Bitcoin Forum

I propose a game.

It's called "The kill/trade game."

Any number of people can play it, but it works best in pairs. Here's how it works:

I pair you, in this thread, with another participant. You each PM me a simple message. One word, either Kill, or Trade, with the subject being the Round number. If both choose "Trade," both get 2 points. If one chooses Kill, and the other trade, the Killer gets 3, and the other person 0. If both choose Kill, then both get only one point.

A/B	Trade	Kill
Trade	(2,2)	(0,3)
Kill	(3,0)	(1,1)

I will post the PMs and the results here. If there are an odd number of participants, I will join in, playing using the determinative "Tit for Tat" strategy. In other words, I will play according to the NAP. We will play for a predetermined, but secret, number of rounds. This is to prevent the knowledge that it is the final round from altering the players' strategy. The objective of the game is to end the game with as many points as you can.

What do you say?

---

Edited for ease of play and provable fairness of results.

Kinda sounds like Rock, Paper, Scissors.  Without the Scissors

Sort of. Except if you both pick paper, everybody wins, and if you both pick rock, nobody wins.

So, you up for a game? If this first one goes well, I have a few variations I'd like to try.

Sounds like, in the end, if both trade, they'll inevitably get more points than if they choose to kill; however, if the point of the game is to wind up with more points than the other guy, then killing has to eventually happen.  Once someone gets a lead, it's all downhill, as the other guy knows he has to attempt to kill or else he'll never go forward.  Once someone gets a lead, through killing, he can continue killing, knowing he'll always stay on top by doing so.

Well, that's the point of this exercise, to find out what strategy works best.

The point of the game is simply to end the game with as many points as possible, not necessarily to get more points than your "opponent".

So violent competition leads to fewer total points earned, even if one has more than the other, while peaceful competition leads to more points overall; both prosper together, in this case, at an even rate.

It's a simple game, but it has a valuable lesson ;D

I'll just go ahead and leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Yep, you get a kewpie. ;) This is a specific form of the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Like I said, if this first game goes well, I'd like to introduce a few variables to see what happens.

I played this once in high school where they were trying to teach us some sort of lesson.

Instead of the kill/trade they just had us do rock paper scissors with our hands but just one finger or two to show our choice.

I understood where the teacher was going with this and understood that by choosing the one finger (trade in this case) each time that if my partner did the same then we would both end up with the highest combined total. My partner did not quite get it through and put out a two finger every once in a while getting more points. But there were a couple of other people who had higher scores than her. Her being hot may have played a role as well.

Hot and devious. a dangerous combination.

So, you want to play, or you just commenting? If everyone who's commented so far is playing, we've got plenty enough for a game. Though I'd like to get at least kokjo or blablahblah in here. More variety in personality.

Sure, I will play. I wonder how this would go as a bitcoin gambling game.

Interesting... count me in.

I'll play

I'm in.

OK, that's enough for a start. Others can join in later rounds, if they like.

Round one:
Elwar <--> Foxpup
Rassah <--> Cameltoemcgee

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.

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.

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?

Sure it does. Ask any actuary.

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.

Unless they do exactly the same thing. It's a perfectly symmetrical game, after all.

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.

nope, that would just make a democracy based on threats, those who are most wins.

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.

Does that mean you'll play? You can go up against me in the first round. ;D

I can guarantee you'll enjoy the later games, after this first one. I have some very interesting variations planned.

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.

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.

Obviously. It's easy to defeat someone if they're alone and you shoot first. But how well will you do against multiple opponents?

Honestly, there's not much difference. Democracy is war waged with votes, instead of bullets.

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.)

its the same, or at least it is when you people describe it. "states are killing people!"

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.

True. but this game is nearly equivalent til the prisoners dilemma, where cooperation between aggressive(Non-NAP) entities wins big time.

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

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.

Why tell us, instead of just playing the game and seeing what happens?

I'll play

There's a huge difference. In war, you're not allowed to attack non-combatants.

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.

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.

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?

