Conundrums with multiple solutions

All discussion relevant to Countdown that is not too spoilerific. New members: come here first to introduce yourself. We don't bite, or at least rarely.
Post Reply
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Graeme Cole »

What do you do if a conundrum, after being revealed to the players, is discovered to have more than one valid solution?

On Countdown, if the player's answer isn't the intended solution but it's valid, the answer is accepted, perhaps after a retake - see episode 7058, for example.

In particular, the other player shouldn't get to have the conundrum scrapped and redone, effectively getting a second chance to win the game, just because it has two solutions neither of which they spotted.

I thought this was pretty well known as the fairest solution all round, but on more than one occasion at co-events - including a recent one in a game which decided who played in the final - the conundrum has ended up being replayed, in the belief that the conundrum is "illegal". This simply isn't fair to the player who solved the conundrum.

I propose that FOCAL makes an official ruling on these, to apply to all FOCAL events from now on and for circulation to organisers to avoid any confusion in the future.

I suggest the following rules:
  • A player's conundrum answer is correct if it's a valid word, is an anagram of the scramble, isn't the same as the scramble, and isn't a regular plural*.
  • The first correct answer wins the round.
  • A conundrum may not be replayed just because it is found to have more than one solution.
  • If a player's answer was rejected as incorrect during the round, but after the round it is found to have been correct, the round is re-scored appropriately.

Here are some example scenarios involving our old friends Alice and Bob, which result from applying the above rules...

Example 1
The scramble is IGOCANDLE.
Alice buzzes and says ALGEDONIC. The host says it's wrong. Bob does not buzz. The time runs out. The host reveals the answer is GENOCIDAL.
Then someone points out that ALGEDONIC is valid.
Result: Alice's answer was correct. 10-0 to Alice.

Example 2
The scramble is IGOCANDLE.
Alice buzzes and says ALGEDONIC. The host says it's wrong. Bob buzzes and says GENOCIDAL. The host says it's correct.
Then someone points out that ALGEDONIC is valid.
Result: Alice gave the first correct answer. 10-0 to Alice.

Example 3
The scramble is IGOCANDLE.
Bob buzzes and says GENOCIDAL. The host says it's correct.
Someone points out that the conundrum has two solutions because ALGEDONIC is also valid.
Result: The conundrum stands. 10-0 to Bob.

Example 4
The scramble is IGOCANDLE.
Neither player buzzes, and the time runs out. The host reveals that the answer is GENOCIDAL.
Someone then realises that ALGEDONIC is also valid, and one of the players says the conundrum should be replayed.
Result: The conundrum stands. No points scored.

Example 5
The scramble is USEMARGIN.
Alice buzzes and says GERANIUMS. The host says it's wrong. Bob buzzes and says MEASURING. The host says it's correct.
Alice argues that GERANIUMS should be accepted.
Result: Alice's answer was not a correct conundrum answer because it's a regular plural. 10-0 to Bob.


I think the above rules best describe the game as it should be played at events. Comments, suggestions and pointing out flaws are welcome.


* This may open up a whole other question of what counts as a regular plural (e.g. MONEYBAGS, PENKNIVES...?). That isn't what this topic is about, but "plural ending with S" is a good starting point.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I'll come back to this but just to say - I'm amazed how often this happens. I know people who organise CO events are not paid professionals and do it for the love of the game etc. etc., but it's just plain common sense to run all conundrums through a solver. Very rarely there might be a dictionary change after this is done that affects this, but I really mean very rarely, to the point that if it ever happened you'd be surprised.
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Graeme Cole »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:32 pm I'll come back to this but just to say - I'm amazed how often this happens. I know people who organise CO events are not paid professionals and do it for the love of the game etc. etc., but it's just plain common sense to run all conundrums through a solver. Very rarely there might be a dictionary change after this is done that affects this, but I really mean very rarely, to the point that if it ever happened you'd be surprised.
I would agree with this but come at it from the other direction. Although I usually do check that a conundrum has only one solution when I set them (for ZoomDown, for example), that's only because conventionally the conundrum is expected to have only one solution. If we all suddenly decided overnight that multiple-solution conundrums are fine and there's nothing wrong with them, they wouldn't break the game. What's more important is that hosts and organisers know how to deal with them when they crop up.
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Graeme Cole »

Separately to this, there's also an edge case with what happens if the intended solution is incorrect. In my experience this is even rarer than getting a conundrum with multiple solutions, but I've seen it happen (e.g. CHOOSERULE for LECHEROUS at one of the Coblivs).

