On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 07:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > There's an alternate interpretation, btw, that no-one has brought > up yet. > > 1. (Accepting Fool's Premise): Since "winning" is, by common > definition, part and parcel of ending the game, the two aren't > separable. > > 2. Therefore, any rule that attempts to award a win is > unsuccessful if it does not also have the power to end all > aspects of the game. > > 3. Therefore, the Win attempt failed in the first place, as the > rule was not powerful enough to end the game, therefore not > powerful enough to declare someone the winner.
I think there's another subsidiary point here, which is "how much power does it take to end the game / series of games, anyway"? It feels like the answer should be "3", but I can't see an immediate reason why it's any more than 1. We should legislate that away pretty quickly before someone uses it for blackmail purposes as part of an escalation scam. -- ais523
