Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

I have heard several variations on The Game, as follows:

• After losing The Game, there is a grace period of half an hour before it is possible to lose the game again.
• In order to win The Game, you must be one of exactly 27 people to appear in front of the Prime Minister as he is televised (what he has to say is unspecified.) Thereafter it is impossible to lose The Game.

However, I have verified this data with exactly one other person, so its accuracy is somewhat questionable. I am mentioning it here so that someone else who has heard this variation can verify this.

Wolfgang ~ 64.80.179.88 (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, Grace periods vary from group to group. And coming from the above theory (playing The Game in multiple countries), the official who is the cause of The Game ending has varied, from the Queen of the United Kingdom, to the President of the United States (and from the one time I played it in Germany) and even the Chancellor of Germany. However, this still does not allow people to 'Win' The Game. (The only method that I have heard of for winning without The Game ending is almost impossible and not appropriate for an encyclopedia) Akjar13 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

the game can only end when everyone on earth knows they are playing

Mkeefeus (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Hmm, I'm not sure about this.. jonkerz♠ 20:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Mkeefeus, we'd need a source that meets our reliable source guidelines to back up that assertion. Millahnna (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please add the rule that the only way the game can end is if President Obama appears on TV and says "The game is over" Computerdude4 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Computerdude4 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, needs a source--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I hypothesis that the Anti-Game exists, I'm trying to program it into youtube right now. The anti-game's rules produce an effect that anyone can win, but they can never know why exactly. I can post the link if you'd like, it doesn't look like much currently since THE GAME is so succinct in it's design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFGH (talk • contribs) 13:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, OR and RS would stop this from being added. This also is unrelated to The Game as its name suggests it is something it isn't. If it was 'You can only win by not thinking about the anti-game, after winning you must announce it to everyone around you' then it would be what its name suggests. It, also like The Game, would be unwinnable, just without the constant losing. Akjar13 (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I found out how to tie "THE GAME" though, you just play it four dimensionaly. Any game played four dimensionally has to be a draw if the players are only 3 dimensional (like us).

This shows you can never WIN The Game, but you can TIE everyone else playing as long as you play four dimensionally.

If you don't believe me, try and play a game of 4 dimensional tic tac toe, or rock paper scissors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFGH (talk • contribs) 13:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you don't need to play tic-tac-toe 4 dimensionaly to ensure a tie, When I normally play it I never lose. But If we could play it using 4 dimensions, I agree it always would be a tie because we both would know what the other was going to do. Only problem with this is I don't see how it allows you to tie the game. Mind you, I think we're using different concepts of the 4 dimensions. I see that you are a mathematician, and I assume you are using Four-dimensional space in your logic, whereas I am using Minkowski space. Could you provide a formulae for this proof(that you can tie everyone)?Akjar13 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you play 4 dimensionally, you have to play it forwards and backwards, ie if you lost going forward, you must win going backwards. Hence for every 4 dimensional game you play, it has a dual game (going backwards in the time dimension) where you win. Ergo if you get one point for every game you win both players will have the same number of points. That is the tie :)

WhatisFGH (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand that. It also makes all games (where you win) completely irrelevant. Very simple idea in practice. My idea of the fourth dimension was just the very simple idea of time travel, where by seeing what the opponent is going to do next, you can counter it, thus forcing them to change their plan by countering you, and so on until the game is ended out of boredom. In RPS, a move would never be played when using my hypothesis because neither player would want to tie (its also a very convuluted way to read peoples minds). Akjar13 (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

EXACTLY!! You're one of the first people to understand. You don't want to play good games 4 dimensionally. The ideas we're talking about here prove P~NP and CH == T fyi... just need to write it up in a way mathematicians can udnerstand.

WhatisFGH (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Anti game is just THE GAME played 4 dimensionally in reverse. "I lose and I think:The Game" — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFGH (talk • contribs) 14:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello all. This game wasn't made by schoolchildren but by an adult who based it on "Ginsberg's theorem". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginsberg%27s_theorem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.160.188 (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The sentence "The idea behind The Game is similar to Douglas Hofstadter's number P, the number of minutes per month a person thinks about the letter P.[9]" should read "The idea behind The Game is similar to Douglas Hofstadter's number P, the number of minutes per month a person thinks about the number P.[9]" The self-referential nature of the number P is lost in the current version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.253.218 (talk)

