[Dixonary] "The 'Real' Rules of Dixonary"

[Paul Keating]

We have a rulebook for this game that is carved in stone.

The disadvantage is that there is no codification of the way the game
is actually played. So to someone who has not been playing for years,
it _looks_ as though players are entitled to ignore any rule they
don't like.

Whereas, of course, it is only _certain_ rules that they don't like
that precedent entitles them to ignore: 3(b) & 4(d) (deadlines), 5
(tactical voting), 5(c) (commentary), and possibly 8(a)(2) (early
closing).

What is more, nobody can say that Tony went beyond his remit in
granting dealer points in Round 1635 because there is no rule at all
governing dealer points.

I have been trying, and failing, to get the rules brought in line with
reality for at least 10 years. But I now realize that many players
value the official rules as a historical document, and don't see the
need for a rulebook that is a reliable guide to action.

So, I've given up on trying to get the rules changed, and done what
everybody else does: ignored them <g>.

In the Coryphæus group's Files section you will now find the
completely unofficial, but more or less accurate, "Real" Rules of
Dixonary, alongside the official 1990 rules.

I haven't tried to incorporate precedent into the rules because that
would mean making substantive changes to them. I haven't done that,
not intentionally anyway, other than to close loopholes like the one I
used in round 1630, and to fix one or two obvious oversights in the
drafting.

Instead the precedent is presented in comments.

The document is a personal one and I'm not throwing this open for
discussion. Dodi Schultz said that she didn't want a constitutional
convention on the rules and neither do I.

So if there is something in the document you don't like (other than
its very existence, of course), please email me your objections.




------------------------ 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]

On 2005-08-15 at 13:25 Paul Keating wrote:

PK> In the Coryphæus group's Files section you will now find the
PK> completely unofficial, but more or less accurate, "Real" Rules of
PK> Dixonary, alongside the official 1990 rules.

Allow me to thank you for writing this document, especially since I
doubt anyone else will. If it had been available before the previous
round, my controversial actions would not have occurred.

The only amendment I might ask would be to add to the comment
following 7(b) wording to the effect that this means a player whose
definition is combined with the dictionary definition is effectively
penalized by not being able to earn two points for voting for the
dictionary definition, just to emphasize the point. And maybe a
clarification of the Dn (dictionary) points terminology could be
included somewhere for the benefit of the uninitiated.

Up until just before I submitted the results, I was *sure* John was
due two points for having his def combined with the real one, because
I thought I'd read it somewhere. When I finally reexamined the rules
whilst in the process of general double-checking, and found no
provision for those points, I was puzzled, because I had this
(apparently false) memory of reading it, and because it seemed so
reasonable, given the effective penalty implied otherwise.

My decision to award the points anyway was because I genuinely thought
that was probably what was done in practice, not because I intended to
ignore a rule I didn't like. And anyway, I figured the vague "dealer
points" tradition would make it acceptable. I now realize what I did
was unprecedented, and had no idea it would cause such controversy.

I hope the players will accept my apologies for the confusion I may
have caused. The bright side is that it was apparently the impetus
for Paul to create this useful and well thought-out document.




------------------------ 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

[chm]

Dodi Schultz said that she didn't want a constitutional
convention on the rules and neither do I.

Please excuse this new player, but add me to this sentiment.

I'm seeing far too many headers talking about rules here right now. As a result, I even had some trouble plowing through all this brouhaha to find the "new word" so I could do my def today.

And that may be one of the worst things that could ever happen in this game, giving me a hard time doing my def. ; )

Now, let's get back to fun, please.

chm