Author Topic: Pyramid Clues (Read 13976 times)

CarShark · « **on:** July 30, 2009, 06:27:05 PM »

I host Pyramid from time to time in The Palace chat room PYLP. The last time I did, a couple of tough calls came about, and I'm wondering what you all think about them.

$250: Things That Are ARRANGED

When I looked it up for definitions, the word "set" came up as a synonym. During the game, the celebrity gave the clue "a table setting", which I immediately buzzed as synonymous as the contestant said "arranged". The celebrity said that he meant the noun, not the verb, but I don't think that makes a difference in the call. After the buzz, they were unable to get the last subject.

Next, a call about how much of the word you can say in the clue.

Word: A Fraternity
Clue: Not a sorority, but a...

This one I let go.

Word: An Offense
Clue: Not defense, but...

This one I cuckoo'd. My thinking of course being that too much of the word was said in the clue.

So, what do you think? Did I make the right calls? If I was wrong with the first call, what should I have done for the contestant?

JasonA1 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 30, 2009, 06:56:18 PM »

I find this to be a good rule of thumb on the sorority/fraternity front: if the root they're copying is an actual word, it's buzzable. For example, saying "you pack this for school" as a clue for backpack would be illegal. In the case of offense/defense, "fense" is not a word. Just as "ity" on its own isn't a word in the case of fraternity. If you don't like the fact those type of clues make getting a word like "offense" easier, perhaps excise these easy words from your category, or write harder ones to complement them within the same round.

-Jason

knagl · « **Reply #2 on:** July 30, 2009, 07:06:59 PM »

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'221507\' date=\'Jul 30 2009, 05:27 PM\']Word: A Fraternity
Clue: Not a sorority, but a...

This one I let go.

Word: An Offense
Clue: Not defense, but...

This one I cuckoo'd. My thinking of course being that too much of the word was said in the clue.[/quote]

I can't speak to the first question -- I know if I were giving clues and got buzzed for "a table setting" I'd be wondering what I did wrong. On the other hand, the clue I would have given would have been "professional flower bouquets".

For the last two, though, both were acceptable in my opinion -- defense should not have been cuckoo'd.

Mr. Matté · « **Reply #3 on:** July 30, 2009, 07:13:22 PM »

This one has been bugging me for a while:

In the W/C, when a category like "Saints" comes up, would "Francis of Assisi" be acceptable even though it's prepositional phase? I was thinking it might get by since it's a title, not a modifying description.

tpirfan28 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 30, 2009, 07:19:29 PM »

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'221507\' date=\'Jul 30 2009, 06:27 PM\']Word: A Fraternity
Clue: Not a sorority, but a...

Word: An Offense
Clue: Not defense, but...[/quote]
On an episode of The New $25,000 Pyramid from the week before they instituted the 7-11 card, a very similar situation came up...Patty Duke gave the clue "simplex" for "duplex". Initally ruled correct, but buzzed after the fact for being "too much of the essence of the word". I personally would buzz them both, as each set is too close to each word.

Mr. Matte: Yes, since "Francis of Assisi" is the proper name for that saint.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #5 on:** July 30, 2009, 07:22:08 PM »

An Assissian Francis?

Chief-O · « **Reply #6 on:** July 30, 2009, 07:31:36 PM »

I love "Pyramid" clue legality threads.

"Not a sorority" for "fraternity": I wouldn't cuckoo it. They are opposites in ways, but not "offense/defense" type opposites. Which brings me to "Not defense, but.."---yes, good thing you cuckooed it.

knagl: I don't know, but "professional flower bouquets" strikes me as being a little descriptive.

chad1m · « **Reply #7 on:** July 30, 2009, 07:59:42 PM »

[quote name=\'Mr. Matté\' post=\'221512\' date=\'Jul 30 2009, 07:13 PM\']In the W/C, when a category like "Saints" comes up, would "Francis of Assisi" be acceptable even though it's prepositional phase? I was thinking it might get by since it's a title, not a modifying description.[/quote]Right. I think proper nouns are alright. You could say "Wheel of Fortune" or "Two for the Money" in the category Game Shows.

TLEberle · « **Reply #8 on:** July 30, 2009, 09:49:55 PM »

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'221507\' date=\'Jul 30 2009, 03:27 PM\']When I looked it up for definitions, the word "set" came up as a synonym. During the game, the celebrity gave the clue "a table setting", which I immediately buzzed as synonymous as the contestant said "arranged". The celebrity said that he meant the noun, not the verb, but I don't think that makes a difference in the call. After the buzz, they were unable to get the last subject.[/quote] The problem is not that the guy says "I meant it in a different way." The problem is that you're using a different form of the word "set". The Apple dictionary that I was looking at while shirking at work said that "set out" is a synonym, but not "set." There's a big difference.

Quote

Next, a call about how much of the word you can say in the clue.

Word: A Fraternity
Clue: Not a sorority, but a...

This one I let go.

And you were right to. The roots are completely different.

Quote

Word: An Offense
Clue: Not defense, but...

This one I cuckoo'd. My thinking of course being that too much of the word was said in the clue.

The essence of the clue wasn't there. You owe this guy a point.

Quote

So, what do you think? Did I make the right calls? If I was wrong with the first call, what should I have done for the contestant?

I don't know what you can do, but that seems to be much harsher judging than I remember. It's good that you were looking up potential illegals beforehand, but I think you were overeager to zap in some of the cases.

[quote name=\'Chief-O\' post=\'221516\' date=\'Jul 30 2009, 04:31 PM\']Which brings me to "Not defense, but.."---yes, good thing you cuckooed it.[/quote] On what grounds?

Quote

knagl: I don't know, but "professional flower bouquets" strikes me as being a little descriptive.

"(Casino) Indian marriages".

Loogaroo · « **Reply #9 on:** July 30, 2009, 09:53:44 PM »

Offense/Defense is perfectly acceptable. The point is not to "convey the essence" of the answer. Just because the word shares a syllable with the answer doesn't make it illegal. That would be tantamount to cuckooing someone for saying "you call 911 when there's AN..." just because you're implying that the word starts with a vowel sound.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #10 on:** July 31, 2009, 01:23:16 AM »

fraternity/sorority: acceptable. The "-ity" suffix is no more a part of the essence than the "-ance" in "fragrance" and "elegance".
offense/defense: not acceptable. Point of comparison: Recently, in describing "dinosaur," someone was cuckoo'd for saying "brontosaurus", or some other breed that ended in "-saurus." The essence is there.
arranged/setting: I'm on the fence, leaning toward acceptance. I would say that arranging things implies a conscious effort to create a particular look. Thus, if you just lay the silverware down haphazardly, you've set it, but you haven't arranged it.

CarShark · « **Reply #11 on:** July 31, 2009, 01:49:33 AM »

I guess what's central to my misunderstanding is that I'm not as clear on the "essence of the word" rule as I thought.

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'221523\' date=\'Jul 30 2009, 09:49 PM\']The problem is not that the guy says "I meant it in a different way." The problem is that you're using a different form of the word "set". The Apple dictionary that I was looking at while shirking at work said that "set out" is a synonym, but not "set." There's a big difference.[/quote]I was using the Merriam-Webster.com dictionary and thesaurus features, and the thesaurus said that "arrange" and "set" were synonyms.

[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'221524\' date=\'Jul 30 2009, 09:53 PM\']Offense/Defense is perfectly acceptable. The point is not to "convey the essence" of the answer. Just because the word shares a syllable with the answer doesn't make it illegal. That would be tantamount to cuckooing someone for saying "you call 911 when there's AN..." just because you're implying that the word starts with a vowel sound.[/quote]But half the sound was given. How is that not giving the essence of it?

