Listener Crosswords 2007

[crosswit77]

Many thanks to Cruciverbalist, Cluelessjoe and others for all their hints over the last year. I managed to be all correct for the year - hooray!
Without your help, I would be at least 8 down.

Keep on truckin'

Crosswit77

[cruciverbali]

Well done Crosswit ! We shall look for your name at the top of the list when the annual stats are published.

C

[Quizmonkey]

If what you say is true (unlikely given the fact that results and stats aren't released for another six weeks or so), I hope you're looking forward to being disqualified in future.

[logophile]

......................... that is assuming you submit entries each week (it is always possible to be 'all correct' without sending in a single puzzle)

[gribble]

as you are obviously very good at the listener and you are not opposed to seeking help ( although you are probably really against any mention of the listener ) I look forward to seeing you answer questions when I or others ask for help
ps strange you have a new 'name' ?

[offramp_t]

Well done, Crosswit! They are never easy, even with some help!

[cluelessJoe]

Well done Crosswit - I managed to finish about 45 under my own steam .. I only submit those which are 'all my own work' (keeps me honest to myself and fair to those to whom the statistics genuinely matter).
Pleased if I managed to give you the odd useful hint along the way. Good luck for '08
(PS which particular 8 down are you referring to? .. ho ho)

[crosswit77]

Although my thanks are sincere, Gribble is quite correct - I am a little uneasy about Listener hints. But I'm not as squeamish as Clueless. Once something is in the public domain, it's fair game as far as I'm concerned.

Quizmonkey is, perhaps, a little naive. The statistics haven't been published, but invitations to dinner have been sent. And exactly how will I be disqualified?

[cluelessJoe]

I don't think I'm particularly squeamish about the posting of hints - in fact I tend to commend the use of subtle coaching if it is going to help people to develop their solving skills.

I'm more inclined to draw the line at the occasional wanton posting of loads of complete answers, often unprompted.

I am however surprised to find that you are now proudly announcing your invitation to the annual dinner, when you freely admit that you would have been a good handful of solutions short of qualification were it not for outside help.

Quizmonkey's comment on disqualifiaction (and your retort) notwithstanding, I sincerely hope that you will find the moral backbone to politely decline this invitation, and leave the honour of attendance to those who have truly earned it. (Or am I just a bit old-fashioned, being a stickler for honesty?)

Claim your seat at the dinner if you feel you have earned it - it's not something I could do! And that's not squeamishness, it's just a reflection of my own conscience.

[failedagain]

That's quite an achievement, even writing in a year's answers without mistakes. Is this your first year of Listener solving?
What puzzles are you voting for for the Ascot Gold Cup?

[cluelessJoe]

.... I'd go for King by Rebel

[angrysolver]

Speaking as a Listener all-correct for 2007 who did not solicit or use help from others, I am dismayed by this thread. For the majority of solvers, it is a matter of pride that Listener submissions are all one's own work. While it is fair enough for solvers to use resources such as this one while they are learning, to do so in order to become all-correct and to head the statistics is disgraceful.

Listener entries are marked and statistics maintained by one man, who is not paid for his work - it is very much a labour of love for him. He takes the view that collusion such as this is cheating, and results in the offender being disqualified from the statistics. The majority of serious Listener solvers share this view, which ensures that the statistics are an accurate representation of solving skill.

If the original poster has any morals whatsoever, he would do well to write to the Listener marker (address as for submissions), inform him that his all-correct was the result of collusion, and absent himself from the dinner - to do otherwise devalues the achievement of being all-correct for everyone who has done so without cheating, and makes meaningless the work of the marker.

This thread is already being discussed on other crossword boards, and the general feeling is not favorable towards the original poster.

[valerian1967]

To those members of Answerbank who provide hints to the solution of active Listener crosswords, I would like to check that you are aware of the strong feelings of a number of your fellow solvers.

The Listener is the only widely available crossword that maintains a record of each and every entry. This provides a unique additional thrill to those devotees who seek to jostle for relative position in the annual statistics.

Each time a hint is posted on Answerbank, the possibility of abuse compromises these statistics, which, in essence, spoils much of our fun, but which may lead in the long term to the abandonment of the statistics altogether � our voluntary statistician my ask what is the point?

I am confident that the provision of hints is entirely well meaning, but it does come at a cost. If you feel strongly that the cost is one worth paying, then perhaps we must agree to differ, but I would appreciate it if you would go on record here, as I have done, to put your case.

Is there a compromise? We share so much common ground, I hope we can move forward together.

Philip Sant

[angrysolver]

Just to add to Philip's post above...

It would seem that an oft-quoted justification for past hints about the Listener on this forum is that "it will never affect the statistics / candidates for the Salver". This thread provides clear evidence that this is not the case...

[cluelessJoe]

Philip
Thank you for your thoughts ... I'm much of an accord with the broad sentiment.
Yes, I have posted (a very few) hints on the Listener this past year - no more than a handful, so I am somewhat surprised anyway to be credited by the original poster. Similarly, I think that though Cruciverbalist may have posted more, he too has generally exercised restraint in the degree of help offered.
I think that if you check out all the Listener threads, you will find a wide spectrum, with usual extremes.
Quizmonkey and others seem very much anti- any kind of help, and I of course respect their (and your) views. Quizmonster (and others) represent the opposite extreme and will happily decry the value of the statistics and the great work of John Green. In fact, you will find that most of my Listener posts this past year have been in protest at the over-helpful spoon-feeding of answers and themes - for which views I have received a fair degree of abuse from the later-named contributor.

