= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thezeus18 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.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (93)
The games described in the post were online - they're normally played against different opponents each time. The game that's about to start is only planned to happen once.
Only if iteration was a factor, and even then, that argument could be applied to most forms of cheating.
Only if iteration was a factor, and even then, only in a sense that could be applied to most forms of cheating.
It's really only applicable to forms of cheating which can be countered by non-cheaters ganging up on the cheaters. If the cheat causes an automatic win in every game, the scrub argument against its banning doesn't apply.
But I agree, I was assuming iteration. Obviously, the scrubbiness of the rule against unbreakable alliances (and thus the cheatiness of the tactic), would depend on metagame circumstances.