I'm with the organizer. The three players with the highest
scores were rightly awarded the three prizes. Because Players Two
and Three had the same score, they share the combined second- and
third-place money. If three players do better than you, the
proper term for your finish is "fourth" or "loser," accompanied
by derisive sneers from the swaggering three. (People can be so
cruel.)
Under your payout plan, two players (or three or five or 10)
who tie for second place could end up pocketing less money than
you, even though they score higher. That doesn't seem right.
Those who perform better should reap a larger reward.
Your plan, while inferior, is not utterly unreasonable. Thus
the rules should clearly state how the prize money will be
allocated in case of a tie, to avoid misunderstandings, hurt
feelings or anybody Krazy-Gluing anybody else's mouse to a
desk.
(Readers can direct their questions and comments by e-mail to
ethicist@nytimes.com. This column originates in
The New York Times Magazine.)
COPYRIGHT 2008 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE