PDA

View Full Version : [Dixonary] Results for GALAGE - 2282


Matthew
February 17th, 2012, 05:26 PM
It comes as no surprise that the next deal is for Daniel Widdis with 7
natural points for his obsolete wool toll.

Tied for second place were Millie Morgan with 4 natural points and
Tony Abell with 4 unnatural points.

The real definition was #10, a wooden shoe. Both Johnny Barrs and
Dave Cunningham submitted definitions that were close enough to the
real definition that they were merged therein. So they each earned 2
points along with Webster's 1857.


1: a painting technique involving spraying paint with the stiff
bristles of a small brush, as a toothbrush
Voted for by: Tim Bourne, Dave Cunningham
FROM Tony Abell who voted *10* and 16, and scores 2 + 2 = 4*

2: sturdy; of proper construction
Voted for by: Daniel Widdis
FROM Bill Bensburg who voted 13 and 15, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

3: the space left in a container after the contents have settled
during shipment
Voted for by: Chris Carson
FROM Mike Shefler who voted 9 and 16, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

4: _obs._ jaundice
Voted for by: Tim Lodge, Millie Morgan, Dodi Schultz
FROM Paul Keating who didn't vote, and scores 3 + 0 = 3

5: the narrow end of a buttonhole
Voted for by: Daniel Widdis
FROM Dodi Schultz who voted 4 and 16, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

6: serious stuctural damage; wreckage
Voted for by: Steve Graham
FROM Guerri Stevens who voted *10* and 16, and scores 1 + 2 = 3*

7: a hollow or false display designed to impress
Voted for by: Tim Bourne, Keith Hale, Scott Crom, Stephen Dixon
FROM Millie Morgan who voted 4 and 14, and scores 4 + 0 = 4

8: a holiday sweet cake made with nuts and honey
Voted for by: Stephen Dixon
FROM Frances Wetzstein who didn't vote, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

9: banter; flippancy; idle chatter
Voted for by: Mike Shefler, Scott Crom
FROM Judy Madnick who voted 12 and 16, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

10: a wooden shoe
Voted for by: Guerri Stevens, Tony Abell
FROM Webster's Dictionary 1857, Johnny Barrs, and Dave Cunningha
which can't vote, and scores D2
FROM Johnny Barrs who didn't vote, and scores 2 + 0 = 2
FROM Dave Cunningham who voted 1 and 13, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

11: a sheer fabric woven of silk or cotton and wool
Voted for by nobody
FROM Chris Carson who voted 3 and 16, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

12: the waste water extracted from a coarse mineral ore by passing the
ore over a dewatering screen
Voted for by: Judy Madnick, Steve Graham
FROM Tim Lodge who voted 4 and 16, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

13: [Fr.] a restraint used when transporting prisoners
Voted for by: Bill Bensburg, Dave Cunningham
FROM Chuck Emery who didn't vote, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

14: finery, extravagant attire. [O.Fr. galer "rejoice, make merry"]
Voted for by: Millie Morgan
FROM Keith Hale who voted 7 and 15, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

15: a tapered blast-pipe nozzle invented by the famous French steam
engineer André Chapelon, which he later developed into the Kylchap
blast-pipe system, building on the work of the Finnish engineer
Kyösti Kylälä
Voted for by: Bill Bensburg, Keith Hale
FROM Tim Bourne who voted 1 and 7, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

16: a toll or duty paid for weighing wool; also, the act of weighing
wool. [Obs.]
Voted for by: Mike Shefler, Chris Carson, Judy Madnick, Tim Lodge,
Guerri Stevens, Dodi Schultz, Tony Abell
FROM Daniel Widdis who voted 2 and 5, and scores 7 + 0 = 7

No def
FROM Scott Crom who voted 7 and 9, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

No def
FROM Stephen Dixon who voted 7 and 8, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

No def
FROM Steve Graham who voted 6 and 12, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

--Matthew Grieco

Tony Abell
February 17th, 2012, 06:27 PM
On 2012-02-17 at 18:26 Matthew wrote:

> The real definition was #10, a wooden shoe. Both Johnny Barrs and
> Dave Cunningham submitted definitions that were close enough to the
> real definition that they were merged therein. So they each earned 2
> points along with Webster's 1857.

