Comment author: jimrandomh 02 April 2009 05:10:47PM *  10 points [-]

I like the concept of the Paranoid Debating game, but would propose one modification. Rather than always having a player assigned to deceive, have one with 50% probability, but don't reveal to anyone (except the deceiver) whether there is a deceiver in the group. To implement this with a group of n players, first choose a spokesman and give him a spade, then deal each other player one card from a deck containing 2n-3 black cards and one red card.

As another possible variant, introduce a small (say, 1/52) chance that everyone except the spokesman is red, and everyone except the spokesman knows it. To implement this, first choose a spokesman at random, then choose a dealer from the remaining players. The dealer looks at one card at random. If it's the ace of diamonds, he prepares a deck containing only diamonds; otherwise, he prepares a deck containing 2n-3 black cards and one heart, shuffles it and then deals from it. Getting a diamond means that everyone else has a diamond; getting a heart means that everyone else has black cards.

Comment author: MattFisher 03 April 2009 05:26:17AM *  0 points [-]

A simple variant with interesting results would be to deal everyone one card from a full deck. Anyone who is dealt a diamond is a deceiver. The dealer can be the spokesman, so it will rotate each turn. This way there is a 1/4 chance that any given person is a deceiver, and a small (1/(4^n))-ish chance that all n players (including the dealer) are trying to deceive each other.

Trying to reach the best outcome for everyone with an unknown number of deceivers in the mix? Sounds like life.

In response to Where are we?
Comment author: michaelhoney 03 April 2009 03:26:39AM 0 points [-]

Canberra, Australia.

In response to comment by michaelhoney on Where are we?
Comment author: MattFisher 03 April 2009 03:54:35AM 0 points [-]

Sydney, Australia

But I could make it to Canberra ;)

View more: Prev