Crime

Jim Kraus | December 4, 2007
Since when is a copyright infringement lawsuit a "crime"?

Especially when combined with the term "plotter", suggesting some kind of scheme or caper?

Maybe its just the lawyer in me....

Jason Evans | December 4, 2007
No, it is not just the lawyer in you. It was a typical LL goo, meaning the clue was obscure and intentionally misleading. I am sure she giggled all the way home that no one got her goo.

Personally, I think it is easy to make up a goo that no one can get. Lori is a master at the absurdly difficult and obscure. I think the real challenge is making a goo that is hard enough that some poeple miss it but logical enough that some people can get it. What's more, when the answer is revealed and explained, everyone can look at it and say, "yeah, I could figured that one out."

With most of Lori's goos the answer is revealed and I say, "well, I am glad I did not waste my time on that as it was impossible anyway."

Sorry if this seems like I am attacking Lori. She may be a great person. All I know about her is that she does not play the goo game but she designs goos that are impossible to get. Frankly, when I see the answers to her goos I often wonder what kind of person would take delight in making them up like that.

I'll probably get chided or something for being mean in this post but I think Lori should know how I feel... and I know there are other goo players who feel similarly.

-Jason Evans

Scott Hardie | December 4, 2007
Jason: Good analysis. I don't think you're being mean at all, but I do think you've misjudged Lori's intentions. She does not design her goos to be impossible, nor does she delight in stumping all other players. Though she might make jokes to that effect, the truth is, she's after the "real challenge" that you described: Creating a goo that is very hard but solvable, and that makes you realize afterwards how it could have been solved. Sometimes she succeeds in that goal, and sometimes she overshoots the mark with a goo that is too tough, like this one turned out to be. For what it's worth, I didn't think this goo was going to turn out to be impossible either, or I would not have published it at this time. I knew it would be quite difficult, yes, but I expected a handful of correct guesses.

I know that most players consider the super-hard goos to be no fun to play, and I agree with them. That's why I try to have a blend of varying difficulties that includes only an occasional super-hard goo like this a couple of times a year. That said, this one was an accident; I would have saved it for a tournament sometime later if I had known it was this tough.

And Lori does play in the game. She's sitting out this round, but she's played consistently over the years.

Lori: Sorry if I've misrepresented you, in which case please correct me.

Jim: I apologize; it was poor judgment on my part. Lori suggested either Crime (since the law says the copyright holder is entitled to pursue damages) or Law & Order (since this case would likely make new law for fan websites), and I made a quick judgment call in assigning those categories that I probably wouldn't make again.

Lori Lancaster | December 4, 2007
[hidden by request]

Shawn Brandt | December 4, 2007
I was pretty frustrated with this one, but I am less so after seeing the answer. I think Jim is right that the "Crime" categorization coupled with "plotter" was probably what threw most folks off track. Plotter was a pretty clever play on Potter, but alongside crime it's highly unlikely anybody was going to look at it that way.

Controversy and Scandal may have been a more appropriate category.

Denise Sawicki | December 4, 2007
It's hard to come up with a goo that's hard but fair... I guess I've never succeeded at requesting one that was actually *hard* at all :-) except that time I didn't write the clue. Lori seems to err in the other direction sometimes but I'm sure it's not out of meanness. I must say I was laughably off-track on researching 1149... I took "resource" combined with "internet" and thought it would be something about crimes using virtual money in games like Second Life.

Aaron Shurtleff | December 4, 2007
You think that's hard? Have you looked back in the Archives at the Reese Witherspoon GOO (and Robert Patrick, as far as that goes)? And that wasn't even a LL GOO (it's like LL Bean, only better!). I believe that was all Scott (it was before my time, but still legendary...in my mind at least!).

Everyone has their knowledge base, and what's hard for one person, might be nigh-impossible for another. It's where you're coming from. I'd rather have the LL-style GOOs that I never end up getting, rather than the super-easy GOOs that everyone gets, and I'm glad for the mix. I wasted a lot of time on that GOO, and I'll do it again on the next one. I would never have heard of Rasmus Lerdorf (for example) if it wasn't for the GOO! (I know that some Computer Science-type folks probably thought it was easy!)

For that matter (maybe because there's no lawyer in me), but I don't see how can it be on its way to court if it's not a crime?!

Personally, I have no problem with what was said previously. Everyone has their preferences, and you can't really hope that everyone will see things your way. But the way it was said does leave much to be desired, I think.

