Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 1:41 am

Richard W wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:22 pm Your post would be on-topic in the game's thread.

Yes, I agree. Could we get this discussion moved to that thread please? (I don’t regularly visit this thread so only just saw this discussion now…)

cedh wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:28 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 1:41 am

Richard W wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:22 pm Your post would be on-topic in the game's thread.

Yes, I agree. Could we get this discussion moved to that thread please? (I don’t regularly visit this thread so only just saw this discussion now…)

Done.

Vazega, mbilegana zerabilegara tevukwagha
kwanna dabatlegan kebaramagha;
ghaya dadadaga ma xuda teghala:
Batlambatleg kebarama Dadamazhigilla,
geramnagirega kedulaxana.

Karch wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 1:56 pm I personally find the "new" rules rather counterproductive - for me, the fun is in narrowing the language down, not in blindly guessing.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:16 pm Cushitic?

(As for rules, let’s maybe wait on any changes until we’ve all agreed to them.)

Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 4:02 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:16 pm Cushitic?

(As for rules, let’s maybe wait on any changes until we’ve all agreed to them.)

I'd really like a rule that said that you had to give a reason for such guesses.

Anyway, as Karch is indisposed or otherwise engaged (I know not which), phylogenetically close, but wrong.

fusijui wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 8:31 pm How about observing a hard limit on the total number of 'narrowing down' questions for each puzzle? I mean, this thread keeps turning into a game of Twenty Questions but with no actual limit to just twenty -- which basically turns this into a process that would be better automated. (There must already be apps for that.) So suppose we cap it at half a dozen tree-tracing questions -- for everyone, not per contestant?

Aside from discouraging and making more difficult that kind of strategy, it might make it slightly more interactive, in that we'd have to pay better attention to who's asked exactly what and how many chances are left for everyone to share.

At the same time, I'm really OK with each puzzle-presenter adopting their own standards on what kinds of questions they answer, how they answer them, and how long they want to let it all run before they call it and reveal the answer.

Does there have to be One Rational Tidy System Allowing Correct Determination of Winnerdom?

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:05 pm

At the same time, I'm really OK with each puzzle-presenter adopting their own standards on what kinds of questions they answer, how they answer them, and how long they want to let it all run before they call it and reveal the answer.

I’m not sure I’m totally in favour of this idea… ‘how long they want to let it all run’ should definitely be in the purview of the presenter, but it might be a good idea to come to a consensus on which questions we can ask.

Does there have to be One Rational Tidy System Allowing Correct Determination of Winnerdom?

My thought behind that suggestion is that it might avoid arguments of the form, ‘My guess of Greek was definitely closer than his guess of Maybrat, how dare you suggest he won!’

fusijui wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:36 pm Well, as long as people playing have the need to be Winners in that way, I think the rules -- whatever they are -- can't avoid being disputed and tested all the time.

Karch wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:13 pm It is indeed Chadic!

Pabappa wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:41 pm honrstly my instinct is to just tell you all to stop fussing about the rules since it's not a competitive game. Nobody's keeping score, so there's no way to lose. We're here to have fun.

My words would probably have more meaning if i were actually participating in the game myself .... i played a few rounds and actually got it right once ....

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 5:20 pm Anyway, West Chadic? In any case, it doesn’t look much like Biu-Mandara.