Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fraud"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
From what I can tell younger players don't quite understand what fraud actually is and think it means "using knowledge to infer what the answer should be"--Andrew Wang 05262022 | From what I can tell younger players don't quite understand what fraud actually is and think it means "using knowledge to infer what the answer should be"--Andrew Wang 05262022 | ||
| + | |||
| + | That's not how it works; just because the definition of something has changed doesn't mean the new definition is wrong [[User:George Tagtmeier|George Tagtmeier]] ([[User talk:George Tagtmeier|talk]]) 19:02, 26 May 2022 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:02, 26 May 2022
It feels like the meaning of this term has changed over time; I don't think of, say, "buzzed on a Nobel Prize clue" as fraudulent, even if grinding that knowledge is tedious and frowned-upon. And writing standards have changed a lot; questions that "encourage fraud" aren't nearly as much of A Thing anymore, that Witch of Endor example is absurd, and good writers now include some clues they expect to be difficult in a vacuum precisely because they help thoughtful players narrow down the potential answer space. --Matt Jackson 5/25/2022
From what I can tell younger players don't quite understand what fraud actually is and think it means "using knowledge to infer what the answer should be"--Andrew Wang 05262022
That's not how it works; just because the definition of something has changed doesn't mean the new definition is wrong George Tagtmeier (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2022 (CDT)