Why do we count a character killing the opponent first as a win, when the ‘winner’ promptly dies from something the opponent did?

[Keeweed]

It’s 1 am for me, sorry if this written as well as it could be and I won’t be able to response for a while. I just to have to get this out there. Currently I’ve been noticing many people say that the person that kills the opponent first in a versus match is the winner, even if they immediately die right afterwards; and I just got to ask, WHY!??

Why would that character be the winner of the fight, when they died from that fight. The opponent did something that killed them, in what universe is that not inconclusive (or count as a win for either person involved). Both opponents killed each other, both failed at the biggest objective in a fight: not dying.

I would kinda get it if one opponent was just defeated or bfred while the other one is just straight dead. But I’ve multiple matches where someone gets radiation sickness or poisoned, dying the most painful way imaginable, but somehow they are the winners because the other guy died 3 seconds earlier. It doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

Also if this should be a question and answer board, sorry. I was torn between QandA and a general discussion and I feel this is much more a discussion than a question.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

First to fall is always the loser regardless of what happens next. The objective of the fight is not surviving while killing the enemy, its just kill most of the times.
VSB SBA

Victory Conditions: Death of the opponent, removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting him in a state in which he can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions.

As soon as one of them dies the other is automatically the winner even if he dies 1 nanosecond later

 

[Keeweed]

Nowhere in that does it say you automatically win the half second the opponent dies. It just says the opponent dying is a win condition, but you died too. That isn’t a victory for either of them, that’s a loss for both.

Also, even if that is what it says, this thread is asking why that’s the case.

Why would the ‘survivor’ be the winner if they promptly died? The opponent did something, it got the other guy killed, I don’t see why it doesn’t matter just because he died literally seconds earlier. You both died, you both did the same win condition and both lost for the same reason.

In real life if two people are fighting, and both people die, nobody is going the call the guy that lasted 3 seconds longer a winner. He died too.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

Nowhere in that does it say you automatically win the half second the opponent dies. It just says the opponent dying is a win condition, but you died too. That isn’t a victory for either of them, that’s a loss for both.

Also, even if that is what it says, this thread is asking why that’s the case.

Why would the ‘survivor’ be the winner if they promptly died? The opponent did something, it got the other guy killed, I don’t see why it doesn’t matter just because he died literally seconds earlier. You both died, you both did the same win condition and both lost for the same reason.

In real life if two people are fighting, and both people die, nobody is going the call the guy that lasted 3 seconds longer a winner. He died too.

Im saying that the winning condition is just kill the opponent not surviving and thats exacly what this wiki considers a win.
As for why its because the goal is that kill, look this text that i showed you is SBA are only valid if you dont specify the winning method, if you want to win and survive then you have to add that to your versus thread. In this versus thread they do more than just fights just recently i was in a versus thread to decide the best lawyer.

 

[Keeweed]

But the opponent also preforms the win condition too, they killed you. Also, if the opponent dying is a win condition, then the inverse would need to be true, dying is a lose condition.

Saying you win, despite dying, is like the most rules as written binary take towards what we current have written down. And that makes zero sense from taking a step back to think about the rules themselves. Yes the rules say you win (except they don’t because nowhere does it say you win immediately), but I’m specifically saying those rules are dumb from any real world perspective.

Two people fought, they both killed each other, in what way is that possibly a victory for either person involved?

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

But the opponent also preforms the win condition too, they killed you. Also, if the opponent dying is a win condition, then the inverse would need to be true, dying is a lose condition.

Saying you win, despite dying, is like the most rules as written binary take towards what we current have written down. And that makes zero sense from taking a step back to think about the rules themselves. Yes the rules say you win (except they don’t because nowhere does it say you win immediately), but I’m specifically saying those rules are dumb from any real world perspective.

Two people fought, they both killed each other, in what way is that possibly a victory for either person involved?

Victory Conditions: Death of the opponent, removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting him in a state in which he can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions.

ITs implied that instantly because there is no mentioning to a condition for the death, look at what it states if you BFR someone he needs to be there for more than 1 week and knocking down needs to be more than 1 hour.

If you archieve your goal it doesnt matter if it only last 1 second you will won.

