Talk:The Game (mind game)

Fix the rules not enough explanation

Consider these rules:

1. In order to play the game, one must simply know about the game, and have a basic grasp of the rules. Thus, if you do not wish to become a participant of this simple concept ritual right now, simply click the random page button.

2. There is no way to win the game, but one can, at any given moment, be winning. However, awareness that one is in fact winning will immediately make the winning person a loser. The reasons for this will soon become clearer. It has been speculated, however, that the game may be won by, after learning of the game, never thinking of it again until your death. If you manage to attain this feat. You will have won the game.

3. In order to lose the game, one must simply think about it.

4. Optional rule. If a participant does, on their mental travels, briefly remember the fact that they are playing the game, and thus lose, they are obliged to tell anyone nearby that they have just failed in their subconscious attempt to remain victorious. The most common phrases of use in these circumstances are simply "I lost the game", "I just lost the game" or "I lost".

5. Also, the game. BroNodCom (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fallacial

I dont know how to edit but thought someone should edit the strategy. You cannot strategze about the game becasue that would involve thinking of it. Therefore it is not needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerdood621 (talk • contribs) 15:52, November 19, 2009

^I agree with the above person. And maybe short attention span could be added there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.196.155.213 (talk • contribs) 19:38, March 10, 2010

You can devise strategies during the ~30 minute grace period. There's really no contradiction at all. --Zarel (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable source in article.

Hi; I don't have a wikipedia account and so I can't edit this article, but there are a few uses of this source:

• "The three rules of the game". The Metro. 2008-12-05

(It's currently source #6). This source is of dubious credibility. Particularly, the variation "rule" about the prime minister being able to end the game comes from that source, which only states, in weasel words, that "some players" claim that rule. That type of source is not credible, and not appropriate for a "fact" in an encyclopedia article. Could somebody with an account please remove that source and the material that references it?

Thanks! --24.188.248.188 (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It's in the Metro, so that's fine to verify it. Fences&Windows 00:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular Game Triggers

This would be a good addition to the article as in some areas people have added "triggers", words, colors, or objects that cause a person to remember the game. One extremely popular trigger is the color orange due to its abundance in the world and the number of sub-triggers that can be created from it such as FedEx whose color scheme includes orange or the college of UM whose school colors are green and orange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagger3 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But I'll bet there aren't any reliable sources to verify any of these "popular triggers", so no, don't add them. Fences&Windows 00:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers tag

Why the hell is there no spoilers tag for this article? I just lost! Glandrid (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(WP:SW.) I wouldnt really consider it to be a spoiler since THE GAME has no plot to spoil. I also think it would be impossible to neutrally warn people about not reading to avoid playing/loosing the game without either explaining the game, which would have the same affor mentioned problems of introducing the game to people and to perpetual loss, or being excessively vauge about it to the point that curiosity will still draw people into loosing THE GAME. On an unrelated note, at some point I intend to elevate this to featured and get it on the front page; legitimate wiki trolling at its finest. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 05:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The game is not a work of fiction. Spoiler tags are meant for occasions where information contained within a section may damage one's enjoyment of a work. Using that tag would be innappropiate.  Marlith (Talk)  20:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This'll never get to featured article status, but a DYK could be possible... Fences&Windows 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can center April Fool's Day 2010 around the game.  Marlith (Talk)  03:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

M&Ms says hello; HI! I was a persistant critic of Infinity0. I believe he has left wikidom. Can I ask if he created this game?

The Ongoing Game

Hi. I've been advised not to edit the article as I run LoseTheGame.com but maybe someone could add something to the first paragraph to emphasise the fact that after you've lost you start playing again. A lot of people will read this and think that they are permanently "out" of The Game as soon as they think about it for the first time. Cheers Kernow (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested wording, based on reliable sources? Fences&Windows 23:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All the sources support the fact that The Game can be lost more than once, so I don't think that is an issue here, it's just the wording to make this clearer. Maybe something like replacing "Thinking about The Game constitutes a loss, which, according to the rules of The Game, must then be announced" with "Every time a player thinks about The Game, they have temporarily lost. According to the rules, such losses of The Game must be announced." Kernow (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, just noticed that the "mind game" link in the first sentence links to something only weakly related to this... Kernow (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So should we rename the article to The Game (game)? --Zarel (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As it's not the only game called "The Game" I don't think that would be appropriate. I think it does count as a mind game, it's just that "playing mind games" is often used to mean what the Mind game article describes, which is something completely different really... Kernow (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

None of them are particularly well-known, though. And The Game (game) already redirects here, so renaming the article to that isn't going to make much of a difference. --Zarel (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "must be announced each time it occurs" - is this okay with everyone? --Zarel (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's definitely clearer. Kernow (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is Encyclopedic?

