Wordsmith.org
Posted By: TEd Remington For the lave of porkers - 11/06/04 10:06 PM
Yes, dear friends, it's Hogwash time again. PM your definitions for "somnae" NLT 12 PM GMT on 15th November.

Posted By: Rubrick Re: For the lave of porkers - 11/06/04 10:31 PM
Edit: Forgot that I wasn't meant to post anything......



Posted By: wofahulicodoc Re: For the lave of porkers - 11/10/04 10:44 PM
I'm in. See PM.

Posted By: AnnaStrophic Re: For the lave of porkers - 11/10/04 11:05 PM
moi, auch.

(Should the rules be repeated for newcomers?)

Posted By: sjmaxq Re: For the lave of porkers - 11/10/04 11:18 PM
Io, bhi.

Posted By: TEd Remington Re: For the lave of porkers - 11/12/04 12:08 AM
Rules? We don't need no steenking . . ..

Actually, for the new people I guess I should have explained it.

The hogmaster puts out a word, hopefully a very obscure word, and the contestants send a private message to the hogmaster with a supposed definition. It is considered very bad form to hunt for the word and send in the correct definition.

Then when allthe entries are in the hogmaster publishes them, along with the real definition, and people vote for the correct definition. The hogmaster does not reveal the names of the entrants, of course.

At one time we gave points to people who got votes for their definitions, except for those who vote for their own. Extra points to the person who got the most votes, I think, and then a point for voting for the correct definition.

The last time I ran hogwash, the word I put out was sedgwick, and it was found only in one very obscure place. No one got the correct definition, as I recall.

Another time, I submitted an entry which was actually way too close to the true definition for the taste of the hogmaster; can't remember how that was resolved, and I was more amazed than the hogmaster that I had gotten that close.

Anyway, the word is "somnae", and there are only a few days left to get those definitions in to me. Remember, PM the daft definition. I've already got some really good ones, and I am looking forward to the voting phase.

TEd

PS

We used to actually keep a running score, but that was a LONG time ago and I assume we stopped doing it because it became too much hassle. And of course the only real rule is that the hogmaster rules.

T.



Posted By: tsuwm Re: For the lave of porkers - 11/12/04 04:52 AM
>We used to actually keep a running score, but that was a LONG time ago and I assume we stopped doing it because it became too much hassle.

actually®, truth be told, most of the alternating hogmasters didn't bother with the update and keeping the running score became too much hassle for me! :|

© Wordsmith.org