Thought experiment.

I’m surprised Torve hasn’t suggested finding the most radical leftist and shooting them first.

I’m surprised Torve hasn’t suggested finding the most radical leftist and shooting them first.

First order thinking is what you do. Don't confuse it with what I do.

This isn't a thought experiment, this is railroading a Roleplay session.

You have a solution.  That's the only solution you accept.  Thus it's not an experiment.  An experiment has multiple possible outcomes that are unknown.  Your scenario does not, according to you.


I know what you want.
You're trying to get people to say 'oh threats of violence or fear keeps people in line' in a round about way.  Like that stupid movie The Village.

So the solution you want to hear is:
Make a boundary.  Threaten to shoot anyone who crosses because if you don't, monsters will find us to kill us all.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 18, 2025, 04:54:02 AM

Easy. You do what round Earthers and big government has always done. You convince them either that there are monsters outside the area (e.g. "here be dragons" and tales of dangerous expeditions) or that leaving is a waste of time, because they'll be back again (e.g. RE being fully circular in all directions vs just east or west, or what I was told by a member of a cult who had left only to return).

Every single one of them will decide it is pointless to leave.

Brilliant, that isn't the accepted answer but its one I didn't even consider. That's what I meant when I (should have said) there are no bad answers. This is actually much more like 4chan than reddit where we crowdfund ideas until the best ideas win.


Let's say for the purposes of this thought experiment that these prisoners are adults who don't believe in monsters. What you're describing would absolutely work, but it would take more time than you have and you'd need to do it to children. The movie "The Village" explored this concept in some depth.

Which is why I later changed it to wild animals.
Although claiming that the area is a "country" surrounded by a hostile army and the gun is for their "protection" might also work. Though you'd have to rationalize why there is not more than one gun.

And yeah, I love the premise of The Village, and its twist ending.

I have no idea what the answer you had originally but it will be interesting to hear.

This isn't a thought experiment, this is railroading a Roleplay session.

You have a solution.  That's the only solution you accept.  Thus it's not an experiment.  An experiment has multiple possible outcomes that are unknown.  Your scenario does not, according to you.


I know what you want.
You're trying to get people to say 'oh threats of violence or fear keeps people in line' in a round about way.  Like that stupid movie The Village.

So the solution you want to hear is:
Make a boundary.  Threaten to shoot anyone who crosses because if you don't, monsters will find us to kill us all.

Try reading the thread before posting.

I've already stated that this is part of the answer and I've already clarified that these are adults that don't believe in monsters.

Don't let your dislike of me ruin your fun. I want someone to figure this out. I promise I have an answer you'll accept.

Which is why I later changed it to wild animals.
Although claiming that the area is a "country" surrounded by a hostile army and the gun is for their "protection" might also work.

I think the soviet union did that with a fair degree of success.

This is what I wanted, us to work together to figure out an answer we are happy with. You've made some very interesting and valid points.

Anyway, we do know that threats only work if there is sufficient force. So the solution can't be, "Don't leave or I'll shoot."

Which makes me wonder, what is the gun for?

There's only sufficient force to kill one of the prisoners, so in the successful scenario the gun is never used. Once you've used that bullet and shot one prisoner the other 99 will tear you to pieces.

I actually want to tell you guys the answer as much as you want to hear it. I've already typed it out, I'll tell you tomorrow morning, my tomorrow morning so your tomorrow night.

I thought Jura knew and he would spoil my fun as early as possible.

Edit.
I'll give you a hint, Unconvinced came much closer to the answer than he realised here. He wanted to be snarky but he has actually came the closest out of anyone so far. It will make more sense when I've told you the answer.

I’m surprised Torve hasn’t suggested finding the most radical leftist and shooting them first.

Well its nearly 10pm and that's my bedtime.
Ja ne.

This isn’t going to be some kind of alpha male thing is it?

Quote from: Lorddave on September 18, 2025, 06:31:15 AM

This isn't a thought experiment, this is railroading a Roleplay session.

You have a solution.  That's the only solution you accept.  Thus it's not an experiment.  An experiment has multiple possible outcomes that are unknown.  Your scenario does not, according to you.


I know what you want.
You're trying to get people to say 'oh threats of violence or fear keeps people in line' in a round about way.  Like that stupid movie The Village.

So the solution you want to hear is:
Make a boundary.  Threaten to shoot anyone who crosses because if you don't, monsters will find us to kill us all.

Try reading the thread before posting.

I've already stated that this is part of the answer and I've already clarified that these are adults that don't believe in monsters.

