Dodi Schultz
September 24th, 2005, 12:34 PM
Tim B says, defending his awesome store of knowledge,
>> I suppose it's a relatively small island (as Bill Bryson wrote). As
>> for the birds, bird-watching is one of our hobbies, so even if we
>> haven't seen it, it would be a rare bird indeed I haven't heard of!
Well, what with you and the forensic pathologist and the multiple
technogeeks and the philosopher and the mathematician et al., posing a
challenge poses a challenge!
It's a good thing we all like challenges.
--Dodi
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
John Barrs
September 24th, 2005, 04:59 PM
Hugo
Slightly more complicated
> I think that this is the real dilemma. John thought he was
> DQ, but he was not. But by informing Dave of his DQ-ness and
> Dave's negation of said state, he had gotten confirmation
> that the 5 defs he "knew" were all incorrect.
> That gave him an unfair adavantage at guessing the correct
> def, and if gave the submitters of #4, #14, and #16 an unfair
> disadvantage at attracting votes. Personally, I can't care
> less about such perceived advantages or disadvantages (it's
> just a game, remember), but I can imagine how John felt, and
> I'd probably feel uneasy myself if I were in his situation.
>
One of my DQ guesses in the list was the right one so it gave me no chance of getting the right one and still deprived a few other
people
Still it is just a game
JohnB
> -----Original Message-----
> From: coryphaeus (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
> [mailto:coryphaeus (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Hugo Kornelis
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 10:00 PM
> To: coryphaeus (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
> Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Dictionaries & definitions
>
> Dodi, John, others,
>
> >Johnny says he feels that he was confronted with three
> "real" defs on
> >Dave's list: #4, "son of"; #14, that inner room; #16, the
> mountain. But
> >he didn't vote for any of them.
>
> No, of course he didn't. That's because he had previously
> mailed Dave about the five (IIRC) definitions of "ben" that
> he was aware of, and received a reply that he was not DQ. So
> he knew for sure that son of, inner room, mountain, and two
> other definitions were not the "real def". So why waste a
> vote on them?
>
> I think that this is the real dilemma. John thought he was
> DQ, but he was not. But by informing Dave of his DQ-ness and
> Dave's negation of said state, he had gotten confirmation
> that the 5 defs he "knew" were all incorrect.
> That gave him an unfair adavantage at guessing the correct
> def, and if gave the submitters of #4, #14, and #16 an unfair
> disadvantage at attracting votes. Personally, I can't care
> less about such perceived advantages or disadvantages (it's
> just a game, remember), but I can imagine how John felt, and
> I'd probably feel uneasy myself if I were in his situation.
>
> After reading John's mail, I figured that this was just one
> of those things that can happen from time to time. Too bad,
> but there's nothing to be done about it. After all, having
> the dealer check alternate dictionaries (as Dodi
> suggested) is no solution. It's not only an extra burden for
> the already quite busy dealer, but also quite hard to do for
> some - me, for instance. I live in the Netherlands and I
> don't have a paper copy of any English dictionary (though I
> do have an English-to-Dutch / Dutch-to-English dictionary).
> There *might* be an English dictionary in the local library,
> but there might just as well be none. And even if there is,
> I'd have to wait for the opening hours of the library to
> double-check words. The only dictionaries that I have good
> access to are online dictionaries (of which there are,
> luckily, quite a few!).
>
> But after giving it a second thought, I now think that there
> is a possible solution. And in fact, it's even backed by the
> rules! Here's a quote from the original rules:
>
> >>6. IF AT *ANY* TIME BEFORE YOU VOTE YOU COME, BY *ANY*
> MEANS, TO KNOW
> THE
> >> DEFINITION OF *THE WORD*, YOU ARE DISQUALIFIED FROM
> VOTING AND FROM
> >> OFFERING COMMENTARY. If you have submitted a
> definition, you should
> >> advise the dealer by Easyplex of your disability.
>
> There's nothing in this rule that says that the dealer should
> inform you if your DQ is correct or not. I do agree that this
> has become the custom (in fact, on my last deal a player who
> DQ'ed sent me a follow-up mail to ask for an explicit confirm
> or deny), but it's not in the rules. And even the unofficial
> "real" rules that Paul proposed last month do not include
> anything about conforming or denying a DQ.
>
> I think that this situation would have been avoided if we
> stopped the habit of confirming or denying a DQ. Let's
> examine how that would have affected this round. Let's also,
> for arguments sake, imagine that I was convinced that the
> real meaning of the word BEN was "a ballad, made famous by
> the child star Michael Jackson". So both John and I would
> have informed Dave that we were DQ. We might have included
> why, or not. Dave might have read our reasons (and chuckled
> at them) or not. But he would definitely NOT have reacted to
> it. He would simply have acknowledged the receipt of our DQ,
> and the receipt of our fafke def. Come the voting, John would
> have recognised three of his known meanings, and refrained
> from voting. I'd have noticed that none of the defs refers to
> Michael Jackson, so I'd have retracted my DQ and voted.
>
>
> >But Johnny raises three other questions:
> >
> >One is: Is any source for a word okay? I think that's covered in the
> >rules, which specify "any accepted dictionary." I think that
> excludes
> >words found solely in the text of poems, novels, rap lyrics,
> or a note
> >from your grandmother.
>
> If I deal, I always take a word from one of the dictionaries
> that is linked to in the "English Dictionaries" subgroup of
> the Links collection in the Yahoo group
> (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/coryphaeus/links/Dictiona
> ries_001102847
> 656/). Though I do double-check some other if the word's from
> one of the more obscure links (like double-tongued word
> wrester, Logorrhea, or Phrontistery).
>
> >A third question Johnny raises concerns the apparent
> omnipotence of the
> >dealer and has two parts: (a) When there are two or more actual
> >meanings (as with BEN), may the dealer pick a def and
> declare the other
> >meaning(s) invalid?
>
> If the dealer knows of other meanings before opening the
> round, he/she should either choose an other word (prefered
> course of action), or clearly state that "it's not ...". (I
> think I once dealt the word "PAT", but made it clear right
> from the off that it was NOT the well-known verb, nor it's
> objectified noun).
>
> If the dealer gets to know other meanings during the round,
> she/he should just continue the round. In most cases, players
> who DQ because they know a different meaning will retract
> their DQ when the voting starts because "their" definition is
> not in the list after all. The situation we had in this
> round, that a different definition than the chosen definition
> is known by one player, but submitted as fake def by another
> player should be rare.
>
> Best, Hugo
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite
> Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------~->
>
>
>
John Barrs
September 24th, 2005, 05:27 PM
Tony,
Your suggestion // send 'if such and such a defintion appears then I DQ and will not vote' ... Followed by a confirmatory DQ if it
does appear and a vote if it doesn't\\ is the way I have been playing this game for a while. Not everyone confirms my DQ although
some have done so
In this case, it (to my UK ears) was such a common word with so many known definitions that I rather jokingly listed them all and
said I expected a new word because it was so common, I was very surprised it played and even more surprised to see the defs with 3
'correct' ones among them
In retrospect, I think I should (as Hugo said) followed the old rules and maintained my DQ and not voted.
JohnnyB [using email; via corypaheus/yahoogroups]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Dave Cunningham
September 24th, 2005, 06:25 PM
My post to John was: The word is playing. If you see a def you think is your DQ, don't choose it <g>.
Which is far from saying that all his possible defs were wrong ... or right.
Dave
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.