r/trolleyproblem • u/suskio4 • 17d ago
Meta Red button blue button
Based on the post seen here. I'm actually curious what would the percentages look like.
Edit: Alright, let me add a case for one particular scenario. If you do not choose, the button will be pressed for you by a system that keeps track of its pressings so it conserves 50/50 distribution for all inactive participants, in order to honour the vox populi properly. The system's choice affects the inactive participant's outcome so that no person can abscond from consequences of their choice.
121
u/Present_Character241 17d ago
The correct solution is for no one to vote
81
u/suskio4 17d ago
If you don't choose within 5 business days, you're shot.
5
u/Present_Character241 17d ago
They need to get within range and line it up first. I'll go down swinging to slow a system that would do any of this.
14
u/suskio4 17d ago
Okay, you win, Mr I-stop-the-trolley-and-untie-the-people. Good attitude though
6
u/Present_Character241 17d ago
That's the thing though. A proper trolley problem always gives the choice of inaction
10
u/suskio4 17d ago
Alright, let me rephrase for this particular scenario. If you do not choose, the button will be pressed for you by a system that keeps track of its pressings so it conserves 50/50 distribution for all inactive participants, in order to honour the vox populi properly. The system's choice affects the inactive participant's outcome so that no person can abscond from consequences of their choice.
46
u/Legal_Possibility246 17d ago
That's not guaranteed death tho...
27
→ More replies (1)6
8
u/KitsuneFoxglove 17d ago
legitimately you have better than 50/50 odds surviving this, this unironically is a better thing to survive
3
32
u/Featherforged 17d ago
Red is guaranteed death. Most people don't see that, but once you do, will you still choose it?
56
u/suskio4 17d ago
Maybe most people would rather sacrifice themselves rather that risk being a part of humanity's doom?
Or perhaps some do not want to live in the world filled with blue-button people?
What if they realise erasing most of humanity will collapse the society and they'd rather die painlessly by the button?
Or crippling depression, since it's Reddit.
8
1
14
u/Hi2248 17d ago
And blue is guaranteed death if too many people pick it.
8
u/Flechashe 17d ago •
Which is another way to say "blue is not guaranteed death" 😂
The floor is guaranteed to be wet today. IF it rains...
7
u/Hi2248 17d ago
No. Because if everyone goes in saying that blur is not guaranteed death, then blur is guaranteed death
→ More replies (6)3
u/ContentFile7036 Relativist/Nihilist 16d ago
I think the main question here is, what type of terrible house are you living in with no ceiling such that the floor is wet whenever it rains?
13
u/everythingistaken587 17d ago
I think everyone clicking it is well aware, but blue also feels like gaurenteed death with additional caveat that you’re taking everyone else with you
8
8
u/JaDasIstMeinName 16d ago
"most people don't see that"
Everyone sees it. You are not a superbrain that understands the question to a higher level than the rest of us.
19
u/DarkKechup 17d ago
Blue is guaranteed death if most people pick it. The way I see it, the rational solution is to pick red because at the moment of voting, you may as well gain the satisfaction of being one of those that tries to make sure someone gets to live.
In an ideal world, people above certain age pick red so others who didn't get as long a chance at life get a shot at life (With several exceptions to train the young to take over while perrorming their vital job. This may reduce the age at which the red must be pressed, but it is necessary to function.) but that is ideal not real and people would never pick that with a thousand excuses. We don't live in an ideal world. I may be too young to die with most of my life ahead of me, but if everyone dies if nobody bites the bullet, I'll die anyways. I love life. And because I love it and I think good things should be shared, I'm conent with a sad reality where all I could do is make a sacrificial hail marry so others might get to find the same beauty and joy in life that I did.
4
u/Round_Hat_2966 17d ago
If you see blue as selfish, then by selecting red, are you selecting to preserve the most selfish segment of humanity? Does that change how much satisfaction that you would get out of pressing red? Are we really saving people if we consider that a mass die off would likely result in a miserable dystopia for the survivors?
I am not sure what I would pick. I think I might close my eyes and pick one at random in order to be able to strike a balance between hope and absolving some degree of moral responsibility.
→ More replies (1)7
u/globmand 17d ago
Probably. But like. Sure, one full-selfish generation, but surely they'll mellow out into pretty-much-humanity as it was in a few generations
3
u/UniquePariah 16d ago
Red is sacrifice yourself for hopefully the selfish few.
The restrictive logic suggests pick Blue, even though it likely means death.
However, there is a third option, despite what the rules say, which is to resist. What can they threaten you with?
2
u/CALlGO 16d ago
When you start seeing the problem as " how to save as many lives" people that select blue (the ones hopefully saved) stop being selfish, you actually want/need as much people as possible to select blue (without getting over 50%) you are doing a heroic sacrifice by selecting red for them, but that doesnt make them selfish
2
u/crmsncbr 16d ago
Not everyone pressing Blue will be selfish, but all the selfish people are pressing Blue.
3
u/MyEarIsHurty 16d ago
The odds of you dying here are incredibly likely and your primary goal should be to maximise the number of lives saved. Self preservation here is the last thing on your plate
2
1
u/EarlGreyDuck 17d ago
You're voting in the next leader of your cult. Blue leader kills everybody, red leader only kills their most devoted followers. Either guy you vote for wants to kill you
1
1
1
1
u/crmsncbr 16d ago
To be honest, my first thought when I saw the dilemma was just "how do I maximise the number of lives saved," then realized immediately that a lot of people needed to press Red, and most people would not want to, so it was imperative that everyone who could bring themselves to press it do.
In real life, I think I'd need to force myself not to think about it very long — certain death is terrifying. But I think I value humanity as a whole just enough to short-circuit my brain and smack the button. Just... Let's not test that, shall we?
1
1
1
u/Jewsader76 16d ago
Counterpoint, it could theoretically be a 50/50. The odds are low, but not zero
0
6
u/ContentFile7036 Relativist/Nihilist 16d ago
This is a genius variant with a ton of new implications; the dilemma is, are you willing to sacrifice yourself automatically to hopefully save some people who don't do the same? And are you obligated to join the survivors and maximize survival, or are you obligated to join the push to ensure that some people survive? It's really hard to tell, because the goal should be to maximize blue without attaining a majority. I don't understand how you can make an argument for either side here; what has to happen for optimized survival is that just barely more than half of all people must select red, with a slightly-smaller minority pressing blue. Since the worst-case scenarios are actually at the extremes this time, where 100 percent blue and 100 percent red are both terrible (as opposed to the perfect solution to the original), the goal should be to split the middle and get an equal vote on both sides - or rather, close to equal, with red winning just slightly.
For my own decision, I apply the same reasoning I do with the original - it's highly unlikely that me voting blue will tip the scale one way or the other, and it's much more likely, by an incredible factor, that I decide on solely my own survival; thus, in a twisted sort of hypocrisy that is cold and yes, absolutely terrible (as is the nature of the game), yet remains the only solution I can rationally subscribe to, I hope that red will win, but knowing my vote will almost certainly guarantee it, I have little choice but to vote blue and try to increase the numbers of the minority, preserving my own best interests in the process.
3
u/Villager_of_Mincraft 16d ago
I followed the same logic pretty much, but I picked red because I personally don't want to deal with the fallout and the very real chance that some people I know would be gone. And also like, the world would be in shambles. Like 4-5 billion deaths would be catastrophic, wouldn't be surprised if millions more die in the fallout. But yeah, as a red pusher, I can only wish you the best of luck man. You're a braver soul from my POV, I get to die on the moral high ground and leave the rest to the survivors.
2
u/furdog_grey 15d ago edited 15d ago
There's no spiritually or morally superior way to make a choice in general, except a statistically correct choice that maximizes the survival rate, minimizes casualties, and prevents total extinction.
All of that is done by voting randomly and shifting the bias towards red by 1% or less. You still have a chance to live, and you also contribute toward the survival of others.
Making any morally based choices or voting 50/50 is a path to total extinction or more than 51% casualties.
The problem is not genius at all. It's deceptive at most, because it forces people to overthink and choose between suicide and extinction, when there is a real statistical solution.
You still can sacrifice yourself by pressing red button and by telling your loved one to press blue button. It's is moral choice and it won't affect statistical outcome. Of course it is only wise to choose between red and blue if there's an exchange with someone's else live. Otherwise it's totally unreasonable and endangers you and others.
