In among us, everyone can vote who they think is imposter and the most votes gets thrown out airlock and in the game there are countless of innocent deaths due to misinformation, mistrust, idiots, charming imposters and anarchists.
It perfectly shows how bad decisions can easily be made when left to the majority vote. there's no chance of saying sorry or going back because they die.
Yet the majority almost always quickly vote based on gut reaction
True
False
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Among us proves diplomacy does not work. Can you prove me wrong?
Well, I do not mean to offend, but such rants work better when the ranter uses appropriate terminology. I believe you meant "democracy" and not "diplomacy"?
Assuming that to be the case, democracy is, as Churchill said, the worst form of government. At least until you compare it to all the others. You got a better system?
"You cannot make straight the crooked timber of humanity." Imperfect people in an imperfect and imperfectible world are not apt to produce perfect outcomes. That includes democracy itself.
However, by leaving the debate on what is the public good to the whole public, that is - on balance - not going to give you the best outcomes. However, it will likely, generally not always, spare you the worst outcomes.
Indeed, as the 18th century British political philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke rightly put it, and here I quote at some length:
"Liberty too, must be limited in order to be preserved...
"To make a government requires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide; it only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free government; that is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and restraint in one work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a sagacious, powerful, and combining mind..."
“The case for universal suffrage and political equality does not rest on any superstition that all men, by acquiring the vote, will become equally wise or equally intelligent. It rests, both historically and philosophically, on the belief that if any section of the community is deprived of the ability to vote, then its interests are liable to be neglected and a nexus of grievances is likely to be created which will fester in the body politic.”
Burke's last point getting to the heart of your question cum statement. Democracy works, and again never perfectly, in the sense that it gives all a chance to give their input and for the society as a whole to debate - sometimes well and wisely at other times boorishly and crudely - the nature of right and wrong and some general definition of the public good. This while leaving the individual a wide sphere to define their personal notion of the good and to live by its' light.
A personal aside - A number of years ago, my aunt and her husband went to what was then East Germany to visit her relatives who still lived there. This in the days of the communists and the Stassi.
One night they were all sitting on the porch singing songs and talking and my uncle noticed that one of his nieces was walking the perimeter of the backyard. My uncle asked his in-laws why she was doing that and he was told to make sure that they could not be heard outside their yard. This because the Staasi had walkers out listening and if the overheard anything they deemed inappropriate, the whole family could be taken into custody.
So, as you bang your spoon on your high chair in your millennial way, be advised of your ingratitude. There is imperfect democracy - and then there is downright awful. Trust me, you would prefer the former.
You can't compare real diplomacy to a game that is made with the purpose of making it both necessary and difficult. Diplomacy has its downsides as does everything else but I can't think of a better Alternative. I feel in my opinion it comes down to diplomacy or force. Every time two people come to a disagreement it can be solved with diplomacy: talking about it and maybe coming to some agreement or force: both people just fight about whatever the disagreement was about which often leaves things unresolved. I'm not saying diplomacy always works or is always the best way because it isn't but when it comes down to it diplomacy does work well in some situations. So we can't just say diplomacy doesn't work as a blanket statement. You can say diplomacy doesn't work for a certain situation and be right or wrong depending on what the situation is. Another thing to think about is the fact that without diplomacy there wouldn't be nearly as many wins for crewmates. Because without diplomacy everyone would only guess who is who. Diplomacy is discussion sharing of thought to me and its needed
It's a game meant to be played on a timer and it's literally built to entice deception and discord.
It's not a political microcosim. It's Werewolf Mobile version.
It also highly depends on your group. When I played with randoms, it's like you said. Disorganized, lots of people vote on gut or irrational judgement, charming people have an edge.
But when I play with friends I know, we don't feel bad about taking time to chat, verify, and skip votes. My group also really likes puzzle and board games, and several love mysteries - so we enjoy the practice of thinking our accusations through.
Also, it's a free game or a $6 game. You're playing mostly with children, and occasionally with adults just chilling and having fun sowing colourful havoc.
I don't fully disagree, BUT on the "friends" point, what do you think nepotism and such is? It and political favors among friends happen all the time. The next point, entering politics doesn't always take much either and there are plenty of politicians dumber than children, so much so that's giving them credit.
Though I do understand there is are differences. I just also do see the pov of similarities.
Dude, playing a free mobile game with friends =/= in any way the same sort of impacts or situation that is nepotism in politics.
I have family in politics. I know what nepotism is.
And yes, politicians are dumb, but they are still smarter and more considered than children (current President's current state notwithstanding - he still does have at least marginally more ability than a literal child, case in point is he ignores his handlers orders).
