...or Santa's elves got no payrise this year?

Santa faces a tough decision this year.
To set the scene for this 'Would You Rather?' dilemma, imagine you're an elf working at Santa's Toy Factory at the North Pole, and sadly it turns out that even Santa isn't immune from the current economic climate.  As a result, Santa's accountants have told him that this year he has to make some cutbacks.

Santa therefore faces some tough decisions, because the budegetary cuts mean there's no money in the pot to give his elves a payrise this year.  However, one option available to Santa would be to give each kid less toys this Christmas and use the savings to finance the Elves' Pay Award.

How strong is your stomach?

Mmm!  Lovely!
A few weeks ago, a lady at work went on holiday for a week and forgot to empty her cup of coffee before she left.  As you can see in the photo, when she got back to work a week later, she discovered that her coffee had started to go mouldy.  In fact it was so mouldy that there were big lumps of fungus floating in the coffee.

Our boss likes to keep the working day interesting, so when we discovered the mouldy coffee, he quickly offered £50 to anyone who would drink it.  There were no takers at £50, so he then increased his offer to £100, but even at that price we all still declined the chance to earn some cash in return for drinking a mug of mouldy coffee.

But what would you do?  Would you drink the cup of mouldy coffee for £100?  Or how about for £1000?  Or would you still refuse to drink it even for £1000?  Vote below on whether a financial incentive could tempt you into drinking the cup of mouldy coffee shown in the photo.

...would you use your power for financial gain or for romantic benefits?

Love or money?
This 'Would You Rather?' dilemma is loosely based on the movie 'About Time' where the main character can go back in time and repeat certain days of his life.  In the movie he chooses to use his time travel powers to help his love life, but at one point he considers using his time travelling ability for financial benefits.

But what would you use your power for?   Would you go back in time and place guaranteed winning bets on sporting events, or would you use your time travelling power to help your love life by replaying events and using your future knowledge to impress the object of your affections?

...or that each Earth year lasted for 730 days?

Long days or long years?
And just to clarify, I don't mean some government dude or dudette makes an administrative change to how we divide periods of time from now on.  I mean you've been granted the cosmic ability to alter the velocity and momentum of the Earth as it travels through the solar system, causing it to rotate more slowly on its axis or to spin more slowly around the Sun.

So you either opt for long days lasting 48 hours with long nights to go with them, or you opt for long years lasting 730 days with the resulting long summers and long winters.  Or if you live in a tropical part of the world where you don't get summer and winter, then obviously you'd get long dry seasons and long wet seasons.

So which would you go for?  Longer days or longer years?

...and you received a refund cheque from an embarrassingly named company, would you cash it?

What matters most; money or avoiding embarrassment?
This 'Would You Rather?' dilemma is based on the urban myth commonly known as the 'embarrassing cheque scam'.  The scam works by a company advertising products at a bargain price, and then a few weeks later they reply to all the customers saying unfortunately they are unable to fulfill the order, so as a result they are returning everyone's money in the form of a cheque.

However, the refund cheques have a really embarrassing company name printed on them.  This blog is marked as 'No mature content' so unfortunately I can't give exact examples of what the name would be, but if you think along the lines of 'Erectile Dysfunction Treatment Ltd', 'The Adult Nappy Co.' or 'The Justin Bieber Fan Club' then you're not even close because the real company name would be ten times more humiliating than that.

...would you punch the ball into the net if you thought you could get away with it and it would help your team progress to the next stage of the World Cup?

Obviously this 'Would You Rather?' takes a hint of inspiration from real life and it's to investigate how many people would do the same if they found themselves in Maradona's position when he punched the ball into the net at the 1986 World Cup.

In this hypothetical situation, the scores are level and there are still thirty minutes to go, so although using your hand would put your team into the lead, it wouldn't necessarily guarantee you the victory.  Similarly, if you choose not to cheat you wouldn't necessarily get beat.  Whatever you decided to do, there would still be thirty minutes left to play.

So that's the dilemma.  In a situation where you could cheat to help your team progress in the World Cup, would you do it?

...or every two years?

World Cup every four years or every two years?
I thought I'd have a topical 'Would You Rather?' dilemma this month, so as World Cup fever grips the world it's therefore the perfect time to pose a football dilemma based on the World Cup.

Obviously, if you're a football fan then you'll be pretty excited at the prospect of four weeks of football to look forward to, featuring most (although not all) of the world's best players.

But is part of the magic the fact that the World Cup only takes place once every four years?  Or when something is so excellent does it make sense to hold it twice as often?

I realise that not everyone is a football fan (my commiserations to anyone who that applies to), so to take into account the opinions of non-football fans I've also included a third option in this month's poll.

Anyway, enough of the waffle.  If FIFA decided to hold a referendum asking all fans to vote on whether they would prefer the World Cup to be held every four years or every two years, how would you vote?

...or you could only shout?

Only whisper or only shout?
Or to rephrase that in text speak; would you rather you could only whisper, or YOU COULD ONLY SHOUT?

Neither would be ideal but if you had to go for one which one would it be?

And if you're one of those unfortunate people who already has one of those loud shouty voices, then for the purposes of the 'Would You Rather?' imagine that you had a normal voice like everyone else.

... or that you could never enjoy the taste of nice food ever again?

Laughter or the taste of nice food?
If you go for the 'never taste nice food again' option, then you can still taste dangerous stuff, so you wouldn't have to worry about accidentally eating or drinking something which was poisonous, but you would no longer be able to experience all of the delicious tastes which you currently enjoy.  All the nice stuff which you like eating would from now on taste bland and tasteless.

If you go for the 'never laugh again' option then don't worry, you wouldn't suddenly become depressed or miserable.  You just wouldn't understand the concept of humour any longer.  You could still be happy and contented, but you wouldn't find things funny.  In fact you wouldn't find things even slightly amusing.

Both options would be a total gutter because obviously laughing and eating lush food are both brilliant things, but if you had to do without one or the other, then which one would you give up?  No more laughter or no more pleasant tastes?

...but not make a single penny from it, or invent a new flavour of bubble gum which makes you a millionaire?

Limitless green energy or popular new bubble gum flavour?
And just to clarify, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with bubble gum.  I used to really like bubble gum when I was younger.  The reason I chose 'inventing a new flavour of bubble gum' as the second option was because obviously compared to inventing a limitless green energy supply, bubble gum wouldn't really have quite as much benefit for mankind.

So which option would you go for?  Who would you rather be?  The rich bubble gum inventor, or the financially unrewarded inventor of a futuristic limitless green energy supply which has massive benefits for mankind?

...or that you could never read a book or magazine ever again?

Music or books?
 Two brilliant things but which one would you get rid
of if you had to do without one or the other?
If you went for the first option then you could still hear everything else like conversations and general noises, but you couldn't hear songs or music.

If you went for the second option then you could still read signs and menus and basic stuff like that, but you could never read another book or magazine ever again.

Music and reading are both totally excellent, but the scenario is that you have to get rid of one of them, so which option would you go for?

And remember, you're voting for the option that you'd get rid of.

...or you let out a loud smelly fart every time you told a lie?

Big nose or smelly farts?
Obviously neither option would be ideal, but if you had to go for one of them, which one would it be?

Just to clarify, if you go for the 'nose growing option' then it wouldn't be a permanent change.  After a minute or so, your nose would return to its normal size.  However, if you told a few lies straight after each other then your nose would grow each time you told a lie, before then returning to its normal size a minute or so after you finally stopped telling lies.

Obviously for some people like myself this scenario is irrelevant because of course I never tell lies, but for everyone else, which option would you go for?