New Game


#103

OK, it’s a fair cop guv!

Mistry is DSQed and mystory is correct…

Back to mystory (and yellow card for Joel)


#104

I’m open to any sort of proposed resolution. I think to have a good game we should have a uniform and simple set of rules. We need to decide on what words are allowed. I think we should decide on just a small set of core sources (maybe just one) and if the word isn’t in those sources then it isn’t allowed. And we should depend on the participants to check that their words are legal. I trust everyone here.

So what should be the sources? These have been mentioned already:

Dictionary
Merriam Webster
OED
Official Scrabble dictionary
Yourdictionary
Wikipedia


#105

And whether to allow personal and place names.


#106

I’d say make it like Scrabble. The word must be available in a common dictionary and can’t be an abbreviation or name.


#107

I think proper names have to be excluded, excepting eponyms and other terms that have the status of common nouns. “Kleenex” e.g.

Usually when I’ve played Scrabble the rule is that you pick a single dictionary to be the arbiter (hence my brother’s successful challenge of BOX–>BOXY: Webster’s Collegiate was a bit thin on adjectival forms, however common, grrrrr). But since this is the Interwebs I’d be happy to just stipulate Brian’s list. Point is it can’t be too open-ended or disputes go on for ever.


#108

Guys I really do not care. I just knew this word and it fit the morph. I really do not play the game so it is fine whatever is decided. I just wanted to defend my choice. I do not even mind being disqualified. I sort of triped in the middle of the game with a word I had heard of before and entered it.

I am good with whatever. I did not mean to cause issues. Heck toss me on a technicality if we need to in order to keep going. I am a happy guy and did not mean to be the cuase of new rules

rick


#109

Hey, Rick, I think we all just jumped with enthusiasm into a much-needed diversion without too much consideration of rules for play. Your word was efifying on two levels: introducing players to a new concept and motivating players to elucidate the rules. So…keep on playing!


#110

What @CatLady06 said. It’s not like we had any explicitly defined rules, so your contribution was legit, and the discussion it provoked all to the good. Meanwhile…

The game stands at “mystory” and I confess to being a stumped chump. Do we need a rule for declaring a winner and starting a new chain?


#111

How about this: 2 players declare themselves “stumped” and the player who posted the “stumper” gets the honor of starting a new round?


#112

Independent corroboration will be needed.


#113

You should add The Urban Dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com
to the list of allowable sources.

I had a phrase/definition accepted into The Urban dictionary. Look up “ritual Hoover”.

An aside: I found it odd that I looked at the date my entry was accepted by The Urban Dictionary (April 21, 2009) and my first thought was “Wow. That was before my daughter was diagnosed with T1D.” Sad how the date of her diagnosis (January 24, 2014) will forever be a huge line of demarkation in our lives…


#115

What happened to the evolution of “mormo”?


#116

New game.

Mystery was good. But now we are all in this.


#117

Okay, this isn’t serious because it obviously doesn’t abide by the original rules, but if it’s a new game and free for all then:
Monastery
because I only changed a few letters and it’s a good vibe and well, now it’s kinda like the word association game…


#118

I vote we use the Macquarie dictionary. THE Australian dictionary.
LOL

Maureen


#119

I think @Rphil2 has the honor of starting the next round!


#120

Diabetes


#121

diatribe


#122

So…we need a word to start that can be modified one letter at a time (add/subtract/substitute one letter). Here goes:

bubble


The Game of Doublets (formerly the "Revised New Game")
The Game of Doublets (formerly the "Revised New Game")
The Game of Doublets (formerly the "Revised New Game")
closed #123