[Dixonary] Dixonary question

[Judy Madnick]

And my question is this:

If someone submits a definition that's very close to the "real" definition, is it all right to simply list the two separately as I did in this round?

The real definition was "miner's basket, trolley or wagon" and the fake definition was "a basket; an unspecified quantity [MDu corf, curf ad. L corbis 'basket']."

Interestingly, it was the very-similar fake definition that won.

Comments?

Judy Madnick
Jacksonville, FL

[Hugo Kornelis]

Hi Judy,

Combining or not combining similar defs is always to the sole discretion of
the dealer. There are no seperate provisions in the rules for combining the
real def with a fake def (except for some specific scoring provisions), so
the same rules apply as when combining similar fake defs.

In this case, I think I wouldn't have combined them either. The inclusion of
the minimg application and the meanings trolly and wagon in the one def and
the unspecified quantity and etymology in the other def would make it
impossible to write a single def that is close enoguh to both of them.

YMMV.

Best, Hugo


----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Madnick" <jmadnick (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:32 PM
Subject: [Dixonary] Dixonary question


>
> And my question is this:
>
> If someone submits a definition that's very close to the "real"
> definition, is it all right to simply list the two separately as I did in
> this round?
>
> The real definition was "miner's basket, trolley or wagon" and the fake
> definition was "a basket; an unspecified quantity [MDu corf, curf ad. L
> corbis 'basket']."
>
> Interestingly, it was the very-similar fake definition that won.
>
> Comments?
>
> Judy Madnick
> Jacksonville, FL
>
> __________ NOD32 2513 (20070907) Informatie __________
>
> Dit bericht is gecontroleerd door het NOD32 Antivirus Systeem.
> http://www.nod32.nl
>
>

[Christopher Carson]

Judy,

I think in this case, you did just right. While the two defs are similar, I
don't consider them even combinable since it seems to me that the
"unspecified quantity" part of the definition takes it in a different
direction from your "miner's basket, trolley or wagon" and therefore merits
separate listing. Your other option would have been to combine the defs
according to Paragraph 4(c)(1) of Da Rules but I think you made just the
right call this time.

Chris

[Judy Madnick]

<< Your other option would have been to
<< combine the defs
<< according to Paragraph 4(c)(1) of Da Rules but I think
<< you made just the
<< right call this time.

And I see that that paragraph suggests that the dealer should *never* combine a submission with the dictionary definition!

Do many dealers notify the winner by private email, as the "rules" suggest? I believe we had a conversation about that recently, but I'm not so sure that that's being done. I suppose if there isn't a prompt posting of a new word, a private email might help.

Judy

[Judy Madnick]

<< Combining or not combining similar defs is always to
<< the sole discretion of
<< the dealer.

<< In this case, I think I wouldn't have combined them
<< either.

I, too, felt there was enough of a difference to decide *not* to combine them. It is interesting, though, that the "similar" definition received the most votes!

Judy

[Christopher Carson]

Judy,

I must have a different copy of the rules. I didn't see anything about
*never* combining a submission with the dictionary definition. My version
says:

(1) If one (or any) of those definitions is the true definition
of The Word, any votes for the combined definition result in
a point for the fictitious definition, and two points for
the voter, except that the author of the fictitious defini-
tion gets no points for voting for the combined definition.
Chris

[Dodi Schultz]

>> If someone submits a definition that's very close to the "real"
>> definition, is it all right to simply list the two separately as I
>> did in this round?
>>
>> The real definition was "miner's basket, trolley or wagon" and the
>> fake definition was "a basket; an unspecified quantity [MDu corf,
>> curf ad. L corbis 'basket']."

These things can sometimes be tough calls! And it's certainly not the first
time that two defs--whether or not one's real--have had a key word in
common.

Judy, IMO you were right to list them separately, and I'd have done the
same. Each had a further specification, beyond "basket," that
differentiated the two--in the real def, the point being a container used
by miners; in Paul's, the "unspecified quantity" part.

If either or both of those had been omitted--e.g., if Paul's had just been
"a basket" and/or the real def hadn't specified "miner's"--I'd probably
have combined them. But here, I think you handled it correctly.

--Dodi

[Judy Madnick]

<< I must have a different copy of the rules. I didn't see
<< anything about
<< *never* combining a submission with the dictionary
<< definition.

Sorry, it was a different paragraph:

Page 6:

"A player whose definition has been combined with the dictionary definition
receives no points beyond what is provided for in Rule 7(b). This may have
the effect of a penalty. A few players think that this is sufficient reason for the
dealer never to combine a submission with the dictionary definition; despite
Rule 3(b)."

Judy

[Judy Madnick]

Thanks, Dodi! I do feel better now.

