From: kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph Kennedy)
Subject: On this never-winning problem
Keywords: limits, puzzles, judging
Organization: crosswords
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:42:01 GMT

asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
> I agree with the suggestion that the clue contest winner should
> not be eligible for a certain length of time, in order to give
> everyone mroe of a chance to win.
> 
> Six months seems to me to be perhaps an awfully long time to have
> to be ineligible to enter, as a "reward" for winning. I propose that
> the time of ineligibility be six weeks for the winner and two weeks
> for the runner-up.  

     I don't see this or anything similar to it as
a solution.  I cannot understand penalizing talent,
and I find myself wondering what sort of person would
enjoy a hollow victory obtained by disqualifying the
best contestants.  I feel strongly that the clue
thought to be the best should always win.

     I do see a bit of a problem, however, in that
under the present format of most of the contests
it's possible for a few people to repeatedly select
each other's clues.  The people's contest (PCWC)
partially handles that problem, but also introduces
another in that with anyone being allowed to vote,
there is no guarantee of judging quality.

     Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me
the real problem here is more one of many people
never getting the opportunity to run and judge
a contest rather than actually never winning per se.

     The way I see it, it would be nice to have three
different judging schemes:  one where everyone votes
(PCWC), one where the previous winner selects the new
winner (ACC), and perhaps change CWC to employ a third
method, namely one where there is a rotating list of
judges.

     Anyone interested in being a judge would need
simply add his or her name to the bottom of the list
and wait for their name to bubble up to the top.
After you judge a CWC, your name would automatically
be re-entered at the bottom of the list.  Initially
everyone interested could submit their names for
a one-time first scrambling.  I'm suggesting the CWC
for this scheme because it would probably take a good
while to rotate through all the names, so at least
when it's your turn you'd get quite a whack at judging
clues since there are two words involved.

     To implement this plan fairly, the rules should
not be changed midstream and thus the winner of the
current CWC should be allowed to judge the next one,
with the understanding however that after that judges
would start rotating under the new system.  Judges
would still pick the best clue in their opinion,
regardless of who had won in the past and who hadn't,
but the next judge would be he or she whose turn is
next rather than the winner.

     Just a suggestion.  I'm not sure I really favor
making any changes at all; but if it turns out there
actually are that many discontented people out there
and we find we do need to make some sort of change,
I think what I'm suggesting makes more sense than
declaring people ineligible just so someone who has
never won before can "win."  This way a win would
still be a win, but everyone would get a chance to
run and judge a contest.

--Ralph Kennedy      {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu