|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 388 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 311 of 388:
|
May 30 21:52 UTC 2002 |
No guesses here for a week.
|
brighn
|
|
response 312 of 388:
|
May 31 16:53 UTC 2002 |
cacophony
|
aruba
|
|
response 313 of 388:
|
May 31 18:20 UTC 2002 |
cacophony 0,3
|
blaise
|
|
response 314 of 388:
|
May 31 23:14 UTC 2002 |
employee
|
blaise
|
|
response 315 of 388:
|
May 31 23:16 UTC 2002 |
Grr. Make that "employees".
|
aruba
|
|
response 316 of 388:
|
Jun 2 13:10 UTC 2002 |
employees 1,3
|
brighn
|
|
response 317 of 388:
|
Jun 2 15:56 UTC 2002 |
referrals
|
aruba
|
|
response 318 of 388:
|
Jun 3 18:32 UTC 2002 |
referrals 1,0
|
gelinas
|
|
response 319 of 388:
|
Jun 4 03:07 UTC 2002 |
calumnies
|
brighn
|
|
response 320 of 388:
|
Jun 4 17:17 UTC 2002 |
clustered
|
aruba
|
|
response 321 of 388:
|
Jun 5 16:25 UTC 2002 |
calumnies 1,2
clustered 0,1
What's a calumny?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 322 of 388:
|
Jun 6 04:59 UTC 2002 |
A false accusation of wrongdoing, usually malicious.
illuminer
|
brighn
|
|
response 323 of 388:
|
Jun 6 15:39 UTC 2002 |
Liar! You made that up, Joe, just to get out of a real definition!
amorality
|
aruba
|
|
response 324 of 388:
|
Jun 6 18:03 UTC 2002 |
illuminer 0,2
amorality 0,3
|
gelinas
|
|
response 325 of 388:
|
Jun 7 04:54 UTC 2002 |
:)
|
aruba
|
|
response 326 of 388:
|
Jun 17 16:00 UTC 2002 |
No action here for a while.
|
brighn
|
|
response 327 of 388:
|
Jun 17 16:58 UTC 2002 |
barbarian
|
aruba
|
|
response 328 of 388:
|
Jun 18 13:44 UTC 2002 |
barbarian 0,1
|
brighn
|
|
response 329 of 388:
|
Jun 19 17:53 UTC 2002 |
Since it's been 48 hours without a guess, I can guess again (see #0).
moneybags
|
aruba
|
|
response 330 of 388:
|
Jun 19 19:36 UTC 2002 |
moneybags 2,2
|
brighn
|
|
response 331 of 388:
|
Jun 19 20:03 UTC 2002 |
Hm. Either you've made a mistake in the scoring or I've made a mistake in the
analysis. (Probably the latter. ;} Ah well, I've got a few days to figure it
out.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 332 of 388:
|
Jun 19 20:40 UTC 2002 |
No, I checked again, and there seems to be a scoring error somewhere.
allusions 1,3
If we loo amorality, illuminer, cacophony, the only possible correctly
positioned letters in allusions are the s's. That means we can rule out all
the other letters in referrals and clustered: acdeflrtu
From faltering>______ing 0 1, we know there's at most one of i,n
From calumnies>____mni_s 1 2, we know there's an m
From barbarian 0 1, we know there's no b
From allusions>____sions 1 3, we know there are two s's and an o
From amorality>_mo___i_y 0 3, we know there's either an i or a y (not both)
(From calumnies, we know there's either an i or an n (not both), so we know
there's no g)
moneybags, there's no e, b, g, a; there's one m, o, s. That leaves n and y.
So we know there's either an n or a y (not both)
It's impossible to have exactly one of (i,n), one of (n,y) and one of (i,y)
at the same time.
|
aruba
|
|
response 333 of 388:
|
Jun 20 03:21 UTC 2002 |
Ah, I do see one that I scored wrong. It should have been
faltering 0,2
Sorry about that. The program I wrote for the other games doesn't work for
this one, so I have been scoring by hand. I will try to write a new program
soon, and check all the scoring.
|
brighn
|
|
response 334 of 388:
|
Jun 20 03:59 UTC 2002 |
'sok, I botched two or three scores once in this game...
|
brighn
|
|
response 335 of 388:
|
Jun 20 16:47 UTC 2002 |
someone else guess, dagnabbit...
If it helps people, this is what I think I've figured out as far as the letter
set:
None of: abcdeflnrtuy
One i
One or more gmop
Two or more s
Either an h or a second o
Unknown: jkqvwxz (haven't been used)
Last letter is s
That means the letter set is gimopss!? where ! is o or h and ? is in
ghkmpqsvwxz (h only if there are two h's):
gimopssog
gimopssok
gimopssom
gimopssop
gimopssoq
gimopssos
gimopssov
gimopssow
gimopssox
gimopssoz
gimopsshg
gimopsshh
gimopsshk
gimopsshm
gimopsshp
gimopsshq
gimopsshs
gimopsshv
gimopsshw
gimopsshx
gimopsshz
That's assuming my analysis is correct and Mark's scoring is correct. =}
So... somebody guess! =}
|