jmmcd comments on Diplomacy as a Game Theory Laboratory - Less Wrong

44 Post author: Yvain 12 November 2010 10:19PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (93)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: jmmcd 13 November 2010 04:32:48PM 3 points [-]

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:

Not only does it prevent your opponent doesn't defect out of sheer greed

Comment author: Alicorn 13 November 2010 04:56:45PM *  3 points [-]

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.

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).

Comment author: PhilGoetz 14 November 2010 05:14:19PM 6 points [-]

Surely god knows that it was your in-game character that said it, and won't hold it against you.

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.