Jinx: Where does the burden of proof lie?

It is a double-dog tie.

Technology is playing a joke on you both.

It is kind of like the two blind men and the elephant.

…7 8 9 10 before the jinxee says blackout.

BLACKOUT.

What the hell is a “blackotu”? Does it live in a river? Not only was he skirting the edge, but he has fat fingers.

But if one were to admit robmandu’s argument (robmandu is, as he most discretely informed me below, currently masquerading under the name of richardhenry :) one would also be forced to acknowledge that Andrew’s “6y” invalidates the countdown and demands a rematch. On your marks, get set….

**cough** I’m not Rob. **cough**

You tied. But in the event of a tie, the jinxer is always the victor.
He owes you a Coke.

And you can enjoy that Coke on your seventh birthday you tiny little boy.

This question violates the rules of fluther (doesn’t it?)

@YARNLADY: Nah! We enjoy some high jinks, occasionally.

@asmonet—highjinks <gasp, I can barely breath>—By the way, happy Fluther anniversary.

@YARNLADY: It is rather exciting isn’t it?! And thanks!

I’m thinking if you misspell blackout, you lose. Just saying..

@chyna, and if you misspell 6?

Oh, missed that. Then its a total wash. No one wins.

@richardhenry You have an assumed name too?

Hahaha… As a moderator, I call a tie. Share a coke at your next face-to-face meeting.

I’d argue that Andrew loses, since he misspelled “6” before Ben misspelled “blackout” which calls off the game. And you kinda have to be slightly challenged to misspell “6.”

Actually, I RETYPED the 1 through 10. Before he retyped blackotu.

@augustlan They have to drink out of the same can, at the same time.

@andrew: Snap.

@YARNLADY I think this sparks a pretty interesting discussion about the rules of jinx – and consequently the changes (and hurdles) of communication brought on via new technology. That’s why I put so much effort into the details.

But, if you disagree, please flag.

@andrew “Retyping” after the fact is, in my opinion, proof that your initial typing of 1 through 6y though 10 was not fast enough to reach my screen—the true arena of the game—and thus invalidated any debt I might have to pay you. Further talk that you “pasted the results first” as a tie-breaker is equally useless.

Ultimately, your numbers were coming to my screen at a regular interval, and I beat the last one. The fact that it was cached on your screen in no way invalidates my lightning reflexes.

@andrew Hey, I’m just saying…...

By the way, the answer is just hit rewind, and see who said it first. If you don’t have a rewind, check out the way back machine

@ben Positing your argument in terms of “speed” is rather silly, don’t you think?—since any argument you make can be equally applied to you. “Just because you think you typed blackout quickly is merely proof that your own message is cached on your screen”.

I made no mention of “pasting the results first”—and re-typing the numbers was merely foresight into the fact that you would bring up the “6y” incident.

So, either it was a tie, in which case I win, or the typos invalidate that first rally, in which case you didn’t think ahead fast enough.

You owe me a coke.

Kind of makes you wonder how fluther actually came into being.

@andrew Speed was mentioned because it’s key to the game itself, and because it is a glorious quality that I happen to have slightly more of than you. The Jinx Game lasts only a moment, and later additions, retypings, and re-framings are all irrelevant.

The real question, which I think you asked well, is does the arena of the game occur on my screen or your screen. There is no tie.

Think about the nature of the game. To count to 10 before the other person gets to blackout. That before puts the offensive burden on the Jinxer, not the Jinxee, as would make sense to earn a coke.

I’m happy to listen to other logical arguments from you or anyone else in Fluther. But I believe my case is in a excellent place, and I look forward to buying a coke and not giving it to you. ;)

Is this game improved by drinking?

How do you boys ever get anything accomplished?
I mean, I’m falling in love with you guys. But, geez.

@ben So much verbal squirming to hide the fact that you didn’t think to start counting first, plus the fact that you couldn’t type fast enough.

Burden of proof is on my screen, as the initiator, or it’s a tie, in which case I win.

OR: You didn’t “say” blackout at all. You said some strange mangled word. I, on the other hand, did “say” 6 in addition to some other things—but there’s nothing in the rules about that.

@richardhenry – you are awake! get on AIM immediately!

@PnL Learn to use the PM system, silly.

@andrew In Ben’s defense, the rules are:

Jinxer says “jinx” and then “1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10”…

The use of the word “then” in said rule suggests that the order is important, and that inserting incorrect numbers, nevermind non-numbers, into the sequence would invalidate the process and require a rematch.

Never trust an Englishman.

Never trust an octopus.

@richardhenry It’s “counting to ten”. Now, If I had said 1 2 3 5 4 6…, I’d totally agree with you. But I had the numbers in the correct order.

@andrew Go and choose a random person on the street. Say to them, “I need to count to ten.”

Andrew: Okay, here goes.
Andrew: One.
Andrew: Two.
Andrew: Three.
Andrew: Four.
Andrew: Five.
Andrew: Six.
Andrew: Why.
Andrew: Seven.
Streetboy: Wait, what?
Andrew: What’s wrong?
Streetboy: Why did you say “why”?
Andrew: Oh ignore that, I’m just counting.
Streetboy: No, but why did you say “why”? I thought you were counting to ten?

In conclusion: You both suck. Do it again.

@richardhenry I did do it again. And beat Ben.

Plus, your analogy is a little off, since IRL jinx goes more like “ontwothrefurfivsixsevneightninten”

ok… i was the first person to answer this thread and my farking answer never showed up.. so i’ll re-type:
Andrew is right! the rules are clear… and the issue was not whether Ben was fast enough to reply.. but how fast his reply showed on screen that mattered… they were after all racing one another’s response time.. not their respective cache.

I have spoken.

I disagree with @Dr_C. I think the person who was childish enough to call JINX in the first place has the burden of proof.

Ben did not pay me to say this.

@richardhenry lol4rl4rl

Is this the kind of tomfoolery I interrupt when I break Fluther?

@PnL you fail. Burden of proof rests solely on the shoulders of the person who accepted the challenge.. as in any duel or dispute resolved through gentelmanly means… one can choose wether or not to accept a challenge once it has been extende. Having done so it is that person’s obligation to follow the rules to the letter…

Either way they both said Jinx.

I agree, when challenged, it’s on you to sink or swim. Ben sinks.

@Dr_C – “You fail” is a personal attack and is against the site guidelines. Please don’t let this happen ever again. And your logic is flawed. Suppose a little boy, let’s name him Andrew, says the sun rises in the west. Then, the burden of proving this lies on that little boy’s shoulders. The little boy is challenging the current universally accepted scientific facts. Similarly, Andrew is challenging Ben by starting the game of Jinx. And so, the burden of proof falls on him.

lol4rl, modhammer.

@pnl, wuhohhh bringing out the bitchcakes :)

@PnL Your logic is flawed may also be construed as a pesonal attack FYI. However, using your own term of flawed logic. your example is based on one person challenging a pre-determined precept of social/scientific paradigm. The example used in my response (which is fitting for this situation) is that a challenge extended from one person or another as a means of settling a dispute (hence gentlemanly ways or the duel analogy.. take your pick) which would place the burden of proof solely on the person who deemed it appropriate to accept the challenge.

So… your rebuke = Fail.

(i love it when you mod-hammer me.. it makes me feel… almost dirty)

@Dr_C that’s just gross

@YARNLADY my work here is done

@Dr_C – Your logic is flawed is NOT a personal attack. If I said “you are flawed”, that would be a personal attack. What I said, is a simple and well understood style of debating. Again, I refer you to the wonderful site guidelines.

@PnL Rawr

The solution is simple. Andrew and Ben should simulate a Jinx in this thread, and then perform a Live Countdown Blackout Duel for the entertainment of the community.

@PnL If you weren’t failing so hard, we wouldn’t be having this problem.

All in favor of Live Countdown Blackout Duel say Aye.
Aye.

@richardhenry – Careful. I know where you live. Also, GTFO Fluther and go sleep. Also, there’s no way your editing limit was over already, WAY TO WASTE SPACE by using up 2 quips.

Ahem, I agree with @richardhenry‘s suggestion of a live jinx duel on this thread.

