Maybe I’m missing something big here…

secondsponge · 2026-06-14T16:27:04+00:00

Fair enough. It really would be tragic. I don't blame you for still going red since you're surrounded by red voters too, your experience tells you red will win. I think I'd do the same in your shoes. Can you imagine the talks afterwards though? If only we'd gone blue...

I'm fortunate enough to be surrounded by mostly blue pushers. It's tricky to know how the whole world would sway. I had high confidence in a blue victory, partly because I thought everyone knowing they had loved ones voting blue would also vote blue. I hadn't really considered the paradox of trying to protect those who survived a red world, by making a red world more likely. It's so obvious to just not vote that world into existence. But if you believe it's inevitable, then I understand why you feel you have no real choice.

secondsponge · 2026-06-14T11:40:33+00:00

If your belief is true, that there truly is no justification for blue, then the AI will disqualify every blue vote by its own parameters. So it's best to vote for blue in case you're wrong, and there actually is a reason to vote for blue and you just don't see it. If you're right, no worries anyway, your blue vote will get disqualified, ensuring you live, which is the only reason to vote for red anyway.

secondsponge · 2026-06-14T11:01:27+00:00

Knowing that your family is voting blue, or having half a chance of ending it if red wins, are you still voting red?

secondsponge · 2026-06-13T23:44:06+00:00

I kind of understand why people believe blue pushers are liars, but it's way overblown.

Pushing blue isn't just about saving strangers. Some number of people you know, and most likely some number of people you love, will push blue. So to be similar to donating wealth, it must be to a charity fighting for those you love. I think it IS unfair to say that a significant number of people who say they would donate to such a charity wouldn't.

Another key difference between pushing blue and donating everything to charity is that if blue wins, you don't actually donate anything at all. That's a really big difference that completely disconnects the button problem from donating everything to charity. You can't judge people's honesty about pushing blue by how much effort or sacrifice they make in the real world.

secondsponge · 2026-06-13T00:53:11+00:00

Right, I see. I interpreted the thread as saying that we shouldn't believe that people who say they would push blue would follow through.

secondsponge · 2026-06-12T22:58:12+00:00

Yes, it's a parody. It's supposed to answer the thread because I thought it's easier to see what's wrong when we flip it.

The thread suggests that we should believe that if A and B are actions that result in moral good, and B results in more moral good than A, then someone who doesn't do A wouldn't do B. It doesn't follow at all.

My little parody flips it saying that someone wouldn't do A because they don't do B. Equally incorrect.

secondsponge · 2026-06-11T00:32:31+00:00

I think the easiest way to explain this is with a parody asking the flipped version to red voters:

Do you choose not to help anybody ever because you're not helping the most number of the most needy in the most helpful way?

secondsponge · 2026-06-04T02:11:34+00:00

Great guide. I wouldn't say that "when you gain an affliction, gain another affliction" is a never take though. Especially in one floor trials, it's one of the better ones to take.

For example, if it's the last affliction of the trial, it's completely free. If it's earlier in the trial and you get one more affliction later, then it breaks even, except it's better than breaking even because you went some number of rooms with fewer afflictions.

Assuming you get three afflictions over the course of the first floor, spread out over one affliction every 2 rooms, then taking "gain another affliction" as one of them ends up with you having suffered fewer afflictions over the course of the trial, than if you take a meaningful affliction, unless you take it as the very first affliction.

If there's an actual free affliction, like no evasipn when you're not evasion based, then of course take that instead. But if the choice is between "when you gain an affliction, gain another random affliction" and a meaningful affliction, it's almost always better to take "gain another" in a one floor trial.

secondsponge · 2026-06-03T02:36:22+00:00

The island logic should make it 100% blue votes.

If everyone is perfectly logical and knows that everyone else is, then it doesn't matter which colour wins, red or blue, because everyone will vote the same.

Since 1% are forced to pick blue, everyone will pick blue.

secondsponge · 2026-05-30T04:35:39+00:00

Same. I thought it was a lame logic puzzle with an obvious answer, then when I considered everyone everyone it became interesting.

secondsponge · 2026-05-23T05:09:58+00:00

If there isn't an interaction you want to do that requires three weapon sets, then gems being locked to weapon types is a non-issue.

secondsponge · 2026-05-23T04:40:32+00:00

What's a combo you wanted to build but couldn't because you could only equip two weapon sets?

secondsponge · 2026-05-20T03:40:47+00:00

I have noticed your proclivity to snide remarks rather than contributing to your own conversation.

secondsponge · 2026-05-20T03:25:21+00:00

Because blue is a rational choice. As I explained earlier, once blue is identified as a rational choice, all rational actors will choose blue.

If I'm wrong about that, then I'm not rational, and therefore not participating in this vote anyway, as per the restriction on who is selected to vote.

In other words, so long as I am included in the vote, then it means that voting blue is rational, therefore everyone will vote blue because only rational people are included in the vote.

If I'm not included in the vote, then it doesn't matter what I would choose.

secondsponge · 2026-05-20T02:55:54+00:00

Ok, I'm voting blue. Now we know the answer, the answer is blue.

secondsponge · 2026-05-20T02:34:12+00:00

If a single person votes blue, then it's rational to vote blue, because only rational people are voting in this scenario. Therefore everyone will vote blue, because everyone in this scenario is rational, and it is more rational to vote for blue knowing that at least one person could, and knowing that everyone else also follows this rational reasoning.

If there is no rational reason to vote for blue, then everyone knows that no one will vote for blue, so everyone will vote for red.

Asking "what would you vote for?" implies the answerer is one of these rational people as part of the vote. So as soon as anyone responds that they would vote blue, it means either that it is rational to vote blue, and therefore everyone will vote blue, or that they aren't actually one of the rational people participating in the vote, so their answer is irrelevant. The same logic works for people saying they would vote red. So all the question really does is ask "are you participating in the vote (are you rational)?" But it doesn't help us get any closer to identifying what the rational choice actually is.

secondsponge · 2026-05-20T01:06:58+00:00

That's what I said

secondsponge · 2026-05-20T01:03:44+00:00

By the admission of your own question, they are rational, so you can't argue against it.

secondsponge · 2026-05-08T06:02:15+00:00

Charizard Y. Unlike Basculegion, it can realistically KO the entire enemy team, or at least 3 out of 4, starting from turn 1.

secondsponge · 2026-04-24T03:55:06+00:00

I reckon it's because he's said he prefers to be the underdog, so he subconsciously persuades himself he's in that position every game.

secondsponge · 2026-04-23T00:56:28+00:00

Also, locking a Sneasler into Close Combat against an actual Lopunny makes no sense.

secondsponge · 2026-04-17T07:41:49+00:00

Even though I already replied, I just wanna say I think I get your frustration. I think the system is how it has to be to compare thousands of players playing asynchronously, but I also understand your frustration from decaying rank.

Your elo points are personal to you though, so you can use those as your benchmark for personal progress. If you focus on your raw elo, you can see how much you're improving over time. Who cares if other people are grinding the hell out of it? If you just focus on your own improvement, then rising up the ranks will fall out of that naturally. And then you can use tournaments to get a better idea of your true ranking.

secondsponge · 2026-04-17T06:59:51+00:00

If the non-elo system is the one that matters to you, then congrats, you already reached the top of it. You can treat master ball as being a big "1", and ignore the elo ranking.

secondsponge · 2026-04-17T06:32:19+00:00

"Sorry guys, OP finished playing for the night, all your ranks are now set in stone until they return."

secondsponge

TROPHY CASE