....................................more to follow

[cluelessJoe]

.......... continued


I was bitterly disappointed to see that Nitwit77 had dared to submit all crosswords on which he had received significant help and thereby claim his place at the dinner. Sorry, but if I can't claim a Listener is all my own work, it does not get submitted. I'm very happy with my forty-something from 2007 ... I could never take my place at that dinner table knowing that I had effectively cheated.
Philip, if you check the strength of feeling in some past posts, you will see that your sentiments will fall on very stony ground in some quarters, and you may well attract some rude abuse. There is generally moderation in Listener threads - and I have no problem with offering a gentle nudge if it might help another to enjoy the same journey I have enjoyed. We all (I assume) now use the internet for help on certain elements, some use the CD version of Chambers which offers many advantages over the hardcopy. Is use of those plus the odd hint from spouse / child / friend any worse than a gentle directional hint from this forum? A line needs to be drawn somewhere - but where, and who is to decide where?

As Nitwit77 says, "The statistics haven't been published, but invitations to dinner have been sent. And exactly how will I be disqualified? "

There's you challenge - hopefully an odd instance - but one who says I'm happy to cheat, and I reckon I can get away with it.

I desperately hope that the AnserBank Listener threads in general help to coach and grow new solvers rather than aid the unscrupulous. I'd like to hear from John Green on this issue - if he feels that this site seriously undermines his work, I will refrain from posting immediately!

John

[chrislear]

"I'd like to hear from John Green on this issue - if he feels that this site seriously undermines his work, I will refrain from posting immediately!"

The Listener statistician (whose name I'm not supposed to say according to the Site Rules that I've just read) would, I'm confident, be apoplectic if he knew about this site.

"Is use of those plus the odd hint from spouse / child / friend any worse than a gentle directional hint from this forum? A line needs to be drawn somewhere - but where, and who is to decide where?"

A suggestion for drawing the line: don't post answers (to any prize puzzle, but especially one as sensitive as the Listener) on the Internet before the deadline. The argument for doing so seems to be that "nobody has to read it". But I don't think this quite works, for three reasons.

- If a newspaper published a solution in the same issue as a prize puzzle, saying "please don't read the solution before submitting", they would be fools.
- People legitimately use Google to research Listener themes. If a Google excerpt contains solutions (which it easily could) then people will see them completely inadvertently.
- It's less fun to climb a mountain that has a cable-car up it already.

This web site might seem like a private group of friends chatting in the pub (and even the statistician wouldn't mind that sort of collaboration), but unfortunately it's a lot more public than that.

[cluelessJoe]

Chris - thanks for your response ... but a couple of things to clear up -

"Dont Post Answers" - many users here subscribe to that suggestion, but does that rule read literally, or do you also mean "Dont post hints"?

On drawing the line, do you allow as above the line any public site which offers an anagram solver, odd letter solver etc. etc.? There are a huge number of resources out there which were not available a few years ago - does their public availability make them any more legitimate that this one? Just where do you draw the line on that one? (Are the sites you use more acceptable than this just because you use them?)

"People legitimately use Google to research Listener themes." - Fine (well actually I have never used Google, I use Alta Vista). However, I doubt that many legitimately used search engine searches would turn up a link to a Listener thread on the Answer Bank. (i.e. I doubt that anyone 'innocently' searching for a theme subject would enter 'Listener' into their search query!)

"like a private group of friends chatting in the pub (and even the statistician wouldn't mind that sort of collaboration" ... so it's absolutely fine to solicit answers from one's close circle, but not from a wider circle?

Sadly, your post does not help the debate - it smacks of the dual or foggy standards over which we so frequently argue here. As I have said often before, I encourage public coaching but do not like to see blatant public cheating. However, I still can't draw a firm line - just where exactly does your Googling and Pub-chatting stand vis-a-vis the help available on this forum?

.. more

[cluelessJoe]

.. continued -

Reading between lines, your main criticism seems to be the public nature of this forum. I know it's available to whoever wants to see it (as are many other resources too) . I don't think that is necessarily a problem - the real issue is whether users seek to gain by submitting solutions not their own work with a view to winning a prize, or trying to up their statistical ranking. Sadly the origiantor of this thread has low moral standards - I'd hope that most will know exactly where to draw their own lines

[chrislear]

cluelessJoe, you understand me well, but I'm sorry you had to read between the lines to do so. Where we disagree is on the nature of "the real issue".

It's purely the public nature of the forum that I see as a problem. And my criticism (such as it is) is of the people who provide the answers, not those who seek them, nor those who use them. This is a practical point, and applies regardless of ethical stances on any of the fuzzy lines [I was trying to avoid the dual or foggy standards]. If the answers aren't there, nobody can fuss - end of story. I didn't say "don't even mention the puzzle", because I happen to think that's a bit strict, but if you want another practical guideline, there is one. It saves the discussion about how much of a hint is too much.

Back to the climbing metaphor: use whatever means you like - get a leg-up, join a team, use jumars, or do it all solo - it doesn't matter, as long as you leave the route clean for other climbers - which means not leaving your ropes dangling in reach of the free climbers.

I say this with no authority, and it's just my opinion, of course. For an example of what I think is a good way of providing community support for this sort of crossword, see http://fifteensquared.net/category/inquisitor/ , which discusses the Inquisitor in detail after the deadline.

[By the way, the Google search thing was based on an actual anecdote]

[cluelessJoe]

Philip. ChrisLear, Valerian and other interested parties. Thanks for your comments and for expressing your concerns so eloquently ... sadly I have just seen the spoiler post on this weeks Listener (3968) from Crosswit77 who instantly propels himself from the undistinguished ranks of the morally lacking to higher plane of utter jerk. Although I feel the credit in the original post is very much misplaced insofar as I am concerned, I do apologise if I have been in any way responsible for this child's attaining the totally undeserved accolade of an invite to the annual dinner in recognition of his 2007 'achievement'. I sincerely hope that nobody will help the clown to complete a clean sheet for the coming year.