 

[Keeweed]

No where is it implied to be instant. We haven’t treated it like that for years until people suddenly started to say that like a month ago.

Plus, again this thread is about how the rule would be dumb even if that’s the case. I don’t care if that is the correct implication, because the rule would be stupid if that’s the case.

You died, you’re a corpse, you went to fight someone and you’re both dead from each other actions. In what universe did either win?

There’s no other way to explain it, because it should be self evident, you both died. Both of them are dead, that isn’t a win for anyone involved, both lost.

 

[Keeweed]

Like, if you want to ultra rules lawyer it and say you somehow won despite being a corpse on the floor, you can also rules lawyer it by saying nowhere does it ever say you win instantly.

Plus the fight is still going on if you are dying, an action the opponent did is still killing you. If you BFR an opponent, and they are still poisoning you, you are in the middle of dying from something they are doing. They aren’t fully out of the fight, their body is, but not their effect on you.

If the opponent is dead, but their corpse poisons you, that corpse is still doing something to you to cause injury and death.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

No where is it implied to be instant. We haven’t treated it like that for years until people suddenly started to say that like a month ago.

Plus, again this thread is about how the rule would be dumb even if that’s the case. I don’t care if that is the correct implication, because the rule would be stupid if that’s the case.

You died, you’re a corpse, you went to fight someone and you’re both dead from each other actions. In what universe did either win?

There’s no other way to explain it, because it should be self evident, you both died. Both of them are dead, that isn’t a win for anyone involved, both lost.

You should have made a CRT to complain about the wiki rules not a general discussion.

Like, if you want to ultra rules lawyer it and say you somehow won despite being a corpse on the floor, you can also rules lawyer it by saying nowhere does it ever say you win instantly.

Plus the fight is still going on if you are dying, an action the opponent did is still killing you. If you BFR an opponent, and they are still poisoning you, you are in the middle of dying from something they are doing. They aren’t fully out of the fight, their body is, but not their effect on you.

If you BFR your opponent and you die before 1 week passes as it is on the rules then you lose, because the conditions to win by BFR is 1 week but your death surpasses the BFR rule because it happened first

 

[Keeweed]

I just brought BFR to be an example of how the opponent can still keep doing stuff to you even if you’ve done something to them could be a win condition. Granted I get why that example isn’t 1:1 here, but I brought up another more specific example of how that can apply to death too.

The corpse, or an action the opponent took, can still be attacking you after that opponent died, that’s still attacking you and the fight is still on. If you die the opponent does the same win condition you did, and you both lost for the same reason.

I don’t need a CRT, it’s not a rule, it’s an interpretation of those rules (a dumb interpretation at that since it’s the most rules lawyer binary take of those rules). Plus I wanted people to discuss it to see if it’s even an implication people take seriously.

 

[Keeweed]

Actually by this logic, why does resurrect work in versus threads? Didn’t you die? Why did that death not count as meeting the victory condition when you did kill the opponent. Why does them killing your after the fact matter when they are back alive, but not when they are dead? They did the same thing, killing your after they died.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

I just brought BFR to be an example of how the opponent can still keep doing stuff to you even if you’ve done something to them could be a win condition. Granted I get why that example isn’t 1:1 here, but I brought up another more specific example of how that can apply to death too.

The corpse, or an action the opponent took, can still be attacking you after that opponent died, that’s still attacking you and the fight is still on. If you die the opponent does the same win condition you did, and you both lost for the same reason.

I don’t need a CRT, it’s not a rule, it’s an interpretation of those rules (a dumb interpretation at that since it’s the most rules lawyer binary take of those rules). Plus I wanted people to discuss it to see if it’s even an implication people take seriously.

The goal is win it doesnt matter if the opponent dies after his death he archieved his goal.
You need a CRT if you want to change how the wiki sees it since you would be asking to change the page to add a more specific case what is there.

Actually by this logic, why does resurrect work in versus threads? Didn’t you die? Why did that death not count as meeting the victory condition when you did kill the opponent. Why does them killing your after the fact matter when they are back alive, but not when they are dead? They did the same thing, killing your after they died.

Not a permanent death.

 

[Keeweed]

No where in the rules does it mention permanent death though, it just says “Victory Conditions: Death of the opponent”.

If we are being as stupidly pedantic with the rules like with how we treat double death, resurrect also shouldn’t work.

Again I don’t need CRT because that isn’t what is written down. It isn’t a rule, it’s an interpretation of those rules. We didn’t treat double death like this until really recently, and completely randomly at that. That didn’t need to CRT and neither does this.

 

[ShionAH]

I agree with @Keeweed. Just because someone survived a little longer doesnt change the fact that both of them died

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

No where in the rules does it mention permanent death though, it just says “Victory Conditions: Death of the opponent”.

If we are being as stupidly pedantic with the rules like with how we treat double death, resurrect also shouldn’t work.

Again I don’t need CRT because that isn’t what is written down. It isn’t a rule, it’s an interpretation of those rules. We didn’t treat double death like this until really recently, and completely randomly at that. That didn’t need to CRT and neither does this.

Without a CRT dont expect people to change their interpretations of the rules, for me it seems you just want to lash out your frustrations which is ok by me but if you dont want to change anything whats the point?

 

[Keeweed]

But there is no rule to change. There wasn’t a CRT to change the interpretation first time, there isn’t a need for a CRT to change it the second time. CRT are for changing content that are on pages or changing rules on the site. This double death interpretation isn’t a rule nor is it written down on any pages.

There is no need for a CRT, this absolutely works just fine as a General Discussion post.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

But there is no rule to change. There wasn’t a CRT to change the interpretation first time, there isn’t a need for a CRT to change it the second time. CRT are for changing content that are on pages or changing rules on the site. This double death interpretation isn’t a rule nor is it written down on any pages.

There is no need for a CRT, this absolutely works just fine as a General Discussion post.

Then there is nothing to discuss

 

[Keeweed]

Yes there is, how double deaths work. That’s a discussion. Some people think the person wins immediately and it doesn’t matter that they die, I, and many others, think that makes zero sense.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

Yes there is, how double deaths work. That’s a discussion. Some people think the person wins immediately and it doesn’t matter that they die, I, and many others, think that makes zero sense.

It works by you specifically saying that one must survive as i said earlier. Also that classifies more as a question thread btw

 

[Keeweed]

It doesn’t work that the first person to kill the other wins, because that isn’t written down. All it says is that the opponent dying is a win condition. If both opponents kill each other than both opponents fulfill the win condition and thus either both should be winners (or both should losers because inversely dying would be the lose condition). Either way that’s inconclusive not a victory for the first guy.

This is a discussion to have: people have interpretation of the rules, these interpretation effect our threads and profiles, if everyone isn’t on the same page on what means what then there needs to be a discussion to see which interpretation of the rules should be used.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

It doesn’t work that the first person to kill the other wins, because that isn’t written down. All it says is that the opponent dying is a win condition. If both opponents kill each other than both opponents fulfill the win condition and thus either both should be winners (or both should losers because inversely dying would be the lose condition). Either way that’s inconclusive not a victory for the first guy.

This is a discussion to have: people have interpretation of the rules, these interpretation effect our threads and profiles, if everyone isn’t on the same page on what means what then there needs to be a discussion to see which interpretation of the rules should be used.

You know there was this novel called Overgeared that is basically people playing a VR they have health bars mana bars and such in one of their competitions the main character (Grid) fought another character (Kraugel) at the end of their fight they both managede to give killing blows to each other the system consedered Kraugel the winner because Grid's health bar reached 0 less than a second earlier than Kraugel's
Thats how i take my interpretation.

This wiki doesnt have to be prepared for every possibility thats why they gave you the option of changing the method of winning as will, if you dont like how the SBA have their rules or "interpretations" just add it in every fight you make.

 

[Keeweed]

Okay, but that’s literally a binary computer program way of looking at it. Like straight up in the story, you just acknowledged that’s a cold uncaring machine’s interpretation of it under specific circumstances. Any normal person would just count both as losers because they both died.

What does that book have to do with this site which has the super vague “the opponent dies” rule. A computer would know what it’s own rules mean, we very clearly don’t because there is disagreement.

There’s a difference between being 100% prepared, and just being prepared for the most basic of scenarios. This is literally the most classic of inconclusives, yet our rules are 100% not equipped to handle it.

