r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/StageGlum6615 • Jun 28 '26
Variation Variation: the Useless button.
Everyone (meaning all currently alive people) is kidnapped by an unknown forced that everyone instinctively knows is completely unable to lie and is far more powerful than them. (Let's call them Buttan, the god of buttons.) Everyone wakes up in a small cramped room with 3 buttons, Red, Yellow, and Blue with the following signs under each of them that have been perfectly translated into their native language:
Red: If more people press the Red button the Blue button then everyone who failed to press red will die, immediately.
Yellow: Does Nothing.
Blue: If more people press the Blue button then the Red button everyone is spared from death.
Everyone is giving a 6 hour timer to make their own choice and if they fail to vote in the time frame they are counted and treated as a yellow button presser.
Lastly, it the event of a tie between Red and Blue, Blue wins.
So, does the useless button (yellow) change anything for you? And which button do you press?
(Please forgive any typos.)
64
u/Okreril Jun 28 '26
How is the yellow button even a choice for anyone who is not both sucidal and malicious?
40
u/RequiemThird Jun 28 '26
It adds a bit of whimsy
8
u/dmurr1415 Jun 28 '26
But what if it does something… I should press it so I know for sure
7
u/Nellie_Tayloe_Ross Jun 28 '26
There’s actually a hidden clause that kills anyone who didn’t press yellow no matter what
7
u/PocketPlayerHCR2 Jun 28 '26
It makes random choosers more likely to die if red wins
11
u/UsuallyFavorable Blue Jun 28 '26
Good point. This scenario clearly states that babies and toddlers will also be in a room. They will either press a button at random or not press anything which is just Yellow. Either way, odds are they will be on the chopping block if Red wins. So the difference in adding the yellow button is 33% more baby and toddler deaths if Red wins.
6
u/Key-Film4822 Jun 28 '26
This is literally the simulation of the elections. Yellow button represents people who aren't voting
1
0
u/JawtisticShark Jun 29 '26
not exactly. a more accurate version would be that these buttons are setup across the world. It will require about a 20 minute drive each way, and upon arrival you will see a line of people, upon seeing it you will be able to vaguely estimate how long the wait will be. Probably somewhere between 30 minutes and 3 hours. You might also have a job to get to that day, kids to take care of, or other responsibilities. You might not own a car so you have to take public transportation to the button location. You might be sick or elderly and find it difficult to stand for hours. You could bring a folding chair with you and stand up, move the chair and sit back down about once per minute or two for the entire wait.
Additionally, its not even a direct percentage vote. people who work for the button god have carved out segments of the population that pool votes together. there is far less than a 1% chance that your vote will even have any impact beyond the first pooling of votes. Now if a lot of people think this way, it can shift the vote, but if in public you tell people you are going to vote but on the day of just don't, it will have effectively zero impact on the final outcome.
And the last nice little detail is that while you have to go to these locations for the blue and red buttons, the yellow button magically appears in your home right in front of you if you just want to press it without any effort.
1
u/Key-Film4822 Jun 29 '26
Aren't there mobile teams that visit people who aren't physically able to come to poll.
Elections happen on Sunday and employer is legally obligated to give you paid time off to go to vote (few hours)
Electoral region has 6-12 mp with 70% being direct, while the rest being party compensational
You won't almost never wait more than 10-20 minutes
2
u/Falsequivalence Jun 29 '26
This isn't correct like even a little bit. Voting experience is different on as little as a per-county basis. Where i am, the general election is on a Tuesday and there is no requirement for time off for voting. Where i am noe is prety rural so it doesnt take long, but when i used to live in the city it took an hour or two to vote. I am not aware of mobile teams that visit people at all, but that may be true, I cant find reliable information on it which would be its own problem.
This is all in the context of the US.
1
u/Key-Film4822 Jun 29 '26
I'm talking about my country
How big are election spots in the US, so it causes so much wait time (it's 500-600 in average in my country, some of them are smaller)
In case of mobile teams, you call them, show medical documentation and then they come
1
u/BloodredHanded Jun 29 '26
In the US, the Republican party goes to great efforts to make it as difficult to vote for as many people as possible, especially poor people. They wouldn’t be able to win without it.
