The kill/trade game

[hawkeye]

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.

[FenixRD]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[FenixRD]

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!

[Cameltoemcgee]

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...

[wdmw]

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.

Black market justice has my back!

[Ekaros]

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.

Black market justice has my back!

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

[wdmw]

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.

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...

[FenixRD]

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.

Black market justice has my back!

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

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*.

[myrkul]

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

[FenixRD]

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.

[Rassah]

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.

[FenixRD]

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.)

[hawkeye]

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. 

[Ekaros]

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

[Viscera]

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

[Foxpup]

though I don't expect it's possible to catch up from here... unless it's weighted somehow

The object isn't to get the most points, just as many as you can.

[Jobe7]

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

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

[FenixRD]

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

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.)

[FenixRD]

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

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.