But why do I need to add it my SBA, why is that the site standard when nothing says it is. Me editing my match ops means it would be rule that normally double death means the first person wins.

This thread is to discuss whether that should actually be the case site wide.

It’s rule interpretation, this one’s really important because it effects a crap ton of matches, that should be discussed so everyone is on the same page on what counts as what.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

Okay, but that’s literally a binary computer program way of looking at it. Like straight up in the story, you just acknowledged that’s a cold uncaring machine’s interpretation of it under specific circumstances.

Exacly thats how fights are supposed to be.

What does that have to do with this site which has the super vague “the opponent dies” rule.

The example illustrates how a binary computer program does it.

There’s a difference between being 100% prepared, and just being prepared for the most basic of scenarios. This is literally the most classic of inconclusives, yet our rules are 100% not equipped to handle it.

The wiki doesnt need to manage all situations justr the basic the users handle the rest.

But why do I need to add it my SBA, why is that the site standard when nothing says it is. Me editing my match ops means it would be rule that normally double death means the first person wins.

"I want to make my own fight between the presence and captain america why do i have to make a thread? Why doesnt the wiki does that for me" Thats how you sound like

This thread is to discuss whether that should actually be the case site wide.

It’s rule interpretation, this one’s really important because it effects a crap ton of matches, that should be discussed so everyone is on the same page on what counts as what.

And i told you if you want to make a case for "site wide" make a CRT. The users decided that it doesnt matter that he died first the minimum of the votes needed for the win decided that dying after didnt changed the outcome. You shouldnt complain just because other people agreed with that.

 

[Keeweed]

I don’t know how else to tell you that isn’t what CRTs are used for. This is something to discuss, I’m not changing a page or what the rules actually say (though by this point I probably will make a CRT to change it because it’s vague as hell).

 

[Keeweed]

"I want to make my own fight between the presence and captain america why do i have to make a thread? Why doesnt the wiki does that for me"

What is that even supposed to mean? I made a thread my man. You are literally in the thread I made to address the issue.

“why do I have to make the thread”

Especially gets me. We are literally in my thread right now. Even assuming I made the wrong type of thread (which as far as I’m aware I didn’t), this arguement is literally self defeating. You are telling me to make a thread in my own thread.

 

[Keeweed]

Sorry to triple post, but I just want to info you I’ve asked a thread moderator about whether this should be CRT or general discussion. I’ll let you know what they say when they respond.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

I don’t know how else to tell you that isn’t what CRTs are used for. This is something to discuss, I’m not changing a page or what the rules actually say (though by this point I probably will make a CRT to change it because it’s vague as hell).

So do it. I have been telling you to do it are you tsundere? If you tell you to do it you wont but because you think it was your ideia now its good?

"I want to make my own fight between the presence and captain america why do i have to make a thread? Why doesnt the wiki does that for me"

What is that even supposed to mean? I made a thread my man. You are literally in the thread I made to address the issue.

No, the point is you are basically saying that you are too lazy to write on your own versus threads that you want 1 of them to win and stay alive and so you need someone to change the rules because it makes it "easier for you"

“why do I have to make the thread”

Especially gets me. We are literally in my thread right now. Even assuming I made the wrong type of thread (which as far as I’m aware I didn’t), this arguement is literally self defeating. You are telling me to make a thread in my own thread.

I think you lost the context here

 

[Keeweed]

But that has nothing to do with laziness. I have my ops have super specific scenarios all the time (universally I have the opponents start closer than SBA does).

It’s for fights I don’t make. I don’t think it makes any sense for one to be the winner if they also died. They died, that’s pretty significant. Especially since that means the opponent is also fulfilling the win condition and time is never stated to be a limit when it comes to getting that condition.

No where does it say being dead disqualifies you from reach the victory condition of killing the opponent. If you both do the same thing, why would one be the winner while the other isn’t, your both corpses on the ground.

So this is a discussion for why one interpretation would take priority over the others by default.

Edit: when it comes to making a CRT, that’s for a slightly different topic. A topic that won’t matter depending on how this thread goes. This thread doesn’t need to be a CRT.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

But that has nothing to do with laziness. I have my ops have super specific scenarios all the time (universally I have the opponents start closer than SBA does).

