• 0
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Question

Posted · Report post

Ladies and gentlemen,

Although we may have the best of intentions, to play well together, misunderstandings and disagreements are always possible. In a game this is even more likely if there is ambiguity in the rules and so I'd suggest that we identify the rules that we want to govern this game (and then restart it).

The Sixy Rollo thread was only setup for a variant of and the identified issues aren't unique to this variant but as this is a much younger thread maybe its easier to change the rules or effectively restart the thread entirely.

I propose that we tighten up the rules definitions that apply to it, so that everyone can feel that they know where they stand when playing.

When this Sixy Rollo thread was started there was some concern that the host might be unduly advantaged by the increase to six letter words, but after several rounds I think that the existing points regime still seems to be reasonably balanced. I'd propose that we open up the word length so that the new host can freely choose the word length.

Proposed New (Free) Rollo Rules

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Someone thinks of a # letter word and posts a prompt for people to start guessing "?????? (# letters)".

The word to be guessed should be recognizably 'English' and proper nouns should be avoided but some names are arguably generic enough to qualify. To be practical, a suggested word length is between 4 and 14 letters.

People begin by guessing # letter words with the following limitations:

* You may only guess 1 word in a post, with an optional proof for one or more letters using either existing scored words or predicted scores for as yet unscored words including the new word;

* Any number of qualified or unqualified proofs may be provided in a post BUT only one new word;

* Guesses must also be words although proper nouns are allowed; AND

* You must allow a gap of 2 minutes between successive posts to allow an opportunity for other guessers. The host will not consider more frequent posts.

When a word is guessed, the host puts a number next to the word signifying how many letters were in the correct position. You cannot 'win' by just guessing some of the right letters though, to earn points you must either:

* "logick" one of the letters via an explanation of why that letter has to be logically 100% in that position; OR

* correctly identify the entire word.

It is the responsibility of the host to ensure that guesses are valid (see rules above) and that "logick" explanations (proofs) really are complete. Note that we are all human so the host may need some help.

When the host accepts a "logick" explanation, a question-mark is replaced with that letter ( ???Z?? ) and the person that posted the "logick" for the letter gets 5 points per proven letter. When the final letter is "logicked", or a player posts the entire word as a guess then that player gets 10 points for the final letter instead of the usual 5. The host is awarded 1 point per guessed word and 5 points per incorrectly "logicked" letter/position.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 answers to this question

  • 0

Posted · Report post

Looks good to me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I will agree to these rules but wish to add another stipulation. IF there is a dispute, The host has the final say but then afterword all may make their arguments and a new rule will be formed. If it contradicts or is in any way different than what the host decided, it will not afftect that game only those that come after.

just trying to avoid any future animosity here :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I like the new rules. I've always disliked being able to guess multiple words in 1 post. It's just not fair to other contestants and this is supposed to be a fun diversion for our minds, not a serious all out competition to see who can rack up the most points.

As far as fair scoring is concerned, I have 2 ideas there. Let's see what others think.

1. Cap the amount of points the host can earn. Maybe 20 points per words or 30? If I'm hosting, I could pick an obscure 12 letter word and really rack up the points. Then again we thought the 6 letter rollo words would earn the host more points than 5 letters and it turned out that the host got fewer. If that holds true for longer words then no need for a cap.

2. Ditch the scoring altogether. Works fine for masterword and copying the scoring for Rollo does get tedious with all the folks on the list that played for 1 or 2 games a year ago and never came back. If we keep the scoring then I say that if you're not active in the game for more than 3 months, your score is erased from the standings.

Now, for a new rule proposal. Perhaps this could be a variant Rollo thread. A while back someone (I think it was Curr3nt, but I could be wrong) hosted a game with a different scoring. You got 1 point for a letter in the correct position and .5 points for a letter that was 1 off the correct position. It made the logic harder and confuzzled most of the computer programs :lol: however for the word he choose we scored a lot of 0's which eliminated words faster and it was guessed in 5 or 6 tries. Might be an interesting derivation.

Or if we do ditch the scoring we could go with a system where the host chooses how words are scored. Traditional 1 point per correct position or new .5 for 1 off scoring, or something else unique that the host thinks up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Nice input Maquis - I really like the idea of adding more flexibility in both the word length and the letter scoring that the host applies and I also like the idea of getting rid of participant scoring altogether.

