Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

WELL DONE BULLFROG
I W I L L R E T U R N
Dont think parsing the entry is a good thing!!
Allows too much extra """push"""
The clue should stand alone
If someone doesnt get it it must be either very good or very poor. but it wouldnt be chosen as winner. Which is fair if its poor-----Cest laGuerre if its good!!!
LOL
THEA

Well done Bullfrog and well done blue moon. Good choice of word, good choice of winner. I, too, don't agree with entries being parsed, but I do think the judge's choice should always be accepted without criticism.

peterm, please accept that I don't want another argument and I'm only clearing the air but did you not query LIVERPUDLIAN? I do agree the judge's decision is final but no discussion? I might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb!

I'm not hanging you for anything rambler - far from it. I didn't criticise Liverpudlian, I just asked for an explanation, in good faith, because I didn't understand it. I'm always happy to learn.

Congratulations, nice clue Bullfrog.

peterm, I just felt I was just sticking my neck out again. Thanks for clearing that up.

Well done Bullfrog,

I have to agree that if the word setter or judge doesn't quite get the full word play of a clue, then he or she should be at liberty to request an explanation, THEA mentions above that it could be really good or really poor , it would be a shame if a post was really good but looked over because the judge didn't see the true quality within the word play and merely fleeted over it not quite seeing the subtle brilliance that some of the clues display, which I must admit I do myself when reading through them when the posted clues can sometimes get up to 40 or 50 entries and sometimes more.
I sometimes miss subtle wordplay in clues becauase of differences in colloquial speech, not being well read with characters from Literature, obsolete or vague meanings of words and scientific or foreign words.
It would be nice if the judge could post a thread around lunchtime or even just before the deadline asking for explanations to clues which are causing difficulty to de-cipher.

It would be interesting if the original clue writer wasn't available to explain their own wordplay and see if others could offer their skills in the de-cipher of the clue.

Rant over, Take care all

Not a rant Les, a good point, well made!

And congrats Bullfrog.

Agree with Saki,

Have taken the liberty of copying and pasting this bit from Les 40's post:

It would be interesting if the original clue writer wasn't available to explain their own wordplay and see if others could offer their skills in the de-cipher of the clue.

If none of us can parse it, then it's clearly not a good clue. Would add my bit here and say that the original clue writer should NOT be able to explain their own wordplay.

Also agree that the setter's decision should be final (whether it's right or wrong or deemed to be unfair!!)

All that said, it could be that if we lay down too many rules, the whole thing may not be so much fun.....?