tablesaw | Writing.

Current Mood: legible

Writing.

I'm writing. Because that's what one does with a journal, when one isn't me for the past few months.

But I won't be writing anything in particular. I'll just be writing a lot of it, until I stop.

The Vatican is reviewing American seminaries, the schools that train priests, for "evidence of homosexuality":

In a possible indication of the ruling's contents, the American archbishop who is supervising the seminary review said last week that "anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations," should not be admitted to a seminary. Edwin O'Brien, archbishop for the United States military, told The National Catholic Register that the restriction should apply even to those who have not been sexually active for a decade or more. —The New York Times

So, having denied gay people a lifestyle with any expression of sexuality, this commission is going to start taking away their options for celibate lifestyles too.

The new issue of The Gamer's Quarter is available, and it features a crossword by me. Unfortunately, it didn't come out as well as I'd hoped. There appear to have been some editing mishaps. My punny title was removed, and two answers have been inadvertently revealed. It's embarrassing, but I blame hurricane Katrina. No, seriously, I do. The editor with whom I'd been communicating lived in New Orleans. Obviously, he isn't living there at the moment. So I'm not too upset about my 15x15 not being a top priority.

(I should add that the organization of clues, which looks awkward in the PDF, is deliberate. The two pages are meant to be opposite in a bound, printed copy.)

The issue is uneven, and I don't think it's as strong as the previous one. I haven't read through everything, but I do recommend "Speed Runs and You", "at how many komas do jou get gogeta?", "Life, Non-Warp: DX", and the "Innovation in Game Design" feature.

Speaking of video games, how 'bout that Nintendo Revolution? I think it's nifty. If it's cheap enough, I might actually buy it when it launches.

I need to write to

foggyb. It occurs to me now that this entry is yet another thing postponing that e-mail. Sorry. I do have notes. I think. Somewhere.

tmcay's John Ratite game at The Grey Labyrinth is in its penultimate round, and things just got bizarre. I don't mean the game itself, which has been consistently brilliant and well written. There's been some player bizarreness. See, only seven teams could make it to this next-to-last round. Six teams has already secured their spots (Cram and I were sixth). And there were only two teams that were able to proceed. Team A had everything it needed, but couldn't move forward. Team B had used a game-given weapon to keep Team A from moving for one turn. This bought Team B the time it needed to get one last correct answer. If Team B was successful, it would be a race to post to see who would move first and get the final slot. Sounds exciting, right?

But something else happened. Team C didn't have any chance of getting into the next round, but technically hadn't been eliminated yet. They took the initiative to deliberately scuttle Team B's chance at the final question, and barely succeeded. The question was posted at 7:52, the incorrect answer was posted at 7:53, and a ~~correct~~ close but incorrect[1] answer was posted at 7:54. Since only the first answer is accepted, Team B is out of the running. So, in a way, this was also exciting, except that it happened so fast that it took a while for me to understand what was going on. There have been some hurt feelings, which is understandable, but what fascinates me is the way the ethical discussion has played out. There are basically two schools of thought. The first school says that you should live and let live, and only attack and sabotage when necessary. The other school says that anything that's not illegal is fair. This shouldn't be surprising. What is surprising is that apparently both Team B (the sabotaged) and Team C (the sabotagers) belong to the first school.

See, back in the previous round Team A and Team C were squared off head to head. The same only-the-first-answer-counts rule was in effect, but this time, two different sides had two different questions, and only one answer could be given. Team A gave a correct answer first. Team C tried using the weapon mentioned above to prevent Team A from answering. Unfortunately, that's not how the weapon worked. Team A got the answer correct, but was stranded for a turn. Team C apparently felt guilty for that throughout the rest of the game, even though it did arguably help their standing. Moreover, it gave Team A a chance to try to sabotage some other teams, though they failed by seconds. (I should note that, at that time, Team B said the sabotage was both "messed up" and "a great idea".) But Team C felt that they owed something to Team A, and they whacked Team B. So they were working under the "code of honor" ethic in deliberately sabotaging another team.