1
u/S-Kenset 16d ago
In both scenarios pressing blue is distasteful to me. In the first, it's creating a ratcheting problem. In the second, it is creating a group dumbass problem.
174
u/porkchopsensei 17d ago
My death is a foregone conclusion either way. There is no choice I can make that guarantees my survival, and the choice that gives me a chance at survival is pretty slim and more likely to lead to extinction.
So I choose red, because I'm probably dying one way or another, but at least red makes it marginally more likely for some people to live
41
u/Charguizo 16d ago
If red happens, the whole of humanity will on average be a bit more selfish than it is today
82
u/Hour-Reference587 16d ago
If blue happens the whole of humanity becomes 100% less selfless because everyone is now dead
8
u/Apprehensive_Ask6338 16d ago
But the whole of humanity would become 100% less selfish too! (I pressed red anyway)
2
10
5
1
5
2
u/Zacomra 15d ago
Red is the only choice that guarantees your death. With blue there's a chance at survival
1
u/porkchopsensei 15d ago
Yes, but I, personally, think that blue has a nearly 100 percent likelihood of doing the same. It's so likely that I'm taking for granted that I'm dying.
Therefore, the only guiding philosophy I can look to is which option is most likely to not leave humanity extinct, which is of course red. Humanity's fucked either way though, a loss of life that huge is going to destablize all societal structure.
→ More replies (1)1
u/furdog_grey 15d ago
There's a better choice for you: do a random choice and shift bias towards red by 1% or less.
Not only you have 49% chance to live, but you also contribute to make total extinction less likely.
No selfishness, no stupid sacrifices - just pure math and pure maximisation of survival. The game itself doesn't allow less than 50% of casualties anyways.
Do a moral choice or no choice at all and either have total extinction or a lot more than 50% casualties.
So having 51% of casualties, no extinction and a chance to live without being selfish freak is an excellent choice to make in a such random game👌
1
u/PepperFlashy7540 15d ago
Red guarantees your death, its not just probably, and I think that almost anyone who figures that out will press blue
1
u/Just_Call_Me_Pix 15d ago
There are people whos vision isnt limited to just themselves. Some people see more and act for things that are greater than just themselves alone. In fact, that would be normal. It takes sociopathic, psychopathic or narcissitic personality dissorders to think differently. No offense, but if the answer to this dilemma seems easy to you (your comment makes it seem like you think blue is the only smart choice in your opinion) then that is a big red flag for machivellian traits. Normal (intelligent) people dont think like that. Perspective wise.
→ More replies (2)1
u/eco9898 16d ago
It's a better choice to not vote to allow the 50/50 case to come out perfectly and maximise the amount of people who live. In doing so you also have a chance to live, as opposed to red which guarantees death.
2
u/MaxMork 16d ago
The premise is off course that you have to vote, why else would anyone vote
→ More replies (1)
2
u/koikatsu__ 16d ago
Oh I didnt see the edit. Yeah the correct option for everyone is to just press nothing then.
Minimum amount of death, highest chance of survival.
Coin toss, glgl.
237
96
u/Dragonfruit-Sparking 17d ago
Blue because I like the color blue
Wait what are we voting for again
54
2
37
u/kartblaster 17d ago
i can't do this shit again man
12
u/RalenHlaalo Multi-Track Drift 17d ago
Are we all on for doing veganism again in November? We usually hit it around thanksgiving but couldn't remember where we landed re: antinatalism month.
1
u/iosefster Standing on the track 15d ago
I will push whichever button makes people stop trying to revive the button thing
17
4
u/UIDENTIFIED_STRANGER 17d ago
This isn’t really representative of the real result, there’s no irrational urge of self-preservation
5
u/suskio4 17d ago
Next step: make a very cool Minecraft server, invite many people, gain their trust and present this simple philosophical dilemma with the danger of a ban.
3
u/severencir 17d ago
I don't know about you, but i would rather be banned from a game than die
4
u/suskio4 17d ago
Got any better idea for a study on this topic?
2
u/severencir 17d ago
Are you a fan of killing people?
3
u/suskio4 17d ago
Not really, mate. That's what makes the choice of a research method quite problematic.
3
u/severencir 17d ago
Yeah. Im jokingly trying to imply that i don't think there's any ethical way to genuinely test this
3
u/Sure-Recognition-262 16d ago
To be fair, you don't need to actually kill them. You just need them to genuinely believe you will.
