"Damn you for me allowing myself to be a mental slave to some pointless crap."

[Aldurin]

The following paragraphs will result in unhappiness and excessive swearing.

It occurred to me when I was playing Minecraft that I have no idea how the forum generally is about "The Game". For those who might be unaware (doubtful), the goal is to say "Moo" without thinking about this very game. Also everytime you think about this game you "lose the game".

This is the dumbest piece of crap mankind has ever made, or the most ingenious cure for boredom. I personally don't give a crap either way, I just laugh whenever I inadvertently cause somebody to say "I just lost the game", but I don't go out of my way to see how many people I can piss off by doing that.

So, do you even give this any thought/care ever? Do you treat it as your secondary religion or as a tool that you wield to bring suffering upon the lesser minds?

[Token]

The Game stopped being funny about two months after it started.

[McTahr]

The game was never funny.

[Token]

To be fair, I was around thirteen at the time.

[Flarecobra]

I personally could care less.

And that's also why you always carry a spare quarter.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I remember being in line for Subway at uni and some guy in front of us announced very loudly "I just lost the game" and looked around looking for a reaction. We all just blank stared him, not flickering. He then sheepishly bought his subway and left, I imagine to go have a cry.
That was pretty funny.

[Fifthfiend]

Wazzzzzzzzzzzzzuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup?!?!? !

[Loyal]

I remember being in line for Subway at uni and some guy in front of us announced very loudly "I just lost the game" and looked around looking for a reaction. We all just blank stared him, not flickering. He then sheepishly bought his subway and left, I imagine to go have a cry.
That was pretty funny.

Pretty much the only appropriate reaction, now or ever.

That or that one XKCD comic.

[Overcast]

Seconding loyal. My mind has defaulted to mild contempt at anyone that ill carries on that damn thing. I thought maybe the military would be free of it, but no. The dweebish masses continue to fortify that terrible practice.

[Donomni]

Yeah, it kinda lost its appeal when damn near everyone on RaiRO had to say they failed at this interactive event that was, truthfully, neither interactive nor something not-failable in the first place.

I guess you could call it an event of sorts, but only of sorts.

[Aldurin]

It's good to know that we're mature about this sort of bullshit.

[Loyal]

Who's this "we" nonsense? You brought it up in the first place.

[Aldurin]

Who's this "we" nonsense? You brought it up in the first place.

Because I assumed you guys were okay about it until I was talking on the Minecraft server about how some of my friends say "I lost the game" whenever they're watching me play multiplayer. Doc then proceeded to respond with "You mother fucker."

I had to investigate.

[Token]

To be fair, calling you a motherfucker is pretty much the first seven things I do after I wake up. I'm sure it's the same for everyone else.

[Azisien]

I legitimately have no idea what this thread is about. Wow. That is so rare!

[Pip Boy]

I legitimately have no idea what this thread is about. Wow. That is so rare!

What forum have you been reading?

We have crazy nonsense whatthefuckery threads all the time. In fact, I kind of thought this was one of them and was disappointed when it didn't quite live up NPF's expectations of nonsensical shenaniganry in a thread.

[Azisien]

I can usually decode WTFNPF threads! This one is just...

I'm...

Bamboozled!

[ChaoticBrain]

What's all this about saying "Moo" to win the game? I've never heard of that.

THIS is how you win the game:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/anti_mind_virus.png/

[rpgdemon]

Personally, I just cheated.

Then that comic gave me legitimacy, as I clicked the random comic button, and it popped up.

[The Argent Lord]

I never heard the moo thing either. I suppose I'm "playing the game" in the sense that when other people say they lost it, I make the appropriate faux-angry responses, but since that's rather an automatic reflex instead of an actual thought at this point, I have to wonder when the last time I legitimately thought about and lost the game was. Before now, of course, where I have to be thinking about it.

[Fifthfiend]

Hey guys you should totally click on this link to a thing that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ) is 100% totally relevant to this topic that you are discussing which is why I am linking to it in this topic that we are talkopicing about!!!

[Amake]

http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv324/immortalpictures/care.png
The red line here represents the amount of mental effort I put into The Game on a daily basis.

