Love the idea, but $20 seems too steep a buy-in.
I know that there needs to be a consideration of what potentia havoc can be wreaked with a tweet, but I suspect $5 is a better ante.
Sounds like a great way for those of us with no Twitter followers to rake in the cash. Who am I kidding, though, that would require that I went to a party in the first place.
People enjoy the weirdest things.
Step 1: Let a clever person post some sort of 7th grade "I am a fag who eats shit lolololol" status to your profoundly unimportant twitter feed.
Step 2: Collect several hundred dollars.
Step 3: Later, pass off the whole thing as edgy performance art or "weird twitter" or whatever.*
Step 4: (see step 2)
Rules only say you can't post about playing the "i eat poo" game or delete tweets. Just being a generally confusing weirdo appears to be allowed. I'm pretty sure there's a half dozen celebrities already employing this strategy.
You're just hanging with the wrong crowd. Back in the 90's, $20 bills were called "yuppie food coupons."
Gosh, a game in which people with plenty of money can easily avoid humiliation, and those with less are forced to eat poo or suffer financial hardship. How jolly!
Later we can all go to a poor neighbourhood and get the homeless to do embarassing things for money
Prisoner's Dilemma is an incredibly interesting game because it forces a paradox on you: the most rational thing for an individual to do is always to defect/be a jerk (because in all possible states of the word, defecting gives you the highest reward), but by being "rational" you are damning you and your partner to a sub-optimal outcome.
I don't see how the same paradox applies here.
Maybe I'm a curmudgeon, but I don't think that comparisons to the Prisoner's Dilemma should be handed out lightly.
I guess you're always better off writing tremendously offensive things ("defecting"), because you'll either get $20 or you "get" to post the thing on your friend's wall (which, since we're 12, counts as a victory, naturally). But the game will instantly hit equilibrium: we all post offensive things, we all put money in, and nothing ever happens.
To me (*de gustibus) *this sounds just as fun as Mao...or half as fun, or 8,347.61333... times as fun, since they would all be equivalent numbers.
I think your proposed equilibrium is not correct. If you think it's fun to get amusing things on your friends' twitter feeds, you'll try to find the line of what is the funniest thing that they will actually not want to pay $20 to avoid having posted.
But, you have to play this with people who care about their Twitter, ugh.
The winners are the people who don't have twitter accounts. Just like in real life.
$20 is much better spent on $20 of drugs. The party will be way more fun, too.
I agree it's completely stupid but it's also voluntary. Anyone has the freedom to tell others their party game is shit and boring.
PS: The players don't have to actually eat poo, they just have to tweet that they do.
The other thing that the creators of this game assume is that your twitter feed isn't already full of vitriol.
I think there's a good chance that anything game participants would care to tweet via my account would likely be a positive, uplifting change from what I normally tweet.
"$20 is much better spent on $20 of drugs. The party will be way more fun, too."
Wrong. You left out the tag. Hum. Apparently, you cannot put 'sarcasm' in those things you put html in.
Well, as a poor person, I can say that that would be jolly fun. Excepting though that you might actually have to suffer extreme disfiguration or, better (perhaps), death should you really wish to actually play with us. Maybe I'm just cynical.
I'm not really sure what you're saying. I am fully serious when I say that $20 of drugs (more would also be good) is a better expenditure at a party.
Apparently you know what html is but you don't know that this comment box is a little box o' html - What happens when you put a "tag" in html is the site parses it as html. I don't know why I'm explaining this to you because, as someone who does web stuff, I've always found the use of non-html terms in html tags stupid. Did the literary giants of history require sarcasm tags?
Anyway, if you must use this stupid commentary convention then you need to use (surprise, surprise) html to express those symbols. Try
> or maybe those things that look like the symbols you're after in the toolbar up there ^ that strip the html?
Back in university I played Mao once and despised it.
I kept being asked to play again because people found the descriptions of things I'd rather have done to me rather than sit down to play Mao entertaining,
next page →