Ditch Fahrenheit's Journal 7 7

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

That was fun. I like this game.

 

How can I make it better?

 

Would it be better to do one sig at a time?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

That was fun. I like this game.

 

How can I make it better?

 

Would it be better to do one sig at a time?

 

 

No all or nothing. It was like crickets in here.

 

There are TONS of obscure sigs out there that are impossible to "read", so there's lots of potential candidates, plus the guys who sign different ways.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Plus, no complaints about who caused the lock.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

PS. Nice work with obscuring "Stimpy"

 

 

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

That was fun. I like this game.

 

How can I make it better?

 

Would it be better to do one sig at a time?

 

 

No all or nothing. It was like crickets in here.

 

There are TONS of obscure sigs out there that are impossible to "read", so there's lots of potential candidates, plus the guys who sign different ways.

 

Which would be better (more fun)?

 

a) 10 sigs like before, but no all or nothing. Winner decided by most correctly submitted.

 

b) 1 sig at a time. Winner decided by who gets it right first. (This is probably easiest to implement.)

 

c) ?

 

Edited January 21, 2015 by Ditch Fahrenheit

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

PS. Nice work with obscuring "Stimpy"

 

 

Yeah, I had to on that one.

[jsilverjanet]

How about 5 at a time, but if they include the book youu get 10 points

 

 

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Game Suggestions So Far

 

a) 10 sigs like before, but no all or nothing. Winner decided by most correctly submitted.

 

b) 1 sig at a time. Winner decided by who gets it right first. (This is probably easiest to implement.)

 

c) 5 at a time, +1 for each book correctly identified

 

d) 1 sig at a time. Winner decided by who gets it right first. Crop area of pic incrementally increased over set intervals.*

 

* - I just thought of this.

 

[DeadpoolJr.]

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

 

 

 

 

[+]

[Ogami]

Here is #6. (Eric Stephenson)

 

I think this is the one most people were having problems with.

 

 

I don't recall signing that book, but that's definitely my heart.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Here is #6. (Eric Stephenson)

 

I think this is the one most people were having problems with.

 

 

I don't recall signing that book, but that's definitely my heart.

 

I totally thought of you when I first saw that.

[RockMyAmadeus]

That was fun. I like this game.

 

How can I make it better?

 

Would it be better to do one sig at a time?

 

 

No all or nothing. It was like crickets in here.

 

There are TONS of obscure sigs out there that are impossible to "read", so there's lots of potential candidates, plus the guys who sign different ways.

 

Which would be better (more fun)?

 

a) 10 sigs like before, but no all or nothing. Winner decided by most correctly submitted.

 

b) 1 sig at a time. Winner decided by who gets it right first. (This is probably easiest to implement.)

 

c) ?

 

c) Profit

[RockMyAmadeus]

That was fun. I like this game.

 

How can I make it better?

 

Would it be better to do one sig at a time?

 

 

No all or nothing. It was like crickets in here.

 

There are TONS of obscure sigs out there that are impossible to "read", so there's lots of potential candidates, plus the guys who sign different ways.

 

Which would be better (more fun)?

 

a) 10 sigs like before, but no all or nothing. Winner decided by most correctly submitted.

 

b) 1 sig at a time. Winner decided by who gets it right first. (This is probably easiest to implement.)

 

c) ?

 

Points to each correct answer, so the effort isn't wasted. A is just like before, with the points being all or nothing in this case. All or nothing makes people feel like it's a wasted effort.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

That was fun. I like this game.

 

How can I make it better?

 

Would it be better to do one sig at a time?

 

 

No all or nothing. It was like crickets in here.

 

There are TONS of obscure sigs out there that are impossible to "read", so there's lots of potential candidates, plus the guys who sign different ways.

 

Which would be better (more fun)?

 

a) 10 sigs like before, but no all or nothing. Winner decided by most correctly submitted.

 

b) 1 sig at a time. Winner decided by who gets it right first. (This is probably easiest to implement.)

 

c) ?

 

Points to each correct answer, so the effort isn't wasted. A is just like before, with the points being all or nothing in this case. All or nothing makes people feel like it's a wasted effort.

 

I'm not following. How would it work?

[RockMyAmadeus]

That was fun. I like this game.

 

How can I make it better?

 

Would it be better to do one sig at a time?

 

 

No all or nothing. It was like crickets in here.

