Back to SOWPODS

From: Hector Lopez <icenine@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:54:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: SOWPODS as a METAPHOR
Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.94.970923115432.18821A-100000@panix3.panix.com>

On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Stuart D. Goldman wrote:

... one of the anti-SOWPODS speakers here has admitted to me privately that it is a better game, yet he still has his reasons for opposing it. If he chooses (not using my customary s/he here because they're all male on that side) he may let us all know both his identity and those reasons.

Stu, as usual, distorts private conversations, and continues to imply that dissenters are of inferior character[1]. I "admitted" to him that SOWPODS is a "better" game on very limited grounds -- i.e., if we define better as "more open." He further fantasizes that I'm hiding my reasons for opposing SOWPODS, when in fact I've wasted much of the last three years replying publicly to vocal SOWPODS advocates, who are greatly over-represented on CGP. In case Stu isn't the only one here suffering from such memory dysfunction, I'll repeat my main objections to SOWPODS, in no particular order:

  1. Both books (OSPD and OSW) are unsuitable for modern-day Scr*****; they contain hundreds of obsolete words, nonwords, misspellings, and words that appeared only briefly in Renaissance literature. Several SOWPODS advocates have acknowledged this, both publicly and privately. "Don't worry," they say. "We'll fix the dictionary after unification."
  2. The words, and their provenance, are important. When most of us signed up for this cruise, we expected to be playing a game wherein the words reflect our own culture. When an unfamiliar word appears on the board, well-read individuals can make reasonable assumptions about its part of speech. Adding thousands of words from the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, et al makes such assumptions virtually impossible, and further turns the sacred game into a memorization contest. The gap between WSC aspirants and the rest of us (including lower experts) may widen considerably, whether or not this is a consequence intended by SOWPODS advocates.
Be careful what you wish for, superstars: After the adoption of SOWPODS in its current form, many 1850 players may find themselves dropping to 1750 or less. Others may tire of serving as cannon fodder, and decide to play in fewer tournaments. With a corresponding drop in the size of expert divisions, where will your prize money come from?

[1] Readers may correctly infer that much of this post is an ad hominem attack on Stu.

(The Late Rev.) Larry Sherman