llamatron Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Some people couldn't bear the thought of someone else getting more than them and would rather everyone get nothing. then they would be petty and stupid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 but thats in a different scenario where they get to have some input into who gets what. If the millionaire is deciding I either get the £5000 or nothing then Id be happy with £5000. If I am involved in the decision process then it is an interesting question but I will stick with my original answer from earlier.You are: You are in a group of ten people, to win an unequal share of £1,000,000 you have to agree how it should be shared, if you can’t agree you lose it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 You’re not offered it, you would have to reject the higher amounts and accept the lower amount. I didn’t think my original question was this complicated. I am assuming it makes more sense if you have seen the show, I was thinking you had to agree on who got what but no I now have absolutely no idea what you mean. Do the others not see which amounts you are rejecting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 but thats in a different scenario where they get to have some input into who gets what. The original scenario is meant to include that, but maybe it wasn't entirely clear. The position is that there's a £1million prize fund, split into ten prizes as MrSmith describes. The ten people in the group must agree on who takes home which prize, or nobody gets anything. (Written agreements to accept whatever share and then redistribute the amounts equally afterwards, will disqualify you from winning.) If the other 9 people end up agreeing that you should get the smallest amount, would you accept their decision and take the smallest amount, or would you refuse to accept it on the grounds that it's grossly unfair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 You'd be pretty petty and mental not to take it, I thought the question was deeper than that. It is quite deep isn't it. I think with most groups of people you'd find that the result was that nobody got anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 You are: thats what I thought initially but then why can't we assign someone to make all the decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 thats what I thought initially but then why can't we assign someone to make all the decisions?Because that's not the 'game' rule. It has to be a collegial decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 The original scenario is meant to include that, but maybe it wasn't entirely clear. The position is that there's a £1million prize fund, split into ten prizes as MrSmith describes. The ten people in the group must agree on who takes home which prize, or nobody gets anything. (Written agreements to accept whatever share and then redistribute the amounts equally afterwards, will disqualify you from winning.) If the other 9 people end up agreeing that you should get the smallest amount, would you accept their decision and take the smallest amount, or would you refuse to accept it on the grounds that it's grossly unfair? it depends how that decision was made, presumably thats whats interesting in the program, I submit my original answer but apparently thats not allowed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Because that's not the 'game' rule. It has to be a collegial decision. eh:hihi: you are explaining it to me using long hard words:rant: right looked it up, but you vote for the person who assigns it so surely thats allowed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 but thats in a different scenario where they get to have some input into who gets what. If the millionaire is deciding I either get the £5000 or nothing then Id be happy with £5000. If I am involved in the decision process then it is an interesting question but I will stick with my original answer from earlier. The millionaire isn’t deciding who gets what; all he is says is it must be shared unequally by agreement and not by putting names in hats or pulling straws. Each person must agree the amount they will take, there will be arguments throughout the process but ultimately everyone as to agree to the amount they get. Would you take the £5000 and allow everyone else to take more than you. It is deliberately designed to be unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.