 

There are TONS of obscure sigs out there that are impossible to "read", so there's lots of potential candidates, plus the guys who sign different ways.

 

Which would be better (more fun)?

 

a) 10 sigs like before, but no all or nothing. Winner decided by most correctly submitted.

 

b) 1 sig at a time. Winner decided by who gets it right first. (This is probably easiest to implement.)

 

c) ?

 

Points to each correct answer, so the effort isn't wasted. A is just like before, with the points being all or nothing in this case. All or nothing makes people feel like it's a wasted effort.

 

I'm not following. How would it work?

 

Contestant 1 gets 7 right, 7 points.

 

Contestant 2 gets 1 right, 1 point.

 

Contestant 3 gets 2 right, 2 points.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

That was fun. I like this game.

 

How can I make it better?

 

Would it be better to do one sig at a time?

 

 

No all or nothing. It was like crickets in here.

 

There are TONS of obscure sigs out there that are impossible to "read", so there's lots of potential candidates, plus the guys who sign different ways.

 

Which would be better (more fun)?

 

a) 10 sigs like before, but no all or nothing. Winner decided by most correctly submitted.

 

b) 1 sig at a time. Winner decided by who gets it right first. (This is probably easiest to implement.)

 

c) ?

 

Points to each correct answer, so the effort isn't wasted. A is just like before, with the points being all or nothing in this case. All or nothing makes people feel like it's a wasted effort.

 

I'm not following. How would it work?

 

Contestant 1 gets 7 right, 7 points.

 

Contestant 2 gets 1 right, 1 point.

 

Contestant 3 gets 2 right, 2 points.

 

Oh, I see what you mean.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

That was fun. I like this game.

 

How can I make it better?

 

Would it be better to do one sig at a time?

 

 

No all or nothing. It was like crickets in here.

 

There are TONS of obscure sigs out there that are impossible to "read", so there's lots of potential candidates, plus the guys who sign different ways.

 

Which would be better (more fun)?

 

a) 10 sigs like before, but no all or nothing. Winner decided by most correctly submitted.

 

b) 1 sig at a time. Winner decided by who gets it right first. (This is probably easiest to implement.)

 

c) ?

 

Points to each correct answer, so the effort isn't wasted. A is just like before, with the points being all or nothing in this case. All or nothing makes people feel like it's a wasted effort.

 

I'm not following. How would it work?

 

Contestant 1 gets 7 right, 7 points.

 

Contestant 2 gets 1 right, 1 point.

 

Contestant 3 gets 2 right, 2 points.

 

Oh, I see what you mean.

 

But how would that work in practice? X posts answers, Y reads them and modifies his answers.

[RockMyAmadeus]

That was fun. I like this game.

 

How can I make it better?

 

Would it be better to do one sig at a time?

 

 

No all or nothing. It was like crickets in here.

 

There are TONS of obscure sigs out there that are impossible to "read", so there's lots of potential candidates, plus the guys who sign different ways.

 

Which would be better (more fun)?

 

a) 10 sigs like before, but no all or nothing. Winner decided by most correctly submitted.

 

b) 1 sig at a time. Winner decided by who gets it right first. (This is probably easiest to implement.)

 

c) ?

 

Points to each correct answer, so the effort isn't wasted. A is just like before, with the points being all or nothing in this case. All or nothing makes people feel like it's a wasted effort.

 

I'm not following. How would it work?

 

Contestant 1 gets 7 right, 7 points.

 

Contestant 2 gets 1 right, 1 point.

 

Contestant 3 gets 2 right, 2 points.

 

Oh, I see what you mean.

 

But how would that work in practice? X posts answers, Y reads them and modifies his answers.

 

No, first correct answer wins. There are enough eyeballs around here to prevent edits. Plus, the next person posting an answer could quote the one above, to be sure there aren't any changes.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Game Suggestions So Far

 

a) 10 sigs like before, but no all or nothing. Winner decided by most correctly submitted.

 

b) 1 sig at a time. Winner decided by who gets it right first. (This is probably easiest to implement.)

 

c) 5 at a time, +1 for each book correctly identified

 

d) 1 sig at a time. Winner decided by who gets it right first. Crop area of pic incrementally increased over set intervals.

 

e) 10 sigs at a time. Winner of each individual sig decided by who gets it right first.