EPT---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't read through the whole thread (67 pages? seriously) but most of what people are saying is just flat out wrong. Prisoner's dilemma, batman/boat scene, morality etc. are mentioned but in most cases it is quite clear that it isn't understood or being used properly for a GAME.
I'll even take the point of view that I am a 'bastard/jerk' trying to maximize the greatest good for myself. This is an acceptable goal in terms of competitions in game theory design so I will go with that and I can deal with any perceived lack of humanity on my part.
Quoted from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
" If we assume that each player cares only about minimizing his or her own time in jail, then the prisoner's dilemma forms a non-zero-sum game in which two players may each cooperate with or defect from (betray) the other player. In this game, as in most game theory, the only concern of each individual player (prisoner) is maximizing his or her own payoff, without any concern for the other player's payoff. The unique equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution, that is, rational choice leads the two players to both play defect, even though each player's individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperatively.
In the classic form of this game, cooperating is strictly dominated by defecting, so that the only possible equilibrium for the game is for all players to defect. No matter what the other player does, one player will always gain a greater payoff by playing defect. Since in any situation playing defect is more beneficial than cooperating, all rational players will play defect, all things being equal."
This is a single iteration game, so there is no benefit to naive cooperating(i.e. opting out for no payoff at all). In a iterated prisoner's dilemma, cooperation over defecting can be viable but since this is a 1-time deal, I have no vested interest or care in opting out willingly for no pay off since there is no 'pay off' in the future and opting out (not defecting) is an automatic disqualification in terms of beta key which is my obsessive jerky goal.
So let's take things as they stand now. Out of 150ish or so, 50ish remain with the first 100 opting out for various reasons. The 100 who opted out could claim 'pay off' in terms of morality and perception of high moral quality and selflishness but seriously, a jerk like me doesn't care. If the 100 stay as members, then most likely they would have stayed as members regardless (or they may be in competition by 'accident' of self-nomination) and any pay off of opting out is nebulous at best; The majority are probably going to disappear, which is most likely given the self-nominating category of 'jerkiness' so if i am going to disappear *anyways* why not go for the win right?
But hey, these are all small details. I only care about the McGruffin, the beta key and if you, my fellow jerk, are reading this, then so do you!
We don't know how many beta keys are slotted to be given out. It could be 1, it could be 50. In an optimized strategy as a jerk, I'd let all the altruistic/naive cooperating ones opt out first and then in the last day (or 2 days, the rules do specify emailing everyone to double check as well), I'd start private messaging my fellow jerks. (hey, look at that, we should start now!)
hey fellow 50 in-it-to-win-it buddies. We stand to lose it all if some of us don't opt out. Let's go with a cooperative deal. Example: 25 of us opt out. The other 25 get keys. If the 25 with keys at any point in time get keys or blizzard gives keys to those already in beta to gift to a friend, they would hook up their jerk conspiracy.
Heck, I could go a step further and do secret conspiracy deals based on the responses I get from my fellow jerks. If they sound 'hesitant' or weak, then shift them into the opt out/make it up to you later category and then I could make separate secret deals to eliminate the pool even more. (promising to multiple people, disappearing into oblivion with all the cash..i mean beta key)
Could you get rid of me?? No! no nah! I'd rather burn all the beta keys than not get one myself. So you include me or we all stay in and fail or win together my jerky brethren!
So the real question any jerk still in it should be thinking is this: How many keys do they REALLY have and how far am I willing to go? In game theory, we go all the way baby; Opting out sucks. Staying in with everyone sucks. Watching altriusm and strange game theorists opt out, forming secret deals and conspiracies to get more to opt out to win beta key with no legally binding repercussions....tons of fun.
If i lose... well... a jerk like me probably wouldn't have gotten one anyways and if i have to crash and burn, might as well blow up gloriously in a huge ball of flame. because the FUNNIEST thing possible is... me actually winning.
Can you imagine the people who came up with this contest having to stomach giving a beta key to a jerk like me who shamelessly out-jerked everyone else in existence and did so PROUDLY? AND while citing game theory as my intelligent rational for why I am allowed to do this as a ubermensch jerk?
I mean, they could screw me over and lie. or say that we failed for various other reasons. or there could be only 1 key and that one other ubermensch jerk stayed in it and we failed together. but hey, got to stay positive right? The odds are with me! In so much as, no one else can win unless I win, and if I win, i get the McGruffin and prove that I am the best jerk of all time who out played everyone.
Awesomeness.
Corvuus
who have made a good 2000 posts.
