Vytron wrote:Otherwise, this enters Quantum Phenomena ruling (thecamoninja seems to be an expert on this), which would create a super-position of games, one where I won and a new game started, another where players are still trying to get to Praline, with the players playing both games simultaneously and their first move of the new game having to be a valid move of the old one.
Please, I'm by no means an expert here, but I suppose my knowledge on the subject surpasses most others, more due to my interest in particle physics than actual superior knowledge of the rules.
The thing about Quantum Phenomenon play is that the books written on it are incredibly rare and remarkably obtuse; I've only ever gotten my hands on one, and that was out of date (from the 90s, I think - it still referred to the top and bottom quarks as "truth and beauty"). Luckily for us, the books aren't necessary. Seeing as quantum physics is such a cutting edge field, the rules are constantly changing with new discoveries as it is, and if one is well enough versed in both the relevant science and gameplay, the rules can be gleaned from simply reading up on peer-reviewed texts in the field of quantum physics itself, without the notoriously-obtuse writers of Crescent rule books getting in the way. I've just book looking over some papers and science news articles, actually, and the discovery of the Higgs Boson was obviously hugely influential on these rules - now that we have evidence of where exactly the weight of words comes from, the use of the connotative play that was originally taken out in, I believe the Word Crescent Standard Handbook Version 188.8.131.5259, has been brought back into use.
As to the question at hand, I believe there is a controversy between the handbooks as to what to do when there is a handbook controversy, but Diaphanous's dueling solution sounds far too much like the Neo CrescentWord rules for my liking (I'm not well acquainted with Volume Zero. I can see where the NCW folks got their inspiration). And besides, that's hella obselete. To solve the issue with a Quantum Phenomenon is an interesting proposition, though: theoretically, in order for it to work, no one would be able to view the thread without it collapsing into a superposition of one game or the other, but I'm not sure if that's exactly how the rules would play out. I think rather what we need to do is get Reecer to edit his post contesting Vytron's winning move, such that the event that would create the superposition cannot be observed, thereby placing the entire thread after that post into the Quantum Phenomena rules that Vytron touched on in the post I quoted.
That would certainly make the game more interesting. There are advantages of QP play, of course, and I mean apart from just freshening the game up with different rules than most of us are used to. For instance, it basically makes cheating impossible: players who use computer programs to generate optimal plays given the game's parameters would need a quantum supercomputer to make those programs work for this game. Ultimately, though, the decision lies with Reecer, and if he decides not to edit his post then I guess we'll just have to keep arguing it out until someone convinces a majority of others (or at least, a majority of dedicated players) one way or the other. Keep in mind, though, that if he does decide to put us into QP play, there's nothing we can do about it. No amount of arguing can change the laws of physics. Or Word Crescent.
I guess I'll send a PM to Reecer to tell him about the situation.