I look at it this way: I lost about twenty minutes after I first heard about it, I think in the early days of Uncyclopedia. And that's it. I've lost. Like using fire in paper, rock, scissors, it's something you can only ever do once. It doesn't matter. It's okay to lose. It's just a game. And a badly thought-out one at that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Why would you use fire in paper scissors rock? Cause while it beats paper, it loses to rock and probably scissors. If youa re bringing in outside elements use something that beats everything like water or dynamite.

[Azisien]

Why would you use fire in paper scissors rock? Cause while it beats paper, it loses to rock and probably scissors. If youa re bringing in outside elements use something that beats everything like water or dynamite.

I see you've played Rock Paper Scissors Magma before!

[Amake]

Water beats fire but loses to everything else. Fire beats everything but water but you can only use it once in your life. It's how they play in Ultimate Frisbee. I Am Not Making This Up.

[Magus]

Hey, guys, I found a sure-fire way to win The Game: frontal lobotomy!

I say we do it to everyone who still cares about The Game to give them a fighting chance.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Water beats fire but loses to everything else. Fire beats everything but water but you can only use it once in your life. It's how they play in Ultimate Frisbee. I Am Not Making This Up.

Water dissolves paper, erodes rock, rusts scissors. I don't want kind of crazy ass water you got where you live.

[BloodyMage]

I see you're playing the long game.

[Krylo]

Well what does fire do to scissors and rocks if it's not a long game?

And considering paper beats rock by 'covering' it, shouldn't just getting things wet be enough?

[BloodyMage]

Depends if you're playing with run of the mill lighter fire, or magma as suggested above.

Technically paper should be able to beat scissors by covering them too. The only real conclusion to come to is that paper is actually useless, and rock's weakness to is arbitrary.

[Krylo]

Nah, because if paper covers scissors, the scissors can, if they are in a closed position, merely open and rip the paper, or, if they are in an open position, close and then slide out.

Or just open and close a bunch either way until the paper gets in the way and becomes shredded.

[Melfice]

Well what does fire do to scissors and rocks if it's not a long game?

And considering paper beats rock by 'covering' it, shouldn't just getting things wet be enough?

Fire melts the plastic and metal of the scissors.
Fire also, assuming the temperature is sufficiently high, melts rock.)

Fire really does trump everything in Rock Paper Scissors.

[Krylo]

An average flame only gets up to 1,400-1,700 Celsius. The melting point of steel is about the same. However, the transference of heat means it's going to take basically forever for it to melt.

Unless you're using some kind of special chemical fire (in which case you should be saying 'thermite' instead of 'fire'), that is not the case at all. It might be able to melt the plastic, but even then, not very quickly.

[Melfice]

We never did actually specify which kind of fire (as far as I'm aware), so yeah.
In the case of regular, strike-a-match fire, you're absolutely right.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Unless by fire you mean like blast furnace your fire ain't going to do shit.
Like I could argue that my paper is reinforced with copolymers which give it the strength of kevlar (which is doable) and thus your scissors can't cut it but that would be stupid- you got to go with the most common instance in which your things are encountered.

[CelesJessa]

Fire and water are dumb, I like to use nukes to win my games of Rock-Paper-Scissors.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Somebody always throws out the cockroach though.

[Kerensky287]

I always go rock because on the off chance the other person goes paper, I can always say, "No, I meant against you."

Rock beats human skull.

[Aldurin]

Pfft, everyone knows that natural 20 beats rock. (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2004/01/15/episode-373-critical-hit/)

[Donomni]

Wimps. You aren't playing REAL RPS. (http://www.umop.com/rps101/rps101chart.html)

[Amake]

Well what does fire do to scissors and rocks if it's not a long game?

And considering paper beats rock by 'covering' it, shouldn't just getting things wet be enough? Probably. I don't even understand your crazy Yankee games with rock, paper, scissors. Where I come from we call it rock, scissors, bag.

Mindblowing, I know.

[Pip Boy]

Every time I see the title of this thread, it reminds me to check for homestuck updates.

[BloodyMage]

Nah, because if paper covers scissors, the scissors can, if they are in a closed position, merely open and rip the paper, or, if they are in an open position, close and then slide out.

Or just open and close a bunch either way until the paper gets in the way and becomes shredded.

The dynamics of the game are already flawed in that case though, since if you go by Barrelpant's logic of using the items in their most common day occurrences, then, unless you're at the beach, most rocks will have sharp edges. These edges will inevitably cut through paper when you try to cover it.

Paper could beat scissors though when covered if you cover it entirely, handles and all. You'd have to puncture the paper to put your fingers in the handles, which would tear the paper but it'd be a third party action. Furthermore, a sufficiently folded piece of paper could be difficult enough to cut through, depending on the sharpness of the scissor.

This is all common day occurrences of the objects, and yet you still end up requiring to define the items such as blunt stone, sharp scissors or thin, unfolded paper. Although this is all silly since this game is played with your hands, so if someone wraps their paper around your fingers and you can't open them, well then you've lost whether you can refute them with logic or not.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Rocks are static unmoving. Scissors are in a perpetual flux, cutting cutting cutting, as a human tool. Paper likewise floaats about in the wind. Scissors attack the rock- get blunted. Rock sits there, paper float over it. Paper floats at scissors, get covered.
Using the rock as a cutting tool denies the point of rock- the cutting there is the human making cutting actions with a rock not the inherent rockiness of the rock whcih is unmoving.

The real dilemma of paper scissors rock is the handshake paper controversy- one which got me kicked out of the paper scissors rock club when I challenged their ridiculous orthodoxy.

[BloodyMage]

I'm not sure I've ever seen scissors make cutting actions without the aid of a human.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

That is the scissors natural state- it is designed to cut, it is built as a tool, it works as a tool, that is what scissors do, if the scissors are not cutting they would not exist The rocks natural state is sitting around being a rock.This is the same ridiculousness I was railing against previously, it's about the essence- scissors are the essenec of cutting, rocks the essen ce of being tough, paper the essence of being soft and supple.
Otherwise you should just pick scissors everytime. Rock to the skull is not as good as scissors to the skull- because these scissors are super sharp.

[ASlimeDrawsNear]

It's also fundamentally flawed in that there is no way to tell how to or how many times you have used fire. That and the fact no one believes you.

[BloodyMage]

A problem occurs that neither scissors nor paper are exactly natural in the same way that rock is. Both are man-made; scissors is created from metal and paper from wood. Rock is literally the one only one I could go outside and find lay about, so the natural state of scissors has already been tampered with, and I see no reason not to assume I could do the same with rock, as in throw it or use it as a weapon.

[Hatake Kakashi]

Fools. Rock? Paper? Scissors? Vagina beats all.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

That is my point. Scissors and paper have a natural state that reflects their man-made state. I'm not using "some bits of metal and some plastic" I'm using "scissors". You are using "rock" not "rock hewn into human tool" or "projectile" or even "blunt object for smashing". If you use any of these then that is fine. But if you are using "rock" that is all you get.
The man modification is inherent in the term "scissors",, you can't get natural scissors. You are not using man jmodified rock however, you are using the rock, the earth itself only.

It's also fundamentally flawed in that there is no way to tell how to or how many times you have used fire. That and the fact no one believes you.
Solution: Don't play with cunts.

[BloodyMage]

That's my point though. The game is inherently flawed since all of the options aren't equal. I should be all man made verses or an all natural verses, such as rock, wood, lightning or scissors, paper, brick. I mean, it's all the same, but it seems like it'd be a much more even playing field.

[Aerozord]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/aerozord/166602966049a2f98150bbe.gif

[ASlimeDrawsNear]

That is my point. Scissors and paper have a natural state that reflects their man-made state. I'm not using "some bits of metal and some plastic" I'm using "scissors". You are using "rock" not "rock hewn into human tool" or "projectile" or even "blunt object for smashing". If you use any of these then that is fine. But if you are using "rock" that is all you get.
The man modification is inherent in the term "scissors",, you can't get natural scissors. You are not using man jmodified rock however, you are using the rock, the earth itself only.


