Talk:Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock

A flaw in the game
The thing that bothers me about this game is that every move has two attack names except for Rock, which can only smash. BirdValiant (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are just the superficial names. The essential core of the game is that each of the five defeats two others and is defeated by the remaining two... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I always played it that rock blunts scissors. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I also say that rock blunts scissors. I think that's the British way and smashing is American. However, rock crushes lizard so it has two different names anyway. The picture says rock crushes scissors but that doesn't sound right.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  05:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom Baker as Doctor Who #4 referenced Rock, Paper, Scissors, in Destiny of the Daleks episode 2 (1979) and that "stone blunts scissors," (blunt rather than smash or crush.) It seems more accurate to imagine that the rock, placed between the scissor shears would, in fact, blunt the sharp shears of the scissors. As for a rock 'smashing' something made of hardened metal, it seems less reasonable if one imagined a rock relative in size to scissors and a standard sheet of paper.  Granted, a large enough rock under the force of gravity in free fall could smash a typically sized pair of household scissors.  I ultimately assert that 'blunt' is more accurate considering that the rock is likely visualized in most people's minds as hand held, size relative to the other two components of the "game."  It is noteworthy to mention that Tom Baker in speaking substituted "stone" for "rock."  It would be interesting to learn of the origin of the game and the original terminology. -coltswalker (Talk) 18:24, 10 Sept 2012 (CST)
 * Even in the absence of the devastating testimony from the #1 Dr. Who, it is absolutely, positively (rock|stone) blunts the scissors.24.85.131.247 (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a type of game which tends to develop regional variations in terminology, so absolutes don't really apply. (Besides, what if the scissors are plastic?) --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move
the name of the game is rock<-paper<-scissors<-spock<-lizard, not lizard spock as seen from http://www.samkass.com/theories/RPSSL.html, the naming is important because it partially tells what beats what, saying it in another way just obfuscates the rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.238.106 (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Despite obfuscating the rules, consensus is that the current title is what the game is commonly known as. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock → Rock-paper-scissors-spock-lizard — Per rationale above, a reasonable way to name the game. Elizium23 (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I didn't create this wikipedia page, I did invent the game and for what it's worth I've said it both ways. I think when the Big Bang Theory stole it they switched the order, so although a lot of geeks knew it the other way first, now it's popularized both ways. I don't know if this counts as "original research", though.  --Sam (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. Both names seem equally attested. The rationale given above is advocacy of a POV that the name should not be one that obfuscates the rules, and this advocacy is contrary to Wikipedia's fundamental principles. The original name has a better poetic ring to it, and while neither its being original nor poetic is a particularly strong argument either, I think that's the way to go. Andrewa (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS this poetic aspect is presumably why The Big Bang Theory episode was titled The Lizard-Spock Expansion rather than The Spock-Lizard Expansion, despite their using the other, more awkward order for the title for the game. This awkwardness subtly enhances the geekiness of the characters, and that consideration rather than the logic of the name is likely to be the reason the game was renamed for the episode. A good device on the part of the writers. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm tending to oppose as it's more likely that people will discover the page through the current ordering (after/during watching that episode), however I would not be opposed to a redirect for the other page to this one for those who search the other version. The show probably changed the ordering so that the recitation of the options worked for saying out loud. Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Since scissors-paper-rock or however you want to say will always be in order, there's no real proof that the name of the game is meant to define the rules. It's just a name. I would say it "scissors-paper-rock-Spock-lizard", which is in order and also sounds good.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  11:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't know about the names and stuff, but the S of Spock should be capitalised in the title as it's a proper noun. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, seems if anything the more encyclopedic name for the game. But certainly (whichever version is chosen) the "Spock" should be capitalized.--Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current common name is the one used by CBS. Marcus   Qwertyus   17:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that people prefer the current ordering, then, what about the capitalization? The sources seem to capitalize each item; should we do that? or if we want to stick to our own style, shouldn't we at least capitalize "Spock" as suggested above?--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think capitalising "Spock" is a must but I don't think capitalising the others would be correct.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  15:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any objections to this? Can we do this as an uncontroversial move request? (I mean just changing "spock" to "Spock" in the title.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I support it... AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support it's fine with me! Elizium23 (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so I've requested the redirect be deleted so the change can be made.--Kotniski (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now ✅ - thanks.--Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spock "Smashes" Scissors
It seems to me that Spock wouldn't "smash" something. I'd originally heard it as "Spock disassembles scissors", which seems more in-character for Spock. I changed the text, but changed it back when I realized it would contradict the image. --108.5.252.250 (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Spock smashes scissors" is attested in the reliable source which is the origin of the game, so it really doesn't matter what we think makes sense. The article must reflect its sources. Elizium23 (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The inventor, Sam Kass, later amended the verb to "melts". He employs it in the arrow text of his updated product graphics, as found at cafepress.com/samkass.  Unfortunately, the whole of the cafepress.com domain is on the spam list, so it wasn't possible to cite my edit - the inclusion of "melts" in brackets.  However, Kass links to the page from the one the article uses to cite him as inventor so it is confirmed as his own amendment to reasonable satisfaction.  (The more common verb on various pages around the internet used by players obviously concerned about it being in-character is "bends".  Most would probably be happy with "melts" if they knew it was the inventor's amendment.) RedactionalOne (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The page at cafepress.com/samkass which you mention as your source, says "Spock smashes scissors". I don't see "melts" anywhere. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  15:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found it right where you said it was. A better source is obviously required though. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  15:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In creating the game, my wife and I were just trying to make something fun, not a canonical set of rules that must be followed. My original graphic from the 90's said "smashed".  Later I started using "melted", like a phaser might do when playing.  Considering I couldn't even decide if the game was RPSLS or RPSSL, I'm probably the wrong person to ask what the "correct" verb should be anyway.  That being said, would it help if I clarified this on the official site so Wikipedia can get its authoritative source?  --Sam (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If anyone objects to spock smashing things, remind them that he's half human, has just been poisioned by a lizard, and is most likely somewhat pissed off. 86.130.154.6 (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ordering of rules
I see there has been some edit warring over the rules, and this is rather nonsensical. The logical way to order the rules is Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock-rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock. This agrees with the title and puts each rule in an easy-to-find place. Elizium23 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest the order of the rules should follow a path rather than the title, this effectively allows further expansion without confusion, the original idea was that the destructee from the previous rule is the destructor to the next and that way the last rule ends with Scissors and the first rule begins with Scissors, this sounds much better when the rules are spoken. You are effectively making decisions without consulting the original creators, check the orginal citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.30.108.35 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should follow reliable sources, and I have ordered them in the way they explain them. Elizium23 (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Origin of variant
The earliest reference to this game listed in the article is 2005 (The Times). I was aware of this as early as 2002. I was made aware of this variant by an implementation of it on this site: http://asymmetric.net/games.php. The site author is Zach "Jick" Johnson, creator of the online rpg Kingdom Of Loathing (RPSSL predates that project). While I'm not sure that he's the originator of this game, this reference far predates anything I've found on it.