Frankly, it's all baffling to me. It's probably baffling to you, even though I tried my darnedest to simplify things. I know that I wouldn't have felt guilty if I was Team C. I was kind of hoping that this would clear up what was going on for me, but it hasn't. And I haven't even gotten into the "Lex v. Rob in Survivor All-Stars" debate (which I don't feel like explaining right now if you don't know the reference). In fact, I don't have high hopes for getting into the final round. I just hope that the folks at triviagameswithoutpity.com don't consider Cram and I repulsive.

Games World of Puzzles has puzzles from the most recent Microsoft Puzzle Hunt. They're pretty nifty. I'm curious to know where and to what extent they've been made easier to satisfy a wider puzzling audience.

I haven't looked at The Enigma since July. It kind of makes me sad.

God of War is a fun game to play while watching television. I have found it especially fun to play while watching the DVDs of Babylon 5 that Cram leant me. As I've said before, I enjoy Babylon 5 most when I'm not paying to close attention to it.

The new TV shows have been mostly lackluster. I've enjoyed Prison Break. It's wildly improbable, but it's still holding itself together with sheer bravado. Head Cases has some promise, in its cast but the writing was uneven. Supernatural and Reunion were both painful to watch. Reunion was actually so painful to watch that I'd consider watching it, if it weren't running against shows that have something, anything, decent about them. Bones and Threshold were both aggressively lackluster. It seems like they were following the formula of people who want to make people think they're breaking out of a formula. I'm still looking forward to Night Stalker and Invasion

Also, here are some more reasons you should be watching Veronica Mars in two weeks. Please note item number four.

And my girlfriend is in Massachusetts again. I miss her. I feel compelled to make a mix cd, but I will be strong, and the urge may yet pass.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The question was posted at 7:52, the incorrect answer was posted at 7:53, and the correct answer was posted at 7:54.

Not quite. The answer posted at 7:54, while plausible-looking, was incorrect as well. Perhaps, I might add, deliberately so.

Not quite. The answer posted at 7:54, while plausible-looking, was incorrect as well.

Amended. I should really have checked that.

Perhaps, I might add, deliberately so.

Well, I am curious, and this is a more appropriate forum than the GL itself, so I'll bite. Why would it be a deliberate wrong answer?

(Also, to be clear, I reserve the right to shut down the discussion here if I feel it gets too catty/flamy/whatever, or if tmcay asks me to.)

Why would it be a deliberate wrong answer? Same reason that mikeamok's would be: we asked them to post one.

I am, of course, in the "anything that's not illegal is fair" school; my wife, who reads TWoP, tells me that this comes up in exactly this guise for shows like The Amazing Race. I gather that some people are shocked to see a team sabotage other teams while still acting within the rules, to which the answer is: did you not notice that this is a competition? Of course people will do everything within the rules to win.

I'll note that I don't play the board game Civilization very often any more. Why is that? For one thing, because you very rapidly hit a point where it's clear that A and B are fighting for first and second, C, D, and E are fighting for third to fifth, and F and G are fighting to avoid last. For another, though, this split makes it very easy to get into a kingmaker situation (not in the sense of the 1974 boardgame): some player X who's out of the running can take an action to ensure that A wins, or one to ensure that B wins; A and B have no control over this, and therefore X determines who wins the game.

I hate kingmaker situations. I increasingly dislike games where it's clear you can't win and yet you must keep playing. (Contrast chess, where it's clear you can't win and you can resign; or Settlers of Catan, where it's rarely so clear that someone's out of the running, what with victory points and things like Largest Army that can change possession.)

Ratite, unfortunately, was more or less one such game; once Tablesaw-Cramerica and Tahnan-Spelvin finished their keys, it was perfectly clear that anyone with less than six of the seven letters could not win, barring inexplicable decisions to simply drift around and not enter the stargate. Of course, resigning was an option, more so than in, say, Civilization (where leaving the game affects the gameplay). But so was kingmaking.

I dislike kingmaking; does that mean I won't use it to my advantage? Of course not. Hence, "competition". Do I see how it could be avoided in Ratite? Not entirely, no. I suppose the real answer to kingmaking situations is: if you're one of the two players who could be king, be careful who you step on while getting there.

To follow up with one more observation, posted separately so it can be deleted if Tablesaw deems it too catty/flamey:

"Team B had used a game-given weapon to keep Team A from moving for one turn" is slightly misleading: Team B had paid someone else to use a game-given weapon to keep Team A from moving. Perfectly fair; Team A had done that to Team B earlier (and many other "we'll pay you to target them" transactions had happened as well), and that was well within the rules.

It so happens that Team B paid a team who was still in the game. My personal opinion, utterly unprovable as it's about a hypothetical situation, is this: Team C also had that weapon. If no one "still in the game" had had that weapon, Team B would not have hesitated to ask Team C to use it on Team A.

There's a different flavor to "use this game-provided weapon" and "sabotage"; what Team C did do for Team A was, indeed, sabotage. I think the difference in worldview is less "live and let live" vs. "anything not illegal is fair", but (if I'm right about the above) is much closer to a difference in which kinds of competitor-damaging actions are allowed: only those explicitly stated in some kind of rule, or any action not forbidden by any rule.

I don't know if I'm stating that quite correctly; but again, if my above hypothetical-based suspicion is correct, no one's really on the "live and let live" side of things.

I left out the intermediary in the weapon transaction because I thought my narrative was complicated enough as it is. At that point, it was really meant for non-followers of the game.

I don't know if I'm stating that quite correctly; but again, if my above hypothetical-based suspicion is correct, no one's really on the "live and let live" side of things.

I suppose the two aren't generally in direct opposition, though they appear to be in this particular example. Maybe it's better to say a "die and let live" philosophy, whose commandment would be "resign, don't play kingmaker."

I left out the intermediary in the weapon transaction because I thought my narrative was complicated enough as it is -- which is fair enough, though it's worth noting that Team A's attack on Team B was just as indirect as Team B's attack on Team A. (And of course it was a necessary distinction, for my hypothetical.)

Why would it be a deliberate wrong answer? Same reason that mikeamok's would be: we asked them to post one.

Wow, I was completely out of things. I honestly believed that the second post was by Team B. So I was worried that there was going to be some conspiracy theorizing, which is why I posted the warning. Clearly, I've been really unable I've to follow it. So this post is probably helpful to no one but me, at this point.

I am, of course, in the "anything that's not illegal is fair" school; my wife, who reads TWoP, tells me that this comes up in exactly this guise for shows like The Amazing Race.

As they say on TWOP: "RACE!"

I'm also part of the "anything that's not illegal is fair" camp, so part of why I'm so mystified by this is that I can't understand why Team C would be feeling guilty in the first place.

I hate kingmaker situations. I increasingly dislike games where it's clear you can't win and yet you must keep playing.

I agree. And it's actually been a guiding force in what I consider to be a good board game for a while, but that's another subject altogether.

Don't fight the feeling. Mix tapes are good and stops me from listening to the Cure Over and Over.

It's probably baffling to you, even though I tried my darnedest to simplify things.

Yep. Pretty much incomprehensible to those unfamiliar with the game, I suspect. At least it is to me.

They took the initiative to deliberately scuttle Team B's chance at the final question, and barely succeeded. The question was posted at 7:52, the incorrect answer was posted at 7:53, and a ~~correct~~ close but incorrect[1] answer was posted at 7:54. Since only the first answer is accepted, Team B is out of the running.

"The incorrect answer"?

"only the first answer is accepted"--surely that should be "only the first correct answer is accepted"? Perhaps when you changed ~~correct~~ to close but incorrect you should have changed the rest to say that Team B was not actually out of the running, but thought they were, if that's the case? (And if that's not the case... see the not-making-sense comment again.)

See, back in the previous round Team A and Team C were squared off head to head.

I take it a "round" is different from a "turn"? (Until I realized you were using two different terms here, the time frame of things are very confusing.)

Why would Team C feel they owed Team A something, if they incorrectly used an in-game weapon against A? If this harmed Team A without gaining Team C any benefit, that would make sense as a screwup, but from Team A's point-of-view they wouldn't be any more screwed than they would be by a correctly-used-weapon.

I know that I wouldn't have felt guilty if I was Team C, but I doubt I would have I was kind of hoping that this would clear up what was going on for me, but it hasn't.

