A place to discuss the weekly Wall Street Journal Crossword Puzzle Contest, starting every Thursday around 4:00 p.m. Eastern time. Please do not post any answers or hints before the contest deadline which is midnight Sunday Eastern time.
Horsesense wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 11:22 am
Ashore.
I didn’t see anyone mention another “nudge rule”...
“If you receive a ‘nudge’ or ‘check’ then please do not submit an answer”
Well my feeling is that if you get a “check” (I.e. your mechanism and answer is correct) then You did solve and SHOULD submit. If you were REALLY close and the check or nudges made it clear enough to submit the you should. If the nudge/check moved you 180 degrees or more then no because submitting at that point doesn’t really represent your thoughts but rather your budgers thoughts, if you Do submit you must include THAT you got help though not WHO helped.
An economist should study this situation. Hundreds of people devoting considerable brainpower, time and attention to this frustrating torture, hoping to win something costing at best around 59 cents.
Clearly, monetary reward isn’t motivating us. Glory seems to be at least part of it. Community. Challenge. Meaning. Self regard. Fame??? I’m the first to say, the feeling when you get it right on your own - which Ive only done once, mind you, since I’m obviously new here - is priceless!
I’m hooked by the way, this is not a criticism.
Last edited by SReh26 on Sun May 09, 2021 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Horsesense wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 11:22 am
Ashore.
I didn’t see anyone mention another “nudge rule”...
“If you receive a ‘nudge’ or ‘check’ then please do not submit an answer”
Well my feeling is that if you get a “check” (I.e. your mechanism and answer is correct) then You did solve and SHOULD submit. If you were REALLY close and the check or nudges made it clear enough to submit the you should. If the nudge/check moved you 180 degrees or more then no because submitting at that point doesn’t really represent your thoughts but rather your budgers thoughts, if you Do submit you must include THAT you got help though not WHO helped.
Horsesense wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 11:22 am
Ashore.
I didn’t see anyone mention another “nudge rule”...
“If you receive a ‘nudge’ or ‘check’ then please do not submit an answer”
Well my feeling is that if you get a “check” (I.e. your mechanism and answer is correct) then You did solve and SHOULD submit. If you were REALLY close and the check or nudges made it clear enough to submit the you should. If the nudge/check moved you 180 degrees or more then no because submitting at that point doesn’t really represent your thoughts but rather your budgers thoughts, if you Do submit you must include THAT you got help though not WHO helped.
@SReh26 As usual, DrTom supplies wisdom.
Yes, very wise, Dr.
I’m with Kay, though. If one gets it, one submits, and only then checks. Gotta live and die by the sword, or fall on your own sword, or else what do we have? It would be chaos.
Scraps wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 4:01 pm
In my view, anyone who wants to submit may submit, regardless of whether the solution was reached via nudge, Google, or phoning a friend.
The expected monetary value of a correct contest submission is less than one cent (1/1000 chance times $10 value of mug).
Speaking of rules, the most interesting (to me) of the actual WSJ rules from their website is the one that says that the people who make the mugs are not eligible. No hint what that company is. So how likely is it that anyone would even know? I guess if they're buying them from a one-person pottery shop, then that person knows what they're making and for whom and might figure out that they can't win one. But if it's a giant operation making tons of mugs for tons of customers in a mostly automated procedure, and that operation is just one small part of a giant conglomerate with a million employees, are they all ineligible? Because I rather doubt that 999,999 of them know anything about it or would think twice about entering the contest.
As for this site, the only rule is to not post any spoilers for public viewing before the deadline. Beyond that, anything consenting adults do in private - or by private message - is their own concern. Personally, when I'm giving nudges, my goal is always to make them so small that people will not feel like they didn't really solve and shouldn't submit. I don't always succeed in that, but I do try.
@SReh26 You are, and give me credit for, being far nobler than I am!
I only meant to clear up the confusion about not confirming an answer AFTER submission. It seems to me that even the strictest of nudge moralists that once you've submitted there's no harm in conferring (privately, of course!!!) with other solvers rather than waiting for the deadline to find out if you were in fact correct.
But I freely admit to accepting nudges or confirmations from time to time. If it's merely a confirmation that something I'm doing is on the right path, or a very gentle nudge, I'll most likely still submit. Matt Gaffney's Weekly Crossword Contest (MGWCC, a subscription contest covered elsewhere in this forum) even allows submissions to be designated "solo" or "non-solo" solves, and that's what I tick there in those cases. But if I require a harder shove to get to the answer, I'll refrain. For me personally, there's a fine line somewhere that's hard to define, but I know when I've crossed it.
As others have said, it's all a matter of personal conscience.
And as you yourself said - the monetary value of the prize is negligible. IMO the main benefit of a nudge is that it still allows the nudgee to have the joy of solving the puzzle. And maybe improve your solving skills to boot. The tricky part is, for me it's often harder to come up with a good nudge for a puzzle - rather than a blab or a shove - than it was to solve it.
SReh26 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 4:06 pm
Yes, very wise, Dr.
I’m with Kay, though. If one gets it, one submits, and only then checks. Gotta live and die by the sword, or fall on your own sword, or else what do we have? It would be chaos.
And we can’t have that.
I think we can have chaos, at least a little bit of it.
One of the few things I disliked about the Harry Potter series was that the magical realm was overseen by a bureaucracy--the most non-magical form of oversight imaginable.
We're mere Muggles, but we can do better. Other than banning spoilers and requiring polite discourse, we need only a few rules, loosely enforced. Let everyone enjoy and participate on their own terms, even if the fun spills into a bit of chaos here and there.
We’ll after a solid streak of at least recognizing the mechanism, I’m solidly at sea. Perhaps the oft mentioned “second shot” haze has claimed another victim as I received mine on Thursday afternoon. Anyone willing to give a nudge is greatly appreciated!
sf592000 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 5:13 pm
We’ll after a solid streak of at least recognizing the mechanism, I’m solidly at sea. Perhaps the oft mentioned “second shot” haze has claimed another victim as I received mine on Thursday afternoon. Anyone willing to give a nudge is greatly appreciated!
At your service. I know the least of anyone here, but I know this one!
