CONFLICTED SURVIVAL GAME:
BEFORE THE SHTF!
Conflicted is a Survival Game. Each card in the deck has a scenario that will stretch how you would respond in an SHTF situation. What would you do? Leave your thoughts in the comment section below!
SCENARIO – Someone in your group has gear that would be better used in the hands of another member who’s more experienced. The owner doesn’t want to lend his equipment because modern society has collapsed, and his gear is now irreplaceable. Giving his gear to the more qualified person would be a great advantage to your group.
As the group’s leader, do you force the man to lend his equipment in order to give the entire group a much needed advantage or do you respect his right to his own property?
READ: 3 Barter Items You Probably Haven’t Considered But Will Be Valuable Even If the Poop Doesn’t Hit the Fan!
Don’t forget to leave your thoughts in the comments below.
If you are interested in purchasing your own Conflicted Survival Game Cards – CLICK HERE.
Peace,
Todd
This article first appeared on Ed That Matters.
Get updates in your email when a new article is posted. Join the Newsletter or grab the RSS Feed.
If you enjoyed the article, please vote for the site at Top Prepper Websites.
Copyright – Content on Ed That Matters (unless the work of a Third-Party) may be reproduced in part or whole with attribution through a link to www.edthatmatters.com. If you are interested in a Third Party article, please contact the author for permission.
Todd Sepulveda
I'm the owner/editor of Prepper Website, a DAILY preparedness aggregator that links to the best preparedness articles on the internet. I'm also a public school administrator and a pastor. My personal blog is Ed That Matters, where I write about preparedness and from time to time, education. Connect with me on one of my social media outlets below.
Follow Me:
It all depends on what the agreements about “things” were made before stuff went south. It is an area that should be discussed when the group is formed.
Agree with Catherine. You should have a good understanding about these sorts of things up front , going in.
If you forced him to give up his “property”, you might be causing more ill will than you can afford. Is the trade off worth it. Maybe not. You need everybody pulling in the same direction. No one item can replace the unity of the group.
I would not force the surrender of the item.
if you start forcing members to do things, who is making the rules? did one of the members (who wants what another member has) decide he wants it? the member who is to receive the gear, why didn’t he prepare before hand or did he just have the attitude that he would take someone else’s gear when stuff happened? for myself if someone in a group tried to force me to give up my gear for supposedly being more qualified to use it would get the cold dead hands response. if I had good gear and it was taken from me would leave me at a disadvantage. for this to happen would put the group back in the same predicament they were in with the government taking things they weren’t entitled to.
I agree with the others that you must respect the owners right to his property. To force him to give it up or to take it away from him is morally and ethically wrong even though the group would be better off. Can the two of them come to an agreement to work together with the equipment letting the more experienced giving pointers and showing the owner how to better use, service, and repair his equipment? If so then the group might end up with two people able to operate it to its fullest potential plus the owner may come to trust the other one with it at a later date. This would also show the group that everyone can compromise to be better off.
The Guy has a right to his property. Just because stuff gets really bad does not mean that we have to ditch all of our beliefs. If we give up our convictions for the sake of convenience or even “necessity” we become no better than the hoards of looters that will want to take what we have out of necessity. Individual rights must be respected for any kind of good and decent law to prevail.
Wouldn’t it be nice if BOTH parties knew how to use this gear? Pairing up the owner with the more experienced user of said gear would provide double benefit to the group….you know two is one, one is none, right. So TWO people knowing how to use the gear effectively would be an asset and the good will from acknowledging BOTH people’s abilities (one to plan, one to use) will bring further group cohesiveness. (But has anyone thought of any gear that someone might own that someone else might know how to use with so much more expertise that the group would benefit from the exchange? I can’t. At least not gear that the “expert” wouldn’t already own.)
Amen. Talk with the “greater skilled” and get them to show the owner how to better use the gear, now getting two competent users.
Redundancy in abundance, if only!
ask the man to share, if he declines shoot the man take his stuff
you would be the type of person that wouldn’t get in my group. you are no different than the government giving my money to sloths or those we would be protecting ourselves from. I wouldn’t hesitate to let you receive what you were willing to give,
All good replies. Really good. From respect for other’s property to get the training one has to the one not so shared. I’d only add that the moment a group turns on one of its own it is no longer a group of free individuals. I’d be damned sure that if I was the one with the gear who was forced to give it up would do two things as soon as possible. Get my gear back. Leave the group. And not necessarily in that order. My loyalty would end the moment I had to surrender my possessions. It is one thing to give, to aid in resupply, to loan, even to have to pay a ‘fee’ or some commitment donation to the group at large; another entirely to be forced to do anything. I suppose just reading the word ‘forcing’ is what got to me.