I'll play.
And to the people that say this isn't a good model for reality, of course simplification of any system isn't going to have direct correlation to a specific situation. However, the game does showing that cooperation is the best general practice, whenever possible, does seem to bear out in evolutionary biology, and economics.
Topic: The kill/trade game - page 9. (Read 9259 times)
Honestly, there's not much difference. Democracy is war waged with votes, instead of bullets.
There's a huge difference. In war, you're not allowed to attack non-combatants.Yes and no. The NAP is modeled by the "Tit for Tat" strategy, whereby one will always trade first, and only kill if the opponent killed in the last round. The rules of the game do "allow" killing, but only in the same sense that the laws of the universe permit murder. It's up to you guys to decide if you will punish a killer in subsequent rounds. (Thus making a "law" against killing.)
True, but since this is just a game, the non-aggression principle only requires that everybody play by the rules, nothing more. If anyone wishes to model their strategies after the NAP, they're obviously welcome to do so, but it would be dangerous for an opponent to assume that anyone who follows the NAP in real life would/should apply it to a game.
Honestly, there's not much difference. Democracy is war waged with votes, instead of bullets.
There's a huge difference. In war, you're not allowed to attack non-combatants.Yes and no. The NAP is modeled by the "Tit for Tat" strategy, whereby one will always trade first, and only kill if the opponent killed in the last round. The rules of the game do "allow" killing, but only in the same sense that the laws of the universe permit murder. It's up to you guys to decide if you will punish a killer in subsequent rounds. (Thus making a "law" against killing.)
True, but since this is just a game, the non-aggression principle only requires that everybody play by the rules, nothing more. If anyone wishes to model their strategies after the NAP, they're obviously welcome to do so, but it would be dangerous for an opponent to assume that anyone who follows the NAP in real life would/should apply it to a game.what if i told you i wanted to fuck with your minds and choose trade in the first round? now you people are the bad ones.
Go right ahead. Though you'll probably get the same amount of sympathy as the Darwin Award contender who tried to escape police by firing at them with a gun loaded with blanks (to fuck with their minds, no doubt), which ended about as well as you would expect.See my style of playing a sort of Nazism. protect your own kind, kill the rest. but this style of playing will not work when im having no one to cooperate with.
On the other hand, cooperating with everyone indiscriminately works without having to find specific people to cooperate with. But why don't you put your theory to the test instead of just talking about it?
I'll play
also the people who wishes to attack me first, are breaking their precious NAP.
No, they're not. You threatened them. That makes you the aggressor. Besides, it's a game, in which all players agreed to the rules. The non-aggression principle doesn't mean you can't throw the first punch in a boxing match, as boxers consent to getting punched as part of the sport (provided said punches conform to the rules of boxing, of course). It's the same here. You want to play this game, you have to accept the risk that someone will "kill" you first, because the rules of the game allow it.Why tell us, instead of just playing the game and seeing what happens?
what if i told you i wanted to fuck with your minds and choose trade in the first round? now you people are the bad ones.
As stated, if you play, you can go up against me in the first round. That will give you a chance to establish your reputation with a guaranteed win/win if you trade, or a guaranteed win against my loss if you decide to kill. I'll be using the Tit for Tat strategy, and will therefore always trade, first. nope, that would just make a democracy based on threats, those who are most wins.
Actually, what I described was a war, not a democracy. I don't have much hope for you if you can't tell the difference.also the people who wishes to attack me first, are breaking their precious NAP.
No, they're not. You threatened them. That makes you the aggressor. Besides, it's a game, in which all players agreed to the rules. The non-aggression principle doesn't mean you can't throw the first punch in a boxing match, as boxers consent to getting punched as part of the sport (provided said punches conform to the rules of boxing, of course). It's the same here. You want to play this game, you have to accept the risk that someone will "kill" you first, because the rules of the game allow it.in this game i would always gain a lead, if i was playing only against one NAP player.
Obviously. It's easy to defeat someone if they're alone and you shoot first. But how well will you do against multiple opponents?See my style of playing a sort of Nazism. protect your own kind, kill the rest. but this style of playing will not work when im having no one to cooperate with.
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2004/oct/04_151.shtml
nope, that would just make a democracy based on threats, those who are most wins.
Actually, what I described was a war, not a democracy. I don't have much hope for you if you can't tell the difference.also the people who wishes to attack me first, are breaking their precious NAP.
No, they're not. You threatened them. That makes you the aggressor. Besides, it's a game, in which all players agreed to the rules. The non-aggression principle doesn't mean you can't throw the first punch in a boxing match, as boxers consent to getting punched as part of the sport (provided said punches conform to the rules of boxing, of course). It's the same here. You want to play this game, you have to accept the risk that someone will "kill" you first, because the rules of the game allow it.nope, that would just make a democracy based on threats, those who are most wins.
Actually, what I described was a war, not a democracy. I don't have much hope for you if you can't tell the difference.also the people who wishes to attack me first, are breaking their precious NAP.
No, they're not. You threatened them. That makes you the aggressor. Besides, it's a game, in which all players agreed to the rules. The non-aggression principle doesn't mean you can't throw the first punch in a boxing match, as boxers consent to getting punched as part of the sport (provided said punches conform to the rules of boxing, of course). It's the same here. You want to play this game, you have to accept the risk that someone will "kill" you first, because the rules of the game allow it.in this game i would always gain a lead, if i was playing only against one NAP player.
Obviously. It's easy to defeat someone if they're alone and you shoot first. But how well will you do against multiple opponents? c) tit-for-tat will win, if every player only controls one "move", and players are not allowed to communicate between rounds(players are not allowed to cooperate outside the game).
For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.
Unless they do exactly the same thing. It's a perfectly symmetrical game, after all.For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.
in this forum there are most anarchist, it would therefor be unwise of me to play this game with an aggressive strategy against anarchists.
in the real world however there are most statists, that wants to play aggressive against anarchists. I would join them.
also the people who wishes to attack me first, are breaking their precious NAP.
in this game i would always gain a lead, if i was playing only against one NAP player.
Sacrifice the NAP and win draw.
I can guarantee you'll enjoy the later games, after this first one. I have some very interesting variations planned.
c) tit-for-tat will win, if every player only controls one "move", and players are not allowed to communicate between rounds(players are not allowed to cooperate outside the game).
For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.
Unless they do exactly the same thing. It's a perfectly symmetrical game, after all.For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.
in this forum there are most anarchist, it would therefor be unwise of me to play this game with an aggressive strategy against anarchists.
in the real world however there are most statists, that wants to play aggressive against anarchists. I would join them.
also the people who wishes to attack me first, are breaking their precious NAP.
in this game i would always gain a lead, if i was playing only against one NAP player.
Sacrifice the NAP and win draw.
I still don't have all the PMs for Round one, so if anyone wants to get in before round 2, now is the time.
a) the world is not discrete(the world have no rounds, and does no have fixed cost-benefit coefficients).
Sure it does. Ask any actuary.b) the world can not be put in to a game with only 2 choices per player per round.
Yes. Games are, at best, a simplified abstraction of the world. That's why I'm such an average marksman despite playing first-person shooters my whole life.c) tit-for-tat will win, if every player only controls one "move", and players are not allowed to communicate between rounds(players are not allowed to cooperate outside the game).
For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.
Unless they do exactly the same thing. It's a perfectly symmetrical game, after all. For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.
But for the record, as we know who we're playing with beforehand, I would always, always, always, choose kill, for you and anyone else I already know would choose kill, just to make sure you couldn't get a lead. In the end, we're all sitting on fewer points than we could've had, and nobody would get a lead. Thanks, kokjo.
Me also. But then in the context of the game I might just choose kill for the hell of it a few times to see where it leads since there are no real world ramifications and no real world reward. Maybe that's the point though?
i will say a few things to this game:
a) the world is not discrete(the world have no rounds, and does no have fixed cost-benefit coefficients).
b) the world can not be put in to a game with only 2 choices per player per round.
c) tit-for-tat will win, if every player only controls one "move", and players are not allowed to communicate between rounds(players are not allowed to cooperate outside the game).
For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.
a) the world is not discrete(the world have no rounds, and does no have fixed cost-benefit coefficients).
b) the world can not be put in to a game with only 2 choices per player per round.
c) tit-for-tat will win, if every player only controls one "move", and players are not allowed to communicate between rounds(players are not allowed to cooperate outside the game).
For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.
4 points are generated when people play fair. 3 points are generated when someone doesn't. 2 points are generated when neither does.
The mind of the autistic... Fascinating.
But for the record, as we know who we're playing with beforehand, I would always, always, always, choose kill, for you and anyone else I already know would choose kill, just to make sure you couldn't get a lead. In the end, we're all sitting on fewer points than we could've had, and nobody would get a lead. Thanks, kokjo.
i will say a few things to this game:
a) the world is not discrete(the world have no rounds, and does no have fixed cost-benefit coefficients).
b) the world can not be put in to a game with only 2 choices per player per round.
c) tit-for-tat will win, if every player only controls one "move", and players are not allowed to communicate between rounds(players are not allowed to cooperate outside the game).
For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.
a) the world is not discrete(the world have no rounds, and does no have fixed cost-benefit coefficients).
b) the world can not be put in to a game with only 2 choices per player per round.
c) tit-for-tat will win, if every player only controls one "move", and players are not allowed to communicate between rounds(players are not allowed to cooperate outside the game).
For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.
OK, that's enough for a start. Others can join in later rounds, if they like.
Round one:
Elwar <--> Foxpup
Rassah <--> Cameltoemcgee
Round one:
Elwar <--> Foxpup
Rassah <--> Cameltoemcgee
I'm in.
I'll play
Interesting... count me in.
Jump to: