h a l f b a k e r yRecalculations place it at 0.4999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Two balls are tethered to an elevated structure. Same rules* as tetherball, but there are two balls to deal with.
* Rules for tetherball: hit ball in one direction, until it winds all the way around the pole. This would be easy, were it not for another person trying to do the same thing in the
opposite direction.
[link]
|
| |
So if a player in regular tetherball is out (or whatever) when the ball hits the pole in the counter direction, how do players win when there's no pole? |
|
| |
Is this going to be referred to now as "Lesbian Tetherball"? |
|
| |
If you had 5 or 6 balls suspended in a line, this could be like those executive stressreliever toys. You would want them to be bowling balls. |
|
| |
But how would you win such a game? |
|
| |
I'm fully in favour of games where it's impossible to win or lose [+]. I really thought this was going to be a little different to what it actually is, I may have to see if my idea grows up and posts itself. |
|
| |
po: well, put 'em back in, fer gawd's sake! |
|
| |
Wouldn't one ball tend to tie up the other? |
|
| |
Yes. I think [wag] is missing that - it's not meant to be impossible to win. When they are wound as tight as they can be wound in your direction, you've won. This will work even if one tether is completely wound around the other, leaving one ball high with the other one hanging straight down. |
|
| |
I think you need to do some field research to make sure this would actually work. |
|
| |
DC. you picking on me today? |
|
| |
This would be a lot more complex than swingball (as I know it), but lots more fun. And easy to make. |
|
| |
Every day, po, every day! |
|
| |
I defy you to propose something more fun than swingball. |
|
| |