Court of arbitration for Scattergories

Here's a idea world, can we have a Court of Arbitration for Scattergories? (Actually, for the sake of its acronym and to avoid confusion with the actual CAS it should be a Scattergories Court of Arbitration (SCA).) You know Scattergories, that game where you have certain categories and have to things in that category that begin with a particular letter, but can't be the same as anyone else suggested? (You may have played its unofficial home-made version of Bus Stop or Fish and Chips.)

I've never played a game where there weren't arguments about the validity of some answers. Actually, by the end of the game it's most of the answers. A few weeks ago we had a get-together with a few CHW buddies and out came Scattergories. It was all good fun and enjoyable craic, but there were some still some arguments going on.

Take for example the category 'Something cold'. It was suggested by one team that doorstep was something cold. Hmmm...I wouldn't say that's always true. Nor would I say it's the first (or even second) adjective you'd use to describe it. It got voted down. When that happened the team tried to back reference to the previous round when arctic wind was awarded a point. Not always cold they said. Well, while that might be true (I'm no geographer), the round after is not the time to launch your complaint.

The currencies category proved particularly difficult with the letters we had. C? I was quite pleased with my suggestion of cigarettes (in prison) as an answer. I thought it was clever and, more importantly true (if TV shows and movies are to be believed - I've never been) so the other teams might be so impressed with its brilliance that they'd allow it. Not so. It was voted down. Huh.

The next letter was B. Again difficult. But a discussion was had at the start of the round about whether you could have old currencies, like before the Euro. It was decided you could, so we offered the Belgian franc. It was a currency, it begins with B. But noooooo we were told, it begins with F they said. This is a tricky one and one of the reasons why I suggest the SCA. Because, if you go down the route of only allowing what the unit of currency is called (pound, won, dollar) then you rule out a lot of currencies in countries where the unit of currency was unimaginatively named the same as another. Dollar, well do you mean the US, Canadian, Singapore, Australian, Hong Kong and indeed most of the Caribbean? The Great British pound, or the Egyptian pound or the Guernsey pound?  North Korean or South Korean won?  However, I do see the counter-argument. If you take the country's name into account, well then it's just about writing the country (albeit with the correct currency unit). Tricky. But I stand by my earlier argument, the name of the currency needs the country as the descriptor. Other descriptors were allowed on the night, for example we were successful with old sock for something that smells beginning with O. Equally, I would argue that we would have been successful with sock in that same category but with S. Of course, maybe there would have been no arguments if they'd been easy letters. Standing by the unit arguments, you'd have to be as obscure as the Birr (Ethiopian) and the Colon (Costa Rican) to get any points in those rounds. Unless I'm missing something more obvious on XE.com.

Another one I'd like a ruling on from the SCA is on 'vegetables'. That term, I would argue, is somewhat ambiguous. Do you mean a plant grown for food or a more culinary/cultural definition, ie what it's eaten with/when it's eaten? Because you see, to me, in order for the game to be accessible for all, surely the aim of all board games, it should be the later. And as a consequence, we would have been allowed olive. Nobody puts olives in a fruit salad, or decorates a cheesecake with them. Equally, cream of rhubarb soup it's not a thing anyone eats on a cold winter day. And poor mushrooms, they're nothing in all of this.

Colours is definitely a category that needs a ruling on. Light and dark is tricky. I'd say lazy descriptors like that shouldn't be rewarded, but yet other descriptors (again, like old sock) are allowed, so reluctantly they have to be allowed on consistency grounds. You need the descriptors in colours otherwise you'd only get about 10 letters covered. Oh and I'd say the SCA needs a definitive ruling on black and the nay-sayers who say it's not a colour. So clearly a colour. Crayola have a crayon with it written on and everything.

On the YF weekend, we played the home-made version and colour was a category. For D my group offered denim. I think that's perfectly acceptable, you know immediately what colour it is. But we got shouted down. The group beside us even offered us the history of denim and how it was named after Nimes, the French town, and therefore was unacceptable as a colour. You can understand therefore why we got the biggest laugh at their suggestion of Dijon mustard! They didn't think that through, did they?! And anyway mustard? Yes, I'd say that's an identifiable colour. Dijon mustard is clearly just a condiment. 

And this double letter, double point rule? Don't get me started! This has been abused too much over the years and the SCA needs to rule on what exactly is covered. For example, you should not be able to use part of the category to get more points. Things at a football match beginning with F cannot be football fans for two points. The fact the fans are at a football match in the first place, it's clear they're football fans and not rugby, Daniel O'Donnell or any other sort of fans. The descriptor is just an abuse of the generous double points on offer. But what if you've got three (or more) words and only two begin with the letter? Do you get double points? Like Movies/C? Catch Me If You Can. And what if it's T and there's a The in the answer. That's not a double scoring points surely, because in other parts you ignore it, and have, for example The West Wing under W. Are triple points (Clothing/S? Short sleeved shirt) not a logical extension of the double point rule?

See, it's tricky stuff this Scattergories business. In the research for this post  I came across other people who've had arguments themselves so I know it's not just the games I've played. One couple argued over menu items, and particularly the veracity of the claim that Tim the Toolman Taylor was a TV star. She took it to her blog here. He responded, in a Frankee/Eamon kind of way, on his blog (some swearing, *ed out). Best I can tell they're still together. 

That's the urgency with which we need a SCA. We're in the festive season where families gather round and play board games. How many of these will end in arguments and fights? 

Hopefully none like this though. A horrible 'incident' over whether a Philips screwdriver could be used as a weapon where three people died in an attempt to prove it. Fear not, it's just a satire site. But for how long?!

We're sticking to jigsaws this Christmas. Nice bit team work and no point scoring.