PDA

View Full Version : [Dixonary] Round 2211 OMASUM


MICHAEL HARRINGTON
June 2nd, 2011, 12:39 PM
For round 2211 I have received submissions for OMASUM definitions from:

1. (Judy Madnick)

2. (Steve Graham)

3. (Tony Abell)

4. (John Barr)

5. (Guerri Stevens)

6. (Keith Hale)

7. (Chuck Emery)

8. (Dave Cunningham)

9. (Mike Shefler)

10. (Tim Lodge)

If this list looks short, that's because it is. Please submit a definition
before 0300 hrs, Friday U.S. Pacific Daylight Time. If you have submitted
and your name is not here. Please re-send it to mikeharrington47 (AT) gmail (DOT) com

Thanks.

Mike Harrington

Christopher Carson
June 2nd, 2011, 01:10 PM
Mike,

I don’t if it’s codified in the rules, but custom has it that anyone who submitted a def for OGIVE and didn’t submit a new def for whatever reason gets his ‘ogive’ def recycled to the new word.

Chris


From: MICHAEL HARRINGTON
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 1:39 PM
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Subject: [Dixonary] Round 2211 OMASUM

For round 2211 I have received submissions for OMASUM definitions from:

1. (Judy Madnick)

2. (Steve Graham)

3. (Tony Abell)

4. (John Barr)

5. (Guerri Stevens)

6. (Keith Hale)

7. (Chuck Emery)

8. (Dave Cunningham)

9. (Mike Shefler)

10. (Tim Lodge)

If this list looks short, that’s because it is. Please submit a definition before 0300 hrs, Friday U.S. Pacific Daylight Time. If you have submitted and your name is not here. Please re-send it to mikeharrington47 (AT) gmail (DOT) com

Thanks.

Mike Harrington

Paul Keating
June 2nd, 2011, 04:39 PM
There is in fact no rule about withdrawal of an unexpectedly well-known word and the substitution of another, despite the fact that this first occurred in round 111 and any reasonable player might have expected the rules to have caught up to reality after 20 years.

About this, the “real” rules (https://sites.google.com/site/dixonarydocs/game-rules-and-advice/rules/The%27Real%27RulesofDixonary8%C2%BDx11.pdf?attredi rects=0&d=1) say, as a comment to rule 1(d):
When a substitute word is posted, most dealers treat a definition already received as applying to the substitute word, unless its author provides another. But some dealers consider the round to have started afresh and do not reuse definitions unless asked (1869). So it is best to be explicit about which line you are taking.

From: Christopher Carson
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 8:10 PM
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Round 2211 OMASUM

Mike,

I don’t if it’s codified in the rules, but custom has it that anyone who submitted a def for OGIVE and didn’t submit a new def for whatever reason gets his ‘ogive’ def recycled to the new word.

Chris

Dodi Schultz
June 2nd, 2011, 04:58 PM
Paul Keating wrote:
> There is in fact no rule about withdrawal of an unexpectedly
> well-known word and the substitution of another, despite the fact that
> this first occurred in round 111 and any reasonable player might have
> expected the rules to have caught up to reality after 20 years.
> About this, the real rules
> (https://sites.google.com/site/dixonarydocs/game-rules-and-advice/rules/The%27Real%27RulesofDixonary8%C2%BDx11.pdf?attredi rects=0&d=1
> <https://sites.google.com/site/dixonarydocs/game-rules-and-advice/rules/The%27Real%27RulesofDixonary8%C2%BDx11.pdf?attredi rects=0&d=1>)
> say, as a comment to rule 1(d):
> /When a substitute word is posted, most dealers treat a definition
> already received as applying to the substitute word, unless its author
> provides another. But some dealers consider the round to have started
> afresh and do not reuse definitions unless asked (1869). So it is best
> to be explicit about which line you are taking./

That makes sense.

In a couple of cases in which I've received just a couple of defs before
the word has changed, I've e-mailed the players individually and asked
them.

Dave Cunningham
June 3rd, 2011, 10:12 AM
In at least one case, the prior def has ended up with the deal IIRC.


Dave

On Jun 2, 5:58*pm, Dodi Schultz <DodiSchu... (AT) nasw (DOT) org> wrote:
> Paul Keating wrote:
> > There is in fact no rule about withdrawal of an unexpectedly
> > well-known word and the substitution of another, despite the fact that
> > this first occurred in round 111 and any reasonable player might have
> > expected the rules to have caught up to reality after 20 years.
> > About this, the real rules
> > (https://sites.google.com/site/dixonarydocs/game-rules-and-advice/rule...
> > <https://sites.google.com/site/dixonarydocs/game-rules-and-advice/rule...>)
> > say, as a comment to rule 1(d):
> > /When a substitute word is posted, most dealers treat a definition
> > already received as applying to the substitute word, unless its author
> > provides another. But some dealers consider the round to have started
> > afresh and do not reuse definitions unless asked (1869). So it is best
> > to be explicit about which line you are taking./
>
> That makes sense.
>
> In a couple of cases in which I've received just a couple of defs before
> the word has changed, I've e-mailed the players individually and asked
> them.