The Relationship Between Cooperation And Feedback

[Alvecia]

when you have the option to either pay or not, and recieve the same "product", would it not be the smarter choice to not pay? That way you recieve your product, and keep your money.

If I want you to be our rep, and I'm 100% sure that voters would choose you, then in this regard it wouldn't make sense for me to donate to Max Barry. But right now I'm 3% sure that voters would choose you.

Would donating improve those odds?

[Xerographica]

If I want you to be our rep, and I'm 100% sure that voters would choose you, then in this regard it wouldn't make sense for me to donate to Max Barry. But right now I'm 3% sure that voters would choose you.

Would donating improve those odds?

One list of candidates would be ranked by donors (to Max Barry). Another list of candidates would be ranked by voters. I'm guessing that you would be ranked higher in the list ranked by donors. What's your guess?

[Petrolheadia]

Try to tell a politician that he would have an easier time winning if he accepted envelopes with money, and see how deep into your face his fist can go.

The politicians wouldn't get the money, the government would. If I donated money to try and help elect Alvecia, he would not get the money... Max Barry would. Max Barry is our government. Donating to Max Barry would give me the perk of improving Alvecia's ranking.

Would you agree to this economic experiment? Voters would elect one rep while donors (to Max Barry) would elect another. Then we would determine which rep was better.

Let's not give people an opportunity to either pointlessly waste money or engage in corruption, shall we?

[Alvecia]

Would donating improve those odds?

One list of candidates would be ranked by donors (to Max Barry). Another list of candidates would be ranked by voters. I'm guessing that you would be ranked higher in the list ranked by donors. What's your guess?

Is that an answer to my question? Are my odds of being elected improved by your donation? Does the donator list take precedence?

[Xerographica]

The politicians wouldn't get the money, the government would. If I donated money to try and help elect Alvecia, he would not get the money... Max Barry would. Max Barry is our government. Donating to Max Barry would give me the perk of improving Alvecia's ranking.

Would you agree to this economic experiment? Voters would elect one rep while donors (to Max Barry) would elect another. Then we would determine which rep was better.

Let's not give people an opportunity to either pointlessly waste money or engage in corruption, shall we?

The money would be used to help put food on Max Barry's table and clothes on his back. Plus, this experiment would help us decide whether a candidate elected by donors is better or worse than a candidate elected by voters.

[Xerographica]

One list of candidates would be ranked by donors (to Max Barry). Another list of candidates would be ranked by voters. I'm guessing that you would be ranked higher in the list ranked by donors. What's your guess?

Is that an answer to my question? Are my odds of being elected improved by your donation? Does the donator list take precedence?

Assuming that you are my preferred candidate, then my donation would improve your chances of being elected. I'm not sure what you mean by precedence. We would be electing two representatives. One representative would be elected by donors while the other would be elected by voters.

The voters make one pudding, while the donors make another. Everyone would taste both puddings and decide for themselves which one is better.

[Alvecia]

Is that an answer to my question? Are my odds of being elected improved by your donation? Does the donator list take precedence?

Assuming that you are my preferred candidate, then my donation would improve your chances of being elected. I'm not sure what you mean by precedence. We would be electing two representatives. One representative would be elected by donors while the other would be elected by voters.

The voters make one pudding, while the donors make another. Everyone would taste both puddings and decide for themselves which one is better.

How are we to determine which is better?

[Xerographica]

Assuming that you are my preferred candidate, then my donation would improve your chances of being elected. I'm not sure what you mean by precedence. We would be electing two representatives. One representative would be elected by donors while the other would be elected by voters.

The voters make one pudding, while the donors make another. Everyone would taste both puddings and decide for themselves which one is better.

How are we to determine which is better?

If it isn't obvious to you then you really shouldn't care whether voting or donating is used to elect politicians.

[Alvecia]

How are we to determine which is better?

If it isn't obvious to you then you really shouldn't care whether voting or donating is used to elect politicians.

Well, unless I've missed that particular comment, I don't really know what these representatives are supposed to do.
I can't really determine which one better when I don't know what they're supposed to be better at

[The Blaatschapen]

I just want to explicitly state that I am not voting. I prefer to keep my money.

[Xerographica]

If it isn't obvious to you then you really shouldn't care whether voting or donating is used to elect politicians.

Well, unless I've missed that particular comment, I don't really know what these representatives are supposed to do.
I can't really determine which one better when I don't know what they're supposed to be better at

They are supposed to act on your behalf. They are supposed to have your back. If you have a dispute with the mods, then your rep is supposed to come to your defense. If you want something from Max Barry then your rep is supposed to convey your request. Reps are for adults what parents are for children. Kinda. Sorta. Maybe a little bit. Anyways, it's always good to have someone in your corner. That's the point of the reps.

