The ambiguity of winning...

Neither Heads nor Tales won.

We tend to automatically assume that such games as we played must inevitably conclude with a winner and a looser. I aver that this is a false asumption.

The game began with two teams and a set of starter-rules. Each team attempted to win points by making cleaver rules and giving good examples for THENDYWAMPS. No criteria for winning was established; in fact, there was no mention of winning.
At the end of the game the Heads had the advantage regarding points (670 to the other team's 550), but the Tales were the self-declared winners (according to the last rule they contrived). However, what does "winning" mean when the game does not define winning? There is no winning.

In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Rosencrants and Guildenstern play the game of questions against Hamlet. There are two teams, rules, and a running score. After the game, when Rosencrantz contends that Hamlet "murdered us", Guildenstern brushes his friend's reservations aside, holding to the fact that "we made some headway" and "we gained some ground".

So it is with our game. Neither score nor title matter, in fact, nothing does.