There's something seriously wrong with your view of politics if you think a free mobile game engineered to play into conflict is a suitable simulation to disprove the benefits of democracy.
I dont think we're ignoring the benefits. But the amount of lives affected by people voting on something they dont understand is concerning. Take brexit for example, it started as an ego trip by Dave cameron. Regardless of whether you think england should stay or not, he called it to a vote purely to boost his ego. When the results came in, he immediately left his position because he knew it was going to be a mess, which Theresa then took over. (She only got that role by the way because the other candidate made a comment about her not having kids, then found out she can't and got embarrassed so they stepped down)
Theresa tried so hard to get a deal because that's what the country left her ti do. But she found that she was gonna get a terrible deal and this deal still hasn't been settled and were on our 3rd prime minister who still has yet to sort it out.
Now I'm not even blaming them, its gonna be hard to get any deal with the EU that is even close to as good as the one we had when we were were in the eu. It's like whinging that your workers union hasn't specifically benefited you recently so you leave, then ask for them to protect you after you flip them the middle finger. It's just not going to be good.
All because the public were told that if they did leave, they would get benefits like more money to the nhs meaning higher standards of general health
I believe your right but at the same time its just a fun game to piss about with your friends but it does point sokething out in human nature the herd mentality if 100 people vote for option 1 then everyone elses will follow suit and in the end option 2 have 10 kinda thing even though option 1 was full of lies and 2 was the truth just people like the what they hear from option 1 soo everyone trusts them hence the herd mentality
Yeah its an unfortunate truth about society but i wouldn't class it under peer pressure though for a game like among us that is the drive to pick one option over the other i think most people are not pressured into something by someone i think most of the time they follow the herd where everyone else is going thats just an opinion though i guess its circumstance dependant on wether its peer pressure or follow the herd.
There are several things out of context on your statement there. First of all, that is a game, with absolutely no effect on real life. You could be a good guy irl but act as an asshole in the game just for fun. Second, while democracy (I think you meant that, not "diplomacy") is not perfect, it is the best of all the other options. If you don't get what you want from it, either it is not its fault or you want something it can't give. Third, the issue you mention is not about democracy but about the people in charge of it. If politicians, independently of their own views, did their work instead of wanting power and riches, everything would actually work perfectly. Alas, that is not the case.
1
5 Reply
Asker
+1 y
1: There is a difference between how people act in person vs how they are in real life, that's why games such as COD exist without murder charges. However it has created it own world that provides people with it's own version of what is acceptable. It is illegal English court to punish someone by death, however in among us that is presented as the only form of punishment which is what makes it acceptable. The analogy tying it to our real culture was inspired by Monopoly, the capitalist game designed by socialists to show capitalism does not work. 2: Spoken language has never been my strong suit. Thank you for fixing that. But the problem with the current voting system is anyone can vote and sway the decision even if their vote was decided through an emotion caused by a lie. Every vote is valid and everyone has to live with the result even if it was a mistake. I'm not saying there should be a dictatorship but what could be a better solution is to have a voting judicial system governed by someone external such as the UN that determines whether the votes were made with the country at their best interest based on truth. I know this is even less likely for my country considering how persistent the government is with leaving the EU.
3 That is true though, politicians need to be monitored and reviewed much more honestly and should have consequences to any selfish actions. That could also be the solution to create a better society, making the previous point redundant. However the lack of moderation of voting is what got us into this mess in the first place. It created an opportunity for greed and manipulation
1. You basically said the same thing I did but turned it as a negative thing, which I don't agree with. Games are made to do things you can't in real life, including "killing" someone and have fun with it. That has no meaning not tie with the real world whatsoever, it is just virtual fun. I do believe that Monopoly was made for that reason, but it didn't work that way, quite the contrary.
2. Well, of course anyone can vote. Democracy is all about giving everyone equal power deciding the future of a nation instead of only a handful of "destined ones" having that power. As I said, the problem is not the system, it is the people. If you let "bad people" influence the media, what children learn at school, etc... Those affected by that corrupted info will obviously have their views affected and vote according to it. Obviously, that is bad for democracy as it makes it not work as it should, but there is no other option that doesn't have those kind of problems. Furthermore, the other options have worse problems in their concept itself, which is why they are not good options to begin with. 3. Actually, the problem with the voting was not the moderation. The problem was a "backup plan" the Republicans had: the electoral college. It allowed them to place a Republican president even if he was not elected by the people. That system was a good idea back in the day for certain reasons, but now it has become not only obsolete but a tool for those who want to keep power for themselves.
