jmmcd comments on Diplomacy as a Game Theory Laboratory - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (93)
I find it amazing that examples like the religious person swearing by god and his/her eternal soul counts for anything. Surely god knows that it was your in-game character that said it, and won't hold it against you.
Similar argument only more so for the Eliezer & Alicorn situations -- your second footnote confirms that it would be a mistake to trust what people have said on LW as applying in-game.
Small typo:
In my case, I could be trusted in-game if, before the game began, I promised to be trustworthy, or if some of the people I was playing with expressly did not waive their rights to honesty. In-game, if someone suddenly announced that they wanted to maintain that right for themselves, I would respect it, but I might do so by leaving the game entirely.
Since I expect I would detest the game, though, I have no intention of playing it (which means I have no reason to lie here).
God has the advantage of being somewhat inconsistent, having unclear rules, and setting examples (eg the book of Job) where he breaks his own rules, so no one can confidently rules-lawyer God.