u/ParableOfTheVase

Let's say everyone is gonna play a game. It's just a game, no one's gonna die. The game is simple:

You push a red or blue button, votes are tallied, you may receive penality points as follows:

• if a blue majority is created, there are no penalty points.
• if a blue minority is created, you get penality points based on the number of blue votes.

Everyone's goal is to vote so that you get the minimum number of penality points, without communications.

Let's say people really really don't like even a single penality point. What would you vote?

edit:

I think I should have been more clear as to what I wanted to do. A wanted a variation where survival is removed, but also personal incentives as well. I understand this isn't the same as the original, but the functionalities of the button is kept the same.

So which button do you press to minimize penalty points? Is it the same or different from the original? what's your pick and what do you think the results will be?

I was discussing on this sub, and I felt someone brought up a fair point. In a lot of previous reframes, red is assumed safe due to their own actions. But agree or not, it can be argued based on the original wording that if red loses the vote, it is actually the blue button that protects red. So let's try to frame this.

Here's the scenario:

A worthless building is burning down. Nobody cares about the building, only the people inside.

Red: You go for the exit

• if >50%, the exit opens.
• if <50%, the exit is locked and reds are locked in, but you're still safe because there are now enough blues to fight the fire.

Blue: You stay and fight the fire

• if >50%, the fire goes out. Since <50% went red, exit is locked and they are stuck inside, but they survive because the fire is out.
• if <50%, blues will not survive, but since >50% went red, the exit is open and they can leave and are safe.

Edit:

In the original wordings, how red survives is kinda left out in the open. Reds think it's a perk of the red button while blues think it's an extension of the blue button. As a red presser I have to admit that on closer look blue's interpretation seems more technically correct. That's why my reframe is deliberately "blue saves everyone", as a counterpoint to most other reframes I've seen.

Here's the original wording:

>If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive.

:Edit end.

Do you think this is a fairer reframe? Why or why not?

Here's the scenario:

You and only you are forced to push either a red button or a blue button, which will decide a fate for all mankind.

Red button: 20% of the population dies.

or

Blue button: A coin is flipped.

• Heads: Everyone, including the original 20%, lives.
• Tails: The original 20% dies anyway, and on top an additional 20% dies.

You are guaranteed to live either way. Which button do you push?

Edit: I realize the scenarios are not the same, but did you choose the same color in the original scenario?

Ok, we all know the standard button scenario. But what if the risk of personal safety to you (and only you, nobody else on Earth) is transferred to someone else?

The scenario is, you and only you are no longer part of the game, but one random stranger has ceded their vote to you. You may tell them to vote red or blue at no risk to yourself, the random stranger assumes the consequence of you action. This only applies to you and no one else; every other person on Earth plays under the standard rules.

Do you change your vote and why.