PDA

View Full Version : [Dixonary] Round 1934 Defs: Special Message


Dodi Schultz
August 28th, 2008, 09:10 AM
Guerri Stevens and Johnny Barrs, who were wide awake yesterday--which I
obviously was not--have pointed out that def #12 actually appeared
publicly.

That def, of course, must now be removed from your consideration.

The author was Paul Keating. Paul made his stumble some 11 hours in advance
of the deadline. Had I noticed the "from" line and advised Paul of his
oops, there would have been plenty of time for him to submit a new def
privately.

My apologies and two dealer points to Paul.

--Dodi

Paul Keating
August 28th, 2008, 09:40 AM
Rats!

Though I would rather be left out of the reckoning entirely than get dealer
points.

--
Paul Keating
The Hague

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dodi Schultz" <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>
Subject: [Dixonary] Round 1934 Defs: Special Message


Guerri Stevens and Johnny Barrs, who were wide awake yesterday--which I
obviously was not--have pointed out that def #12 actually appeared
publicly.

Toni Savage
August 28th, 2008, 10:02 AM
Dodi, if the person who posts publically doesn't make it back in time to post another, I think the def can stand. What's the downside?? (except that people may point it out, unless they stop to think...)


-- Toni Savage


--- On Thu, 8/28/08, Dodi Schultz <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:

> From: Dodi Schultz <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>
> Subject: [Dixonary] Round 1934 Defs: Special Message
> To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 10:10 AM
> Guerri Stevens and Johnny Barrs, who were wide awake
> yesterday--which I
> obviously was not--have pointed out that def #12 actually
> appeared
> publicly.
>
> That def, of course, must now be removed from your
> consideration.
>
> The author was Paul Keating. Paul made his stumble some 11
> hours in advance
> of the deadline. Had I noticed the "from" line
> and advised Paul of his
> oops, there would have been plenty of time for him to
> submit a new def
> privately.
>
> My apologies and two dealer points to Paul.
>
> --Dodi

Toni Savage
August 28th, 2008, 10:03 AM
You don't get dealer points if you post publically... but I do think that, if there happen to be people (like me) who don't read every single message, and might have missed your posting, and might vote for your def, that you should not be punished for that....

-- Toni Savage


--- On Thu, 8/28/08, Paul Keating <keating (AT) acm (DOT) org> wrote:

> From: Paul Keating <keating (AT) acm (DOT) org>
> Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Round 1934 Defs: Special Message
> To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 10:40 AM
> Rats!
>
> Though I would rather be left out of the reckoning entirely
> than get dealer
> points.
>
> --
> Paul Keating
> The Hague
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dodi Schultz"
> <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>
> Subject: [Dixonary] Round 1934 Defs: Special Message
>
>
> Guerri Stevens and Johnny Barrs, who were wide awake
> yesterday--which I
> obviously was not--have pointed out that def #12 actually
> appeared
> publicly.

Dodi Schultz
August 28th, 2008, 12:30 PM
>> Dodi, if the person who posts publically doesn't make it back in
>> time to post another, I think the def can stand. What's the
>> downside??
>>
>> -- Toni Savage

The downside is that everyone has seen it! Even if they're not consciously
aware WHERE they've seen it, it may very well seem familiar enough for it
to feel "right," giving the author an unfair advantage.

On the other hand, they may possibly realize exactly where they've seen it
(as two players did)--giving the author, in this case, a DISadvantage,
since he wasn't given a deserved opportunity to submit a new def. Hence the
dealer points.

I think, Toni, that we have to maintain a consistent policy that the defs
in the list have been privately submitted by their authors and not
previously seen by the voting players.

--Dodi

Toni Savage
August 30th, 2008, 08:49 AM
Why is that a downside? obviously not EVERYONE has seen it (I hadn't, and neither had two others). but even if they had, if everyone just keeps quiet, and no one votes for it, you can always award dealer points.

But really, it is a "player error" and putting the public def in with the privates is just a favor to the player, in case someone forgets or didn't see it, and votes for it!

My idea of a "Downside" would be if it actually HARMED the player. does it? I don't see how. I would rather see a "consistency" that the LAST def submitted by a player (no matther how) gets put into the list. More favorable to the players and the game, IMO.

-- Toni Savage

PS -- (I think each of us sees the other's "consistency" as one of the "hobgoblin" types...grin)


--- On Thu, 8/28/08, Dodi Schultz <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:

> From: Dodi Schultz <SCHULTZ (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>
> Subject: [Dixonary] Round 1934 Defs: Special Message
> To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 1:30 PM
> >> Dodi, if the person who posts publically
> doesn't make it back in
> >> time to post another, I think the def can stand.
> What's the
> >> downside??
> >>
> >> -- Toni Savage
>
> The downside is that everyone has seen it! Even if
> they're not consciously
> aware WHERE they've seen it, it may very well seem
> familiar enough for it
> to feel "right," giving the author an unfair
> advantage.
>
> On the other hand, they may possibly realize exactly where
> they've seen it
> (as two players did)--giving the author, in this case, a
> DISadvantage,
> since he wasn't given a deserved opportunity to submit
> a new def. Hence the
> dealer points.
>
> I think, Toni, that we have to maintain a consistent policy
> that the defs
> in the list have been privately submitted by their authors
> and not
> previously seen by the voting players.
>
> --Dodi

Dodi Schultz
August 30th, 2008, 09:36 AM
Toni, I see your points about using a def submitted publicly but not
publicly noticed.

Now, I'm not sure WHAT I think. (I would clearly not be a good national
candidate for anything.)

Next time I deal, I'm still going to look carefully at return addresses.
;-)

--Dodi