c4countdown

A thread for any decency you've come across in apterous.

e.g. fair players or humble winners.

CARSON

Pretty much everyone is sound as a pound. God damn I love Apterous.

Each to their own here........but my thoughts.

Most are very decent indeed, but one slight thing i have to question in terms of sportsmanship....

Its a crucial conundrum, player 1 buzzes in after 1.1 second, unravels PECKBRAPA as PAPERBACK, but types in PAPERBAKC in error. There is no ambiguity over the answer, its obvious what was meant. Player 1 is obviusly gutted and throws the game away, due to lag, typing inefficiency, the rush to beat the dreaded blue bar or maybe even a pants keyboard.

Player 2 then buzzes in and steals the 10 points and wins the game.

Is this sporting or unsporting?
Is it appropriate?
How many people would be happy to do this and not feel immoral?

It's been done to me dozens of times now, and i'm really not sure it's something i would readily do back to an opponent. Just curious to see what others think.

I personally wouldn't do that if the conundrum was crucial, but accurate typing is part of the game and (particularly if it's the first letter that's wrong) I wouldn't really complain about someone else doing it.

I've stolen the points on a couple of occasions where the conundrum has been meaningless, I don't think I'd do it if it was crucial.

I always ask if I can take the points in that instance.

D Eadie wrote:Is this sporting or unsporting?
Is it appropriate?
How many people would be happy to do this and not feel immoral?

It's been done to me dozens of times now, and i'm really not sure it's something i would readily do back to an opponent. Just curious to see what others think.

I've done it a couple of times, but didn't feel particularly great about it. But if the boot was on the other foot and I buzzed first (highly unlikely) and typoed it, I'd hate to think that my opponent wouldn't take advantage. It would be like they weren't trying, and the win would be hollow.

Steve Baines/Jeffrey Hansford syndrome, I suppose. I see it as 'is it obvious what was intended', and if it was, I'll leave it, even if it costs me a game. The only exception to this is conundrum attacks, where the whole 'typing at speed' aspect does play a part.

I did just that in a CoLin game a couple a couple of years ago, and have felt bad about it ever since. I've since vowed I wouldn't do it again, but the opportunity has never arisen.

Ok, at CoLin it obviously wasn't a typing error, just one letter missing from the end of the word, but I felt it was in the same vein.

As far as I can remember, it's never happened to me where it's affected the result. I've gladly taken it to reduce my margin of defeat though.

What do people think about people simply spelling the word wrong because they don't know how it's spelt (TABLEWEAR vs. TABLEWARE, for instance)? Similar to typos?

I think if its obvious what was intended, then its naughty to steal an answer. But in the case of tablewear / ware, then that's not obvious at all and could be an error of knowledge in how to spell. Funny how if it were the show, you just shout out the word and spelling doesn't come into it, but its a different game online of course.

So TABLEWEAR, MANOUEVRE, fair enough, its a mis-spelling due to bad knowledge, but something like TELEVISDE or COUNTDONW, i'd not steal the points if its clearly a typo.

Interesting comments from others though.

Michael Wallace wrote:What do people think about people simply spelling the word wrong because they don't know how it's spelt (TABLEWEAR vs. TABLEWARE, for instance)? Similar to typos?

Totally legit to steal in that case.

I've always believed that it makes more sense to take the points if the opponent mistypes a conundrum. I do it, and I fully expect it to be done to me if I mistype. When this happened to me, for example, I didn't resent Jim for it at all. Seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

D Eadie wrote:Each to their own here........but my thoughts.

Most are very decent indeed, but one slight thing i have to question in terms of sportsmanship....

Its a crucial conundrum, player 1 buzzes in after 1.1 second, unravels PECKBRAPA as PAPERBACK, but types in PAPERBAKC in error. There is no ambiguity over the answer, its obvious what was meant. Player 1 is obviusly gutted and throws the game away, due to lag, typing inefficiency, the rush to beat the dreaded blue bar or maybe even a pants keyboard.

Player 2 then buzzes in and steals the 10 points and wins the game.

Is this sporting or unsporting?
Is it appropriate?
How many people would be happy to do this and not feel immoral?