My proposed rule for this is:
  • If it is discovered that the intended solution is not correct, and neither player offered a correct answer, the round is void. Replay the round with a new conundrum. This applies regardless of whether a valid solution exists which was not offered by the players.
This is based on the assumption that all co-events have an easy way to check whether a word is valid, but not necessarily a way to find all anagrams of a scramble. So I don't like any rule which depends on whether there's a valid word from a scramble, because it relies on someone having access to Lexplorer or similar. Furthermore, suppose your event uses Lexico rather than Apterous as its word authority? You can ask Lexico if a word is valid but you can't get it to solve anagrams.

Example 6
The scramble is SAIDFETCH. The host has been told the answer is SHITFACED.
Alice buzzes and says CATFISHED. The host says that's incorrect. Bob does not buzz. The time runs out and the host reveals the answer is SHITFACED.
Then someone points out that SHITFACED isn't valid, but CATFISHED is.
Result: Alice offered the first correct answer. 10-0 to Alice.

Example 7
The scramble is SAIDFETCH. The host has been told the answer is SHITFACED.
Alice buzzes and says CATFISHED. The host says that's incorrect. Bob buzzes and says SHITFACED. The host says that's correct.
Then we discover SHITFACED isn't valid but CATFISHED is.
Result: Alice offered the first correct answer. 10-0 to Alice.

Example 8
The scramble is SAIDFETCH. The host has been told the answer is SHITFACED.
Alice buzzes and says SHITFACED. The host says that's correct.
Then we discover that SHITFACED is not valid.
Result: Scrap the round and replay with a new conundrum.
I'm not entirely happy with this one - what if Bob says "but I was about to buzz and say CATFISHED"? Tempting though it may be to give Bob an opportunity to answer, we can't just give him the rest of the time because we've already ended the round and plenty of time might have passed since then, so I think we have to treat this the same way as if the host messed up and revealed the conundrum upside down or accidentally revealed it to one of the players early - replay the conundrum, and if you would have solved it then that's just the rub of the green.

Example 9
The scramble is SAIDFETCH. The host has been told the answer is SHITFACED.
Nobody buzzes. The time runs out, and the host gives the answer as SHITFACED.
Someone realises that isn't a valid word.
Result: Scrap the round and replay with a new conundrum. This is regardless of whether there was a valid 9 from the scramble.
Adam Latchford
Rookie
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:50 am

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Adam Latchford »

I think i'm right in saying FIona had a conundrum on TV that had exactly this issue?

https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_7058
Thomas Cappleman
Series 72 Champion
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:42 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Thomas Cappleman »

Graeme Cole wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:20 pm Example 5
The scramble is USEMARGIN.
Alice buzzes and says GERANIUMS. The host says it's wrong. Bob buzzes and says MEASURING. The host says it's correct.
Alice argues that GERANIUMS should be accepted.
Result: Alice's answer was not a correct conundrum answer because it's a regular plural. 10-0 to Bob.
While this is probably the correct ruling as things stand, my preference would be to add a further standard rule that such a situation results in a redo. A conundrum should be testing anagramming skill. Adding a requirement to then bring to mind an additional rule about plurals which is a step that is never needed if the conundrum is well set feels like it's twisting the core point, especially when the standard process is to buzz as soon as you've solved the anagram.

In your example, Alice has done perfectly well at the core skill being tested, and has merely been caught out by a dodgy conundrum being set.

