Root wrote:You say that typos will not result in an invalid claim, but what if the typo is a "3" instead of a "2" in the claim "30 weed", as I made this weekend by mistake? Obviously I can't prove it was a typo and not just a mistake, but perhaps it should be clarified that numerical typos can result in invalid claims. Or can they?
I meant typos in the non-numeric part.
So "15 weedhdhgfer" or "2 beldj" are clearly typos, but if one says "30 weed" instead of "20 weed", then it goes down as an invalid claim, as I can't tell what your intention was. I'll just make sure that's clear then.
One thing only do I know, and that is that I know nothing - Socrates.
Champion of bugger all, 2004 to 2022
Member of sweet FA
Cheers for the clarification, Tubeguru. As I said, the original rules seemed to imply that non-multiple-of-five weed scores would be unusual, but certainly there was nothing to say that they were prohibited. (Even though great pains were gone to to preclude non-integer scores (!)) So, seeing that non-multiple-of-five weed scores wouldn't be against the spirit of the game, I just decided to test what would happen. It's a standard thing for any mathematician to want to do.
I'd be interested to hear whether there is actually any purpose in the multiple-of-five rule though...
Anyway, I look forward to bringing my score above zero!
Right, what happens when Soupie and I claimed 15 weed at the same time? He got there first, so gets the points, but could I have then made another claim (or a spoiler) 10 minutes later? Or do I need to wait for someone else to post first?
Well, as no one has objected vehemently to the re-worded (and slightly altered rules), I'm implementing them as from the start of play at 00.01 on Monday the 27th of June.
The scores since the start of Monday are the same as under the old system anyway.
One thing only do I know, and that is that I know nothing - Socrates.
Champion of bugger all, 2004 to 2022
Member of sweet FA
This is an interesting game. Obviously I couldn't resist thinking what some computer software could do. I think it's reasonably hard to beat humans during "regular play", but software could have a field day during low activity play (e.g. night time). It's also obvious that this game does not have a "winning" strategy per se (I'd be happy to elaborate on that statement, if anyone questions it). However, I think it would be reasonable precaution to ban all kinds of "automated" play, even if the only reason is to stop me from spending time on something utterly pointless (no pun intented)...
Three times Zone 1 Challenge winner Official record holder in the 2008 Guinness Book of Records, pg 199
hwolge wrote:This is an interesting game. Obviously I couldn't resist thinking what some computer software could do. I think it's reasonably hard to beat humans during "regular play", but software could have a field day during low activity play (e.g. night time). It's also obvious that this game does not have a "winning" strategy per se (I'd be happy to elaborate on that statement, if anyone questions it). However, I think it would be reasonable precaution to ban all kinds of "automated" play, even if the only reason is to stop me from spending time on something utterly pointless (no pun intented)...
It must be very addictive i got to admit i havent seen anything i probably go giddy when i do spot 1 randomly.
Rule 2 says that claims for bells and weeds together are invalid, but you still get some points for them. This appears to open up a loophole.
1000 - last valid claim posted
1105 - A claims 1 bell and 5 weed (and gets 75-5 = 70pts) but as the claim is invalid the clock is not reset.
1106 - B claims 1 bell and 5 weed and gets 70 pts and the clock is not reset
1107 - A claims 1 bell and 5 weed and gets 70 pts and the clock is not reset
1108 - A claims 1 bell and 5 weed and gets 70 pts and the clock is not reset
20-point weed minimum anybody? 
