|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876 |
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
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.
Last edited by tsuwm; 03/24/08 04:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
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) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
just remember that the points don't matter.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
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! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
untraceable etymology! ...is an oxymoron??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876 |
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876 |
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? (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)
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,322
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
501
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