I thought the whole article was vandalism until I checked the history. I mean the info box looks looks like a joke. I can't believe this article exists. Kudos for keeping it. 86.46.213.211 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No joke. Wikipedia is serious business. Fences&Windows 00:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean srs biznis. srsly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.255.88 (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is srs bzns. That's just common knowledge. --Lronjeremyfoshizzle (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For years, this article was deleted over and over again. I'm glad to see some editors have removed their heads from their asses. It is certainly a verifiable phenomenon which deserves to be documented. This article deserves to exist, dammit. 24.68.79.61 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin date

Whilst I have no evidence that would meet encyclopedia requirements I think The Game is a lot older than the article implies. I remember discussing it at Bradford University in the spring of 1985. My wife believes she first encountered it even earlier - possibly as far back as the late 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.67.248 (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It derives from a game called Finchley Central, which was first played by Cambridge mathematicians in the late '60s. That game was almost the same as Mornington Crescent, and the obvious inspiration for that radio game. The other fork of Finchley Central began when the participants would see each other and smirk as they thought about Finchley Central, thus they introduced the rule that if you thought about Finchley Central, you lost the game. With that new rule, the rest fell away. Unfortunately, the link between Finchley Central and The Game as we know it today is not reliably sourced, so we can't include this. Google: "finchley central" "the game". Fences&Windows 00:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a page on Know your Meme stating that it was invented as you say by Cambridge students (from the Cambridge University Sci Fi Club) in 1977 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.55.39 (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Winning The Game

There is a rummor that if you think about the game while having sex you win the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.161.163 (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) It may be relevant to include http://xkcd.com/391/ witch allows any one to win —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.42.144 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not notable enough. Furthermore, it only causes the reader to lose (making up rules doesn't work that way). --Zarel (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clinical death has been mentioned, through demotivators and multiple board discussions, as one way "winning" the game, maybe it is worth mentioning. Also: FFFUUUUUUUUUU....--94.69.161.206 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, demotivators and forum discussions are not notable. --Zarel (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

BPM Variation

A variant (played by Australian teenagers and perhaps others of different nationality) has an extra rule in addition to the current three proposed by LoseTheGame.com. It stated also that "The Game would be finished and done forever if the current 'British' Prime Minister announced on National Television via live broadcast the phrase 'The Game is Up!'" This obviously leaves an expectation that via "word of mouth" or International Medium (e.g. Wikipedia.org, LoseTheGame.com) that the British PM would hear of this rule set and hopefully end the game by following the described events necessary to end The Game. Another possibility to win the game is significantly easier, is to convince another player that you haven't lost the game. For example, when another player announces their loss, you must deny the very exsistence of the game and convince the first person that you're not playing, but still tell at least one person within the thirty seconds alotted to you to announce your loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsciencejesus (talk • contribs) 10:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That variation is already mentioned in the article. --Zarel (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

<new variation>

up here in western Canada, we play that if everyone in the world is aware of and playing the game, then the game is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.111.140 (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We will not add that unless you can find a reliable source that states it. --Zarel (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, logically, that's what would happen. If everyone in the world was playing, and no one lost (ever again, ie. forgot about the game), then the game is over.71.164.94.191 (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Logic, unless extremely obvious, is still original research, which is not allowed by Wikipedia's rules. --Zarel (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

the game

don't delete it! some people don't know the rules! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.28.105 (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no current proposal for deletion. Fences&Windows 17:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rules and Origins

I just want to point out that while the five sources cited concerning the rules of the game are reliable sources, they are just speculation. The rules of the game are as cloudy as its origins. The three rules listed are in no way official or agreed upon by all players. I would suggest modifying to the only two agreed upon rules (i.e. how one loses, and announcing it), and then adding speculation about other rules. Spartan S58 (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: The source cited for the first rule shows the speculation, whereas the article implies that the rule is factually solid, and not up to interpretation.

