There’s more than 5 Wordsmiths to post Scorings to, so there will always be repeated numbers unless a Wordsmith skips Scoring and takes the -1 penalty for doing so.

It might be easier to say “at least once instance of each number from 1 to 5 inclusive”

“Contains” is intended to be read as that set being contained in it somewhere, rather than the Pool matching that exactly: a Pool of “1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5” contains five different numbers, in the same way that it contains the number 3.

The repeated numbers clause is there to cover the unlikely but not impossible situation where there are fewer than five players/Backronyms.

I would interpret the strategic incentive to be Balanced, which isn’t explicit in the ruleset, as less important than the “should” requirement to make honest scorings; this is likely to randomly disenfranchise me as a scorer in some round where I can’t reasonably justify giving anyone a 1.

I’d personally prefer this with four out of the five numbers being required instead of a full set

[Bucky] Fair, although it’s the Scoring as a whole that the ruleset is asking for reflection in, rather than the numerical Score, so perhaps a comment of “Score 1 but I would have given this a 2 otherwise” would salve your ruletext conscience.

I am just tired of Raven (for the fourth round in a row) ignoring that same request for reflection, and indiscriminately scoring everything as a 5.

I think changing this to 4 different numbers as TDS suggested would make this more fair. 

I don’t think it’s a question of fairness, it’s just changing the grading system to be on a curve. The question shifts from “how would you rate each of these Backronyms out of 5 in isolation” to “rank these in order, one must be (possibly tied) worst and one best”.

It’d make the scoring more generous in some situations. If we get dealt a particularly horrible acronym, it means we all have to pick someone out as having made the best job of it, rather than giving everyone 1s and 2s.

It’s just that a 1 carries special consequences, potentially triggering a Flop. I don’t think that the worst Backronym among the Wordsmiths necessarily deserves to be a Flop.

Per Bucky. Although there’s a large chunk of me that wants to move on from this and sees the only real way through being to directly idle Raven by CfJ, and bar them from rejoining the dynasty.

[JonathanDark] It’s just that a 1 carries special consequences, potentially triggering a Flop. I don’t think that the worst Backronym among the Wordsmiths necessarily deserves to be a Flop.

per JonathanDark and TDS

Per me earlier

This might become a moot point with “The direct approach”

>I don’t think it’s a question of fairness, it’s just changing the grading system to be on a curve.

Kevan, my main problem is it doesn’t actually change the grading system. It keeps the grading system the same and then throws out the graders it doesn’t like.