Talk:Episode 7834

DUSKER

Sorry but I disagree that DUSKER is allowable. Not all adjectives are comparative, the fact they are monosyllabic does not change this principle. Correct examples of comparative and superlative would be DUSKY, DUSKIER, DUSKIEST. Monosyllabic or not, Oxford Dictionaries Premium almost always specifes adjectives in both comparative and superlative forms, but DUSKER is not specified. The historical OED also contains no examples of DUSKER in any of its records, which date back to 1225. In short, I do not believe there is such a word as DUSKER and Dent's decision was correct. --CountdownChloe (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Chloe, as is often the case, you are incorrect in your assertion.

DUSKY is an adjective. Its comparative and superlative forms are DUSKIER and DUSKIEST respectively.

DUSK is a separate adjective. Its comparative and superlative forms are DUSKER and DUSKEST respectively.

Understandable that Susie got this wrong, given how easy it is to conflate DUSK and DUSKY. That's probably how the error arose, just as your doubling down on her error arises from the same confusion. But the simple fact here is that Dent's call was wrong.

Any remaining doubters must learn to accept this with good grace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayum (talk • contribs)

Er, I didn't conflate them. I gave DUSK and DUSKY as two separate words to clarify why one has comparative adjectives and one does not. Not all adjectives are comparative, which you conveniently chose to ignore. I also don't think it's very 'graceful' to say that I am often wrong, but there we are. There is no such word as DUSKER or DUSKEST and I backed this up with evidence. If you choose to ignore that, or not look into it any further, that's your prerogative. --CountdownChloe (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry petal, but you're still wrong about this.

The Countdown rules CLEARLY state that with any monosyllabic adjective, the comparative and superlative forms are acceptable for play as a default. There is no grey area here.

You say "not all adjectives are comparative"... Is that so? The onus is now on you to provide a valid example of any monosyllabic adjective in the English language for which your statement is accurate. Ball's in your court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayum (talk • contribs)

Okay, so there are two things to say about this. Firstly, there are admittedly not many monosyllabic adjectives which aren't comparative or superlative, but one example of this is the word DEAD. There is no DEADER or DEADEST. Dent has often said that to be valid, words must either be specified in OPD or used in example sentences. If not, they are invalid, and this supercedes the monosyllabic adjective rule. Otherwise you would have words like DEADER and DEADEST being waived through despite not existing. And whilst no one is infallible, I am confident Susie Dent interprets the rules more accurately than any of us could.

The second thing to say is that it is clear from this exchange that you are incapable of having a neutral, sensible discussion about ambiguous rule interpretation, first resorting to insult and then to misogyny. This sort of hubris and arrogance (and sexism) has no place in the Countdown community, and it is no wonder so few women participate in Countdown when people like you behave in the way that you do. And at least I'm happy to identify myself by leaving a signature --CountdownChloe (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It is commonly said that the contestant guidelines state that comparatives and superlatives do not need to be specified for single syllable adjectives, and this is the reason that DUSKER should have been permissible. Perhaps someone who has filmed recently could provide the actual wording from the guidelines and put this to bed? DUSKER and DUSKEST are valid in scrabble so they're not completely ridiculous. TheWikiMan (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Chloe, it's ok to be wrong. As wikiman and myself have patiently explained, the Countdown rules as outlined to each contestant in advance of their screening are clear. Had you ever been a contestant, you would be aware of this already. If you feel offended, that is a pity, but for my part, all I have done is to point out that it is often the case that you are incorrect in your assertions. Anyone who is in the Countdowners fb group knows this already. I am surprised if it is coming as news to you. The second thing I did was to call you "petal". That's a term of endearment. I expected you would have appreciated it as that. At least I did not publicly accuse you of being "a carousel short of a funfair". Only a truly nasty person would do that. Anyway, take care. xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayum (talk • contribs)

"Dent has often said that to be valid, words must either be specified in OPD or used in example sentences. If not, they are invalid, and this supercedes the monosyllabic adjective rule."