I reckon you could go even further and argue for throwing out that conundrum in other circumstances. Consider this sequence:
- Alice notices GERANIUMS, remembers that plurals aren't allowed, but has now been distracted by an invalid solution.
- Bob notices MEASURING first and so buzzes in with that.

In that situation Alice could still feel aggrieved at having solved the anagram first without being able to claim the reward for it.

Of course, as stated the true solution is to actually check the conundrums first.
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Fiona T »

Thomas Cappleman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:15 pm
Graeme Cole wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:20 pm Example 5
The scramble is USEMARGIN.
Alice buzzes and says GERANIUMS. The host says it's wrong. Bob buzzes and says MEASURING. The host says it's correct.
Alice argues that GERANIUMS should be accepted.
Result: Alice's answer was not a correct conundrum answer because it's a regular plural. 10-0 to Bob.
While this is probably the correct ruling as things stand, my preference would be to add a further standard rule that such a situation results in a redo. A conundrum should be testing anagramming skill. Adding a requirement to then bring to mind an additional rule about plurals which is a step that is never needed if the conundrum is well set feels like it's twisting the core point, especially when the standard process is to buzz as soon as you've solved the anagram.

In your example, Alice has done perfectly well at the core skill being tested, and has merely been caught out by a dodgy conundrum being set.

I reckon you could go even further and argue for throwing out that conundrum in other circumstances. Consider this sequence:
- Alice notices GERANIUMS, remembers that plurals aren't allowed, but has now been distracted by an invalid solution.
- Bob notices MEASURING first and so buzzes in with that.

In that situation Alice could still feel aggrieved at having solved the anagram first without being able to claim the reward for it.

Of course, as stated the true solution is to actually check the conundrums first.
To add to what Tom said, those of us who have been on the show, played countless games on apto, and attended numerous events know the conundrum 'rules'. Unless the co-event host is going to explain in detail what is and isn't allowed, it would be very harsh on an inexperienced attendee to have GERANIUMS disallowed because they were unaware of the finer detail of the conundrum guidelines. I'd go as far as to say it could put them off attending a second event.
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Graeme Cole »

Fiona T wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:45 pm
Thomas Cappleman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:15 pm
Graeme Cole wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:20 pm Example 5
The scramble is USEMARGIN.
Alice buzzes and says GERANIUMS. The host says it's wrong. Bob buzzes and says MEASURING. The host says it's correct.
Alice argues that GERANIUMS should be accepted.
Result: Alice's answer was not a correct conundrum answer because it's a regular plural. 10-0 to Bob.
While this is probably the correct ruling as things stand, my preference would be to add a further standard rule that such a situation results in a redo. A conundrum should be testing anagramming skill. Adding a requirement to then bring to mind an additional rule about plurals which is a step that is never needed if the conundrum is well set feels like it's twisting the core point, especially when the standard process is to buzz as soon as you've solved the anagram.

In your example, Alice has done perfectly well at the core skill being tested, and has merely been caught out by a dodgy conundrum being set.

I reckon you could go even further and argue for throwing out that conundrum in other circumstances. Consider this sequence:
- Alice notices GERANIUMS, remembers that plurals aren't allowed, but has now been distracted by an invalid solution.
- Bob notices MEASURING first and so buzzes in with that.

In that situation Alice could still feel aggrieved at having solved the anagram first without being able to claim the reward for it.

Of course, as stated the true solution is to actually check the conundrums first.
To add to what Tom said, those of us who have been on the show, played countless games on apto, and attended numerous events know the conundrum 'rules'. Unless the co-event host is going to explain in detail what is and isn't allowed, it would be very harsh on an inexperienced attendee to have GERANIUMS disallowed because they were unaware of the finer detail of the conundrum guidelines. I'd go as far as to say it could put them off attending a second event.
Yes, this is fair. The exclusion of plurals from conundrums has always seemed a bit arbitrary anyway, but it's in the rules that get sent to contestants.

I see why in this specific case (player offers an answer that would be correct but for its being a plural) you'd expect the conundrum to be binned and replayed.

