Re: Game theory

Wonder if you could explain why if you wished to clear your name in the
eyes of the 20 or so people who are regular users of this NG, why you
felt it neccessary to make ridiculous claims about impotence and failed
business ventures, in order to pursue a £1M + claim from ISP's????

Finally as you have wasted a great deal of court time, in pursuit of
your fruadulent claims, and have no way to satisfy the £40K costs
outstanding, can you suggest any good reason why my application for a
civil restraint against you is not likely to succeed?

k


Guy Fawkes wrote:
it's like probability, everyone is exposed to it every day, yet no one
understands it.

take for example a perfectly balanced coin, 50/50 chance of heads or
tails, toss ten heads in a row and ask people to bet on the next
landing and most will bet tails, even though the probability is still
50/50

one of the principles of game theory is variables, you need to minimise
them, so if you are playing draughts or chess (draughts is on the face
of it a "simpler" game, less pieces and less rules, but the ability of
pieces to change when they hit the back line and "got to take" makes it
a far tougher game than people realise)

so, sometimes a chess player will sacrifice a pawn or two, either to
lure the opponent into showing his game plan, or to lure the opponent
into reducing the number of options available to him in the future.

if you don't know game theory and you play against someone who does,
you will lose, every time, even though you may be convinced you are
winning, right up until the last move.

here's an example of game theory.

a/ I have seen the full 11,000 odd word judgement, I saw it some days
in advance of it being made public, as is customary.

b/ not a reporter claims he has posession of the judgement

c/ I mention paras by number and mention it is an 11,000 word judgement

d/ not a repoter goes quiet

there are several options.

1/ not a reporter has indeed been in posession of a judgement, just not
the full 11,000 word one. A fact he would only realise when I state the
correct size.

2/ not a reporter has indeed been in posession of the full judgement,
and just needs time to read it all

3/ not a reporter is not, as in scenarios 1 and 2 above, being truthful
about what he may or may not be in posession of.

game theory will tell me that in scenario 3 I have the significant
advantage over him, in scenario 2 I have at best a temporary advantage
over him, and in scenario 1 I also have a temporary advantage over him,
albeit slightly better than scenario 2

clearly there are other options, such as not a reporter is simply out
on this piss somehwere, but to all intents and purposes you can lump
this in with scenario 3, because it excludes him from being someone who
is playing to win

(none of this is a dig at not a reporter, it is just a relevant
example)

so, bearing in mind I'm not going to comment about the actual judgement
until the case is over.

game theory

I pay a fee and file an N1 with six names on it, three private
individuals and three corporate individuals.

problem, there are two disparate groups here, one private individuals,
one corporate

scenario 1

the three corporate individuals get classified with the private
individuals

this reduces one variable, but potentially introduces several others,
in chess this would be the equivalent of taking an opponents capital
pieces, it would skew the direction of play, it would limit the
remaining variables to being within that direction of play, it would
reduce the total number of possible remaining moves somewhat, but would
also open new avenues of moves, the game is far from over.

scenario 2

the three corporate individuals get classified as totally separate from
the private individuals

this reduces one variable, the corporate players resign the game,
leaving only the private individuals to choose their next moves,
however not all variables are equal, some have so many subsequent
dependent variables that removing one effectively removes hundreds or
thousands of dependent variables, in the chess analogy we have "mate in
x moves" and the opponent can only lower the number that is x

in theory, one could still lose to such an opponent, but only if one
knew nothing of game theory, so we can exclude this scenario.

so, scenario 2

5EX90059 continues, as was agreed at the RCJ 01-12-2005, there are now
no variables, the only people appearing are publishers, there is no
defence to this fact, they are alone in the dock.

there is no causal or other link between one group of defendants
walking away and another group remaining to face the music, the only
net result is that one variable has been removed as per game theory,
and those remaining have no one left to hide behind or ally themselves
with, they play on, alone, to the end.

