SoAMadDeathWish

This is absolutely ridiculous. If it is irrational to try to predict what someone else will do, then any attempt to deal with a reality with more than one person in it would be irrational.

Again, you're misunderstanding the situation. The auction was not something that simply happened to Alice and Bob, like a natural disaster. It was all Carl's doing. Unlike a natural disaster or some kind of accident, there is someone who can be held responsible for their actions. I can't tell you exactly what Carl has done wrong since, as I said, it has not yet been identified as a kind of wrong. I think Carl should be tried and punished if found guilty, just like with any other crime. As I've shown, Bob and Alice already did do the math. They did it perfectly. And yet, they were still screwed.

I explained why in my response to selene. But I'll explain why in more detail here: At the beginning of the auction, Alice bids $1, because she thinks that there is a 50% chance that Bob will drop out and she will get $19. There is also a 50% chance that Bob will bid $2 and win the auction, in which case she loses $1. Her expected gains for bidding on the first round is 0.5*19 - 0.5*1 = $9, while her expected gains for not bidding at all is $0. Thus, she should bid $1 on the first round. Similarly for Bob. Since Alice has already bid $1, he needs to bid $2 to win. If he does, his expected gains are 0.5*18 - 0.5*2 = $8, which is more than if he doesn't, i.e. $0. This goes on and on until the bid is at $10. At this point, Alice reasons, well if Bob bids more than $10, then his expected gains would be negative, so he won't bid more than $10, and Alice can certainly win the auction by betting $11 and getting $9. Bob, of course, is thinking the same thing and so he tries to bet more than $10. Once the bid reaches $20, the same reasoning applies as in the first paragraph, except in this case each player is trying to minimize his losses. But by that point, Carl has already won.

Rational thought does not mean being able to predict every outcome, and in this case (as it is often the case) predicting the outcome with certainty is impossible. Neither Bob nor Alice can know when the other will choose to drop out of the auction. If they had such information, only then would it be possible for them to evaluate whether the game is worth playing or not. For example, if Alice knew that Bob was not willing to spend more than $10, she could easily win the auction by bidding just $11. If she knew he could spend $20 or more, then she would simply choose not to play as she couldn't win any money anyway. But the fact of the matter is that they don't have that information. And every step of the way it is rational for them to escalate.

You're moving the goalposts.

See, again, I think, we have a miscommunication. For some reason, you continue to believe that Alice and Bob were the ones that were making some sort of error. While it is true that they failed to predict the outcome of the auction and that they would not have chosen to participate if they had, it is not reasonable to suppose that they could have predicted it, given the information available to them. We can only blame them with the benefit of hindsight.

No, I'm saying that I think Carl was the one doing something wrong, but that he did so without using force or fraud.

As some of you have said, I don't think that Carl did anything fraudulent, in the technical sense. However, I disagree that Alice and Bob's choice to participate was rational because they were entertained. First of all, they were not entertained. I'd say they were the exact opposite of entertained. We may have been entertained, Carl may have been very very entertained, but Alice and Bob certainly weren't. Secondly, they were not expecting to purchase entertainment in any case. They were expecting to buy money. If they knew that they were going to be "entertained" they may have considered the price too high, which would mean that Carl's plan would fail. Think about it this way. Who would go to a store where every item was some unknown price that you couldn't know until you agreed to buy the item? No one, obviously. As for gambling, gambling is irrational. If you are a rational person, then you would know you can't beat the odds in a casino. If you did have fun there, you could have just as much fun burning your own money at home. Gambling works because people think (irrationally) that they are "lucky", and thus form the inaccurate expectation of winning. This is kind of the issue I wanna address. It seems like there is an ethical problem, even though no force of fraud was used. What this scenario shows is that there is some third category of misdeed, previously unidentified.

Here's my issue with that line of reasoning. If it is not fraud, then Alice and Bob were being entirely rational. However, they both agree (and I think we can too as is implied by your second sentence) that if they knew the outcome of the auction beforehand, they would not have agreed to it. Hence, they could not have been acting rationally when they agreed to it. So either, this is a form of fraud, or else you should agree to participate in this kind of auction.

We all know that there are garden-variety evils that simply try to destroy your values (life), i.e. thieves, murderers, etc. There's also the more "refined" kind of evil which appeals to your irrationality to try to get you to act against your own rational-self interest, i.e. the mystics, con-men, etc. But sooner or later, people catch on to their schemes and then they don't work anymore. And then there's game theory. Some of these strategies could swindle the scales off a snake, all the while leaving the snake believing that it was acting in its own rational self-interest the whole time. Here's an example: Let's say Carl has $20, and wants to make some more. Alice and Bob have more money than he does, so he's gonna try and sell them a product. He goes up to them and says, "I propose an all-pay auction (one where everyone who bids, pays whatever their bid, lose or win). The item on sale is this crisp $20 bill, and the bidding starts at $0." Alice and Bob think to themselves, "Well why not? If I bid as little as possible, I could get more money than I started with. It's even possible that I could get $19." Alice: Ok. I bid $1. Bob: $2. ..... Alice: $19. I get just $1 if I win, but it's still better than nothing. Bob: $20. Eh. I get nothing, but at least I'm not gonna lose the $18 I already bid. Alice: $21. Surely, winning the auction and losing just $1 is better than losing the auction and losing $19. Bob: $22. Betting more than $20 for $20 might seem crazy, but I have to minimize my losses. Alice probably realizes the same thing and will probably give up soon... Alice: $23. ... Eventually, someone decides they've lost enough or they run out of money. Carl has made a profit, and Alice and Bob are left wondering why they just paid more than $20 for just $20. http://ingrimayne.com/econ/info_risk/NastyAuction.html So is this fraud? To me, it doesn't seem like it. Alice and Bob were never lied to or misdirected in any way. And they were acting in their rational self-interest every step of the way. But on the other hand, I would really hate to be on the receiving end of this kind of maneuver.

