Quote from Kamonohashi »Thanks for responding, peteroupc. Again, though, I can't accept the answer that I'm being given.
I read the thread that you included. I play commander, and the "limited range of influence" option doesn't apply to my play group. That being the case, you're making the claim that "nothing in the rules explicitly states that a player who would win the game makes all other players lose the game." Well, nothing in the rules of poker explicitly states that two diamonds plus two diamonds makes four diamonds. That's defined by mathematics and the English language. Nothing in the rules of chess states that "white" is the color that reflects visible light and "black" is the color that absorbs it. That's defined by the laws of physics and the English language. It isn't necessary for the game rules to explicitly state that one person winning a game of magic makes the other players lose the game-- that's what WINNING and LOSING mean in the English language.
If, during a game of Commander, I were to "win" the game in the manner that you suggest-- casting Laboratory Maniac, attempting to draw a card, and being unable to draw-- you claim that the other players will not have "lost" the game, even though I "won" the game. THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. The rules of Magic can't override the definition of the word "win" in the English language or the binary logic represented in the concepts of "winning" and "losing" in American societal culture. To "win" is to "not lose" and to "not win" is to "lose." Can you imagine a Superbowl game ending the way you suggest? The New England Patriots win the Superbowl but, fortunately, the Miami Dolphins didn't lose the game, so they're just as happy.
I cannot accept the assertion that the rules of an intrinsically zero-sum card game have the power to redefine what WINNING A GAME and what LOSING A GAME mean, in practical terms, in the real world.