OT: Combining definitions

[Judy Madnick]

This has probably been discussed before, but I don't recall a resolution other than not receiving the points:

If a player submits a definition that's nearly identical to the "real" word and the definitions are combined, voting for it would be like voting for you own word, for which you don't receive points. But it's the "real" word and that voter would like credit! So how would that work?

Judy  

[Paul Keating]

As you say, this issue has been raised before, most recently in Round 1635. 

The “Real” Rules rule 8:

... the author of a definition, or a contributor to a combined definition, never receives points for voting for it.

That is straightforward. In the 1990 rules it is cumbrously phrased and disorganized, being spread over three rules that countermand one another, 8(b)(1), 4(c)(1), 4(c)(2), but if you read all three rules together you will arrive at the same effect. The complexity of the original phrasing is probably why you find it hard to remember. It needs need a clear mind, no distractions, and an hour of close study to work out what was really meant.

But, as you say, the submitter would like credit. On that subject, there is a comment to Rule 8 that says

If the dealer combines a fake definition with the dictionary definition, the submitter of the fake is not considered to have guessed correctly, and receives no points beyond what is provided for in Rule 8(b), that is, votes from other players. This may have the effect of a penalty. A few players think that this is sufficient reason for the dealer never to combine a submission with the dictionary definition; despite Rule 3(a) which plainly permits it.

 

You don’t recall a resolution because there wasn’t one. It can seem unfair, but the rule is explicit, and the only way to avoid the penalty effect is to refrain from combining a submitted definition with the real one, and that may have its own drawbacks. It can seem particularly unfair to a player whose fake was combined with the real definition, but did not recognize their hand in the resulting combination, assumed their definition had been lost, and voted for the combination. In Round 2671 that resulted in a player scoring of 1* (got combined, guessed correctly, snagged one vote, and got no points for the correct guess) and in Round 2621 there was even a score of 0* in a similar situation. One might surmise that the combination in each case was inexpertly done, and the result looked fake, and so attracted few votes, but I haven’t looked closely enough to form an opinion.

--

Paul Keating

Soustons, Nouvelle Aquitaine, France

[Judy Madnick]

It seems as though it's best not to combine the real definition with the player-submitted definition if they're very similar but not identical, but if they're identical, you really can't do that. 

 

Oh, well. This should be the worst of our problems!

 

Judy

---

Original Message

From: "Paul Keating" <dixo...@boargules.com>

To: dixo...@googlegroups.com;

Date: 6/28/2026 2:26:34 PM

Subject: Re: [Dixonary] OT: Combining definitions

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/Mailbird-d7bacae0-39d0-4c71-996e-2ed77d5d9d23%40boargules.com.