Solution: Don't play with cunts.

Do I have to give up my habit of playing with cunts? I quite like it.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

That's my point though. The game is inherently flawed since all of the options aren't equal. I should be all man made verses or an all natural verses, such as rock, wood, lightning or scissors, paper, brick. I mean, it's all the same, but it seems like it'd be a much more even playing field.

Why do the options have to be equal? It is a representation of the hilly, uneveness of life, the flawed distrubtion against which we must struggle, the simple complexitiesof all around.

[BloodyMage]

Why would I bother playing a contest that was unfairly weighed? It's not meant to represent life, it's meant to decide who gets the last slice of cake.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's not unfairly weighted, just differentely. All factions are balanced.

[BloodyMage]

Clearly not if the options aren't equal.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Things don't have to be identical to be equal in the relevant field. 2 and 1+1 aren't identical but they are equal in the field of sum. Much like paper,scissors and rock aren't identical but are equal in the field of PSR. How are they possibly nto equal? That's stupid.

Like how on earth would you satisfy yo0ur criteria of "equalness" excedpt by playing rock, rock, rock.

[BloodyMage]

I'd be satisfied with Scissors, Paper, Brick.

[Krylo]

But then all your arguments about rock still hold. A brick can be thrown through paper. It has sharp edges that can rip paper. Worse, even. Covering a brick in paper is probably going to result in torn paper due to the sharp angles and rough texture.

I don't see how making it a brick solves your original problem of the rock, being a thing which normally just sits about, is assumed to be inanimate, while the scissors, being cutting tools, are assumed to be trying to cut things.

[BloodyMage]

The problem is solved in that brick, scissors and paper are all man made. I can make a brick with smoothed edges and reduced texture in the same way I could sharpen scissors. I could wrap paper around it since it has a defined shape, unlike a rock. Rocks are naturally variable and rely entirely on chance for it to be smooth or sharp. In essence the brick solves the problem because it, like scissors is made for a purpose. A brick is designed to be a part of fortification: It's strong, durable, and made to last, even against rain and storms. Scissors can't cut it, and paper could still be wrapped around it.

[synkr0nized]

I am glad we are apparently discussing Rock-Paper-Scissors, as the fact that the OP was even made was pretty disheartening.

Also, Flare, you meant "couldn't care less", unless of course you didn't mean to convey that it was unimportant.

[ASlimeDrawsNear]

I think the current system works if the rules state that they are to come together at a slow (opposite) velocity with the rock having a slightly faster velocity. The scissors are open, and the paper is flat and angled perpendicular to its movement. The scissors pierce the paper, the paper slowly wraps around the rock, and the rock pushes the scissors back, and prevents its function.

[Krylo]

It's strong, durable, and made to last, even against rain and storms. Scissors can't cut it, and paper could still be wrapped around it.

So's a rock.

You've solved nothing. I can still smash a brick through a piece of paper. It wouldn't be the normal usage or existence of a brick. It wouldn't capture the 'essence' of the brick.

But a rock follows all the exact same arguments.

[Marc v4.0]

river rockpebble, paper, scissors?

[Amake]

I'm sure even the people of the stone age played blunt rock, sharp rock, water bladder made from animal's stomach sack. I. . .uh. . .I don't know what we're talking about really.

[BloodyMage]

So's a rock.

You've solved nothing. I can still smash a brick through a piece of paper. It wouldn't be the normal usage or existence of a brick. It wouldn't capture the 'essence' of the brick.

But a rock follows all the exact same arguments.

I can make a brick that won't though. In fact the chance of me designing a brick that can break scissors but not smash through paper is 100%, compared to the variable odds of randomly finding a rock that might do the same job.

I think the current system works if the rules state that they are to come together at a slow (opposite) velocity with the rock having a slightly faster velocity. The scissors are open, and the paper is flat and angled perpendicular to its movement. The scissors pierce the paper, the paper slowly wraps around the rock, and the rock pushes the scissors back, and prevents its function.

That might be true...

river rockpebble, paper, scissors?

A river pebble, having been eroded to smoothness, probably would make it better suited than a rock.

