XWord Muggles Forum

*sigh* I'm going to say it. This one breaks the most cardinal rule of metas and one which I don't think Matt has ever broken before but he is certainly breaking this time.

woozy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 10:58 pm *sigh* I'm going to say it. This one breaks the most cardinal rule of metas and one which I don't think Matt has ever broken before but he is certainly breaking this time.

If I'm correctly interpreting your comment, only one of the (at least) two accepted answers violates meta convention. As MG has acknowledged, when multiple "veteran, quality solvers" submit plausible, but wrong answers that have the look of a feasible and reasoned answer, he feels that it's only fair to accept that answer, as well. I'm guessing that he feels somewhat responsible for designing a puzzle that several experienced solvers can go astray with.

Whether you're playing at a casino, or in a friend's basement, you play the game by house rules, and Matt's the only one who gets to make them at La Maison Gaffney.

Then again, perhaps you are referring to something entirely different than the "transgression" that I suspect.

I was collaboratively solving this puzzle, and my solving partner said "there we go, that's got to be the answer. It fits the prompt, it clicks with the title. What else could it be?" I replied that I agreed 100%, except for one problem - that it violated a well-established Gaffney meta convention ".

He submitted, and I kept pondering, and with the patient goading of another player (you know who you are), I reached another answer that was actually somewhat less elegant, required a bit of a stretch of credulity, but didn't violate the Gaffney Way.

We both got credit.

Gahhh!! I totally forgot the Gaffney zoom, and I could have attended pretty easily. When will the video be posted?

Found both answers with “guided solving.” Planning a Halloween submission.

Beamed, with boosters.

Well, I find it impossible to believe that I and my two patient nudgers found the unintended answer. The answer I found was a brilliant and beautiful concept but the reliance on arbitrary and subjective and often simply off and outright bizarre associations makes this ... weird.

Well... okay *one* piece is weird (the others are iffy but are okay if you avoid the five or so much stronger but differently methoded rabbit holes, and stick to the strict original path) and my nudgers and I ***must*** have it wrong but... I can't find what else would work.

The puzzle wasn't as bad as I thought when I had the metanism and 92% of the pieces but just couldn't put it together but it's still... out there. There is one final piece in solving that's very nice and raises it up several notches and actually cleans the morass. But without cleaning the morass... wow. what a morass.

WabiSabi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 9:07 am

sharkicicles wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 8:39 pm I really should have waited until 4:20 to submit. Thanks to the Zoom crew for the help on this one.

There's a Zoom Crew?

One of the regular zoom meetings is Sundays at 8PM Eastern - "Isaac's Last Call". While the main purpose is discussing the WSJ contest, it's not unusual for other metas to be discussed as well, after everyone has said what they have to say and received whatever help they want on WSJ.

(On a few occasions, someone who was there to talk about WSJ and didn't subscribe to MGWCC stuck around to listen to that conversation anyway and was so intrigued that they signed up.)

Beam me up with some help from @Wendy Walker and @BarbaraK !

I'm confident I ended with the answer Matt intended, so I'm curious to see what the other accepted answer was. And despite my confidence, there is one thing that I am still confused about in getting to that answer.

I am very excited to both learn what alternate answers were accepted and what some the cardinal rules of metanisms are

I'm sure this is a great meta puzzle and I've definitely figured out the intended mechanism, but as a colorblind person this is giving me a legit headache.

Awaiting beamage, but got a post-solve confirmation. Curious to see the post-game discussion on this, but a tricky one to be sure - yet another novel concept from Matt!

burak wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 1:00 am I'm sure this is a great meta puzzle and I've definitely figured out the intended mechanism, but as a colorblind person this is giving me a legit headache.

I feel your pain! I’m 57 years old and I’m still learning what color things are.

For all who solved but waited to get the Too Spooky achievement, don’t forget to submit your answer this morning.

We might have to change a few metas, but think about what a happier world this might be if a few more of us were colorblind.

It appears I have submitted one of the acceptable answers. Got my Too Spooky and Going Streaking badges today!

In order to avoid using TONGUE twice, I substituted GRATER with silver to get TINGED FRINGE.

clonefitz wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 12:02 pm In order to avoid using TONGUE twice, I substituted GRATER with silver to get TINGED FRINGE.

Per Matt:

242 correct entries this week, of which 125 were solo solves.

The answer was TINGED FRINGE, formed from:

TONGUE
ICED LEMONADE
NOSEBLEED
GRATER
ELKS
DOVE

FOG
RAVEN
IVY
NEMO
GLOBES
EGGPLANT

clonefitz wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 12:02 pm In order to avoid using TONGUE twice, I substituted GRATER with silver to get TINGED FRINGE.

Graters are generally stainless steel, which is silver.