[Dixonary] OT: Comment on rules

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
--
*JohnnyB*

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

--
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+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/di...hn-barrs.co.uk.

How about 10 or less?

I would like to see a 2 point award going to the dealer whose word stumps
everyone.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 5:13 PM Johnb - co.uk <johnb (AT) john-barrs (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

> 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
> --
> *JohnnyB*
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_4850681176912992530_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/di...hn-barrs.co.uk
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/ee1d0548-d3ac-9eab-777f-dbdfb8eed3e4%40john-barrs.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

--
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+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/di...mail.gmail.com.

I don't like the idea. And it would clobber the statistics.



On 1/20/2022 5:13 PM, Johnb - co.uk wrote:


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


--
JohnnyB




Virus-free. www.avg.com

--
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+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/di...hn-barrs.co.uk.





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &quot;Dixonary&quot; group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/104b6f4a-6c46-d562-788c-7daa88028e34%40salsgiver.com.

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?


Steve Dixon

“Wherever you are is the entry point� ~Kabir Das


On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 5:50 PM 'France International/Mike Shefler' via
Dixonary <dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com> wrote:

> I don't like the idea. And it would clobber the statistics.
>
> On 1/20/2022 5:13 PM, Johnb - co.uk wrote:
>
> 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
> --
> *JohnnyB*
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_-984891168080318989_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/di...hn-barrs.co.uk
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/ee1d0548-d3ac-9eab-777f-dbdfb8eed3e4%40john-barrs.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/di...0salsgiver.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/104b6f4a-6c46-d562-788c-7daa88028e34%40salsgiver.com?utm_medium=email&utm_ source=footer>
> .
>

--
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+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/di...mail.gmail.com.

a:link {color: #0000FF;} a:visited {color: #800080;} body { font-size: 12pt; font-family: Verdana; color: #000000; background-color: FFFFFF; margin-left: 10px; }

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.&nbsp;



&nbsp;



JMO,



&nbsp;



Judy










Original Message



From: "'France International/Mike Shefler' via Dixonary" &lt;dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com&gt;



To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com;



Date: 1/20/2022 5:50:41 PM



Subject: Re: [Dixonary] OT: Comment on rules






I don't like the idea. And it would clobber the statistics.



On 1/20/2022 5:13 PM, Johnb - co.uk wrote:


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


--
JohnnyB




Virus-free. www.avg.com

--
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+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/di...hn-barrs.co.uk.







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &quot;Dixonary&quot; group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/026E3D75011413230E1C004008%40LAPTOP-NG0A64CK.

Re: [Dixonary] OT: Comment on rules 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&nbsp;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,&nbsp;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&nbsp;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)&nbsp;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’&nbsp;comment on this development puts too few&nbsp;at 9 not 12, but the principle is not at issue.

--
Paul Keating
Soustons, Nouvelle Aquitaine, France

2022-01-20 23:13

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
--
JohnnyB





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &quot;Dixonary&quot; group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/264583533.20220121021101%40acm.org.

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

*JohnnyB*
On 21/01/2022 01:11, Paul Keating wrote:
> Re: [Dixonary] OT: Comment on rules 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
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offline_reader>Â*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,/Â*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
> <https://sites.google.com/dixonary.net/dixonarydocs/game-rules-and-advice/commentary-on-the-game/the-statistics-of-dixonary>,
> which is to be found on www.dixonary.netat 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)/Â*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
> <https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/nytimes/name/dodi-schultz-obituary?id=20890988&__cf_chl_captcha_tk__=2ikKS6D e.TunuHL93d6hEI.X.xCx1PU6mEz.6IEWswo-1642722672-0-gaNycGzNCL0>)
> 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 “Realâ€� Rules’/Â*comment on this
> development puts /too few/Â*at 9 not 12, but the principle is not at issue.
>
> /--
> Paul Keating
> Soustons, Nouvelle Aquitaine, France
>
> /2022-01-20 23:13
>
> 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
> --
> *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+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/di...101%40acm..org
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/264583533.20220121021101%40acm.org?utm_medium=emai l&utm_source=footer>.
> .


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

--
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+unsubscribe (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/di...hn-barrs.co.uk.