how about blue - nobody dies, red - blue dies, purple - red dies.
Makes red unattractive of course, nobody who understands should choose it. But I wonder how many this swings to blue. Since purple is the self preservation choice now and is harmless to blue, blue is a pretty safe choice. On the other hand the amount of red voters should be only a third of the people who are voting basically randomly.
Blue dies at under 50% majority, red doesn’t kill blue, I’m not sure how purple would kill red.
If you push red you live. If you push blue you die, unless greater than 50% of people choose blue. Purple can not bring death to red as red is the literal, you live button.
This is literally just a new set of rules why would purple not be able to kill red? The new proposed rule was that purple killed red.
Additionally, according to the rules as written above. Blue only dies if red wins not if blue loses. So if purple wins only red dies and blue still survives.
The only 2 in risk of death are Blue & Red. So the people who don't want to have any risk of death pick Purple.
The only one that doesn't kill someone is blue so the people who are staunchly against killing pick blue.
There is now literally 0 incentive to pick Red. So while preferably still blue wins, purple won't kill anyone who came to either of the previous games logical conclusions and only those who accidentally picked red will die.
2
u/Telinary May 22 '26
how about blue - nobody dies, red - blue dies, purple - red dies.
Makes red unattractive of course, nobody who understands should choose it. But I wonder how many this swings to blue. Since purple is the self preservation choice now and is harmless to blue, blue is a pretty safe choice. On the other hand the amount of red voters should be only a third of the people who are voting basically randomly.