Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!jfk3-feed1.news.digex.net!dca6-feed2.news.digex.net!intermedia!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!portc01.blue.aol.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!not-for-mail
From: buzzard@TheWorld.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: bad reviews for foreign language games (like Begegnung am Fluss)
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <Gn45GG.G00@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 19:14:39 GMT
References: <4f137832.0111190125.746a46a7@posting.google.com> <9tbrtr$scj$1@news.panix.com> <Gn2xJB.D5t@world.std.com> <3bfa8507.8780635@news.xs4all.nl>
Nntp-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999)
Lines: 44
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.games.int-fiction:66848

Branko Collin <collin@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett), you wrote on Tue, 20 Nov 2001
>>I don't think that's outside
>>the realm of possibility, but it was harder to
>>explain so I went with the simpler one because
>>I had no idea you were going to be picky about
>>hypotheticals with what is clearly an actual,
>>real, practical problem
>
>Another possible scenario is that a game author who is not too handy
>with computers, but interfaces much easier with people (they do
>exist!), rounds up a hundred friends who award his game with a 9 on
>average and random other games with a 3 or a 4.
>
>Another possible scenario is ...
>
>How about we cross these bridges when we get there?

Because we have evidence we've hit the foothills, and
we'll have an annoying year some year if we don't grab
some rope to make the bridge with BEFORE we finding
ourselves dangling off a cliff.

>So far, I have only seen unsubstantiated allegations that all 13
>voters that gave BaF a 1 have done so because they did not speak the
>language and that all people (or a majority of them) who did not vote
>on BaF, did so because they did not speak the language.

I thought the statistics speak for themselves relatively
plainly. We have one review which says so explicitly, which
seems roughly proportional to the number of 1s out of the
total voter candidatehood.

>proof for this whatsoever, and unless you will interview all the
>judges, and assuming they are all willing to reply and speak the
>truth, there is no way you are going to find out.

Oh, ok, nevermind. So also, the world is flat, right? [1]

SeanB
[1] We have plenty of scientific knowledge of things we
can't see, especially stuff down in the molecular, atomic,
and sub-atomic ranges. Statisticial knowledge is about all
we have there.
