Who can be the least competitive competition (in Contests)

Winner gets 50k

Let's play, "Who can be less competitive competition."

Rules are simple enough. The player that can be less competitive wins. Those that don't try lose because they aren't playing the game. Those that quit win but lose because they did the most work to win. Those that play the game can win but lose because they are competing.

Um, am I leaving something out?

My entry: "sigh"

Ok, so maybe the person that can come up with the best rules of how to actually win this game gets the 50k. You have to admit though, I did give you at least 5 minutes of enjoyment, hopefully.

huh?

Nice entry. :)

What?

"after you"

um

you win

I lose

Stoopid game! I never win anything, so I'm not even going to try. Johnnywas will probably win, anyways. I'm just going home. I don't know why I came here in the first place. Stoopid game.

;)

Johnny can't win, have you any idea how_hard_it was for him to open a reply and then not actually type anything?

Hobbes: Look, I'm running so slow I'm going BACKWARDS!
Calvin: Cheater!

This way, it's a tribute, not a rip off.

To compete in this competition you need to post a reply. But in doing so, you lose straight away. Because you need to be the least competitive to win which makes you competitive and makes you lose anyway.

More to the point rules?

This thread was made to give Todd an unfair advantage.

I'm not entering, just pointing out that Beee double-posted.

Karate.

*Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks competitiveness into this competition

Ehm, I don't think I am capable of even trying to be competitive.

My entire world seems to be on a fast forward while I am on a rewind.

If I would enter, how would I know how uncompetitive to be? I mean all those other people are playing the game much better than me...

Confucius say: "Man who have last laugh, not get joke."

Ha, I'm totally going to win this.

q

I abstain.

42

not playing

OK!!! heres how you cant be competetive!............................................................ WASN'T THAT GREAT?

monkey :D

21.5

Okay, see? See?!?! See what I'm up against?!! "I abstain" - yeah, say what I said with just 2 words, and one of them "all fancy-schmancy"! How can I compete with that?
"42"? I can't beat that. I'm not even going to try. I'm only here for the donuts, anyway...
"Not playing" - sheesh...
Stoopid game. When's my bus get here?

Confucius say: "Man who keep feet on ground have trouble putting on pants."

*wait's for bus on the other side of the road*

now look who's losing :p

me

Monty

This is the 33rd response. 33rd responses never win.

I'm so dumb I'll let anyone get their way! :P

Amish artillery.

How do i play this game? i didnt read about it

split the money evenly to everyone who posted exept me....

By not being competative to win the contest, you are actually competing thus being competative right? So whom ever does the most to compete in the game (wich is exactly the opposite of what the want-to-be winner must do) will be the least competative in the contest..... that makes sense right?

I thought of it as.. the competition is to be the least competetive. Thus, those trying to be uncompetetive are competing the most. I decided to instead BE competetive. Honestly I don't know where this contest is going though =)

No longer speaking in private chat.

Thread closed to new posts.

c
c
c
c

Mu.

Ah, so our 5 minutes of entertainment are up but I sure did enjoy the responses. :)

"Ok, so maybe the person that can come up with the best rules of how to actually win this game gets the 50k."

The last part of the post really says it all though. Some are on the right track. Check in with you guys and gals tomorrow.

Easy, I win. ;)

Confucius say: "Man who push piano down mine shaft, likely to get A flat minor."

Confucius say: "I am loser of world and unimaginable thinking". :P

wah?

Imitates a whining baby:

* I don't want to win *

wouldnt i be the least competitive not having taken part at all? :)

You know what? I'm not even going to look at this stoopid game anymore! That's right, I'm closing my eyes!

See> U:cw x;pdwf ,t eued~ Ygst:kk sjiq toi akk!

Instead of trying to win some awful contest could we instead do something more constructive. Maybe talk about the implications of hi-jacking threads or the negative effect people have when they can't stay on topic. Just a thought. Flame away.

77% of all thread hijacking result in suicide.

Oh, wait, that's another thread altogether... There! you see the negative implications that going off topic can create? Now I'm so discombobulated that I couldn't even consider trying to compete!

