The kill/trade game

[kokjo]

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.

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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.

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

[Foxpup]

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?

[myrkul]

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.

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

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.

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.)

[kokjo]

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

[myrkul]

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.

[Rassah]

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.

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.

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

[wdmw]

I'll play

[Foxpup]

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?

[myrkul]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[FCTaiChi]

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.

[myrkul]

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

[kokjo]

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.

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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.

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

[FCTaiChi]

Telling me what I "cannot say"?
 

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.

[wdmw]

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.

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.

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.  

[Rassah]

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.

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.

[myrkul]

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.  

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.

[myrkul]

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

[Ekaros]

Should I?

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