I don't think that's how it works.

One of the first few times I dealt, I likewise awarded two points to a player
whose definition I merged with the real one, and was promptly told, in no
uncertain terms, that that was not allowed. It turns out there is nothing in
the rules to the effect that players who "guess" the real def by matching it
are rewarded. Indeed, they are penalized, since even if they vote for their
own combined defs, they get no points, since you get no points for voting for
your own def. In other words, if your def is combined with the real one, you
lose the chance to gain two points by voting for the real def.

As I recall, before posting the results, I had actually noticed that there was
nothing in the rules about the combined-with-the-real-definition situation, so
I overtly invoked dealer's points to make the award. That's why they came down
on me so hard: it was an abuse of dealer points (which are entirely outside
the rules anyway), because they aren't supposed to be used to change the
rules, only to compensate a player for a dealer's error.

Dodi Schultz
February 17th, 2012, 06:56 PM
On 2/17/2012 7:27 PM, Tony Abell wrote:

> One of the first few times I dealt, I likewise awarded two points to
> a player whose definition I merged with the real one, and was
> promptly told, in no uncertain terms, that that was not allowed. It
> turns out there is nothing in the rules to the effect that players
> who "guess" the real def by matching it are rewarded. Indeed, they
> are penalized, since even if they vote for their own combined defs,
> they get no points, since you get no points for voting for your own
> def. In other words, if your def is combined with the real one, you
> lose the chance to gain two points by voting for the real def.

Tony, Matthew didn't do anything wrong.

He chose to combine Johnny's and Dave's defs with each other and the real
one. (That's a dealer's choice.) Two people voted for that def (#10). Thus,
the dictionary gets two points (D2), and Johnny and Dave each get two
points—not for voting for that def (Dave voted for two other defs, and
Johnny didn't vote at all), but because two players (you and Guerri) voted
for it.

—Dodi

Tony Abell
February 17th, 2012, 07:47 PM
On 2012-02-17 at 19:56 Dodi Schultz wrote:

> Two people voted for that def (#10). Thus, the dictionary gets two points
> (D2), and Johnny and Dave each get two points—not for voting for that def
> (Dave voted for two other defs, and Johnny didn't vote at all), but because
> two players (you and Guerri) voted for it.

You're right. I misinterpreted Matthew's paragraph to mean he was awarding
Dave and Johnny two points each solely for having had their defs combined with
the real one, but in the actually scoring, it's clear he was just giving them
the points from the voting.

So...never mind.

Paul Keating
February 18th, 2012, 03:26 AM
Tony

Those two points were from votes, not dealer points.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Abell
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 1:27 AM
To: Matthew
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Results for GALAGE - 2282


On 2012-02-17 at 18:26 Matthew wrote:

> The real definition was #10, a wooden shoe. Both Johnny Barrs and
> Dave Cunningham submitted definitions that were close enough to the
> real definition that they were merged therein. So they each earned 2
> points along with Webster's 1857.

I don't think that's how it works.

One of the first few times I dealt, I likewise awarded two points to a
player
whose definition I merged with the real one, and was promptly told, in no
uncertain terms, that that was not allowed. It turns out there is nothing in
the rules to the effect that players who "guess" the real def by matching it
are rewarded. Indeed, they are penalized, since even if they vote for their
own combined defs, they get no points, since you get no points for voting
for
your own def. In other words, if your def is combined with the real one, you
lose the chance to gain two points by voting for the real def.

As I recall, before posting the results, I had actually noticed that there
was
nothing in the rules about the combined-with-the-real-definition situation,
so
I overtly invoked dealer's points to make the award. That's why they came
down
on me so hard: it was an abuse of dealer points (which are entirely outside
the rules anyway), because they aren't supposed to be used to change the
rules, only to compensate a player for a dealer's error.