BOGO Genocide Scenario

[erik]

The only way I could see someone picking "B" is if they were in some sort of competition with classmates, where your final term mark would give you some advantage, competetively. Otherwise, EVERYONE would pick A. Logic would state that everyone would want 100%.. and anyone that didn't would get a severe ass kicking later.

Logic doesn't dictate that everyone would want to circle A. Logic dictates that as soon as you are reasonably sure that someone is going to circle B, that you should circle B.

People like sticking it to other people who they think deserve it. If you have a class with all honor students, then probably they would all circle A. Similarly, if you have a class with all dishonor students, then they will probably all circle A. But have some sort of mixed class, and some dishonor student will be tempted to circle B, if only to make the honor students suffer.

Now, the trick is that he's losing a guaranteed 100% on his term paper. Which is very tempting. So the grade offer can't be too low, and 33% is probably too low. It means that even if he got full credit for the rest of his grade, that he'd still only get a 67% as a final score. That's a D, even if he does everything right. I don't think that many people would be willing to get a D just to see other people get Fs. There's not enough room between the grades to adequately laugh at the people who get Fs.

Now, if the score for circling a B was 80, I bet someone would do it. It would mean that the highest grade you could get was a 90. Basically, it drops you down a letter grade. Would it be worth it to someone in the class to sacrifice a letter grade in order to see lots of people in the class get Fs? Sure, there's enough room there to laugh at the person.

So the sweet spot is somewhere between 40 and 80. I don't think that most people who would want to see other people fail would crunch the numbers all that much though, instead relating the score to their own track record with regards to term papers in order to tell them when the score for circling B is high enough.

I think that around 70, I'd start to get nervous that some idiot would be willing to circle B, and I'd think long and hard about circling it too.

I had a teacher in 9th grade who gave us an option like this once, but just for a test (that was supposed to be superhard). Secret ballots were passed out. If everyone chose A, then we could skip the quiz, and everyone would get 90. If one person chose B, then that person would get 100, and everyone else would just take the quiz, and get their grade. If more than one person chose B, then we all took the quiz, and got our regular grades.

We all took the quiz and got our sad-ass grades, thanks to my idiot friend Marc (and one other genius who picked B).

[Leaf]

I had a test like this in grade six.. it was the one (if you know it) where it says "read all the questions before answering". I started to answer the first two... then read the test, then erased my first two answers and handed it in. Question 20 was "do not answer any of these questions and hand your test in".

Sadly, I was the only one to actually do what the test said, except I kinda cheated cause I had answered two questions. Still, I got to be all smug while everyone else felt stupid. Of course, this was the same class where I had worn a dress for a day for 25 cents from each student ( ended up just shy of 10 bucks and got kicked out of english by my homophobic teacher who said it "was wrong, completely wrong"). so I figure they had enough time to fingerpoint at my antics... so maybe that test evened the playing field or something...

ummm... I like your explanation Erik... that 's where I was trying to head, but you summed it up nicer(ly).

[Adam!]

If a 33% failure weighs the same as a 0% failure, then everyone would pick A, because there is no advantage to picking B.

Nah. A zero on the paper (so 50% off your final mark) is fucking terrifying, because it's basically an instant fail. [An aside: I had a class once where you needed to pass the assignment portion comprised of 4 assignments to pass the course. They were to be submitted and marked electronically, and I missed the submission time for an assignment in the first week and got a zero. Easy mistake, but I realized at that point that if I missed the due date for any of the remaining assignments I would lose 50% of my assignment marks and almost certainly fail the course. I ended up doing fine, but it was a nerve-wracking realization.] Getting 33% gets you a D, as Erik said, which is still pretty damn terrifying, but it isn't the end of the world.

The only way I could see someone picking "B" is if they were in some sort of competition with classmates, where your final term mark would give you some advantage, competitively. Otherwise, EVERYONE would pick A. Logic would state that everyone would want 100%

That's true, but not everyone is logical. Even if there is no real competition, it only takes one asshole to fuck it up. Even if there are no jerks in the class, it only takes one paranoid person who suspects another student of malicious intent. Although it's hard to imagine someone choosing B to be a dick, it's very easy to imagine someone who thinks everyone else might choose B to cover their ass. My guess is in this situation about half of the class would be dreamy idealists with a headful of faith in their fellow man, and the other half would be jaded pessimists who are sure that someone else (or everyone else) will have a reason to choose B.

I don't think that many people would be willing to get a D just to see other people get Fs.

Very true. I actually don’t think anyone would do this. But I do think that at least one person out of 30 (Let’s call him Bob) would be sure that there is a B circler in the crowd. Which makes Bob a B circler, and may or may not make me a B circler myself. I think in a room of likeminded intelligent people a lot of them will circle B simply because they do not trust their fellow man to do the best thing, and because of their distrust they are not trustworthy themselves. In general I think well-informed people with good intentions will knowingly sabotage the greater good for a tiny gain, if only because they are afraid that others will do the same.

[Egg]

You're completely and totally wrong.

I'm pretty sure that's unqualified.

The target group: "People that would take up the BOGO proposal without being placed under threat of violence as well as people who would use the threat of violence to force acceptance of the BOGO proposal"

Mogosagatai: A person who would not take up the BOGO proposal without being placed under threat of violence. Also, a person who would not use the threat of violence in order to force acceptance of the BOGO proposal.

Mogsagatai, under threat of violence, chooses the target group designated above. He is excluded from the target group because he does not fit either of the qualifications that put people in the target group.