in pure game theory the chess analogy falls down, there is no
differentiation in chess between conceding the game and playing on
until the last piece, in real life things are not so, the outcomes of
previous "games" (such as 5EX00597) are most important and directly
affect the current "game", also, each move after the point at which it
was obvious that conceding the game was the only sensible option simply
raises the stakes, try playing draughts, got to take rules, you bet on
each move before you make it, each subsequent bet must be at least
double the previous bet, only the uber skilled will bet 1p on the first
move...

in game theory when you get people playing like this, constantly
raising the stakes, even when it is all too apparent to all concerned
that even though the game is not officially over, they have lost, it is
a suicide play, raising the stakes so that when the game IS over, the
losers debt could buy Microsoft and Fiat and BP and have change left
over for a few medium sized countries, in the faint hope that since
such debts can never be paid in full, they will simply be written off.

their hope is that those who came to the game with them will somehow
share the debt or be equally implicated, after the game is over, it
doesn't work like that, never has, never will.... if you want other
people to share the debt you have to get them on your team before the
game is over, by "outing" them and saying that you were merely acting
upon instruction, and you'll need to convince the game referee, not
easy.

those who rack up debts they know they cannot pay NEVER walk away scot
free, if they did, world + dog would simply bet a million on every
outsider in every horse race, sooner or later they would win, that
doesn't happen because bookies are far better gamers than their
punters.

those who rack up debts they cannot possibly pay find that they are
stripped of everything they can possibly pay, and then the remainder of
the debt is settled by taking away from them that thing which they
never realised had any value, their liberty.

-----------------------------

1/ there was a judgement handed down by Mr Justice Eady at the RCJ
yesterday, I cannot comment on it yet, but I can say, because this
point was never up for grabs in that judgement, that the three
individual defendants situation is unaltered, save for the loss of an
option, eg hiding beind someone esle's skirts.

2/ the three individual defendants are STILL going to trial in
5EX90059, nothing will stop that, and now the other matters are settled
there is no need for any further delay in the process, we can expect a
listing date in due course.

3/ there is not, and never has been, any causal connection between the
outcome of the corporate defendants appeals to the Court, and the
plight of the individual defendants.

4/ there is not, and never has been, any court order handed down which
the claimant is in breach of, as the individual defendants keep
claiming.

5/ there is not, and never has been (let them prove it by publishing
the originals) any counter claim by any of the individual defendants.

6/ 5EX00597 has never been suspended, appealed or revoked, let them
prove otherwise by publishing the originals, they cannot, for such
documents have never existed.

7/ The three individual defendants continued daily defiance of
injunctive relief with penal notice attached, and continued daily
publication of further libellous, defamatory, harassing, abusive and
wholly untrue comments will serve only to limit the options of the
court when the case comes to trial, as it is demonstrably fact that of
their own free will they will NEVER cease their illegal activities,
even upon threat of imprisonment.

8/ in 5EX00597 Mr Tilley was clearly defined as a publisher of
malicious libel, on a single count, a specimen sample namely the
publications about "cheap chinese batteries" that was incredibly tame
compared to the later publications, and bound over by injunctive relief
with penal notice attached, not for a few months or a year, but
forever, until such time as the order was revoked.

9/ In the RCJ on the 1st December 2005, with "fnuh" and the 2nd and 3rd
defendants in the Court, no less an expert that Mr Justice Gray deemed
that one of the "leave you in a pool of blood" publications was
"unarguably harassing"

--------------------------------------------

There are those, and I'm looking at you Grunt and Down, who will
inevitably brand this as "baiting the poor defenceless and harmless and
well loved posters who bunty is persecuting through the courts"

Clearly that is not and never has been the case, all I have ever done
has been in the public interest, to warn those persons addicted to
trolling and flaming that THIS was never trolling or flaming, but
illegal activity which would INEVITABLY have serious consequences for
all concerned.

As I said above, only a handful of cowardly socks and Grunt and Down
have ever taken issue with this, they fanned the flames, moth like, and
their wings have been burned, though they do not know it yet

FACTS people, FACTS, Mr Tilley is subject to an injunction with penal
notice attached, and injunction that is still in force (if it is not,
as he claims, let him publish the official document stating this, he
has no difficulty publishing other scanned materials on his web space)

FACT is he and his agents and co-conspirators have been in CONSTANT
breach of this injunction in the extreme.

