God's imitator

Chapter 303 An Unexpected Oversight

Clearly, this is what is known as a "black shop".

The three players don't need to know the correct answer, because as long as everyone's answer is the same, even answering incorrectly will be a positive outcome.

The combined earnings of the three players amount to exactly 6000, which can be used to force the question setter to "win" consecutively through a vote.

Although the game rules state that players are strictly prohibited from agreeing on fixed answers in advance in any way, and that violating this rule will result in warnings or even instant death penalties, players still have many ways to achieve this.

For example, by using the rules of the second phase, they can provide each other with suggestions.

The players in Community 1 have most likely reached an agreement beforehand, with one player sending suggestions to the other players, and then the other players making choices based on those suggestions.

This ensures that everyone's answers are completely consistent.

No matter who sets the questions, they will be forced to "repeat their winning streak".

Moreover, with a bit of luck, there's a one-in-three chance of choosing the correct answer.

In that case, each respondent would also receive an additional 4000 minutes of visa time.

The results will be settled early when all three participants have selected their answers.

In this way, they can continuously extract visa processing time from the test setters.

Therefore, Zheng Jie recalled the specific characteristics of the five players in Community 1.

The five people consist of three men and two women. The two female players entered the "4-person room" first, leaving three male players outside.

In other words, the three people answering the question at this point must be two women and one man.

Zheng Jie quickly came up with the second question.

Are you a male player?

A. Yes

【B. No】

[C. I am an armed helicopter]

……

Meanwhile, in another cubicle of the '4-person room'.

Gao Jialiang was sitting leisurely in his chair, ready to continue answering the question in a simple and straightforward way.

So far, their plans are going smoothly.

They successfully matched the code and put Zheng Jie, a player from Community 17, in the position of the question setter.

From now until the end of the game, he will be the one setting the questions.

It was clear that Zheng Jie had racked his brains to come up with a professional question, but Gao Jialiang didn't even consider it and chose option A after receiving the suggestion.

It was indeed a positive return.

Upon seeing the second question, Gao Jialiang paused for a moment, then smiled indifferently: "Heh, just busywork."

"No matter what kind of question you ask, we will choose the same option, and it will always be a positive outcome."

For Gao Jialiang, the correct answer to this question should be [A. Yes], as it is the correct option and does not contradict his conscience.

The problem is that the other two players who entered the '4-person room' in Community 1 were female players.

Therefore, Gao Jialiang did not choose an answer immediately, but waited for a while.

Sure enough, he saw that the two squares on the right side of the control panel displayed the option: B.

This means that both female players suggested he change to option B.

Clearly, it's far more worthwhile for one player to trigger the penalty than for two players to trigger it.

As for suggestions from unrelated players, they are of no value whatsoever.

Gao Jialiang directly selected option B and submitted his answer. [All participants have submitted their answers; settlement will proceed directly.]

The correct answer to this question is: Male players should choose "A. Yes", and female players should choose "B. No".

The net gain for the three players in this room is 5000 minutes of visa time.

The person who set the questions will compensate you with 5000 minutes of visa processing time.

The question setter will be changed.

Gao Jialiang's earnings were even more dismal, reaching -15000.

Gao Jialiang was stunned: "Wait, why is the total profit only 5000?"
"My profit is -15000, which is correct. Wrong option -4000, majority -10000, against my will -17000, unanimous agreement +16000."

"But their combined earnings should be very high, right?"

"Correct option +4000, majority -10000, against one's will +17000, unanimous agreement +16000, shouldn't it be 27000 in profit?"

……

Meanwhile, in another compartment.

When Qian Li saw that her final earnings were 10000 instead of 27000, her expression became somewhat blank.

She instantly realized that she had made a very serious mistake.

The penalty for acting against one's conscience is indeed 8500 in the first stage and 17000 in the second stage.

The problem is, there's no reward for not going against your conscience!
"Wait, why is this happening?"

Qian Li certainly couldn't accept this situation, because losing this part of the reward would prevent them from continuing to force the question setter to "win consecutive rounds," which would completely overturn their previous strategy.

Qian Li didn't think it was her oversight; she only felt that the game's design was unreasonable.

Because players can only determine the specific values ​​using the five questions in the first stage.

Of these five questions, only the fourth one will trigger the penalty for acting against one's conscience.

The first three questions were professional questions, and no matter which one you chose, you wouldn't be going against your conscience; for the fifth question, Qian Li and the other players cooperated and found that everyone agreed on the extra reward, but the third light was gray, which means that it didn't involve any insincere options either.

Therefore, any player who consciously tests the rules of punishment for going against their conscience will deliberately answer a wrong option on the fourth question and then observe the changes in the data.

That's exactly what Qian Li did.

Although Gao Jialiang did not have a particularly clear understanding of the situation, he inadvertently chose an option against his will in order to try the minority option, and his visa time was also deducted.

The reward will be affected by three factors: 'right or wrong' and 'majority or minority'. Both of these factors will earn or deduct visa time according to the same value.

Therefore, after Qian Li calculated the specific amount of visa time deducted for the option that went against her conscience, she subconsciously assumed that the option that did not go against her conscience would earn the same amount of visa time.

She didn't have an extra chance to give a "truthful answer" to further confirm the result.

As for the other three players in Community 1, one of them must have answered the option that was not against their conscience in question 4.

However, they were not smart enough to realize what these lights actually meant, could not deduce the specific reward or punishment values ​​from the numbers, and had no awareness of testing against their own conscience.

Naturally, it's impossible to imagine that "not giving a false answer will not result in extra visa time."

In other words, players who are interested in testing will be more inclined to test the punishment rather than the reward, because the former is more certain and less distracting; players who are not interested in testing will also be unable to distinguish the specific values.

This resulted in all five players from Community 1 being eliminated in the "rewards and punishments for insincere answers" contest.

This led Qian Li to make a serious misjudgment about the situation in the "4-person room".

If there are rewards for choosing options that don't go against one's conscience, then in a 4-person room, if the participants keep answering the same options, they can force the question setter to keep winning and drain him dry.

Because as long as there are more honest players than dishonest players, the returns will always be positive.

However, the rule that "there is no reward for not going against one's conscience" leads to the following situation: if the player who answers the questions does not earn 5500 minutes of visa time, the question setter will be changed by default.

(End of this chapter)