Talk:2716: Game Night Ordering

Should we create a category for comics about game night? It can contain at least this and https://xkcd.com/2486/. Barmar (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to oppose it, but keep in mind that it would overlap with Category:Board games. --172.70.178.48 22:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

We absolutely need a general Category:Games because we have e.g. roleplaying games under Board games. Does anyone know how to edit in a superclass category? The last time I ever did anything sophisticated with Mediawiki categories was like 2008. 172.71.154.38 23:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Liv2splain (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The rules would seem to be similar to the card game Cheat (or, at least, the version we used to play). Using an ordinary wholly-dealt pack of cards (for any number of players), it was a "blind bid and discard" game whereby each player has to state "<one to four> <card value>s" (or more than four, with merged packs, each of which might be whole or partial) was going on the discard pile, such that the card value was within one (-1, =, +1, with standard wrapping ...>10>J>Q>K>A>2>...) of the prior stated discard. And something had to be discarded, whether or not the player could technically do so. The forfeit for not continuing play or challenging, within a generally acceptable thinking time, was the same for either being successfully challenged (you stated you put down two threes, but on checking the dump pile you discarded two sevens) or for the person who wrongly challenged... to pick up the discard pile and be so much further from the ultimate goal of ending up with zero cards (the first the winner, optionally the second, third, etc to do so to earn further ranks just for the sake of continuing/last-ranking the one who ended up as the only one still with cards). - I presume this game just applies the same penalty (buying the food) to anyone who dithers over whether to challenge anything or 'play their own hand'. There doesn't need to be anything more complicated to it. Unless there's also an 'empty hand' winning state, that I can't discern from the brief discourse given in the comic. But it seems more geared to finding the eventual 'loser' (the one who pays up) than any single beneficiary. 162.158.34.230 23:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

If there is a link for Cheat you should add it. 172.70.206.150 23:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think there's far too many variations... Though, surprisingly, it does look like Cheat (game) actually describes my learnt version quite well. But I don't think I see any 'time out' penalties mentioned there, and that was the key part of the "play or challenge, don't dither, or you lose" bit to my (sorry, rather long) description above... 162.158.34.230 23:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Never apologize for verbosity on talk; devote that energy to brevity on main. 172.71.154.156 23:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

We need a quotes page. 172.70.206.150 02:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

(Plus there's the inverted "loser finder" rather than "winner finder" primary nature of the gameplay. It makes the methodology of play a bit too different.) 162.158.34.231 23:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

We should make a payment service for providing crowdfunded rewards to the best contributors to explanations. 172.69.134.16 01:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I love this idea but it would conflict with the ethos of completely anonymized contributions here. Unless someone can propose how it might not? I mean, if there was some way to include an SHA-256 identity-confirming hash in edit summaries? Would keeping track of them in terms of surviving text after, say, a month be a decent leaderboard scoring? 172.69.33.84 01:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

My meager anonymous IP contributions to explanations have been completely dwarfed by my attempts to revert vandalism on the official main page leaderboard, but is that a good or a bad thing? The idea needs to be carefully considered. I would absolutely kick in $25 to support other explainers, but I would need some assurance that the system couldn't be gamed by, e.g. paraphrasers, which I'm not sure is even possible. Liv2splain (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It's easy to hijack someone else's contributions with paraphrasing and refactoring. It's a dead end. 162.158.166.230 02:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

True, but is there a way to avoid the cheating? 172.70.214.253 02:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I would probably also kick in $25 if the system was well-designed, even if it was vulnerable to paraphrasing or refactoring, as long as someone could call out such flaws as they happened. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 162.158.166.173 02:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The operationalism issue is how to set up actual payment flows while still allowing criticisms of them. The cost to reverse a payment is too high compared to the relative number of payments you might want to reverse. 172.71.158.90 05:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this about cryptocurrency scams? 172.70.211.135 02:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to subscribe to your newsletter. 172.70.206.92 05:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Am I an idiot because I didn't know Amazon did food delivery before clicking on that first link? 172.70.211.92 05:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know either until you brought it to my attention, but firstly their prices are high compared to established players, and secondly it's a dystopian vision of capitalism which everyone is trying to avoid even though we all know it's inevitable. 172.71.158.217 07:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Dude! You can say that again! 172.69.33.125 07:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the food : money :: atoms : bits analogy? 162.158.186.19 07:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)