The prisoners' plight (prisoner's dilemma) is a very representative example of the non-zero-sum game of gaming theory, reflecting that the best option for individuals is not the best option for groups. A simple example is a special game between two arrested prisoners: while prisoners can work with each other to ensure that they do not reveal the facts of the crime in the best interest of all (exoneration), in the absence of information on each other, it is in the best interest of each other to sell, although contrary to the best common interest, to sell each other because of the benefits that they can bring to themselves (a shorter term of imprisonment) and because of the benefits that they can bring to him。
It is not only in the course of civil proceedings, but also in order to facilitate mediation, that the trial personnel often artificially set up the “prisoner dilemma” in which the parties compete. Typically, the judges will mediate by means similar to the “back-to-back” game we play as children. In order to facilitate an agreement between the parties to conciliate, the judge may cause this “prisoner dilemma” by conveying different information to the parties。
For example, when communicating with the plaintiffs alone, they are often informed that “the respondent's rebuttal is in fact well founded and, if the judgement is made, your claim may not be supported”; instead, when communicating with the defendant alone, they are deliberately informed that the reasons for the defence are not sufficient to relieve themselves of any legal liability. The best way to proceed is to give due recognition to the plaintiff's claim, without which a direct decision would be against you。
In such a prisoner's plight, the “nash balance” of the parties' game is a concession, and the best strategy of the defendant in the case of a concession to the plaintiff is a concession to the defendant. It is always better to compromise than not to give in to the prisoners ' plight created by the judges。
This may be, depending on the facts of the case, to enable the interests of both parties to be safeguarded, free from litigation, etc. In order to deal with the dispute in a fair and expeditious manner, but it may also be merely a sort of technical approach. Of course, mediation is necessary for the settlement of civil disputes, but in terms of the rational and legal essence of conciliation, it must be conducted on the basis of the circumstances of the case and on the basis of the will of the parties, and any conciliation would be irrational in a sense. In fact, conciliation should be applied primarily to the settlement of “rehabilitated relationships” disputes, commonly known as disputes between individuals in a well-known society, most typically in marriage-family cases, while economic tort disputes between strangers, mostly focused on non-equity, compensation, etc., are tantamount to emotional recourse to the parties。
It is important to know that the main purpose of civil action is to recognize and fulfil the rights and obligations between the parties, and to emphasize that one of the immediate consequences of conciliation is the extension and spread of the nullity of the law, leading to the loss of legal value and authority. There may be some alarm, but it's okay to listen。
Reference encyclopedia。
The reference to the encyclopedia — popularly speaking “nash balance” — is such a balance in which each player in the game is convinced that, in giving strategic decisions to other participants, he has chosen the best strategy to respond to the counterparty strategy. That is to say, everyone's strategy is the best. But it does not mean, in fact, that the two players in the game have struck a whole state of excellence, thus reflecting at a deeper level the contradiction between individual and collective rationality。