As this contest is about who is less competitive, everybody tries to be less competitive.
I'm doing the opposite, I'm the most competitive one. I read hundreds of books to enter this competition and nobody will be able to beat my competition!
This just has to work! In the end I might be the least competitive by pushing myself in the wrong direction compared to you :)

No Wai!

QQ nooblets

L2Forumpost

Pwnzored

Stabilo stole my strategy, yet does he not realize I am the true master and he a mere amateur?! I have no equal in this competition.

Nerevas was close

Who needs winning when you can just play the horribly stupid way?

I win this game, because I was so non-competitive I didn't even enter the contest.

OK, one more night and the winner of the non-competitive competition will be announced.

I'll throw a hint: think merger

I <3 myself

I hate the world. And myself. And my parents. And my things. :P

i hate everything less than seran

I'm going to win because I'll merge my account with someone else and let them do all the work.
By doing this he can be competitive in this thread while I do absolutely nothing and be the least competitive!

Or I could simply play football for my home nation England as they are the least competitive team in the world.

you guys are thinking too hard... all these plans show you are indeed competitive!

hehe funny game.

I'm going to fall asleep and let my BA waste itself.

The irony involved in this contest is that everyone is competing to be non-competitive. Those who are competing hardest are actually the ones who are trying to be non-competitive, but by trying they are competing more than those who are not trying to be non-competitive. Many are making competing claims of non-competitiveness, to the point where people have tried to broaden their claims to be as general as possible so as to show that they are the least competitive not only in this contest, but in everything. But then that is a lie. I vote that all lies be disqualified. I'm competing against this contest of incompetitiveness.

I thought i entered allready but I guess not.

How am I competing? I said 'I abstain.' And I do. How am I to help it if my non-action coincidentally matches the contest goal?

Hey why is this post showing up on contests still, I thought I told you I won already. The prize was a months supply of ham. Mmmmm.

Hm, this contest is getting interesting. I'll raise 50k to a total of 100k to anyone that can come up with an answer to my original statement.

"Ok, so maybe the person that can come up with the best rules of how to actually win this game gets the 50k."

LeadenClaw was just a gnat hair away from winning it but didn't complete the thought. Someone else mentioned the only real way to win but didn't have LeadenClaw's logic included and then posted *another comment* and nulled his whole entry.

Hope that helps. Contest end moved until someone figures this out.

Seran entered the contest for me. I didn't even care.

I suggest you and I switch characters, whoever wins the most fights wins.

The least competitive one should be one who saw the post, thought that the money is a nice addition, and not posted at all. (Pretty hard to determine a winner, eh?)

Ithink the winner should be the one with the stupidest picture . So i guess the dumb surrendering bunny !

Since everyone is competing on anti-competitiveness, I'm going to enter this contest after all, however I'm going to put in the least amount of effort by putting in my entry of:

""

Thats right, an empty post is more then nothing and is always less then something. Muahaha!

Max, there are no 'best rules of how to actually win this game'. I win. It's a simple as that. No competitiveness, no competeting with others, just me winning. You might as well just send the 100K to me now.

Send to Poetic Frenzy please. :)

*carps GL* You need to be sent to the looney bin. Seriously. -_-

i lose again
haha i win :p

geesh folks, he said least competitive, not most tarded.
I think the first person to post something mildly intelligent in the thread should win.

obviously not you, nov :P

so wait, if you're the most competitive at a game of "who can be the least competitive", doesn't that make you the least competitive?

yes, something like that, nerevas was close and i think he basically said the same thing.

If I can't win at being the least competitive, then I quit!

a dollar two ninety-eight and eleventeen cents.

I am least competitive in a battle, but I'll have you beat in being farmed.
See...Uncompetitively competitive

I just want the madness to end =(

First we must look to the definition of competitive:

1. Of, involving, or determined by competition: competitive games.
2. Liking competition or inclined to compete: a highly competitive teammate.

To be the least competitive, we need to find the person who was the least inclined to compete (Definition #2) and this can be correlated directly to the effort put in by a person. The person who put the least effort, is the least competitive

Looking at this, it is obvious that anyone who has submitted a post is automatically disqualified as they have put effort into writing something, and thus were competitive.

The next group of people to be considered are those who have read the post (or the title of the post itself), but have not written any submissions. They are disqualified from winning because in the act of reading about the competition, they have specifically chosen to not answer, and since the nature of this competition is to be un-competitive, they have put some effort into being uncompetitive (by choosing not to answer) and have thus been (slightly) competitive.

Based on these assumptions, the only logical conclusion is that the least competitive people are those who have no idea that this competition existed in the first place.

Going even further, by examining the definition of competition:

The act of competing, as for profit or a prize; rivalry.

it can be assumed that anyone who has ever signed up for CB, is implicitly aiming to obtain $CB and is thus trying to earn the prize money from this contest. So, every member of CB has tried to earn $CB, and thus has implicitly put effort into winning this contest to get $CB whether they were aware of it or not, and hence were competitive.

The only conclusion is that people who do not play CB are least competitive people, and thus only people who do not play CB should be awarded the prize. However as soon as they sign up to claim the prize, they have put effort into obtaining the prize, and hence are ineligible to win the prize.

In conclusion, nobody can win, because as soon as they claim the prize or attempt to collect the prize, they become ineligible to win the contest, and hence must forfeit the prize.

That would all be well and good.... if I hadn't already won.. out of pure awesomeness.

"Based on these assumptions, the only logical conclusion is that the least competitive people are those who have no idea that this competition existed in the first place."

This must be wrong. If you have no idea of the competition, even if you are competitive, you can't compete because you won't know how or where to compete. This statement is wrong because it automatically assumes that they are uncompetitive, when all it really describes is that the person lacks the appropriate knowledge.

My post was based on the idea that I correlated effort to competitiveness, and thus a lack of knowledge = lack of effort = lack of competitiveness.

But I see your point. I could probably re-word it somehow to get the same conclusion maybe. Whatever... I was just bored at work :P.

My earlier post was unclear. So I'll tell a story to illustrate how one might solve the issue. A wealthy man dies. He leaves a will behind that says one of his two sons will inherit all of his money. He stipulates that the two sons will have a horse race and the money will go to the son with the slowest (least competitive) horse. The short answer is the sons switch horses and race the other's horse. By winning with the other brothers horse his own horse loses and he wins.

Hope that helps.

Too many mis-spelled words! The following were not recognized:

I am going to compete after all, but I am going to compete for novice. I am going to fight and dig, and put all the effort I have to give, for novice. I'm not competing for myself, I am competing for novice, and I am going to win for novice, so just send all of the winnings to novice, because no one has any chance of beating novice with me competing for him.

Thanks, and have a wonderful day!

Nice entries. We sure are in a pickle, huh? I really want to give out a prize but I can't let this contest go forever. Will someone please definitively answer the only question I care about. How does a person or entity (wink wink) win a competition by being the least competitive? Fix your logic a bit, you know who you are, and I think you may win this. Also, remember what I said about MERGERS!

Well, heck, novice had no idea that I was going to compete for him, so I think that would be the way to do it. He's not competing at all, because I am doing it for him without his prior knowledge. He may not even know that I am competing for him now, for that matter. You can't be any less competitive than novice is being, with me competing for him without his knowledge. You just can't compete with that level of non-competitiveness, and that seems to be the only way to be completely non-competitive. So novice should win, because he isn't competing in any way.

So, the rule to win would have to be to get someone else to compete for you (a merger) without your knowledge (or any effort on your part), so you could compete without competing.

Unfortunatly BM, Nov has posted in the contest, so knows about it. I am on the other hand posting for Sutekh. Who heasn't been to this thread and knows nothing ofthis contest. :)

so;

Well, heck, Sutekh had no idea that I was going to compete for him, so I think that would be the way to do it. He's not competing at all, because I am doing it for him without his prior knowledge. He does not even know that I am competing for him now, for that matter. You can't be any less competitive than Sutekh is being, with me competing for him without his knowledge. You just can't compete with that level of non-competitiveness, and that seems to be the only way to be completely non-competitive. So Sutekh should win, because he isn't competing in any way.

So, the rule to win would have to be to get someone else to compete for you (a merger) without your knowledge (or any effort on your part), so you could compete without competing.