Egg, the threatener, does fall into the target group under its second qualification.

The scenario: Mogosagatai accepts Egg's plea because of the threat of violence and Egg immediately perishes because he is included in the target group. Mogosagatai bounces about happily, no longer threatened by violence.

How is this wrong?

[Adam!]

You're completely and totally wrong.

How is this wrong?

This Post explains how pretty succinctly.

[Mogosagatai]

Mogosagatai bounces about happily

And then dies. The rule is, once you choose a target group, an equally large group that INCLUDES you also dies.

Of course, that doesn't mean Egg's threat is meaningless. Egg's threat means that I'm going to die, whereas before I could bounce about happily. And while I could choose "all people that are Egg" as my target group out of spite, it would make more sense and be more philanthropic to choose what he wants. After, as I said, I delivered a switch kick to the crotch.

You could also just make the decision that Egg threatened me to make, instead of forcing someone else to do it. It would have the same effect, and possibly minus one or two deaths (depending on which group your victim would have been in--killers/threateners, reteliatory group, or neither).

[erik]

Of course, that doesn't mean Egg's threat is meaningless. Egg's threat means that I'm going to die, whereas before I could bounce about happily. And while I could choose "all people that are Egg" as my target group out of spite, it would make more sense and be more philanthropic to choose what he wants. After, as I said, I delivered a switch kick to the crotch.

If you are doing something that makes sense to you, then did you really have to be threatened? If there's no real struggle, aren't you freely doing it?

You could also just make the decision that Egg threatened me to make, instead of forcing someone else to do it. It would have the same effect, and possibly minus one or two deaths (depending on which group your victim would have been in--killers/threateners, reteliatory group, or neither).

If you freely take up the proposal without being threatened, then you are targeting a group that you belong to, namely "People who would take up the BOGO proposal without being placed under threat of violence." You cannot target a group to which you belong.

[Mogosagatai]

If you freely take up the proposal without being threatened, then you are targeting a group that you belong to, namely "People who would take up the BOGO proposal without being placed under threat of violence." You cannot target a group to which you belong.

Good point.

If you are doing something that makes sense to you, then did you really have to be threatened? If there's no real struggle, aren't you freely doing it?

I was going to say that yes, I would freely do it, if Egg hadn't been such a jackass and threatened me first. But if, like you say, I <i>can't</i> freely do it since I'd be targeting myself, then I guess Egg has to threaten me in order for it to be legit. Only after I'm threatened do I make the choice to follow his orders, rather them just kill him out of spite.

[Gemini6Ice]

Of course, that doesn't mean Egg's threat is meaningless. Egg's threat means that I'm going to die, whereas before I could bounce about happily. And while I could choose "all people that are Egg" as my target group out of spite, it would make more sense and be more philanthropic to choose what he wants. After, as I said, I delivered a switch kick to the crotch.

I think Egg would be more successful by threatening violence, pain, and torture rather than death. I think most people would choose certain death over certain eternal torture. Of course, this assumption is taken without religious beliefs. Belief in torture or paradise in the after-life might definitely affect one's choice in this matter.

You could also just make the decision that Egg threatened me to make, instead of forcing someone else to do it. It would have the same effect, and possibly minus one or two deaths (depending on which group your victim would have been in--killers/threateners, reteliatory group, or neither).

No, you can't select "people who would accept the BOGO proposal" as your target group. You would then be choosing a group that includes yourself, which is against the rules.

As a side note, what happens if someone selects an invalid group? Does ey get a chance to try again or is it a one-shot deal? (Of course, if ey dies from someone else's choice (or the retaliation to someone else's choice) before ey can come to a new decision, then the point is really moot.

[Egg]

Let's expand that to torture and threatening their loved ones. And expand the target group accordingly.

Furthermore, since the group I'm targetting can be so specific, why don't I just force Mogosagatai to target my target as previously stated excluding himself. Since that's a grouping like any other. I force him to target "Everybody who would accept the BOGO proposal or those who would force others to accept it through violence (torture or the threatening of others included), and who are not me".... does that work? I'm glad we thought this out, so that I'll be ready to do it right when the time comes.

He still dies in the retaliation strike but at least the first group is viewed as valid.

[Gemini6Ice]

I force him to target "Everybody who would accept the BOGO proposal or those who would force others to accept it through violence (torture or the threatening of others included), and who are not me".... does that work?

I'd argue that it doesn't, because a group must be specified as some not/and/nor/or combination of traits. I don't feel that being or not being "person X" is a <i>trait</i>. I think that's more of a singling out. This is pretty grey territory though, so I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on this too. Is "being Paris Hilton" a trait/characteristic ?

And I don't think I'm dictator of this scenario anymore. I think the conversation has gotten to the point where anything that I left unclarified ought to be permitted to be clarified by all us fighters as a whole.

[Mogosagatai]

I think it's safe to say that being or not being Person X is a trait. Or a combination of traits, which is still a trait.

In other news: Gemini6Ice, your use of the genderless pronoun "ey" is great. "Ey" is now officially adopted into my vocabulary. Is "em" the object of "ey"?

[Adam!]

ey

I prefer Xe, but any day I get to use the word 'spivak' is a good day in my books. Spivak!

[Gemini6Ice]

I think it's safe to say that being or not being Person X is a trait. Or a combination of traits, which is still a trait.

In other news: Gemini6Ice, your use of the genderless pronoun "ey" is great. "Ey" is now officially adopted into my vocabulary. Is "em" the object of "ey"?

Yes, and thanks! See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun