Scoring more points than the opponent team within the allotted time... who would've ever thought of that!
I did once, but normally it's the thing I'm NOT trying to do that ends up happening, so I just try to score less points than my opponent within three or four hours after the allotted time has expired. It usually works just fine.
I don't think that's gonna work man. You should try my method, scoring less points three or four hoursbefore the allotted time has started, trust me, it'll work a lot better.
In a way I kinda feel like they ruined Coach Z just a little bit, by establishing that he is capable of talking like that. Or was it supposed to be someone else talking, with Coach Z simply lip-synching?
I did once, but normally it's the thing I'm NOT trying to do that ends up happening, so I just try to score less points than my opponent within three or four hours after the allotted time has expired. It usually works just fine.
I don't think that's gonna work man. You should try my method, scoring less points three or four hoursbefore the allotted time has started, trust me, it'll work a lot better.
Better yet, scoring less points before, during, and after the allted time. Ya, i no ima jeenus, no ned 2 tll mah.
But, if the thing you're not doing that ends up happening, then you either wouldn't score any points, or there would be a TIME! PARADOX!
that sounded a lot cooler in my head
Ha ha, I can just picture that sounding cool in your head too. In fact, trying to picture you thinking it sounds cool in your head sounds cool in my head, but looks funny, since I don't know what you look like.
But, if the thing you're not doing that ends up happening, then you either wouldn't score any points, or there would be a TIME! PARADOX!
that sounded a lot cooler in my head
*cracks knuckles and attempts his college math*
No, there's no time paradox. Using your method, let's suppose we use a comparative scoring system using real numbers. If you were to score X amount of points less than your opponent before competition began, then when competition actually begins (assuming your opponent has not scored any positive or negative points), the score would be 0,(0-x). You would have to score X amount of points to simply tie the initial score. If we assume Y to be your points during regulation play, and if the opponent was to score at least one point more than (Y-X) during regulation, you would lose.
Additionally, if we were to use Ugly Bird's method, then let your amount of points be X, and your opponents' be Y.
At the end of regulated time, the score would be X,Y. Considering Ugly Bird wanted to play past regulated time to score LESS points than the opponent, then if X>Y, you would play until your initial win would be negated, resulting in X=Y. And if furthered using this method, eventually X<Y (if X<Y initially, a loss is already certain). Either way, you would lose.
That is of course, unless the game being played depends on a lower score, then yes, either method would suffice.
What were we talking about? Man, I'm way too inebriated to be spitting math right now.
Ah, but that merely confirms the fact that no matter what you do, if you score less points than the opponent you will lose, regardless of allotted time, but the general basis of Ugly Bird's theory is that since it's the thing he's not trying to do that ends up happening, if he does the exact opposite of what the general consensus on the best way to win sports, i. e. to try and score more points than the opponent in the allotted time(Rule J), and my post was a reference to the point that since Rule J doesn't specify whether the opposite of "within the allotted time" would be before the allotted time or after it, it could equally be both. However since the opposite of scoring less points before would be to score more after, your own theory states that under certain circumstances that could cause you to win, but it also states that the same is applicable to the vice versa, as Ugly Bird originally stated. Of course, both of the circumstances in which the winning could occur via those methods are much more shaky than the undeniably foolproof Rule J, so that in order for you to find the exact opposite of Rule J you must score the points in the exact same space but on the mirror image in the 4th dimension of the timeline with the allotted time in the center in order for the perfect opposite to fit perfectly within the allotted time. Alternately you could always just assume that the opposite is not exact so that you could just score less points immediately before or after and then hope the opposite falls within the allotted time.
I think I just won
Good point, but I fail to see argument from my post (more points = win -- regardless of time period scored in).
I'll revisit this tomorrow at some point (I don't think I can even drive a car right now). I have to re-skim "a brief history of time" to try to re-comprehend imaginary time sequences and reflection regarding linear time. The light cone chapter, anyone?
Regardless of time sequences though -- Final outcome, if judged at any specific point in real time (say, end of regulation?), if the score is X,Y, and if X>Y, then X wins.
Holyxion, just send me an IM, my stuff's posted. I'd like to continue this one.
Edit: On with the original post?!?!
Double Edit: I see your justification, dual reflection over a linear time sequence justifies a correlation. But would a score stay constant? or would that also reflect? If score reflected, then the theory would be easily proven in your direction, but if score was a static constant, it would prove my point. Shoot me an IM dude, my stuff's always on.
What if I told you guys that I play a game where points scored either before or after the allotted time count against your score, and that any points scored during the last three or four hours of the game count for triple, and that the game lasts fifteen hours overall, and that the higher score wins, would that change your little theories at all?
Oh, and I'm flattered that a comment I made offhandedly has sparked such a lively discussion. Perhaps I should say things offhandedly more often?
Oh, here's one: whenever I DO try to do something, it usually happens twice... backwards.
What if I told you guys that I play a game where points scored either before or after the allotted time count against your score, and that any points scored during the last three or four hours of the game count for triple, and that the game lasts fifteen hours overall, and that the higher score wins, would that change your little theories at all?
Well for one, we'd have to know whether or not the game ultimately lasts for 15 hours... then point allowage systems could be taken into consideration. But like all games, the game designers' plans could be deciphered to award points.
But as for purely theoretical game pointage, I still think my ideas win...
Wait.
Ah, I get it, a Joke!
I am not amused...
And yes, the offhanded stuff tends to be more entertaining.
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC?!?!?!?
Edit: Sorry Ugly Bird if I sounded like a douche, I really didn't mean it like that. It's all in good fun!