FACTS is all three are still going to court

SUPPOSITION, what sentence to you suppose a judge can hand down? Can a
judge simply ignore an injunction with penal notice attached so
flargrantly and regularly breached? Can a judge, bound by precedent,
look at all the evidence and impose a few hours community service? Can
a Judge simply ignore the Defamation Act and hope that the plaintiff
will not appeal? Is it even likely from the above that we are talking
about a person whom could ever be appointed a judge? Do we suddenly
suppose that because a defendant doesn't fancy the idea of a spell in
chokey a judge is going to ignore the law and the plaintiff and bend
over backwards to make sure the defendant is happy with his lot? Have
you ever even heard of a Court or Judge who even once handed out a
sentence based upon what the defendant felt like suffering?

No, it is pure fantasy.

I have no comment about the Judgement handed out yesterday, but I can
say something about how we got there, and its game theory time again.

Yes, I could have stuck to the very letter of the Law and nailed the
ISPs by focusing one one or two (given that I was never willing to
entertain the idea of making a mockery of the court system by log
jamming it with hundreds of individual claims) specific publications,
that was after all the opportunity very clearly and specifically handed
to me by Mr Justice Gray on 1st December 2005 at the RCJ.

But, if I had done that I could not have talked in ANY way about the
total lack of ethics of an ISP that had NEVER EVEN LAUNCHED AN
INVESTIGATION into their customer, irrespective of uncountable abuse
reports and even Notices of Issue. (Hell, that door hasn't even been
closed on me)

No, I had a choice, go and argue the ethics, and maybe lose, or go and
argue the law, win one small battle, and lose the moral campaign,
because one shot was all of the courts time that I was prepared to
take.

11,000 words of judgement and none of them criticising the claimant for
wasting court time or resources, judges are some of the smartest
buggers you will ever meet, and there is zero doubt in my mind that the
beak knew EXACTLY what I was doing in his court.

Juries decide facts, Judges rule on Law, the beak ruled on Law, he
heard my arguments about ethics, but he ruled on Law, and that my
friends is one of the reasons they are better people than the likes of
thee and me, because they have the self discipline to do what must be
done, and thus avoid all the future complications that happen when you
follow your heart.

The story no-one will tell about this when it all dies down is that I
have more respect for the beak now than I did before he made his
decision, the more I look at it the more I see the future implications
that he considered and included in his judgement.

---------------------------------

the other story that is self evident here is this, whatever the beak's
intentions when handing down this judgement, it is abundantly clear, as
I predicted, that certain persons are CHOOSING to interpret it as a
licence to totally drop any pretence whatsoever that they are decent
human beings and members of society who use self restraint as their
main method of self regulation.

I will say it again, those of you who are not already involved, stay
well clear, it is not a game, it never has been a game, and the stakes
at play are not mere cash, but life and liberty itself.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Game theory
    ... one of the principles of game theory is variables, ... a/ I have seen the full 11,000 odd word judgement, I saw it some days ... outcome of the corporate defendants appeals to the Court, ...
    (uk.local.southwest)
  • Game theory
    ... one of the principles of game theory is variables, ... a/ I have seen the full 11,000 odd word judgement, I saw it some days ... outcome of the corporate defendants appeals to the Court, ...
    (uk.local.southwest)
  • Re: Improving score estimation
    ... judgement" written by Cho Chikun. ... It gave a big boost to my way of thinking about the game. ... inaccurate) score estimator, it gave me the impression that while I might ... In the game, my opponent ...
    (rec.games.go)
  • Re: Stop/Loss Limits in Limit Holdem (Lee Jones please chime in with your thoughts)
    ... disastrous sessions because, despite losing, the game is good, I'm ... playing well, blah blah blah. ... softer your judgement becomes. ... The game isn't going anywhere and even if the particular fish du jour ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Slow night on smd
    ... Neil Pakett, of Elkins Park, would have been protected during the June ... 25, 2001, game at Veterans Stadium if the backstop was wide enough to ... to catch the ball, instead of protecting himself, according to court ... such facilities are not bound to protect or warn spectators from ...
    (sci.med.dentistry)