BANG 25 Writeup Addendum
Jonathan rarely reads my writeups. On the occasion he does, he often complains about their accuracy. I think he said at one point that they maybe averaged being 90% accurate. Given the limitations of human memory (especially mine), I'm almost surprised it's that high. I comfort myself that, like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, when I'm inaccurate, at least I'm definitely inaccurate.
Some of the inaccuracy may simply occur because I don't have a full team point of view. For example, Jonathan pointed out to me that he was already doing prime factorization on the Math Class puzzle when Given said "Prime factorization?" He had seen the puzzle before and knew exactly what to do. Given, therefore, was just explaining what he saw Jonathan doing. Since I hadn't seen Jonathan start writing down factors at that point, from my point of view it looked like Given had had the aha.
Another one was where the P.E. clue. Rob was talking about how each of the baseball positions also had an innate ordering. Jonathan had apparently just mentioned seeing a similar puzzle that used that ordering before and asked if anybody knew what the ordering was. Rob was giving it to him. I had arrived late to the table, though, so again, from my point of view it looked like Rob had had the key insight.
I hate to rob anybody of credit for having a major insight into a puzzle. The truth is, though, that Jonathan, Eric Prestemon (when he plays with us) and to a lesser extent myself, usually have a majority of them. This may simply be because we've had more experience than the rest of our team and it doesn't hurt that Jonathan and Eric have really quick minds. I also don't mean to diminish from other team members' contributions either; they all have invaluable insights and are never lacking when it comes to making our team competitive.
In the end, my goal is not necessarily to provide an accurate reporting of what went on for any given puzzle event, but instead to preserve my memories, flawed as they may be, before they fade from my head completely.
Some of the inaccuracy may simply occur because I don't have a full team point of view. For example, Jonathan pointed out to me that he was already doing prime factorization on the Math Class puzzle when Given said "Prime factorization?" He had seen the puzzle before and knew exactly what to do. Given, therefore, was just explaining what he saw Jonathan doing. Since I hadn't seen Jonathan start writing down factors at that point, from my point of view it looked like Given had had the aha.
Another one was where the P.E. clue. Rob was talking about how each of the baseball positions also had an innate ordering. Jonathan had apparently just mentioned seeing a similar puzzle that used that ordering before and asked if anybody knew what the ordering was. Rob was giving it to him. I had arrived late to the table, though, so again, from my point of view it looked like Rob had had the key insight.
I hate to rob anybody of credit for having a major insight into a puzzle. The truth is, though, that Jonathan, Eric Prestemon (when he plays with us) and to a lesser extent myself, usually have a majority of them. This may simply be because we've had more experience than the rest of our team and it doesn't hurt that Jonathan and Eric have really quick minds. I also don't mean to diminish from other team members' contributions either; they all have invaluable insights and are never lacking when it comes to making our team competitive.
In the end, my goal is not necessarily to provide an accurate reporting of what went on for any given puzzle event, but instead to preserve my memories, flawed as they may be, before they fade from my head completely.
Labels: BANG, bang 25, commentary, memory
posted by Skott at 8:00 AM
4 comments
