of mutual destruction?

I genuinely believe that it was an honest misunderstanding regarding confusion about which round we were talking about, or something.

All: I had described Rassah as being "killable" under the Alliance Playbook, in a previous PM to Foxpup. This changed based on Round 3 (where Rassah was Killed while electing "Trade" by an "Ethical Trader" but quite frankly, by communicating for the Alliance as the entity that it is, the Alliance and I bear some responsibility for allowing any ambiguity. One of the main goals of such an Alliance is to allow traders to heed the advice without being overly concerned with the data's validity (much like downloading the Satoshi client as a binary).

Later today I will attempt to alleviate this by posting a graphical flow chart representing the aforementioned "Alliance Playbook." It will describe all the moves under the Game 1 rules and which one is supportable by the Alliance. Using it, a trader can trace through the history of the rounds in Game 1 and determine who is at what balance according to the Playbook, without necessarily relying on me to communicate tallies in a timely fashion. I will still give tallies for ease of participation; but like the Satoshi client itself, all information is "open source" and "compiling" for yourself is always recommended.

Apologies and best regards,
The ETA and FenixRD

You know why I did what I did, and you didn't even object to it at the time. Way to miscommunicate, there.

Alright, I accept this punishment... this time. But no more screw-ups, okay?

I am placed in the uncomfortable position of being the voluntarily-chosen spokesperson of the Ethical Traders' Alliance and also having to execute a Kill. I am writing this before I make any PMs. You guys can look at timestamps later if you like.

Foxpup: it is possible you were under the mistaken understanding, based on Round 3 PMs or who knows what, that the Alliance recommended Kill against Rassah. This is not the case. After round 3, where wdmw executed a Kill against Rassah, while at the same time Rassah traded, returned Rassah's Ethics Balance to zero. Therefore your Kill move against Rassah cannot be supported by the Alliance.

If this was by accident, on behalf of the alliance I apologize to Rassah, Foxpup, and society (which is down a point) for screwing that up by not being clearer in communications.

The good news is, reparations are the same as always. I will be executing a "Kill" against Foxpup in PM to Myrkul. If you, Fox, wish to return to an Alliance-neutral stance, you should select "Trade". As a symbol of good faith and stewardship as Alliance spokesperson, I will distribute two of the three points I gain in my "Kill" play to individual(s) voted on by the Alliance and its Neutral players. The one point that I will retain is the same point I would gain by playing a "Kill" against another "Kill" if that is what is elected by Foxpup. As in, I have nothing to gain by doing this, and am losing one point against an ordinary, ethical "trade-trade" arrangement.

That is one of the purposes of the structure of the Alliance Playbook: you need not abide by it on purpose to reap its benefits; and, violating its rules initially works the same whether you do it on purpose or by accident.

Alliance members and Ethically-neutral players: PM me with your votes for who I should donate the two points to, in the event Foxpup elects to trade against me in spite of my public "Kill" declaration. I will PM you to this effect as well. It can both go to the same individual, or one point to two individuals. Send me a PM with "donate to (name1)/(name2)" or "donate both to (Name)" to vote. Obviously, if Fox chooses Kill, there are no points to give out.

Also, Fox: Note that the current Playbook states that you are at a balance of (-1) and that choosing Trade while your partner (me in round 5) chooses Kill restores you to Alliance-neutral; but, choosing Kill again, despite my Kill declaration, will move you to (-2). This is the penalty for denying not only me, but Rassah in Round 4, and society as a whole, of potential points.