Those against: Edith PeterTaylor qqzm AlexChurchill would rather prohibit making second and subsequent entries until 24 hours after the category was opened, because the risk is that if there are some ideas which are rather good and multiple people have them, then it's unfair to the one who sees the new category later. If this is unnecessary complication then I'd prefer one entry only to unrestricted multiples. StuartFraser generally doesn't play the game, but is in this category ChrisHowlett suggests modifying Alex's suggestion: If you have multiple entries, submit the one you feel is best. Then when the judging has been done, feel free to post the remainder for the enjoyment of all?
Seems the best compromise, since some people seem to feel strongly that muliples be prevented. --Vitenka
MoonShadow thinks you should only get one chance - i.e., no multiple entries for the judge to select between - but that your single submission should be allowed to contain multiple ideas (i.e. Rachael's and DouglasReay's entries should be judged as single long entries). The effect of this will be to discourage blatant multiple-attempt entries, since succinctness is one of the qualities people seem to be judging on, while allowing one to list several ideas if one really wants to - there's still a chance for the entry to win overall if all the components are of the same standard - or, better still, connected in some way!
DouglasReay agrees with MoonShadow in that he things there should be single entries, and that a single entry may be anything: A link to another web page, a picture, a snappy sentance, multiple themed ideas, multiple ideas, etc. He further suggests that it is probably up to each judge which of these, if any, the judge penalises. He further asserts that he, personally when judging, would penalise multiple ideas if they are not themed or in some way linked. For instance in the raven and writing desk one, he would have considered the themes "inky quills" and "flaps" to be two distinct but themed ideas, while "inky quills" and "nevar [sic] put with the wrong end in front" would be less similar.
DouglasReay also notes that, since the aim of the game is fun for all concerned, and since it seems that entries including multiple ideas (even themed ones) reduce the enjoyment of the game for some people, he is less likely to make such entries in future. (Of course one could encrypt one's runners up, then reveal them after the judging.)
Those who think it's not worth worrying about: M-A Not AlexChurchill: because it is something that some people feel vaguely strongly about - if some feel that it's against the spirit of the game but also gives an advantage to those who do it, it's worth clarifying and explicitly deciding one way or the other.
I thought that the point of the game was to have fun with words, but I may be wrong... I know, how about banning multiple entries at the point someone actually complains that they also thought of someone else's non-first entry? And, until then, let the pun-making continue as freely as possible! --M-A
(PeterTaylor) It's not actually about puns - it's just that they seem to be fairly successful. And the wait-for-complaint scheme doesn't work in the case that someone goes to the page to see the new entry and immediately below that entry is a string of submissions from X using all five of the obvious ideas.
If an idea's obvious, it obviously won't win, will it? --PlasmonPerson
That's not necessarily the case. There is skill and fun in coming up with the idea, but also in choosing the particular reference or pun to make, and in tuning the words around it to highlight and support it the best. This kind of concern was the original reason why submissions were meant to be secret - so that if multiple people had similar ideas, the skill or comedy with which they phrased them could be used as a criterion by the judge. --AlexChurchill
"I thought that the point of the game was to have fun with words, but I may be wrong..." Evidently I am. Apparently, the point of the exercise is not to have fun, but to jump through logical hoops until someone can say "I win this round!". Sometimes, you know, people play games just because they're fun. --M-A
Sure - but it may be less fun for others if they feel that all they are doing is refining someone elses idea, rather than entering a truly new one. C'mon, the 'post your entries secretly' got repealed, so give them some fun putting rules in :) --Vitenka
(PeterTaylor) How on Earth did you read that into what I wrote?
Erm, well, it was based on more than just your comment. However, if you want any more of an answer than that, I'm going end up retracking over past rants and I usually end up offending people. --M-A
Basically, rules don't have to inhibit fun, and can contribute to the fun. I'm sure you're not arguing that rules are to be avoided: because it's more fun to enjoy oneself within restrictions than with totally free rein. If that weren't the case, why would anyone bother playing board games - or sports - when they all have nasty prohibitive rules? No, rules contribute to the enjoyment of games and to the fun one can have. This is a newly designed game, so let us work out the rules to it that will contribute the best to our shared enjoyment. In this case, it's frustrating if three other people seem to have unfairly grabbed eight of the best ideas (by which I mean the general area of where the reference or joke is, as Vitenka referred to earlier); so I think a small extra rule would make a positive contribution to the FUN we can all have by playing. --AlexChurchill
Those in favour of burning the witches! I mean, burning those who make multiple entries! Vitenka Burrrrrrrrrrrrrrn the witch!
Okay. Pulling together the various comments here (especially MoonShadow's and DouglasReay's), AlexChurchill proposes that the current "placeholder" header text at the top of the DuctTapeAndTheForce page be replaced by this text: (all comments and sensible changes welcome)
DuctTapeAndTheForce is a word game played on this page. Each round is started by a Judge choosing two nouns, one more mundane than the other. Call the mundane one Y, the other one X.
The judge asks "Why is X like Y?", and sets a deadline for entries. Anyone who wishes to enter edits this page to add their entry (or sends their entry privately to the judge if they prefer). When the deadline expires, the judge chooses which is the best reason in his opinion. That person gets a point. Answers should be short - ideally just one phrase of the form "Because it's..." or similar.
Each player may make only one entry to each round. However, that entry may consist of anything: one or more sentences or clauses, a photo, a link to a website, or whatever.
An entry with multiple parts which don't seem connected may be less likely to win in many cases, since the judges often have preferences for succinctness or against what could feel like multiple attempts. However, this is at the judge's discretion. The judge may add comments or special criteria, or choose to relax any of the normal rules, in the description of their round.
Once the round is finished and judged, further discussion of any form is allowed and encouraged, including (but not limited to ;) ) any of the contestants or the judge posting further ideas.
(PeterTaylor) Discretion of judge seems the most democratic way of doing it. I was thinking that for my next judgement I might explicitly permit multiple entries and require e-mail submission.
Added a clause to the second bullet to cover the judge allowing whatever they like - not strictly necessary since that's obviously implicit, but... --AlexChurchill
![[Home]](/img/text_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
DuctTapeAndTheForce/MultipleEntries