Talk:Notation

Rescue Notation (Q)
I think it's important to define a "rescue" (Q) as a kubb that was already in play. You can knock a kubb out that was thrown earlier in the round that you didn't like the placement of, but that would be an R not a Q. User:ChrisHodges


 * Why not simply use the term rescue kubb in the definition and then make sure to define it in the glossary? It seems to me the notation should just say "Q is a rescue kubb", with a link to the glossary to go into great, great detail about what a rescue kubb is. Jamie (blog | hello) 21:10, August 15, 2012 (CDT)

Turn Number or Round Number?
I'm wondering a bit if the turn number shouldn't be changed to round number, with the team throwing indicated. So, right now we would have

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

maybe have

1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b

The a and b would represent the "Team A" or "Team B" that is throwing.

Thoughts? Jamie (blog | hello) 21:51, August 15, 2012 (CDT)


 * The more I consider this I don't like it. I think we stay with turn only. Jamie (blog | hello) 20:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Notation (X)
Why not X have a modifikcator? Two batons spare = 2X Bastor (talk)


 * Thanks for the suggestion Bastor. I think in the text version of the notation that would be fine and should be supported. No reason to not have a modifier on it. I think while scoring a game using the scoresheet you would end up jotting down an X in each remaining box. I think both are fine. In fact, the notation should not really care about the modifiers. For example,  and   are both valid. Even on inkastare,   should be allowed as much as  . Jamie (blog | hello) 20:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Player continues?
As I've scored more games, particularly on the pitch, I'm been debating a "player continues" notation. I'm curious what others think. Right now, if a team has players "A" and "B" I would record  as an example. I'm wondering if there could be a shorthand to indicate that the last player continues. Something like. The difference is that I'm using the  symbol to indicate that I am denoting a player, but I'm leaving it blank with the intent meaning "same as the previous throw". This allows a mixed game as well, where it has partial player notation (some players known, others not, which is odd but happens). In that case, the ":" would precede when continuing, but no colon would indicate a "not indicated" player. Thoughts? I realize it's a little ugly, but... Jamie (blog | hello) 20:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of leaving the player blank to indicate it's the same player as in the previous throw. This does require have a designation for all players (as there have been games where I didn't and this technique would fall apart. I'm not sure this approach has any direct impact on anything right now. Seems like it's personal preference when using paper scoresheets and the digital Form side - tabbing through lands on the player box anyway - so I might as well enter something. User:Garrickvanburen

Inkastare Order Convention
As far as I am aware the engine that reads the notation doesn't care what order the inkast data comes in - e.g. 5i3r2pq could be written as 2p5iq3r and the system wouldn't blink. From a readability standpoint should we encourage a standard convention for order? I think i-q-r-p would make the most sense as it most closely resembles the order of play. 'i' being always equal to the number of kubbs toppled in the prior turn, then modified by 'q', then 'r' being a subset of 'i' + 'q', and finally 'p' is a subset of 'r'.

Should we ask the users to care if the system doesn't? ChrisHodges (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)