The Amazing Race Game Thread

[Malfatron]

but i guess i was wrong about it needing to be a common phrase, so never mind

it can just be any two words that make sense put together.

[Woz]

3 minutes ago, Woz said:

I was under the impression that you couldn't re-use words, but maybe that's me misreading the rules.

@bcb1213 - is my understanding correct?

[SwAg]

1 minute ago, Malfatron said:

but obviously "controversy this" wouldnt work

but "controversy sucks" would?

 

i dont think you understand what common phrases are.

No, you just make terrible arguments that make no sense when deconstructed down to principles.

[bcb1213]

So far 

Untouchable 

Counselor out 

 

Rags on the clock til 4 PM 

[Pickle Rick]

5 minutes ago, SwAg said:

Now we’re getting deep.

is controversy committee a proper noun?!

that’s a joke.

its not a proper noun. 

[bcb1213]

1 minute ago, Woz said:

@bcb1213 - is my understanding correct?

That is incorrect.  You just can't use the same pairing or start with the same word that eliminated someone else 

 

For instance if someone says apple pie

You can still use apple and still use pie.  Just not together 

Edited March 14, 2019 by bcb1213

[Malfatron]

Just now, bcb1213 said:

That is incorrect.  You just can't use the same pairing or start with the same word that eliminated someone else 

 

For instance if someone says apple is pie

You can still use apple and still use pie.  Just not together 

do they have to be a common phrase?

or just any 2 words that might make sense when put together?

[Woz]

Just now, Malfatron said:

Just now, bcb1213 said:

That is incorrect.  You just can't use the same pairing or start with the same word that eliminated someone else 

 

For instance if someone says apple is pie

You can still use apple and still use pie.  Just not together 

do they have to be a common phrase?

and, if yes, what defines "common phrase?"

[Ragnarok]

10 minutes ago, The Orca said:

Controversy Committee 

@Ragnarok

Committee Bylaws

@The Orca

[Ragnarok]

I'm in class, so I have no clue who is still around.

[SwAg]

Why we changing the rules now?  These guys imputed knowledge based upon your examples.  I followed the rules.  

Don’t accommodate their reading difficulties and penalize me by having to guess what useless serfs view as a common.

[SwAg]

That being said, I do think we need some type of rule.  Malfatron made a dumb argument, but was right.  The game never ends if you can just say “is,” “are,” “was,” etc. after any word.

[Malfatron]

Just now, SwAg said:

Malfatron [...] was right.

glad you now understand.

 

[Nazgul]

1 minute ago, SwAg said:

That being said, I do think we need some type of rule.  Malfatron made a dumb argument, but was right.  The game never ends if you can just say “is,” “are,” “was,” etc. after any word.

I don't see anyone trying to do that.

[SwAg]

4 minutes ago, Nazgul said:

I don't see anyone trying to do that.

Yeah, better wait til it’s an issue.  Also, it’s the same principle your partner articulated.  The lone distinction is I did not carve out arbitrary niche exceptions based upon (1) nothing or (2) retroactively justifying an answer.

God, I’ll give you two credit for punching upward, but it’s abysmal.

Edited March 14, 2019 by SwAg
I’m being too mean.