Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Minotaur]

Fair Militia
Action-Attack
Cost: $2

$2
Each other player either discards down to three cards in hand, or complains that it would've been a lot more convenient last turn when they had a Moat or two dead cards in hand.

[Witherweaver]

Transcribe
$2  Action - Reserve

+1 Action
Put this on Reserve Mat.
---------------------------
When you gain a card, you may Call this, to take a Sharpe pen and add or remove any number of commas from the card text as you see fit.

Disclaimer: We are not responsible for any fights that ensue as a result of calling this card.

[Gherald]

Man I just came here to post this before seeing that

Oxford University
$2P, Action

+2 Actions
You may gain an Action card, costing up to $5, and have a debate about comma placement.

[eHalcyon]

The definitive answer should be to do whatever is clearer.  If it's clear either way, do whichever you prefer.  Many people think that the Oxford comma is important because it removes ambiguity, but there are situations where it actually creates ambiguity.

[ConMan]

Pearl Torpedo
[snip]

Nuclear Pearl Torpedo
$2 Action-Attack

+1 Card
+1 Action
Each opponent reveals the bottom card of their deck.  You may choose to place in on top of your deck.

[werothegreat]

Pearl Torpedo
[snip]

Nuclear Pearl Torpedo
$2 Action-Attack

+1 Card
+1 Action
Each opponent reveals the bottom card of their deck.  You may choose to place in on top of your deck.

Pearl Harbor
Action-Attack-Duration

Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.  At the start of their next turn, the player to your left gives you an atomic wedgie, and you forfeit the game.

[Minotaur]

The definitive answer should be to do whatever is clearer.  If it's clear either way, do whichever you prefer.  Many people think that the Oxford comma is important because it removes ambiguity, but there are situations where it actually creates ambiguity.

If JFK and Stalin are strippers, then the "Oxford comma" isn't an Oxford comma.  Or is there some other example I'm not familiar with?  I generally prefer it in more typical cases, even if there isn't much chance of confusion.  Probably because whatever example you're thinking of is less common to the point where I don't remember having seen it.

[Minotaur]

Transcribe
$2  Action - Reserve

+1 Action
Put this on Reserve Mat.
---------------------------
When you gain, a card you may Call this, to take a Sharpe, pen, and add, or remove any number of commas from the card text as you see fit.

Disclaimer: We are not responsible, for any fights that ensue, as a result of calling this card.

[Minotaur]

Man I just came here to post this before seeing that

Oxford University
$2P, Action

+2 Actions
You may gain an Action card, costing up to $5, and have a debate about comma placement.

You may LITERALLY bite their head off.  You may mourn for the death of the English language.

[eHalcyon]

The definitive answer should be to do whatever is clearer.  If it's clear either way, do whichever you prefer.  Many people think that the Oxford comma is important because it removes ambiguity, but there are situations where it actually creates ambiguity.

If JFK and Stalin are strippers, then the "Oxford comma" isn't an Oxford comma.  Or is there some other example I'm not familiar with?  I generally prefer it in more typical cases, even if there isn't much chance of confusion.  Probably because whatever example you're thinking of is less common to the point where I don't remember having seen it.

[ashersky]

If you wrote the stripper last, the comma has no issue functioning clearly.

[Minotaur]

Oh wow, the plural changes things.  "JFK the stripper and Stalin" would be the clearest.  But language just sucks.  Guess you would want more words, at least until parentheses for grouping things becomes something that's actually readable by humans at full speed.

The other option here is "The stripper, JFK; and Stalin", but you usually don't see that unless you have more than one comma subclause in a list.  I think the Oxford semicolon does the job, but mostly it's a horrible situation.

[eHalcyon]

If you wrote the stripper last, the comma has no issue functioning clearly.

And you can do something similar for the original version of that image which is in favour of the Oxford Comma.

We invited JFK, Stalin and the strippers.

See?  Oxford Comma not needed.

[Minotaur]

If you wrote the stripper last, the comma has no issue functioning clearly.

And you can do something similar for the original version of that image which is in favour of the Oxford Comma.

We invited JFK, Stalin and the strippers.

See?  Oxford Comma not needed.

But you could be talking *to* Stalin and the strippers *about* JFK.  Language sucks.

[Witherweaver]

Stalin strippers Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Am I doing it right?

[eHalcyon]

If you wrote the stripper last, the comma has no issue functioning clearly.

And you can do something similar for the original version of that image which is in favour of the Oxford Comma.

We invited JFK, Stalin and the strippers.

See?  Oxford Comma not needed.

But you could be talking *to* Stalin and the strippers *about* JFK.  Language sucks.

Huh?  The original version of the image I posted has the example sentences: "We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin" vs. "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin".  The latter version without the Oxford comma is ambiguous because it could be saying that JFK and Stalin are the strippers.  My example is showing that the Oxford Comma can introduce ambiguity.  ashersky points out that you can remove ambiguity by shuffling the order of the subjects, but the same holds true for the original example. 

