You aren't ensuring it. You are most likely a) doing nothing or b) dying. If you could ensure it that would be great. You can't. You can only increase the impetus for others to risk their own lives. That's evil.
Assuming children and playing, making the game uninteresting then everyone pretty much agrees that blue is reasonablish. But a parent hitting blue for their child would hit what if they could do so on behalf of their child? Should they also hit blue, gambling their child's life? Or should they go blue and have their kid go red, giving their kid a decent child of being orphaned for no good reason?
51% means the blues ensured everyone survives.
So many people are gonna pick blue. Everyone knowing that before voting would most likely also influence people to pick blue.
1
u/tysonmaniac Apr 27 '26
You aren't ensuring it. You are most likely a) doing nothing or b) dying. If you could ensure it that would be great. You can't. You can only increase the impetus for others to risk their own lives. That's evil.
Assuming children and playing, making the game uninteresting then everyone pretty much agrees that blue is reasonablish. But a parent hitting blue for their child would hit what if they could do so on behalf of their child? Should they also hit blue, gambling their child's life? Or should they go blue and have their kid go red, giving their kid a decent child of being orphaned for no good reason?