Good point. At least, in theory. In practice, the US has a poor track record in that regard lately. Perhaps their theory is the opposite: Democracy waged with bullets.

This is certainly true. As a game, it allows people to try out other strategies. Who knows, if a "Ghengis Khan" strategy proves to be better, it might change people's minds. ;)

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.

OK, Round 1 is now:
Elwar <--> Foxpup
Rassah <--> Cameltoemcgee
wdmw <--> FCTaiChi

I could come up with a game where cooperation is a bad strategy, just as easily as i can tell you that NAP is bad for the world.

This game favors NAP-players, you cannot say that it reflects the real world.

And yet, sociologists do say just that (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4235437?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102279247667).

You're welcome to try any strategy you like, including the potentially very profitable "Genghis Khan" strategy: always attack.

Telling me what I "cannot say"?
 :P

What rule set would you think reflects the average real world situation best?
What would be required for cooperation on the level we have with humans?
Humans made of a hundred trillion cells, and many times that number of microbes, working together to create a forum post.
If that's not winning what is?  The virus loses if it wins, killing all it's hosts.

I'll play your game that you make up where co-operation is a bad strategy that also reflects reality if you'll join this one.  

Sure, but then, if you wanted to use this game as a model for the real world, you would also have to demonstrate from historical and sociological perspective that "cooperation is a bad strategy" applies to the real world, too. Good luck with that.

Conversely, if the premise of this game is that "cooperation is a winning strategy," all you have to do to disprove this theory is to let people in the real world play it out. It if turns out that not cooperating is a better strategy, then the premise of the game is disproven, and you can go on claiming that NAP is wrong, and taking things by force is the natural order of things.

Some of the variables I plan on introducing in later versions of the game should meet this requirement pretty well. In at least one, I'm going to try and start a war. ;D

All responses are in for round one, so far. Last call for participants!

Should I?

And how to start then. Short term goals or long term? Or maybe mid term, start trading and then vary it up...

This first one is just for fun, and to get players in the "proper" strategic mindset. The really fun stuff starts later.  ;D

So go for kill right?

Up to you. If you start now, you'll be going up against me in the first round.

I think I try this one out... It can't hurt...

Alright, I await your PM.

Round one final roster:
Elwar <--> Foxpup
Rassah <--> Cameltoemcgee
wdmw <--> FCTaiChi
Ekaros <--> myrkul

Round one:
Players: 8
Maximum societal points: 16
Maximum individual points: 3

Results:
2 Elwar <--> Foxpup 2


3 Rassah <--> Cameltoemcgee 0


2 wdmw <--> FCTaiChi 2


3 Ekaros <--> myrkul 0
I of course choose Trade, as per "Tit for Tat"


I got killed. :(
Societal total points: 14
Point totals:
Ekaros: 3
Rassah: 3
Elwar: 2
Foxpup: 2
wdmw: 2
FCTaiChi: 2
myrkul: 0
Cameltoemcgee: 0

Round 2:
Ekaros <--> Rassah
Cameltoemcgee <--> myrkul
FCTaiChi <--> Elwar
Foxpup <-->wdmw

Please note that new players will increase the maximum societal points, and that nobody is likely to have maximum individual points by the end, which would require killing every time, against opponents that always chose trade. So don't be afraid to join in! The object isn't to get the most points, just as many as you can.

Oh! And if anyone wants to reserve their spot for Game 2: Overwhelming Power, feel free.

Edit: slight change of plan. Game 2 will be "Free-for-all", game 3 will be "Overwhelming Power"

Should we be replying now for Round 2?

Yes, please. :) again, the round 2 lineup:

Ekaros <--> Rassah
Cameltoemcgee <--> myrkul
FCTaiChi <--> Elwar
Foxpup <-->wdmw

Did the programs know of the outcomes of other games in iterated prisoners dilemma?  Is that different here?  If so are you playing tit for tat socially or individually?