@richardhenry you sir.. are made of WIN (is that against the guidelines?)

How about moving the Jinx duel to the chat room? (as per the guidelines concerning social banter)

@PnL, you know where he lives but don’t have the money to get there and can’t swim that far so I don’t think Richie’s too worried. Also, you GTFO Fluther and find a stupid paper to present.

@andrew and @ben Out of interest, what exactly did you “jinx” on?

Aye.

@omfgTALIjustIMDu – Ahem. Actually, I shall be going there this summer. :P

I’m out “stop following”

In light of the fact that there is no resolution in sight, we’ve agreed that Ben will purchase a coke of his choosing and we will split it.

Thanks to everyone for your insights.

@PnL, whhaaattttt? we have some talking to do.

Epic Fail.

Oh, brother.

Read that as “and we will spit in it”.

I’d like to say that I’ve never heard of this game before. I think that, because I know nothing, this makes me a totally impartial observor. Impartiality being at a premium here, clearly, what I have to say, will sit in your stomachs like a lump of coal. Hmmmm. I’m not sure that came out right. Nevermind.

Now, as I say, I don’t understand this internet game, despite our illustrious founder’s valiant attempts to explain; it seems to me that the issue of primogeniture is somewhat obscure. In my world (which is, admittedly, not necessarily the world anyone else would want to inhabit), a jinx can happen when two people say the same word or phrase at the same time. The first person who says “jinx” can extract any boon they can imagine from the other person.

The person who says jinx, then asks for a military molded Solid Tantalum Chip Capacitor that is MIL-PRF-55365/8 approved, molded from solid tantalum complete with Weibull Failure Rates B (0.1 %/1 k hrs.) and C (0.01 %/1 k hrs.) and with capacitance ranges from 0.1 μF to 100 μF and voltage ratings from 4 WVDC to 50 WVDC, and tape and reeling per EIA-481-C.

Yeah. I know that sounds like an easy thing to ask for, but folks, we don’t want to be too mean to our friends, do we?

Anyway, this internet version, in which anybody, it appears, can just say “jinx” out of the blue and the ensuing frivolity just takes up that teeny bit of extra bandwidth that causes the whole internet to come crashing down—well, I can’t say I approve. Of course. I can’t say I disapprove, either. I mean, I am impartial.

The evidence, as presented, looks very suspicious to me. Does anyone really chat with little voice bubbles appearing next to their names? I mean, what? Is this Toontown? The insinuation that our noble founders are mere cartoons in the terra virtua is pure heresy, and should be punished by auto-da-fe.

Anyway, after extensive analysis, tracking down every source I could find in my local library, and taking several serious naps, I have decided…..

oh my god….

the horror….

the horror…..

God I lurve this place.

(Loving that I get the chance to apply my just-taken Contract Law class notes to this answer…)

As I interpret this, if we extrapolate the common law mailbox rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mailbox_rule) to this situation, and we consider the jinxee, Ben, (on whom the “Blackout!” responsibility lies) to be equivalent to the offeror in the traditional contract sense, then the obligation lies with Ben to ensure that the “Blackout” is received by the jinxor, Andrew, before Andrew sends the “10.” This is because “10” in the jinx scenario seems to serve the purpose of an acceptance of agreement, whereas “Blackout” seems to serve as a withdrawal of agreement. In contract common law, precedence of acceptance is determined by postmark, whereas precedence of withdrawal is based on receipt date. So in this case, Andrew’s proof would seem to hold. Sorry, Ben!

On a lesser note, Ben’s misspelling of “Blackout” might cause any claim that he successfully withdrew his implicit jinx offer to be rejected on grounds of bad form.

And there we have it, people! Once you’ve spat in the Coke, poor Ben has to drink it.

But. But. But. How did you both say something at the same time in an internet chat room? I mean… wouldn’t it come up as one after the other? and isn’t this exactly what you’re arguing about? I’m confused…

@maudie, But using the same logic, isn’t it Andrew’s responsibility as the jinxer to effectively send numbers 1–10 before Ben sends Blackout? Which the jinxer, Andrew, didn’t accomplish, due to his misspelling of the number “6,” thefore the jinxee, Ben, is off the hook.