[Xerographica]

I just want to explicitly state that I am not voting. I prefer to keep my money.

You can participate in the voting poll without spending any money. But if you want to participate in the donating poll, then you have to make a donation to Max Barry.

[The Blaatschapen]

I just want to explicitly state that I am not voting. I prefer to keep my money.

You can participate in the voting poll without spending any money. But if you want to participate in the donating poll, then you have to make a donation to Max Barry.

If anything, Max ought to donate to me

[Alvecia]

Well, unless I've missed that particular comment, I don't really know what these representatives are supposed to do.
I can't really determine which one better when I don't know what they're supposed to be better at

They are supposed to act on your behalf. They are supposed to have your back. If you have a dispute with the mods, then your rep is supposed to come to your defense. If you want something from Max Barry then your rep is supposed to convey your request. Reps are for adults what parents are for children. Kinda. Sorta. Maybe a little bit. Anyways, it's always good to have someone in your corner. That's the point of the reps.

Alright, that's a job. A few questions:
1. What are they doing that I can't do myself?
2. What check and balances do they have?
3. How to I determine which of the two candidates is better at this job.

To elaborate on 3. Are they being given a grace period during which I can determine which of the two top candidates is better?

[Ifreann]

A better use of my money than this would be throwing it in a fire.

[Sovaal]

I demand a "Neither" option.

I too will take door number 3

[Galloism]

So far I'm the only person to have participated in the donating poll.

D'aww, are you having trouble getting people to spend money to give their opinion on something that doesn't directly affect them in any way, and therefore aren't getting any data about preferences?

I am shocked, shocked I say.

[Ifreann]

So far I'm the only person to have participated in the donating poll.

D'aww, are you having trouble getting people to spend money to give their opinion on something that doesn't directly affect them in any way, and therefore aren't getting any data about preferences?

I am shocked, shocked I say.

But the single point of data he's got is a super good point of data, because he had to sacrifice money for it. Even though it was a point of data he already had without spending money.

[Neutraligon]

So far I'm the only person to have participated in the donating poll.

D'aww, are you having trouble getting people to spend money to give their opinion on something that doesn't directly affect them in any way, and therefore aren't getting any data about preferences?

I am shocked, shocked I say.

I am trying to recall how that test in the classroom went. Do you have the final results.
As to the OP, considering that I think neither of you are useful I refuse to spend any money. Hell I don't even find either of you useful enough to vote in that stupid poll of yours.

[Galloism]

D'aww, are you having trouble getting people to spend money to give their opinion on something that doesn't directly affect them in any way, and therefore aren't getting any data about preferences?

I am shocked, shocked I say.

I am trying to recall how that test in the classroom went. Do you have the final results.

Somewhere I've got the exact final results tabulated, but I'm not in the states right now.

One of the classrooms made an agreement among all members to only bid $0.01 each, which is essentially reducing it to voting. The other one basically left off doing anything entirely.

Everyone hated it. Except the classroom that voted on whether to have class inside or outside. They loved it because none of their other classes were held outside.

Another professor though thought the voting one was a great idea, and so now there's a completely different class voting on inside/outside, or there was at the end of this semester. But that's because having class outside when the weather is great is a fantastic idea.

[Neutraligon]

I am trying to recall how that test in the classroom went. Do you have the final results.

Somewhere I've got the exact final results tabulated, but I'm not in the states right now.

One of the classrooms made an agreement among all members to only bid $0.01 each, which is essentially reducing it to voting. The other one basically left off doing anything entirely.

Everyone hated it. Except the classroom that voted on whether to have class inside or outside. They loved it because none of their other classes were held outside.

Another professor though thought the voting one was a great idea, and so now there's a completely different class voting on inside/outside, or there was at the end of this semester. But that's because having class outside when the weather is great is a fantastic idea.

Oh, interesting. Well at least something good came of this. The results aren't exactly what I expected since I expected at least on student to figure out how to make money on this, but other then that...not surprised. Anyway we have a real world example of how Xero' system doesn't work, so Xero, any response to this failing in the real world. Actually given no one seems to want to pay anything for this poll any response to it failing in the real world twice?

[Galloism]

Actually given no one seems to want to pay anything for this poll any response to it failing in the real world twice?

Here's the interesting thing. Voting tells you whether or not people want a thing, but not how much they want a thing. The idea of gathering how much people want a thing is not a bad idea, but it's notoriously difficult to measure. He feels paying how much you want the thing will tell you how much you want the thing. If I want it a lot, and you want it a little, I'll pay more than you.

Here's the rub though. While voting is imprecise (telling you whether or not the people want the thing), spending is also imprecise (as it prices out people who would rather have the money than the thing, and also has discrepancies in how much money is actually worth to the person). This thread bears that out:

We have a poll going on who should win the thing, and it's gotten lots of votes. However, other than Xero himself, no one has bid either way. Why? They'd rather have the money. So Xero's idea to rank by spending not only fails to capture how much people want to thing (due to lack of participation), but also filters out whether or not they want the thing.