I think you edited this or something and made it incoherent. I honestly can't guess at what you'd meant to say.

Ah, ok, I dug into the forum and discovered that only the first answer, period, is accepted. Part of the incomprehensibility of your post was that you didn't indicate which team posted which answer. Also, the incorrectness of the 'correct' answer just confused things, as does tahnan's explanation above (again, because it wasn't clear what team posted what answer). From reading that, it now sounds like this was double sabotage, which is otherwise unexpected.

Yeah, I was just about to explain that.

And the double sabotage was so unexpected, even I didn't comprehend it.

Why would Team C feel they owed Team A something, if they incorrectly used an in-game weapon against A? If this harmed Team A without gaining Team C any benefit, that would make sense as a screwup, but from Team A's point-of-view they wouldn't be any more screwed than they would be by a correctly-used-weapon.

I wish I could tell you, it made no sense to me either. But you've expressed my bafflement better than I was able to, so good for you.

I know that I wouldn't have felt guilty if I was Team C. ~~but I doubt I would have~~ I was kind of hoping that this would clear up what was going on for me, but it hasn't.

Just the beginning of a thought I never finished and forgot to delete. I can't even remember what was supposed to go there.

Why would Team C feel they owed Team A something, if they incorrectly used an in-game weapon against A? If this harmed Team A without gaining Team C any benefit, that would make sense as a screwup, but from Team A's point-of-view they wouldn't be any more screwed than they would be by a correctly-used-weapon.

It did in fact harm Team A without gaining Team C any benefit. Or perhaps, to put it another way: there was no benefit to be gained by anyone from hitting Team A with that weapon at that point.

(Well, there was the general "zap 'em, slow 'em down a little" benefit; but the weapon has otherwise been used for a "prevent them from getting something they need" effect, or a "stop them so that we can overtake them" effect, and this use had neither.)

Doooooooooooo eeeeeeeeeeeeet. ::waggles fingers at you in vaguely hypnotic way::

Seriously. You got her to listen to Morcheeba after I tried for damn near two years, and look how well that turned out! (Please make her listen to new stuff please please please...)

Factors exacerbating the current flames on JRIP are the amounts of time/energy/hope invested by the remaining teams over the months-long course of the game. I'm not immune. I felt some serious frustration at our getting zapped a little while ago, and it would have been even worse if that move had put us out of the competition. But after reflection, I was able to pull back and realize I'd been too into what really is just a game. I don't particularly fancy our chances in the current round either-- not just because we're latecomers, but also because of our no-weapons system upgrade profile and the lack of any new upgrades in this system.

I'm curious to know where and to what extent they've been made easier to satisfy a wider puzzling audience [for Games WoP].

My guess: not by much. The roulette/Calculatrivia bit is as difficult as anything I've seen in that or the main magazine, as are a few of the other puzzles. This is one of the better issues in recent memory, for that and other reasons.

Thank you...

As someone who was on the writing team for the MS Puzzle Hunt stuff (and who wrote the Roulette puzzle), there were just a few changes. For one thing, a few of the clues had slightly changed (based on the time period involved, a few of these involved websites whose info was out of date as of September). Then there was a clue related to Television Without Pity, asking about the "My ox is broken" episode recap (which I couldn't use since there's R-rated language up and down the website). Most of the clues are intact.
This was actually extended from a contest that I ran in late 2001 for Games World of Puzzles, and I even threw in a Super Mario Bros. 3 question in both of these (even though I didn't know until later these would be reprinted).

Mike had to create an entirely new metapuzzle based on existing solutions to the puzzles, so I salute him on that.

I don't have any problems the discussion of the Ratite game in your blog -- catty, flamey or otherwise. I found the situation interesting as you did.

I saw the first episode of "Reunion," and also found it painful. I'll probably continue watching it for ironic appreciation until it gets canceled.

#4 is going to be very tough on me. I picked up both shows over the summer and am now quite obsessed. Fortunately, as noted, such recording devices exist, and it works to my advantage: Lost is the crowd favorite in my house and everyone is going to want to watch it when it airs, but Veronica Mars is the one I want to have recorded so I can watch it again and again.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Writing.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Mix

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject