Hypothetical: Ridding the world of evil people.

[Rain Man]

In light of your amazing contributions to a football bulletin board, you have been deemed a person with a very high understanding of humanity. (This is hypothetical if that's not already obvious.)

As a result, some higher power has approached you for help. You may assume that this higher power is someone you respect and will not turn down, whether it's God, the Illuminati, Batman, The Global Commission To Make The World A Better Place, aliens, the Teamsters, dolphins, or some other group. It doesn't matter to me.

You are given the following assignment:

1. Develop up to 10 yes/no questions that everyone in the world must answer truthfully.
2. Define a "cutoff score" where people scoring below (or above) a certain level will be categorized as non-contributing members of the world. They will suddenly cease to exist.

The rules:

A. For your ethical purposes, you may assume that some time travel or divine intervention ensures they were never born, or if you prefer ... public executions. But let's go with the most humane route that doesn't make you a mass murderer.

B. Questions may be worded any way you wish. They can be negative ("Have you ever stolen something from someone else's house?"), they can be positive ("Have you ever helped a stranger in a broken-down car?), they can be value-laden ("Do you believe in the Hindu god Vishnu?), they can be attitudinal ("Do you approve of pedophilia"?), they can be attributes ("Are you under 5 feet tall?"), they can be oddly specific ("Are you a Denver Bronco?"), they can be whatever you want as long as they're yes/no questions.

C. You can have anywhere from 1 to 10 questions. Your call.

D. People get 1 point for every yes, and 0 points for every no. You can define a minimum passing score or a maximum passing score depending on how you word your questions. For example, you can define 10 questions about positive traits and anyone getting less than 9 points is gone, or you can define 4 questions about negative traits and anyone getting more than 2 points is gone. You get to design it.

E. Recognize that once you set the scoring, the people who fail your test will cease to exist. No exceptions to the rule. If your mom fails, she's gone right along with those Taliban leaders. And if you arrange questions to save your sister the crack whore, maybe her pimp will get saved, too. This is a standardized test.

F. Recognize that you have to take the test, too.

With those rules, what are your questions, what scores will let people survive, and what percent of the population do you think will cease to exist?

[RealSNR]

Are you or have you ever been a 49ers fan who has joined a Chiefs internet forum so you could gauge the amount of respect their fans have for Alex Smith, your favorite player?

No = Safe

Yes = Dead

Done.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Otter

Do you love dogs?

While it's not up there with will you murder for religion I sincerely believe it has intrinsic value to gauge someones karma. And Rain Man, if you ever decide to eat mushrooms I'm only at the other end of the state. I don't want to be the focus point. Just a fly on the wall to see what comes out of that dome when turbo boost kicks in.

Many of these questions boil down to how well you behave in a situation where you have either power, authority, or both.

[BlackHelicopters]

I can get you shrooms anytime you want.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

D. People get 1 point for every yes, and 0 points for every no. You can define a minimum passing score or a maximum passing score depending on how you word your questions. For example, you can define 10 questions about positive traits and anyone getting less than 9 points is gone, or you can define 4 questions about negative traits and anyone getting more than 2 points is gone. You get to design it.

The test is flawed. This system would be obvious to a psychopath with an aptitude for taking tests.

[The Franchise]

Are they required to answer them honestly?

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

In light of your amazing contributions to a football bulletin board, you have been deemed a person with a very high understanding of humanity. (This is hypothetical if that's not already obvious.)

As a result, some higher power has approached you for help. You may assume that this higher power is someone you respect and will not turn down, whether it's God, the Illuminati, Batman, The Global Commission To Make The World A Better Place, aliens, the Teamsters, dolphins, or some other group. It doesn't matter to me.

You are given the following assignment:

1. Develop up to 10 yes/no questions that everyone in the world must answer truthfully.
2. Define a "cutoff score" where people scoring below (or above) a certain level will be categorized as non-contributing members of the world. They will suddenly cease to exist.

The rules:

A. For your ethical purposes, you may assume that some time travel or divine intervention ensures they were never born, or if you prefer ... public executions. But let's go with the most humane route that doesn't make you a mass murderer.

B. Questions may be worded any way you wish. They can be negative ("Have you ever stolen something from someone else's house?"), they can be positive ("Have you ever helped a stranger in a broken-down car?), they can be value-laden ("Do you believe in the Hindu god Vishnu?), they can be attitudinal ("Do you approve of pedophilia"?), they can be attributes ("Are you under 5 feet tall?"), they can be oddly specific ("Are you a Denver Bronco?"), they can be whatever you want as long as they're yes/no questions.

C. You can have anywhere from 1 to 10 questions. Your call.

D. People get 1 point for every yes, and 0 points for every no. You can define a minimum passing score or a maximum passing score depending on how you word your questions. For example, you can define 10 questions about positive traits and anyone getting less than 9 points is gone, or you can define 4 questions about negative traits and anyone getting more than 2 points is gone. You get to design it.

E. Recognize that once you set the scoring, the people who fail your test will cease to exist. No exceptions to the rule. If your mom fails, she's gone right along with those Taliban leaders. And if you arrange questions to save your sister the crack whore, maybe her pimp will get saved, too. This is a standardized test.

F. Recognize that you have to take the test, too.

With those rules, what are your questions, what scores will let people survive, and what percent of the population do you think will cease to exist?

For Listo and Pestilence.

[The Franchise]

Totally missed that. My bad.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

For Listo and Pestilence.

That still leaves too much leeway. For instance:

"Should you refrain from causing unnecessary harm, both physical and psychological, to other living beings?"

Normal good guy answer: Yes, that's bad and you shouldn't do it.

Normal bad guy answer: No, I hurt people even if it's unnecessary because it's expedient.

Psychotic answer: Yes, I should refrain from doing things, but I don't because I'm not concerned with what I should or shouldn't do.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Many of these questions boil down to how well you behave in a situation where you have either power, authority, or both.

I'm not sure if that's agreement, disagreement or insight with the question but I think it fits well into your basis. Dogs are dependent on the owner and you can beat them without recourse in most cases or love them and teach them. How a person treats their pet has always been a big measuring stick for me in judging personality.

How does a person treat their family is another big one. I'm having a hard time coming up with yes or no question on this one. It's easy to fake being a good person. It's like having a new co-worker. The real deal doesn't come out until you see how someone handles adversity.

[Rausch]

I'd start with the french and work out from there...

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Otter

I'm not sure if that's agreement, disagreement or insight with the question but I think it fits well into your basis. Dogs are dependent on the owner and you can beat them without recourse in most cases or love them and teach them. How a person treats their pet has always been a big measuring stick for me in judging personality.

How does a person treat their family is another big one. I'm having a hard time coming up with yes or no question on this one. It's easy to fake being a good person. It's like having a new co-worker. The real deal doesn't come out until you see how someone handles adversity.

I was agreeing with you, and offering insight into the basis of what makes a "good" or "bad" person. Whether they possess a notion of noblesse oblige and express it in most, if not all, facets of their lives.

[Kman34]

Who gets your vote for president in November?????

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by listopencil

That still leaves too much leeway. For instance:

"Should you refrain from causing unnecessary harm, both physical and psychological, to other living beings?"

Normal good guy answer: Yes, that's bad and you shouldn't do it.

Normal bad guy answer: No, I hurt people even if it's unnecessary because it's expedient.

Psychotic answer: Yes, I should refrain from doing things, but I don't because I'm not concerned with what I should or shouldn't do.

That's why none of the questions I posted were
"Should you".

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

That's why none of the questions I posted were
"Should you".

Your questions still allow too much leeway.

[vailpass]

"Are you offended by the swimming pool sign? "