I guess I better work on my own GOO submissions (which has almost become a running joke between Scott and I...I'm really working on them!!!). Hopefully they will be well accepted. :)

Steve Dunn | December 4, 2007
I don't mind an occasional super-hard goo during the accumulation phase. I got frustrated with the obscure anime goo in the playoffs of the last round because in a "one and done" situation, if you're serious about winning you really have to try to track down every answer. That meant spending hours and hours running down a goo that was, in my humble opinion, essentially impossible.

This one I don't think is so bad. I think if this one were in the playoffs, a few folks would have gotten it. One MAJOR point I appreciate about this goo is that if you do a Google Image search on the correct answer, you can find the source image to confirm you are correct. I realize there are arguments on both sides of that question, but (again, in my opinion) when you have a super-obscure clue, it's polite to use an easily accessible image. An impossible image coupled with an obscure clue tends to create an impossible goo.

I knew early on that I was unlikely to get this one, so I didn't spend hours on it. I probably worked on it for 30-60 minutes. My approach was way off: I guessed some dude who had created maps of the environments of a bunch of video games. I thought "epic" had to do with adventure games and "plotter" had to do with mapping. I figured someone must have sued the guy for copyright infringement (I guess I didn't ponder the crime categorization as much as others did) but I didn't get much further than that.

Obviously, I was way off.

Now knowing the answer, I think this goo was fair. Perhaps not perfect in every way, but after you've played a while you learn the clues aren't always perfect. That's just another part of the game - figuring out what the clues really mean, and what they might mean if they aren't perfect.

Jim Kraus | December 4, 2007
"Crime" can have a very specific definition.

That definition is not "something that can be brought to court" or "something from which damages can be won".

If we're going to generalize, you should probably use "something for which you can go to jail/prison", and a government entity better be one of the parties.

I had kind of heard of this situation, and for a while I was looking at literary stuff. But, even if I had stumbled across this guy, I would have rejected it because what he did is not a "crime" in any sense of the word.

As it is, I settled upon a British guy that created an ISP and then later was actually convicted of a crime as a result of one of his businesses. That fits the clue a heckuva lot better. The picture didn't, but I had given up by that point.

In my brief time here, I've found I like the goos that entail a bit of effort. Getting them in under 2 minutes is cool too, but challenges are always nice. But...watch your terms. There are entirely too many lawyers playing this game :) .

Thanks,

Prosecutor Jim

Russ Wilhelm | December 5, 2007
While I don't always agree whole heartedly with some of the clues for Lori's goos, I do respect her prowess with them. Most of her goos, regardless of the difficulty (and not all are so hard), are dead on, and entertaining. And the images are always easy to find, so you generally know when you found it.

There are a couple of things I didn't like about this one, but nothing that bothers me too much at all.

This was a master goo. Truely Imelda worthy. I don't beleive it was impossible, in fact I feel I was very close at one point, but detoured to a new direction. Not that I'd have found it, except by accident, but was at least in the right arena. But as I said elsewhere, that I would track down this goo till the end, and I did.

And I agree with Lori and Denise, if you think it's easy to come up with goos, try one for each level of difficulty, and see how close to the mark you come. It's not so simple.

Keep 'em coming Lori, I'll take the challenge any time.

Amy Austin | December 6, 2007
As I've said -- at great length -- before, I simultaneously love/hate Lori's goos. Like others who appreciate them, I enjoy the challenge (okay, "value" might be a more exact way of putting it!)... but I don't always enjoy the *timing* of such a challenge. I can certainly appreciate Steve Dunn's take on it (including the courtesy of a verifiable image for an impossibly hard goo), and right now I don't have the kind of time that would have been needed to uncover Mr. "Plotter" -- which, looking at it post-reveal I can almost certainly say that I would NOT have found him... due to the agreeably somewhat misleading "Crime" category (but ONLY because I, too, think that Controversy & Scandal would have been more appropriate... with Crime as a possible subcategory). For these reasons and in this respect only do I share in Jason's feeling of relief for not having spent too much time & effort looking.

The only other sucky thing about them is that they are also streak-breakers -- something has to do it, though, and at least it breaks them across the board. But DEFINITELY keep them coming, Lori -- I am always looking for my Imelda that will put me over Matt on that! ;-) And with this many players in the game, that becomes a tougher feat every day... the goos *have* to be impossibly "LL" hard in order to achieve it!!!

Scott Hardie | December 21, 2007
I'm really reluctant to dredge this controversy back up again, but it's not fair for me to write to Jason privately and not defend him here. Let me just say that I think his statements were based on presumption of fact that turned out to be incorrect, and that he was clearly not trying to be mean, just stating his opinion. There's room for Jason and Lori together in the game, and lots of other perspectives on what makes for a good difficult goo. I'm glad to hear comments from all corners.