Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Return to Europe

5 (11.4%)

Weather the Storm

4 (9.1%)

Go to Madeira

35 (79.5%)

Total Members Voted: 43

[Baffler]

Polling is closed, the hypothetical is provided below for posterity.

The Captain's Dilemma

In the early 1600's, a certain European nation contained a certain group of people. This group was not well liked, and endured harassment on both a personal and national level. A wealthy man of their number decided he would lead an expedition to the New World, bringing with him everyone who would sign aboard to a new land where they could live in peace. An old but ocean-worthy ship was hired and crewed, a course plotted, and supplies and people were loaded aboard in search of a land to call their own.

Spirits remained high through the start of the voyage, though the wind and waves were often against them. Their course had them stopping at the Azores to restock their supplies before crossing the rest of the Atlantic, but as the ship approached the dock, a schooner approached them loaded with soldiers. They called out that severe storms had been seen approaching from the west, and that any ship remaining in the area would be in serious danger, even in port. Their ship was old, and chances were very real that she would be seriously damaged or even go under in as violent a storm as the men described. A number of colonists began calling for an immediate return to Europe to try again, but just as many called back that they were no better loved elsewhere, and they would likely be trapped in port indefinitely.

But the first mate had an idea. He was good friends with the harbormaster at Funchal, on the island of Madeira. If they could make it there, they could certainly acquire more supplies to make the crossing without running out as well as avoid angering the authorities in Europe with their return. The only problem was that Madeira was farther away than their food would hold by at least two days because of the time they had already lost, even with the strictest rations.

The crew, the settlers, and the wealthy man argued for hours between the three possibilities. They could return to relative safety in Europe but live as second class citizens facing increasing oppression and hosility. They could also risk ruin weathering the storm in the Azores to get their best shot at making it to freedom. Finally, they could carry out the first mate's plan and travel to Madeira for certain success at crossing, but on iron rations that would run out before reaching the island in the short term. Realizing the sides were split evenly, they decided to ask the ship's captain, who had remained silent until then, to make the final decision. What should the Captain do?

[ggamer]

C

colonization always carries risks, and they knew that. Even a few deaths are still better than living a substandard life stranded on the Azores or living in Europe.

[Frumple]

... I'd say (and voted) option C, on the condition that when you say food you mean food. Two days completely without food is rather annoying but very doable (and a ship's crew would probably know that well), even after a period of iron rationing. Two days completely without water would be very close to death, though, and would probably change my response.

[i2amroy]

... I'd say (and voted) option C, on the condition that when you say food you mean food. Two days completely without food is rather annoying but very doable (and a ship's crew would probably know that well), even after a period of iron rationing. Two days completely without water would be very close to death, though, and would probably change my response.

Agreed. As per the basic rule of 3 for survival, you can survive 3 minutes without air, 3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food. (As a basic rule of thumb).

[scrdest]

... I'd say (and voted) option C, on the condition that when you say food you mean food. Two days completely without food is rather annoying but very doable (and a ship's crew would probably know that well), even after a period of iron rationing. Two days completely without water would be very close to death, though, and would probably change my response.

Agreed. As per the basic rule of 3 for survival, you can survive 3 minutes without air, 3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food. (As a basic rule of thumb).

Three hours without shelter seems a bit short.

[i2amroy]

Generally you pull the rule out in situations where you need something but don't have it. Three hours in a heavy storm (especially in colder areas) can actually be higher than the amount of time needed to kill you, depending on the strength of the storm.

[Graknorke]

C
Potentially starving is worth it to not be definitely fucked.

[Tack]

... I'd say (and voted) option C, on the condition that when you say food you mean food. Two days completely without food is rather annoying but very doable (and a ship's crew would probably know that well), even after a period of iron rationing. Two days completely without water would be very close to death, though, and would probably change my response.

Agreed. As per the basic rule of 3 for survival, you can survive 3 minutes without air, 3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food. (As a basic rule of thumb).

Three hours without shelter seems a bit short.

It's technically "3 hours in extreme conditions".
But again, rule of thumb = guideline. I wouldn't want to be stuck in Northern Russia in winter for 3 hours just as much as I wouldn't want to be in the Sahara.


C sounds too sketchy, and I don't like it.
I'll take A. I'd definitely say "Better die free than live a slave", but if it's just a not-quite-popular minority (and there's still opportunity judging by the wealth of the captain) then why not just try again, even with a new crew.
That's if the soldiers can be trusted.

[andrea]

I chose C. 2 days without food, with supplies provided after that, is not that bad. With some planned starving, there should be no death on the trip.

[Zangi]

Answer: C
We can have a feast once we get 'there'.  Iron Rations for everyone.

@A: Well, that ain't what I'm paid to do...
@B: I ain't about to take my ship on a suicide run.

[Arx]

Also going C. No point in setting out to leave Europe and then returning as soon as something goes wrong, and no point in running a high risk when you could run a low risk instead.

[pisskop]

I picked C.  Its survivable, and as long as the rations held . . .

[IcyTea31]

C, no doubt.

There is this useful trade skill known as "fishing" that can be used to gain more food even on the open sea, if you know what you're doing, and even with poor luck in that, 2 days without food is survivable. Giving up is out of the question, and I'd rather choose a small risk of some people dying than a large risk of everyone dying.

[LordBucket]

Would you clarify which option is A, B and C? Your punctuation and phrasing leave it slightly ambiguous. On first reading, it looks like:

(Option A) return to relative safety in Europe but live as second class citizens facing increasing oppression and hosility, risk ruin weathering the storm in the Azores to get their best shot at making it to freedom

(Option B,) or carry out the first mate's plan and travel to Madeira for certain success at crossing, but on iron rations that would run out before reaching the island in the short term

(Option C.) Realizing the sides were split evenly, they decided to ask the ship's captain, who had remained silent until then, to make the final decision.

...but from the text, option A appears to be two options, and it looks like you were simply inconsistent about whether the listed option was placed before or after (Option) tags, and actually might have meant this:

(Option A) return to relative safety in Europe but live as second class citizens facing increasing oppression and hosility,

 risk ruin weathering the storm in the Azores to get their best shot at making it to freedom (Option B,)

 or carry out the first mate's plan and travel to Madeira for certain success at crossing, but on iron rations that would run out before reaching the island in the short term (Option C.)

Might also edit the poll descriptions to clarify, too.

[Baffler]

Good point, edited.

I'm also slightly surprised by these results. I don't want to talk too much about it until the poll is closed though. I need to finalize the data Friday evening, so I'll try to post analyses and graphs (including those from other sources) Saturday, in case anyone is interested.