Category:Gamebreaking - Revision history

73.69.193.6: Undo revision 1008740 by 192.42.116.200 (talk)

2026-03-26T18:55:57Z

Undo revision 1008740 by 192.42.116.200 (talk)

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:55, 26 March 2026
Line 1:	Line 1:
		[[File:Divided_by_Zero_manhole.jpg\|300px\|right]]
		The more complex a system, the more likely you'll have inconsistencies or even contradictions. When trying to make a simulation, the more detail you add will have the ironic effect of making mismatches appear huge.

		These articles are for straining game rules into something nonsensical but technically legal. Sometimes they highlight a problem in the rules that needs fixing, and sometimes they are just amusing intellectual exercises.

		There will always be fa/tg/uys that will say "nuh-uh! you're not allowed to do that!" and try to "prove" we can't abuse the rules to have the wrong kind of fun. Try to keep those naysayers to the discuss page for each article, or to their own subsection named 'counterarguments' or 'no fun allowed' instead of letting them inject <nowiki><s>strikeout</s> or '''boldface'''</nowiki> scolding into the article.

		[[Category:Categories]]

192.42.116.200: Blanked the page

2026-02-18T04:58:42Z

Blanked the page

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 18 February 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~[[File:Divided_by_Zero_manhole.jpg\|300px\|right]]~~
	The more complex a system, the more likely you'll have inconsistencies or even contradictions. When trying to make a simulation, the more detail you add will have the ironic effect of making mismatches appear huge.

	These articles are for straining game rules into something nonsensical but technically legal. Sometimes they highlight a problem in the rules that needs fixing, and sometimes they are just amusing intellectual exercises.

	There will always be fa/tg/uys that will say "nuh-uh! you're not allowed to do that!" and try to "prove" we can't abuse the rules to have the wrong kind of fun. Try to keep those naysayers to the discuss page for each article, or to their own subsection named 'counterarguments' or 'no fun allowed' instead of letting them inject <nowiki><s>strikeout</s> or '''boldface'''</nowiki> scolding into the article.

	~~[[Category:Categories]]~~

imported>Administrator: 3 revisions imported

2023-06-24T22:46:03Z

3 revisions imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:46, 24 June 2023
(No difference)

1d4chan>Kirbanzo at 03:29, 24 February 2021

2021-02-24T03:29:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:29, 24 February 2021
Line 5:		Line 5:

	There will always be fa/tg/uys that will say "nuh-uh! you're not allowed to do that!" and try to "prove" we can't abuse the rules to have the wrong kind of fun. Try to keep those naysayers to the discuss page for each article, or to their own subsection named 'counterarguments' or 'no fun allowed' instead of letting them inject <nowiki><s>strikeout</s> or '''boldface'''</nowiki> scolding into the article.		There will always be fa/tg/uys that will say "nuh-uh! you're not allowed to do that!" and try to "prove" we can't abuse the rules to have the wrong kind of fun. Try to keep those naysayers to the discuss page for each article, or to their own subsection named 'counterarguments' or 'no fun allowed' instead of letting them inject <nowiki><s>strikeout</s> or '''boldface'''</nowiki> scolding into the article.

			[[Category:Categories]]

1d4chan>NotBrandX at 15:03, 6 February 2014

2014-02-06T15:03:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:03, 6 February 2014
Line 2:		Line 2:
	The more complex a system, the more likely you'll have inconsistencies or even contradictions. When trying to make a simulation, the more detail you add will have the ironic effect of making mismatches appear huge.		The more complex a system, the more likely you'll have inconsistencies or even contradictions. When trying to make a simulation, the more detail you add will have the ironic effect of making mismatches appear huge.

	These articles are for straining game rules ~~without breaking them~~. Sometimes they highlight a problem in the rules that needs fixing, and sometimes they are just amusing intellectual exercises.		These articles are for straining game rules into something nonsensical but technically legal. Sometimes they highlight a problem in the rules that needs fixing, and sometimes they are just amusing intellectual exercises.

	There will always be fa/tg/uys that will say "nuh-uh! you're not allowed to do that!" and try to "prove" we can't abuse the rules to have the wrong kind of fun. Try to keep those naysayers to the discuss page for each article, or to their own subsection named 'counterarguments' or 'no fun allowed' instead of letting them inject <nowiki><s>strikeout</s> or '''boldface'''</nowiki> scolding into the article.		There will always be fa/tg/uys that will say "nuh-uh! you're not allowed to do that!" and try to "prove" we can't abuse the rules to have the wrong kind of fun. Try to keep those naysayers to the discuss page for each article, or to their own subsection named 'counterarguments' or 'no fun allowed' instead of letting them inject <nowiki><s>strikeout</s> or '''boldface'''</nowiki> scolding into the article.

1d4chan>NotBrandX: Created page with "right The more complex a system, the more likely you'll have inconsistencies or even contradictions. When trying to make a simulati..."

2014-02-06T15:01:56Z

Created page with "300px|right The more complex a system, the more likely you'll have inconsistencies or even contradictions. When trying to make a simulati..."

New page

[[File:Divided_by_Zero_manhole.jpg|300px|right]]
The more complex a system, the more likely you'll have inconsistencies or even contradictions. When trying to make a simulation, the more detail you add will have the ironic effect of making mismatches appear huge.

These articles are for straining game rules without breaking them. Sometimes they highlight a problem in the rules that needs fixing, and sometimes they are just amusing intellectual exercises.

There will always be fa/tg/uys that will say "nuh-uh! you're not allowed to do that!" and try to "prove" we can't abuse the rules to have the wrong kind of fun. Try to keep those naysayers to the discuss page for each article, or to their own subsection named 'counterarguments' or 'no fun allowed' instead of letting them inject <nowiki><s>strikeout</s> or '''boldface'''</nowiki> scolding into the article.