Well this is where I think the term of joker should be clarified. Jokes must not consume the public good, but they must destroy it. Lloyd certainly benefits a

Well this is where I think the term of joker should be clarified. Jokes must not consume the public good, but they must destroy it. Lloyd certainly benefits and certainly destroys, but his benefits exclude him from being a joker. Defectors cause the tragedy of the commons by not paying a cost. Or maybe as steep of a cost as others because in the real world Lloyd definitely paid a cost, but it was a mere fraction of his wealth where others were wiped out. It was hard to understand the role of the joker and how it creates an equilibrium, but if the joker is random destroyer then he destroys the cooperator AND the defector equally. If defectors out pace cooperators then the likelihood a defector will be wiped out is greater. By wiping out a defector that shifts the balance (ie the defector dies, or the defector turns to a cooperator from the joker's actions). That's the only way I can understand the joker as a force of "good". And jokers turn out to be a better solution to the problem of equilibrium.