PDA

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


Dodi Schultz
November 8th, 2006, 10:47 AM
>> 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.

While dealing is a chore (and the "real" winner is the second highest
scorer), the rules specify no banishment or other penalty for someone's
declining to deal.

I share Scott's feeling that it's not quite fair to the others for someone
not to at least TRY to learn to deal--which, heaven knows, certainly
requires no technical expertise if I, a card-carrying dinosaur, can do it.

But do we really want to amend the rules to make accepting the deal (with
exceptions for illness, travel, etc.) a condition of participation? Or
should we just let stand the consensus Dan describes?

--Dodi

Wayne Scott, M.D.
November 8th, 2006, 11:19 AM
My vote is with Dan and Dodi. . . .
Don't change the rules and/or customs.

People never lie so much as before an election, during a war, or after a
hunt.
-Otto von Bismarck


> [Original Message]
> From: Dodi Schultz <schultz (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>
> To: <coryphaeus (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com>
> Date: 11/8/2006 8:56:13 AM
> Subject: [Dixonary] Round 1757: EPIMACUS results!
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> While dealing is a chore (and the "real" winner is the second highest
> scorer), the rules specify no banishment or other penalty for someone's
> declining to deal.
>
> I share Scott's feeling that it's not quite fair to the others for someone
> not to at least TRY to learn to deal--which, heaven knows, certainly
> requires no technical expertise if I, a card-carrying dinosaur, can do it.
>
> But do we really want to amend the rules to make accepting the deal (with
> exceptions for illness, travel, etc.) a condition of participation? Or
> should we just let stand the consensus Dan describes?
>
> --Dodi
>
>
>
>

Keno77773@aol.com
November 8th, 2006, 11:48 AM
<<I know there are people for whom "something new" on a computer causes
panic >>

That's me to a tee ! My thanks to those of you who understand, I have
enjoyed the game and would miss it if I couldn't play, from time to time. Guerii
has offered to let me watch her deal and I would love to take her up on it.
Right now is not a good time for me, I'm just about to leave the house to
volunteer at Paul Newman's " Painted Turtle Camp" for children with chronic
diseases. They are having a family camp this weekend and I help make up 250 beds.
( I have experience ) :<)

Roberta Muths



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

Guerri Stevens
November 8th, 2006, 01:04 PM
I agree that we should not change the rules. Sure it's better if people
deal when they "win", but I have no problem if someone doesn't want to
deal ever. Roberta is going to follow me around this time. I just hope
nothing odd happens!

Guerri

Dodi Schultz wrote:
> But do we really want to amend the rules to make accepting the deal (with
> exceptions for illness, travel, etc.) a condition of participation? Or
> should we just let stand the consensus Dan describes?
>
> --Dodi
>
>
>
>

Paul Keating
November 8th, 2006, 02:36 PM
>> Right now is not a good time for me, I'm just about to leave the house to
>> volunteer at Paul Newman's " Painted Turtle Camp" for children with
chronic
>> diseases.

I think that would count as a perfectly acceptable excuse without having to
make special exceptions.

--
Paul Keating
The Hague

Paul Keating
November 8th, 2006, 05:03 PM
Roberta,

As you will see when you watch Guerri do it, there's nothing particularly
computerish about dealing a round.

You can do all of the scoring on paper, and if you can write an email, then
you can write the 3 emails that a dealer needs to send: one that announces
the word, another that lists the defs, and a last one that reports the
results.

Dealing is a somewhat tedious administrative job, and doing manually it
needs a methodical approach and attention to detail. But nothing more.

Most people do it manually the first couple of times, to get the hang of it,
and continue that way until they get tired of the admin and the retyping, at
which point they' re ready to try one of the dealer support programs. I get
landed with dealing about once in every 11 rounds I play, which
proportionally is rather frequent, so after about 2 years of playing,
attention to detail not being my strongest suit, I wrote my own dealer
support program. One or two other players use it too.

It's not unknown for a longstanding player to disdain software support and
to continue to deal manually. The only arguments against doing it manually
is that it's boring and error-prone. The commonest error is counting the
votes wrong and the next commonest is accidentally leaving out a definition.
Dealers do also occasionally make errors of arithmetic, or misinterpret the
rules, but that is rather rare.

--
Paul Keating
The Hague