So I started questioning the nature of this topic.
Mostly, what does it really mean to be "last" and therefore win?
You see, if you wanted to be simple you could say that judging by the fact that threads typically get closed at 2,000 posts and are usually ended by a moderator announcing they are closing the thread, then technically there is no way to win at this game. The moderator announcement will always be the last post thus, they will always win unless the limit is never reached. In short, the game would be rigged.
My other thought on this matter is questioning what it means to win all together. To win, one must come out as victorious among the competition. In this sense there must be an actual last poster. But the paradox is that every time anyone makes a new post there is a new last post and the prior post never won despite it's claims to be the winner which held true but no longer does. All wins become invalidated by what is now the win which later becomes invalidated by the next winner. But if the winner can be replaced then were they ever really the winner to begin with?
In my belief, just as every new person born is the worlds youngest human for a moment, ever new post is the winner for its moment. Any contribution will be considered to be the wining post, however with each new contribution the previous ones become former winners. Therefore, in theory there can only be one true winner, and we are not all winners, but rather everyone else is former winners. We were winners, but we cannot hold the title. Only one can, and unless the 2,000 limit is not reached, that title will go to the moderator who closes the post.
