Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

I would agree with your "Three Laws", tango, but Law 1 is commonly flouted, and could well prove too restrictive for setters.

A "good clue" would follow them, though.

I also agree with asetter about spoilers. If I know that a question refers to a prize puzzle*, I attempt to give hints rather than answers.

*though OP doesn't always make this clear

Dear ASetter, I don't see why it is so important to you for discussion of your puzzle to be limited to what you find acceptable. You have created a puzzle, because that is a pursuit which you enjoy (and some of the results are quite remarkable). Then you have placed the puzzle into the public domain. After that it is no longer 'yours'.

There are various comments that could be made about this obsession with not having answers revealed before a certain end date. The first is that one doesn't have to come onto a crossword help forum unless one wants to.

Presumably the concern you have is that some people are not completing the puzzle 'all by themselves', yet are still submitting entries. Why is this concern so important ? Surely the whole thing is a vanity ? And don't you think that some of the most pious entrants are actually guilty themselves of cheating ? So how can you ever be sure that your cherished statistics amount to anything meaningful ?

From a personal point of view, as I remarked only yesterday in an e-mail to a colleague on this forum, the views of the people who want to limit discussion might attract more of my sympathy, had it not been for the appallingly rude and arrogant manner in which they treated me some years ago. That I might fetch up on another site and make it my business to assist other solvers seems to have been a repercussion they failed to anticipate. And they still fail to understand even now why I am so hostile towards them...

Meursault@13

For some time I ran a site which provided answers to clues in 'live' prize puzzles. The feedback which I received was overwhelmingly positive, but I did occasionally get complaints along the lines which you mention in paragraph 3. I continued to provide the service on the basis that:

1. My purpose was to help solvers to get enjoyment from puzzles and the clues therein , so I would never provide a solution without a full parsing and, where appropriate, mention of relevant references.

2. The prizes on offer for the puzzles in question were such that anyone who was seeking answers purely to give themselves a chance of winning the prize was wasting their time.

3. The majority of people who obtained answers through the site (rather than simply checking parsings or references) did not submit entries anyway, so people who had solved the puzzle 'all by themselves' (which may anyway have involved the use of anagram solvers, word finders etc) were minimally disadvantaged.

When people viewed the site (following their first visit) they knew exactly what to expect.

A published puzzle is no more in the public domain than a published novel, the Intellectual Property Rights remaining (in most instances at least) with the setter and the puzzle typically being published under a limited-term licence. Whilst Lynda La Plante might not mind extracts of her latest book being included in a review, I think she would be less happy about the denouement being revealed - and I don't mean hinted at, I mean laid bare. And if I were thinking of buying the book myself, I wouldn't be too chuffed either when I read that review. Likewise, it seems inappropriate to me that solvers consulting a public forum thread to get assistance with a particular clue should be presented with the entire plot, whether they want to see it or not. I've no problem with like-minded people who want to work together as a collective doing so, but I believe that they should form a closed user group. If they choose to use a public forum for this purpose, they should establish a thread which is clearly labelled as a 'theme spoiler', so that those solvers who want a gentle nudge can ask for one without getting a damn great shove which potentially ruins the challenge for them and denies them the pleasure of the PDM. I find it hard to imagine why anyone would want simply to be told what the solution is ('I don't want to watch that film, but I want to know what happens in it...').

Well, there seem to be some areas of convergence and some remaining divergences. But I should emphasise that as soon as I buy a copy of a newspaper with a puzzle in it, then that puzzle is mine to do with as I please. You have no control what happens to that (copy of the) puzzle from then on. And if I wish to discuss something about the puzzle with another person, you have no control over that either. So this is what I mean about the puzzle no longer being 'yours.'

I don't know that you are claiming that your style of helping is any better than mine. Probably you aren't. And in any case there wouldn't be any evidence to suggest that people I've helped are any less satisfied than the people you helped.

Did you follow the comments on Listener 4485 ? All of a sudden there were requests to send scans of the completed puzzle. I believe that these were young Americans who'd been put up to getting hold of the solution as part of a competition. I didn't help them with scans, though I did post a comment with a general methodology to solve the puzzle. There was some discussion on here about it and as far as I know nobody else provided the complete solution either. So you should understand that we all make our own judgement calls, and it's not really anyone else's business to interfere with that. But it's soon clear on this site as to whether someone is making an earnest attempt to solve the puzzle. Then, especially if they are a beginner at solving the Listener, it's very rewarding when they tell you that they've completed the puzzle thanks to the help on this site.

"Oh and...

There really are too many species of bird (and particularly ducks) for a normal person to cope with. "

I resemble that!

My goodness, what a kerfuffle - if crosswords got that me so wound up I'd pack them in.

I love solving - have only ever compiled for young children, not clever enough to do more.

@Mamya; at a cost of diverging slightly from the topic of this thread - I will never in a million years be as good as you at solving but it doesn't stop me trying! Many of us I am sure would love you to bring your “infant” compilation skills to bear in clueless/peer review - who knows, your setting horizons could develop into a whole new adult dimension!

Hi Mamya, I'm sorry that you see this as a kerfuffle. I don't take crosswords seriously at all, I never send in my entries, and I find the whole business of weekly statistics, annual prizes and dinners all faintly absurd.

But it's the very fact that some people do take them so seriously that causes a problem, because some of those people become ruled by ambition and obsession, and are keen to regulate what assistance can be given on help forums and when. I am keen to resist any such regulation, because I believe that ultimately it is people like yourself, the solvers, who would suffer from that, because you would no longer be able to get the help you want when you want it.

I did wonder if this thread would create discussion.

To get away from the us versus them mentality for a moment, my main goal was simply a pleas to our dear friends, the Setters, to delight us with the joys of a carefully crafted clue rather than dredge up some random collection of letters indicating an obscure but highly religious insect plant discovered by a 1950's silent movie star in the tropical desert woods of Eastern Patagonia.

"Ochfly Humidosecswansonepategensis" as I am sure everyone worked out immediately.

When we solve one of those, our reaction is usually. "Oh. Right. Hmm"

When we solve a great clue, it is a joy and certainly what makes me come back. So for those moments, well done Setters.