Tumbleweed - The Rules and Discussion

[tubeguru]

Had he claimed at 20.38 he would have lost the 75 points.

[RichieG]

Question - how accurate are you using times? I have noticed with my new computer that the time doesn't fully match up with the forum time, so posts like mine just now was posted 2 seconds 'earlier' than I thought - ie, 15:40.02 instead of 15:40.04. As Sam's claim before mine was at 15:40.03, is that therefore an invalid claim, or does it not really matter? There have been a few claims by me in the past where the seconds of the post have rendered the claim invalid...

[moley]

Question - how accurate are you using times? I have noticed with my new computer that the time doesn't fully match up with the forum time, so posts like mine just now was posted 2 seconds 'earlier' than I thought - ie, 15:40.02 instead of 15:40.04. As Sam's claim before mine was at 15:40.03, is that therefore an invalid claim, or does it not really matter? There have been a few claims by me in the past where the seconds of the post have rendered the claim invalid...

I could be wrong but I'm sure that we're not working to seconds. The forum automatically creates messages based on the time that it is submitted (finally) therefore where two people submit a claim at the same time, the server works out which is first and which is second. If you are second it should tell you that someone has posted in the meantime however there is always a chance that it is that close that it doesnt.

[RichieG]

I just realised I had a typo in my last post...

I wasn't meaning when two claims are made simultaneously as that has been discussed elsewhere and I know what the answer is (although, I am curious to know what happened a couple weeks back when I (accidentally as it happens) posted a 'spolier' at the same time that somebody posted a proper claim (IIRC, I typed 'minutes' instead of 'weed'), to whether the claim was valid, invalid, or ignored, as if it were two claims the second would be 'ignored'.

But my question was one of time, rather than number of posts. The typo was that Sam's claim was at 14:40.03 and mine at 15:40.02, so therefore my claim was invalid?

[moley]

As I mentioned earlier, I believe that we are working to minutes only when Tubeguru scores this.

So Sam's would have said 14:40. Yous said 15:40. You claim one bell and thats fine.

I'm sure TG will be along soon to say otherwise!

[tubeguru]

I am here.

I am working to MINUTES only. So if someone posts at 15.00.04, and someone else posts at 15.00.24, both posts are deemed to have been posted AT THE SAME TIME (15.00).

It's as simple as that. Seconds simply don't come into it. It's the same as using significant figures in maths, so if one takes the hours to be represented by two digits, I am working to FOUR significant figures (two hour digits and two minute digits, e.g. 10.05 or 03.56 and so on).

The clock used for all calculations is the forum clock - reflected in the timestamp shown on all posts. This is why I don't recommend the use of your PC's clock, synchronised with the forum's clock. The easiest way to ensure your post is valid is to check the time on the forum clock (shown on the homer page) before posting.

[tubeguru]

And further to Rich Tea G's query, if someone posts a valid claim at 15.40.30 (according to forum time) and you then post a claim for one bell at 16.40.10, despite your claim being 20 seconds too early, the seconds are ignored. So you can claim one bell as soon as the time goes from 16.39.59 to 16.40.00 and suffer no penalty.

[hopeful traveller]

I just claimed for 1 bell and it's showing up as another post was made a minute ago but I was not told.

[tubeguru]

You may all have thought that I've given up on the scoring, but I only had a break over Christmas. I've spent ages collating everything since the last update, and can reveal that the difference between the top two points scorers (who are WAY ahead of everyone else) stands at 310 points.

The other thing I'm going to mention is the increasing trend of "describing" of weed and bells.

"One Christmas bell", "one New Year bell", "three more bank holiday bells".

STOP IT! It's a little irritating on a personal level, and I don't want to have to change to rules to ban it. So I'm asking you (or telling you) nicely.

If it continues, I will change the rules so that anyone doing it suffers a 100-point penalty. Or I'll just delete the whole forum. That'll stop you, you bastards ...

[moley]

I just claimed for 1 bell and it's showing up as another post was made a minute ago but I was not told.

If the post is made between you entering the forum topic and hitting Reply then any new post is shown on the forum history box below the reply field.

If the post is made between you hitting Reply and typing your reply and hitting submit then you get an addition page showing the intermediate reply.

So watch out for additional posts appearing in the history section on the reply page.

[The Raven]

Would it be a good idea say that the "winner" is the first person to reach100,000 points or something? Then reset?

[tubeguru]

Would it be a good idea say that the "winner" is the first person to reach100,000 points or something? Then reset?

No, because I don't want Tumbleweed to have a definite end. I'm waiting for the days when it tails off, and people are coming on to claim 7 or 8 bells in a row as a usual occurence. I can't see that happening for a while though.

[tractakid]

What is the biggest ever claim?

[tubeguru]

Valid or invalid?

[tractakid]

I was seeking for valid, but if you know the other as well id be interested to know that too.