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'221513\' date=\'Jul 30 2009, 07:19 PM\']On an episode of The New $25,000 Pyramid from the week before they instituted the 7-11 card, a very similar situation came up...Patty Duke gave the clue "simplex" for "duplex". Initally ruled correct, but buzzed after the fact for being "too much of the essence of the word". I personally would buzz them both, as each set is too close to each word.[/quote]For those saying I was mistaken, what do you think happened here?

parliboy · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2009, 03:27:54 AM »

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'221546\' date=\'Jul 31 2009, 12:49 AM\']I guess what's central to my misunderstanding is that I'm not as clear on the "essence of the word" rule as I thought.[/quote]
That's because "essence" is such an abstract term that it will never be judged 100% correctly 100% of the time. It's just a very clever way for the powers that be to say, "We think you made a mistake, and it's a mistake because we say so". I'm not saying that it leads to rigging. But much like with professional sports, officials have to make judgment calls. And "essence" is the wiggle room. In professional sports, referees can be consistent throughout a game and be judged not on an individual call, but consistency. If I pitch my fastball into the corner of the box, do I get the same call as the pitcher for the other team? If I'm driving for the hoop, how will blocking vs. charging be called? In a game show, a contestant's "career" can be ended by one bad call. So consistency has to be based not over a given game, but over the life of the show. Thus we all don't care "What Tom Cruise's Dentist Would Say".

Actually, I like another analogy even more -- the law. Decisions in cases are supposed to be made on precedent. Decisions on judging the "essence" is also sometimes made on precedent. "If it was illegal before, then it's just as illegal now." Evidence of the importance of this to our little community can be seen by the clue "A Long Rose".

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'221513\' date=\'Jul 30 2009, 07:19 PM\']On an episode of The New $25,000 Pyramid from the week before they instituted the 7-11 card, a very similar situation came up...Patty Duke gave the clue "simplex" for "duplex". Initally ruled correct, but buzzed after the fact for being "too much of the essence of the word". I personally would buzz them both, as each set is too close to each word.[/quote][quote name=\'CarShark\']For those saying I was mistaken, what do you think happened here?[/quote]
If I had to guess... in a game that deals so much with sounds, it's easier to catch things like this live when it happens at the beginning of the word, rather than the end. This means you can sometimes get away with more. But when you play in a text medium, it doesn't matter quite as much where in the word the offense (defense?) happens. So you're less likely to have those situations where one temporarily slips by you.

Loogaroo · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2009, 03:30:23 AM »

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'221542\' date=\'Jul 31 2009, 12:23 AM\']offense/defense: not acceptable. Point of comparison: Recently, in describing "dinosaur," someone was cuckoo'd for saying "brontosaurus", or some other breed that ended in "-saurus." The essence is there.[/quote]

That's because "-saur" is a root word, meaning "lizard". Dinosaur means "giant lizard." Brontosaurus means "thunder lizard." They don't just share a phonetic sound; they share a meaning. Thus, it's conveying the essence.

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'221546\' date=\'Jul 31 2009, 12:49 AM\']But half the sound was given. How is that not giving the essence of it?[/quote]

Because it's not a form of the word, and they don't share a root meaning. There is no root for "-fense", so there's no meaning behind it. That's why it's not considered "conveying the essence", because there's no essence to it.

Quote

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'221513\' date=\'Jul 30 2009, 07:19 PM\']On an episode of The New $25,000 Pyramid from the week before they instituted the 7-11 card, a very similar situation came up...Patty Duke gave the clue "simplex" for "duplex". Initally ruled correct, but buzzed after the fact for being "too much of the essence of the word". I personally would buzz them both, as each set is too close to each word.

For those saying I was mistaken, what do you think happened here?
[/quote]

Again, "-plex" is a root word meaning "having parts or units".

CarShark · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2009, 04:14:52 AM »

But Pyramid isn't just about "essence", it's a game of sounds, too. How much of the sound of the word can you give away without giving its "essence"?