I was about to roll my eyes... I was halfway there before I realized that this is sarcasm.

Nine ain't got nothin' on 142,857. 1 × 142,857 = 142,857 2 × 142,857 = 285,714 3 × 142,857 = 428,571 4 × 142,857 = 571,428 5 × 142,857 = 714,285 6 × 142,857 = 857,142 7 × 142,857 = 999,999 (oh look who it is) If you multiply by an integer greater than 7, there is a simple process to get to a cyclic permutation of 142857. By adding the rightmost six digits (ones through hundred thousands) to the remaining digits and repeating this process until you have only the six digits left, it will result in a cyclic permutation of 142857 142857 × 8 = 1142856 1 + 142856 = 142857 142857 × 815 = 116428455 116 + 428455 = 428571 1428572 = 142857 × 142857 = 20408122449 20408 + 122449 = 142857

Michael, there's nothing in the current game's rules that prevents you from setting a 0% tax rate, spending nothing on bribes... *cough*... gifts and bread and circuses and just letting the economy grow, if you were emperor. The trouble is, can you trust the people under you not to betray you if you rule righteously?

Sign ups: 1. Jonathan 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. I'll think about implementing an assassination mechanic in a later game. If you wanna sign up, copy and paste this list and put your name in a slot.

Couldn't hurt to try it out. C'mon... sign up. You know you wanna.... In the ancient world, in most places, it was a pretty big deal, yeah. The game engine doesn't support democracies yet. Maybe in a future game, we can do one. I tried to make it as simple as I possibly could. Adding more things might be overwhelming for a first game, and it would also mean I'd have to figure out a lot of equations to make the game work.

This will be a politically themed turn based forum game, meant to illustrate the relationship between politics and policy. I don't have a name for it yet, and proposals are welcome. There are 5 roles: 1. Emperor- Only one player can be Emperor at any given time. At the beginning of the game, a player will be chosen at random to be Emperor. If the current Emperor is deposed, he becomes an officer. 2. Usurper- Each turn, a person will be chosen at random to be the Usurper. Obviously, a player cannot be both Emperor and Usurper at the same time. This person will receive a private message from the moderator notifying them of their status. The game will end when everyone has been a usurper at least once. 3. Officers- Any player who is not currently the Emperor, Usurper, General or a Rebel General. 4. Generals- Officers chosen by the Emperor to lead his armies and keep him in power. Only Generals may receive Gifts from the Emperor. 5. Rebel General- Officers chosen by the Usurper to lead his armies and get him in power. If the Usurper becomes Emperor, then the Rebel Generals will become the new Generals. Here's how the game works each turn: 0. Before the stuff in 1. happens, you guys are allowed to talk to each other and discuss imperial politics. 1. In the thread, the Emperor picks his Generals from among the Officers. He may pick as many as he likes, but he needs to pick 10% of the officers at minimum or just 1 General, whichever number is bigger. So if there are 20 players, then there are 19 officers, and the Emperor therefore needs at least 2 Generals. 2. A player is chosen via random number generator to be the Usurper. The Usurper will receive a PM from the moderator if he is chosen. The Usurper will then send a PM to the moderator naming his Rebel Generals, his proposed tax rate, his level of spending on Bread and Circuses, and the amount that he will spend on Gifts to his Rebel Generals. The Emperor also sends a PM to the moderator, giving his tax rate, spending on Bread and Circuses, and Gifts. After both PMs are received, the moderator will post the information in the thread. 3. All Officers, Generals, and Rebel Generals then choose between either the Emperor or the Usurper. The Emperor is deposed if both of the following conditions are met: i) Of the Generals, less than the minimum number required remain on the Emperor's side. ii) Of his Rebel Generals, at least the minimum number required choose to join the Usurper. (Note that this is not a democracy. The votes of the unchosen officers carry no weight. This is entirely intentional. However, that does not mean that they are not important.) You are allowed to talk to each other and change your votes during the voting stage. All votes will be finalized within 24 hours. 4. The moderator then determines the outcome. The chosen leader's proposed plan is put into effect, and the moderator determines its effect on the economy through complicated mathematical equations. The moderator will then post the total amount of government revenue, and how much money each player receives as a result. Any money not spent on Gifts or Bread and Circuses will go to the leader. If the leader spends more money than was produced by the economy, the difference will be taken from his score. If the Usurper fails to depose the Emperor, he gets $0 for that turn. The player with the most amount of money at the end of the game wins. SPECIAL TERMS: Gifts: The amount of money that each General will receive from the current Emperor. Only Generals may receive Gifts. Bread and Circuses: Every player in the game (including the Emperor) will receive an equal share of this amount. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sign ups: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

You'd be surprised at all the things I can do without pausing. and while kneeling. Nudge nudge. Wink wink.

?siht ekil naem uoy tahW I wonder how many people will see this?

.sdrawkcab deppilf srettel eht taht drah os deliared niart taht ,nmaD

Damn, there goes my mind reading career... So what am I missing?

Who the hell is Piers Morgan? The question is rhetorical.

So you believe that the current government works on behalf of people who do evil, but you're ok with that as long as you're not personally inconvenienced by it?

I already understand it, I'm just asking you to substantiate your claim, so that there is something to discuss.