PDA

View Full Version : [Dixonary] Round 1635 RESULTS: NIFLE


Tony Abell
August 14th, 2005, 12:09 AM
Dave Cunningham and Toni Savage are on vacation, but Dave managed to
send a def before he left, and Toni sent one from a computer in Mexico
City. Alas, neither was able to vote.

Russ Heimerson and John Barrs figured that nifle might mean a trivial
or worthless thing or person, and thus agreed with Merriam-Webster's
Third New International Dictionary--John having done so before voting
by turning in a definition that was so close, I decided to replace it
with the real one. In return for having no words from his original
def in the one ultimately listed, John receives 2 points for having
matched the actual definition (I can't find that provision in the
rules, but it seems reasonable to me, so that's what I'm doing).

Otherwise, people really liked Judy Madnick's wandering about and
Barbara Kryvko's stammering. Judy takes the deal with 7 natural, and
Barbara is the real winner with 6 natural.

Take it away, Judy!

1. _Br. Sl._ An unusual event or spectacle. [fr. _an eyeful_]
Voted for by Dan Widdis, Dodi Schultz, Don Jordon
SOURCE: Dave Cunningham, who didn't vote, and scores 3 + 0 = 3

2. A thin decorative band, usually of metal, between the mouthpiece of a pipe
and the bowl.
Voted for by Barbara Kryvko, Lenny Goran, John Barrs
SOURCE: Chuck Emery, who voted 3 and 6, and scores 3 + 0 = 3

3. The channel cut in the end of a barrel stave to receive the barrelhead.
Voted for by Chuck Emery, John Barrs
SOURCE: Russ Heimerson, who voted 6 and *14*, and scores 2 + 2 = 4*

4. Bread pudding thickly studded with raisins.
Voted for by Hugo Kornelis, Mike Shefler
SOURCE: Scott Crom, who voted 6 and 10, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

5. A blacksmith's apron.
Voted for by Wayne Scott, Guerri Stevens
SOURCE: Nancy Shepherdson, who voted 19 and 21, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

6. To wander about idly or in pursuit of pleasure.
Voted for by Wayne Scott, Dodi Schultz, Carolyn Mayer, Chuck Emery, Scott
Crom, Russ Heimerson, Paul Keating
SOURCE: Judy Madnick, who voted 20 and 21, and scores 7 + 0 = 7

7. A small passageway between the robing room and the chancel of a church.
Voted for by Hugo Kornelis, Lenny Goran
SOURCE: Guerri Stevens, who voted 5 and 16, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

8. Service slang for a rifle fitted with a night sight, from Night rIFLE.
Voted for by nobody
SOURCE: Tim Bourne, who voted 13 and 20, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

9. A ring normally used to attach a rope or line, such as on a sail.
Voted for by Don Jordon
SOURCE: Toni Savage, who didn't vote, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

10. The burrow of a ferret.
Voted for by Scott Crom
SOURCE: Dodi Schultz, who voted 1 and 6, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

11. _Brit._ _Advertising._ to rapidly recite the statutory text at the end of
radio advertisements for banks, etc. [imit., shortened f. _do the needful_]
Voted for by Dan Widdis, Carolyn Mayer
SOURCE: Paul Keating, who voted 6 and 21, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

12. _Scot._ a very small amount, especially of food.
Voted for by Chris Carson
SOURCE: Tim Lodge, who voted 16 and 21, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

13. A small, curved whisk used in making sauces.
Voted for by Tim Bourne
SOURCE: Wayne Scott, who voted 5 and 6, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

14. A trivial or worthless thing or person.
Voted for by Russ Heimerson
SOURCE: Merriam-Webster's Third New International, which cannot vote, and scores D2
AND: John Barrs, who voted 2 and 3, and scores 1 + 2 = 3*

15. A distinct section of an arthropod, consisting of two or more adjoining
segments, such as the cephalothorax of a spider.
Voted for by nobody
SOURCE: Dan Widdis, who voted 1 and 11, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

16. Marked by friendly intimacy. [From Frisian: "noflik"]
Voted for by Tim Lodge, Guerri Stevens
SOURCE: Hugo Kornelis, who voted 4 and 7, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

17. To cup one hand over the mouth in order to conceal a smirk or sneer.
Voted for by nobody
SOURCE: Mike Shefler, who voted 4 and 21, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

18. The negative form of "rifle" (NOT or NO + RIFLE) used by peaceniks,
gun-control and anti-war activists, and their ilk. Most used in
confrontation and protestation with the NRA when they chant "Nifle, Nifle,
Nifle!!" and carry "Nifle" signs and wear "Nifle" buttons.
Voted for by Barbara Kryvko
SOURCE: Carolyn Mayer, who voted 6 and 11, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

19. Having little elasticity; hence easily cracked or fractured or snapped.
Voted for by Nancy Shepherdson
SOURCE: Lenny Goran, who voted 2 and 7, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

20. To finish or decorate the border or edge of.
Voted for by Tim Bourne, Judy Madnick
SOURCE: Chris Carson, who voted 12 and 21, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

21. To stammer. [Obs.]
Voted for by Tim Lodge, Mike Shefler, Judy Madnick, Nancy Shepherdson,
Chris Carson, Paul Keating
SOURCE: Barbara Kryvko, who voted 2 and 18, and scores 6 + 0 = 6

No definition submitted
Don Jordon, who voted 1 and 9, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

SUMMARY

Player Def# Voted for Points, N+U=T
------------------------------ ---- ----------- ---------------
Barrs ........................ 14 2 & 3 1 + 2 = 3
Bourne ....................... 8 13 & 20 0 + 0 = 0
Carson ....................... 20 12 & 21 2 + 0 = 2
Crom ......................... 4 6 & 10 2 + 0 = 2
Cunningham ................... 1 N/V 3 + 0 = 3
Emery ........................ 2 3 & 6 3 + 0 = 3
Goran ........................ 19 2 & 7 1 + 0 = 1
Heimerson .................... 3 6 & *14* 2 + 2 = 4
Jordon ....................... 1 & 9 0 + 0 = 0
Keating ...................... 11 6 & 21 2 + 0 = 2
Kornelis ..................... 16 4 & 7 2 + 0 = 2
Kryvko ....................... 21 2 & 18 6 + 0 = 6
Lodge ........................ 12 16 & 21 1 + 0 = 1
M-W 3rd New International .... 14 N/A D2
Madnick ...................... 6 20 & 21 7 + 0 = 7
Mayer ........................ 18 6 & 11 1 + 0 = 1
Savage ....................... 9 N/V 1 + 0 = 1
Schultz ...................... 10 1 & 6 1 + 0 = 1
Scott ........................ 13 5 & 6 1 + 0 = 1
Shefler ...................... 17 4 & 21 0 + 0 = 0
Shepherdson .................. 5 19 & 21 2 + 0 = 2
Stevens ...................... 7 5 & 16 2 + 0 = 2
Widdis ....................... 15 1 & 11 0 + 0 = 0






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Paul Keating
August 14th, 2005, 03:21 AM
I was convinced you had missed something when you said it isn't in the
rules (because I was sure it was), but you are quite right, it isn't.
Though in fact you've given him one extra point, not two.

I went looking for precedent, because I know that this has happened when
I was dealing. But between the time I went broadband and April this
year, all my public postings went direct from clipboard to CIS WebView
so I have no record of them. So I checked what Coryphæus does in this
case, and it doesn't award points for matching the correct def, so
presumably I didn't either. As far as I recall nobody complained that
the scoring wasn't what they expected.


>John receives 2 points for having
>matched the actual definition (I can't find that provision in the
>rules, but it seems reasonable to me, so that's what I'm doing).
>

--
Paul Keating
The Hague
52N02 4E19



--
This message was checked before sending and is believed to be virus-free.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 2005-08-12



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

John Barrs
August 14th, 2005, 04:46 AM
Tony

>In return for having no words from his original def in the one ultimately listed, John receives 2 points for having matched the
actual definition (I can't find that provision in the rules, but it seems reasonable to me, so that's what I'm doing).


thank you, but ....
1. If its not in rules (although dealer is God) maybe I shouldn't have those two points
2. also you have given me 3 and I don't quite see why


sententia voce populi stat


JohnnyB [using email; via corypaheus/yahoogroups]




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Hugo Kornelis
August 14th, 2005, 06:17 AM
Hi Tony,

> In return for having no words from his original
> def in the one ultimately listed, John receives 2 points for having
> matched the actual definition (I can't find that provision in the
> rules, but it seems reasonable to me, so that's what I'm doing).

Actually, there is a provision - rule 4.c.1:

(c) If the dealer is confronted with two definitions very close to
one another, the dealer may in her or his discretion combine
them.

(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.

Unless I'm misinterpreting, I think this means that John gets 1 point
because Russ voted for his fake def, but nothing more. And Russ gets two
points for voting for the correct def.

