FG Hangman 27

[DrSpike]

_ _ _ _ Y

9 guesses remaining

I'm taking the point for junky btw. It's not my job (at present) to ensure the word guesses are not slang, just the words themselves. If you want to change the rules for the future then feel free to propose a new rule for a vote. I'd be in favour of updating the slang rule for setters and the invalid guess rule simultaneously along the lines suggested by Snoopy, if the invalid rule was accepted (I think the slang one already is), but that should be voted on.

[Ljube]

Indeed.

M

[Sparrowhawk]

If we are going to discuss rule changes, I propose that we not be allowed to reuse words and if a word is reused that the word setter lose a point for using the same word twice.

Surely there are enough words in the English language that we don't need to reuse the same word twice (or more ).

On the other point I agree with DrSpike, I don't think it is the word setter's job to make sure that a guess is legal, the word guesser should have to do that before posting a guess (though even reading a definition in dictionary.com has me wondering if a word is legal or not, informal and slang, some words have definitions which are both, some have more definitions which are neither informal or slang, it gives me a headache just trying to decide if a word is legal or not).

/me

[joncha]

Since there seems to be broad agreement on them, I'll add in snoopy's rule changes. Someone else may want to edit them down a bit, though.

[joncha]

Oh, and I guess O.

[snoopy369]

I wouldn't call it the setter's requirement to check the guesser's word. However, if a guesser's word is objected to by anyone, then it's disqualified. I think that's simple enough ... in the case of something like this, if someone objects BEFORE spike updates, then it's disregarded; if nobody does object before the update, then too bad (since it was the last guess).

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
If we are going to discuss rule changes, I propose that we not be allowed to reuse words and if a word is reused that the word setter lose a point for using the same word twice.

Surely there are enough words in the English language that we don't need to reuse the same word twice (or more ).

I'm not sure that's important or even beneficial. It doesn't benefit the setter significantly to reuse a word, and in a sense hurts the setter, because the word has been seen before. Therefore we presumably don't reuse words too frequently.

This limitation hurts the setter too much, however, because it means you can eliminate any previously used word from being a possible word. If I see _UMPY, for example, in this theoretical example, I could eliminate the previously-used JUMPY and BUMPY, and guess LUMPY knowing it's the only possibility ... that's not the point of hangman at all.

[joncha]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I wouldn't call it the setter's requirement to check the guesser's word. However, if a guesser's word is objected to by anyone, then it's disqualified. I think that's simple enough ... in the case of something like this, if someone objects BEFORE spike updates, then it's disregarded; if nobody does object before the update, then too bad (since it was the last guess).

I think that to a certain extent it is the setter's responsibility.

If Drogue had guessed Xunxy instead, should Spike have run the update anyway?

[snoopy369]

Sure, the setter should know to ignore obviously wrong words. But a word that's borderline i don't think the setter should be responsible for looking up (like Hunky, which i was somewhat surprised to find out was slang-only).

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Sure, the setter should know to ignore obviously wrong words. But a word that's borderline i don't think the setter should be responsible for looking up (like Hunky, which i was somewhat surprised to find out was slang-only).

It seems both snoopy369 and Joncha suggest taking responsibility away from the guesser, I think if Drogue had guessed Xunxy it should be counted by DrSpike as a legit guess, I don't see how you can decide what is and what isn't an "obviously wrong" guess (though in this examply, Xunxy would likely be agreed by all as an "obvious" example, I think 99% of the time we would not all agree on whether a guess is legit or not). There have been numerous examples of when someone guesses a letter that doesn't fit any possible word, I don't think the setter should be penalized for an incorrect guess by the guesser.

In the same example, if Drogue had guessed the letter X rather then than a word, should DrSpike also ignore that? It seems obvious to me that no X would fit, but I don't think you can ignore the guess, it doesn't violate any rule and I don't think you can write a rule that is not subjective and allow for interpretation about what is and isn't an obviously wrong guess.

/me

[snoopy369]

Letters are always accepted, unless they were already guessed.

Words should be accepted, unless they contain letters that were already guessed, or are innately illegal words.

I do NOT advocate taking responsibility away from the guesser entirely; the guesser loses the rights to guess for the word.

I advocate not giving advantage to the setter and/or penalizing the rest of the community for abjectly stupid guesses; as I said, I hold it's the responsibility of the community to notice the illegal guess.

[Sparrowhawk]

I think we are basically in agreement.

2 points however........

innately illegal words

Again, it seems that there is no responsibility for the guesser to make sure his guess is legal before posting it, I prefer that the guesser be the one that has to check his guess (against dictionary.com presumably).

unless they contain letters that were already guessed

Again, this seems to be a simple thing for the guesser to avoid, and I would think that the guesser should not be making these guesses, I get your point about not penalizing the "community" (or rewarding the setter) but I think the responsibility still rests with the guesser.

Either way, not a big issue if no one makes silly guesses it will be a moot point.

/me

[joncha]

Never underestimate the asshat guess.

[snoopy369]

Sparrow, if the guesser checked every word carefully, then we wouldn't NEED these sorts of rules. It is the lack of checking of words that causes them.

[DrSpike]

Well personally I've always viewed it as a guess is a guess, and if the setter wants to (voluntarily) disregard a very very bad guess that's up to them to decide based on the circumstances. After all, there's already enough (bad) snap guessing that goes on.

But I'm not really bothered, and if people vote for the setter being responsible for everything and it's a clear rule then it's fine.

I'm just wondering how long it will be before someone argues that the setter shouldn't accept guesses when there is no word left with the guess in. That's happened a few times.

I also think it's bad that some argued that by accepting the 'hunky' guess I had made a mistake and the word should go to someone else and no point awarded to me, despite there being no rule supporting that view. Changes are always fine to discuss, but you can't make up a new rule and then apply it to the last word! Please bear that in mind in future.