PDA

View Full Version : [Dixonary] Round 1757: EPIMACUS results!


Scott Crom
November 7th, 2006, 09:41 PM
Dodi said,

>Since Roberta declines to deal, I THINK the next dealer is
>Guerri, no?

Yes, going by the latest rolling scores, Guerri would be next in
line, then Toni.

I have no idea what Roberta could mean by asking if this was
"some kind of setup." All the definitions and all the votes were
totally public. Nobody could pull strings behind the scenes, or
predetermine the outcome, and I don't know why anybody would want
to.

I've always had the understanding that whoever joins a game is
implicitly agreeing to abide by the outcome. By playing, one
assumes the risk of winning, along with the consequences. In the
entire 17+ year history of this game, I can't remember that
anybody has ever begged off the deal solely on grounds that they
"don't want to." (Personal or family emergencies are obviously
exceptions.)

Scott

Keno77773@aol.com
November 7th, 2006, 10:06 PM
In a message dated 11/7/2006 7:49:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
croms (AT) beloit (DOT) edu writes:

<<I have no idea what Roberta could mean by asking if this was
"some kind of setup>>>
Scott
It was a joke !!! I'm not so stupid that I would really think the game
could be rigged.

Dealing is another story. .If I've broken the rules then just ask me not to
play anymore. I've purposely not sent in many definitions for fear that
they will be believed, and voted for. my computer skills are greatly lacking and
what may be easy for you , is impossible for me.

Roberta


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

mshefler
November 7th, 2006, 11:15 PM
Dodi said,

>Since Roberta declines to deal, I THINK the next dealer is
>Guerri, no?

Yes, going by the latest rolling scores, Guerri would be next in
line, then Toni.

I have no idea what Roberta could mean by asking if this was
"some kind of setup." All the definitions and all the votes were
totally public. Nobody could pull strings behind the scenes, or
predetermine the outcome, and I don't know why anybody would want
to.

I've always had the understanding that whoever joins a game is
implicitly agreeing to abide by the outcome. By playing, one
assumes the risk of winning, along with the consequences. In the
entire 17+ year history of this game, I can't remember that
anybody has ever begged off the deal solely on grounds that they
"don't want to." (Personal or family emergencies are obviously
exceptions.)

Scott
I seem to remember someone with the initials FG who always had some convenient excuse not to accept the deal, even when there was skullduggery involved (evil grin).

Daniel B. Widdis
November 8th, 2006, 02:00 AM
Scott Crom Wrote:
> I've always had the understanding that whoever joins a game is
> implicitly agreeing to abide by the outcome. By playing, one
> assumes the risk of winning, along with the consequences.

If I recall correctly, this subject came up once before with our
favorite gambler, and the consensus among those who commented was that
we'd rather have someone play and skip dealing, than not play at all.
I think there are more than enough of us willing to cover her deals so
that nobody ends up "stuck" with it if they really don't want it...
--
Dan Widdis (who would deal if I wasn't facing 48 hours worth of
traveling right now)

bonnyjars
November 8th, 2006, 04:42 AM
I know that I'm a relative newby, but if I may put in my 2-pennorth (?) about Roberta's request not to deal

As a (sadly now "ex") computer support engineer I know there are people for whom "something new" on a computer causes panic and
mind-freeze. I agree that it can only be the odd person (odd as in "almost unique - maybe only one", not odd as in "peculiar") I
think that we can enjoy definitions and inventiveness from the occaisional person who would prefer not to deal. However, I would
also encourage such a person to practise dealing using coryphaeus or whatever by pretending to be dealer and shadowing a round or
two before the situation of them having to deal themselves arises


JohnnyB


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Guerri Stevens
November 8th, 2006, 06:06 AM
Eeek! OK, new word coming up after breakfast. I may be a bit slow since
in addition to having moved barely three weeks ago and being still
surrounded by unpacked boxes, I have a new computer and have to get the
appropriate software set up on it.

Roberta is welcome to "watch" what I do, although I am a fairly green
dealer myself.

Guerri

mshefler wrote:
> Scott Crom Wrote:
>> Dodi said,
>>
>>> Since Roberta declines to deal, I THINK the next dealer is
>>> Guerri, no?
>> Yes, going by the latest rolling scores, Guerri would be next in
>> line, then Toni.

Hugo Kornelis
November 8th, 2006, 01:17 PM
Dan wrote:
> If I recall correctly, this subject came up once before with our
> favorite gambler, and the consensus among those who commented was that
> we'd rather have someone play and skip dealing, than not play at all.
> I think there are more than enough of us willing to cover her deals so
> that nobody ends up "stuck" with it if they really don't want it...

Hi Dan (and all),

I agree with the general sentiment. This is a game, nothing more. More
players means more definitions and more fun. I see no problems if someone
prefers not to deal, either because (s)he thinks (s)he can't, because (s)he
has other pressing obligation, or whatever other reason.

Especially since (as Dan already pointed out) there are enough players
willing to take a deal. The only reason I didn't volunteer was because I was
away from the computer most of the previous day (my mother in law passed
away last night, so we were quite busy making arrangements).

> Dan Widdis (who would deal if I wasn't facing 48 hours worth of
> traveling right now)

I think I recall someone writing that he wanted to reserve the coming few
days for his family and friends?

Best, Hugo

Guerri Stevens
November 8th, 2006, 07:32 PM
I am sorry to hear about your mother-in-law, Hugo.

Guerri