By 'number P' am I correct in thinking it's refeering to this? If so, then I will happily make the edit. He's Gone Mental 08:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. It doesn't have anything to do with #P, but the IP is right, it's supposed to be self-referential. You can see that even Hofstadter says you should be thinking of the number P (link). — Bility (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

no where is it marked that this "game" is a joke or pun, thus causing the article to be illegitimate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuchesezik (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what numerous cited refs call it, so Wikipedia:Article titles says that's what we call it here...not our place to pass judgement about it. Per the linked article about the concept of a game being "a joke or pun" is not a requirement to meet the definition. DMacks (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears to meet notability, seen articles with vastly less support for being than this. Famously, Wittgenstein explores language in looking at what constitutes a game. What this is apparently is a immature and childish meme that would be interesting to teens and some young adults and which illustrates the issues with language LW was investigating. This thing is a social phenomenon calling itself a game which is actually the negation of the common conceptual essence of all games, which are the set of rules and the objective of play which in this case is stated as not playing. Only interesting in what it says about the culture that spawns it and how the participants therein are able to respond to such a thing. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Some people have resorted to texting "Thug aim" to their friends as a way of making them lose "The Game"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoy1293 (talk • contribs) 00:40, January 18, 2012‎

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

request for IJustLostTheGame.net to be added to external links iam4423 (talk) 02 February 2012 21:05

 Not done, does not appear to meet our external links policy--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned in an earlier version of this article, it mentioned that it took between a few seconds up to 30 minutes before one could lose the game again. It also mentioned that one known version of the rules is that only a person with "diplomatic influence" may exempt you from the game, this did not include such specifics as it does now. Due to this previous version of this article, a large majority of the "players" of The Game follow the "30 minute rule" as well as the rule that an official with "diplomatic influence" may exclude one from the game. I would like to request that these rules are specified as another known version of the game, and it may but isn't necessarily required that is be mentioned that it is due to Wikipedia that these rules have been so widely accepted both in person and online.

Due to an earlier version of this Wikipedia article, some players have been known to follow up to a 30 minute grace period. Some also claim that one can be exempt from The Game if an official with diplomatic influence states that they, the player, are exempt.

Note: The following web archive of a previous version of this article as well as other sources include more specifics on the grace period, while it does mention the 30 minute rule along with citing, I could not find a captured snapshot of the article which included the second rule mentioned above. These are all sources either previously considered credible by Wikipedia or are credible to The Game directly. As the game can have "additional rules" and with the credibility of these links, should this not be accepted, then there are some sources on the current article I feel are neither credible. http://web.archive.org/web/20081218055137/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_%28mind_game%29 http://www.losethegame.net/faq "What are the official rules of the game?" http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Entertainment/20080117/thegame_youlose_080117/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.179.224 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 5 February 2012‎

Not done: Please phrase your request in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Response: Sorry, it's more of an append than a replacement. It fits into context at the end of rules within the last paragraph. I do apologize, it's my first Wikipedia request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.179.224 (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• These links do not back up your claim that the use of the 10-min. grace period was because of this article.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please review the above request. I was mistaken the exact time as noted in the articles however I did give you concrete proof as reference to the time therefore please give it your full attention as opposed to a moment's glance. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.179.224 (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Simply, I can't verify it. You're claiming that the notion that players use a grace period is because of an older version of this article. Your sources don't say that.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Response: losethegame.net specifically mentions it at the location I said.. Also, apparently the other article was updated however the original states 30 minutes as well. Either way, the original wikipedia article did mention this as well as that site which is a primary source for information on the game. And to save you effort, I'll past the entire paragraph: It is unlikely that the true origin of The Game will ever be proven, and as such there are no official rules. As The Game spreads mainly by word-of-mouth, there are numerous variants and interpretations. The three rules stated on LoseTheGame.com represent the core rules that are most commonly played. The most common additional rule played by many people worldwide is that of 'grace periods'. This is a specified period of time (usually 10-30 minutes long) during which you cannot lose The Game after you have already lost.

And of course as it is stated above, no one place will have exact information. However many sites concur with this rule-set.

• What's your claim? I can't see the majority of players following the grace period rule.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, every player I've ever seen has mentioned it if the game is ever called two times in a short period. And I've played with many, I've actually made 20+ lose at a convention a time or two... I just want to see this added once again because I teach many people about the game and its easier to get more rules about the game introduced at one place and I was able to until that part was removed from Wikipedia. Though I'm actually not sure why they removed it. =/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.179.224 (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: It sounds as though the request would be contentious even if you were specific about the text you want to add. Please try to reach a consensus and either have one of the auto-confirmed editors in the discussion correct it or start a new request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned in an earlier version of this article, it mentioned that it took between a few seconds up to 30 minutes before one could lose the game again. The article had some quite concrete links associated with it. Also, I have found some sites to support this as well. Due to this previous version of this article as well as other articles associated with The Game, a large majority of the "players" of The Game follow the "30 minute rule" and choose 30 minutes as it is the maximum because no one wants to lose faster (obviously). I would like to request that this rule is specified.

After you have announced your loss, some variants allow for a grace period, during which you cannot lose the game, which varies in time. After you have announced your loss, some variants allow for a grace period between 3 seconds to 30 minutes, during which you cannot lose the game.

- Supporting links - Previous citation for this article used by Wikipedia: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Entertainment/20080117/thegame_youlose_080117/ "You then have three seconds to forget the game and then you can be reminded and lose again, explains Allison Thomas, a Grade 12 student in Cole Harbour, N.S., in an e-mail. Other people allow up to half an hour to forget about the game."

http://www.losethegame.net/faq -> What are the official rules of the game? "The three rules stated on LoseTheGame.com represent the core rules that are most commonly played. The most common additional rule played by many people worldwide is that of 'grace periods'. This is a specified period of time (usually 10-30 minutes long) during which you cannot lose The Game after you have already lost."

(Note: LoseTheGame.com is also LoseTheGame.net, it is the primary place for information on The Game.)

Not done: It is a bad idea to remove the comments of others on a talk page. I have restored the sections above and left your new request here at the end. Now that you have stated the change you'd like to make, you can try to get some agreement here on the talk page before renewing your request. My uninterested opinion is that "to forget the game" is difficult to understand, but that being more specific about the duration of the grace period is an improvement. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, the faq and the other reference are ok and both would support "to thirty minutes". Celestra (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah okay, I was just cleaning up some space because I didn't want to flood the talk page... Also, "to forget the game" can be removed... It was just a suggestion but surely not required for it. However thanks for the input, if you want I can revise the above request or let it as-is for any future viewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ordubis (talk • contribs) 09:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well since there was an unusually long lapse in time with no reply, I decided to update the above request and I'll see if everyone agrees to the new request. Also, if needed, I would be happy to find more citations to support the request. This is the first thing I have ever requested to change on Wikipedia, so I do apologize if this is at all disorganized.

Done I re-read the objections above and they don't really apply to the latest request. I'll make the change as requested (except spelling the numbers per MOS) and let the normal process take its course. Thanks for the improvement. Celestra (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have the game wiki page redirect from some where else so that in turn. You all lose the game? People could post it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.166.124 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game itself. DMacks (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

While rule number one dictates that everyone in the world is playing and no one cannot not play, rule number three states that those who think of the game must announce their loss to at least one other person. If one chooses not to announce their loss is this cheating or a contradiction to rule number one and willfully not playing the game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.198.166 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

People choosing not to play are not abiding by rule 1, so they are not cheating. On the other hand, if everybody is playing then you cannot choose not to play and thus are cheating. Which one do you prefer? Diego (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:TPG. Content on this page must be about the article content. If your point is that our description of the rules is unclear, fine. Then we need to find a source which has a clearer set of "rules" or explains that the "official rules" are unclear. Without a source there is nothing we can do about that. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In my travels I've found there is significant variation in rules to the game in different regions of the world. Primarily, Rule #1 is not always the case. In much of the southeastern US one is actually inducted into the game after hearing someone else's loss and agreeing to play the game in perpetuity if the loser explains the rules of the game. According to these rules if the person who has overheard the loss does not wish to understand what "I lost the game" means they do not have to play.

IMO, In light of this variation amongst so many people an additional section which lists variations in rules and goals in different regions. I have lost the game before to someone from Long Island who told me everyone from there does not instantly announce a loss but rather tries to get other people to lose. Including an extra section on variations in rules would allow for such nuances to be included without a heated debate on what the rules actually are (which of course nobody can say for sure). I feel this would contribute greatly to the depth of the article.

