On April 25 2012 04:15 player999 wrote:
another point I just thought, a conversation is made of 2 people, so if the average person lies 40 times in 15min, the average conversation (made of 2 people) contains 80 lies in 15 minutes, or, if you divide the time spent talking equally, each lie 40 times in 7.5 minutes
Already confirmed 2 pages ago I exagerrated, you're being a penis here as well
On April 25 2012 04:23 player999 wrote:
at 4:20 minutes of the video you just fucking posted, the bitch says: "strangers lie THREE times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other"
You guys just don't understand, when you start with your opening lie, the conversation is built on that lie, so that makes your next sentence, body language, pitch of voice lying all through the next few sentences, and it keeps building up.
LOL, at being "sick" and disapointed in here. So cool when people all subtle come in with the most massive of insults, making them personal to boot. NOW I AM DISAPPOINT.
Most people in here, who were saying it'z alright to steal, were having a dialogue, sharing their opinion, their belief on the matter.
Then you have all these shitfaces come in and throw personal insults and whatnot, like that'd somehow make their belief superior lol, that shit ain't cool.
*hrmpfhh*
Ps, shouldn't call ppl shitface, don't really mean it, just a little emotional xD
i didnt mention who that comment was directed at, and it def wasnt people trying to have a dialogue. which by the way doesn't sound like you right here. 'a little emotional'? youre basically foaming at the mouth mate. u mad bro?
I didn't have you in mind when writing that lol, I think.
Maybe I was a little mad, but only at the Brasilian guy. Not even mad at Floofy, since I respect people who take the time to write their opinion, and read mine (even though we disagree and have different beliefs). But people who just want to stand up, pull down their pants, sprout some diarrhea and let that be their talking is a bit meh.
Ps, Kinda annoying reading your comment when brushing my teeth. The excess foam made me feel a little stupid lol.
Also cool you call me bro, I always blend really well with chinese people. When I play live poker I always start dialogue with the chinese or japanese people first xD
On April 25 2012 06:17 Nazgul wrote:
Marius/player please stop.
/Okay
I did feel I went a little overboard. But felt I wasn't making any headway being nice, so took the gloves off for 3 posts, but then I put them right back on again afterwards. Won't do it again, promise!
On April 25 2012 03:04 EvilSky wrote:
Fuck off, so you have no problem with beating someone at the table out of their kids college money where unknown to them you have an insane edge over them but picking the higher EV choice at a fucking game show is morally repulsive?
The only play is to pick steal, if they chose to split you can give them their half after the show.
Yup poker and this gameshow (simulation of prisoners dilemma) are fundamentally different. In poker there is no possible way for everyone to be a winner or everyone to be a loser. It's a zero sum competition where someone has to lose for you to gain and vice versa. There is no "better outcome for all" possible by working cooperatively with all other players. It's understood that it's a competition of this nature by all participants that choose they want to play, and that everyone will be playing for themselves.
In this gameshow the highest EV for the population as a whole is for everyone to cooperate and pick split, but everyone has to do it. As soon as some people start stealing they are making a choice that if everyone made, no one would have anything and everyone would be worse off. They're not doing their part in the cooperation that makes the game better for everyone to try and maximise personal gain. They're promoting a shift to the first equilibrium where the population will pick steal all trying to maximise personal EV only, and everyone will be worse off. It should be natural for the group to ostracise these people, as the group as a whole is literally better off without them.
As Baal said, picking steal is much more analogous to scamming and cheating than playing poker by the rules. A scammer/cheater is maximising his personal gain at the expense of the other player, but if everyone tries to scam and cheat that'd be a terrible environment to live in and you wouldn't be able to do any business with anyone, and everyone is worse off. If no-one tries to scam and cheat then everyone is better off than in the prior scenario. As the second scenario is more desirable, most people uphold the value that you should not scam/cheat while rightly ostracising those that do.
