Y'all have till the 28th. or thereabouts to send me your fake definitions...unless of course several of you know this word. Newcomers, please refer to the roolz in the first threads of this category.

The word is thrapple.

I like it!!!

Good--I await your inspiration.

I'm in. Inspiration shall be forthcoming.

I sent mine.

I tried reading the rules, but I fell asleep... ;0) So I should just email all my ideas for faux meanings, right? I've done similar with a different group, opposite, actually, where we made up the faux words from a given definition; also quite fun! I will ask one question (which is probably in the rules that I can't get through so please just answer it, LOL!): how many different definitions are allowed per person? Thanks!!! :0)

>how many different definitions are allowed per person?

only one, to encourage participation by many; i.e, to discourage domination by a few!

this also encourages you to be selective, of your best. we wait a week to give more folks a chance to see it, and some wait a while to let their creative juices simmer.

the rulz got so convoluted because:

1) the game was crudely adapted from one normally played in the wild,
with a group sitting around a big table
b) they evolved over a long period of time
Þ) it's difficult impossible to get folks to agree to anything online
iv) but always remember rule A, the points don't matter

I take it the whole thing also works on an honor system that assumes no one would be so crass as to look up the correct answer. That's one of the main differences between playing it online and playing it in the flesh - there is no way you can know someone hasn't cheated.

But what about where someone knows the answer to begin with? Should they declare that? (not that I do in this case)

What's the fun in cheating?

Some have recused themselves and some go ahead and play anyway, choosing the (wrong) daffynition they think the most worthy of a vote. In the latter case it's probably best not to declare that one knows the correct answer since that person's answer will then be known to be incorrect.

Wait a minute!!! I seem to have completely missed the point... help! I thought the whole point is to make up a "daffynition", and then vote for the best one. Is that incorrect? Are we trying to guess at the real definition? I didn't think there was much point in that, as has been pointed out, it's too easy to just check it... Am I crazy? :0)

There will be n+1 defintions offered eventually, N of them will be from various of us who sent them to Jackie and one will be from some dictionary or other. Points, such as they are, are awarded to the perpetrators of the phony definitions, one point for each vote they get and points are awarded to voters who get the correct definition. Generally anyone is allowed to vote whether or not they have submitted a definition. In some incarnations of the game votes of those who have contributed a definition count more than votes of those who have not, but that is up to the hogmaster of that particular game. A vote for one's own definition is not counted toward the score.

time out. you may think there are conflicting messages here, considering Faldo's explication vs. Rule A, as given above.

let's see if I can clear this up somewhat: let's say that in a given round Faldo's bluff collects the most votes, and that in addition two other voters choose the correct definition. Faldo would usually be considered the "winner" of the round, and the those other two would probably be awarded a lovely set of kudos. if the latter award is worth "cheating" to you, it's your award and you're welcome to it.

ultimately it's your game too, if you want to play it straight and it gives you pleasure to suss the actual def'n, that's fine. if you prefer to vote for what you feel is the "best effort", that may arguably be a "better" way to play the game, but it is assuredly a different approach. I think this is actually why we arrived at Rule A.

from the aspect of the hogmaster (read moderator), the most important thing is probably the choice of the word. it should be really obscure, of course; but etymologically it should be blank. if you glance at the list so far you can see how well we've done in that regard.

edit: this would appear to be round 89.

Perhaps "daffynition" given the context in which it was used, meant not the 'normal' fake definitions, but one that was intended to be deliberately funny but obviously not the correct definition, put in by someone who happens to know the real meaning and who doesn't want to cheat by taking advantage of that. In RL games there is always at least one of those put in anyway. My youngest brother always puts in something stupid that makes everyone rofl literally.

There are two ways to gain points - guess the real definition or have others guess your fake one as the real one. For the person submitting the word they gain points if no one votes for the real definition. Or something like that.

just remember that the points don't matter.

Thanks, guys; I was busy (and then exhausted) all weekend. If anybody has any further questions, holler.

It IS just for fun, and yes, it's on the honor system. I can't say for other hogmasters/mistresses, but if somebody submits the real definition (whether they looked it up or knew the word or just had a lucky guess), I simply wouldn't list it for voting. Though I'd probably send a PM inviting another submission.

We started off trying to keep score, but that went by the wayside for a variety of reasons. So, sometimes people who know the word submit as good a fake def. as they can come up with; and likewise (as can anyone) sometimes simply vote for the (fake) definition they like the best.

tsuwm, I still haven't forgotten your one, lone vote preventing me from getting a...whaddyacallit? blankout...blackout...oh, SHUTout, confound your little hide! ;-) (For newcomers, what I'm saying is that on one game I ran, nobody but tsuwm voted for the real def.) Anyway, thanks for the reminder: I had completely forgotten about trying for untraceable etymology!

...is an oxymoron??

Depends on your definition of etymology, I guess. Do you believe the falling tree makes a sound if no one's there to hear it?

oxymoron: a laundry-challenged individual who believes the t.v. commercials about additives that will remove every possible stain on clothing, and continues to buy and use those products despite the fact that they do absolutely nothing, but is afraid to stop in case maybe they are doing something.

Like that? ;0)

(This is truly my belief - not trying to be funny!) Depends on your definition of sound. If you define sound as the waves of particles created when something moves, then yes, the sound is there. But if you define sound as the interpretation of those waves by something designed to do so (a brain, by way of the ears), then no, there is no sound. I subscribe to the latter, but many scientists and others prefer the former. It's up to you! :0)

So same thing for etymology. If the etymology of a word is the tortured trail it has taken to get from an ancient clump of phonemes to the clump of phonemes we use today then no, the phrase untraceable etymology is not an oxymoron, but if it is the map of that trail as it is laid out from written evidence or linguistic SWAGs by trained professionals then yes, it is an oxymoron.

NB: oxymoron is itself an oxymoron.

hee hee y'all are so predictable. I knew that question would start an interesting, pedantic, esoteric discussion that would conclude the answer is "depends..."

As for the analogy raised of the tree falling in the forest, there is another possibility besides the two mentioned. I remember from the dim dark recesses of my brain and first or second year Philosophy that the illustration comes from the work of Irish Philosopher George Berkely who invented 'subjective idealism' - the idea that things only exist as perceived by sentient beings. But because God is The Being who is always perceiving everything, then yes, the tree falling in the forest with no human being there to observe it still exists, as best and most famously summarised in a limerick written about Berkely's views by Catholic Theologian Ronald Knox:

There once was a man who said “God
must think it extremely odd
that this tree
continues to be
when there’s no one about in the Quad

Dear Sir, your astonishment’s odd
I am always about in the quad
that’s why this tree
will continue to be
since observed by, yours truly God

yeahbut, what if God fell over in the forest, and no one was there to hear it?

Because... it comes from Gk for 'sharp' plus Gk for 'stupid'?

Ah, that's where the doctrine of the Trinity comes in, see!

I made no mention in my post of human beings:


If you are a (Jewish, Muslim, Christian) believer, then God is automatically included, since God created people in his/her image ("...male and female S/He created them...), therefore God has ears and a brain, after some fashion, and would, indeed, hear the tree, assuming s/he was paying attention... I actually shortened my original post before posting, and the part I removed was about the birds and the bees, who might also be there to hear it. All I know is, if a tree falls in the forest and I'm not there, I won't hear it!! LOL! ;0)

Help! I've fallen and I can't get up!!! he he he

Not to mention all the chipmunks and raccoons and foxes and pygmy owls and chickadees and hairy woodpeckers and squirrels and all the other hearing creatures.

Yup

hee hee y'all are so predictable. Pookie, c'mere a minute--I have something for you...

Yeah. How much more fun it would have been if we'd come after each other tooth and nail, accusing each other of being ignorant idiots for not understanding the obvious.

No that would be 'abuse' - the forum down the hall...

When my owl hears a tree fall, he always tells me so that I can cut it up for firewood.
He has asked me to submit his fake definition for thrapple, which I have done. I hope that's not cheating. If any points are garnered, I will pass them along to him, not that it matters.
Good luck to all.

submit his fake definition
Speaking of which--I've got some (all great), but would like more, please!

Okay. I submitted. And points DO count!!!

>And points DO count!!!

let's have an updated scoreboard then, dating back to.. oh..
May of '01.



-joe (I love a good scorecard) friday

Hmmm! Wow! Points count! Lots of treats today! Def.'s gone.

Forgive me Father.

HA! Nice one, twosleepy!!

Thanks, bel! :0)