You are quite possibly right. And I don't mean to impugn NZ justice here because I have no additional information. Nonetheless I smell a rat. It should not be necessary to shoot themselves in the foot. Such cases so rarely happen that when they do, suspicions are naturally aroused. Just speculating: had there been (encrypted) information that Dotcom possessed which the authorities wanted, if a negotiation had ensued, wouldn't something exactly like this be a likely outcome? To me, plausible deniability, a still indeterminate outcome and Dotcom greed are indicative of a negotiation which is still underway.

Same here. Thought I must be in the 90%. It depends on how the test was conducted.

The experimental design deliberately excludes this type of signal. Anonymous, non-repetitive, closed book. It is not an argument against social signalling. Just that there is something else going on too.

I have not read the original paper, but it seems plausible that the experimenters would have tried different game rules and this is the version which gives the reported result most strongly. On that assumption, one way to look at the experiment is as a test of the limits of rational behaviour. The 'vengeful chump' might be interpreted as externalising their embarrassment at having failed to identify the optimum strategy. Unconsciously they know they should have cheated, but it is more gratifying to blame someone else. I'd like to read the entire paper if anyone can please show where it can be got (for free natch).