It produces even less information than the poll does. That doesn't mean the poll is precise at gathering information, it's definitely missing some nuance, but his pay what you desire is garnering even less accurate information because the number of participants is roughly zero, or perhaps I should say, the number of participants is roughly Xero.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.

[Neutraligon]

Actually given no one seems to want to pay anything for this poll any response to it failing in the real world twice?

Here's the interesting thing. Voting tells you whether or not people want a thing, but not how much they want a thing. The idea of gathering how much people want a thing is not a bad idea, but it's notoriously difficult to measure. He feels paying how much you want the thing will tell you how much you want the thing. If I want it a lot, and you want it a little, I'll pay more than you.

Here's the rub though. While voting is imprecise (telling you whether or not the people want the thing), spending is also imprecise (as it prices out people who would rather have the money than the thing, and also has discrepancies in how much money is actually worth to the person). This thread bears that out:

We have a poll going on who should win the thing, and it's gotten lots of votes. However, other than Xero himself, no one has bid either way. Why? They'd rather have the money. So Xero's idea to rank by spending not only fails to capture how much people want to thing (due to lack of participation), but also filters out whether or not they want the thing.

It produces even less information than the poll does. That doesn't mean the poll is precise at gathering information, it's definitely missing some nuance, but his pay what you desire is garnering even less accurate information because the number of participants is roughly zero, or perhaps I should say, the number of participants is roughly Xero.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.

Oh I agree voting does not tell you how much you want a thing and that attempting to find out how strong a person's preference is for the thing is important, the issue is in how you figure it out. A paying scheme (ie no paying the people who lose back) at least does not have the incentive to pay against your own interests , but like you said it does have some pretty bad issues.

That being said the paying versus voting thing here is giving some information, although not the information Xero was looking for (ie who is preferred). The information we are getting, and by a large majority, is that people do not want to pay for what xero is trying to learn. They are however willing to vote, even if the poll options are missing a ton of nuance.

[Xerographica]

It produces even less information than the poll does. That doesn't mean the poll is precise at gathering information, it's definitely missing some nuance, but his pay what you desire is garnering even less accurate information because the number of participants is roughly zero, or perhaps I should say, the number of participants is roughly Xero.

Hah.

Here are the current results...

IM: 17 votes
Xero: 2 votes

Xero: $2 dollars
IM: $1 dollar

The donating poll essentially blocks two types of people...

1. people who are poor
2. people who don't truly care

The main target are the people who don't truly care. The poor people are collateral damage.

Here are three examples of donating-based surveys…

1. Donating was used to determine whether men or women are better tippers.
2. Donating was used to determine which prominent skeptic to prank.
3. Donating was used to determine which theme to use for the libertarian convention…

$6,327.00 - I'm That Libertarian!
$5,200.00 - Building Bridges, Not Walls
$1,620.00 - Pro Choice on Everything
$1,377.77 - Empowering the Individual
$395.00 - The Power of Principle
$150.00 - Future of Freedom
$135.00 - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
$105.00 - Rise of the Libertarians
$75.00 - Free Lives Matter
$42.00 - Be Me, Be Free
$17.76 - Make Taxation Theft Again
$15.42 - Taxation is Theft
$15.00 - Jazzed About Liberty
$15.00 - All of Your Freedoms, All of the Time
$5.00 - Am I Being Detained!
$5.00 - Liberty Here and Now

All three surveys blocked poor people and uncaring people. How different would the results have been if voting had been used instead of donating? If the results would have been better, then we should eliminate money entirely. Money should be abolished if we can prove that a crowd of voters is wiser than a crowd of spenders.

The truth is eventually going to be uncovered. The issue is whether you're a hindrance or a help.

[Xerographica]

D'aww, are you having trouble getting people to spend money to give their opinion on something that doesn't directly affect them in any way, and therefore aren't getting any data about preferences?

I am shocked, shocked I say.

But the single point of data he's got is a super good point of data, because he had to sacrifice money for it. Even though it was a point of data he already had without spending money.

If I had guessed beforehand how many people would have already donated by now then maybe I'd have guessed four people... and obviously my guess would have been wrong. Clearly I overestimated how strongly people care about the survey question.

Imagine if we conducted the same voting vs donating experiment... but with you and Galloism. What's your prediction?

Imagine if we conducted the same voting vs donating experiment... but with whether or not prostitution should be legal. What's your prediction?

Imagine if we conducted the same voting vs donating experiment... but with whether or not abortion should be legal. What's your prediction?

If correctly guessing demand was so easy, then markets wouldn't be so useful.