[Dixonary] Rnd 1873 - Ooops IMPORTANT - PLEASE NOTE

[Christopher Carson]

To all Players -

Tim Lodge's vote message called attention to a missing def. This prompted me to review the round data and I see that there has been a monumental glitch in the process. For some reason, Defs 1, 3, 4 were assigned to two players the those players defs have disappeared from the list. I've verified that all of the messages were received normally so I have to conclude that there must have been a database index scrambled. The errors make scoring the round virtually impossible with 6 players mixed up.

My first thought is to exercise the Dealer's Perogative and declare the round null and void and post a new word.

Does anyone have a problem with this approach?

Abject apologies. I should have checked more closely or at least recognized that there was a discrepancy between the number of defs and the number of respondders. All I can do is plead a time crunch due to outside pressures.

[Nancy Shepherdson]

My def is one of those missing. Are you going to post a new word or
should we still be voting?

Nancy

[Christopher Carson]

With the scramble in the def database, it isn't possible to score the votes
at this point. I have two options - either start the round over with a new
word or recreate the def list correctly and repost it, allowing everyone to
revote. The only problem there is that a lot of people look up the word
after voting and so are effectivey DQ. Of course I guess a 3rd option would
be to have your errant dealer flogged, appoint a replacement, and never
allow the present klutz to touch a computer again. <g>



----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Shepherdson" <nancygoat (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: "Dixonary" <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:54 PM
Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Rnd 1873 - Ooops IMPORTANT - PLEASE NOTE


>
> My def is one of those missing. Are you going to post a new word or
> should we still be voting?
>
> Nancy
>

[Judy Madnick]

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Carson" <ccarson (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com>

<< I've verified that
<< all of the messages were received normally so I have to
<< conclude that there must have been a database index
<< scrambled.

Ouch.

<< My first thought is to exercise the Dealer's Perogative and
<< declare the round null and void and post a new word.

<< Does anyone have a problem with this approach?

Whatever works for you . . . works for me!

Judy

[Dodi Schultz]

I don't see a reason to kill the round.

Chris, IF I understand you correctly (and I'm not all that sure that I do):
at least one def was omitted from the list, and whatever program you're
using has misattributed (in its innards) some (three?) defs.

But I assume you still have the original submissions, so you can easily
pair the defs with their creators. Why not take over the scoring from the
software at the end of the round, attribute the defs to their actual
authors, and assign the scores properly. And as customary, give Tim L and
anyone else whose def was omitted two DPs.

Wouldn't that work?

(There are players, you know, who do their deals entirely manually.)

--Dodi

[Daniel B. Widdis]

I agree with Dodi's suggestion on ending the round (score manually as much
as possible, award 2 dps to those whose defs are omitted, and punt.)

--
Dan

[Christopher Carson]

After consideration, I think the easiest thing to do would be to do as Dodi suggests and just continue. Three players will get 2 dealer points each since their defs were dropped. Therefore, the polls will remain open until 8 pm tomorrow and there may be a bit of a delay in posting results since I'll have to sort them out manually.

Paul, I'm not sure what could have happened. The round seemed to set up as usual but in retrospect, when I finalized the list and shuffled the defs it seemed that there were too few. Unfortunately, being in a rush I didn't pursue that impression. The definition submittal messages look normal and they are alll there and tagged properly as defs. At one time they were properly processed because the players all got acknowledgements generated in the normal manner. If you can think of anything I can look at, I will to try and track the problem down, assuming it wasn't an operator error.

So in summary - if you haven't voted, please do so in the normal manner and we'll continue as normally as possible.

Chris
Dealing Doofus

[Christopher Carson]

As an aid (I hope), I have so far NOT recorded votes from Savage, Crom, Keating, Shepherdson, Abell, Emery, Heimerson and Stevens.

Chris

[Toni Savage]

Sigh... my internet connection was out (still is) at home. missed voting.

-- Toni Savage


--- On Wed, 1/9/08, Christopher Carson <christopherlanecarson (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

> From: Christopher Carson <christopherlanecarson (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
> Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Rnd 1873 - Ooops IMPORTANT - PLEASE NOTE
> To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2008, 9:10 PM
> As an aid (I hope), I have so far NOT recorded votes from
> Savage, Crom, Keating, Shepherdson, Abell, Emery, Heimerson
> and Stevens.
>
> Chris