Cryptic Contest II - Final scores posted

[Vagrant]

Yay me!

I think the best overall clue winners were well deserved. Congrats Scurra, groza and novice.

There were some exceptional clues in this round. I hope someone's champing at the bit to run another one.

[Vagrant]

[Zag]

Whoa! Dead last. Maybe now Suspence will stop asking my advice on cryptics.

Congrats Vagrant, novice, Scurra, and groza!

[Scurra]

Well I was fairly happy with three of my entries, and two of them ended up scoring very well so that's something. I am puzzled by the lack of success of a couple of others, and one or two hit similarity issues. But overall there was a good range of styles from everyone on show here.

Now, while we are ready to quibble...

DEARTH - Elethomiel: I didn't understand "stuffing" as a removal indicator. It seems like the exact opposite. Surprised by the high showing of that clue.

DISPLEASE - esme: where does PL come from? How does "homeopathic" indicate that?
groza528: since when was DISP a Basic command?! (Have done some research now and I see it was for a very specific interpreter - not sure how that could have been guessed without knowing the answer first.)

EXPLOIT - Scurra: Easily my best clue, although I wonder if I could have got away without the last three words?
3iff: Probably my favourite clue idea in the contest; just some minor wording issues stopped me giving that one top marks.
novice: You'll be glad to know that I was the one person who preferred your version of this idea to the published one!

IMPROMPTU - Vagrant/Scurra: I think we were a little unlucky here to have submitted essentially identical clues. Anyone care to say why they preferred Vagrant's version to mine? (Or vice versa!)
Zag: I liked "Nice! You" although I'm sure it would have been rejected by a professional editor.

NASCENT - groza528: I have no idea how this one got votes. I thought the surface reading was horrendously clunky.
Scurra: I was quite please with mine as I thought it would dodge the N+ASCENT idea that seemed the most obvious. Maybe it was a bit too complicated?
3iff: Another fun idea that ever so nearly works. Again, it avoided the N+ASCENT approach which may be why I liked it.

NIGHT - novice/Vagrant: Slightly doubtful about the overall definition part of this one.
Scurra: Not surprised I got clobbered here - I knew I was pushing my luck a bit. But it doesn't seem that much worse that the other "wild thing" clues.

NIKE: Elethomiel - how is "exposed" a container indicator? As with "stuffing", it's the exact opposite, surely? Clearly I move in a very different set of cryptic circles to you!

REALM: novice: "native" didn't seem like a container indicator to me, although thinking about it, I can see why it works.
Scurra - I was surprised this one crashed out. Maybe the reference was too odd?

TRANSPOSITION: I wasn't surprised that most entries were for anagrams; it rather leant itself to that.
Scurra - again, slightly surprised this one crashed out completely.

Overall, I evidently liked 3iff's quirky ideas more than other voters, and that the published clues were largely a cut above most of us. I thought that surface readings were the biggest problem, and that good &lit clues are clearly very hard to write (I tried to stay away from them) but I may be being unduly harsh on some of them.

My gold medal for best clue would go to the published clue for NIKE.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Elethiomel]

[Vagrant]

[novice*]

[novice*]

This was one of my favourite clues:

SILVER - groza528 - 12 points (2 G / 3 S / 0 B) - Exhausted ammunition.

It's a triple definition. The definitions bleed over into each other, but still.

[esme]

[groza528]

I'll look at other comments later because I'm late leaving for work, but:

[Vagrant]

DISPLEASE
This was the clue where my votes were most out of touch with the consensus. I didn’t vote for any of the top three. Not that there’s anything wrong with them (although I do wonder why homeopathic pill = PL) but I thought others were better.
[edit] and even though I've simulposted and seen esme's explanation I still don't get homeopathic pill = PL - how does homeopathic = without content?[/edit]

EXPLOIT
I thought this was the best of my clues but it got the worst result. Is it bad or did it just fail against better clues? Scurra’s clue was easily the best but I’m surprised that the published clue came second.

NASCENT
This was the clue where my votes were most in touch with the consensus. It was also the hardest to vote for because it had the most clues I thought were good and could have voted for. I think a lot of good clues missed out on votes here because the top three were exceptional.