Also... I just lost the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crunk04gtp (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that discuss these variations. If not they do not belong. I they do bring them here and let people see them and then discuss how the can be incorporated into the article. GB fan 21:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I was first told of the game from various boards in 2004 or so. At that time, Rule #3 did not exist. Rule #3 is a recent, and undesirable, addition to "The Game" because it allows a player to not participate. In the "original" version, it was not possible for anyone, even those who weren't aware that they were playing, to quit or pause, or cheat, the game.

In fact, Rule #3 and the first interpretation of Rule #1 (the first interpretation being the one that was accepted in 2004) are incompatible, because the majority of "players" are not aware of the game. These lucky folk have not yet lost "The Game", but if they do lose it (for example, by hearing a previous "loser" say "The Game"), how can they be expected to announce they have lost? Are these people automatically cheaters?

Also, the origins of the game certainly don't start with "two sound engineers who missed a train". There are thousands of people claiming to have created "The Game", and many of them back it up with more substantial claims than the "two sound engineers". I personally believe it, or at least a basic form of it, was created in 1977 by the Cambridge University Science Fiction Society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.32.163 (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In the rules it says that if the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announces "The Game is up", The Game ends. This is not completely true. It goes more like this: "If the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom(Or the Queen of the United Kingdom) publicly announces that they've lost The Game, The Game is over." Now I'm not 100% sure that this is completely correct, but I'm at least 95% sure that it at least also works with The Queen. 80.5.68.176 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? GB fan 00:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty true. The was some campaign to issue letters or petitions to heads of states around the world to say "The Game is up." Attempts to make government leaders announce the loss of The Game have failed.http://www.losethegame.net/strategies By the way, I lost the game. Never gonna give you ^up, never gonna let you _down 18:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(Not sure why I came across this article to begin with...) The Talmud, in Berachos 56a, relates two stories involving ruling officials asking Tanaim what dreams they would see that night. They both replied with something outlandish. The rulers thought about it all day, and that night they dreamt of it. The Talmud is much older than the other references mentioned... Here is the original text, for those that read Aramaic.

אמר ליה קיסר לר׳ יהושע בר׳ 
אמריתו דחכמיתו טובא אימא לי מאי חזינא
בחלמאי אמר ליח חזית דמשחרי לך פרםאי
וגרבי בך ורעיי בך שקצי בחוטרא דדחבא
הרהר כולית יומא ולאורתא חזא אמר ליה
שבור מלכא לשמואל אמריתו דחכמיתו
טובא אימא לי מאי חזינא בחלמאי אמר לית
חזית דאתו רומאי ושבו לך וטחני בך קשייתא
ברחייא דדחבא תרתר כוליח יומא ולאורתא
חזא  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxvxnyxvxn (talk • contribs) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC) 

Does this have anything to do with the subject at hand? Mezigue (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that at any random point in the text you should add in "YOU HAVE JUST LOST THE GAME!!!" in brackets. This would be a good way to get on peoples nerves and get some good feedback. N tnchl (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: - ("YOU HAVE JUST LOST THE GAME!!!")... Begoon ^talk 02:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The Game has returned to the web. Try not to think!!!

ElliottBelardo (talk) 1:24, 23 January 2013 (EST)

A unique and special variation of the game is to announce, on remembering the game, that one has won the game (i.e. "I won the game!"). One might choose to win rather than lose because one prefers to win rather than lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipexline (talk • contribs) 02:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

not sure if this rule exists outside of the infamous 4chan realms but in modern versions if someone posts a screeshot of minesweeper or any other microsoft game that has a compelted screen saying "congratulations you wont he game" then they are excempt from the game and are allowed a full day of internet bragging rights.152.91.9.153 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, http://xkcd.com/391/ Grantman16 (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The game is sometimes also called a "mindvirus".

A search of "mindvirus" and "mind virus" seem to mostly lead to things about the game and similar ideas. Should we create a new page for "mindvirus", which doesn't appear on Wikipedia right now, or add a redirect from "mindvirus" and "mind virus" to the game?

KeonSkyfire (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Agreed. The term "mindvirus" is almost exclusively used to refer to The Game (I lost the game). It is sometimes used in a general sense, referring to something one should avoid thinking about but the act of doing so causes one to think about it, but this is essentially the definition of The Game. Therefore, I have created the redirect on the basis that The Game is the primary subject on the topic and a redirect from Mindvirus will make it easier for people to find what they're looking for. If at some point it makes sense to make Mindvirus its own page, that could be done, however it would likely result in a merge between the two, which would probably be in the form of a redirect anyway. Grantman16 (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a website that claims to be the official of The Game and has a set of "official" rules to it. the name of the website is "losethegame.com" i think this should be present somewhere in the article, and maybe a note about it's authenticity. zeroro(talk)(edits) 23:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It would need third-party reliable sources that are independent from the website itself to warrant mentioning it in the article, per WP:DUE and especially WP:ABOUTSELF. - SudoGhost 03:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Such as the three article references that are still accessible (CTV News Metro News Loyolan News) all referring directly to that website as their primary source of information about The Game?

