I recently watched a video about game theory and thought I apply it here to make sure others know which game I am playing and to visualise a sentiment I sometimes hear regarding quality content which has not matched up with the game I am playing.
Here, have a chart:
| 0 | I write good content | I write no content | I write bad content |
| Someone else writes good content | 12 | 6 | 9 |
| Someone else writes no content | 6 | 0 | 3 |
| Someone else writes bad content | 9 | 3 | 6 |
The game this table proposes is a game were the only losing move is not to play and there is no "author vs author" mentality. You would win and lose together. Both sides are encouraged to help the other to write better, but bad content is not shunned.
The philosophies I have heard from other authors suggested to me a game that looked more like this:
| 0 | I write good content | I write no content | I write bad content |
| Someone else writes good content | 12 | 6 | 3 |
| Someone else writes no content | 6 | 0 | -3 |
| Someone else writes bad content | 3 | -3 | -6 |
In this game doing nothing is better than doing badly and if I want to improve my score I have to stop bad writers from writing. In this game a bad writer drags down the score and therefore should be discouraged from participating. If a writer has not enough confidence to say "I only write good content." than doing nothing improves his contribution to the score. If an author has the confidence to say that, he is better of getting rid of possibly bad writers as they now drag his score down.
I don’t know whether or not a cooperative game is even supposed to be described in game theory or whether I have butchered an entire field of mathematics here, so if I am wrong correct me. I thought I should share this thought, now make of it what you want.
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