However, instead of having this extra special case for plural answers, there's another option which contradicts the TV rules but is arguably preferable: simply say that plurals are valid solutions, but warn conundrum setters not to set conundrums with a plural solution.

Example 5 would then be 10-0 to Alice. This feels a bit less arbitrary and special-casey, but in the rare case when a plural slips through the net you'd have to contend with Bob arguing that he knew the Countdown rules forbid plurals in conundrums and that he'd seen GERANIUMS but didn't buzz because he was looking for the other solution.
User avatar
Thomas Carey
Kiloposter
Posts: 1478
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
Location: North-West of Bradford
Contact:

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Thomas Carey »

Agree with all the rest of this, with the same nervousness about point 5 - obviously there shouldn't be any conundrum with a valid plural anagram, but if it does happen there should be a consistent ruling and Graeme's seems fair enough to me. Similarly, I assume if the host had set a conundrum of SHEETPLAN (with ELEPHANTS as the intended answer and only valid 9), that should still be accepted as correct, but obviously setting such conundrums shouldn't happen. It's not too dissimilar to the general confused murmurings that happen when you get a plural verb like MISALIGNS or DECIPHERS as the answer - even though these aren't explicitly banned, you don't see them on TV or apterous.

I've sometimes thought the Nasty variant conundrums should include all valid nine letter words, and if there's multiple solutions it should accept any, but I can imagine coding such conundrums to be a huge ballache.
cheers maus
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Some interesting stuff here. The topic has come up previously in the You Are The Ref thread - e.g. here, although I think most of the important points from there have been covered in this thread anyway.

Firstly, if there are two valid solutions, someone might see them both and on the assumption that only one is valid, they might hesitate while deciding which to go for and be beaten to the buzzer.

On the plural solution thing, the current thinking in the thread seems to be that beause people who haven't been on the show might not have seen the guidelines and wouldn't know they shouldn't happen, they should be allowed if given as a solution, but obviously should not be intentionally set. However, you might then get the opposite problem. Someone who knows about the contestant guidelines might see a plural but not buzz in with it and lose/draw the round as a result. So neither way seems ideal. Unless these rules are announced at the start of each CO-event, which doesn't seem realistic. There has also been some previous debate about whether the plural thing is a rule for contestants or for the setter.
Graeme Cole wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:20 pm * This may open up a whole other question of what counts as a regular plural (e.g. MONEYBAGS, PENKNIVES...?). That isn't what this topic is about, but "plural ending with S" is a good starting point.
On this bit, I don't think the rules say anything about a plural being regular. From Sam's post in the Ref thread:
Countdown wrote:CONUNDRUMS

The conundrum will never end in ‘S’ to make a plural of a singular word, so words like BUNGALOWS will not be used. Some CAN end in ‘S’, but they will not be plurals, ie DIAGNOSIS, HEARTLESS etc.
This came up recently in an Apterous ticket. As I posted only yesterday:
I mean, the rule is a bit vague. What does "The conundrum will never end in 'S' to make a plural of a singular word" actually mean? Does that mean just sticking an S on the end, or just ending in an S more generally? Also "Some CAN end in 'S', but they will not be plurals, ie DIAGNOSIS, HEARTLESS etc.", which seems to imply no plural can end in an S.
And:
So I'd interprert that as no plurals ending in an S at all, including if the plural of APE was QWERTYUIS."
Graeme Cole wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:52 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:32 pm I'll come back to this but just to say - I'm amazed how often this happens. I know people who organise CO events are not paid professionals and do it for the love of the game etc. etc., but it's just plain common sense to run all conundrums through a solver. Very rarely there might be a dictionary change after this is done that affects this, but I really mean very rarely, to the point that if it ever happened you'd be surprised.
I would agree with this but come at it from the other direction. Although I usually do check that a conundrum has only one solution when I set them (for ZoomDown, for example), that's only because conventionally the conundrum is expected to have only one solution. If we all suddenly decided overnight that multiple-solution conundrums are fine and there's nothing wrong with them, they wouldn't break the game. What's more important is that hosts and organisers know how to deal with them when they crop up.
Yes, but presumably if event hosts haven't been checking on the basis that having two solutions isn't the end of the world, they should be definitively ruling that at events. No player should on the day be able to argue that this is incorrect and demand a new conundrum. But that's an aside really.
JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1986
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by JackHurst »