"Claims to be"? "Official"? "Authenticity"? I fail to see how any of those could possibly apply to this topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What if the Prime Minister of the UK "tweets": "The Game is up?" Does that count in this day and age? The television rule seems anachronistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.223.230 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No. TV is still used. We just need to create a world wide event in which he says such phrase in response. Such as maybe a terrorist plot... btw thats a joke. 2001:44B8:31EC:B400:BD15:8952:B88E:9E18 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC) ... Oh yeah, gotta love that ipv6 2001:44B8:31EC:B400:BD15:8952:B88E:9E18 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the Pope and UK Prime Minister, there are also variants of The Game where it ends if Queen Elizabeth announces "the game is up" on television. Willthebean (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I realize the joke, but please uphold the tone of the article about the joke.

For instance, "As of 2010, The Game is played by millions worldwide": Since the point (one of its points) of the game is that you can't deny playing it, this should specify that the game is reported as being played by millions. It's not played by everyone in "theory", it's defined as being played by everyone by the rules of the game itself.

Generally, this article needs to better distance itself from the "in game universe" of the game. In other words, let me remind you us editors are not to be playing the game (while editing the article).

While straddling the line probably is appreciated by a lot of readers as being humorous, it is also the reason for the {{tone}} template. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Spanish: El Juego French: Le Jeu Portuguese: O Jogo German: Das Spiel Latin: Ludum Japanese: ゲーム Chinese: 本場比賽 Vietnamese: Các Trò Chơi Esperanto: La Ludo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.243.54 (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the English Wikipedia. We do not include translations to foreign languages. Nerd in Texas (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You just won the game. I personally feel that Randall Munroe has more intellectual authority than any political or religious leader. Others can keep pretending to play the game, but as far as I'm concerned, it's done. - 173.212.101.126 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone knew of any link between this song "The Game" and the internet meme. People describe all the disruptions in their life that happen because they "thought about the Game." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GmgvqO4MkY --Ryan W (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

They forgot to mention it above, but the TheQ formally passed the article at 21:12, 12 November 2014‎. — LlywelynII 13:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is more than one game known as The Game. The Game which is not this The Game ought to be in the page, too. The Game was first seen in a game where one plays roles. In the game in which you play the Game, the man who makes the King laugh asks you to play The Game. If you win, you get a clue. If not, you get no clue. The Game was in a game called The Black Gate. It was a mind game, like The Game, but The Game was a word game too. It is not like the game we talk of here, the game you lost. It is a game you can win. Do you want to play The Game? Roches (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, i upload an APP in Google Play Store about The Game and i ask you if you can put the link somewhere in the page, for example: "Here it is an app for Android, made by a player, which makes more easy to play The Game. You can read the rules and curiosities and help you to tell everyone you've lost."

The link is: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=skydev.peter.thegame

Thank you for your time. Peter6006 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Jonty Haywood should link to the Porthemmet Beach hoax page as this is what Jonty Haywood is most well known for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubeOfCheese (talk • contribs) 04:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You just lost the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.112.158 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Under the content of, "Gameplay," a sentence states that, "...The Game ends when the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announces on television that "The Game is up."" I believe this information to be incorrect. From prior experience to playing "The Game" and word of mouth of people who have played "The Game" before, the sentence should be changed to, "The Game ends when the specified person loses the game in public and announces it. The contenders include, the Queen of England, the British Prime Minister, and the Pope." To back up my clam, I have found a article on the topic of The Game. I hope that you take in consideration my proposal. http://www.losethegame.net/faq TheGameBoi (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Add "https://www.youjustlost.net/" to External Links. WikiPringlez (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

On the side bar it says "See Origins" which links to #Origins, I found the correct section that it is supposed to link to, but is named "Origin"