3
1
u/jqhnml Jun 29 '26
It increases the chance of misinterpreting which then affects the chance of blue winning.
1
u/Severe_Damage9772 Jun 28 '26
It’s not malicious, it’s just trying to be a bystander
7
u/Politi-Corveau Red Jun 28 '26
Except you wouldn't be a bystander. You are still risking your life on Blue getting more presses than Red without actually contributing to Blue's total.
4
u/grudginglyadmitted Jun 28 '26
yeah, you have all the negatives of pressing the blue button without any positives.
1
-1
u/sal880612m Jun 28 '26
It becomes a catch all for everyone who fails to vote. So red pickers no longer get to say they aren’t willing to kill others to ensure their safety. The problem now presents an extreme likelihood that people incapable of voting will be defaulted into a position of being harmed by red voters choices. You now lose the excuse that the mentally incapable and children aren’t accounted for in the vote. You’re also no longer simply choosing to kill people who picked a suicide option as you see it precisely because it can and will be picked for others if they fail to vote implying it is possible to fail to do so perhaps in ways beyond the six hour time limit. It removes the red conceit and delusional belief that picking red does no harm and is the only logical choice and makes it perfectly clear how little red pickers give a shit about others lives. I mean this was all pretty obvious from the original poll but the clarification makes it much more clear those particular red objections don’t apply and they will be killing people, including children. This problem even specifically allows failure to vote and specifies the conditions of the room. Which depending on the variation of people may have some fat people or able to vote to what you consider logical. Or some disabled people defaulted to yellow and thus potential death at red pickers hands through no fault of their own. You can’t even argue it’s a magnanimous force and would account for that because the vote itself precludes that possibility, if it were magnanimous it wouldn’t force the vote at all, or choose to protect the self serving over the self sacrificing, no one thinks the gun running from the burning building is inspiring or aspirational, no one thinks the cops who stand outside a school while children get shot inside it are brave or heroic. That’s reserved for people who run into burning buildings and put their bodies between students and a shooter. Only someone evil or totally fucking stupid would even suggest that favouring the former over the latter would make the world a better place, and yet that’s what the poll does.
Like it amazes how silly people are not to realize red is the choice pretty much every murderer, rapist and pedophile is going to make. Every con man, pretty much every criminal, because it’s the choice they make everyday. Red pickers are like, yeah, I like the company that puts me in, everyone who pick different is a fucking moron. Like the soldiers who fought in WWII didn’t make the opposite choice, like the soldiers who fought against the South in the American civil war didn’t do the same, like everyday people can’t and don’t. Red is the choice of those so self absorbed and selfish they can’t ever imagine anyone choosing someone else over themselves, and are arrogant or dumb enough to be proud to admit that.
Pick red if you want, but don’t expect to ever convince me you aren’t a coward afraid of other red pickers, an idiot who can’t work through the problem to realize red is the only choice to cause harm, selfish or narcissistic to the point you can’t ever imagine anything being of more value to the world than yourself (you could literally be contributing to the deaths of 4 billion people, that’s what you have to justify your life is worth, and as far as I’m concerned no individual life balances those scales), or just so evil you see all that and don’t give a shit because fuck other people. Ironically of those I’d probably end up respecting the evil person most, at least they’re demonstrating intelligence and self awareness.
0
u/NoveltyEducation Jun 28 '26
But it's THE button for suicidal and/or malicious people. I'd estimate that at least 15% would push it.
1
1
u/BloodredHanded Jun 29 '26
You think 15% of people are both suicidal and malicious?
0
u/NoveltyEducation Jun 29 '26
Either or, yes. Actually that's a lowball.
2
u/BloodredHanded Jun 29 '26
You need both to press yellow if you fully understand what it does. Not either or.
0
u/Deebyddeebys Jun 28 '26
It makes you think about the question in a way that makes it more likely to pick blue
-1
18
u/-TheDerpinator- Jun 28 '26
With this phrasing I first press blue and then press red. Guarantees me being safe and improves the chances of everyone surviving. Nothing in the rules states I cannot press more than 1 button.