The point of the rules sent out to the contestants is supposed to be enough of a guide to cover 99% of scenarios. Having them cover the last 1% of edge cases would make them too complicated and inaccessible (and probably make people not turn up to recordings)

For the TV show countdown, 200 or so conundrums a year have to be generated, and they are picked all by a single person. Therefore there is consistency in application, and the supply massively outweighs the demand so there's no need to be reaching into every corner of the dictionary and scrutinizing whether each word is a valid conundrum for the purposes of the TV show countdown.

For computerized versions of countdown (e.g apterous or my app) the demand is higher than the supply, and they are picked by an algorithm. In order for a good playing experience for players who play a LOT you need thousands of different conundrums. There is a human who writes the algorithm which will decide if a word from the dictionary can be used as a conundrum. The computerized game is it's own game is it's own entity and it's rules for what is a conundrum are what it decides. For all intents and purposes if I ever have to officially decide what is a valid conundrum on my app, a fair answer could just be "Whatever is in the conundrums.csv in my codebase"

For co events, the demand is still in the same ballpark at the tv show (maybe you have 2 or 3 times as co event conundrums a year compared to tv). Each event has different people setting conundrums, so there is no consistency regarding how rules are applied/how well things are checked. One way of trying to solve this problem is by trying to write down and exhaustive set of rules for conundrums, and somehow enforce that they are followed exactly by every event organiser (good luck with that). Perhaps another solution. Is somebody making a tool for event organisers that can produce them their conundrums for the event.
Noel Mc
Enthusiast
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Noel Mc »

Are there any word which are 9 letters which, in one definition can be a plural, in another definition could be a verb?

JUMPS

More than one jump

OR

'She jumps'

But obviously the 9 letter equivalent.

What would happen in that case?
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Noel Mc wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:15 pm Are there any word which are 9 letters which, in one definition can be a plural, in another definition could be a verb?

JUMPS

More than one jump

OR

'She jumps'

But obviously the 9 letter equivalent.

What would happen in that case?
I've thought about that before. I think it's valid. I think it's OK if there's a valid case, rather than not OK if there is an invalid case.

And what about instead of a verb but a completely different word that in its main form is just the other word + S? It would seem weird to exclude it.
User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7822
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Matt Morrison »

not a verb but isn't BEESTINGS one? I remember that from years ago playing on apterous - probably invalid now. Never bothered to look it up before; assumed it at least had something to do with bee stings, but it's apparently "the first milk produced by a cow or goat after giving birth".
User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7822
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Matt Morrison »

and of course, BEESTING is not valid. two words. so probably no good, sorry.
Robert Foster
Rookie
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:42 pm
Location: Bletchley

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Robert Foster »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:33 pm And what about instead of a verb but a completely different word that in its main form is just the other word + S? It would seem weird to exclude it
Something like BACKWARDS maybe? There are quite a few -WARDS words like this where the -S is not acting as a plural, just as a variant form. DIAGNOSES is an interesting case as despite being a -S verb form, it's an irregular plural, so strictly speaking it should be a legal conundrum. Neither of these have been given as conundrums on Countdown or apterous.

Also SPARKLESS shouldn't be legal as it's clearly the plural form of SPARKLES.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Robert Foster wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:13 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:33 pm And what about instead of a verb but a completely different word that in its main form is just the other word + S? It would seem weird to exclude it
Something like BACKWARDS maybe? There are quite a few -WARDS words like this where the -S is not acting as a plural, just as a variant form. DIAGNOSES is an interesting case as despite being a -S verb form, it's an irregular plural, so strictly speaking it should be a legal conundrum. Neither of these have been given as conundrums on Countdown or apterous.

