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

[Dodi Schultz]

Paul, I'm sorry, but you missed my point.

Tony has certainly seen dealer points awarded (he didn't make up the
idea!)--but that had absolutely nothing to do with the situation in the
last round.

I repeat: AS HUGO POINTED OUT, the situation in the last round was covered,
explicitly, in the rules. It's still covered. In one thousand, six hundred
and thirty-five rounds, over something like 16 years (okay, so I've only
been involved for 10), the rules seem to have held up.

Oh, never mind.

--Dodi


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

[Toni Savage]

Ya know... now that you phrase that bit about it being
a "penalty" to not get 2 pts for voting for the real
def if it's combined with your own... It used to be
MUCH MUCH more common that people would vote for their
own definitions. So the assumption was that you meant
to vote for your own def.

Also, I personally figure that if I submit a def
that's that close to the real one, then I may
subconsciously know the real def....

--- Tony Abell <aabell (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>


-- Toni Savage


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

> Paul, I'm sorry, but you missed my point.

No, I haven't missed your point. We just disagree. Tony has seen dealer
points awarded to remedy perceived unfairness. He overgeneralized what he
saw, and used dealer points, in his view, to remedy unfairness; but in your
view (and mine), to subvert the scoring system.

Because he lacks your experience, had no way to know that he was
overgeneralizing, because the rules about dealer points aren't in the
rulebook.

Your point is that the scoring system is there in the rulebook and is plain
to see and hasn't changed in 15 years and that anyone could have followed
it. Fair enough.

But woe betide the new player who takes that approach to the rule about
commentary! By custom, _that_ rule is a dead letter. How is a newish player
to tell which rules are inviolate (scoring), which are interpreted with
significant flexibility (deadlines) and which ones are entirely ignored?

--
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: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 2005-08-15





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