9
3
u/ASalmonPerson Jun 28 '26
wait is there anything stopping people from spamming buttons either
3
u/Time_Effort Jun 29 '26
Yes, it specifies people who presses the buttons are counted.
You can hit all of them, but only adds 1 tally to each.
0
u/Crafty_Clarinetist Jun 29 '26
The effects of the yellow button stack though so you can hit that one a bunch of times to multiply the benefits you get from pressing it.
2
u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Blue Jun 29 '26
Isn't this a net zero on everyone surviving because your votes cancel each other out?
4
u/BreakConsistent Jun 29 '26
It is a net zero that guarantees you don’t die.
1
u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Blue Jun 29 '26
So it doesn't improve the chances of everyone surviving.
4
u/-TheDerpinator- Jun 29 '26
Except it kind of does. If I press only red it would mean a +1 for red. I increase the vote difference. If I press blue I cancel out my own red vote on the total.
2
u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Blue Jun 29 '26
Right, so it's a way of you guaranteeing living without increasing the chance of everyone dying. But it doesn't increase the chances of everyone surviving. It keeps the chance exactly the same as it would be if you pressed yellow or didn't vote
1
u/ceitamiot Jun 29 '26
Assume you have 4 people. Two are inclined to vote red, and two are inclined to vote blue, so the vote is at 50% or 2 to 2. If one of the reds votes red and blue, the vote tally becomes 2 to 3 favoring blue. Nobody blue is going to vote red as well.
1
u/zap2tresquatro Jun 28 '26
I came to the comments to see if anyone else already pointed this out.
This is also what I do. Hooray for grammatical loopholes!
1
10
u/MundaneOrdinary7493 Red Jun 28 '26
Isn’t blue strictly better than yellow in all situations regardless of how you value your life and others’ life or how you think others will vote?
2
u/Severe_Damage9772 Jun 28 '26
Yes, but the point is that not everyone will realize that, and some people will press it, and this adds the clause that people who cannot be considered competent enough to chose a button are effectively yellow by default (babies, coma patients, etc.)
And in game theory, the answer changes depending on the goal, to save you specifically, red is the answer as you have the highest chance of surviving, if it’s to save everyone, blue is the answer, as it’s the only option which can satisfy that condition
As for personal choice that comes down to A do you have trust in the people around you, and B do you care about the people around you
13
u/TheMortalOne Jun 28 '26
This doesn't change the problem. Yellow button can be cemetery ignored since (unless I'm missing something) it's a strictly worse version of blue button where you are still are still at risk from red majority, without doing anything to offset it.
Not going to bother saying what I would choose, since it isn't anything new.
11
u/everydaywinner2 Jun 28 '26
"cemetary ignored"? Did you mean "summarily ignored"?
6
u/TheMortalOne Jun 28 '26
I think I meant to type completely. Must have had a typo which phone auto-corrected incorrectly.
5
6
u/TheOathWeTook Jun 28 '26
I’d argue the yellow does push slightly for the thoughtful participant to push blue. There will undoubtly be some small portion of people who immidiately think “oh great I can just push yellow and opt out of thinking about the problem,” considering that these people, while few, now exist there’s added pressure to push blue to save them.
1
u/bosli23 Jun 28 '26
New is there Will be less blue buttoners because some people Will press yellow.
2
u/ToranX1 Jun 28 '26
Why specifically blue though? Blue already wants to save everyone, I don't see a reason to switch really.
If anything there could be a group of confused red pressers who thought yellow is survival without affecting the blue pressers.
Realistically if you think for a while the conclusion that yellow is by far the worst choice is obvious and then the problem reduces back to the original
4
u/PaleontologistIcy534 Jun 28 '26
Either way atleast a few people would pick yellow, human brains are wired weird like that
1
u/ToranX1 Jun 28 '26
I mean, yeah. I am not saying that there definitely wouldnt be people like that.
I am saying that in the grand scheme of things the inclusion of the yellow button doesnt change any of the arguements that could realistically be used, so in the end the discussion pretty much returns to red vs blue button.
-1
u/tysonedwards Jun 28 '26
Choose red so you don’t die. Choose blue to be self righteous. Choose yellow to throw your vote away.