I don't know if the programs knew the outcomes or not (they were paired off for entire games, instead of switching around like we are). But of course we all know the outcomes of these games, so there's no point in pretending we don't. If an opponent killed in the last round (unless they killed a killer), or killed me last time we were paired, I will kill. A slightly better strategy is "Tit for Tat with forgiveness," so I might occasionally forgive, or trade with a killer, anyway. This allows a killer to occasionally benefit from immediately rehabilitating.

Can you clarify this? By "killer", do you mean one who killed in the previous round, or one who has ever killed? That is, would you kill a Grudger (one who always kills against an opponent who has previously killed, even after the opponent stops killing)?

I feel it is worth noting that if applied concepts in game theory (such as the prisoners dilemma) stop working under the conditions of the participants (one, some, all) being aware of the field and its implications, it merely indicates either the theory was incomplete already, or must be adjusted for situations such as the above one where one/some/all know the theory. In the field we call this perfect and imperfect information.

Stated differently, it doesn't matter whether people know or don't know the underlying theories and rules.

Yeah, also, I'm gonna play. ;)

Can't literally speak for Myrkul, but *my* rules might work something like: since I state I will kill only in a tit for tat situation, I will kill anyone who "deserves" it, in the sense that they have previously killed and not been brought to "justice".


However, these are not my rules. Because game theory societally works best under perfect information, if not always individually, rules are as follows:

I will kill anyone who deserves it, in accordance with the principles of NAP as I interpret them. Further detail on my interpretation of the NAP must be acquired in-game.

Hmm. The behavior that would model is punishing someone who attempts to extract excessive (in my opinion) retribution in return for a previous crime. Now, the Tit for Tat strategy models, roughly, the NAP. The NAP, itself, is silent on retribution. However, it is my personal interpretation that retribution is not particularly just, nor is it necessary. Therefore, I would kill a grudger if put up against one. Again, I might sometimes forgive, especially if asked.

A clarification: communication between players is allowed. Deals never to kill each other model contracts, promising not to kill a player in the next turn and then doing so models fraud, and so on. Just as in the real world, public contracts are more enforceable than secret ones, so keep that in mind if someone PMs you offering to make a secret alliance.

Excellent. In accordance with the rules, I will step out until another player comes in, making it odd again. The updated Round 2 roster:

Ekaros <--> Rassah
Cameltoemcgee <--> FenixRD
FCTaiChi <--> Elwar
Foxpup <-->wdmw

We're just waiting on you and Cameltoemcgee.

Erm, no we don't. Perfect and imperfect information refer to the knowledge (or lack thereof) of the state of the game, not the state of the other player's mind. Iterated prisoner's dilemma is a game of perfect information, as every player has full knowledge of all previous moves and what moves are available for the opponent to make (as opposed to, say, Battleship, where you don't know where your opponent has placed his pieces).

What you're talking about is superrationality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality), which is where a player assumes that, since he and his opponent are both completely rational and have access to the same information and have the same decisions to make, they will both make the same move. The reason the prisoner's dilemma is a dilemma is that a "rational" player will not make the best decision, since no matter what the opponent does, it is always better to defect; this leads to the conclusion that both players will always defect, which is the worst possible outcome. That's the traditional theory, anyway. A superrational player, on the other hand, will rule out outcomes in which the opponent makes a different move, so the only possibilities to consider are the cases where both players defect or both players cooperate. Here, cooperation is the best move, and the dilemma is resolved. Yay.

Nothing you have said is incorrect. I do not disagree or feel the need to argue.

I guess I should state that, while perhaps debatable since posts can be "strategic lies", in my view at least, once a player states their rules of play with a level of specificity that describes all iterations of the turns at hand, it becomes not a matter of rationality; rather, those rules can be integrated as part of the game, and treated as merely information.

In the interests of returning to the game at hand, let us all assume that anyone on board has already (or should have already) read at *least* the Wikipedia entry on game theory, so we can avoid further soliloquies on who is or isn't actually actively involved in the field we lovingly call game theory. ;)

But what if some of us try to play with irrational tactics? Or give image of such thing...