Jocken333 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, but it's a self-published primary source, with no way to check the date this appeared. Do you know of any secondary sources that might have covered his implementation? Elizium23 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I created the RPSSL page about my game in the mid 90's as a way to learn the then-new "HTML" language, I doubt you're going to find many internet sources that are contemporaneous. When I left CMU I put it up on my company site, then my personal site, which it's been at since (which you can verify via the Internet Wayback Machine: http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.samkass.com/theories/RPSSL.html ).  By the way, I didn't create this Wikipedia page, but I've found the discussions here amusing, and an interesting test of hard-to-verify origins accuracy on Wikipedia. --Sam (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Elizium23: you are correct that the primary source is self-published, which is why I felt the discussion of origin belonged here rather than on the main page. This is merely speculation and more establishing an upper bound on the date of origination. Samkass: Thank you for your contribution, the website you linked seems to indicate that your implementation predates the one I brought up by at least 15 months (earliest edits to Asymmetric.net blogs are April 1999 as far as I can tell and games were not timestamped). Since you were the author of that site, I'm curious: where did you hear about this variant? (online or offline) Jocken333 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I created it. --Sam (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Too many matrices
At the time of this writing, there are five charts and matrices describing how the game is played. To me, this is far too many for a simple game like this. I am reverting the most recent table, as the Manual of Style suggests that prose be used in most cases, and IMHO, the images are far more descriptive, and we already have text describing the rules. Discussion is welcomed here. Elizium23 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sam Kass disambiguation required
Per the (US) White House site, Sam Kass serves as Assistant Chef and Senior Policy Advisor for Healthy Food Initiatives at the White House.Penelope Gordon (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Right now Sam Kass redirects here. Would you like this changed? Sam Kass is also a writer/director, most notably as the Seinfeld writer for the episode The Switch (Seinfeld) (which btw has him linked to this page at the moment). Surely not the same individual, correct? I will fix that one now. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, please change to direct 'Sam Kass' searches to a disambiguation page.173.8.177.65 (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, we're three different people. (I don't edit the actual Wikipedia RPSLS page, since that would almost certainly count as original research, but I do have it on my watch list for entertainment and clarify things here on the talk page on occasion.) --Sam (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's funny, because I heard Sam Kass the Chef on NPR last Sunday, and I remarked to my parents that he may be the inventor of this game, but I figured he was a different Sam Kass, and possibly spelled differently, so thanks for bringing it up. Elizium23 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm seriously misunderstanding something, and if so, please explain it to me, but the problem with the orginal request as I see it:

If we had exactly one article on the subject of Sam Kass, then by definition we would not need a disambiguation page. Currently we have no page by that title, so how could we possible justify a DAB page for nothing? -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  04:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right, until one of the three is notable enough for his own article, nothing really needs to be done. Although I must say it could be confusing if someone seeking the Chef finds this page instead. Elizium23 (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Isabelle Kramer?
Someone added "Isabelle Kramer" as a co-creator. She was not-- I've never heard of her. I have a policy of not editing this page, so I just put the comment here instead. --Sam Kass --Sam (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. I have removed the dubious credit to "Isabelle Kramer", whoever that is. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  23:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

External link
I can acknowledge that it may have been the author of the game himself who added the link to this article, but really, what harm is there by leaving it as a member of the list of external links? This is such an obscure corner of the Internet and geek fandom that surely we must be forgiving of someone who went through the trouble to craft a computer game like this. Already we have Sam Kass himself, not editing the article, but commenting on the talk page in respectful observance of WP:COI guidelines. I suggest that the link stays, making this article a useful resource for perhaps three people a year who come by wanting to play this game online. Elizium23 (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not all that obscure since it was featured in a major way on the "Big Bang Theory"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Spock "vaporizes" rock
Such all-knowing, well educated and almost omnipotent person as Spock should know the difference between Vaporization and Sublimation. Rock for sure is in a solid state, therefore it's correct phase transition is Sublimation. It cannot be vaporized by any means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nattfarinn (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that myself today; however, the rules as explained on TBBT (and, I think, by Sam Kass) say "vaporize". What is logical is irrelevant: there are several other potentially odd rules if taken too seriously. Bilorv (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry. --Sam (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be worth pointing out that probably means "omniscient". :-) Elizium23 (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wu Xing
Another group of five things with two complementary five-cycles are featured at Wu Xing (Chinese "elements": wood–fire–earth–metal–water). It's almost certainly unrelated, but would it be useful to mention it as a "See also"? 130.243.83.135 (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't. Too tenuous. Bazonka (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd mention it. It's topologically identical.  Smokey TheCat  19:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)