It’s hard ∅ • Ꙩ to talk ∅ • Ꙩ about the Game ∅ • Ꙩ without making a fool ∅ • Ꙩ of oneself. That’s partly because it’s ∅ • Ꙩ the game’s nature ∅ • Ꙩ to change itself ∅ • Ꙩ all the time. And the game ∅ • Ꙩ has been around for ∅ • Ꙩ a very long time, perhaps forever. ∅ • Ꙩ
Now the reason∅ • Ꙩ I can’t speak clearly about ∅ • Ꙩ the Game isn’t just because it shapeshifts ∅ • Ꙩ and diversifies across geography,∅ • Ꙩ culture, even hair color.∅ • Ꙩ There’s also a more basic reason, ∅ • Ꙩ which is that I don’t want you to be playing.∅ • Ꙩ By speaking of the Game even in the vaguest∅ • Ꙩ terms I could be precipitating my own defeat.∅ • Ꙩ
Level-0 Game is ∅ • Ꙩ simple as dirt and can be read about∅ • Ꙩ on normie Internet. It goes like this: if you think about the Game, you’re playing it. ∅ • Ꙩ That’s Rule #1. Rule #2 is that anyone the player looks∅ • Ꙩ at automatically becomes also a player. A player might not∅ • Ꙩ know they’re playing. Ipso facto they’re probably∅ • Ꙩ losing.
Fairly simple, right? It’s when you get two players who know they’re players in the same room that things heat up. Of course, no-one ever admits they’re playing as that could jeopardize their Game. But you can usually tell by the way they won’t return your looks.
I’ve seen people ∅ • Ꙩ who have lost. That’s all I know.∅ • Ꙩ They wonder about looking vacant. What if Napoleon became one of these∅ • Ꙩ people, at Waterloo? One of the Game’s∅ • Ꙩ many bizarre consequences?∅ • Ꙩ We can never know.
It’s possible to∅ • Ꙩ read a strategy of winning online∅ • Ꙩ and apply it. That’s the other thing: how do you know which ∅ • Ꙩ strategies are valid? You have to assume∅ • Ꙩ they all are. You could∅ • Ꙩ be losing while you’re inspecting∅ • Ꙩ a piece of fruit at the market.
I don’t know ∅ • Ꙩ where that leaves us. Maybe we can become ∅ • Ꙩ allies of some sort, but probably not. I think I should be hoping that y̶̨̛̟͍͎̜̦̽̒͐̒͛̓͋o̴̤̣̖͂̒̉͝u̸̹̲̎ ̶̭̘͈̓̓̈́̀͗̎̃̀l̴̼̖̩̼̒o̷̥̗̮͖̿̊̒͑̕ş̴͚͙̭̮͇͈̀̂̒̓̓͛̔̚͠͝e̷̢͈͍͍̞̟̘̠͝ͅ
the Budafoki amended 