[Krylo]

I can make a brick that won't though.
No you can't, because any sufficiently hard object thrown through an unmoving piece of paper, thrown with sufficient velocity, or smashed on top of a piece of paper sitting on another hard object a few times, will wear and tear it.

You can, maybe, design a brick less likely to do such.

Further, if you design a brick with the goal of 'not ruining paper' as opposed to with the goal of 'being laid in masonry construction' it's not a brick. You haven't designed a brick.

You've designed some kind of paper friendly piece of rock. So making a perfectly rounded brick is pretty unlikely unless you are doing some pretty odd construction.

[BloodyMage]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/111/287009799_ef135b6326.jpg

A rather large example, but an example none the less.

Regardless, not only can I soften the impact of the brick, but I can fortify the paper. Thicker sliced, better quality, than say the slightly better than tracing paper which people use for printing on low budget.

Difference is that now brick, scissors and paper are all on equal playing field since they are all man made they can all be modified for the purpose for which they are needed. I step outside my door and pick up a stone, it's not modified for anything. For it to be of equal value to scissors and paper I'd have to modify it, but if I modify it, it'd no longer be a rock.

[Krylo]

That's not a brick, that's an ornamental stone sculpture.

You can't just redefine 'brick' to mean 'thing that won't rip paper'. That's not what a brick is.

[Geminex]

How about
"Object A, being inferior to Object B and superior to Object C in direct comparision, Object B, being inferior to Object C and superior to Object A in direct comparision, Object C, being inferior to Object A and superior to Object B in direct comparision,"

That name is totally logical and unambigous!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/111/287009799_ef135b6326.jpg

A rather large example, but an example none the less.

Regardless, not only can I soften the impact of the brick, but I can fortify the paper. Thicker sliced, better quality, than say the slightly better than tracing paper which people use for printing on low budget.

Difference is that now brick, scissors and paper are all on equal playing field since they are all man made they can all be modified for the purpose for which they are needed. I step outside my door and pick up a stone, it's not modified for anything. For it to be of equal value to scissors and paper I'd have to modify it, but if I modify it, it'd no longer be a rock.

This is stupid because then we are just going to get into an optimisation war where we all have to read up on the latest journals on paper fibre copolymers and laser cutting scissors and optimal rock crystal structures for sheer resistance... holy fuck is this stupid.

[BloodyMage]

So...like medicine?

It wouldn't actually require optimisation, the first modification would make them equal and that's by which the game might literally work. If we wanted paper that had improved flexibility to absorb the brick but less durability to still be cut, we could do that. If we wanted a brick that was hard enough to endure scissors but light enough that it wouldn't damage paper, we could design that. If we wanted scissors that could cut paper but not brick, well most scissors do that already...

...and I know that's not a brick. Point is if we want to round a brick, we can round a brick, it's not like we can't do it with other things. There are far too many variables that a rock naturally falls into. A brick, being man made, is made whatever way we want it and, so long as it's used in construction, it's basically a brick. I could just as easily use chipboard.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

But they are already equal....... Why do we dance this mad dance? Why can I not resist the music, the moonlight.. onwards I stretch, to the lighthouse gone, all my facts are wrong.

[Amake]

What makes man made objects inherently superior to other objects? Isn't that just anthropocentric arrogance?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Top of the food chain suckas!

[BloodyMage]

I didn't say superior, I said equal. Scissors and paper and man made, but rock isn't, so it's not really fair to compare the virtues since the characteristics of scissors and paper are predetermined while rock isn't. Enter Brick.

[Amake]

What characteristics are predetermined? It's not like we use a specific brand or model of scissors. We don't use any physical objects at all, come to think of it. What we use are symbols representing the idea of the items, and the only characteristic of those items are hardness, flatness and sharpness respectively. (Hardness, sharpness and containness in the Swedish version.) They don't have any properties other than what we ascribe to them, since we make them up. Yes, even rock.

[BloodyMage]

It's predetermined when I make the scissors because, since it's man made, I decide those characteristics before I even enter the factory. The same isn't true of rock, since we go looking for a rock with characteristics in mind, but no guarantee of finding it.