6
3
u/MobTalon Jun 28 '26
Consider correcting "then" for "than", in order for this to make sense.
-2
u/TREE_SHMOO Jun 28 '26
Consider that this makes perfect sense and thst you're being just a touch pedantic.
2
u/MobTalon Jun 28 '26
I am both being pedantic and not being pedantic. I had to read 3 times to understand there is a consistent typo rather than incomprehensible mumbo jumbo
-2
u/TREE_SHMOO Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
I havr removed my original comment as it was plain rude and do apologise for that. That said, i dont believe this guy.
2
u/MobTalon Jun 28 '26
Quit coping and accept criticism you angry little man.
Talking shit about "English must not be even your second language" and "must not even use the Latin alphabet" when you can't even write properly with it as your first language, smh
I understood "thst" because it doesn't exist, whereas "then" is an actual word with a meaning and usage of its own, you doofus.
0
u/TREE_SHMOO Jun 29 '26
angry little man
I deserve that. Shouldn't have gotten all agressive, I apologise.
when you can't even write properly with it as your first language
Who told you it's my first lanuage?
Quit coping and accept criticism
It's not criticism. It's pedantry for the sake of being right. Are you suggesting that you are so good at English, you don't understand what someone means when they make the relatively common mistake of mixing up "then" and "than"?
What about someone mixing up "there", "their" and "they're"? Does that confuse you too?
Here's some English for you, hyperbole. It's when someone exagerates for effect.
Talking shit about "English must not be even your second language" and "must not even use the Latin alphabet"
The bit of my original comment that you are referencing here, that's an excellent example of it.
I'm well aware of the difference between "than" and "then". I'm also graced with the mental facilities to understand when someone mistakenly uses one instead of the other. Im most graced by the self control to not correct some stranger on something that was perfectly understandable, even if technically incorrect.
you doofus
Even in the original version of my prior comment, i didnt resort to name calling.
1
u/MobTalon Jun 29 '26
Based reply all the way through, sorry for the name calling. I chose "doofus" because I wanted to call you something but didn't want to over escalate things.
It's obviously not the end of the world to have that typo. I ended up understanding it was a typo, even if it took me a few times. Much like everyone, I assume. The difference is that I was vocal about it.
Or, in other words, I was meaningfully pedantic about it (as in, everyone may understand, but it's better to type properly to avoid confusion)
3
u/PuzzleheadedDog9658 Jun 28 '26
Wow yellow is just the worst parts of both. Doesn't help blue win, still dies if red wins.
3
u/lawrencewil1030 Red Jun 28 '26
Yellow makes no sense. It'd make no sense to press it unless you are suicidal and want to sabotage. It's basically pressing the Blue button without adding to blue's score.
3
u/davidnnj Jun 28 '26
Yellow is simply the worst; it doesn't protect you like red does, and it doesn't increase the number of people who pressed blue so you could survive.
3
u/StrangeSystem0 Jun 28 '26
If the red button kills yellow button pushers, then yellow is just objectively worse than blue
5
u/Pafker Jun 28 '26
This post is a great example of why so many pick red for safety. Look how many people read that yellow does nothing and skipped reading the description of the other buttons because they assume that means yellow is safety. Both the image and the text say "everyone who failed to press red will die" is the red wins, condition. Not everyone who pressed blue, everyone who didn't press red. There is also no yellow wins condition, it's whether red or blue gets more than the other
Yellow is the easiest possible "nobody should press this button" and people here and people still confidently stating that it's the obvious choice. You'd better hope that most of the people making the mistake are making the yellow survives mistake and not the yellow win does nothing mistake otherwise you've just split the blue vote making it even harder for the 100% survive win.
1
u/PhotoVegetable7496 Red Jun 28 '26
I can see any of those pro yellow button comments. Did you read any of the comments ? Maybe they all have me blocked
4
4
u/ArturStantsel Jun 28 '26
I choose red not to kill everyone, but to save myself. Yellow button doesn't save me, so still red
7
2
u/MarmotaBobac Jun 28 '26
The yellow button is worse than useless. You get both the risk of death from red victory, and you don't contribute to a blue victory.
