RUCERVINE results!

[Jean-Joseph Cote]

I think it turned out fine, especially considering that the word that 
won by a landslide was completely different.  Having a suspicion about a 
word isn't the same as recognizing it, and although you had some useful 
knowledge about this one, it doesn't seem to have helped you at voting 
time (since you don't appear to have voted).  Bottom line is that, 
moreso than in other contexts in this life, this is all for fun, and 
nobody here takes this very seriously.  And it was definitely worth it 
for your entertaining deer/beer definition anyway.  (I'll note that on 
at least one occasion in the past, someone who recognized a word went 
ahead and submitted a definition, but then withheld his two-point vote 
since he knew which definition was real.  And that was fine.)

Jean-Joseph

Nicolas Ward wrote:
> On 5/3/07, Nora Munoz <noraemunoz at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Sorry for the delay in getting the results back to
>> you.  I had fun putting together my first ever
>> fictionary ballot.  I was concerend when two ballots
>> came in that were very close to the actual definition,
>> and I made the decision to let them stand on the
>> assumption that the fictionariers didn't really know
>> the definition and that it would confuse the rest of
>> you!  (it sort of did...)  So thanks for a fun round,
>> and I hope to attempt further play so I might actually
>> have a chance to win again!
>
> When the word was first submitted, I read it as rucer - vine, thinking
> some kind of plant... and then later I remembered that cervine = deer.
> Should I have canceled the round, or not submitted a definition?
>
> --Nick
>