No, we don't make them up, other wise I could say this rock is from Gondal and therefore resists wrapping. We base them on real objects.

[Amake]

Base them on, yes. But they stop being real objects when we make them into symbols. Symbols which exist to facilitate a fair and balanced game, and therefore must be the same generic items for everyone. Since you're clearly not getting away with using a Gondol rock, I'd say it works.

[BloodyMage]

Generic items work because if someone asks what scissors are I can pick up a pair of scissors to show them and if they ask how they cut paper I can show them that too. If the scissors in the game work any other way than the scissors in the real world then they aren't scissors. There are items which work in same way but these are probably just the most common.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's predetermined when I make the scissors because, since it's man made, I decide those characteristics before I even enter the factory. The same isn't true of rock, since we go looking for a rock with characteristics in mind, but no guarantee of finding it.

No, we don't make them up, other wise I could say this rock is from Gondal and therefore resists wrapping. We base them on real objects.

The average rock blunts scissors. It is very very rare for this not to be the case.
the average scissors cuts the average paper. It is very very rare for this not to be the case.
The averaage paper cover the average rock. It is very very rare for this not to be the case.
We don't make scissors to cut rocks, your point is stupid.

Also unless you are inside a scissors or paper factory while playing the game you are just going to pick up the first scissors, paper or rock that you find.

Your argumetns make no sense, it doesn't matter how the objects are produced- their properties fufill the purpose of the game. We don't ahve to find a magical super-raare rock, we have to find a rock that is hard- which is like 99% of rocks and like 100% of what you would use and think of in paper scissors rock. Go outside and find me a rock that doesn't fufill its purpose in the game. Tell me how long it takes you.
This is stupppppppppppppid.


Generic items work because if someone asks what scissors are I can pick up a pair of scissors to show them and if they ask how they cut paper I can show them that too. If the scissors in the game work any other way than the scissors in the real world then they aren't scissors. There are items which work in same way but these are probably just the most common.
and if a rock doesn't blunt the scissors it's not a rock. This is just showing that rocks work.

[BloodyMage]

It's not about scissors vs. rock, it's about rock vs. paper. Rocks being hard doesn't make them easy to wrap or cover. The problem emerges that most common rocks aren't rounded. You step outside and the most common rock you'll find have sharp edges that would tear paper, unless you live by the sea side, but given how many beaches there are compared to inland, sharp rocks are much more common. This is why I suggested Brick, because it's hard, and because it's commonly used in construction, there's a wide range of shapes and sizes depending on what you're building. A rounded brick wouldn't be outrageous.

That said, this probably is stupid. I was just having fun.

[Funka Genocide]

Wait, wait.

Wait...

I always thought it was fist, peace sign, karate chop. Peace sign never wins when I play.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's not about scissors vs. rock, it's about rock vs. paper. Rocks being hard doesn't make them easy to wrap or cover. The problem emerges that most common rocks aren't rounded. You step outside and the most common rock you'll find have sharp edges that would tear paper, unless you live by the sea side, but given how many beaches there are compared to inland, sharp rocks are much more common. This is why I suggested Brick, because it's hard, and because it's commonly used in construction, there's a wide range of shapes and sizes depending on what you're building. A rounded brick wouldn't be outrageous.

That said, this probably is stupid. I was just having fun.

It depends how tight you need to wrap. Yes the paper will tear if you do it tight enoguh but if I have enough paper that's not a problem. Just take as much paper as you need to wrap the rock like twice over and you won't need to tear the paper. You can't wrap the scissors though cause they cutting.
Bricks are harder to wrap than rocks because bricks by definition have sharp corners. Rock can have more rouded corners or not have corners at all. But you don't need brick, that just change for chaange shape, I can wrap pretty much any rock you choose with paper without the paper tearing.

[BloodyMage]

but does it need to cover or just wrap? Otherwise, it's far easier to wrap paper around a brick depthwise (or widthwise, I'm not sure) than trying to wrap a randomly sized rock in any direction because we can't be certain of the rock's dimensions, unlike a brick.