"<b>minor spoiler warning</b><br><br><br>Great content. I love the mechanics as metaphor.<br><br>It's interesting that they concluded that they were honest when it mattered; that the lying didn't really matter when there is little to gain. I would doubt that would hold true if the stakes were higher. If someone is willing to trade their integrity for a few dollars", they'll trade it for sure when the amount is higher too.<br><br>The main reason it ended the way it did was because the power was so out of balance they had to give up. But when they thought they had a chance to get more medals than the guy in charge they took it every time<br><br>I would like to see this again, but with anonymous contestants. Give them a way to communicate but not see each other. Having the contestants be figures of some popularity means there was more at stake than just money.<br><br>Also, one of the rules was that you couldn't promise to split the money afterwards. When that was put on the table later on it broke the game.