It's been done to me dozens of times now, and i'm really not sure it's something i would readily do back to an opponent. Just curious to see what others think.

Done it once, in Con Attack...and apologised in chat in advance.

I'm the same as Chris, I'd never not go for it - especially if it was crucial

If you had the typo scenario in a normal round then you have no discretion - you would simply gain the points if you had the same word typed correctly. Same with the numbers - if its an easy solution but one player mis-clicks it's unfortunate but there can be no compensation.

Therefore I agree with those that have suggested it would be ok to claim the points.

I have sympathy for genuine typos, but how do you distinguish between a typing error and someone bungling the conundrum and then trying to fix their error with the seconds worth of discretion apterous gives you? You could still make it look like a genuine attempt even if you got the wrong first letter (and sometimes you'll have it right but bash the wrong start letter in the heat of the moment). The example Chris gave is sufficiently garbled to generate some doubt in my mind, although I'm sure it was a genuine mistake.

I'm starting to see things the other now. As the intro text on Apterous says: "The first thing to say is that apterous is definitely not Countdown." Good typing skills and spelling - though not even a factor in Countdown - are as much a part of Apterous as any other facet of the game. Same goes for other stuff, such as number fudging, which although frowned upon sort of becomes a skill in itself when you start to get a feel for it. Apterous isn't just be a predump for Countdown, in many ways it's a unique and seperate game.

Ben Hunter wrote:Good typing skills and spelling

Ben Hunter wrote:seperate

I know, I'm a dick.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:Good typing skills and spelling

Ben Hunter wrote:seperate

I know, I'm a dick.

I'm on an Apterous break.

Michael Davidson is not a decent player to play against.

In a fairly even contest, about halfway through. He decides he'd rather play against, "someone more his level."

Tosser.

Ian Dent wrote:Michael Davidson is not a decent player to play against.

In a fairly even contest, about halfway through. He decides he'd rather play against, "someone more his level."

Tosser.

I always liked playing Michael.

Ian Dent wrote:Michael Davidson is not a decent player to play against.

In a fairly even contest, about halfway through. He decides he'd rather play against, "someone more his level."

Tosser.

Stop right there.

This thread is for posts on decency. It (nor do I believe be any other thread in this forum) is not about personal insults which bear no relation to your feelings on the player in question, and (stressing this) while I have no authority here more than any other, I'm pretty confident that's the type of post that nobody likes to see.

Firstly it bears no constructive criticism, it has the nature of something which could be conducted privately and privately alone, as to avoid potential public humiliation or angst, and is entirely subjective to one incident.

If you were to have an issue with someone in real life, would you bitch behind their back as you effectively have about Michael here? Does the fact that this is an online forum mean you should in any way change your likely civil, polite and mature demeanour for the sake of words in a chat window which could be in any way misinterpreted?

I doubt it.

FWIW, I have found Michael to be polite, intelligent and introspective of his own behaviour, as well as a pleasure to play. I would ask all Apterites not to continue any flaming in this thread; that is surely not its purpose, I simply wished to express my disappointment and frustration here that something so enjoyable as this forum has now been polluted with ill sentiment for poor reason. Please also see Ian that I have no personal problem with you, but I do feel what you have written is unacceptable-if you feel differently I am quite ready to leave it at that, but I could not leave my opinion unspoken on something I feel so strongly about.

That O'Dowd's always on about his moral high ground.

Tosser.

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:

Ian Dent wrote:Michael Davidson is not a decent player to play against.

In a fairly even contest, about halfway through. He decides he'd rather play against, "someone more his level."

Tosser.

Stop right there.

This thread is for posts on decency. It (nor do I believe be any other thread in this forum) is not about personal insults which bear no relation to your feelings on the player in question, and (stressing this) while I have no authority here more than any other, I'm pretty confident that's the type of post that nobody likes to see.

Firstly it bears no constructive criticism, it has the nature of something which could be conducted privately and privately alone, as to avoid potential public humiliation or angst, and is entirely subjective to one incident.

If you were to have an issue with someone in real life, would you bitch behind their back as you effectively have about Michael here? Does the fact that this is an online forum mean you should in any way change your likely civil, polite and mature demeanour for the sake of words in a chat window which could be in any way misinterpreted?

