RE: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
comex wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote: I can in my preferred language of choice. VB.Net, right? Does everywhere include non-Windows systems? mono I know a large number of people who refuse to run Mono for philosophical reasons (although I'm not one of them). More to the point, there's no version of it available for Mac OS X, as far as I know. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On 27 Nov 2008, at 19:02, Alexander Smith wrote: I know a large number of people who refuse to run Mono for philosophical reasons (although I'm not one of them). More to the point, there's no version of it available for Mac OS X, as far as I know. there is. However, I support Wooble's idea to write programs in Cocoa for this because gnustep might run them.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Charles Reiss wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:44, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 23:32, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of course, there are practical problems with doing any-language-you-want (do you have a Hypertalk interpreter? Z80 assembly? VisualWorks?), so things probably need to be more restricted in practice. Probably the closest canonical example of a contest is the (much less theoretically interesting) http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html . Why not have the competing programs communicate via an HTTP post? Cons: Making sure all programs are available at the same time. People going against the spirit of the game could use manual intervention to change strategy (timeouts can disincentivize this). Harder to run a whole lot of rounds (which would give a clearer idea of winner). I think these are big enough cons, you really want round-robin multiple rounds. I don't think you have to worry too much about assembly, etc., you're probably offering enough diversity if you offer a small range of standard programming languages. It might be better to just get this off the ground by adding languages by request where possible, you shouldn't end up with too many? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 4:25 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think these are big enough cons, you really want round-robin multiple rounds. I don't think you have to worry too much about assembly, etc., you're probably offering enough diversity if you offer a small range of standard programming languages. It might be better to just get this off the ground by adding languages by request where possible, you shouldn't end up with too many? I think that works, thanks! I'll look into establishing a general framework in the next few days, though converting that into a workable program will have to wait a bit. So, I was wrong in my assumption, then, that you could compile a program written in essentially any language into some sort of executable file that could be run anywhere? BP
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:26, Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, I was wrong in my assumption, then, that you could compile a program written in essentially any language into some sort of executable file that could be run anywhere? I can in my preferred language of choice. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:26, Jamie Dallaire wrote: So, I was wrong in my assumption, then, that you could compile a program written in essentially any language into some sort of executable file that could be run anywhere? llvm, java, etc... Pick yer poison.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote: I can in my preferred language of choice. VB.Net, right? Does everywhere include non-Windows systems?
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote: I can in my preferred language of choice. VB.Net, right? Does everywhere include non-Windows systems? Heh it definitely should. I'm on linux here and just can't imagine that all these nomic players are running xp/vista...
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote: I can in my preferred language of choice. VB.Net, right? Does everywhere include non-Windows systems? mono
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On 26 Nov 2008, at 17:05, Roger Hicks wrote: I believe that Mono is the .NET library ported to unix based systems. I could be wrong however. Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage the contest, if I understand it.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage the contest, if I understand it. Presumably everyone using a scripting language would reveal the source to the contestmaster anyway.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:26, Jamie Dallaire wrote: So, I was wrong in my assumption, then, that you could compile a program written in essentially any language into some sort of executable file that could be run anywhere? llvm, java, etc... Pick yer poison. Not sure all languages are portable on executable level. My preferred would be ANSI-standard C, portable on source-level to any machine with gcc. If there's some gcc-compatible tools to make actual executables, say, that transfer between linux and windows, I've not researched them- any (free) ideas? With executable transfer I've even had problems between gcc compiles on two windows machines due to cygwin library version issues--- I always just compile from source on each machine. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:15, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 Nov 2008, at 17:05, Roger Hicks wrote: I believe that Mono is the .NET library ported to unix based systems. I could be wrong however. Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage the contest, if I understand it. Speaking with no first-hand experience: .NET code is compiled into bytecode and run on a virtual machine (similar to Java), so I suspect you could in fact run a .NET executable on a linux machine. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:15, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 Nov 2008, at 17:05, Roger Hicks wrote: I believe that Mono is the .NET library ported to unix based systems. I could be wrong however. Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage the contest, if I understand it. I would prefer the source be available for a post-mortem. For source submissions, probably the best scheme would be for people to send the source to a discreet contestmaster. (One could avoid that, of course, by posting something like a hash of one's source in round 1, then posting the source in round 2, but it would probably be good to allow people to bug-fix their source, etc. if problems arise without it being suspicious.) And, well, revealing binaries in advance might damage the contest about as much if poeple decide to use them. -woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
While we're debating executables for this, I thought I'd raise another issue: scoring. One of the features of cooperation experiments is that, rationally, how well your opponent does shouldn't affect you. For example, if your opponent offers you $1 and keeps $19, the point of the game is that rationally you should be happy because $1 is better than none, and the $19 doesn't matter because in game terms, the total # of dollars in the whole game (real life) is such that your opponent's total only very, very distantly hurts the value of yours. The interesting part of the psychology comes in because people are willing punish the greedy $19-receivers at a cost to themselves, showing that they are evolved to play the larger societal game of punishing unfairness before they maximize their dollar. For our purposes, that means there's the danger that traditional scoring that would turn this experiment into a different kind of game, more cutthroat and zero-sum, especially if each round is scored based on differences. Example, take outcomes for three players, Greedy, Friendly, and Dupe: Results: Greedy vs. Dupe : 11 (Greedy), 1 (Dupe) Diff: +10 Greedy Friendly vs. Dupe : 100 (Friendly), 98 (Dupe) Diff: +2 Friendly Greedy vs. Friendly : 50 (Greedy), 50 (Friendly) Diff: 0 Ranked by per-game win average (suggested in contest proto I think): Greedy5 Friendly 1 Dupe -4 Ranked by total: Friendly 150 Dupe 99 Greedy 61 So the first method awards cutthroat play rather than cooperation (keep totals down as long as per-game difference is high) while second awards cooperation, where Dupe, who didn't win any game directly, does better than Greedy. Of course since the game domain ultimately is small, even the cooperative players have to assume some level of zero-sum-ness: in the second method, the best play is probably cooperate until the 'last minute' then do a quick betrayal for the game-winning point. (This latter strategy can be defused somewhat by making the # of rounds in one match random within a range so that there's no certain last round). [Side note: we actually experimented in this in a contest I ran a few years ago for players directly: a common pool resource game where you tried to harvest fish---maximize your own catch against others while leaving enough to grow into the next round. Quickly learned that uncertainty about when the last round was is v. important. Incidentally, at the time I was wondering if people would form private contracts to protect the resource: they didn't in part because contract law was much less developed, maybe a partner of AAA should extend into fishing?] Just something to think about as it's very relevant to think about ahead of time, as it affects the types of strategies that end up being the best. Thoughts? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would prefer the source be available for a post-mortem. For source submissions, probably the best scheme would be for people to send the source to a discreet contestmaster. Concur. A dishonest contestmaster could just announce that his favorite program won. No reason not to give an honest one the source, and binaries can be disassembled anyway.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, comex wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would prefer the source be available for a post-mortem. For source submissions, probably the best scheme would be for people to send the source to a discreet contestmaster. Concur. A dishonest contestmaster could just announce that his favorite program won. No reason not to give an honest one the source, and binaries can be disassembled anyway. Thirded. 75% of the fun is looking at algorithms that turned out to be cleverer than mine.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, comex wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would prefer the source be available for a post-mortem. For source submissions, probably the best scheme would be for people to send the source to a discreet contestmaster. Concur. A dishonest contestmaster could just announce that his favorite program won. No reason not to give an honest one the source, and binaries can be disassembled anyway. Thirded. 75% of the fun is looking at algorithms that turned out to be cleverer than mine. Indeed. Of course it's important that sources not be revealed while others are still scripting. But the interest behind this contest, in the end, is mainly in the post mortem. What worked and why? If we want a second round we can build on that, just like Axelrod and company did. BP