Double Edit: Sorry if "douche" is a bad word. I meant no harm.
Yeah, this thread was mainly for the Telltale reference.
But just to be clear, it's impossible to score less points after the allotted time, because then scoring won't count. If you do, there's always a new time slot in which it still means you're trying to score less points within the allotted time, which is how long you want it to be.
Basically, as long as you till try to score points, you're still doing it within some allotted time.
But yeah, it's still about the reference, and how Strong Bad probably doesn't really endorse the product, just like that Coach Z video.
Also, if you listen closely, you can still hear a bit of Coach Z-nerism. Habits never change.
Every sport is timed... if a round of some sport takes longer then a Lord of the Rings Film, they are officially no longer fun. (I'm talking to you baseball!)
Every sport is timed... if a round of some sport takes longer then a Lord of the Rings Film, they are officially no longer fun. (I'm talking to you baseball!)
Hey, I love baseball games that go WAY longer than they're supposed to. I think that's because I have an unnaturally long attention span though. I love the tention and suspense that keeps building and building, especially when the home team is up to bat and you know that the game can end at any moment.
Not really. I can fake an English accent, And I bet English people could fake an American accent. Whose to say if he had to work REALLY hard to sound normal, and that he still has his northernish weirdo accent.
While on the subject of Coach Z, his accent rubbed off on me. I was at the store the other day, and I was like (on accident) "Is it time to go hearm* yet?"
Comments
I did once, but normally it's the thing I'm NOT trying to do that ends up happening, so I just try to score less points than my opponent within three or four hours after the allotted time has expired. It usually works just fine.
Better yet, scoring less points before, during, and after the allted time. Ya, i no ima jeenus, no ned 2 tll mah.
Ha ha, I can just picture that sounding cool in your head too. In fact, trying to picture you thinking it sounds cool in your head sounds cool in my head, but looks funny, since I don't know what you look like.
*cracks knuckles and attempts his college math*
No, there's no time paradox. Using your method, let's suppose we use a comparative scoring system using real numbers. If you were to score X amount of points less than your opponent before competition began, then when competition actually begins (assuming your opponent has not scored any positive or negative points), the score would be 0,(0-x). You would have to score X amount of points to simply tie the initial score. If we assume Y to be your points during regulation play, and if the opponent was to score at least one point more than (Y-X) during regulation, you would lose.
Additionally, if we were to use Ugly Bird's method, then let your amount of points be X, and your opponents' be Y.
At the end of regulated time, the score would be X,Y. Considering Ugly Bird wanted to play past regulated time to score LESS points than the opponent, then if X>Y, you would play until your initial win would be negated, resulting in X=Y. And if furthered using this method, eventually X<Y (if X<Y initially, a loss is already certain). Either way, you would lose.
That is of course, unless the game being played depends on a lower score, then yes, either method would suffice.
What were we talking about? Man, I'm way too inebriated to be spitting math right now.
I think I just won
I'll revisit this tomorrow at some point (I don't think I can even drive a car right now). I have to re-skim "a brief history of time" to try to re-comprehend imaginary time sequences and reflection regarding linear time. The light cone chapter, anyone?
Regardless of time sequences though -- Final outcome, if judged at any specific point in real time (say, end of regulation?), if the score is X,Y, and if X>Y, then X wins.
Holyxion, just send me an IM, my stuff's posted. I'd like to continue this one.
Edit: On with the original post?!?!
Double Edit: I see your justification, dual reflection over a linear time sequence justifies a correlation. But would a score stay constant? or would that also reflect? If score reflected, then the theory would be easily proven in your direction, but if score was a static constant, it would prove my point. Shoot me an IM dude, my stuff's always on.
ON WITH THE ORIGINAL POST!
Oh, and I'm flattered that a comment I made offhandedly has sparked such a lively discussion. Perhaps I should say things offhandedly more often?
Oh, here's one: whenever I DO try to do something, it usually happens twice... backwards.
How bout that?
Well for one, we'd have to know whether or not the game ultimately lasts for 15 hours... then point allowage systems could be taken into consideration. But like all games, the game designers' plans could be deciphered to award points.
But as for purely theoretical game pointage, I still think my ideas win...
Wait.
Ah, I get it, a Joke!
I am not amused...
And yes, the offhanded stuff tends to be more entertaining.
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC?!?!?!?
Edit: Sorry Ugly Bird if I sounded like a douche, I really didn't mean it like that. It's all in good fun!
Double Edit: Sorry if "douche" is a bad word. I meant no harm.
But just to be clear, it's impossible to score less points after the allotted time, because then scoring won't count. If you do, there's always a new time slot in which it still means you're trying to score less points within the allotted time, which is how long you want it to be.
Basically, as long as you till try to score points, you're still doing it within some allotted time.
But yeah, it's still about the reference, and how Strong Bad probably doesn't really endorse the product, just like that Coach Z video.
Also, if you listen closely, you can still hear a bit of Coach Z-nerism. Habits never change.
Yeah, He still has his accent, but he toned it down. I liked it.
(I'm trying to kill the other conversation)
Edit: Perfect! I posted to a new page!
Nope! It was a surprise to us, too.
Fixed.
Golf ain't timed, son.:cool:
Well it IS pretty hard to golf at night. Trust me.
Hey, I love baseball games that go WAY longer than they're supposed to. I think that's because I have an unnaturally long attention span though. I love the tention and suspense that keeps building and building, especially when the home team is up to bat and you know that the game can end at any moment.
I think it just shows that the producers didn't think his accent was comercial savvy.
*home
I gotta stop ya there Quuux, I'm pretty sure jorb is a 4 letters word.