On other hand disinformation and appearing random is valid tactic maybe... Who knows what I'm up to ;D

Let's see how this works out...

I'm a criminologist and a sociologist, and I agree :)

p.s. count me in the next game :P

You can, that's the point :) There is pretty good proof that behaving rationally, and particularly superrationally, especially in a perfect information game, is most societally beneficial, and typically pretty individually beneficial as well. But, ironically, people in real life indeed almost never act according to what we could describe as rational, and certainly not superrational.

Why do you say this?  I see plenty of instances of irrationality, no doubt, but I'm not sure it's right to say that people almost never act rationally in the real world.   If that was the case, the world would be almost completely chaotic.   

Riiiiiggghhttt. It is still a game, just like R/P/S, so... Sure, kinda.

I mean "rational" in a mathematical sense.

I'm not clear on what you mean.

People (the market) tend to make the best choices for themselves.  Rational self-interest.   Not always true of course.

It would be hard to track rationality in a mathematical sense, on the individual level.  On societal or ecosystem level the amount of balance required for some things is quite amazing.

Cameltoemcgee can't play any more. I killed him, remember?  ;D

You no kill me too? ;D

Nah, in game 1 you cray cray so I don't trust you either.

In all honesty, if he doesn't reply soon, we may have to move on without him, with me taking his place.

I should have specified a time limit for replies.  :-\

I think set time limit, and then random choise or pre-provided rules might be best option.

Sorry guys, different timezones. i'm in AU. its been a busy couple of days at work (when i usually check this forum)

Sent my PM through.

Round Two:
Players: 8
Maximum societal points: 32
Maximum individual points: 6
Results:
0 Ekaros <--> Rassah 3

2 Cameltoemcgee <--> FenixRD 2

2 FCTaiChi <--> Elwar 2
2 Foxpup <--> wdmw 2

Societal total points: 29
Point totals:
Rassah: 6
Elwar: 4
FCTaiChi: 4
Foxpup: 4
wdmw: 4
Ekaros: 3
FenixRD: 2
Cameltoemcgee: 2

Round 3 roster will be posted soon. (watch this space)

Damn, Rassah.  You a cold hearted killa.

He wasn't my friendly counterpart :(

Clearly, the best way to get ahead in society is to arrange a trade with someone in a dark alley and then murder them.

It's only round 2. Just as in real life, killers can prosper, but not usually for long.

I say it's a childish waste of time.

Then instead of childishly wasting your time posting this, you should have clicked "back."

Godamnit. I was totally expecting Ekaros to pick kill again, too. Now I feel bad. :'(

Don't feel bad, I'm pretty sure his strategy is, "Heads, I trade, tails I kill."

There is a great story called "The Day of The Wolf", by Fritz Leiber, in which when humans meet, they will either mate or kill.

Oh that one is good too ;D

Sorry about the delay.

Round 3
Rassah <--> wdmw
Elwar <--> FenixRD
FCTaiChi <--> Foxpup
Ekaros <--> Cameltoemcgee

Oh, nice forgot about this one :)

Oh come on.  What's your excuse for the first round then? 

Not criticising you, I would have probably done the same thing for the fun of it too.

Was trying to prove Chaos Theory

lol.

You know this reminds me of when I played the Jedi Knight games where you get to choose whether you are going to follow the light or dark side.

I have to say, the dark side was just a lot more fun.

I hear they have cookies.

Wasn't this basic idea tested in a university study? If i recall correctly they found that the majority of people chose to be trusting.

 ??? That went right over my head.

Yeah, the basic idea has been done dozens of times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_war_game

The goal here is actually not this prelim game. I have some decidedly not basic variations I want to try out, including, as I said earlier, trying to start a war (and then seeing what can be done to prevent it)

That sounds fun.  Do these type of games take into account people like me who will try to win within the parameters of the game? ie.  I would probably trade for awhile and then try and doublecross to jump ahead at opportune times.   I like to test boundaries.   Does it require a large sample size to even things out?