That is infact why we have most laws, so we can punish and deter people from acting solely in their own interest to maximise personal EV in an environment where most people are acting both in their interest and that of the group (what's best for everyone). If there were no consequences, would you mug anyone who looks defenceless on the street like old ladies? The EV of doing that is pretty high for the effort so why not maximise EV? If you saw someone mugging an old lady would you be like "nice one bro way to maximise EV there, wp!" or would you want that person removed from society? This game is a simulation of real life where there are no consequences to mugging an old lady (besides showing you'll sell you integrity for pretty cheap on national tv), and it's disturbing that people think it's standard to not do the right thing that everyone should do, and take advantage of those that do, just because there's no consequence and it's "just a game".
I don't really understand the implied notion in many posts that what is ethical or not is - or should be - universal.
What is good for the growth of one person is harmful for a different one, even if someone somehow managed scientifically to develop the perfect moral compass for the average man then it would boil down to everyone hating what the average man is (or a society of sheep)
So when you accuse someone of immoral activity either you think you know the moral template the world needs because you figured it all out somehow
or you have just accepted ethical rules and not created them for yourself (usually involves people influenced by their immediate environment and never actually putting some thought into it, including the obvious religious leap of faith)
Now, despite the possibility of getting capslock bombed REMIND ME NOT TO TURN MY BACK ON YOU or something like that l would like to point out that the girl that chose "steal" in that vid could have tons of valid reasons not to care about the fact that she would appear deceitful on Youtubes/TV. She could be a firm believer of the usefulness of spreading trust and honesty in the world and still decide that it's overall more +EV for her as a person to do what she did. She also could be a shortsighted fuck that doesn't understand that what she did will probably hurt her more in the long run. Who the hell knows, we are not her and I am trying really hard to find the reason people point their moral fingers at her in either case.
Do you want society to consist of nothing but simpletons who don't even consider being dishonest for their own sake even in TV games who encourage you to do so in order to win? Or do you want smart people that only make the same decisions that you do?
That is about as nightmarish as a society that would consist only of predators.
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
Reasoning behind actions plays the biggest role in here. As lebowski stated the ultimate moral compass doesnt exist and it probably never will. What if the girl stole the money so she could donate them to organisation researching cure for cancer? Would that make it immoral ? Except each one of you subconsciously believes her reasoning is firmly egoistical coz its mainstream. Truth is there is no right action here. You dont believe me ? Look at the past 8 pages. It's not that people who would pick "steal" are scumbags as Ket stated nor is the other half stupid for not optimizing their edge. The topic makes good discussion, however making extreme conslusions just cause of the choice on the topic is ridiculous.
And the example with the old lady is super incorrect - by stealing her purse you are violating her human rights. Obviously optimizing the edge in everything going @ such extreme actions would make the world chaotic, thats why rules were made in the first place. When i think about it i cant really see a good common example with the game. Its an isolated case and one of the interesting parts in it is if the person would stick with the normal everyday decisions he would make in his life or change that only cause its allowed by the game. This however doesnt make stealing immoral at least not in all cases. There are so many variables for each case its impossible to tell which is right or wrong by simply observing the game w/o knowing each person in it. One of them will 100% use the money better than the other and deserves them more thats why i dislike split.
On April 25 2012 04:15 player999 wrote:
another point I just thought, a conversation is made of 2 people, so if the average person lies 40 times in 15min, the average conversation (made of 2 people) contains 80 lies in 15 minutes, or, if you divide the time spent talking equally, each lie 40 times in 7.5 minutes
Already confirmed 2 pages ago I exagerrated, you're being a penis here as well
you confirmed you had the "40 in 5min" wrong and changed to "40 in 15min", which was still wrong and absurd, as you confirmed with the video, so why are you mad at me for calling you out?