1 I dont think I made my point clear. What I'm trying to say is games show what people for what they are in that set of unique set of circumstances. In golden balls, the players/contestants are given the option to steal thousands of pounds from eachother, but they have a quick chat where basically the 2 players are trying to persuade eachother to pick split so that at least one of them gets the money. It does reflect on who they are as a person even if it is just a game. In that set of unique circumstances where they are given the chance to legally steal from a stranger without repercussions, there are still many who choose to split it because that's the right thing to do. The consequences of among us aren't so big and being imposter isn't so devious. The voting system is still very similar to the British voting system for our government
Well I dont see why there shouldn't be a system to filter the decisions. I know its gonna make the voting less black and white but it would be the easiest way to stop the votes doing something irreversible such as leaving the EU if they were found to be based on misinformation.
It's interesting to talk to an American about such an issue since your civilisation has already tried to come up with a better solution to my democratic world as it were. Obviously where there's a possible loophole there's gonna be some cunt who extorts it and that's the problem with humanity in general.
So tried and tested in the form of electoral college. Was good but now outdated. That's fine but what do you think would fix that? If the electrical college was removed from the Republicans and made impartial and possible to swing either way perhaps that would work?
1. Your point was clear, but I think you didn't understand mine. It is a game, simple as that. They have an objective that you must achieve to win and someone will be the winner and other the loser. You must do your best to be the winner. That is the main objective of a game. Now, there are people who may not care about that objective and just fool around to have fun, which might entail screwing others. There are also players ethno want to apply a different layer to the game, maybe more strategic or something. It does not change the rules itself, but changes the dynamic. None of those kind of players, however, tell you what kind of people they are, only how they play that game. For example, I like to follow the rules in real life. Like crossing the street only when the green light is on, respect property and such. However, in the games I will climb the biggest mountain even if that is not allowed just because I want to do it, to find holes I can jump in and bug the map, cheats to get advantage... What I do in the game does not represent what I am. And the same goes for the rest of players, as I said before: they can be regular people outside the game, very well mannered and kind but act like assholes in the game just for laughs, and that is because a game has no repercussion because it is all virtual. Simple as that.
Diplomacy works but a lot of people are really dumb. They don’t think deeply and most follow the heard. That’s something I’ve learned playing that game. I’ve even tested it. Be the first to accuse someone in all caps and tag a good lie with it and most people will side with you.
If you know how to get people to listen you can use diplomacy. Diplomacy DOES work which is why you can falsely accuse someone successfully so often in that game. Diplomacy is about using your words to get a problem or goal solved.
The problem is there are far more people who will just listen without thinking and just follow the heard.
I say false. What is the alternative? Was your individual opinion always better than the group? The majority can be wrong, but so can the minority. Why would the minority get to decide over the majority? Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the dangers of mob rule and designed a system to put many checks on the majority to prevent rash judgements.
In criminal courts they have rules, procedures, long time lines, the presumption of innocence, before the ultimate power of majority rule in the jury gets to decide what is true.
In our democracy (US) We have power split between cities, states, 3 branches of federal government.
0
1 Reply
Asker
+1 y
I believe that's already better than what England has and I probably do not know as much about your voting system as you do.
However I think there needs to be a more active system of regulation that is unbiased but the priority is specifically to moderate the decisions made for the better of society. It either should stop any votes from those who are voting based on bad/false reasons. Or it should stop those in government from then abusing the power directly
What the fuck are you asking exactly, and/or saying? You might want to rephrase that, because it makes no sense whatsoever, not even a little bit. ("vote for imposter, airlocks, gut reactions, mistrust of imposters" -- huh? None of that makes any sense)
In among us you play as either a "Crew Mate" or an "Impostor" the job of the Impostor is to kill everyone without being caught. The job of the Crewmates are to finish all the tasks given to them at the start of the game or to find out who the impostors are and get rid of them (depending on the map there's a graphic shown depicting them being jettisoned out of a spaceship air lock). When a body killed by an impostor is found all the Crewmates, as well as the Impostors will have a meeting trying to deduce who the killer (s) is in a limited amount of time (usually 1 to 2 minutes). What the OP meant by gut reaction is that many players will simply accept the 1st person accused of being an impostor and vote to have them removed from the game without any solid evidence or indepth discussion
Yes it's well known democracies a failure system. The big problem is when you allow everyone to vote. The family fathers even understood this there's a reason why they call democracy rule by the mob and didn't set up America as democracy but a constitutional Republic.