NIGHT
I very nearly changed my clue in my resubmission because, even though I liked it, I didn’t think other people would. I’m surprised it did so well.

TRANSPOSITION
I’m just going to throw this out there for comment because I’d like to know - my original clue for this word was
Print ‘SO’ as ‘TO’ in error, perhaps!
I’m interested to hear opinions on it.

[Elethiomel]

[Suspence]

[Vagrant]

I think I have some source material somewhere. I'll try and dig it out. If I can find it by the end of the week, and if nobody else starts one, I'm happy to host the next one.

If there's enough ongoing interest we could make taking over the prize for winning.

[Suspence]

[Scurra]

[esme]

[novice]

"Change of key" would have been good, or "key change" as the published clue used. "To change key" is less than ideal, I think that's the equivalent of "To transpose". I used "Conversion involving [changing key]".

I think "Homeopathic pill" was very creative but not strictly fair. Sometimes a small rule transgression in the name of creativity can be okay, though.

[Quailman]

[novice]

[Suspence]

Since "so as to" is an idiom (meaning "in order to"), would something like this have worked?

Print "so as ot" in error, perhaps!

Having an actual misspelled word in the clue may be a no-no, but it serves its purpose.
_________________
I hate people who try to write interesting things in their signature.

[Amb]

I did about as good as I expected. I way preferred my clues from last time. A couple of my clues outscored expectation,and some that I liked more - scored nothing.

[Scurra]

[Thok]

I basically did about how I expected, and the clues that I thought would do well did.

OK, I think my Nike clue should have gotten silver over the published clue, but that's too close to call. (I voted gold for bikini kerfluffle, so I can't complain about it getting gold.)

[Elethiomel]

I gave your Nike clue a gold medal, Thok. I thought it was pretty neat.

[Scurra]

I liked it too, although (pace the Chris discussion above), I didn't immediately make sense of the Jordan reference - being a Brit, I am ashamed to say that Katie Price came to mind first, followed by the country. The correct reference took a long time to come to mind, even knowing what the answer was supposed to be.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Amb]

Using Olympic Rankings:

[Thok]

Using American Style Olympic Rankings:

[esme]

[Vagrant]

[Elethiomel]

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Maybe tighten up the deadlines a little bit, in return.

I think the medal system is working out alright; they can be used to generate both points-based, olympic, and American style olympic rankings. That way, you can get a more nuanced picture of the rankings, or just pick the one that suits you best.

[3iff]

I have to re-read the comments since the results appeared, but I'm really delighted at avoiding last place, and 10th is very acceptable.

My first attempt at writing cryptics and I beat Zag? (well, everyone beat Zag!)...

My clues were 'quirky' because I don't (yet) understand the style of how they should be written, thanks for the kind words, Scurra. Glad you enjoyed some of my efforts.

I would really appreciate a critique of any of my clues, either here or via PM so that next time I might do even better.

Good game. More comments soon.

[Vagrant]

[3iff]

Vagrant, Thanks for the comments. I accept that some of my clues were too wordy and against the other competition some of my efforts simply didn't work. That was to be expected.

The NIGHT clue was particularly difficult for me...no idea why. My effort was an attempt to try something 'different' but it obviously didn't work.

The REALM clue was flabby at the end. I see that I could have tightened it up a bit.

My SHOT clue I did like, ditto for EXPLOIT and they seem to have been my best efforts.

Other comments welcome...

How I voted.

[novice]

[Thok]

[3iff]

My first attempt (and the one I originally submitted) for this was

EXPLOIT
Blow up; There's an advantage when replacing Germany with Italy.
EXPLODE remove DE and add IT = EXPLOIT

The Suspence replied with...

[3iff]

Thok, Yes, your TRANSPOSITION clue was similar to mine but yours was far better...

My vote here was...
Gold - Opinions start to change and switch. (because it's almost identical to my entry)

[Vagrant]

The definition being between two elements of wordplay that have to act with each other is the biggest cryptic no-no. Much much worse than an indirect anagram.

[esme]

I would also be happy with a detailed critique of my clues.

The only thing that I am quite aware of is that they are too long on average. Also, I suspected that the UFO clue might be less than welcomed, but I just liked the surface reading too much.