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 25 2012 05:07 Mariuslol wrote:
So either way, none of it deserves being flamed by a "grouchy retard" (this is just my subjective opinion, and not truth, since I get emotional when people go out of their way to be mean to me).
nope, I dont go out of my way to be mean, I go out of my way to prove ppl who are obviously wrong, that they are wrong, and I did so, dont get butthurt
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 25 2012 08:53 Spitfiree wrote:
Reasoning behind actions plays the biggest role in here. As lebowski stated the ultimate moral compass doesnt exist and it probably never will. What if the girl stole the money so she could donate them to organisation researching cure for cancer? Would that make it immoral ? Except each one of you subconsciously believes her reasoning is firmly egoistical coz its mainstream. Truth is there is no right action here. You dont believe me ? Look at the past 8 pages. It's not that people who would pick "steal" are scumbags as Ket stated nor is the other half stupid for not optimizing their edge. The topic makes good discussion, however making extreme conslusions just cause of the choice on the topic is ridiculous.
And the example with the old lady is super incorrect - by stealing her purse you are violating her human rights. Obviously optimizing the edge in everything going @ such extreme actions would make the world chaotic, thats why rules were made in the first place. When i think about it i cant really see a good common example with the game. Its an isolated case and one of the interesting parts in it is if the person would stick with the normal everyday decisions he would make in his life or change that only cause its allowed by the game. This however doesnt make stealing immoral at least not in all cases. There are so many variables for each case its impossible to tell which is right or wrong by simply observing the game w/o knowing each person in it. One of them will 100% use the money better than the other and deserves them more thats why i dislike split.
Anyhow its been a good discussion
tru that I do just assume stealers are scumbagging it up and being selfish, and id guess 99% of the time this is true. im not saying stealing an old ladys purse is comparable to picking the steal ball, just using it as an example for why you need people following rules and working as a community, but you already understand that cause you just said it yourself.
As for who uses the money better than the other, how can anyone have the authority to decide who's going to need the money more or use the money better? You may not consider 50/50 split to be the ideal outcome but is there a better one if you had to choose one size fits all?
I agree it's interesting the difference between everyday decisions and what's allowed by the game, and how that changes what you can consider ethical. This is just my take but someone who seems a good person in every day life but shamelessly steals for more personal gain in the game makes me think they're only upholding the traditionally accepted rules of society because they can't conveniently get away with not doing so in every day life and not because they have their own moral compass and try to do what's right cause it's the right thing to do. Now that this game comes along where they're allowed to make the choice they want to make, their true self is revealed. I mean yeah it's possible one person wants to steal to donate to charity or something but do you really think that's common?
On April 25 2012 03:04 EvilSky wrote:
Fuck off, so you have no problem with beating someone at the table out of their kids college money where unknown to them you have an insane edge over them but picking the higher EV choice at a fucking game show is morally repulsive?
The only play is to pick steal, if they chose to split you can give them their half after the show.
Yup poker and this gameshow (simulation of prisoners dilemma) are fundamentally different. In poker there is no possible way for everyone to be a winner or everyone to be a loser. It's a zero sum competition where someone has to lose for you to gain and vice versa. There is no "better outcome for all" possible by working cooperatively with all other players. It's understood that it's a competition of this nature by all participants that choose they want to play, and that everyone will be playing for themselves.
In this gameshow the highest EV for the population as a whole is for everyone to cooperate and pick split, but everyone has to do it. As soon as some people start stealing they are making a choice that if everyone made, no one would have anything and everyone would be worse off. They're not doing their part in the cooperation that makes the game better for everyone to try and maximise personal gain. They're promoting a shift to the first equilibrium where the population will pick steal all trying to maximise personal EV only, and everyone will be worse off. It should be natural for the group to ostracise these people, as the group as a whole is literally better off without them.
As Baal said, picking steal is much more analogous to scamming and cheating than playing poker by the rules. A scammer/cheater is maximising his personal gain at the expense of the other player, but if everyone tries to scam and cheat that'd be a terrible environment to live in and you wouldn't be able to do any business with anyone, and everyone is worse off. If no-one tries to scam and cheat then everyone is better off than in the prior scenario. As the second scenario is more desirable, most people uphold the value that you should not scam/cheat while rightly ostracising those that do.
That is infact why we have most laws, so we can punish and deter people from acting solely in their own interest to maximise personal EV in an environment where most people are acting both in their interest and that of the group (what's best for everyone). If there were no consequences, would you mug anyone who looks defenceless on the street like old ladies? The EV of doing that is pretty high for the effort so why not maximise EV? If you saw someone mugging an old lady would you be like "nice one bro way to maximise EV there, wp!" or would you want that person removed from society? This game is a simulation of real life where there are no consequences to mugging an old lady (besides showing you'll sell you integrity for pretty cheap on national tv), and it's disturbing that people think it's standard to not do the right thing that everyone should do, and take advantage of those that do, just because there's no consequence and it's "just a game".
They made it seem like a simulation of real life and then turned it into a game. It is not real life, it's a game. That game has its own rules. If picking steal was considered the same as mugging an old lady, then this show would not exist, and steal as an option would not exist. Steal is a legitimate option in the game, and the whole idea of the show is people talking to each other without knowing what the other person is going to do. They took a real life situation people feel emotional about and created a game around it. That game is not real life by any means. It is a changed variant of the real life variation, but it remains a game with its own rules and settings which are completely different from real life. They created a setting in which neither side knows what to think. They created a setting where you are allowed to pick steal or split. It is entirely within the moral setting of the game to pick steal.
You watch survivor right? You should know how many participants confuse survivor with real life in terms of promises, and consequently, lying. Despite what those people think, you enter survivor with its own set of rules. It may appear to look like real life because you are interacting for weeks with people, but it's not. It remains a game with its own rules and settings.
And again, I'm not saying I would pick steal at all. I don't understand how people can say you must pick steal, either. That said there is really nothing morally wrong with doing so.
We pretty much have the same opinion except from 2 diff perspectives. Its a really really deep topic and my head hurts when i have to go through the variables. I do disagree that a person reveals their true self that way - what they do is they reveal their ego. Its a condition every man suffers from so its kinda hypocritical for anyone to judge them that way.
Btw it seems that there is pre-action before they have to choose split or steal? What do they do before they are given the options to choose ? If they are given time to get to know each other that does change things a lot
Nazgul we've been over this. Its indeed a game and within the morality of the game split is absolutely the best, however if we choose to ignore our everyday beliefs just cause we r in a game for personal gain where they shouldnt matter doesnt that make us weak and pathetic ?
Lal this is fun. Very solid arguments for both options could be given
Its probably a mathematical question where if is 50% of the time EV for humanity is optimized and 50% of the time its lost is better than a split everytime. However there would be cases where both persons are dumbfucks and would spend the money on booze and hookers
On April 25 2012 08:53 Spitfiree wrote:
What if the girl stole the money so she could donate them to organisation researching cure for cancer? Would that make it immoral ?
by this logic mugging old ladies is morally correct too, since for all you know the mugger donated it to cancer research
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 24 2012 22:20 locoo wrote:
By your own reasoning you should first educate every fish you play against then before you take his money.
No, in poker we both know we are trying to outwit each other in other to win money, the other is blatant lying "ill split" and you dont.
A correct analogy would be agreeing to a flip in poker and you folding your 23o when he shoves, you are effectivly lying about an agreement for profit.
What about a fish that doesn't know poker is a game of skill?
And I agree that is of course scummy ONLY IF you wouldn't expect to be lied at this game, but I would expect EVERY player at this game to know they are gonna to be lied to, that's the whole point of this game, if there were no lies this game would be pointless and wouldn't exist.
they might not know that there is skill, but they know its a game where other ppl will try to take their money
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
Contact Users: 865 Active, 2 Logged in - Time: 11:59
Netherlands. Apr 25 2012 07:17. Posts 7080
,
,
,
,