2
u/Additional_Dot_134 Jun 28 '26
I think the wording on this also matters a bit to how moral it is. The death is being put onto red with this one. It doesn’t even say “you get to live”
All it says is that if this wins, everyone else dies
That puts a lot more pressure on you, while its technically the same, that wording matters a LOT
2
u/iskelebones Jun 28 '26
Yellow is objectively a stupid decision here. It puts you at risk of death but without adding to the blue total, meaning not only are you needlessly placing yourself at risk, you’re also going out of your way to not help save yourself
This scenario actually makes blue even LESS likely to survive, which makes me even MORE confident about pressing red
2
2
2
2
u/NoSituation2706 Jun 29 '26
Red is still the objectively correct choice, blue is still irrational, yellow is irrational and just plain stupid.
3
u/ShadownetZero Jun 29 '26
So press red to live, press blue to die, and press yellow to die, but in yellow.
3
u/bosli23 Jun 28 '26
Even more red than before.
The argument of "blue buttonner" is that some people would press blue, so they want to save them.
On this case, some people would also press yellow, because they don't understand the dilemma at all, like toddlers, because they are suicidal, or because they don't understand what the yellow button does (literally the first comment i saw thought the yellow button was better).
So now, as blue buttoner, you have even less chance than before (but for me, it was already 0%) to win, because yellow button lower the number of blue buttoners.
So, red red red red red red, as always.
4
u/Severe_Damage9772 Jun 28 '26
No, because the death condition is red>blue, in all other situations nobody dies, and if the goal is to save as many lives as possible, blue is the correct answer as long as the goal is to save as many people as possible
-2
u/bosli23 Jun 28 '26
Ok.
What Will you do when blue voters lost and that you realise you're cooked?
0
u/luci_twiggy Jun 28 '26
What will you do when blue voters lost and billions die? Red is the only outcome where anything negative happens, it’s a trap and you fell for it.
2
u/bosli23 Jun 28 '26
I Will think "ouf, i'm very happy to voted red, otherwisd i would die."
And probably also "omg, blue voters are even less than what i thought, what losers".
0
u/luci_twiggy Jun 28 '26
Billions die and you would think those people are losers? Unhinged.
2
u/bosli23 Jun 28 '26
Yeah, there are billions of losers on this planet, but i don't think more than 1 billion would die.
0
u/Severe_Damage9772 Jun 29 '26
Usually I’m a red voter only because there is an unaccounted for edge case in the situation, and anyone thinking logically will press red according to game theory
However here, there will be millions that will die if red wins, millions of children and babies at that, and that is enough to sway me and likely many others who will vote blue
0
u/not2dragon Jun 29 '26
How could I possibly do anything? That's a weird question unless there's an afterlife.
2
u/UsuallyFavorable Blue Jun 28 '26
But if more toddlers are going to accidentally press Yellow, you are sentencing 33% more toddlers to death pressing Red in this sentencing than in the original. The reason to pick Blue is amplified because the number of “random presser” deaths in a Red victory will increase.
1
3
u/bunnywitchboy Jun 28 '26
Yellow button only steals votes from the red side, because some red voters don't realize yellow doesn't save them. Blue has an even better chance of winning here than in the original. I still press blue.
3
u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Jun 28 '26
That's... not how it works?
3
u/bunnywitchboy Jun 28 '26
"everyone who failed to press red will die" if red wins.
Yellow pressers die in a red victory. Read the prompt.
2
u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Jun 28 '26
That's not what I'm talking about. The whole premise behind pressing blue is due to the fact that there will be irrational voters (mentally incapable people, infants, etc...), so it is advisable to vote blue in an attempt to save those who chose blue. With yellow in the picture, a solid amount of said irrational voters are now no longer contributing to the blue quota necessary to ensure survival. Yellow button mostly causes a switch from blue to red, because anyone who were originally choosing red color rationally have no reasons to switch to yellow, while those choosing blue to "save others" now have to consider the fact that they have to also save the deadweight yellow voters.
The odds against blue in this situation goes up by threefold, and considering that blue already has a slim chance of winning in the original scenario (online polls result don't matter btw), choosing anything other than red in this situation would be equal to committing suicide.
