You know, hours pass, ideas come up. But unfortunately, I do not have the time right now, so if you'd like an exhaustive response involving my theories for why people play games, what's so involving about them, and so on, do let me know.
If someone ever decides to ask you, by the time they do you'll have forgotten almost all the details they want to hear, and you would have to just read everything and hope it all occurs to you again. It's like you momentarily forgot how unreliable memory is, especially on exhaustive issues; if you don't consider something important enough to write down the first chance you get (requests be damned), you shouldn't expect your memory to hold onto it either.
First of all, we are in a public space, so if anyone wants to make such a game sometime, these discussions can be helpful later.
Only if they read them. Which requires they find them. Which requires they happen to search using the same keywords you use in them. And after all that they still need to be willing to skim through all the material they don't care about to find a small amount of material they could probably have just written themselves.
And I don't think there are a lot of people in the world having serious discussions about Forum Game Theory.
If you aren't careful, you'll have people thinking your discussions are
intended to be as serious as
Game Theory, which is the thing with military training and military applications.— Although, there is probably the solution to making a fun CTF game in the head of some Game Theory college graduate somewhere...
I often find myself recycling the arguments I and others have developed before in new debates.
This usually means you've found and are exploiting common
cognitive fallacies. If an identical key is working in many different locks, it suggests the key is a lockpick, or an arc welder.
And thirdly, everything is irrelevant if in the grand scheme of things.
:]I honestly enjoy arguments for their own sake.
This is usually something brought into the conversation as an accusation that the accused must vigorously deny to retain credibility. The internet might give you an infinite source of arguments, but you should find a place where you can be sure all participants are interested in arguing (versus understanding or clarifying) to satisfy this urge.
Also, if you wish to do so with me as a response to this, I must politely answer—
no. Just respond as though you were trying to figure out some tech problem or build something with someone; for you see, that is exactly the will with which this post was written.