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
I agree entirely. My initial proposal was to score according to totals, not to win differentials, though I may not have expressed that clearly. i.e. it's better to cooperate and get minorly exploited than to get locked into a cycle of retaliation where hardly anyone gets any points in the entire match, even if you end up being the winner. Bit of a pyrrhic victory in the latter case. In the intial prisoner's dilemma game, the tit-for-tat strategy prevailed. e.g. cooperate whenever the opponent cooperated on the last turn, defect whenever the opponent defected on the last turn. It's pretty much exploitation-proof, and enforces cooperation despite being forgiving enough to oftentimes avoid infinite cycles of recrimination. When the contest was run again, after post mortem analysis, some individuals submitted programs designed specifically to defeat tit-for-tat strategies. For example, one program simply defected in every round. Which means that it beat tit-for-tat programs whose initial move was to cooperate by successfully exploiting these programs for one round, after which games would get locked into score-neutral successive mutual defections. End result: these programs did beat tit-for-tat like programs, and in some cases won the majority of their matches, but in the overall points analysis, they were completely swamped out by other programs who happily cooperated with each other during their own games and racked up huge score totals. That's the kind of thing I envision here, where you can't simply expect to win by narrowly edging out other programs in a zero-sum fashion. Absolute score totals are most important. As for Kerim's $19 to $1 example, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, $1 is better than nothing, and so a rational decision maker takes the dollar if that's all that's at stake. This occurs, for example, when this is definitely the last interaction between two agents. Which is why I proposed, as Kerim did, that it should be difficult to tell when the round is set to end, exactly. But I don't think Kerim's point about the larger societal game applies in this type of tournament, because the only rationale behind not accepting a $1 offer is to force your opponent/partner to offer you more the next time e is the proposer (it being equally true that for the proposer, $15 is better than $0). Unless we start allowing for reputation effects and inspection of results of past games by programs (which I think would add a little too much complexity at least for an initial round), the larger societal game aspect doesn't come into it, since how my program interacts with Kerim's program won't have any impact on whether or not Kerim's program chooses to cooperate with root's, e.g. Then again, it could be interesting eventually to set winning conditions such that both absolute and relative scores, i.e. cooperative and cutthroat styles of play, are rewarded THAT would make for quite the interesting mix. BP On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: While we're debating executables for this, I thought I'd raise another issue: scoring. One of the features of cooperation experiments is that, rationally, how well your opponent does shouldn't affect you. For example, if your opponent offers you $1 and keeps $19, the point of the game is that rationally you should be happy because $1 is better than none, and the $19 doesn't matter because in game terms, the total # of dollars in the whole game (real life) is such that your opponent's total only very, very distantly hurts the value of yours. The interesting part of the psychology comes in because people are willing punish the greedy $19-receivers at a cost to themselves, showing that they are evolved to play the larger societal game of punishing unfairness before they maximize their dollar. For our purposes, that means there's the danger that traditional scoring that would turn this experiment into a different kind of game, more cutthroat and zero-sum, especially if each round is scored based on differences. Example, take outcomes for three players, Greedy, Friendly, and Dupe: Results: Greedy vs. Dupe : 11 (Greedy), 1 (Dupe) Diff: +10 Greedy Friendly vs. Dupe : 100 (Friendly), 98 (Dupe) Diff: +2 Friendly Greedy vs. Friendly : 50 (Greedy), 50 (Friendly) Diff: 0 Ranked by per-game win average (suggested in contest proto I think): Greedy5 Friendly 1 Dupe -4 Ranked by total: Friendly 150 Dupe 99 Greedy 61 So the first method awards cutthroat play rather than cooperation (keep totals down as long as per-game difference is high) while second awards cooperation, where Dupe, who didn't win any game directly, does better than Greedy. Of course since the game domain ultimately is small, even the cooperative players have to assume some level of zero-sum-ness: in the second method, the best play is probably cooperate until the 'last minute' then do a
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: since how my program interacts with Kerim's program won't have any impact on whether or not Kerim's program chooses to cooperate with root's, Allow each script to know the name of the author of the other! Would be so much more fun.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
Billy Pilgrim wrote: Heh it definitely should. I'm on linux here and just can't imagine that all these nomic players are running xp/vista... I process e-mail from XP, but my server runs Linux (Red Hat 9, because it was pre-installed and I dare not risk breaking it).
