[Dixonary] OT (not really): I think this game should not be so u

[Dodi Schultz]

I'm a little confused.

Haven't ALL the players joined the game because they either (a) were
habitues of the old TAPCIS forum on [the old] CompuServe and wandered into
the "Parlor" section or (b) heard about it from a friend or colleague who
was already a player?

Has anyone ever simply strolled in as a total stranger? Would we want them
to? As someone said, we don't want to open the door to spammers and other
mischief makers....

Paul, I'm not quite sure why you raised this question. Do you feel that
there are currently too few players? (We have 20 at the moment.) I THINK
we've never had more than 25 or so.

--Dodi

[Paul Keating]

I was a "habitue of the old Tapcis forum". But to the game I was a
total stranger. Being a CompuServe subscriber and a Tapcis licensee
hardly made me one of the gang at that point. And why do dealers say
in their posts (or why used they to) that new players are welcome, if
they're not?

You're quite wrong about there only ever having been 25 players. I
picked round 691 (WATE) at random. It had 29 defs, and 6 votes from
players who did not make the voting deadline, and there were another 7
who were in the rolling scores ending with that round, but did not
play in it. Total 42 players in that 5-round block.

On Jan 5, 12:14 am, Dodi Schultz <SCHU... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
> I'm a little confused.
>
> Haven't ALL the players joined the game because they either (a) were
> habitues of the old TAPCIS forum on [the old] CompuServe and wandered into
> the "Parlor" section or (b) heard about it from a friend or colleague who
> was already a player?
>
> Has anyone ever simply strolled in as a total stranger? Would we want them
> to? As someone said, we don't want to open the door to spammers and other
> mischief makers....
>
> Paul, I'm not quite sure why you raised this question. Do you feel that
> there are currently too few players? (We have 20 at the moment.) I THINK
> we've never had more than 25 or so.
>
> --Dodi

[Dodi Schultz]

>> I was a "habitue of the old Tapcis forum". But to the game I was a
>> total stranger. Being a CompuServe subscriber and a Tapcis licensee
>> hardly made me one of the gang at that point.

I think you misunderstood what I said, Paul. I didn't say that being on CIS
and using TAPCIS automatically made one a Dixonary player--rather, that I
believed that frequenting the old TAPCIS forum (and wandering, out of
curiosity, into the Parlor section) was one of the ways people got into the
game. (And as Lindsey has pointed out, frequenting the TAP Website and
wandering into the Parlor forum there is one way to learn of the game now..)
The other: learning of it from a friend or colleague.

How DID you happen to join the game?

>> And why do dealers say in their posts (or why used they to) that new
>> players are welcome, if they're not?

You seem to be making an assumption. It's my belief that new players
ARE--and always have been--welcome.

>> You're quite wrong about there only ever having been 25 players. I
>> picked round 691 (WATE) at random. It had 29 defs, and 6 votes from
>> players who did not make the voting deadline, and there were another
>> 7 who were in the rolling scores ending with that round, but did not
>> play in it. Total 42 players in that 5-round block.

"Wrong"? I simply reported my own recollection. I'm old; clearly, my memory
is failing. Your point?

--Dodi

[Dodi Schultz]

>> I can flip the switch to turn on the game if that's what people
>> like. It may cause an increase in SPAM.

Dan, didn't Lindsey suggest that's true even now? I.e., that our Dixonary
messages are Google-able? Anyway, we certainly don't want more spam!

--Dodi

[Dodi Schultz]

>> Allowing non-members to see the contents of the group. Currently set
>> to no.

Hugo, according to Lindsey--as I understood her message--anyone can read
the messages in the Parlor forum at the TAPCIS.COM Website. (I can't test
that, since I'm a forum member, but I don't THINK it's a members-only
area.)

--Dodi

[Daniel B. Widdis]

DS> Lindsey suggest that's true even now? I.e., that our
DS> Dixonary messages are Google-able?

Dodi,

Yes, they are.

But put yourself in a SPAMmer's mind. Would you program your automated
trolling device to target a little-known website like tapcis.com, and
perhaps harvest a few dozen addresses, or a massive site like
googlegroups.com, where millions of addresses can be found?

--
Dan

[Dodi Schultz]

>> [As a spammer,] would you program your automated trolling device to
>> target a little-known website like tapcis.com, and perhaps harvest a
>> few dozen addresses, or a massive site like googlegroups.com, where
>> millions of addresses can be found?

I guess I'd do both, Dan. Spammers, as far as I see, blithely suck up
addresses from anywhere and everywhere. I can't think of ANY spam I've
recently received that's trying to sell me anything remotely targeted to me
OR to Websites where I hang out or have even visited. They all seem to be
under the impression that I'm a male gambler looking for casino action,
underperforming with my present girlfriend or seeking a new one, hoping for
a loan despite my lousy credit rating, and in the market for cheap drugs,
life insurance, and software for somebody else's computer.

Nothing remotely related to Dixonary.

Anyway: Do we not digress? The main question is: Are 20 players enough, or
do we want to have at least two dozen, or 30, or...? If the consensus is
that it's imperative to increase the number of players, how about we just
decide that every current one is hereby assigned to go recruit two new
ones?

--Dodi

[Paul Keating]

> >> And why do dealers say in their posts (or why used they to) that new
> >> players are welcome, if they're not?

> You seem to be making an assumption. It's my belief that new players
ARE--and always have been--welcome.

If we _say_ they are welcome, but there's no way for them to find out where
the game is, or how it works, or join, or even to read the rules, then we
don't really _mean_ it. We have bolted the door against newcomers, and sit
around in a closed circle behind it, saying how welcome everybody is. Yeah,
right.

It's true that there is a way in the back, via tapcis.com (which had not
occurred to me until Guerri pointed it out) but, even so, anyone -- even an
ex-player -- googling for "word game Dixonary" won't find us--on Google
Groups! How can they be welcome if there's no way for them to join?

> >> You're quite wrong about there only ever having been 25 players.

> "Wrong"? I simply reported my own recollection. I'm old; clearly, my
memory is failing. Your point?

You asked "Do you feel that there are currently too few players?". No, I
don't. But I worry that, as players' interests and priorities change, they
will leave, as they always have, just as T., Anders, Fernando, Neil
Rubenking, Lindsay Bourne, Doug Wyman, Tony St.Quintin (and over 100 others
that I miss less keenly) did. With no way now for us to acquire new members,
the game will die. The historical attrition rate since I've been playing is
about 1 player every 12-13 rounds. On CompuServe the accretion rate was
about the same, though it fell off markedly as CompuServe paid the price for
ignoring the internet. On Yahoo the accretion rate was 1 new player per 40
rounds. Since we moved to Google, it's been nil. Do the arithmetic.
At this rate, by round 2150 or thereabouts, there will only be 3 players
left, and so whoever's left will have to deal every 3rd round, and be able
to guess 100% correctly the other two.

But if I treat your question as rhetorical, and your implication was
unmissable, I conclude that _your_ point was that there is no reason for us
to be dissatisfied with the number of players we have, because it doesn't
differ materially from the number we used to have. But it does differ, and
so that point is not well made.

And, dare I say it, you can't lecture us about the way the game has always
been played, based on 10½-year recollection of precedent (that I think clear
and accurate because it accords with my own), and then, not so very many
rounds later, claim to have a failing memory! That's just humbug, m'dear.

--
Paul Keating
The Hague

[Hugo Kornelis]

Hi Paul,

Though I agree with what you're trying to say (though I would have used a
different tone), there's one incorrectness that I have to correct.

> even an
> ex-player -- googling for "word game Dixonary" won't find us--on Google
> Groups! How can they be welcome if there's no way for them to join?

Yes, (s)he will. Go to www.google.com, type "word game dixonary", and the
first two hits are both messages on the tapcis.com forum. From there, the
ex-player can then join the forum and start to participate.

Best, Hugo

[Dodi Schultz]

>> You asked "Do you feel that there are currently too few players?".
>> No, I don't. But I worry that....But if I treat your question as
>> rhetorical, and I conclude that _your_ point was that there is no
>> reason for us to be dissatisfied with the number of players.

< sigh > No, Paul, that was NOT my point. I wasn't making a point, or a
judgment. I was, believe it or not, simply asking a question. Thank you for
explaining your concerns.

--Dodi

[Guerri Stevens]

I don't think it's all that easy to recruit new players. I talk about
the game to friends and family, and no one has ever expressed an
interest in playing. I have not pushed the game, though - I mean by
saying "you'd probably enjoy this, why don't you join".

Guerri

Dodi Schultz wrote:
>---
> Anyway: Do we not digress? The main question is: Are 20 players enough, or
> do we want to have at least two dozen, or 30, or...? If the consensus is
> that it's imperative to increase the number of players, how about we just
> decide that every current one is hereby assigned to go recruit two new
> ones?

[Tony Abell]

On 05-Jan-08 at 17:20 Paul Keating wrote:

> You asked "Do you feel that there are currently too few players?". No, I
> don't. But I worry that, as players' interests and priorities change, they
> will leave, as they always have, just as T., Anders, Fernando, Neil
> Rubenking, Lindsay Bourne, Doug Wyman, Tony St.Quintin (and over 100 others
> that I miss less keenly) did. With no way now for us to acquire new members,
> the game will die.

One thing that no one has mentioned yet is that the game depends crucially on
the honor system. This is not a problem for most people, but there may be some
who cannot refrain from cheating (i.e., looking up the words before voting), and
it's possible that they may do so in a way that makes it obvious to everyone but
themselves that they are doing so. This would force other players to start
ignoring or blocking message from those players in order to avoid being
influenced by their votes, which, for me, anyway, might spoil the fun of the
game a bit.

Another possibility is that despite the availability of excellent programs like
Coryphaeus, some new players may insist that they cannot deal because it's too
complicated. If this happened a lot, the deal might be forced onto the same
experienced players over and over again.

These possibilities, though I admit they're far-fetched and unlikely, would
suggest the prudence of a more exclusivist policy in who should be joining the
game. The trouble is, I can't think of any way of vetting prospective players
who are not known by someone already playing.

So despite these potential annoyances, I'd opt for opening the game up to
newcomers as far as is practical, at least for a while.

[Paul Keating]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Abell" <hello (AT) isanybodyhome (DOT) com>

>> the game depends crucially on the honor system.

True, but we had in the past a player who was widely believed to cheat
regularly and it didn't do much harm.

The only way to do well in this game is to write good defs. Cheating alone,
without that ability, will result in a score that never rises much above 2,
leaving the player permanently in the bottom half of the pack. Since you
can't win that way, only do less badly, it is really not much of an
incentive to cheat.

>> some new players may insist that they cannot deal because it's too
complicated

We've accommodated that once or twice before, when a new player won the deal
unexpectedly soon after joining the game. I don't think that the players
would put up with that indefinitely.

--
Paul Keating
The Hague

[Dodi Schultz]

>> I don't think it's all that easy to recruit new players. I talk
>> about the game to friends and family, and no one has ever expressed
>> an interest in playing.

You're right, Guerri. In fact, I've so far failed to get three dropouts
(friends) to REjoin. Well, one recently started a new job and another
started a new business--but having played, they're well aware that it
involves only a few minutes a day. I dunno why they haven't returned.

Nor do I know why some OTHERS have stayed away. Fernando comes to mind. And
Marijke.

Maybe all these folks just got bored. Or discovered some other game(s) they
found more exciting; hard to imagine, but... :-o

--Dodi