It’s for fights I don’t make. I don’t think it makes any sense for one to be the winner if they also died. They died, that’s pretty significant. Especially since that means the opponent is also fulfilling the win condition and time is never stated to be a limit when it comes to getting that condition.

Then you have to ask the person who made the OP, thats easy. If he decides winning and still dying is fine its his rules

No where does it say being dead disqualifies you from reach the victory condition of killing the opponent. If you both do the same thing, why would one be the winner while the other isn’t, your both corpses on the ground.

Being dead means you cant accept "the trophy", we cant have those kinds of things sure on your position in the situation where the character dies almost instantly that seems fine to you, but what about the situation where one character uses his power and gives cancer to his opponent it might take years until he actually dies and realistically he could still find a cure and survive should we just assume he just dies and that means inconclusive? Dont think so, the characters are put in specific conditions specifically for this fight at the end of it once one of them archieves the victory what happens next doe4snt matter. Lets say that Naruto gets cancer from someone with that ability in a fight if someone else decides to make another fight with the same character Naruto wont have the cancer anymore.

 

[Keeweed]

Then how does person A accept the trophy either if the dead opponent takes them with them?

I also think slow death still count as you dying.

Like, if you kill someone’s, and their death summons four spectral blades to attack you. You’re still in a fight, the opponent has done something that can get you killed and it’s attacking you. If the blades kill you, you died to the opponent and lost. Unless the death condition would take longer than your full natural life you are still dying to the opponent, and they are attacking you the entire time.

Imagine if someone with immortality type 1 gets poison by character B. They go from having an infinite life ahead of them to how ever long the poison takes to kill then. Their life is infinitely cut short and they are dying from something the opponent did. Just because the damage is slow and subtle doesn’t mean you still aren’t being affected by their actions.

Plus this is a true example of 100% preparing you were mentioning earlier. I can’t think of any character that has a move that would take over a human life time to kill the opponent. And if it does then it’s clearly designed for someone with longevity and thus it is absolutely doing its job in that case. The person with longevity is dying from the move meant to kill them.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

Ye i dont think anyone would agree with that, you would be making characters with "post mortem" abilities be invencible even if they dont win they wont ever die either, and because of the rule that doesnt allow spite/stomp fights them even a normal human with a single ability can be completely invencible

 

[Keeweed]

Well, I made this thread for a reason, I’m waiting to see what other people think.

No, any post mortem abilities that can be survived depending on how it works and your tools. If someone self destructs upon death, you just need to survive the explosion. If someone curses you, you just need to resist or have a way to cure it. If someone hits you with deadly amounts of radiation you would just need a way to heal the damage, resist, or resurrect and continue on.

A post death ability is just the same as an ability from someone who is alive. If it kills you, you failed and died, if it doesn’t you win. All a post death ability is, is one final hurdle you need to deal with. If you couldn’t then the opponent took you with them.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

Well, I made this thread for a reason, I’m waiting to see what other people think.

No, any post mortem abilities that can be survived depending on how it works and your tools. If someone self destructs upon death, you just need to survive the explosion. If someone curses you, you just need to resist or have a way to cure it. If someone hits you with deadly amounts of radiation you would just need a way to heal the damage, resist, or resurrect and continue on.

You just said that it wouldnt matter as long as it has a chance to kill it will, you said that even if a character that could find a cure for his condition got it in a battle he would be considered dead.

 

[Keeweed]

I see where the confusion lies, let me rephrase it.

The opponent before dying drops a grenade, that grenade kills the other opponent, we know this will happen. It’s not a stomp because the first guy died, he didn’t win. But the second guy doesn’t win either because we know that grenade will get them killed.

If the guy could have avoided the grenade he would be the winner of the match, we just know that he fails to do that here.

Another opponent that can consistently dodge the grenade would be the winner of the match. We know the post death move wouldn’t likely kill there so that person wins.

But in matches we know the post death move, or the technically slow in fight move, will kill the opponent then that should be an inconclusive. The opponent that is still alive didn’t have the capability to deal with the move that ultimately ended their life.

TLDR:
Dead guy has move that kills post death:
Opponent dies to said move: inconclusive both died from each other.
Opponent would consistently survive said move: They won, the final attempt the loser took to take the winner with them failed.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

I see where the confusion lies, let me rephrase it.