I doubt it.

FWIW, I have found Michael to be polite, intelligent and introspective of his own behaviour, as well as a pleasure to play. I would ask all Apterites not to continue any flaming in this thread; that is surely not its purpose, I simply wished to express my disappointment and frustration here that something so enjoyable as this forum has now been polluted with ill sentiment for poor reason. Please also see Ian that I have no personal problem with you, but I do feel what you have written is unacceptable-if you feel differently I am quite ready to leave it at that, but I could not leave my opinion unspoken on something I feel so strongly about.

Here endeth the lesson.

Daniel and Michael, sitting in a tree...?


(different Michael, whilst I may very well be in a tree, it would be a different tree)

Michael Wallace wrote:Daniel and Michael, sitting in a tree...?

(different Michael, whilst I may very well be in a tree, it would be a different tree)

I bet you'd be watching though.

Daniel, you make several valid points. I would like to apologise for my comments.

I was fairly disappointed with what happened though.

Regarding the crucial conundrum debate, has anybody not given consideration to the fact that player 2 may well have unravelled the solution in the remaining time, and would therefore be only hurting themselves in their efforts to show sporting behaviour?

Also, I'm sure there must have been instances on Countdown where player 1 has buzzed and mispronounced the word, only for their opponent to then step in and take the points.

Kai, I assume you had never heard of a cafetiere before, but had you been behind and realised the answer after Richard had incorrectly declared cafeteria, would you have buzzed in?

Lee Simmonds wrote: Kai, I assume you had never heard of a cafetiere before, but had you been behind and realised the answer after Richard had incorrectly declared cafeteria, would you have buzzed in?

I think this is different to what Damo was arguing. Saying CAFETERIA meant he spotted the incorrect letters and therefore was wrong. Kai would be well within his rights to offer CAFETIERE afterwards. The argument comes if it's a typo, such as COUNTDONW instead of COUNTDOWN. In this case, I think the conundrum should be stolen anyway as apterous is a test of typing too. Say in round 1 I offered GARDENDE instead of GARDENED. I wouldn't expect my opponent in round 2 to then throw the selection just to let me have 8 points back. It's tough luck if you mistyped.

I agree that this is slightly different to what Damian is saying, I guess my point was that Kai could have buzzed in with the same answer and/or that Richard had put him on the right track by being so close.

FWIW, my opinion is that player 2 should buzz in too. Everyone is likely to make a typo on occasion so if you believe the football adage, these things even themselves out.

What's wrong with what Ian wrote?

By the way, when he said he wanted to play somebody more his level, did he mean someone better or someone worse?

Lee Simmonds wrote:Kai, I assume you had never heard of a cafetiere before, but had you been behind and realised the answer after Richard had incorrectly declared cafeteria, would you have buzzed in?

This scenario brings about a whole new debate: I heard Susie say CAFETIERE before the time was up.

Am I the only one who'd steal the points in a New york minute then remorselessly take the piss out of my opponent ESPECIALLY if it were crucial?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Lee Simmonds wrote: Kai, I assume you had never heard of a cafetiere before, but had you been behind and realised the answer after Richard had incorrectly declared cafeteria, would you have buzzed in?

I think this is different to what Damo was arguing. Saying CAFETERIA meant he spotted the incorrect letters and therefore was wrong. Kai would be well within his rights to offer CAFETIERE afterwards. The argument comes if it's a typo, such as COUNTDONW instead of COUNTDOWN. In this case, I think the conundrum should be stolen anyway as apterous is a test of typing too. Say in round 1 I offered GARDENDE instead of GARDENED. I wouldn't expect my opponent in round 2 to then throw the selection just to let me have 8 points back. It's tough luck if you mistyped.

I think this is a good point. I don't think most people would be happy with throwing away points. Also it's all very well saying you wouldn't buzz in with COUNTDOWN after your opponent went for COUNTDONW if it's crucial, but if they're say 5 points behind, then there's nothing you can do - you're going to win anyway. So what would you do then?

Because of all this, it probably is easier if you just say to yourself "Apterous is about typing too" and then it's consistent across the board.

I suppose I'm one of few people who tends to not look at what my opponent has buzzed in with, thus avoiding this problem altogether.