Spike1007, folkslinger and other APPW competitors

[63chev]

I agree with j John and the others here in this post, that the games that have no words shouldn't count for! anything, although I'm not really trying to do anything but get the highest score with the fewest amount of words; it does seem unfair for the modicum of those who honestly just go for long words and appw and really strive to find at least 50 or 60 of them in the month that a person could beat them out with just one; even in baseball a hitter had to have a certain amount of at bats, or a pitcher a certain amount of innings pitched to receive awards; these people who only find one good Word in a month are already recognized with a record in the game and in the high scoring and long words category....

[folkslinger]

I want to thank the administrator for resolving this issue. I would say it not only seems fair to me, but also validates the hard work that I and others have done in earning a trophy and preserves the value of those accomplishments.

Lalatan, thank you for bringing this up again. I believe it was the weight of your voice that was needed to resolve this.

Thanks to everybody who contributed to this.

[admin]

That seems fair. I've added code now that will not update a player's monthly scorecard unless at least one word is found in a game.

[John13verse34]

I agree that games with no words played shouldn't count toward competition results. I'm one of those people with wrist/hand/finger problems who can't always type well enough to make a lot of words, so I've enjoyed having a category where I can actually compete. It's discouraging when players with just a few good scores are able to win a trophy by padding our their required minimum with zero-word games.

[lalatan]

My apologies - your email fell through the cracks. No excuse, but both my wife and I were sick for several weeks following our return from vacation and I will admit that once I'd recovered I didn't do a proper job of catching up through the old inbox.

Wow, I'm sorry you 2 had such a rough time since vacation. I'd say that's a good enough excuse.

I may be able to implement something similar to what you're suggesting, though I'm not sure if it would help this particular issue setting a requirement of 1 word avg per game. Someone could easily "goose" their average to above 1 just by playing one or two normal games and getting 100+ words, then go back to exactly what they were doing before. I'm also not sure I understand the fundamental difference between someone having 0.515 avg words/game vs having 1.188 avg words/game, as you currently do. Honestly asking because I just don't fully understand: why should that be considered against the spirit of the game?

I'm not actually competing this month, just finding long words, as is my habit. If a player were to boost their avg words/game by playing a normal game of 100+ words, the avg pts/word would drop unless each word was => their current avg pts/word.
Re: having a 1 word/game minimum we felt why should a player be rewarded for finding a word in half or less games. It's like running at the Olympic games in the 800m race and being awarded gold because you ran the best 200 or 400m. With a minimum of 1 word/game, the "race" would be completed, so to speak. I can't speak for all long word players.

My original concept with Average Points per Word was that people would play "normally" (i.e. getting as many words as they could per game) and it would just be another fun way of comparing people's performances. Cherry picking only one or two long words from each game wasn't something I'd intended to incentivize, though obviously that's what's happened. So now that it has, and since there does seem to be interest in playing this way, I just want to better understand what (and why) the community feels is "fair play" here vs. play that's against the spirit of the site.

Yes, we who are prone to carpal tunnel, arthritis, wrist/hand/finger problems or even slow typists still enjoy playing Boggle but can't play the normal game. We did shanghai the orthodox playing of the game; it's a version that allows us to play more games, while, I think, other long word players just prefer it.

I hope others will chime in and give you more info. As I mentioned, I'm now retiring from the competition. If I earn a trophy so be it but I'm not trying for it.

[bwt1213]

My personal opinion is that games in which no words are played should not count in anyone's averages or totals. If you played 100 games and in 90 of them played zero words, then you really played only 10 games. I don't personally think that average words per game should matter; it would be easy to fiddle with that, as Stephen has noted.

[admin]

My apologies - your email fell through the cracks. No excuse, but both my wife and I were sick for several weeks following our return from vacation and I will admit that once I'd recovered I didn't do a proper job of catching up through the old inbox.

I may be able to implement something similar to what you're suggesting, though I'm not sure if it would help this particular issue setting a requirement of 1 word avg per game. Someone could easily "goose" their average to above 1 just by playing one or two normal games and getting 100+ words, then go back to exactly what they were doing before. I'm also not sure I understand the fundamental difference between someone having 0.515 avg words/game vs having 1.188 avg words/game, as you currently do. Honestly asking because I just don't fully understand: why should that be considered against the spirit of the game?

My original concept with Average Points per Word was that people would play "normally" (i.e. getting as many words as they could per game) and it would just be another fun way of comparing people's performances. Cherry picking only one or two long words from each game wasn't something I'd intended to incentivize, though obviously that's what's happened. So now that it has, and since there does seem to be interest in playing this way, I just want to better understand what (and why) the community feels is "fair play" here vs. play that's against the spirit of the site.

[lalatan]

On September 22, 2023 I sent this e-mail to admin: "The last few months those who compete in the avg pts/word category have a problem. A little background for you: a few years ago those of us who competed in APPW agreed to have a minimum of 1 word/game. However, some players now are not honoring that agreement, either willfully or they don't know about it.

In this month's competition, there is a 4x4 player currently in the silver trophy position who has only .515 words played per game. Even more ludicrous is the 5x5 player [Ywebite] who is currently in the gold trophy position with an avg of .010 words/game. He has already won 2 trophies for such a few words in hundreds of games. One month he played a total of 11 words in over a thousand games played.

So, what I am asking you to do is change the required parameters for that competition from only 51 games played to 51 or more games played with an avg words/game of at least 1.0.

I think it would add legitimacy to those of us who have done so and would disallow players who find a few high pt value words and blank all the rest of their games to increase their avg pts/word.

If that would be too difficult for you to do, I understand. I would then announce my withdrawal from any such competition and state the reason why. It really does cheapen our accomplishments.

Thank you for this website and the numerous improvements you have made over the years."

After no reply from Stephen, which was unusual, on Oct. 3 I asked if he had received the first e-mail. That time he replied he was on vacation but would be back soon. Since then I have heard nothing further. I resolved to ask him nothing more about the issue. No point in nagging him.

Last month I decided to play the 4x4 APPW competition since nobody seems to want it and the current leader was at 15 pts. It was something different to do; I can get it done in <2 hours. On the 6th of that month I noticed Shock had played a word worth 34 pts. On Nov 30 he blanked 52 games and won the gold trophy, as illustrated in the attachment below. Of course, that pissed me off since he did it to me once before in 5x5. But I thought I'd say nothing about it since that's what trolls delight in. (Shock, don't bother replying since I still have you on my ignore list.) I hadn't invested much time to get 51 games. I have plenty of trophies so don't need any more.

SHOCK NOV 23.jpg

I checked his scorecard this morning and this is what it showed.
SHOCK DEC 23-12-02.jpg

So, he is poised to do it again and not only in 4x4. I know you guys in 5x5 filter through a ton of games to get your final APPW values. So this is a warning to you not to waste your time unless you don't mind your work being blotted out like that. Ywebite has been scoring some trophies with very few words played in the month. I see that "the cryptogram keeper" won the 5x5 silver last month so he possibly pulled the same stunt. So, if you guys want the competition to be meaningful, I suggest you add your voices to mine in e-mails to admin. I'm personally done with issue.