Also SPARKLESS shouldn't be legal as it's clearly the plural form of SPARKLES.
BACKWARD isn't a noun though as far as I can see (in the free Lexico at least) so it's not exactly what we're after. If WAREHOUSE was the plural of WAREHOU then that would work but unfortunately it isn't.

On the DIAGNOSES thing, as said above I don't think the rules actually specify anything about regularity, but just about ending in an S, although the rule is worded weirdly.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Anyway, ESTIMATE is an 8-letter word that can be a verb or noun so I'd say ESTIMATES should be a valid conundrum. I'm still after a separate word that is just a noun + S by complete coincidence though.
JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1986
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by JackHurst »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:32 pm Anyway, ESTIMATE is an 8-letter word that can be a verb or noun so I'd say ESTIMATES should be a valid conundrum.
Troll level 100
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

I agree with almost all of Graeme's original post, including the controversial Point #5.
Though I do agree that event hosts should vet their conundrums properly in advance to avoid such situations, in general.
I have no sympathy for the "Alice might feel aggrieved" point that Tom makes, and definitely disagree with the "might be enough to put them off attending a second event" point that Fiona makes. If they get that upset over a game, they probably shouldn't attend co-events, (or play any games at all for that matter).

The ONE thing from Graeme's original post that I strongly disagree with is the suggestion that FOCAL should mandate things like this at the co-events affiliated with them. The less top-down interference in the running of individual events, the better.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Gavin Chipper »

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:29 am The ONE thing from Graeme's original post that I strongly disagree with is the suggestion that FOCAL should mandate things like this at the co-events affiliated with them. The less top-down interference in the running of individual events, the better.
You make having standardised rules when there might be a dispute so people don't end up making it up as they go along in an unsatisfactory way sound like a bad thing by framing it in terms of mandating things and interference.

The alternative is for each event to have their own separate announcement at the start of the event about what they'd do if they messed up their conundrums. Or if you make it up on the fly, everyone loses out.

Why not have it standardised? This isn't a case where you're interfering with an event's individual creativity. Just trying to make things fair in a case where things go wrong. This is exactly the type of situation where you do want rules from above rather than putting each organiser in a difficult situation having to come up with a fair solution. This is for the benefit of everybody.
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

No. The alternative is trusting that event organisers are not morons.
As much as I am on board with the idea of FOCAL, it is worth reminding ourselves every so often that events were running successfully for years before any umbrella organisations or mandated rules came into the picture.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Gavin Chipper »

But there have been problems that wouldn't have happened with standardisation, such as at Braintree a few weeks ago where it affected who made the final.
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

Really?
Surely Jeff knows better than to make a balls of the business end of his co-event?! :D
If even someone that experienced can get it wrong, then perhaps there is some substance to your argument?

However, given the history of co-events, and FOCAL's place within that history, it should be a list of guidelines rather than rules.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Gavin Chipper »

OK, guidelines then. I don't imagine many events going against them anyway.
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

Graeme Cole wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:09 pm
Example 8
The scramble is SAIDFETCH. The host has been told the answer is SHITFACED.
Alice buzzes and says SHITFACED. The host says that's correct.
Then we discover that SHITFACED is not valid.
Result: Scrap the round and replay with a new conundrum.
I'm not entirely happy with this one - what if Bob says "but I was about to buzz and say CATFISHED"? Tempting though it may be to give Bob an opportunity to answer, we can't just give him the rest of the time because we've already ended the round and plenty of time might have passed since then, so I think we have to treat this the same way as if the host messed up and revealed the conundrum upside down or accidentally revealed it to one of the players early - replay the conundrum, and if you would have solved it then that's just the rub of the green.
I'm fairly certain Allan Saldanha was allowed to have MILLENIUM (sic) at one point, so it can be argued both ways.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Conundrums with multiple solutions

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 8:30 am OK, guidelines then. I don't imagine many events going against them anyway.
Me neither. I certainly would be happy to have a robust and fair adjudication system to fall back on, in case we were stuck on a tricky judgment call.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
Post Reply