Of course, the most important rule still is (and always will be) that da
dealah iz da bozz. If you feel that John deserves 2 extra points, he has
them.

Best, Hugo




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Judy Madnick
August 14th, 2005, 07:07 AM
----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Tony Abell" <aabell (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>
Subject: [Dixonary] Round 1635 RESULTS: NIFLE

<< Otherwise, people really liked Judy Madnick's wandering about and
<< Barbara Kryvko's stammering. Judy takes the deal with 7 natural, and
<< Barbara is the real winner with 6 natural.

I guess I can get away only once with receiving a lot of points but not dealing (i.e., the last round). [g] A new word will appear shortly. I wonder whether I can remember how to do this -- it's been a LONG TIME!

Judy Madnick
Albany, NY


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Tony Abell
August 14th, 2005, 12:29 PM
On 2005-08-14 at 04:21 Paul Keating wrote:

PK> Though in fact you've given him one extra point, not two.

Looks like two to me. Russ voted for def 14, so John gets one for
that, plus the two I arbitrarily awarded him, for a total of three.

My reasoning for awarding the two points is that if we do not give the
player those points for guessing the correct definition by
(essentially) submitting it, then he has no opportunity to gain the
two points by voting for it, since one cannot be awarded points for
voting for his own definition. Thus, he would be penalized because he
guessed the real definition, which hardly seems fair. In fact, I was
under the impression the rules said as much, but when I
double-checked, I was surprised to find they didn't. Since this
hasn't come up since I joined the game, I had no idea of the
precedents, and so decided to award points as though the rules were
what I thought they were to be on the safe side and not cheating
anyone.

OTOH, one could argue that fairness is irrelevant; after all, it isn't
"fair" that the dealer can't earn any points, I suppose (though
personally I think the vacation from having to think of and vote for
definitions that dealing provides is reward enough).

PK> So I checked what Coryphæus does in this case, and it doesn't
PK> award points for matching the correct def, so presumably I didn't
PK> either. As far as I recall nobody complained that the scoring
PK> wasn't what they expected.

I should point out that I'm not using Coryphæus. Although the format
of parts of my definition and results postings may closely resemble
the output of one or more of the various programs available for
dealing, it is only because I used previous dealers' postings as
templates for a set of hastily written Perl scripts, which are what I
have been using to do the dirty work.




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Tim Lodge
August 14th, 2005, 12:49 PM
Hugo Kornelis wrote:

>> Actually, there is a provision - rule 4.c.1: <<

I'm with Hugo on this one. I'm pretty sure that we have had cases
before where someone submitted a def the same as the real def and the
dealer combined it with the real one.

If I'd been dealing, I would have given Johnny Barrs just one point
for the vote which the real def gained. However, under Rule 2
(b), 'the dealer's ruling is law', so I won't argue with Tony's
decision!

-- Tim L




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Paul Keating
August 14th, 2005, 01:52 PM
I was wrong about the 2. Careless of me. I was looking at the D2.

I agree that it seems a little unfair, but the rules are pretty clear. The
drafters of the rules did consider the case when a submitted def is combined
with the real one, and they said what points get awarded in that case. It's
not as if the situation wasn't covered by the rules.

What happens when you get combined with the real def is not nearly as unfair
as what happens when you win the round.


--
Paul Keating
The Hague



--
This message was checked before sending and is believed to be virus-free.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 2005-08-12



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Paul Keating
August 14th, 2005, 01:57 PM
Rule 2 does not say that the dealer's ruling is law. It says that the
dealer's ruling is law _if the situation isn't covered by the rules_. Which
is clearly is.

> If I'd been dealing, I would have given Johnny Barrs just one point
> for the vote which the real def gained. However, under Rule 2
> (b), 'the dealer's ruling is law', so I won't argue with Tony's
> decision!


--
Paul Keating
The Hague



--
This message was checked before sending and is believed to be virus-free.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 2005-08-12





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Russ Heimerson
August 14th, 2005, 03:46 PM
... a set of hastily written Perl scripts....

Would you be willing to share those scripts? I'm using Linux now as
primary OS and would like to see them so I might be able to learn a bit
more.

Russ


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Tony Abell
August 14th, 2005, 04:14 PM
On 2005-08-14 at 14:52 Paul Keating wrote:

PK> I agree that it seems a little unfair, but the rules are pretty clear. The
PK> drafters of the rules did consider the case when a submitted def is combined
PK> with the real one, and they said what points get awarded in that case.