Don't let your dislike of me ruin your fun. I want someone to figure this out. I promise I have an answer you'll accept.

Yeah, I saw that after the fact.

And it's not about you.  I don't have any hatred or strong opinion about you.  But I'm a DM.  I run games with such puzzles.  And I REALLY hate when people call a railroad puzzle a thought experiment.  So it's not you, it's your choice of words.

This isn’t going to be some kind of alpha male thing is it?

I think the correct answer is:

"Netanyahu shot Charlie Kirk".

I think what he is getting at is how nations get us to act, in those nations that aren't allowed to own guns especially, and vastly outnumber those that do, so convince them it's for the greater good and the bullet is there to protect them.

It's lame, but probably the point of this.

I think what he is getting at is how nations get us to act, in those nations that aren't allowed to own guns especially, and vastly outnumber those that do, so convince them it's for the greater good and the bullet is there to protect them.

It's lame, but probably the point of this.

I'll buy the popcorn.

i have not looked into this in the slightest but i will give it a go to some degree.

use my weapon to split the 100 into two groups of 50. tell each group that whichever group keeps the other group from leaving gets to go free. of course never let them free but keep telling them 'two more weeks'

assuming i can trust the other person im giving them the gun after that because im not the kind to pass judgment and id probably want to die in this scenario anyway.

Our patron has not seen fit to explain to us how long the prisoners need to be kept, how they are fed, how sewage is handled, how they are protected from the elements, how they are entertained and whether they must be kept from murdering each other or by a third party.

Our patron has not seen fit to explain to us how long the prisoners need to be kept, how they are fed, how sewage is handled, how they are protected from the elements, how they are entertained and whether they must be kept from murdering each other or by a third party.

we just have to keep them 'two more weeks' and convince them as much

they will also just end up killing one another probably so the issue solves itself. i don't think it says we need to keep them alive

another idea is to just randomly give the gun to a new person each day and see who does not want to give it up the next day

many thoughts here. many such cases.

we just have to keep them 'two more weeks' and convince them as much

How do we convince them to submit for two weeks without food or even water?

Quote from: Junker on September 18, 2025, 09:54:53 AM

we just have to keep them 'two more weeks' and convince them as much

How do we convince them to submit for two weeks without food or even water?

we don't, we just lie to them. then they eat each other and i can go home if i am not eaten already.

we don't, we just lie to them. then they eat each other and i can go home if i am not eaten already.

I think you should strive to improve yourself by studying human nature. If so, we here who are not worthy can enjoy the presence of an even more virtuous Junker.

That said, after a couple of days, no human being is going to believe any food is forthcoming and they will rush you.

Quote from: Junker on September 18, 2025, 10:01:42 AM

we don't, we just lie to them. then they eat each other and i can go home if i am not eaten already.

I think you should strive to improve yourself by studying human nature. If so, we here who are not worthy can enjoy the presence of an even more virtuous Junker.

That said, after a couple of days, no human being is going to believe any food is forthcoming and they will rush you.

i agree with you 100%

tbh now that i think about it i am probably burying the gun somewhere once i have gotten the crowd to self-police. once the tool of power is out of the equation then human nature can just do human nature things.

they will probably find ways to build weapons anyway so may as well just do that and try to get them to come together and form a community to start farming and digging a well so subsistence is not an issue. then they can decide who leads them and self-police and whatever happens from there happens. either make it so they are scared to leave or don't want to leave. i just want to go home and watch tv anyway...

my god, are we just building a society from first principles?

i have not looked into this in the slightest but i will give it a go to some degree.

use my weapon to split the 100 into two groups of 50. tell each group that whichever group keeps the other group from leaving gets to go free. of course never let them free but keep telling them 'two more weeks'

assuming i can trust the other person im giving them the gun after that because im not the kind to pass judgment and id probably want to die in this scenario anyway.

How long do they have to wait?



Sorry, can’t resist.  Every single time.

in the doomsday version of my approach it doesn't matter how long they wait as much as how long you convince them to wait because if it weren't just for that dang other group we could be done by now.

How long do they have to wait?



Sorry, can’t resist.  Every single time.

A reasonable movie quote is always worthwhile.

So here was the question.

Here is the scenario.
You and one other person are tasked with watching over one hundred people in an open space, when one of you sleeps the other is standing guard. You have to make sure none of them escape. There are no fences or barricades to keep them inside, you have one gun and one bullet. The prisoners know that you only have one bullet. You have access to other items, but you cant build a prison, you can't tie them up or restrain them in any way, and you cant buy more bullets.