Judy

[Paul Keating]

Chris,

I think Judy may be referring to a commentary in The "Real" Rules which give more guidance on this than the official ones.

7 (b) For each vote a combined definition receives, the dealer awards one point to each contributing author. 4(c)(1), 4(c)(2)

A player whose definition has been combined with the dictionary definition receives no points beyond what is provided for in Rule 7(b). This may have the effect of a penalty. A few players think that this is sufficient reason for the dealer never to combine a submission with the dictionary definition; despite Rule 3(b).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Carson" <christopherlanecarson (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:52 PM
Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Dixonary question


>
> Judy,
>
> I must have a different copy of the rules. I didn't see anything about
> *never* combining a submission with the dictionary definition. My version
> says:
>
> (1) If one (or any) of those definitions is the true definition
> of The Word, any votes for the combined definition result in
> a point for the fictitious definition, and two points for
> the voter, except that the author of the fictitious defini-
> tion gets no points for voting for the combined definition.
> Chris
>
>

[Hugo Kornelis]

Hi Judy,

> Page 6:
>
> "A player whose definition has been combined with the dictionary
> definition
> receives no points beyond what is provided for in Rule 7(b). This may have
> the effect of a penalty. A few players think that this is sufficient
> reason for the
> dealer never to combine a submission with the dictionary definition;
> despite
> Rule 3(b)."

What a few players think is not necessarily a rule.

Some players will indeed never combine a fake def with the real def. The
effect of this, is that if a def list is posted with two obviously
combinable defs, some players will automatically cast their votes at those
two (assuming that the dealer would have combined them if they were both
fake).

Best, Hugo

[Christopher Carson]

Ah, with Paul's comment now I understand. I was referring to RULES.DIX, the
original rules document and you're looking at Paul's commentary. I would
tend to disagree with the "few players" since it has happened not
infrequently in times past that listing a real def and also a def that most
think should have been combined constitutes a pretty obvious hint that one
of those very similar defs is the real one. But in the end, it all comes
down to the fact that the Dealah is the last and absolute authority.

You still did it correctly, however. When weighing my votes, I noted the
similarity in the two defs and also noted the fundamental difference in the
sense of their meanings. With that, I didn't even consider that they should
have been combined and so passed on both of them.

Chris

[Dodi Schultz]

>> I see that that [rules] paragraph [4(c)(1)] suggests that the dealer
>> should *never* combine a submission with the dictionary definition!

Judy, I don't see any statement to that effect in the official rules.
Paragraph 4(c) simply says that if two defs are close, "the dealer may in
her or his discretion combine them"; subgraf (1) explains the scoring in an
instance in which one of those is the true def.

Perhaps you're referring to a personal commentary written by Paul about two
years ago.

>> Do many dealers notify the winner by private email, as the "rules"
>> suggest?

The rules do NOT so suggest; the personal commentary by Paul so suggested..

>> I suppose if there isn't a prompt posting of a new word, a private
>> email might help.

The 24-hour period given for the new posting should be sufficient, unless
there's some kind of technical glitch, since it's assumed that players
check their e-mail (or wherever they usually look for Dixonary stuff) at
least that often. If there's a suspicion of some problem there--sure, it's
sensible to send a personal e-mail (which of course won't help if the new
dealer's totally offline or something).

--Dodi

[Judy Madnick]

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Dodi Schultz" <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>

<< Judy, I don't see any statement to that effect in the
<< official rules.
<< Paragraph 4(c) simply says that if two defs are close,
<< "the dealer may in
<< her or his discretion combine them"; subgraf (1)
<< explains the scoring in an
<< instance in which one of those is the true def.

See my follow-up message regarding I believe it was page 6.

Judy

[Judy Madnick]

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Carson" <christopherlanecarson (AT) gmail (DOT) com>

<< Ah, with Paul's comment now I understand. I was
<< referring to RULES.DIX, the
<< original rules document and you're looking at Paul's
<< commentary.

Aha! "Paul's commentary"! That solves that issue!!

Judy

[Judy Madnick]

With all due respect, my original statement was, "And I see that that paragraph suggests that the dealer should *never* combine a submission with the dictionary definition!"

I didn't say it was a rule. And I used the word "suggests."

I certainly didn't expect this to be such a big deal. I simply found it interesting that " A few players think that this is sufficient reason for the
dealer never to combine a submission with the dictionary definition; despite Rule 3(b)."

Judy

[Judy Madnick]

<< Some players will indeed never combine a fake def with
<< the real def. The
<< effect of this, is that if a def list is posted with two
<< obviously
<< combinable defs, some players will automatically cast
<< their votes at those
<< two (assuming that the dealer would have combined
<< them if they were both
<< fake).

And I did think of that. <sigh>

Judy