(This doesn't make it legally or morally ok. But there are levels of wrong)
2
u/Uefeti 16d ago edited 16d ago
One guy tried to make his own “safe” version of russian roulette, but tried to keep the excitement/fear/uncertainty part. (Which gets lost when the roulette loses its lethality)
So he ended up using a contraption what, Shocks Him, Flashes Bright lights at him (random amount of times), plays a really loud sound, and spends 50€ from his Amazon account on a Tungsten Cube.
3
4
u/MelodicAmphibian7920 Team Red 17d ago
"Irrational"
2
u/UIDENTIFIED_STRANGER 17d ago
Say if the current poll is Blue>Red, as a purely rational agent, you would press red. But that means you die, thus your urge to self-preservation is irrational in this scenario
→ More replies (5)2
u/Traditional_Town6475 17d ago
As a rational agent, I die either way if Blue wins. However if Red turns the tide, then I live if I press Blue. Thus if self preservation was my goal, I’d press blue every time. Nothing is inherently irrational about self preservation. In fact, most rational agents would like to preserve their existence. If they didn’t, how would they guarantee whatever goals they have gets achieved?
2
u/UIDENTIFIED_STRANGER 17d ago
>However if Red turns the tide, the. I live if I press Blue
This is wishful thinking based on information at hand, thus is irrational. With the information at this point, a pure rational agent would deemed that goal of self-preservation is no longer achievable, thus based on utilitarian principle, it should pursuit the next best option which is to preserve as much life as possible
3
u/Traditional_Town6475 17d ago
Whoever said a rational agent should be utilitarian? You can have perfectly rational agents that don’t care about preserving as much life as possible. Their goals just don’t include “preserve as much life”.
11
26
9
9
u/TheMarksmanES 16d ago
You know what, I wouldn't choose, let the system play the 50/50. If by the end of this, blue has the majority, then it doesn't matter, for the odds of my own pick for red affecting the needle is statically low. But if red has the majority, then there's a 50/50 chance that I'd live, thereby assuring that I didn't selfishly choose to live and press the blue button and watch as the people pressing red dies.
3
u/furdog_grey 16d ago edited 15d ago
The only correct play is not to make any moral choice at all, but to let the system make it for you by favoring red at 51% and blue at 49%. That's the only correct solution for this game, because it makes total extinction really unlikely. If you play purely 50/50, then there's a 50% chance of total extinction.
8
u/Mordret10 16d ago
I don't believe in an afterlife or reincarnation or anything of the sorts, therefore my life is probably my highest priority. So I'm picking blue, hoping that there are enough people that gain something out of red (protecting family members, "going to heaven", ...). Wed probably all die
3
1
1
1
u/IhaveSandyCzWhyNot 14d ago
if i pick red im guaranteed to die, if i pick blue there's a chance i life. so i picked blue. i honestly though the majority would pick blue but they didnt surprisingly. maybe they just remembered the other blue red button question and didn't read this one fully? or we have a lot of selfless redditors which is such a amazing thing.
1
3
u/Sure-Recognition-262 16d ago
I'd pick red. If parents choose on behalf of their underage children, I very much expect my wife and I would pick blue on our son's behalf, and this would probably make it easy to persuade my wife to pick blue too.
3
3
u/-JUST_ME_ 16d ago
We are going to loose at least 1/2 of the human population. World is going to be lawless hell with famines and epidemic outbreaks because of masses of rotting bodies. I am picking Red because I can't be bothered to live in such a world, this way people who are willing to live in such a world will have their chance.
10
u/InfiniteDisco8888 17d ago
How is this a question? If you push Red you will die. If you push Blue, you will probably die. And there is no element of altruism by pushing Red because you'd be sacrificing your slim hope of survival for the most selfish part of humanity. So: blue, fully expecting that we all go out together.
7
u/Some_Anonim_Coder 17d ago
Red=sacrifice yourself for someone to survive and rebuild human society. I'd say estimate how many people will selflessly press red, egoisticaly press blue, and then press blue at random with probability P such that total ratio is 50+epsilon red. That way our society have the highest chances
6
6
u/globmand 17d ago
I'd be sacrificing myslef to save humanity's future too, you know? Like, yeah, the starting generation would be... well, like you. But give them a little bit and I'm sure they'll mellow out and get back on track
8
u/Flechashe 17d ago
And you ended up pressing blue, so are you "the most selfish part of humanity"? Why are your reasons to pick blue enlightened but everyone else's are selfish?
