[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But let's look at the implications of your answer to question #2. You do non hesitate to break your word after giving it and essentially "cheat". Cheating is ok for you as long as you don't get caught or punished for it. ... Is this what you plan on teaching your kids as well? Cheating is ok, just don't get caught?
[/ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with cheating (or lying)?
[/ QUOTE ]
So you were not in the camp that condemned zeejustin for what he did? Your only criticism of him was his making the mistake of getting caught?
[/ QUOTE ]
I bet Justin would be glad we're still talking about him. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
But, your line of questioning brings me back to my
original response to your game:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it isn't rational, super or otherwise, to contribute if u know that the rest will contribute
[/ QUOTE ]
By definition, it is Super-Rational. Being Super-Rational makes everybody money. That's what makes it Super-Rational.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the only way this can work, is if a player has some sort of utility outside of this one-time game. Perhaps "feeling good about not being a parasite" is worth more than he would gain if he were a parasite. Perhaps there is a meta-game where players learn about the other players' micro-game strategies, and adjust their behaviors accordingly. These sorts of things are what really happen in the real world.
My "Super Rational" strategy makes me feel good -- and when I talk to other people about their game strategies, if they aren't also a "super rational cooperator", then I don't trust them as much in other games.
[/ QUOTE ]
The condemnation of Justin was a meta-game; his getting caught had real consequences including those outside of the specific tournament he cheated in. All of these things are motivating factors that your OP game did not allow. It's now a completely different game: one that is not a "one-time, no-consequences" type.