FG: Hangman 21

[duke o' york]

O

[DrSpike]

Think the game has moved on.

[snoopy369]

If you're going to have a rule change for the 24 hour rule:

"Updates must occur within 24 hours of the moment that an update is required. If a setter knows in advance that he/she will not be able to fulfill this requirement, he/she may assign a fill-in to update on their behalf, for the duration of the current word only. The point would revert to the original setter for that word, as he/she defined the initial word. The fill-in may not guess for the duration of that word, but if that word is not guessed after 10 incorrect guesses, the fill-in may set the new word (and thus accrue points on their own).

If the setter does not specify the absence in this way, the first blank word posted shall be the new official word, and the setter relinquishes all rights regarding his/her word."

[Ljube]

Excellent. Add that in case of no fill in a new word will be posted after 24 hours by the first man to come forward.

[snoopy369]

Change noted.

[joncha]

Sounds good to me.

[DrSpike]

I have a suggestion for an addition to the rule. It came to mind because Joncha mentioned that the practice for the 24 hour rule was to count 24 hours after the update was possible, that is after the 2 guesses have been made. This is also my recollection.

I looked back over the last word of mine where a new word was set by Ljube with Joncha's encouragement, to see if their behaviour had fitted this application.

To my surprise (as it didn't cross my mind that anyone could stoop this low) I found that not only did they not wait 24 hours after the 2nd guess following my final update, they did not wait 24 hours after my update either. I posted at 07:48 (my time, GMT) on the 18th, and Joncha suggested a new word be posted at 02:12 on the 19th, and Ljube obliged at 2.30.

This is less than 19 hours since the update.

My suggestion is therefore penalties for people that to further their own self interest jump the gun on the 24 hour rule. We need this added to the rule as otherwise Joncha (or whoever) can just steal words after 19 hours and then claim it was a 'mistake' if anyone notices, as I'm sure he is about to do in this case.

Frankly Joncha and Ljube, I'm pretty appalled. It's one thing to abuse the letter of the law in your own self-interest - it's quite another to cheat both the spirit and letter of the existing law to further your totals in a simple, fun, forum game.

This bull**** is really cutting in to my desire to play this game. I'm thinking of stepping down, which ironically would give Joncha the lead he seemingly wants so much.

[joncha]

Whatever, Spike. The new word was only set after you said you wouldn't be posting an update for several days, so you can cut the bs.

How about you go pout in your corner, and we'll just add a +1 to your point count with every word?

[DrSpike]

So that justifies setting the new word before the 24 hours were up?

I really really have lost all respect for you. It's just despicable.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by joncha


How about you go pout in your corner, and we'll just add a +1 to your point count with every word?

And on this point I sincerely only want points I deserve. I have *never* invoked the 24 hour rule to take the word from someone. Can you say the same?

I also don't cheat and change the word when it's going badly for me. Can you say the same?

No on both counts as far as I can see.

[Heresson]

Can we just play

[Ljube]

Indeed, I only set the new word because you said you wouldn't be updating for 2 and a half days. At that time I thought that waiting for the 24 hours to expire was pointless and wanted to get the game going. Also I thought that it was in the spirit of the rule, even though it was clearly not in accordance with the letter of the rule.


I'm not duplicitous. Same rules apply to me. The words I set usually last about a day because I post updates very frequently. Once I lost a word because I was away and you didn't hear me complaining about it. Once I PMed the word to you and took it back when I returned.


Please don't step down. You are the best player and your words are the most devious. I would hate to see you gone. Know that there is no unholy alliance against you. At least not one I'm part of.

[joncha]

I see DrPrimaDonna is full of himself, as usual.

I think... I have a solution.

Let's declare Spike the clear winner of Hangman 1.0 and start fresh with a new game and a full, agreed-upon ruleset. The first player to 87 points (or 50, or whatever) wins, and we start another game.

[DrSpike]

I have thought about splitting the game up before. My conclusion was that even if we do we should always keep a total total, if that makes sense. This is especially true if a low target was set for intermediate totals.

However I see this as an entirely distinct from the ruleset issue. There's nothing wrong with tidying up the rules under the current system - in fact that would be my preference.

However, whatever the rules, whatever the game format, it is incumbent on the players themselves to play honourably. This is something that can never be fixed by rules, or formats.

[Ljube]

No need to split anything. Let's just continue the game as is with a couple of rules polished.