Games Rules- Q's & A's, Clarifications and Discussions.

[Opsa]

This is where we can discuss some of the rules of the games, some of which may evolve during the play.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The first rule of Fight Club is never talk about Fight Club. 

[Bluenose]

The rules of a happy marriage:

Rule Number One: The girl is always right

Rule Number Two: The boy is always wrong

Rule Number Three: In the unlikely event that the boy is right and girl is wrong, see rules number one and two.

[Opsa]

You guys have the right spirit about game rules. Keep it light. It's just a game.

BUT-

If you feel the need to clarify something this is the thread to do it in.

In the case of the definition game, I did not quite get the gist of a complaint about tautology, which can mean:

Tautology (rhetoric), a self-reinforcing pretense of significant truth
Tautology (grammar), the use of redundant words
Tautology (logic), a universal truth in formal logic
Tautology (rule of inference), a rule of replacement for logical expressions

I think the complainant may have been objecting to using a previously defined word to define another word, which I had done several words back, thinking it was a funny way to keep the game rolling. Maybe I was mistaken.

[Swatopluk]

I was referring to the type:
X getting defined as the capitalized form of x (followed by defining x as the non-capitalized form of X)

I have a visceral hatred for this type since schooldays when we were 'allowed' the 'use' of an English-English 'dictionary' during written exams that e.g. defined 'anger' as 'the feeling of being angry'. Zero usable info there (except for spelling) but the exams got judged more harshly because of this extra 'help'.

Using previously defined nonsense words in the definition of new ones is not a problem. Putting the undefined word used for definition up as the word to be defined next is also fine most of the time.

[Griffin NoName]

Using previously defined nonsense words in the definition of new ones is not a problem. Putting the undefined word used for definition up as the word to be defined next is also fine most of the time.

I am going to risk being very unpopular and say I dislike this one. I always react to it as a bit of a cop out, ie. not actually defining anything.

Like this is what I mean:

bosquat - a brick slipper

upworzle

next post:

upworzle : to throw a bosquat across the room

I just find it uninventive.

But as it is only a game, I ignore it, ie. I don't go round for the few days sulking about it

[Swatopluk]

I share that sentiment but as long as there is not too much abuse I'd be willing to swallow it (as opposed to the purely tautological definitions)

[Griffin NoName]

Well, as long as you can keep it down once swallowed!!

[Swatopluk]

swallow's better than crow I assume

[Opsa]

I must say that I am rather embarrassed about this and may well sulk about it for a few days. 

I guess that what I didn't like was the abrupt announcement. Could future grievances be made in a more graceful way?

[Swatopluk]

Sorry, my idea of subtle is more in line with Sam&Max, Max in particular.

[Opsa]

Sorry, I am only accepting actual apologies. 

[Swatopluk]

Do I look like an apologist?
Being a hollow bronze head of 4000+ years of age that someone hit in the face quite violently should be a proper excuse to not be one.
And Grand Moravian rulers did not reach their position by being one either.

[Opsa]

 Shall we take this up privately, then?

[Swatopluk]

Axes at dawn behind the toolshed. Seconds bring their own halberds