The opponent before dying drops a grenade, that grenade kills the other opponent, we know this will happen. It’s not a stomp because the first guy died, he didn’t win. But the second guy doesn’t win either because we know that grenade will get them killed.

If the guy could have avoided the grenade he would be the winner of the match, we just know that he fails to do that here.

Another opponent that can consistently dodge the grenade would be the winner of the match. We know the post death move wouldn’t likely kill there so that person wins.

But in matches we know the post death move, or the technically slow in fight move, will kill the opponent then that should be an inconclusive. The opponent that is still alive didn’t have the capability to deal with the move that ultimately ended their life.

TLDR:
Dead guy has move that kills post death:
Opponent dies to said move: inconclusive both died from each other.
Opponent would consistently survive said move: They won, the final attempt the loser took to take the winner with them failed.

Scripted death no. Anyone can throw a granade should we consider all fights between humans inconclusive because one at some point in the battle could just run to his opponent while being shot multiple times in a kamikaze move? That is ridiculous. Depending on how the battle is going in an hypotetical scenario he could have his legs and arms broken unable to throw a granade but because its a possibility it wouldnt matter, because there is no actual way to be sure that the hypotetical fight would lead to his arms and legs being restricted.
The same for other abilities, for example a character with blood manipulation that all his blood would explode on death what if he was fighting against a character with an ability to vaporize that character whole? No blood left to explode but we still need to consider that scenario?

 

[Keeweed]

That’s just a scenario. All that matters is we know for a fact character A gets character B killed after their own death. Both die, that should be an inconclusive either because both fulfilled the victory condition (a condition that doesn’t have a time limit stated for when it needs to be completed), or both failed because they’re dead.

I don’t even get what you are trying to say with your scenario. Is opponent A dead and do they have something that is killing or will kill opponent B shortly afterwards. If so, does opponent B have a way to dodge, resist, survive, or heal from said attack? No: then opponent B dies with A and they both lost. It’s really simple.

 

[Keeweed]

Anyways, I’m going to be driving for an hour and hanging out with my friend afterwards. I’ll be back later.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

That’s just a scenario. All that matters is we know for a fact character A gets character B killed after their own death. Both die, that should be an inconclusive either because both fulfilled the victory condition (a condition that doesn’t have a time limit stated for when it needs to be completed), or both failed because they’re dead.

I don’t even get what you are trying to say with your scenario. Is opponent A dead and do they have something that is killing or will kill opponent B shortly afterwards. If so, does opponent B have a way to dodge, resist, survive, or heal from said attack? No: then opponent B dies with A and they both lost. It’s really simple.

You are literally making scenarios up just like i just did. There are very little characters with post mortem abilities to begin with. The fact that you can maku up a scenario where the rules seem questionable doesnt make them more or less viable.

 

[Keeweed]

“There are very little characters with post mortem abilities to begin with.”

That doesn’t matter, this thread is about the times when this type of stuff does happen.

If you want I could provide some real examples I’ve seen later of this kind of stuff happening.

Also I asked a thread moderator and he told this is the correct thread type to discuss this topic.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Following.

“There are very little characters with post mortem abilities to begin with.”

That doesn’t matter, this thread is about the times when this type of stuff does happen.

If you want I could provide some real examples I’ve seen later of this kind of stuff happening.

Also I asked a thread moderator and he told this is the correct thread type to discuss this topic.

I mean... one of the major premises you're following is surviving & living to tell the tale after the fight should be a wincon.

As far as I can tell, I'll put it this way.

The goal of a marathon is to be the farthest place in the race & get to the finish line at the last lap as fast as you can. More preferably you need to get to first place. The wincon for being first place is to get to the finish line first at the first lap. Now at the last lap, if a racer passes the finish line first & there's a second person to pass the finish line, does that mean the second person deserve the first place trophy?

Come to think of it, the "who gets to which wincon (in SBA) first wins" can unintentionally go against 2 things. Common sense & the rule's possible original intentions (which ever that might be).

Like foundationally, what does it mean to win a fight or match? Does it mean surviving to tell the tale afterwards? What still counts as a fight ending?