|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 594 responses total. |
signet
|
|
response 25 of 594:
| 
Oct 1 13:20 UTC 1996 |
rolled
|
kentn
|
|
response 26 of 594:
|
Oct 1 16:50 UTC 1996 |
rolled 1 (signet)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 27 of 594:
|
Oct 2 05:36 UTC 1996 |
flight
|
signet
|
|
response 28 of 594:
|
Oct 2 19:42 UTC 1996 |
raisin
|
kentn
|
|
response 29 of 594:
|
Oct 3 03:55 UTC 1996 |
flight 0 (rcurl)
raisin 1 (signet)
Ah, those flying raisins...keep a raisin swatter handy...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 594:
|
Oct 3 06:08 UTC 1996 |
rufous
|
kentn
|
|
response 31 of 594:
|
Oct 4 02:32 UTC 1996 |
rufous 0 (rcurl)
Seeing red?
|
signet
|
|
response 32 of 594:
|
Oct 4 18:40 UTC 1996 |
barked
|
kentn
|
|
response 33 of 594:
|
Oct 4 22:33 UTC 1996 |
barked 1 (signet)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 34 of 594:
|
Oct 8 15:54 UTC 1996 |
Hmmm...there seem to be only three of us playing. Its still fun, but its
funner with more joining in - and it goes faster. This is a great game for
car travel with three or more, though, so let's just imagine we are travelling
somewhere together - and trying to keep the driver awake.
lamina
|
kentn
|
|
response 35 of 594:
|
Oct 9 03:28 UTC 1996 |
Kinda hard to drive when you're reading a dictionary :) Figured
that one had something to do with laminations or layers (but not hens),
and so it does. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how much
information you can surmise):
lamina 0 (rcurl)
Still haven't heard back on the link request to the iq cf, where we
might find a few more players. Maybe I'll try again.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 36 of 594:
|
Oct 9 04:22 UTC 1996 |
When playing it when driving not only does no one have a dictionary, they may
not write down the guesses and counts!
|
kentn
|
|
response 37 of 594:
|
Oct 10 02:59 UTC 1996 |
But then, we wouldn't be playing *six* letter word game, either...or
would we?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 38 of 594:
|
Oct 10 06:52 UTC 1996 |
That's right - five letters is (more than) sufficient, when its all mental.
|
signet
|
|
response 39 of 594:
|
Oct 10 19:35 UTC 1996 |
okay I'm here as #3 (of course)
perhaps we should allow more than one quess for awhile with just 2 of us
guessing--how about you can enter another response as long as the game runner
has responded to your first one?
BTW: where are you two for item 67? It's a ghost town there!
jetsam
|
kentn
|
|
response 40 of 594:
|
Oct 11 02:46 UTC 1996 |
I just responded on 67 before I got here. Sometimes an item needs
reviving, which is why it was good you did a recap (brings the item up
with new responses for those that follow it).
jetsam 0 (signet)
I'm not entirely against multiple guesses if it's going to be this slow,
as long as it is understood that we go back to the regular rules when
there is a "quorum" of players, and that we limit multiple guesses to
a reasonable multiple. What remains is to define a "quorum" and a
"reasonable multiple." :)
From what I've seen, we do pretty well when we have 5 or more people
guessing at least once during a game. And, from a practical viewpoint,
I don't think I'd like to score more than 2 or 3 guesses from each
player on a "turn" (which is to say, every player guessing their limit
of guesses once--totalled across one or more responses--prior to scoring).
These numbers are off-the-cuff.
There is the danger that allowing multiple guesses will make the game
much easier to play (many is the time my choices came down to two
or three, and I'd have loved to have guessed all of them at once).
Takes some of the element of chance (e.g., who logs on first) out the
game, too. As the game stands now, it entails (for me) a good mix of
skill, knowledge, intuition, and chance. Note that we already have a
5-letter COMMON word game languishing, so that making this game easier
is not apt to be a big drawing card (and might actually be a turn-off).
Finally, such a change would set a precedent to any new players joining
while we are below the "quorum" (and those lurking now, or reading later)
which might be difficult to overcome in the future.
Still, if it makes the game more enjoyable for the few playing, I won't
have a big problem with temporary multiple guesses, assuming reasonable
bounds can be placed upon them. For all I know, the modified game might
be just as (more?) popular, deserving of a new item. What do you think?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 594:
|
Oct 11 07:12 UTC 1996 |
I don't need the game to proceed any faster - everything else is always
happening too fast. I was just saying that having more players would be
nice, as then there is a larger variety of styles of play - and you know
that someone else will "go" if you want to leave it for a while.
hidden
|
signet
|
|
response 42 of 594:
|
Oct 11 13:24 UTC 1996 |
candid
|
kentn
|
|
response 43 of 594:
|
Oct 12 02:03 UTC 1996 |
Okay, let's just proceed as usual, while we try to drum up a
few more players.
hidden 0 (rcurl)
candid 1 (signet)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 44 of 594:
|
Oct 12 16:25 UTC 1996 |
aortic
|
kentn
|
|
response 45 of 594:
|
Oct 13 00:22 UTC 1996 |
aortic 3 (rcurl)
BTW, I see another R. Curl is getting the Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Any relation?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 594:
|
Oct 13 05:37 UTC 1996 |
I don't know him. The name is from northern England and my Curl ancestor
emigrated before 1775. But there may be other wings of the family - there
certainly are many branches.
|
signet
|
|
response 47 of 594:
|
Oct 15 13:08 UTC 1996 |
horrid
|
kentn
|
|
response 48 of 594:
|
Oct 15 20:38 UTC 1996 |
horrid 2 (signet)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 49 of 594:
|
Oct 24 06:53 UTC 1996 |
garlic
|