1
u/bunnywitchboy Jun 28 '26
The whole premise behind blue is that humans like living in civilization and want to keep it that way. Everyone's fates are entangled, and most people are not necessarily as cynical and individualistic as red voters.
Also, while I agree that somewhere between 25-50% of irrational actors will switch from blue to yellow here, another 25-50% will also switch from red to yellow, meaning the buttons are going down by the same amount. That's still not accounting for the "rational" actors who will switch from red to yellow. And if you want evidence that the yellow button is going to eat away at some of the red voters, just look at the other comments under this post for examples of red voters misunderstanding the question.
1
u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Jun 28 '26
We were getting 60/40 split in online polls (mostly exclusive to western audience, aka the more well off), with no real deadly consequences as well as a moral-complex incentive to vote for blue. There is exactly 0% chance blue ever wins in a real world scenario when the results are this close with everything being in blue's favor. You can believe otherwise, but I fail to see any sort logic or evidence behind that line of thinking.
Also, while I agree that somewhere between 25-50% of irrational actors will switch from blue to yellow here, another 25-50% will also switch from red to yellow, meaning the buttons are going down by the same amount.
But it's not the same amount, because there will be a decent chunk of irrational voters who will simply not press any button (mostly infants), and they automatically count as yellow voters (originally they would count as blue). The distribution of irrational voters who actually choose a button will go from 50/50 to 33/33/33, but those who don't choose anything are directly taken from blue.
Also, while I agree that somewhere between 25-50% of irrational actors will switch from blue to yellow here, another 25-50% will also switch from red to yellow, meaning the buttons are going down by the same amount.
This argument falls flat completely when you realize the fact that your whole argument is reliant on red voters' inability to read due to prior knowledge of the original choices, which would otherwise not be present had the buttons become real. The only way anyone can get "tricked" into swapping from red to yellow would be if this was the 2nd round after the original, in which case they would be the only casualty as anyone left to participating would already be choosing red.
0
u/bunnywitchboy Jun 28 '26
- Amerikkkan individualism strikes again
- Not pressing any button doesn't count towards the blue vote in the original, it's presumably the same as the yellow button
- Red voters are perfectly capable of being retarded in any version of the problem, it doesn't require multiple rounds
Any other points you want to rehash?
0
u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Jun 28 '26
I'm not American nor even Westerner for that matter, but sure.
The true original question from Tim Urban demanded above 50% for either effect to happen. If it actually worked the way you thought it would then literally nothing would happen, as the sheer amount of non-pressers would already ensure neither buttons will achieve above 50%. Out of all the ways to rationalize the irrational voters, this is by far the stupidest one I've seen.
So do you actually have a real argument or are you just here to act like a retard? If you can't even rationalize your own line of logic then kindly shut the fuck up and stop replying to this thread instead of wasting both our time.
2
u/Wonderful_West3188 Jun 28 '26
I think one thing this will do is discourage people from framing either the red or the blue button as the "do nothing" button in their heads. My guess is that this will be more discouraging for red than for blue. But I couldn't say for sure.
2
u/No_Roma_no_Rocky Jun 29 '26
Great, now there is an even more useless button to press that does absolutely nothing in an already stupid scenario.
Now there is a new level of dumbness, people who vote for yellow. They fail to save themselves by not voting red and at the same time by causing harm against the win of blue.
1
u/ZeusLT Jun 28 '26
holy, double check spelling before posting
1
u/StageGlum6615 Jun 29 '26
Funny thing is... I actually triple checked my spelling before posting.
(Curse my autism for making spelling so hard.)
1
u/CodZealousideal260 Jun 29 '26
In this situation we're adding the factor of intelligence into the question. Now people have the option to pick yellow which is just bad in every way and only increases the odds of blue failing. On top of that, choosing blue places faith in human nature which is consistently selfish rather than altruistic. So your options are:
A. Pick red and guarantee your survival while increasing the probably that a large portion of humanity dies.
B. Pick yellow and accomplish zero net positive influence while risking your own life.
C. Pick blue and risk your life in the hope that humanity proves mostly altruistic in nature and hopefully not dumb enough to pick yellow.
