In/Out Grouping: Conditional Chain or Manhattan? Forum

[Clearly]

I recall it being an in out game, because each player had to be used, and there were only two options. It's just as binary as birds in the forest, or the fruit stand game. Any two team game in which every player has to be on a team is an in out game, whether or not they use the phrases in/out or on-stage/off stage, or in the photo/not in the photo, or souderton/randsborough. The real catch is that everybody has to be used, or else it's no longer two teams, its three (souderton/randsborough/out).

So you consider trial and appellate court to be in/out?
By the way, the fact that everyone has to be used is a condition of regular grouping games, the whole point of in/out games is that not everyone has to be in.

The bolded is where you lose me. You are talking about two separate things here. Being used, and being "in". Not everyone has to be "in" but everyone has to be used (as in either in, or out, but never both). Any game in which everyone has to be used, only has two options, and in which no one can be used more than once is binary. To break it down further is just splitting hairs. The real difference between binary and regular grouping games is that a person not being on one side, necessitates them being on the other. Not A is equivalent to B. Not Souderton is equivalent to Randsborough, Not In is equivalent to Out.

Also, saying that everyone has to be used is a condition of any regular grouping game isn't true. There are dozens of grouping games (not In/Out) that have people not being used (more players than slots) and plenty in which people can be used more than once. Plenty of games do have the rule that everyone has to be used, sure, but that is certainly not a condition necessary for a game to be considered grouping.

I feel like you are contradicting yourself. Either "out" is a group or it's not. If there is a grouping where "not everyone has to be used" then you are admitting "out" doesn't count as a group, which destroys your own argument that any two group grouping game is identical to in/out (which implicitly makes "out" a group).

I think you are just using a different definition for in/out, this whole binary thing. Though in/out and two group grouping games share that characteristic, I don't think it's the defining identity of in/out. If they were called "binary" games maybe it would be, and maybe that's a perfectly fine way to categorize it, but it's simply not what in/out means. Think about those words, "in/out," it's pretty clear this game has no in and no out.

Anyway, this is the most shits I've given for such an irrelevant semantic dispute. But whatever I'm bored and it's fun.

Couldn't agree more with this. Typed that whole post saying why am I doing this.
I agree the difference in opinion comes from how we view the language. To me, binary is the key part, to you in/out is specifically important. You are also correct games in which everyone doesn't have to be used does create a de facto out group. To me, how pivotal that group is, is important. Also of importance are games that allow each person to go more than once, which can never be in/out to me because being in one group no longer necessitates being out of the other.

Just to clarify this bit, so as to avoid mischaracterization of my argument in posts going forward.

that any two group grouping game is identical to in/out

This is indeed how I look at it, but only if each player has to be on one of the two sides (or as you said, there are 3 groups...A/B/Out), and no player can be on both teams, else its not longer binary.

As you said, the real difference is determining the difference between Binary, and In/Out. To me there are little-to-none; to you, their are apparently more.

[Micdiddy]

So you consider trial and appellate court to be in/out?
By the way, the fact that everyone has to be used is a condition of regular grouping games, the whole point of in/out games is that not everyone has to be in.

The bolded is where you lose me. You are talking about two separate things here. Being used, and being "in". Not everyone has to be "in" but everyone has to be used (as in either in, or out, but never both). Any game in which everyone has to be used, only has two options, and in which no one can be used more than once is binary. To break it down further is just splitting hairs. The real difference between binary and regular grouping games is that a person not being on one side, necessitates them being on the other. Not A is equivalent to B. Not Souderton is equivalent to Randsborough, Not In is equivalent to Out.

Also, saying that everyone has to be used is a condition of any regular grouping game isn't true. There are dozens of grouping games (not In/Out) that have people not being used (more players than slots) and plenty in which people can be used more than once. Plenty of games do have the rule that everyone has to be used, sure, but that is certainly not a condition necessary for a game to be considered grouping.

I feel like you are contradicting yourself. Either "out" is a group or it's not. If there is a grouping where "not everyone has to be used" then you are admitting "out" doesn't count as a group, which destroys your own argument that any two group grouping game is identical to in/out (which implicitly makes "out" a group).

I think you are just using a different definition for in/out, this whole binary thing. Though in/out and two group grouping games share that characteristic, I don't think it's the defining identity of in/out. If they were called "binary" games maybe it would be, and maybe that's a perfectly fine way to categorize it, but it's simply not what in/out means. Think about those words, "in/out," it's pretty clear this game has no in and no out.

Anyway, this is the most shits I've given for such an irrelevant semantic dispute. But whatever I'm bored and it's fun.

Couldn't agree more with this. Typed that whole post saying why am I doing this.
I agree the difference in opinion comes from how we view the language. To me, binary is the key part, to you in/out is specifically important. You are also correct games in which everyone doesn't have to be used does create a de facto out group. To me, how pivotal that group is, is important. Also of importance are games that allow each person to go more than once, which can never be in/out to me because being in one group no longer necessitates being out of the other.

Just to clarify this bit, so as to avoid mischaracterization of my argument in posts going forward.

that any two group grouping game is identical to in/out

This is indeed how I look at it, but only if each player has to be on one of the two sides (or as you said, there are 3 groups...A/B/Out), and no player can be on both teams, else its not longer binary.

As you said, the real difference is determining the difference between Binary, and In/Out. To me there are little-to-none; to you, their are apparently more.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing establishing out as a de facto group is extremely important to success on any game with an out group. Also, I haven't said anything about games where variables can go more than once (because I don't necessarily think that ever distinguished one game type from another, even in/out games have had instances of variables able to go more than once, like all them fishes).

I think the distinction comes from strict, black-letter organization (me) to general similarities in approach (you). According to the black letter of what makes a game in/out, it's rather clear a true out group must actually exist (who is in and who is out in op's game?) if we do not have one, the game is not in/out, period. For you, the black latter is not as important as the overlap of similarities that make the approach for this game and in/out games extremely similar. I'm not really going to argue which way to categorize games is right or wrong. But obviously I'm right and pure wrong