Well, the later games won't have a pre-set end number of turns. In "War," (and the later games) in fact, I'm going to set a victory condition. ;D

Round Three:
Players: 8
Maximum societal points: 48
Maximum individual points: 9

0 Rassah <--> wdmw 3

2 Elwar <--> FenixRD 2

2 FCTaiChi <--> Foxpup 2

3 Ekaros <--> Cameltoemcgee 0

Societal total points: 43
Point totals:
wdmw: 7
Rassah: 6
FCTaiChi: 6
Foxpup: 6
Ekaros: 6
Elwar: 6
FenixRD: 4
Cameltoemcgee: 2

Round 4 Roster:

Rassah <--> Foxpup
Elwar <--> Cameltoemcgee
FCTaiChi <--> FenixRD
wdmw <--> Ekaros

I'm not sure why, but I find this really fascinating to watch :D Will it turn into all out war, or will eventually a stable kind of peace be settled ... *eats popcorn*

Well, game theory states that it will eventually settle down.

Since there is very little incentive for peace, we may have some rogue players :D

Why do you think so? ;D

I'm assuming the killers will eventually end up only being able to attain 1 or 0 points.  Either they will attempt to trade but everyone will know them as killers and they will get killed, or they will continue killing and everyone will kill them as well and they will only have 1 point each.   

Whereas the consistent traders will be averaging around 2 all the way.

Given enough rounds the traders will be at the top and killers at the bottom.

The killers will take a while to re-establish their bonafides, if that's what they want to do.

I'm gonna go ahead and take the time to post something I'd said in a PM or two...

It makes no difference that the choices are called Kill and Trade. Since you do not remain dead, they may as well be Steal and Trade. Calling it Kill is a bit of a red herring, or something. From a game theory view, the most simple but sensible way of playing is to Trade, and Steal from someone who has one or more previously "uncorrected thefts". Once their previous "thefts" has been corrected back to zero, society should resume trading. (There is no "decline to meet: you have been blackballed" response to give to thieves in this game, so your only choices being Steal or Trade, and Stealing against a thief who has been fully "corrected" would be itself unethical, therefore you must trade.) This works in here because it is a perfect information game. In life, thieves typically rely on their ability to have the theft unknown to most if not all parts of society.

Excellent point. If I ever do this again, I'll change "kill" to "steal."

And, as to the "decline to meet: you have been blackballed," that's coming in in game two.

Posting to note that the Alliance recommended to Camel that he choose Kill because Ekaros would almost certainly choose kill; and that the Alliance would back him up if he did it. Sorry to see that Camel chose (very strangely!) to trade against Ekaros, who did indeed Kill him. Perhaps he made this decision before receiving our PM; even then, it implies he has not been watching round 1 or 2 very closely. Sorry about your loss, Camel.

Following recommendations would have resulted in the ending:
Ekaros: 3
Cameltoemcgee: 3

instead of 6 and 2, respectively.

Everyone else, either independently or as a result of participation in the Alliance (I will not attempt to disclose who is who; it works better when it is shadowy, injecting a bit of imperfect-ness into this perfect information game), performed according to recommendations. As in, wdmw's Kill was ethically and statistically supportable; if you go through the rest of the rounds, you will see this. Thus, future traders should treat wdmw as an ethical trader; and to treat him otherwise will be viewed poorly by the Alliance.

Carry on! :)

Sorry FenrixRD, didn't get the message. I just jumped in quickly as i was away for the weekend so that i wasn't holding the game up, didn't even look at the score or previous actions of Ekaros.

Point taken.

Ekaros has effectively Blacklisted himself though. 2 unwarranted kills... 1 could be explained as opportunistic if immoral, as it could have been a way of guaranteeing an early lead and then trading his way to victory, 2 is the sign of a cold blooded killer...

given that everyone now knows this, in a few rounds he'll find himself on the bottom instead of me...

if the game goes for a few more rounds that is... :)

Black market justice has my back!

But you are now forcing me to keep my security...

Are you being forced?  The choice is yours, but if you want a positive outcome in your actions with others...