Wrong. I think you must have misremembered or misinterpreted something Susie said. The whole point of the monosyllabic adjective rule is that it enables the existence of the comparative and superlative to be deduced in the absence of an explicit indication thereof. It's the same as deducing the existence of plurals and verbal inflections, except that it's restricted based on the form of the word (in this case, number of syllables) and not just part of speech. If the absence of an explicit mention or use of the derived word overrode this, what would the "monosyllabic adjective rule" mean at all? — Stewart (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess my point is the monosyllabic adjective rule ignores the principle of orphan adjectives, akin to saying words which simply don't exist - or of which no explicit examples in any form exist in the OED, by way of direct examples or sentence examples, can just be waived through as if they do exist. If rules have exceptions then their credibility is questionable IMO. As for you Eion, if I had made that comment in the group, how would you know I had since you were banned ages ago? And for very good reason --CountdownChloe (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies in advance to the good-faith editors of the wiki, but I must respond to Chloe’s latest comments, as there are some personal remarks and also some lies that need to be addressed, and I have no way of communicating with Chloe other than through here.

Firstly Chloe, my name is EOIN not EION. This is not the first time you have referred to me by the wrong name or pronoun. This is something I would never dream of doing to you, so I would respectfully ask you not to do so again please.

Secondly, let me get this straight. Were you just caught making a mocking comment about someone who you know to be struggling with mental health issues… and your response was “How dare you see my awful comment” rather than any form of apology or retraction for having made a disgusting remark? That is pretty low, even for you. FYI, in spite of your attempts to block me from it, I can see the contents of Countdowners any time I please. Aside from that, I have dozens of friends in the group (at least one of whom is modmin), who will always let me know if there is anything in there that is in any way noteworthy.

Thirdly, you say I was banned from Countdowners “for very good reason”. That has triggered me, because it is such a blatant lie. Here are the facts about that banning. In late January 2021 one of your admin team went out of his way to send me a private message looking for advice on how to handle the bullying problems in the group. At that time ye were struggling with an influx of new members. The proliferation of “Colin Murray” threads were causing ye great hassle. I gave a lengthy response, diplomatically outlining the problems as I saw them. Of course, the elephant in the room at that time is that the bullying clique were your friends, which is why they were allowed run rampant and ruin the vibe of the group… something that your admin reluctantly agreed to be true, but decided not to mention it in the discussions that were to come. In the months that followed, some of my infrequent ‘controversial’ contributions to Countdowners were to simply try be welcoming to new members and to call out the bullying culture if it got too bad. However, I was very careful how I conducted myself, because I knew that you were volatile and unpredictable in your group adminning. Even though we had always gotten on pretty well, and I had always liked you, you had already unfriended me on Facebook over a difference of opinion on socio-political issues… so it was not beyond the realms of possibility that you would find an excuse to ban me from Countdowners too. There had been a few precedents of people being banned who really didn’t deserve it.

When the ban did come, it was for two reasons:- 1. I mentioned that I had no interest in the “Live and Spoilerous” thread, and that I much preferred when small interesting tidbits from the day’s show were posted as standalone topics. One of the bullying clique tagged you and suggested I should be banned for voicing that opinion. 2. You wrote a comment saying that you thought the scoring system in Celebrity Countdown” was better than that in the normal version. I commented that that scoring system would render the game unwatchable... to which you replied a snarky little "In your opinion". Every comment I made trying to defend my point of view got deleted by you. Until eventually, I stopped trying and just laugh reacted your comment about celeb scoring and liked any comment that disagreed (that is, any such comment that remained undeleted). Then you banned me.

Banned me for disagreeing with your opinion. Which brings us neatly back to DUSKER. I get that you hate being disagreed with (no-one knows that better than me), however when all of the elite lexicography enthusiasts of the CD community are in agreement that Susie probably made an error when adjudicating DUSKER, would you not just have a rare moment of humility and concede that they are more likely to know what they are talking about than you? - Ayum (talk) 16:32, 03 September 2022 (UTC)