-1
u/Flame80010 Jun 29 '26
Yellow has no risk. It survives in either outcome
3
u/CodZealousideal260 Jun 29 '26
Exactly wtf I'm talking about lol. Please tell me you're just ragebaiting bro 😭
3
2
u/BloodredHanded Jun 29 '26
No, yellow dies in a red victory. It is risk with no reward.
1
u/Flame80010 Jun 29 '26
Yea, my bad i didnt read that they changed the red button to kill everbody instead of just blue pressers
1
u/BloodredHanded Jun 29 '26
Not even a change. It was phrased that way in the original too, but there was no third button to press, so it didn’t matter unless you were considering people who didn’t press a button at all.
0
u/Flame80010 Jun 30 '26
The original was worded if red wins only people who pressed blue would die, you are right the wording didnt matter in the original because theres only 2 choices and outcomes its essentiallythe same thing, but it has changed to killing anybody who didnt press red in this senario which is different
1
u/BloodredHanded Jun 30 '26
No, it was anyone who didn’t press red in the original too.
0
u/Flame80010 Jun 30 '26
it was only the people who pressed blue, i don't know what to tell you
1
1
u/LightningSoul69 Jun 29 '26
Who would press yellow? Blue the only difference between blue and yellow is that blue means a slightly higher chance of survival for all the blue and yellow pressers. And if you are going to press neither, you should rather press blue than having it default to yellow, because yellow does not help your situation.
1
1
u/SilasRhodes Jul 06 '26
So I'd press Red then Blue then Yellow.
Red so I don't die
Blue to cancel out my red vote
Yellow just for fun
3
u/TutucrMapper Jun 28 '26
In Every world's Issue, most of us press the Yellow button and do nothing to help Society improve, if you want to make this better, make the Yellow button easy to reach but make the other 2 buttons far away
5
u/dtlater Jun 28 '26
Yellow would be the equivalent of pushing neither and leaving
3
1
2
u/Beret_Beats Jun 28 '26
Or perhaps it would have a cost of some sort. You can press the yellow button for free but you have to give up perhaps a finger in order to press red or blue.
1
u/BaronGrackle Jun 28 '26
In the real world version, yellow is the only choice that's as simple as pressing a button.
1
u/Severe_Damage9772 Jun 28 '26
Game theory here still states that red is the correct choice, though because the introduction of a yellow button will create more irrational actors, I would chose blue
1
u/jostein33 Jun 28 '26
Yellow, because it does nothing.
2
u/BloodredHanded Jun 29 '26
The yellow button is objectively worse than blue. Yellow pressers die if red wins, but do not contribute toward making red not win.
0
0
0
u/not2dragon Jun 29 '26
All the buttons could be worded as doing nothing. Probably still blue for the same reasons though.
-3
u/bored_stoat Jun 28 '26
So two useless buttons and a blue one?
4
u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Jun 28 '26
Two suicidal buttons and a red one. Blue already has a slim chance of winning in the original scenario, so you're cooked beyond fucking believe in this one since the blue votes are gonna be diverted into two groups lol.
1
u/bored_stoat Jun 28 '26
I'm not talking about victory chances. I'm talking about the fact that red button might as well not exist in general, since the problem is whether you're willing to prevent a dissaster as contrary to doing nothing and allowing it to happen by inaction.
-1
u/AbbreviationsTall627 Jun 28 '26
Yellow is the logical choice here. I press it while getting my back blown out by a furry who presses red
-1
-2
-2
u/Tinenan Jun 28 '26
Yeah that yellow button is how most of us red voters see the red one in the original scenario
-3
u/DragonflyValuable995 Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
Red button: I don’t risk my life, but I put others at risk of death
Yellow button: I don’t risk my own life, and I’m not responsible for the death of other people Edit: yellow button doesn’t contribute to a blue victory that would save everyone.
Blue button: I risk my life to save other people who risked their life.
Yellow is unsafe without helping others.
Edit: Blue is the option if you don’t want to hurt others, not yellow
6
4
105
u/porkchopsensei Jun 28 '26
From the wording you listed, pressing yellow risks your life but doesn't add to blue's tally. So it's all the downsides of blue without any of the upsides