How do you ensure no one escapes?

Torve solved half by saying you threaten to shoot the first person who runs but then I brought up the problem with groups of prisoners working together to escape and giving themselves good odds of survival against your one bullet.

Here is the other half of the solution.

>You assign each prisoner a number between one and one hundred. You mark it on them in a way that is clearly visible to you and to the other prisoners. You tell them if someone tries to escape, you'll shoot them. You explain that if a group of people try to escape, you'll shoot the one that was assigned the highest number.

>No one wants to try to run away by themselves and get shot, when groups of prisoners try to organise amongst themselves to make an escape, the one that has the highest number knows they will be shot. So they don't want to be part of the escape plan, but once the one with the highest number abandons the escape plan, you're left with someone else who now has the highest number in the group.

>Every group that is formed has someone with a higher number than the rest of the group, every time this person abandons the escape plan because they know they will be the one who is shot when the group tries to escape, that leaves another prisoner who now has highest number who also abandons the escape plan, and so on until there is only one person left, who won't try to escape by themselves because they know they will be shot.

>In this way you guarantee that a group of people won't try to escape together, and that no one will try to escape by themselves, thus fulfilling the winning condition of the thought experiment.

I'm sure we could have come to that eventually if everyone was less snarky to each other and worked through a logical process. Junkers idea about turning one half of the prisoners against the other half was pretty good.

It's not a bad idea.

Except human nature is a b-word.

Here in the west we don't have a lot of sacrifice, but in other parts of the world, one person sacrificing themselves for the good of the clan is a very real thing.

Even if just one person out of the 100 has a terminal disease the system breaks down.

Also, if the whole group just walked away in the opposite direction, would you shoot? If you did you'd have to expect that the 99 would turn about and kill you to death. A pretty empty threat then.

That relies on one person who is willing to die for the other 99.

In the average group of 100 people you won't find one thats willing to be a martyr. But youre right. One person whos willing to die takes away all your power over the rest of the group.

That was the silver lining.

well that was fun and now i have some self-reflection to do

That relies on one person who is willing to die for the other 99.

No one has to be a martyr.  If everyone takes off at once, then they have a 1% chance of being shot at (and maybe not even get hit or seriously wounded) and a 99% chance of getting away unmolested.  I'm pretty sure that most people would be just fine with those odds.

If everyone takes off at once, then they have a 1% chance of being shot at.

What's with you and Dave and your inability to read a thread before replying to it? I've already addressed that multiple times.

Quote from: Torve on September 18, 2025, 02:05:18 AM

The best shot (PNI) is to establish clear boundaries. A well defined line around the "camp". The first to cross the line gets shot.

Excellent.
That's a real answer and you're on the right track to solving the problem. Although they aren't soldiers, they are unarmed prisoners.

That will work for a little while, but eventually a group of prisoners will make a run for it together, maybe all one hundred will agree to run for it at the same time, reducing their chances of getting shot to one in one hundred, which most people would take.

How do you stop the prisoners from organising in a group and making a run for it at the same time?

In the answer, 100 people don't have a 1% chance of being shot. 1 person has a 100% chance of being shot. Did you even read my answer?

>You assign each prisoner a number between one and one hundred. You mark it on them in a way that is clearly visible to you and to the other prisoners. You tell them if someone tries to escape, you'll shoot them. You explain that if a group of people try to escape, you'll shoot the one that was assigned the highest number.

>No one wants to try to run away by themselves and get shot, when groups of prisoners try to organise amongst themselves to make an escape, the one that has the highest number knows they will be shot. So they don't want to be part of the escape plan, but once the one with the highest number abandons the escape plan, you're left with someone else who now has the highest number in the group.

>Every group that is formed has someone with a higher number than the rest of the group, every time this person abandons the escape plan because they know they will be the one who is shot when the group tries to escape, that leaves another prisoner who now has highest number who also abandons the escape plan, and so on until there is only one person left, who won't try to escape by themselves because they know they will be shot.

>In this way you guarantee that a group of people won't try to escape together, and that no one will try to escape by themselves, thus fulfilling the winning condition of the thought experiment.

Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2025, 03:50:19 PM

That relies on one person who is willing to die for the other 99.

No one has to be a martyr.  If everyone takes off at once, then they have a 1% chance of being shot at (and maybe not even get hit or seriously wounded) and a 99% chance of getting away unmolested.  I'm pretty sure that most people would be just fine with those odds.

But the big question is:

The one guy that gets shot, is he one of the one percenters?