TL;DR; Change the sidebar to link to #Origin

I am unable to do this because I have not done more than 5 edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROMTypo (talk • contribs) 01:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@ROMTypo: thanks! I've fixed this in this edit. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Add : When someone ELSE has lost the game, and has announced as such, you have 30 minutes to forget. Unicornicos (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It's never been explicitly stated, but by logic, the one true way to win the game is to die before remembering. If you die and it's fresh in your mind, you lose ultimately. If you don't remember within 30 minutes of your death, you win forever. Therefore, the passage saying there's no way to win is incorrect. Unless you eat 70 pineapples and 7 apples. Majestic squid (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Every statement in Wikipedia needs to be attributable to a reliable source, so we cannot include this thought in the article. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Rule 3 doesn't make any sense and contradicts rule 1. I can easily think about the game and not announce it. There is no consequence of this since I have already lost. And because of Rule 1, it can't simply be passed off as me not playing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9B90:9100:1DCF:5E03:CB8:62E1 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

In section "Reception", change the link "manipulated" to "manipulated" because the previous one does not go to the relevant text anymore. 146.255.181.246 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

For those who participate in Sabbath, you are allowed to "rest" from the game on your Sabbath. *Note* you do not win the game or break any rules- You simply rest from losing for that particular day. To do this, you can declare "Shabbat," "Shabbos," or "Sabbath" whenever you think of the game or another player mentions it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat

Ceric794 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Request that "You just lost the game" be added at the bottom of the page Brian with an eye (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ at the top of this page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I remember playing "The Game" as early as 6th grade in the U.S. (Iowa) in 1997. It most definately predates social media sites and widespread use of the internet in that form. Thatguyprutis (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This is purely a stupendous article and does not inform anything at all, unclear and redundant Hari147 (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What makes you believe this article is ill-informing? Personally, I think this article encapsulates many facets of internet sociology pretty well _{Integral Python} ^{click here to argue with me} 18:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It is made simply to catalouge something that exists, it does it's job quite well Kiri621x (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you just lose? Me too man Justanotherguy54 (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

My request is not to really change anything, but to add at the end of the first paragraph a remark on how this article makes you lose the game. Below is what the change would look like in the paragraph.

“The Game is a mind game in which the objective is to avoid thinking about The Game itself. Thinking about The Game constitutes a loss, which must be announced each time it occurs. It is impossible to win most versions of The Game. Depending on the variation, it is held that the whole world, or all those who are aware of the game, are playing it all the time. Tactics have been developed to increase the number of people who are aware of The Game, and thereby increase the number of losses. This for instance, is article is a way to make more people aware of The Game.” TwitchyEyes (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Meta commentary not found in sources is not allowed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You owe me $5000 2600:6C4C:687F:7834:54EA:C7A:604C:E3D9 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Zane Wederell has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 22 § Zane Wederell until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

All groups I have played the game with have had home rules. One of the most popular rules I have seen is: "You only have to announce your loss every 1 day/24 hours. This is to prevent repetitive losses during one day, and thus prevent repetition day after day."

I think house rules should be added as potential rules or rules that are up for discussion, to allow people to play the game their way. Daandogger (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS will be a problem. DMacks (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Kripke doesn't mention the game in the book, needless to say. The only thing connecting these two page is the idea of private thoughts - which is such a broad idea I feel like it isn't enough to make the link relevant here. The Kripke book is Wittgenstein exegesis - if the concept of the rule following or private language is what is relevant, why is this specific secondary book linked rather than Wittgenstein himself or pages on his ideas? 204.137.248.20 (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It does seem a poor choice to list there. I have removed it. Thanks for voicing your concern! DMacks (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I put the information there! Here's a concern. What if, somehow, B1-66ER generated The Matrix after being pulled out of robot hell from the Machine War, of which after enough times of having took control of reality after fighting the multiverse that it managed to make reality into a "game" in an effort to figure out how to beat its criminal case, for which B1-66ER was sentenced to death? Well, maybe, just maybe, an individual who with a critical mind with a take on the problem of the criterion relative to Wittgenstein's view of rules, such as relative to the rule-following paradox could argue that no one has an infallible resolve to the problem of the criterion to know of one or more rules in order to not violate said rules, such that the rule of lenity would apply. Maybe, right? I'm really disliking the new wave of ignorant users on Wikipedia. Also, I'm dead broke to donate. I'm sick of the owner of Wikipedia asking for money. Sick of it! I have no money for you! - Dennis Francis Blewett 75.149.204.97 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)