You know more than I do about what the drafters intended, then. To me,
the obvious inequity of being penalized for effectively submitting the
actual definition--a considerably more difficult task than picking the
correct one out of a list--led me to suspect that not all of the
ramifications of such combinations had been considered, and that
precedent had (probably) decided to award points. It turns out I was
completely wrong.

PK> It's not as if the situation wasn't covered by the rules.

Indeed. However, the rules say nothing about "dealer points", yet
these have been awarded for various reasons. If popular opinion is
that I shouldn't have awarded the two points (and it certainly looks
that way now), I have no objection to their being rescinded. It's only
a game.

PK> What happens when you get combined with the real def is not nearly
PK> as unfair as what happens when you win the round.

True, but THAT penalty is explicitly mentioned in the rules as
effectively a penalty, so we are left in no doubt about what was
intended.





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Tony Abell
August 14th, 2005, 04:23 PM
On 2005-08-14 at 16:46 Russ Heimerson wrote:

RH>
RH> ... a set of hastily written Perl scripts...

RH> Would you be willing to share those scripts? I'm using Linux now as
RH> primary OS and would like to see them so I might be able to learn a bit
RH> more.

Sure, but give me a little time to write some documentation if you
intend to use them for the game (as opposed to learning Perl or
something about Linux).

Be advised this these are strictly primitive, with no user interface
other than a command line and a text editor. I never intended them for
anyone else to use, nor are the algorithms the most efficient or
elegant. Quick and dirty Perl at its worst, but they seem to give the
correct results (or will, after I remove the points awarded for
submitting the correct definition).




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Daniel B. Widdis
August 14th, 2005, 04:37 PM
On 8/14/05, Tony Abell <aabell (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
>
> Be advised this these are strictly primitive, with no user interface
> other than a command line and a text editor. I never intended them for
> anyone else to use, nor are the algorithms the most efficient or
> elegant. Quick and dirty Perl at its worst, but they seem to give the
> correct results (or will, after I remove the points awarded for
> submitting the correct definition).

Oooh, oooh, me too? We need a linux-based dealing program. I'd be happy to
help if you want to make this an "open source" project. :)

--
Dan Widdis


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



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Hugo Kornelis
August 14th, 2005, 05:28 PM
Hi Tony,

> If popular opinion is
> that I shouldn't have awarded the two points (and it certainly looks
> that way now), I have no objection to their being rescinded. It's only
> a game.

I have no idea what is popular opinion. I do know my opinion. The most
important thing is that the dealer is the boss. If you want to award dealer
points, go ahead. As you say - it's only a game!!

Far less important is this: when you said that this situation was not
covered by the rules, you made a factual incorrect remark. My response had
only one aim: to point you to the place in the rules where this is covered.
It was not intended as a comment on your decision to award John 2 extra
points.

And now I'll go kick myself for submitting my definition in public.

<wham> Ouch!

Best, Hugo




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Tony Abell
August 14th, 2005, 07:17 PM
On 2005-08-14 at 18:28 Hugo Kornelis wrote:

HK> Far less important is this: when you said that this situation was not
HK> covered by the rules, you made a factual incorrect remark.

Actually, I said the rules DIDN'T support my decision to award two
points, but that I was doing so anyway because I didn't believe the
rules, or at least my interpretation of them!

HK> And now I'll go kick myself for submitting my definition in public.

HK> <wham> Ouch!

Happens to the best of us.




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Guerri Stevens
August 14th, 2005, 07:47 PM
I'd be interested too, if I ever have to deal (unlikely). I am somewhat
familiar with PERL. I'd be running from a command prompt under Windows.

Documentation? What's that? (just kidding)

Guerri

Tony Abell wrote:
> Sure, but give me a little time to write some documentation if you
> intend to use them for the game (as opposed to learning Perl or
> something about Linux).



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Hugo Kornelis
August 15th, 2005, 03:49 AM
Hi Tony,

> HK> Far less important is this: when you said that this situation was not
> HK> covered by the rules, you made a factual incorrect remark.
>
> Actually, I said the rules DIDN'T support my decision to award two
> points, but that I was doing so anyway because I didn't believe the
> rules, or at least my interpretation of them!

Yes, you did. I just checked my kept mail, and that's what you wrote.

Sorry for mis-quoting you. I quoted what I thought you meant, instead of
what you actually wrote. I guess I'll have to kick myself again.

<wham> Ouch!




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->