How might you play this game?

[Shannon SteelSlave]

I thought I would kick this idea up, based on an unsuccessful reality TV show that seems to mimic the dating game in a different twist.

A man or woman is bound together by a six-foot chain to four members of the opposite sex over four days and nights. They are linked by their hands and feet and are kept less than 24 inches from each other.The group remains chained together and is taken to complete day-to-day tasks, such as grocery shopping, preparing food, shower, and ice skating. The main person is given $10,000 and can remove three contestants one at a time. He or she can give a portion of the money to each eliminated participant. When left with a single partner, he or she can choose to either split the money or keep it. The final contestant can refuse to be involved any further in a relationship.

I am not sure what rules existed, in any, but what I am asking is, how would you play? It sounds simple enough, and even fun for us, to get paid $10,000 to wear chains for 4 days. Am I missing some hidden conflict? Maybe tell me that.

[Shannon SteelSlave]

Darn, I thought this might have been an interesting topic

[bound_jenny]

I haven't heard of this show.

Sounds like an interesting premise, but I suspect that in real reality it would be more like an experiment in cabin fever (or herding cats). Being chained to a group of people with the closest no more than two feet away, 24 hours a day, for four days, is more than likely to fray some nerves.

Adding a kink element to it would put a bit of spice in it (as if the leg irons weren't by themselves... ).

is taken to complete day-to-day tasks, such as grocery shopping, preparing food, shower, and ice skating

I'd be curious on how the ice skating part was executed.

Jenny.

[LockedDummy]

How exactly does the money work?

I've heard of a psychological experiment where you randomly pair two people together. Person A and Person B. You offer them $100, with the following terms. --The money is only being offered to Person A.
-Person A must offer *some amount* of money to Person B
-If Person B accept's A's offer, they get the money.
-If person B rejects A's offer, they both get nothing

Now the economist would say that Person A should offer $1. Because logically Person B would accept $1 if the only other choice is $0. But when they did the experiment, that's not what happened. If Person A offered a small amount of money, Person B would usually say "fuck off you greedy ass hole, let's both be broke then".

The results of the experiment was that most people preferred something around 50/50. So if I were on that show, I'd ask my chain gang if they wanted to just whack up the money 5 ways and go home early.

Interesting follow up to that experiment. They found that there were instances were it was beneficial for Person A to offer *more* than 50%. For example, if the other players got to *choose* who they play with, then you might want to be more generous and attract more players. Say Person A offers $60, and gets partnered with both Person B and Person C. At the end of the game Person A has $80, and B&C each have $60. In real life you see this when companies that pay the most usually attract better employees. Even though those companies have the highest expenses...they also make the most profit. TLDR: It takes money to make money.

So knowing that, I'd give all my chain buddies $2250 and then ask the producers to bring in four new chicks so we can play again.

[Shannon SteelSlave]

OK. I see your point. And thanks for the example.
I guess the suitors that don't like you would become oppositional and give you a hard time, until you paid them a satisfactory amount. I am unsure where the balance of power was intended to lie here, but I would say, the person who can tolerate, or enjoy the bondage, has the power. The longer one of those nasty people stays chained to you, I guess, the more it would drain THEM, and they would settle for less money as time goes on. (It wouldn't be anyone from this club crying to get away) I would hope that I would keep them all chained until the 4th day, then run away with the $$. Getting paid $10,000 for a bondage session? Sign me up for that, as many times as ya'lls can afford it. I think there were a lot of holes in the rules of the actual game, "Chains of Love" 2001. I was curious to see how people might interpret them and play. Maybe I should watch an episode. When I find the time. Given the assumed rules, how would anyone else play? Please feel free to compare it to anything else, as I am certain this game was an amalgamstion of rules stolen from other dating games.

[LockedDummy]

Oh, so the goal is to be annoying, repulsive, and abhorrent enough to get paid to leave?

I'd be good at that game.

[Shannon SteelSlave]

If you were one of the people chained to the main person, then that might work. But would you not be good at being the main person, loving the chains (but not letting on) and going on to win the game with all of the money?
I would have wanted to see the ice skating too. It must have been a requirement to be on the show that you have that talent. Or maybe not.....a wild card could be one person who does not skate, and bring down the others. All kinds of fun. Cut that person loose, or freeze your buns off on the ice.
There were a bunch of reality tv shows that were literally thrown together at the last minute to capture, and later, ruin the genre. But grab it while it lasts was their thinking. So I don't know how concisely they planned on happy accidents and X factors. I need a 28 hour day to get everything in my life done lately.
Love to hear if anyone wants to find these episodes on YouTube and share some insight and opinion. 'Ppreciate it.

[tiemeupalso]

I would like to know if they are chained at the ankles,how do thry shower together?
they cant get their pants off.

[Shannon SteelSlave]

Dressing and restroom breaks are unchained, according to their rules

[tiemeupalso]

where are your rules.i cant even find the game.

[Shannon SteelSlave]

It's called "Chains of Love". It was on TV in 2001.