No coercion here. Free to do as you please! :)  Let it be known we are a just and merciful Alliance. As always, there is a "bounty" to restore yourself to neutral status (where you will be treated from then forward as an "ethical trader" until you again prove differently). In the rules of this game, the Alliance enforces ethical trading a certain way. This is because there are only two choices, Trade or Steal (aka Kill), and no option to, say, "decline to meet" or whatever.

So, in order to "pay off the marker" on you (you personally, based on your current "ethics balance"), you must allow your partner to choose Kill whilst you choose Trade, TWICE. Once this occurs, you will be eligible for the same protections the alliance offers to its members, should you so choose.

The kicker is, you may be "blackballed" by ethical traders in the following way: If you do indeed choose trade, but your partner also chooses trade, you will have traded; and this does not decrease your "marker" value (2 in your case). That is of course somewhat of a dick move on the part of the ethical traders, in the sense that you are trying to make good and they aren't allowing you to repay your debt; but, it is met and largely prevented by the chance that, you might have decided to NOT pay down your marker and chosen Kill again: in which case an ethical trader will have been again killed unethically, increasing your marker further! So in the event that you have a net debt, it is in your best interests to choose trade; and it is in the ethical traders' best interests to choose Kill, until balance is restored.

Note: Do not confuse this with wealth redistribution or socialist concepts. The Alliance makes no distinctions regarding who has a poorer balance of points and does not try to have points restored to any particular individual. The Alliance exists merely to protect against unethical trades by providing a method of tracking "unpunished, unethical Kills" as a balance to be corrected in a future trade with *someone*.

You know, you two, (wdmw, FenixRD) I'm still waiting on your round 4 responses.

Shit sorry... got so carried away with delusions of Alliance grandeur I forgot to send a PM ;)

Sending now.

You know, I'm getting your PMs way after I make my pick. I'm already planning my moves two or three ahead, so I vote on my position almost right away. So, um, just saying to take you down a peg.

Lol. Easy big fella. I like you. You have ethics (even if you experiment counter to them) and you have a lot more time on this forum than I do. My comment regarding "delusions of Alliance grandeur" was meant to be self-deprecating. I don't take myself very seriously, so, I'd request that you consider doing the same! (Regarding me. Don't take ME seriously. Take yourself as seriously as you wish.)

At the end of the day, it's just a game.

Some people's idea of fun in games is doing the wrong thing and seeing if you can get ahead.
Some people like to imagine themselves at the head of a grand alliance.

It's all good fun. 

Yeah, the alliance is all grand, but don't I end up in same spot if I identify those following the principles and do right thing with those. Though I do lose some in kill-kill matches... So basicly on should only pick up justfied killings and go on in at it when ends come near. If it was know...

I'm in for "lulz", so I might switch to coin flips at somepoint too ;D

ok, I've PM'd for round 5... match me up... though I don't expect it's possible to catch up from here... unless it's weighted somehow

who's to say some of our global leaders don't do that nowadays.. I sometimes wonder..

It is curious.

BTW, it is funny to be catching flak for promoting an ethical Alliance, which has zero greater benefit to me than to anyone else who participates. Feels a bit like tall poppy syndrome. This is doubly ironic because I did not even start the Alliance... I was just the chosen mouthpiece lol. The founder is only lurking! (Presumably he (she?) may join after watching who plays how? Idk.)

Yeah don't sweat it. If you wanted you could correct for missing rounds by calculating points as a % maximum available to you. As an example, I did not play round 1; Myrkul did. Likewise with you joining he will again play until we have an even number of players again.

I'm matched up with Ekaros.  Is he on the naughty list?

I suppose you could check yourself, but FenixRD has thoughtfully counted things up for you:

Not sure, you might be...

