I feel there is an intrinsic flaw in today's CAC game. If everyone cooperates and plays to create collective benefits to all group, it can be done in only one way. All groups if played so will end up winning 1000 points totally. This is possible with only one case and that is last option in cac tau material (E option in cac book i.e. if everyone selects rabbit). Otherwise it is a "zero sum game". One group has to lose in order to let other group win. Even if one group does not go as per option 6 then everyone will end up losing. This I feel is not case always. There should be an incentive to correct any wrongdoings of the past. This game totally discourages a concept of co operation if single group defects. If one group previously defected (due to any reasons like greed, lack of knowledge) wants to correct their stand in second round should be rewarded with benefits of cooperation. Other groups which are not defecting and following principles of cooperation should not penalized so heavily that they end up losing. Their margin of profit should be reduced instead.
I tried to find out any other option where total sum of all group's gain end up in positive but could not succeed. I will be happy if anyone finds out such combination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
shashi, it is not a zero sum game if all select rat..basically, 1st and last options are not zero sum.
The point is, the game has been designed to push the agenda for collective action. You can design another game where everyone benefits if everyone defects.
As always, the person who designs the rules sets his agenda. Moral of the story, always be the person who sets the rules!!!
I agree with whatever Mr.Kalassery said.Power inequations decide happenings around us and most of the times the person in power dictates the rules of the game.
Talking of rules and motto of the game, i might chip in something here. The motto of the game was the class as a whole to maximize and not the individual groups, which was realized eventually at the end of the game (rather it was told by the instructor). The rules for making points were pretty clear but everyone missed the motto of the game (atleast as I percieve). I feel the motto/agenda of "class" maximization should have been highlighted or atleast stressed, which was completely missed.
@Joseph,
I think the whole logic behind the design of the game was to simulate the practical happenings and not theory. I see a lot of logic and sense in the way points were awarded for each team based on decision of all teams.Power eqations can affect the decisions that one make in the course of time but it will not alter the points that one gets. So,it would be a little dicy to say that the motive of the game was predesigned. I agree to your point that game can be designed where everyone benefits if everyone defect but then it would be just an imaginary situation.
@Nishant,
I agree with you that if motto of the game was to cooperate in order to maximize gains for all groups, then the game would have gone in altogether different way. But, looking at the fact that nothing of this sort was stated before starting of the game, we take game as a practical simulation of what happens in an ordinary cooperatives. So, my observations are based on the situation where everyone is capable and willing to take a dicisions so as to maximize their group's personal gains and i think nothing wrong in that. The game had also given us this freedom.
Post a Comment