2
2 Reply
Asker
+1 y
Well I'm in england so democracy is still relevant to me
However your system doesn't seem perfect either considering the result
Well people make decisions quickly due to a timer and don't investigate things for a long time. Like literally the game is meant to be done at a pace where mistakes are more likely to happen
2
5 Reply
Asker
+1 y
The amount of time doesn't affect the decisions.
So many people have voted for things based on false promises. For example Brexit. No one knew what Brexit meant, 4 years onwards and we still haven't decided what it is.
David Cameron pulled the idea out of nowhere to build his ego, then immediately regretted it after enough people decided they wanted out.
The amount of time does affect the decisions because new stuff happens every round and you can peer pressure people into voting due to the lack of time
Life will always be stressful especially if you have multiple priorities. Stuff happens all the time, it doesn't matter if you vote or not, things will happen, all the time.
That has nothing to do with diplomacy, presumably you mean democracy and think you are revealing some big secret, you aren't, everyone knows that already.
No one claims that democracy is a pefect system, the argument is that is better than the alternatives.
Though obviously anarchism is never in the list because clearly its a key variable of any functioning society to have some stupid cunt you dont like spending a good portion of your money on crap you dont want or need.
WHAT? You are an IDIOT!! Diplomacy is not about voting!! Your question reads as if posted by an idiot, with no point, and just rambling bullshit! Put down the joint, and post when you are in a sane, rational mind!!
0
6 Reply
Asker
+1 y
I mix my words but my message stands.
The founders of America saw the same problem and tried to create a better version known as the Republican society out of fear of leaving important decisions 'to the mob'
In our recent years, many bad decisions have been made due to what the majority want but not understanding what they need.
Brexit is a good example. It was fueled by everyone spouting misinformation and no one knowing what would really happen. 4 years later and we still dont know what deal we will get, but the majority voted for it so that's what we get! The best we can hope for is a deal similar to the terms and conditions of the EU but with less slightly less privileges than if we had stayed in there.
Covid is also another good example, too many people have died because this was not dictated by medical professionals.
I'm not saying 100% dictatorship is the answer to everything. But the current voting system does not work and it's all very well saying it's the best considering the alternatives. But in thousands of years we have not been able to come up with a better system?
I think it needs to at least have a filter and in emergencies/crisis the most qualified should then take over
Your response is a RADICAL change, from the idiocy of the post, that was babbling nonsense! Now, you are trying to make a sensible point? Why the confusing nonsense post?
Maybe you do not understand the context I presented.
Among us is a game where there is a crew of up to 10 people and among them there is up to 3 imposters.
The imposters aim is to kill everyone, however the crews aim is to stop the imposters. One of the main ways they can do this is by voting to evict the imposter out an airlock. But they never know for sure who is an imposter and they could be killing their own team. They have time to discuss who they think is imposter, and usually people vote based on instinct and lies. For example one person could witness the crime, however there are almost immediately at greater risk of being evicted for reporting it because that could be considered suspicious. The imposters get to talk and vote aswell
It is a good example of how bad the decisions often are if you leave them to the vote of everyone
First timer make them decide and believe anything, Second look on the brighter side, every single one in that game gets to be a lawyer to prove he/she is the impostor, its like the mini courtroom and the crewmates are mini lawyers, so since its kinda court everyone sees and believes what the others make them believe...
Wait you mean diplomacy or democracy? Democracy yeah doesn't work especially when playing with randoms but I'm not sure what diplomacy has to do with it.
Well diplomacy was inever intended to keep everyone safe. It's sole purpose is to give people the option to voice their opinion and chose who gets to die. As opposed to monarchy It's still the lesser evil
It's false because working together produces better outcomes than working alone, even in that video game. At best, all you do here is demonstrate that their are pitfalls in working together, not that it doesn't serve a beneficial purpose.
Among us highlights the importance of peer-reviewed empirical evidence. There is nothing inherently wrong with democracy, the issue lies in unsupported beliefs.
There isn't much diplomacy in "among us", its more a proof of how easy it is to decieve others or how difficult it is to spot a liar and judge only on emotions and gut feelings.
Every time I've been an imposter I've never been caught. The system works for those who know how to pull the right strings
0
1 Reply
Asker
+1 y
Well depends on the perspective.
For you personally its great. But as a system meant to protect the crew, it fails because the decisions not reviewed and everyone has to suffer the consequences without any revision of the decision
17.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Actually if you get a crowd together to problem solve it produces the best instinctual results. Like a determining the number of beans in a jar, statistically crowds have been known to get awfully close. Probably evolutionary, or tribal efficiency.
0
2 Reply
Asker
+1 y
What do you mean? Because there's so many, eventually one will get it right?