:D

Crud.. Sutekh did post in this thread... Erm, so change my entry to Sefton.

;)

You know, I thought about competing for Sefton or Sut for just that reason - I was afraid that choosing novice would leave a loophole for someone to be even less competitive. But novice made me laugh, so I chose him... :P

I am Todd. We all know Spydah did all the work don't we? You can't get less competitive than that....

Johnny wins! :D

make it where who ever responds 110th wins thats not hard at all thats just lazy but u can only enter post a comment and the 110th comment whens it can be random or on subject i think that would be fun and not hard at all but be sure to get ppl to make donations because the more donations the higher reward

Actually its pretty simple. You can't. Everyone trying one way or the other, directly or indirectly, is defeated by some angle of logic. Unfortunately, I was the automatic winner of this contest before it even began- on grounds not even present in the rules of the contest- that of winning by my pure awesomeness. Any attempt at me being competetive large or small has no relevance to my victory. This is not a self proclamation, but the utter truth of the matter. For the original poster to have let this contest carry out so far when its fate has already been decided, that is truly cruel to all of you.

Words can simply not describe the motives I would want to lose this contest.

Hereby I announce myself as ultimate loser :p

I believe everyone who entered the contest should win!

I have a 64% DX penalty. So HA!
Plus my guy is named "Perfect Loser"
So I lose at battles, but I can't loser (which results in winning) in here.

How about the person who joins around a specialy picked time who didn't enter.You know becomes a supporter.

the winner should be skydemon....

I lose because I haven't even been here for months.

That's as noncompetitive as it gets.

I'll enjoy my prize.

I...can't believe it. Someone had it (actually two) but both entries had mergers that posted....that doesn't mean you can repost without the logic and just pick someone else. You have to do the whole thing in one shot.

*sigh* When someone gets "it" (merger theory) right with someone who hasn't posted gets the cash. Die contest die!

I think Max should win this contest :p

I forget the logic, but essentially I think Slamslice should win, since he's busy forging instead of wasting his time competing

Well then, fine! Grant has no idea that I am going to compete for him, so I think that would be the way to do it. He's not competing at all, because I am doing it for him without his prior knowledge. He may not even know that I am competing for him now, for that matter, because he hasn't posted anything in "who knows how long". I don't even know the last time he logged on. You can't be any less competitive than Grant is being, with me competing for him without his knowledge. You just can't compete with that level of non-competitiveness, and that seems to be the only way to be completely non-competitive. So Grant should win, because he isn't competing in any way.

So, the rule to win would have to be to get someone else to compete for you (a merger) without your knowledge (or any effort on your part), so you could compete without competing.

There, logic and merger and non-competitiveness all in 1 post.

:P Cut & Paste FTW! ;)

What you are describing in this contest is best explained through an analagous riddle, of sorts:

"Two brothers wanted to race a course,
To see which had the slowest horse.
Since neither wanted to spur his mare,
What must they do to make it fair?"

The answer, of course, is for each brother to race the other's horse. This is a very old riddle that was once popularized by the marvelous game Betrayal at Krondor. It has many different versions, some involving an old whispering man, some involving camels, some involving a desert. The concept is the same, though.

hmmm

/me will give 15k to the winner

BM won. :) Technically I beat him to it, but didn't post it all in one go. :P

i've been a member since cb2 started and just recently broke 100k mpr....with the help of the NCB, of course....im all about the competitive edge, but ill win eventually.

I'm not going to enter Picasso!

Max (ThePickle) 24.10.78.36 BarzooMonkey
(Billys Good Doggies) $100000 5:05 AM EDT

NICE! New contest coming soon. Game over. :)

I thought BarzooMonkey was competing for Grant. Shouldn't then Grant be the winner of this contest? I wonder why BarzooMonkey got all the money ...

greetings

That's just the irony of a non-competitive competition...
Woot!!! I actually won a contest! Thanks Max! And thanks Grant, for your unbeatable non-competitiveness! I'll split it with you if you ever log on to compete! :D

Because that was how to win the game. See my first post

"Ok, so maybe the person that can come up with the best rules of how to actually win this game gets the 50k. "

The things you dream up in the slammer! ;)