[Last Name] 1

21 June 2016
TornTwenty: Debrief
(Grade)
In this simulation, I negotiated as the waiter while Leyna negotiated as the diner. In
summary, we settled with the waiter getting $16. This particular amount was chosen because it
represented a 20% tip which was 5% higher than what the diner probably would have given the
waiter if she did not tear the $20. I guess the additional 5% was justified as a compensation fee
for the confusion caused by the diners absurd action.
I though Leyna could have taken up a stronger position, arguing for 15%. However, I
think we can both agree that the simulation was difficult to understand and act out. In the first
place, defacing US currency is not only a federal offense, but highly inconveniences the person
who has to deal with the torn twenty in the end. On that point, who gets the torn twenty in the
end could have been another key bargaining point in the negotiations. In our agreement, we did
not specify who would disperse the difference to who.
Reflecting on this simulation, I believe the simulation can be substantially improved so to
better legitimize and emphasize the unique situation. In my opinion, the most important point of
the simulation was that with only one half of the twenty each party had to negotiate an agreement
so they could leave with some value. However, as the simulation was, realistically the waiter
would not want to rile up the diner as well as not waste too much of their own time. On the other
hand, the diner probably does not care that much about the twenty but more so about saving face,
a fact that the simulation sheet does not emphasize enough. This lack of care for the negotiation
is interesting but not valuable to most participants. I feel the situation should be reoriented to a
more business-like scenario where more is at stake and both parties can equally care more.