Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    With only that little information to go on, I guess I'd start
    to check out other towns.  Can you be a little more specific,
    Jim?
    
    Steve

    If I had to play (and it usually seems that I have to), I still
    wouldn't consciously cheat.  Not from ethical considerations, but just
    because I'm bad at it.  (: >,)
    
    Depending on the complexity of the game, "cheating" can become a pretty
    vague concept, though! 
    
    Ray

    Sometimes it seems like all the 'games' are crooked....

Cheat: the act of fraudulently deceiving...
       intentional active distortion of the truth

If the game was crooked, I think I would try to change the game
by starting to play another one (let's agree on fair rules).

If one truely understands the concept of "system" (I'm not claiming
to fully understand this), cheating is not a dominant strategy.

- Peter

RE: .5

>	If the game was crooked, I think I would try to change the
>	game by starting to play another one (let's agree on fair
>	rules).

But often, you don't get a chance to set the rules. Accepting that
this is really 'the only game in town' you'd either play the game as
is, or not at all. 

But, if cheating is an inherent part of the rule set (as the base
hypothesis seems to imply), would it make sense to play the game
WITHOUT cheating? One will be guaranteed to lose. Would it then be a
game, or just an exercise in futility? 

Further, is there anything wrong in cheating under these conditions?
In other words, does it make sense to apply the rules of other
games, from other towns (such as fairness, honesty, etc.) to a game
based on a different value set? Does it make sense to apply foreign
moral rules to a system where they will be anachronistic? 


>	If one truly understands the concept of "system" (I'm not
>	claiming to fully understand this), cheating is not a
>	dominant strategy.

I think I understand the mathematical concept of 'system' (in the 
sense of a mapping function). Apparently, this is not what you mean 
here. How does one's understanding of 'system' affect their choice 
of a dominant strategy? Could you elaborate?

-- Ron

    
    First I would ask myself "What would Donald Trump do"
    
    
    Then I would play the game as best as I could just like Donald
    
    Steve

    Donald Trump would buy the game and name it after himself.
    
    At which point, I _would_ move to another town.

    No
    
    No
    
    There is always a choice. It just may not be obvious.

       
   .0> If the only game in town was crooked, would you play?

       If I lost nothing, then whether or not there was a chance to gain
       anything wouldn't matter and I might play for fun.

   .0> Would you cheat, to 'even the scores'?

       If I lost nothing, and whether I played or not was optional, no.
       IMO, cheating is a short term win, but in the long run you lose
       overall.

   .0> What if you didn't have the choice not to play?

       Anxiety!

       If I have no choice, then there must have been some serious
       ultimatume (Sp?) given.  I have something to lose!?  The game is
       unfair so winning will be difficult, even if I cheat. 

          a. Get on the next stage out of town, because living like this
             can't be fun.
          b. If (not a)
             then "Play the game, with the understanding that there are
                    no rules so, whatever I'm doing is not cheating and
                    not playing either"
             until I can do (a).


       Richard

If the game is crooked and all the participants are cheating, then what are the
rules for?  Isn't cheating then part of the rules and acceptible if you don't 
get caught?  The "rule" to follow is that anything goes unless you are caught.

What is the penalty for being caught cheating?

I would certainly consider cheating in a crooked game, it would be foolish not
to.  I would only play if I thought I would have a fair chance.  If it took
cheating for me to have a "fair" chance, then I would cheat.

Stan

    If it's crooked it was probably meant to be.
    Play the flip side of it, such that it's honest
    for you, you've beaten the cheats objective
    that is to have gained by cheating you.  In 
    which case you are not playing his/her game
    but they play yours.
    
    jm

    I dunno.  I'd either learn how they cheated and play to win like
    they do, or I'd torch the place.
    
    -Jody
    

re .5 & .6

>>	If the game was crooked, I think I would try to change the
>>	game by starting to play another one (let's agree on fair
>>	rules).
>
>But often, you don't get a chance to set the rules. Accepting that
>this is really 'the only game in town' you'd either play the game as
>is, or not at all. 

I'm basically saying no, I wouldn't play the game as given.
I realize this will sound like I'm avoiding the question,
but in reality, there's never only one game.  There's at
least two: the game itself, and a meta-game of determining
under what conditions you are willing to play (that is, the
rules of the game).  Often the meta-game is more important
than the game itself.  Why concede this a priori?

Perhaps my first move in the meta-game would be to announce
I'm not willing to play the game as given.  This might mean I
don't play at all, so be it, but in my experience, it usually
begins a whole new game involving negotiation.

Even when you are in a very weak position, the other party has
some interest in your cooperation, otherwise there wouldn't be
a game at all.

re: "system" and "dominant strategy"

By system, I mean everything that forms a unified whole.
Not just what is stated, but the entire context.

A dominant strategy is one that will produce an outcome as good
or better than all other strategies, regardless of the strategy
adopted by an opponent.

I believe if one truely comprehends the whole system,
cheating is not a dominant strategy.  You won't really
get ahead in the long run.

This is what "karma" is meant to express.  ["Myths and dreams
come from the same place. They come from realizations of some kind
that have then to find expression in symbolic form", Joseph Campbell,
"The Power of Myth".]

- Peter

    
    
                     CHEATERS NEVER LOOSE
                    
    
    

    
    
                    LOOSERS NEVER CHEAT
    
    
    Wanna win ? Then, keep on keepin' on.
               (the wanzam)

    
    
    
    	A CHEATER ISN'T A CHEATER UNTIL THEY ARE CAUGHT THEN THEIR DEAD

    
    This reminds me of analogy tests from philosophy 401 [grin]..
    
    the logic goes something like this...
    
    
    If cheating is a rule of the game [premise #1..stated in .0]
    And if cheating is defined as breaking the rules [premise #2..a
    standard, allowable interpretation of the language]
    
    Query?: What is cheating [a mere variance of the question "would you
    cheat?"]
    
    The "trick" is that eveyone explains why you should not cheat based on
    their beliefs...not on the information presented...right answer, wrong
    question.
    
    The "logical" answer [not the "right" one...we are taking boolean
    analogy here...] is that of course you would. If you were *not* to
    cheat [ie: follow the rules established for the game] then you would in
    effect be *cheating*...by breaking the rules...sort of like double
    entendres...
    
    Anyone ever taken the Miller Analogies Test? It is 100 unembellished
    analogies based on this type of logic...sometimes required for entrance
    to some graduate schools...average score nation-wide last time I saw
    results was 44 "right" [logically correct]...it's a b***-buster!
    
    Mel