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Billy Pilgrim wrote: Heh it definitely should. I'm on linux here and just can't imagine that all these nomic players are running xp/vista... I process e-mail from XP, but my server runs Linux (Red Hat 9, because it was pre-installed and I dare not risk breaking it). Yep. Sorry what I said wasn't super clear. Don't construe that to mean I think everyone here boycotts Windows. Probably some do, but really I meant that it's unlikely to be EVERYONE's main working environment. I only recently semi-weaned off xp, and still have to go back to it once in a while. BP
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On 26 Nov 2008, at 20:55, Jamie Dallaire wrote: Yep. Sorry what I said wasn't super clear. Don't construe that to mean I think everyone here boycotts Windows. Probably some do, but really I meant that it's unlikely to be EVERYONE's main working environment. I only recently semi-weaned off xp, and still have to go back to it once in a while. Certified UNIX here. (OS X :P)
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 23:53, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge. I don't think that would help that much. The interesting part of the problem is not in the programming itself, it is the strategy. Axelrod's work on prisoner's dilemma was essentially 'programmed' by specifying the table moves to choose given the last three moves. - woggle Would it be realistic/practical to allow players to submit programs written (then compiled...) in any language they want, while one referee program written in some appropriate language acts as the host that sets up the match, calls up 2 competing programs to be executed, and feeds these programs the necessary inputs (e.g. the other program's offer)? Billy Pilgrim
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:19, Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 23:53, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge. I don't think that would help that much. The interesting part of the problem is not in the programming itself, it is the strategy. Axelrod's work on prisoner's dilemma was essentially 'programmed' by specifying the table moves to choose given the last three moves. - woggle Would it be realistic/practical to allow players to submit programs written (then compiled...) in any language they want, while one referee program written in some appropriate language acts as the host that sets up the match, calls up 2 competing programs to be executed, and feeds these programs the necessary inputs (e.g. the other program's offer)? That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of course, there are practical problems with doing any-language-you-want (do you have a Hypertalk interpreter? Z80 assembly? VisualWorks?), so things probably need to be more restricted in practice. Probably the closest canonical example of a contest is the (much less theoretically interesting) http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html . -woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 23:32, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of course, there are practical problems with doing any-language-you-want (do you have a Hypertalk interpreter? Z80 assembly? VisualWorks?), so things probably need to be more restricted in practice. Probably the closest canonical example of a contest is the (much less theoretically interesting) http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html . Why not have the competing programs communicate via an HTTP post? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:44, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 23:32, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of course, there are practical problems with doing any-language-you-want (do you have a Hypertalk interpreter? Z80 assembly? VisualWorks?), so things probably need to be more restricted in practice. Probably the closest canonical example of a contest is the (much less theoretically interesting) http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html . Why not have the competing programs communicate via an HTTP post? That's a viable solution of course. Pros: Less contestmaster work. More programming environment choice. Cons: Making sure all programs are available at the same time. People going against the spirit of the game could use manual intervention to change strategy (timeouts can disincentivize this). Harder to run a whole lot of rounds (which would give a clearer idea of winner). Neutral: Likely encourages more complex solutions (using large external libraries, large datastores, etc.) -woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:24:52 -0500 Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both sides. If need be this can be a Werewolves-like endeavour. Would anyone be interested in playing the following, based on Robert Axelrod's and WD Hamilton's The Evolution of Cooperation? (see links below) I would have moderate interest in this, provided it is in a programming language I am either familiar with or could learn quickly (i.e., languages such as PHP, C, and the like). My knowledge of programming is relatively limited, though I am eager and willing to learn whatever I need for something like this. I think whoever knows more and shows interest could definitely advise me on the technical specifics of this type of project, and most importantly make it something the interested parties would agree on. I don't think it would -need- to be anything too complicated, though. Billy Pilgrim
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 00:53, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge. Befunge would be fun BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 23:53, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 22 November 2008 08:58:16 am Joshua Boehme wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:24:52 -0500 Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both sides. If need be this can be a Werewolves-like endeavour. Would anyone be interested in playing the following, based on Robert Axelrod's and WD Hamilton's The Evolution of Cooperation? (see links below) I would have moderate interest in this, provided it is in a programming language I am either familiar with or could learn quickly (i.e., languages such as PHP, C, and the like). I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge. I don't think that would help that much. The interesting part of the problem is not in the programming itself, it is the strategy. Axelrod's work on prisoner's dilemma was essentially 'programmed' by specifying the table moves to choose given the last three moves. - woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:24:52 -0500 Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both sides. If need be this can be a Werewolves-like endeavour. Would anyone be interested in playing the following, based on Robert Axelrod's and WD Hamilton's The Evolution of Cooperation? (see links below) I would have moderate interest in this, provided it is in a programming language I am either familiar with or could learn quickly (i.e., languages such as PHP, C, and the like). -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Saturday 22 November 2008 08:58:16 am Joshua Boehme wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:24:52 -0500 Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both sides. If need be this can be a Werewolves-like endeavour. Would anyone be interested in playing the following, based on Robert Axelrod's and WD Hamilton's The Evolution of Cooperation? (see links below) I would have moderate interest in this, provided it is in a programming language I am either familiar with or could learn quickly (i.e., languages such as PHP, C, and the like). I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both sides. If need be this can be a Werewolves-like endeavour. Would anyone be interested in playing the following, based on Robert Axelrod's and WD Hamilton's The Evolution of Cooperation? (see links below) Sure, could be fun. -root
