h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's interesting to apply game theory to it, as I am right now (i should be revising for tomorrow's exam but..)

I'm putting a few odds together, but I'm worried that if I post them it'll prejudice the end result.

Sprout

OT:

QUOTE: It's interesting to apply game theory to it, as I am right now (i should be revising for tomorrow's exam but..)

That's _seriously_ weird... I was just thinking I should be revising for a game theory exam next Thursday!

~

email me your thoughts- you can geta link from my homepage, through my space to "email me"

well, rthe exam I've got to revise game theory for is wednesday's.

Anyway, back to the ...

Haven't got a non-work email at the moment.

What would game theory predict for this situation?

Sprout

Owl - let me give you a religious example of why Tango should not apologise, since sin is mainly a religious thing.

I am a Christian. I have the option of either having pride in my Faith and saying Jesus is the son of God, and being killed, or saying he is not the son of God, which to me would be a lie, and not being killed. I would choose to die, because to say he is not would be admitting i was wrong and lying.

In the same way, for Tango to apologise he would be admitting he wa wrong, and since he was not, would be lying himself, commiting a greater sin then pride.

spook

Well, there's a number of different alternatives here:
In a nutshell, and annotated:
1) Mutual co-operation: they all apologise and forget about it-NOT VERY LIKELY
2)Mutual deception: Tango and spook continue accusing HVL< who continues accusing tango and spook who continue...ad nauseum.-SEEMS LIKELY TO ME, BASED ON THE BELIGERENT PERSONALITIES
3) Tango/spook co-operate- Either tango or spook apologises/agrees with HVL, leaving the other probably to follow as their arguments are intertwined, HVL doesn't apologise for anything- POSSIBLE, BUT AGAIN I CAN'T SEE EITHER T or S ADMITTING DEFEAT
4) Hoo co-opertates- Hooovooloo apologises or drops it or something similar- NOT VERY LIKELY AT ALL.

Order of likleyhood, I would say, would be:

MOST LIKELY: 2) Mutual decption- could potentialy end in someone storming off the site

SECOND MOST LIKELY: 3) T/S co-operate- I wouldn't bet on it, but seems more likely than a co-operation from Hoo.

THIRD MOST LIKELY: 1) Mutual co-operation- I think the only chance that Hoo would drop it would be in return for an apology/retraction, but this still seems more likely than...

LEAST LIKELY: 4) Hoo co-operates- Seems very unlikely indeed- from what i'#ve seen Hoo is not one to back down on anything, including this.

Ah well, the conversation's probably moved on while I've been typing this, but there you go.

Oh dear. Apologising for something you haven't done is not lying, neither is it a sin. It is called humility.

~

I would think that Christianity based arguments should convince HVL of the justness of your cause in a matter of ooh, minutes...

Sprout

you missed out number 5 Egon, the most likely option:

Hoo shuts up as he isn't able to counter-argue spook and Tango due to comments he made himself!

that's the one i'm after and have used this journal entry to get to happen!

Owl - to apologise for something you haven't actually done you would be admitting you did it. Like in that episode of Porridge where that old guy is offered parole and he refuses it as accepting it would be admitting he commited the murder, which he didn't. this is exactly the same type of principles, except applied to a different situation.

spook

That would be a variant of "4) Hoo co-opertates- Hooovooloo apologises or drops it or something similar"

Sounds like your describing a variatian of "dropping it",a nd your proposal would definitely involve co-operation from Hoo, and defection from yourself and Tango.

That's interesting Egon. I haven't seen that kind of analysis. I agree that you can forget unilateral cave-ins. It's got to end in either:

1) One or both parties getting banned from the site. (possible)
2) One party leaving the site in a huff. (quite possible)
3) One party making a small concession and the other seizing it to end the issue.(likelyish)
4) Continuing ad infinitum, with the seventh generation of HVL's progeny battling with Tango and Spook's descendants, to the extent that they can no longer remember what the discussion was about, just that it was very important... (Not impossible)

Sprout

I don't think we'll see bansd in this case, unless there's a real escalation. One or other Leaving the site in a huff is perfectly possible, especially if we have mutual defection, which could leave to a stand-off with allm parties repeating their points again and again and so forth.

QUOTE: to apologise for something you haven't actually done you would be admitting you did it

No, it wouldn't. I don't know where you got that from. Apologising is an act of humility - it's not an admission of guilt.

~

it depends on the situation Owl, and in this situation it would be an admission of guit to hvl, and hvl would bring it up again and again in the future, just like he has done with me and the pr incident i was involved with over 6 months ago. it is how hvl is. he is immature and childish and does not learn from his mistakes, nor grow as a person.

spook

Strange... this is about the most off-topic i've ever seen a thread without it actually leaving the topic...

Can the mystery user please identify themselves, or i'll get Korea onto you! (for those who don't know, Korea is in the process of making peudanims (spelling please?) illegal)

I'm going to bet on Recumbantman, because he just posted to my PS *ordering* me to apologise. What odds to i get on that?

At the moment i am not even considering backing down. If hvl decides to take my advice and discuss this soley on my PS then i will start considering, otherwise we will be here a long time.

However, i would like to apologise to everyone else on h2g2 for bothering them with this issue. It is not my wish to continue to bother you, and i hope as much as you do that you will not be bothered much longer.

Tango

Egon: re: game theory analysis.

You've made a basic error in your analysis in that you have mistaken this for a three handed game. It is not. Much as spook would, rather egotistically like to think he is involved himself in this (witness his starting this thread), it is entirely a problem between myself and Tango. Spook is utterly uninvolved, and any actions he may or may not take are irrelevant and will not affect the outcome in any way.

This is a simple two hander:

- I'm asking Tango to apologise and retract his defamatory accusation that I lied (about spook - but the subject of the alledged lie is irrelevant), OR that he point to a lie I've told.

- Tango is refusing to apologise. He's attempted to deny defaming me, but I can point to the post where he does so. He's attempted to claim that he was telling the truth, but has failed utterly to back up his assertion.

That's the basis of the game as it stands, so that's what you need to be applying your theory to. Ignore spook, he's merely an irritating irrelevance as far as this is concerned.

H.