My proposal above was just a minimal change approach whereas these variations would make it more different to the existing rollo thread.

Hopefully, if there is less focus on long term competition (without maintained scoring) there will tend to be more people participating occasionally and more interesting variations on letter scoring tried out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Looks good to me too (not that I really play rollo anymore lol, its momentum kind of drives itself now). But I do like the variation in letter length since I feel like most interesting 5-letter words will probably start getting recycled fairly soon.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

glad to see unreality has chimed in as it's his thread afterall. maybe a new topic for the MasterRollo variable letter length is in order. or not. also really like Maquis idea of dropping the scoring and WbB's point that it might possibly be intimidating/impeding new participants.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I won't be the grump, and will agree to go along as UR and PG have voiced their opinions...but can I just get to 2000 before we get rid of scoring?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited) · Report post

I Guess this thread wouldn't be going if I hadn't opened my big fat gob, so my two penn'orth, sorry two cents worth is -

I see no problem with some sort of scoring system. Whereas this is not fundamental to the game, it gives an edge of competitiveness (but - it is only a game)

Nobody allowed to make multiple guesses

Nobody allowed to make 2 or more consecutive posts (unless non-relevant to the game)

It's a democracy - majority makes the rules. I will abide with that, and so will everybody else, or I'll send the boys round.

Just as an aside.... I used to play this mmmm years ago, and when logicking, you had to provide a positive outcome (ie, input at least one letter to the word) when giving the logic. As there were only a few of us playing, and not restricted by distance, I'm not sure if this would work, but it's worth a thought.

If you're reading this curr3nt, don't leave us, we need your tithead sense of humour. (plus you're a pretty clever guy)

Edited by fabpig
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

One thing fab, I'd add. If there is a significant lull (hours, days, idk) one should be allowed to double poat. OW, the game could stagnate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Why don't we keep the existing (standard) Rollo thread going in exactly the same form as it is, and just start a new thread (dunno what to call it) with our agreed revised rules set (flexible word length, host determined scoring, or whatever we all agree on)?

We can get rookie to lock the 'sixy rollo' thread or kill it (whatever).

Can someone who knows how set up a vote please (oh effpee...ee :D ) which we can leave open for a week or until we have at least X votes cast ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited) · Report post

Yep, I agree with Maurice that the game would stagnate if no input. It's difficult to say what the time limit should be, given that (eg.) USA is just getting into its stride when it's close to my bedtime, and WbB is up like a lark, fresh as a daisy, full of the joys, etc, etc, (OK, I'm being facetious - I'm sure we can sort something out)

One thing that hasn't really been decided is a common dictionary. I, personally, am against using ONELOOK, as it's full of . as (I think) some of the words in it aren't acceptable. But, hey, it's a democracy.

PS. I don't know how to set up a vote.

Edited by fabpig
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I think we need to avoid too many limits on double posting, as per mo & fp's comments, to allow momentum when participants are around. It's not reasonable for me to go to bed and expect a game to still be in progress in the morning - after a reasonable delay I believe that follow-up posts by the same person should be quite acceptable (somewhere between 2 and 5 minutes 'feels' reasonable and it is easily monitored).

Re fp's dictionary comment:

Sadly there is no free Australian english dictionary online (Macquarie is a pay service) but we could use a combination of Merriam-Webster and Oxford if we need limitation?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited) · Report post

I just realized that I was confusing double posts with double entries. I rarely double post, unless two (independent) proofs are sitting in front of me, for example the situation that curr3nt pointed to. I used to not try to submit back to back entries, but now I feel that so long as the host has scored, there is no reason for me to wait. I still don't like to submit again even if others have unless its early on, but that's more personal preference (not liking to give the host too many points)

If the host is available and I'm available why should we (or anyone) need to wait for a third player?

edit - there is obviously a big deffierence between "Here are 4 words to get the ball rolling. They're shots in the dark anyway. Score them so we can move along" and "holy carp I have 4 words on my list. Here I'll submit all 4 of them."

Edited by maurice
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited) · Report post

After trying to post a poll, I've had to abort what I started because there appears to be some limitations on polls. You can only have 3 Questions with up to 20 options per question. I will try to design a poll that captures the options discussed that fits within these limits. BRB - well in a while... :blink:

Oh btw, happy easter all...

happy easter.jpg

Edited by WombatBreath
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited) · Report post

OK - Its probably got to the point where some decisions are worth pursuing.

Apologies in advance if phrasing appears to be biased towards an outcome but I have made a genuine attempt to be neutral. I have included all options that I could identify from postings.

Please refer to the poll at the top of the page - Note that multiple selections may need to be made for the 2nd and 3rd questions.

I don't know how we can view or collate responses but I'm sure that something sensible can be sorted out. Please respond - ta :thumbsup:

Edited by WombatBreath
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I guess it should be noted that if we do eliminate scoring on ROLLO then we'd be eliminating proofs as well by default. (After all what's the point of writing a proof when you already know the letter)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I guess it should be noted that if we do eliminate scoring on ROLLO then we'd be eliminating proofs as well by default.

That's pretty much the only reason why I voted to keep participant scoring - it's what makes the game different to MasterWord.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited) · Report post

What about for scoring using a system where everyone starts out with 500 or so points and the participants steal letters from the host?

This would give a handicap to new players, as they'll only gain points until they get good enough to get a word. However, there would have to be some benefit to whoever gets a word (such as a modest bonus that is not stolen from the host), or the host would have to be chosen a different way, as no one would want to finish a word otherwise.

It might work the other way around, with the host stealing points from the participants, but that would hurt newcomers.

Of course, doing this would require a bit of tuning to get the scoring balanced.

Edited by benjer3
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I think the only way of adding these rules is to use it in SIXY (and SEVENY) ROLLO.make that 9 responses, WB (whoa same nickname as WritersBlock) :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Hi All - In an attempt to facilitate I'll summarise the majority opinion, how I see it, so far. If any of this appears inaccurate or biased just post away (no offense intended or taken).

I think that we have some clear outcomes from the 9 voters so far (with a viable approach for a split vote)...

NEW THREAD has majority vote of the options

WORDS - To be valid both answers & guesses must be in nominated dictionaries (answers may not be proper noun)

SCORING - Standard (5/logicked letter, bonus 5/final letter, 1/guess for host)

SCORE CAPS - Cap of 30 for both host and guessers

CLUE POINTS - split vote so suggest we document the standard and curr3nt systems in any Opening Post and allow host to nominate

MULTIPLE GUESSES - allowed in a single post ONLY if no clue points exist for any guesses

MULTIPLE SUCCESSIVE GUESS POSTS - Restricted = the posts must be at least 2 minutes apart

PROOFS - any number of letter proofs are allowed in a single post

I'd suggest that if we don't get any significant variations to this in the next week or so that we implement these as rules in a new thread.

Cheers WbB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I have a question about the nominated dictionaries. Merriam Webster is fine but the Oxford dictionary requires a subscription in order to search it. I won't be buying anything to participate here and I don't own an unabridged Oxford.

I certainly won't be picking any obscure words if I'm hosting but I also don't want to have to subscribe to verify obscure guesses from players.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Merriam Webster is fine but the Oxford dictionary requires a subscription in order to search it.

You actually only need a sub to search the thesaurus and antonyms - the normal dictionary does not require subscription to search.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

BTW - talking of dictionaries...

plainglazed nominated http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ which seems like a perfectly fine alternative to Merriam-Webster and Oxford as far as I can see.

AFAIK all three are available completely free (without subscription) for dictionary searching so they should suit our validation needs for the game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I just noticed that picante shows up as misspelled in my Firefox browser. I had been wondering about word choice anyway so it is a good time to bring it up. Is picante a common enough word? I understand having some bizarre words show up in the guesses, but I also imagine that the general rule of thumb is to have some relatively common word for the word-to-be-guessed? I wondered about kebab earlier, too. And I couldn't have guessed coccoid without having almost all the letters figured out.

For instance I thought to use PIQUANT (close relative to picante) but decided that it probably isn't a common enough word. Is that a good call, or would piquant be a perfectly wonderful word to use?

Of course with something like Rollo Ninja, the question is perhaps moot. All words are known and even searchable. Even a website like www.onelook.com somewhat changes things.

Anyway, that's my musings at the moment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.