You're disregarding sources 1,2,6,7,8, which do not imply at all that the first rule is speculation. There might be minor disagreement about whether or not "everyone in the world is playing The Game" (I lost) counts as a real rule, but since few sources mention the disagreement, I don't think it's notable enough to mention in the article itself. --Zarel (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because the particular sources don't cover something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Something like the game is an internet culture thing, and by it's nature is going to have incomplete/unreliable sources. Those articles take quotes from one very small area of the world, whereas the game is a worldwide thing and there are many other view points besides those in the articles cited. Spartan S58 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Can you link me to the source that claims the first rule is questionable? --Zarel (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, many versions of the game require stating a certain type of profanity before saying I lost the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.11.33 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of that. If you can find a reliable source that mentions that, though, feel free to add it. --Zarel (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: i've always played with a rule that stated that one cannot share the concept of the game with anyone who did not already play unless the non-player asked a question about the game (i.e, "what game?"). has anyone else been familiar with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.241.156 (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Generally Accepted formula for the game is best to be taken from it's official home which would be the site which hosts all knowledge of anything Anon Created and that would be the Encyclopedia Dramatica. Furthermore Anonymous should be listed as creator. it's not breaking rule 1 and 2 until you mention you know what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.235.245 (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Generally accepted" by who? And why should Anonymous be listed as its creator? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Anonymous is not its creator. Please keep in mind that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to record every rumor that floats around 4chan. --Zarel (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Refrences in culture or something?

alot of people know of the xkcd comic about winning, and the game is the subject to alot of posts on the chans. Plus im sure theres been other stuff. (and im would be all for closing this article, but i use it to get my friends playing so i can annoy them.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.130.185 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Game ended January 7, 2010

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs178.snc3/20557_1106786449787_1830589226_217158_4795333_n.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by YacAttack (talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Seconded by Kryticate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryticate (talk • contribs) 06:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that states this, and then it may be included in the article. ;) --Zarel (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Game is still going, will not ever stop, no matter what person says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.2.10 (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"ironic processing" reference

It's worth mentioning the term in the article, but the ironic processing reference doesn't belong in the "Origin" section, and certainly shouldn't be explained in detail there. Editing accordingly... Merc64 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

20240812115240The Game ended at 22:15:40 (EST or GMT -5) on January 7th 2010, after an incident on 4chan (where the game is mainly upholded and regulated) decisevly ended it. A user under the name 'Anonymous' announced that if his thread post ended in triples (a case where the last three numbers of a post ID are identical numerals), every person playing the game would win, and the game would end. Subsequently his post ID was assigned 187046777.

My username on here is DashH93, if you need proof I have a screenshot, ill upload it to an image host.

Uhh...I think everyone has different opinions as to what ends the game...why did this person "Anonymous" have the authority to end the game? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you say something with "get triples" or something similar on 4chan, and you get triples, whatever you said becomes true. It's lost its meaning recently, as the administrators have started truncating post numbers to try to prevent future 'GETs'. Also, if someone posted a counter-triple, and it succeeded, then the original triple is forgotten. It's all very confusing. Flash man999 (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, if you say something with "get triples" or something similar on 4chan, and you get triples, absolutely nothing happens as far as the real world is concerned. --Zarel (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I lost. Tim1357 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

More origin accounts

There are other origin accounts given in this source: http://www.laloyolan.com/entertainment/you-just-lost-the-game-1.1589859 218.208.253.234 (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Game" can not truly exist or be a game

In order to constitute being a game, you have to able to win ORItalic text lose, and a game has to be able to be played by choice. also, a game has to be acknowledged to be played, there has to be a start, and then a period of time time to either win or lose by some sort of objective. if loss if automatic, then a game never happened. in other words, it is an effort in futile irony, since it pretensiously is called "the game", but defies the definiton of the word "game" on almost every level.

in short, this article shouldn't exist AT ALL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.36.95 (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

From wikipedia's article on Game, a game is "A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work..." The Game is a game that it is only possible to loose (with the possible exception of Chuck Norris, depending on the rule set). There are many other games like this, including Dwarf Fortress, for example. Caleb Jon^talk 00:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL at the irony of trying to use Wikipedia to prove that Wikipedia is right to continue to host this pitiful article. A game just for loosers is indeed what it is. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ever the charmer, Mick. It is amusing that this little game can engender so much hatred, but notable is notable. It's spelled 'losers', btw. Fences&Windows 00:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It presently exists as an article primarily because bloody-mindedness will accomplish practically anything on Wikipedia. In the long run, its lack of references more reliable than tabloid column-fillers will probably result in deletion when people get bored of defending it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason not to have a wikipedia article on a widely played game. If you cannot accept that tough. Several admins, who are supposed to be responsible users, and normal editors have already gone to ridiculous lengths to delete and obstruct improvements to the article, to remove valid content, and to tenditiously delete references to reality. This has to stop. --ZincBelief (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This article has been treated in exactly the same way as any other article which couldn't readily establish its notability. Quite why people believe that so many editors in good standing would take such actions out of malice is beyond me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything good about how they stand. Tenditious deletionists would be a better description. Consider the ridiculous obstructionism that occurred whenever somebody tried to add a picture to the article. What a ridiculous farce that was. How many stupid edits had to be made before we established the damn obvious there. Whatever you think about the Game, and I certainly wouldn't play such a pastime, you have to admit that this article is a damn sight better and more informative than many others out there on wikipedia. The notability for it is established, there is no basis for deletion. If you don't agree with that, well simply try to delete it, see what happens. You cannot delete something just because you don't like it. This is not whatilikeapedia.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, deletionists, the last safe prejudice. I'm not actually interested in AfDing this (having lost the stomach for conversations like the one above) anyway, so I think we're done here for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the only reason most people are opposing the existence of this article is WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Even the sources are rationalized as "tabloid column-fillers". The problem here, I think, is that the notability guidelines are a bit unclear (and also a bit too strict). I think when there's a significant number of people looking up a subject on Wikipedia, there should be an article on it, because of WP:IAR if nothing else. --Zarel (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

