OT: Comment on rules
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Johnb - co.uk
Jan 20, 2022, 5:13:21 PM1/20/22
to Dixonarians
People
it seems to me that awarding 2 points for voting for the actual definition overweights the voting when there are only a few definitions. I suggest that voting for the actual definition is only worth 1 point if the number of definitions is 12 or less
Thoughts please
it seems to me that awarding 2 points for voting for the actual definition overweights the voting when there are only a few definitions. I suggest that voting for the actual definition is only worth 1 point if the number of definitions is 12 or less
Thoughts please
--
JohnnyB
JohnnyB
Chowie
Jan 20, 2022, 5:48:59 PM1/20/22
to Dixonary
How about 10 or less?
I would like to see a 2 point award going to the dealer whose word stumps everyone.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dixonary" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/ee1d0548-d3ac-9eab-777f-dbdfb8eed3e4%40john-barrs.co.uk.
France International/Mike Shefler
Jan 20, 2022, 5:50:20 PM1/20/22
to dixo...@googlegroups.com
I don't like the idea. And it would clobber the statistics.
Judy Madnick
Jan 20, 2022, 7:35:16 PM1/20/22
to dixo...@googlegroups.com
I always dislike seeing rules change unless there's a really good reason. We just have to encourage players to submit definitions, extend submission times as necessary, and invite "newbies" to join us.
JMO,
Judy
Original Message
From: "'France International/Mike Shefler' via Dixonary" <dixo...@googlegroups.com>
Date: 1/20/2022 5:50:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] OT: Comment on rules
Paul Keating
Jan 20, 2022, 8:11:06 PM1/20/22
to Johnb - co.uk
In the 1990s, Dixonary had a competitor, a similar word game played on the NavCis forum, just as Dixonary was played on the Tapcis forum. NavCis was an offline reader that was a direct competitor to Tapcis. I think some of the founder players of Dixonary played in both games. We called their variant that other game, and it had a rule similar to the one you’re proposing. Their cutoff was 10 definitions.
You can read my thoughts on the subject in The Statistics of Dixonary Scoring, which is to be found on www.dixonary.net at Game Rules and Advice | Commentaries on the Game. I wrote it in 1998 and last revised it in 2008. I have found nothing further to say in the meantime. Its conclusion (tl;dr) was the cure is worse than the disease.
Not so long ago, Shani Naylor proposed that we should put effort into recruiting new players, which I think is a better solution, and a more fruitful use of the energy that would otherwise be devoted to revising a rulebook that has sturdily resisted revision for over 30 years. The official rules are so out of date that changing one of them would open Pandora’s box. In Round 1630, longtime player Dodi Schultz (1930–2016) asserted that the players would not want a “constitutional convention” to revise the rules. I didn’t agree with her at the time, but then, I rarely did agree with her (or she with me). Still, I have come to appreciate that there was wisdom in that, however uncompromisingly expressed.
This is not to say that your remarks about overweighting are unjustified. I think most dealers think the same, which is why it has become (sadly) increasingly the norm for dealers to extend the definition deadline if there are too few definitions: a situation not covered by the 1990 rules, which were written when a dealer might expect upwards of 20 definitions. The “Real” Rules’ comment on this development puts too few at 9 not 12, but the principle is not at issue.
--
Paul Keating
Soustons, Nouvelle Aquitaine, France
2022-01-20 23:13
You can read my thoughts on the subject in The Statistics of Dixonary Scoring, which is to be found on www.dixonary.net at Game Rules and Advice | Commentaries on the Game. I wrote it in 1998 and last revised it in 2008. I have found nothing further to say in the meantime. Its conclusion (tl;dr) was the cure is worse than the disease.
Not so long ago, Shani Naylor proposed that we should put effort into recruiting new players, which I think is a better solution, and a more fruitful use of the energy that would otherwise be devoted to revising a rulebook that has sturdily resisted revision for over 30 years. The official rules are so out of date that changing one of them would open Pandora’s box. In Round 1630, longtime player Dodi Schultz (1930–2016) asserted that the players would not want a “constitutional convention” to revise the rules. I didn’t agree with her at the time, but then, I rarely did agree with her (or she with me). Still, I have come to appreciate that there was wisdom in that, however uncompromisingly expressed.
This is not to say that your remarks about overweighting are unjustified. I think most dealers think the same, which is why it has become (sadly) increasingly the norm for dealers to extend the definition deadline if there are too few definitions: a situation not covered by the 1990 rules, which were written when a dealer might expect upwards of 20 definitions. The “Real” Rules’ comment on this development puts too few at 9 not 12, but the principle is not at issue.
--
Paul Keating
Soustons, Nouvelle Aquitaine, France
2022-01-20 23:13
Judy Madnick
Jan 20, 2022, 10:29:25 PM1/20/22
to dixo...@googlegroups.com
Paul,
As you already know from my message, I agree with you.
Judy
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] OT: Comment on rules
Johnb - co.uk
Jan 22, 2022, 7:43:53 AM1/22/22
to dixo...@googlegroups.com
I think we aired this enough
I fully understand and agree with all the comments made - thank-you for patient input
I also apologise to you all - I hadn't read Paul's analysis - having done so all I can say is "Thank-you" to Paul for a very lucid (if challenging) explanation
I fully understand and agree with all the comments made - thank-you for patient input
I also apologise to you all - I hadn't read Paul's analysis - having done so all I can say is "Thank-you" to Paul for a very lucid (if challenging) explanation
JohnnyB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dixonary" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/264583533.20220121021101%40acm.org.
.
Stephen Dixon
Jan 22, 2022, 11:15:32 AM1/22/22
to Dixonary Group
FWIW, since I am an infrequent player, I am with you, Mike.
All those years of historical play would get wildly skewed in the statistics. Does the low submission rate come up often enough to warrant this change?
All those years of historical play would get wildly skewed in the statistics. Does the low submission rate come up often enough to warrant this change?
Steve Dixon
“Wherever you are is the entry point” ~Kabir Das
“Wherever you are is the entry point” ~Kabir Das
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/104b6f4a-6c46-d562-788c-7daa88028e34%40salsgiver.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages