Golden Balls returns 11/2/09

[Brig Bother]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'229669\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 03:10 PM\'][quote name=\'Brig Bother\' post=\'229597\' date=\'Nov 1 2009, 05:25 AM\']This is a bit more interesting interpretation of The Prisoner's Dilemma on television, pre-dating Goldenballs by almost ten years, an experimental late night Channel 4 show called Trust Me hosted by "Nasty" Nick Bateman, who was thrown out of our first series of Big Brother for cheating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCyab8gRQ6c[/quote]

How does one cheat at Big Brother?
[/quote]

Basically writing down names and trying to influence peoples votes with them, somehow away from BBs eyes. Nominations being your personal choice is the original BB format's big format point. It is impossible to underestimate how big a deal this was when it happened, the media and the internet (you could only watch the live stream through the internet) pretty much exploded in Britain overnight.

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'229690\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 03:27 PM\'][quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'229689\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 11:52 AM\']I think there are enough deviations to say that it isn't, and that is probably the biggest flaw.[/quote]
Please elaborate, as I fail to see what make it sufficiently different to say that, and as such I further don't see a) what changes you would make to make it a "true" Prisoner's Dilemma, and b) how that would improve the situation.[/quote]
With TV Prisoner's, there's only 3 possible payouts for each player (all, half, or none), and those 3 are arranged in such a way that your decision is pretty much irrelevant.  If your opponent chooses Steal, you're boned, and if he chooses Split, then it's only a question of how much you like money.  With typical Prisoner's, there's 4 outcomes, organized such that your choice factors as much as the other guy.

As for implementation, the best example I can think of right now would be playing around with Friend or Foe and making front game and end game separate pots.  If they Friend, they split both; if they Foe, then the endgame pot goes away and they split the front game pot; if they Split, the Foe takes it all.  I don't necessarily think that translates for better TV, but I think that Prisoner's is a bad GS concept in any form.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'229710\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 04:19 PM\']I don't necessarily think that translates for better TV, but I think that Prisoner's is a bad GS concept in any form.[/quote]
Okay, but your original statement:

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'229689\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 11:52 AM\']I think there are enough deviations to say that it isn't, and that is probably the biggest flaw.[/quote]
...implies that if it WERE a carbon-copy of the actual Dilemma that it would work.

So, um, pick one.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'229710\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 04:19 PM\']with TV Prisoner's, there's only 3 possible payouts for each player (all, half, or none), and those 3 are arranged in such a way that your decision is pretty much irrelevant.  If your opponent chooses Steal, you're boned, and if he chooses Split, then it's only a question of how much you like money.  With typical Prisoner's, there's 4 outcomes, organized such that your choice factors as much as the other guy.[/quote]If you generalize that one of you defects as one outcome, then there are three.

The problem is that the TV version is done improperly. The dilemma is that if you defect and the other guy doesn't, you get away relatively painlessly, and the other guy is left to be the 5,730 day carryover champ on Don't Drop the Soap, but if  you both defect, you're both worse off than if you had cooperated.

When you present the dilemma in terms of competing for a cash prize, I basically decide how much money I'm going to let you have, and you the same. And after we leave the stage, none of us will be worse off than when we started.

Perhaps there's the problem.

If you were to have the Solitarians cooperate or defect, and the game outcome would determine how much sleep the players got to have (or not have), that would be closer to what the real dilemma portrays. Such an event could also be played out on Survivor; if you had both teams bring all of their food to a challenge, and there was a possibility that the food would be lost for keeps, or it would be multiplied.

/I heard that there was to be a Solitary IV.
//but which network will air it?

[Neumms]

If I understand "Trust Me" correctly, the pot keeps going up the longer you trust the other pod. So in that, there's incentive to keep trusting. But then, the pot reaches an end point, presenting the Prisoners' Dilemma.

Here's the question: Could "Trust Me" be played with an unlimited pot? Then there would be no Prisoner's Dilemma, it's how long can you trust the other guys. Granted, the game would have to be spread over more than one episode, so maybe they'd have to air more than one game concurrently, a la "$64,000 Question.") Perhaps, at some point, there's an offer to split the pot--either you vote to split, however, or to continue the game.

[Brig Bother]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'229761\' date=\'Nov 3 2009, 05:33 PM\']Here's the question: Could "Trust Me" be played with an unlimited pot? Then there would be no Prisoner's Dilemma, it's how long can you trust the other guys. Granted, the game would have to be spread over more than one episode, so maybe they'd have to air more than one game concurrently, a la "$64,000 Question.") Perhaps, at some point, there's an offer to split the pot--either you vote to split, however, or to continue the game.[/quote]

Well the players can force a split at any time - I presume they were unaware before the recording of the potential prizemonies involved. There were four episodes made, two games an episode, only one game ended prematurely with a split if I recall correctly.

However you do seem to have inadvertantly reinvented How Much Is Enough? so well done.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'Brig Bother\' post=\'229784\' date=\'Nov 3 2009, 04:20 PM\']However you do seem to have inadvertantly reinvented How Much Is Enough? so well done.[/quote]

Yes, but this version would be much slower! :-)