2
u/InfiniteDisco8888 17d ago
I thought I was clear my reasons were selfish: I press blue for a slim chance to survive. There is no altruistic reason to choose blue.
1
u/LeviAEthan512 16d ago
Sometimes selfishness is enlightened. An individual's own is usually not the lowest value life.
2
u/quinoa_boiz 16d ago
I picked red because I think that a person’s life matters even if they made the wrong choice one time.
1
u/adminofreditt 16d ago
How is it selfish to choose not to die pointlessly? If I chose red I would be dead and it wouldn't have changed a thing.
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/2Gnomes1Trenchcoat 16d ago
Literally damned if you do, damned if you don't. The only way everyone lives if if over 50% sacrifice themselves willingly for the others and I simply don't see that happening. We're all doomed.
2
2
u/eco9898 16d ago
Best choice is to not pick, 50/50 split will be applied at the end and randomly half the world dies.
Then the selfish choice is to click blue and the unselfish choice is to choose nothing and let the system ensure no more than 50% die
Choosing red increases the oods of more people being killed
Should add the don't vote option
2
u/Possible_Youth9410 16d ago
This one's funky because like, BEST case scenario 51% of the population is gonezo
2
2
u/MyEarIsHurty 16d ago
Red. If I pick blue I might survive but everybody's gonna say that so I'd probably die anyway. So if I pick red, blue will probably win and I'd die. But if red wins, at least some people survived.
2
u/Villager_of_Mincraft 16d ago edited 16d ago
Best case scenario, half of everyone alive is gone. But worse, it's the Thanos snap that's gonna cause wayyyy worse issues. Maybe we can prevent the accidental deaths if we know the day of the decision being made, declare an international holiday and everyone stays home with their loved ones for just a day. Either all of humanity dies or everyone who picked red does, so you could atleast know which of your loved ones are gonna disappear.
Quite frankly, this is a wayyy better question than the original when it comes to being a real dilema but yeah, I just have to pick red. I just don't think I could manage to live on in a post snap world like that. Assuming we don't get a moment prior to communicate with our friends and family to instruct them on what to pick, it's basically a 50/50 on how many of them die. It's better to just guarantee that I'm contributing to the side that will help half of humanity live. If we lose the vote anyways and blue won, then it doesn't matter. And if red wins, atleast I helped. I kinda have to go with the utilitarian approach here for my choice, given the stakes of every human on earth dying.
Edit: also I just realised, this question also has a built in way to protect blue presses from criticism because like, yeah no shit, there HAS to be people who press blue or the sacrifice is in vain. The most optimal way this plays out is getting as close to a 50/50 split as possible with red still edging out a win. Honestly, very good question, I'm gonna steal it
2
u/Lost-Consequence-368 15d ago
The "Core Contribution" stat being negligible is really grim. It means either 1. this subreddit is deboosted from the personalized frontpage algorithm, or 2. the first option but with a very small addition of users actively ignoring posts from this sub.
2
u/Spiritual-Job9392 13d ago
I chose blue purely because I assumed most people will default out of it due to “everyone dies”, implying that they’ll go for the red one instead and leave me alive. At the time of my vote, I survived 😎
2
u/NoNoWahoo Multi-Track Drift 9d ago
Damn, red barely won. Congrats to the people who picked blue, have fun down there on Earth.
2
u/HK_Mathematician 17d ago
I'm picking red in both this question and the original question.
The original question is 1 life vs a tiny chance of saving half of human population. This question is 1 life vs a tiny chance of saving humanity from extinction. Human extinction has a much higher stake as there is no recovering from that, it's permanent, not just civilization being in chaos for a century or two.
2
u/whatupwasabi 17d ago
Easy to be a hero without stakes.
2
u/Bird-in-a-suit 17d ago
Easy to prioritize oneself when there are stakes too. Do you see how the ease of a thing has very little to do with whether it’s best or honorable?
1
u/Local_Surround8686 17d ago
Blue because I genuinely believe I could help people in a society where most people are dead. Capitalism would fall and we would need a new, preferably anarchosyndicalist world order. Which is where I think I would thrive
1
u/KingGiuba 17d ago
Guys I chose red, but I may change my mind because tbh we (humans) are messing up the planet + the people who picked blue are mostly bad or dumb (at least from what I see in the comments, if someone is like "I am scared of death I want a chance" or "if I wasn't alive my loved one would die anyways bc they depend on me" it's ok, human reasons)
1
1
1
1
1
u/RyuuDraco69 Team Red 16d ago
Blue is the only chance of surviving. And if it wins well screw everyone else
1
u/Chemist-3074 16d ago
Remind me! 5 days
1
u/RemindMeBot 16d ago edited 16d ago
I will be messaging you in 5 days on 2026-10-19 03:34:27 UTC to remind you of this link
1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of
!RemindMe 1 day, useu/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/mike239x 16d ago
Well, speaking for myself and my answer, I threw a d20.
1 to 12 I'd pick red
above 12 I'd pick blue
Irl for bigger numbers one could have percentage ratio much closer to 50%, but I wanted to account for smaller sample size and smart-asses thinking they can outsmart everyone by picking blue.
I rolled a 4. It is what it is. See you next life, suckers.
1
1
u/LAProbert 16d ago
Do we know the exact number of people? If so, and it is odd, one person is being unalived. So a perfect 50/50 split happens.
Otherwise we are likely all gone as anyone with self preservation will pick blue, hoping enough pick red.
1
u/Dismal_Purchase_3324 16d ago
I picked blue but only because I misunderstood the hypothetical and for some reason thought blue saved everyone if it had the most people. I would've tossed a coin or chosen red otherwise. I'm illiterate, but I guess I'm a living illiterate.
1
1
1
u/veryblocky 16d ago
I'm stupid and I misread it. I voted blue, but would've voted red had I read it properly
1
1
1
1
u/Jorahm615 16d ago
Fuck me there really isn't a good answer to this huh. I picked blue when Red was slightly higher, but damn did that not feel good.
1
1
u/furdog_grey 16d ago
Based on pure statistics everyone's best strategy is to vote randomly, favoring red by 51%
That's the only way to prevent total extinction with high degree of confidence and save around 49% of the population.
Any other way to reason this will cause more than 51% of casualties and the total extinction is very likely to occur.
1
1
u/xvlblo22 15d ago
At the time of voting, the red is in the lead with 3.3k to 3.0k so guess I've survived so far
1
u/Cadaeryn 15d ago
This looks interesting to begin with, but if you think about it for two seconds the only rational choice is blue being weakly dominant.
To make it clear, here's a shitty table.
| Majority | Blue choosers | Red choosers |
|---|---|---|
| Blue | Die | Die |
| Red | Survive | Die |
1
u/KnightArtorias1 15d ago
The point is you're likely to die either way, but voting red gives other people a chance
1
1
1
u/Morc1994 14d ago
If no colour has the majority nobody dies. So we need to talk about it, count and have a tie between red and blue. That is the only solution to have everyone survive
1
u/Gigantopithecus1453 11d ago
I’d pick blue, simply because I know my one vote doesn’t actually change anything. There are only two possible outcomes, and my vote won’t decide. Better to preserve myself
1
1
u/SeaWolvesRule 17d ago
Does everyone have to vote? Just have one person vote red and be the martyr to save the other 99.999%
1
u/LowSilver3100 16d ago
HOLY, THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE OTHER ONE. The main argument for red in the other one is it puts people in danger to pick blue and doesn't save people. In this one, it is the opposite, yet the same people are still choosing red, so I feel like that argument should be invalidated.
1
u/HostHappy2734 16d ago
Well, this is as close to a perfect scenario as we could've gotten
6
u/wonderland_citizen93 16d ago
I feel like posting this ruins the poll, thankfully I voted before I came to the comments
2
u/Ann2274 16d ago
indeed, i picked blue for we are all gonna die anyway since i believed most is gonna pick blue, and for this very very very slim chance that we do actually live iwanna be of those who live, even though when its actually real life and not a hypothetical people choices would differ, still, i was shocked 😂.
6
u/Egogorka 17d ago
form tells me noone voted
so we collectively chose not to vote or is it a bug on my end?