Nepe, No. Sorry, I don't think I abused game theory ko notions to peddle a political stance. You are flat out wrong on this. Below is an extract from the ORIGINAL: Let's look at the evidece first Source: - http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue276/strictly_business.htm QUOTE: That is why to make threats credible in times ahead, the parties need to be strategically unpredictable and do things that no one expects them to do. One such action might be to let go of all old politicians and replace them with stridently republican ones. Another might be to call the palace’s bluff, take part in internationally supervised elections and thereby increase the odds of emerging with an electoral mandate to set a new agenda that their adversaries would have to react to. Yes, given present realities, both of these actions are indeed crazy. But they are consistent with Schelling’s conclusion that in politics, as in life, a purposeful indulgence in craziness can be of strategic advantage. When other sides find your behaviour unpredictable, they end up believing your threats and do what you actually want them to do. UNQUOTE You have -- in your self-selective fashion -- POUNCED on ONLY the "election" suggestion, while keeping quiet about the "republican" recommendation. Why? Look, I don't know what the parties will do, but EITHER of these actions will meet my (and Shelling's notion of) 'acting crazily' in this context for the parties to gain a strategic advantage. How? Here's the logic: No one expects the parties to replace their corrupt, publicly discredited netas with young ones. No one expects the parties to take part in the elections. These two things are pretty much established notions in Nepali politics. And the king and his boys will make their 'election moves' and any other moves by keeping the parties' well-known stance in mind. And what has been the result of all that so far? The parties are reduced to reacting to the King's script which, in turn, has already taken into account the predictability of the parties' stance. That's why, to make sure that the King is forced to change his script or at least be unsure of it, you have to offer him some degree of unpredictability about your behaviour. [Aside: Think of what Tory leader Margaret Thatcher mockingly wrote of her opponent Neil Kinnock (the then Labour Party leader) in her autobio, to the effect of: "Thank you, Neil, for always remaining predictable, and thereby never letting me down") In contrast, Kinnock's successor Tony Blair acted unpredictably, co-opted the policies of Thatcher, disoriented the Tories, and used Thacther's policies to win the janata's vote defeat Thatcher's party in 1997.] Coming to the issue at hand, intellectually, if you were an honest academic, Nepe, what should be at dispute is HOW MUCH of strategic advantage (in terms of probablities) will either of my recommended move bring to the parties (assuming they are, for our discussion purposes, taken as a monolithic entity). But you don't do that; you are far more interested in PERSONALISING this kura-kani by accusing me with abusing this or abusing that than in furthering the debate in any meaningful manner. [And once you start mocking me, which you did ion your first posting oin thgis thread, what choices do I have other than to call you a third-rate scientist, which you are? But let me not digress.] Fortunately, this is where the model of your anonymous and level-headed student is helpful to look into the DEGREE of advantages offered by either move. He concluded that there is ANOTHER conclusion, that the parties should stay where they are now, and his conclusion was to the effect of: "The parties should be resolute, [and watch the King falter after time T]." OK. That's ONE conclusion based on CERTAIN assumptions and the logic that flows within those boundaries. It is, as any game theorist worth his salt knows, NOT the fool-proof truth. Look, we are all dealing with probablities here; and NOT the absolute truth, which only the reality can show us as events unfold in Nepal. Meantime, yes, I think parties need to be unpredictable in their move. That is consistent with Schelling's core insight. As for disagreements as to HOW to BE and TO WHAT DEGREE to be unpredictable or EVEN TO REMAIN PREDICTABLE are all matters OPEN to further debate. oohi ashu