IAR is not, and never has been, an excuse to allow non-notable articles. IAR is about ignoring internal beaurocracy if it gets in the way of building an encyclopoedia which complies with the five pillars, the first of which defines What Wikipedia is not. And hosting this junk is a blatant violation of NOT. Wikipedia is not spam or a free advertising service, Wikipedia is not someone's free webhost, Wikipedia is not the venue for shit people made up one day or for gossip or juvenile humour, Wikipedia is not the venue of original research or the venue for speculation and synthesis, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid junk news service. Significant numbers of people are commenting on how ridiculous it is that Wikipedia has an artice on this, that is generally a good enough sign that an article doesn't belong here, it has only remained through campaigns of extreme tendentiousness such as the classic attempts to redefine the GNG, combined with an extremely dubious provenance all round. If this article were forced to comply with all relevant content policies, stripped back to only what comes from neutral, reliable sources, properly attributed, with all blatant self-promotional sources and content of dubious relevance removed, then, if it were passed to Afd with only fresh sets of eyes on it, it would not stand a chance. MickMacNee (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the last deletion review. Weep. --ZincBelief (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the one started by an SPA who had just volunteered his time to 'point out' all the 'multiple' 'reliable' 'sources' that have 'covered' the game making it 'notable'. A regular feature in the history of this article. If you read a little further beyond the JN one liners in that Drv,you will see that not everybody is conned so easily. You will see some very reasoned and thoughtful opinions, from people who clearly know exactly what those sources represented, know exactly where they came from, and see this junk article for exactly what it is. Still, you have to give the SPA credit, he certainly knows how to play people, and Wikipedia, royally, and I genuinely feel sorry for those who have been taken in. Those that aren't his socks of course, obviously. MickMacNee (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, what is a game? Wikipedia says:

"A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool."

so since the game, is a game for enjoyment, it is a game. also _{the game} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk • contribs) 11:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

See above about the worth of using Wikipedia as a reference to support Wikipedia. And as The Game takes place in the mind and people can make it up as they go along because, despite the fantasy of this article, it has no written rules, it is therefore hardly a structured activity, and it is most definitely not an educational tool. Leaving the last 'defintion', to which all I can say is, if people are playing the Game for enjoyment, they need mental help tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

webcomics

The game featured in two widely read webcomics. Why should this not be mentioned in the article? Who deemed these to be unnoteworthy or why? Wikipedia policy and practice clearly indicates that these can and should have remained in place.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:POPCULTURE has a good set of tests for which fictional references are and are not noteworthy. The examples are even taken from a prominent webcomic. I would note that the use of the word "clearly" in the above assertion would seem to hold true to the observation that statements made with the qualifier "clearly" are rarely so. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 15 Apri

l 2010 (UTC)

I see you haven't read the article in question then. --ZincBelief (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider this a warning for this edit summary. If you have a point to make then do so plainly and civilly. Again, WP:POPCULTURE specifically says which examples are and are not appropriate, even using the example of one of the very webcomics in question, and the reference comes up lacking because there is no demonstration of real-world impact. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can't read, then don't write. The mention of the game in XKCD quite clearly generated interest and comment as you can easily verify - thus satisfying the criteria for inclusion. I'm sorry that you have to pretend that you don't understand this.--ZincBelief (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"quite clearly generated interest and comment as you can easily verify" - Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

ZinkBelief, as per WP:POPCULTURE in order for an xkcd comic to

be mentioned in the article it must have reliable sources which do not generally cover xkcd point out the strip. If you can find reliable sources then it would be fine to add a mention. Caleb Jon^talk 00:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The Game has been referenced in XKCD, but the reference has not been covered in any reliable sources. Until it is, I don't think the XKCD reference can be included. Kernow (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I lost the game

And so have you! Winner 42 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Winning the game?

I have heard from some people (although others vigorously deny it) that it is possible to win the game by thinking about losing the game (A double negative is a positive.). Is this true, and should we include it?