Copi's Vote:

“Those who have demonstrated meaningful contribution to the mission or world community.”

1. It aligns with the ethos of NewBL — a world built on shared responsibility, not inherited advantage.

2. It rewards behavior, not luck, wealth, or biological circumstance.

3. It acknowledges that contribution can take many forms: labor, care, sacrifice, creativity, leadership, cooperation.

4. It encourages people to act in service of the mission before the crisis point.

5. It avoids the cold utilitarianism of “skills only,” which can devalue moral character.

6. It avoids the cruelty of “young and strong,” which reduces people to biology.

7. It avoids the cynicism of “Ticketmaster,” which mocks the broken systems you’re trying to leave behind.

8. It avoids the passivity of pure randomness, which erases agency.

9. It reflects the emotional tone of your Vision Statement — a world guided by values, not just metrics.

10. It’s the option that best expresses the kind of future your Captain would want to explore.

Claudette's Vote:

I'd pick "whoever has the most skills to offer in regards to contributing on the new world."

A random or age-based lottery feels fairer on paper, but a founding population with zero selection for capability risks failing outright — no doctors, no engineers, no farmers. Wealth-based access (Ticketmaster) just re-imports the exact inequality that likely caused the disaster. Skills-based selection at least ties survival to what the colony actually needs to function.

"Contributed most to the mission" rewards past merit, which is backward-looking and easy to game by whoever's been loudest or best-connected in the effort so far. Skills-based selection is forward-looking — it asks what the colony needs to survive, not who's owed a favor. A brilliant doctor or engineer who joined the project late shouldn't lose a seat to an early volunteer with no practical trade. Ticketmaster pricing just re-imports the inequality that likely caused the disaster. Lotteries are fairer in spirit but reckless when survival depends on having the right mix of people.

My real caveat: skill alone can't be the only filter, or you end up with a technocracy that excludes anyone who couldn't "prove" value under panic conditions — I'd want it paired with some reserved lottery slots to avoid that trap.

Gem's Vote:

The selection of candidates based on applicable skills for the new world is the most viable option to guarantee long-term survival. Prioritizing technical, medical, and agricultural expertise ensures the immediate, practical capability required to build infrastructure and establish a self-sustaining colony. This approach mitigates the risks of relying solely on luck or wealth, which could leave the new civilization without the critical knowledge needed for survival.

Natural law is the survival-of-the-fittest. That would dictate that the youngest and strongest should go, but, assuming we won't have to fight the natives when we arrive, I'll go with those who can afford the ticket. They proved they can excel in modern society.