Let's just trade  ;D

Round Four:
Players: 8
Maximum societal points: 64
Maximum individual points: 12

0 Rassah <--> Foxpup 3

2 Elwar <--> Cameltoemcgee 2

2 FCTaiChi <--> FenixRD 2

1 wdmw <--> Ekaros 1 (sorry, killing twice doesn't get double points)
(Apparently, since you tried to kill him twice)

Societal total points: 56
Point totals:
Foxpup: 9
FCTaiChi: 8
Elwar: 8
wdmw: 8
Ekaros: 7
FenixRD: 6
Rassah: 6
Cameltoemcgee: 4

Round 5 Roster:
Viscera <--> Ekaros
wdmw <--> Elwar
Cameltoemcgee <--> myrkul
Foxpup <--> FenixRD
FCTaiChi <--> Rassah

Have fun!

I promise to trade with you in first round, let's have a deal.

Its a trap!

Are you a game theorist by any chance?

This sounds alot like the prisoners dilemma, albeit with a small reward for a draw

This is indeed an iterated prisoner's dilemma. I want to try some variations, mess with the rules a little bit, later.

Don't take me seriously either. There was supposed to be a  ;) after the "peg."

Poor camel, if you get matched with me I'll give you a free kill.

and yes viscera..  It's a trap!  :)

Yeah... At this point Ekaros is down x3 in the ethical trades counter. The Alliance will issue an official statement soon but really, the biggest value the Alliance offers is, it tracks historical data regarding ethical trades and posts a recommendation. The rules of the Alliance and the data it uses is all public knowledge, it's just compiled in one, easy-to-access place, requiring zero legwork by the reader unless the reader wishes to verify the calculations. There is no secret sauce... It is somewhat analogous to an open-source police force.  

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.

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 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

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

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.

A king only has power while his subjects choose to follow

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

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

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.

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.

Kill/trade game is dangerous.

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.

Does this start fresh or continue?

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

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.

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

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

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 :)

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?

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. ;)

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.

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?

this is a great idea

holy crap, 10500 posts thats amazing

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

	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%

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." :P

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.)

More like something you would play in the interrogation room:

https://deathbytrolley.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/prisoners_dilemma_23.gif

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.

Elwar, you have a task force?

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.

In later games, I'm going to introduce variations that will attempt to encourage defecting, including trying to start a "war." It seems rather rude to make people pay for that.

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? ;)

So who exactly is in game?

Could I even have complete list of that? ;D

I suppose that's fair. I've been meaning to post a roster, anyway.

FCTaiChi
Elwar
wdmw
Foxpup
FenixRD
Rassah
Ekaros
Cameltoemcgee
Myrkul
Viscera
dacoinminster
Jobe7 (signed up way back on page 3)

Thanks

Yep, I lobbied myrkul for special treatment to get a task force. That is the part of the game that is missing (bribes).

So it is in your best interest to not steal from me.

Plus I lojacked all of my goods.

What's the status? I'm strangely eager to find out how this goes.

Still going, waiting for responses from:
Foxpup
FenixRD
Cameltoemcgee
Viscera
Jobe7

I'm still waiting to see what the Alliance has to say about the new rules. If I don't get a response soon, I'm going to have to start thinking for myself again. :-\

lol

lol fox..
I almost started a spreadsheet for this, then thought better of it.  I decided I'd just play what seemed like the best play from memory.  Kind of a natural method.  Before ledgers :)

I'll be doing similar posts for this as I did with the "Round Robin" style game, So you can keep track that way.

Can we put a time limit on it, and a default action? Maybe randomly choose one of them to steal from everyone :)

Screw it, I'm not waiting any longer. PM sent.

Yeah this isn't realistic at all, if someone was holding out like this they just wouldn't be involved in the round.  Someone's out in the woods while trading goes on?  they don't trade!  :)

Yeah, I'm calling it here. And from now on, the rounds are 24 hours. Starting when I post this round's results.

Soon, I hope?

I didn't expect that the resulting data from this experiment would show that the person running it would die

4 days since last log, Myrkul uok?

I wonder what happened to myrkul. He used to post daily, and suddenly...  :-[
Wonder if anyone has contact info for him.

He's been AWOL on Google Plus and twitter, also.

Well, there was the hospital visit and where he intimated it was because of a bad diet.   

Looking to play here