Murder By The Book - Ender's Game

Dakota 'ahems' from her corner. "Technically speaking this is algebra not calculus and it is also erroneous to examine the problem as a day-to-day basis. If we were to, say, not murder each other for two days in a row then not only would we maintain our (frankly wavering) moral high ground, but we would also be in a similar, if not identical, position as if we partook in lynching today and chose poorly."

Dakota politely borrows someone's tea, sips and returns it.

"There are indeed benefits from a game theory standpoint to killing one of our compatriots today but the math isn't one of them. Of course you'd know this already if you read my latest teen romance novel Passions of Pythagoras but I suppose that sort of thoughtful camaraderie isn't really your cup of tea, is it dear Kellerman.

Dakota, is it? While the title of your latest effort certainly piques my interest, your assertions tonight make me despair for its contents.

Choosing to not choose for two days would indeed leave us in the same position as choosing incorrectly today, but if we make a uniformly random choice we will only choose incorrectly with (N-n)/N likelihood. As I said before, the expected value of choice is better than no choice. In ethical terms, given that the result of failure is death, regardless, we should all be willing to take whatever chance at life we can scrape together.

In following my previous comment that the best course at this juncture is to act on whatever bit of information we have, however scant, I feel that Aunt Early's actions are deeply suspicious. Perhaps she did not recognize the danger in inaction, and then when it was pointed out agreed with my initial assessment of its suggestion being in itself suspicious. But given Slorange's "joie de vivre" explanation for their actions, it can read also as twice trying to push forward decisions that they know are in Undercover's interests.

Unvote: Slorange
Vote: Aunt "eberron" Early