I don't see why you need to. You have expounded a sensible and rational analysis. It is a fascinating imperfect-information non-zero sum problem in game theory, and it is not clear what is the best strategy to not only maximise not only immediate personal benefit but also that of "friends" and of oneself in the long run. There are interesting tensions between the pulls of cooperativeness and selfishness. It contains elements of the Prisoner's Dilemma and of the Tragedy of the Commons. A softly softly approach may (or may not!) maximise personal benefit in one particular game but may make it less likely that one will benefit from future similar games.

It is clear that the solution often adopted by nature and indeed by the FT forum ("FARE GONE!") is the feeding frenzy, but that Marriott example is different from a fare error in that there is potential to keep the food source alive by eating it slowly.

In conclusion I do believe the softly softly approach to be the best, provided only that you tell me about it first.