Basically, none of these examples are a good reason to say that you should always (or never) use the Oxford Comma.  As I said, you should do whichever is clearer.  If it's clear either way, do whatever you prefer.

It's also worth noting that some sentences are ambiguous either way.  For example, we can talk about 3 people:

1. We invited JFK, a communist dictator, and a stripper.
2. We invited JFK, a communist dictator and a stripper.

Sentence 1 uses the Oxford Comma but it may ambiguously suggest that JFK is a communist dictator.  Sentence 2 omits the comma but it may ambiguously suggest that JFK is both a communist dictator and a stripper.  But either way, the ambiguity can be solved (mostly) by moving JFK to the end of the sentence.

[scott_pilgrim]

If you wrote the stripper last, the comma has no issue functioning clearly.

And you can do something similar for the original version of that image which is in favour of the Oxford Comma.

We invited JFK, Stalin and the strippers.

See?  Oxford Comma not needed.

But you could be talking *to* Stalin and the strippers *about* JFK.  Language sucks.

Huh?  The original version of the image I posted has the example sentences: "We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin" vs. "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin".  The latter version without the Oxford comma is ambiguous because it could be saying that JFK and Stalin are the strippers.  My example is showing that the Oxford Comma can introduce ambiguity.  ashersky points out that you can remove ambiguity by shuffling the order of the subjects, but the same holds true for the original example. 

Basically, none of these examples are a good reason to say that you should always (or never) use the Oxford Comma.  As I said, you should do whichever is clearer.  If it's clear either way, do whatever you prefer.

It's also worth noting that some sentences are ambiguous either way.  For example, we can talk about 3 people:

1. We invited JFK, a communist dictator, and a stripper.
2. We invited JFK, a communist dictator and a stripper.

Sentence 1 uses the Oxford Comma but it may ambiguously suggest that JFK is a communist dictator.  Sentence 2 omits the comma but it may ambiguously suggest that JFK is both a communist dictator and a stripper.  But either way, the ambiguity can be solved (mostly) by moving JFK to the end of the sentence.

Minotaur is saying the sentence "We invited JFK, Stalin and the strippers" could be interpreted as "Hello, Stalin and the strippers.  We invited JFK!".

[eHalcyon]

Minotaur is saying the sentence "We invited JFK, Stalin and the strippers" could be interpreted as "Hello, Stalin and the strippers.  We invited JFK!".

Ahhh, OK.  Got it.

[Minotaur]

Basically, parentheses solve 99% of the problems, but create just as many headaches.  I still prefer commas over not when they're optional, and I sometimes use them too much just because I would pause slightly when speaking.  I pause a lot when speaking.  X-P

[jaketheyak]

The problem with all these examples is that in most real-life cases the context should make the meaning clear.
The very reason that the JFK & Stalin comic is biased towards the Oxford comma is because we know who JFK & Stalin are, which makes it a self-defeating argument.
With or without the Oxford comma the meaning is clear: the strippers are obviously a separate entity to JFK & Stalin.

If you are worrying about whether the presence or omission of an Oxford comma changes the meaning of a sentence, rewrite the damn sentence!

[Minotaur]

Double-tangent, but I think Oxford Coma should be a hipster romantic comedy spinoff on While You Were Sleeping.

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

Double-tangent, but I think Oxford Coma should be a hipster romantic comedy spinoff on While You Were Sleeping.

With a third franchise entry, about a suave ex-con private investigator, The Oxford Files.

[eHalcyon]

The problem with all these examples is that in most real-life cases the context should make the meaning clear.
The very reason that the JFK & Stalin comic is biased towards the Oxford comma is because we know who JFK & Stalin are, which makes it a self-defeating argument.
With or without the Oxford comma the meaning is clear: the strippers are obviously a separate entity to JFK & Stalin.

If you are worrying about whether the presence or omission of an Oxford comma changes the meaning of a sentence, rewrite the damn sentence!

There are plenty of generic examples (where genuine confusion can arise even with context) that have ambiguity with the comma, ambiguity without the comma, or ambiguity either way.  And yes, in most of those cases, there is a way to rewrite the sentence.  That's certainly the best solution.

My pet peeve is just the people who uphold the Oxford comma as the be-all-end-all when it really isn't the case!

[Minotaur]

The problem with all these examples is that in most real-life cases the context should make the meaning clear.
The very reason that the JFK & Stalin comic is biased towards the Oxford comma is because we know who JFK & Stalin are, which makes it a self-defeating argument.
With or without the Oxford comma the meaning is clear: the strippers are obviously a separate entity to JFK & Stalin.

If you are worrying about whether the presence or omission of an Oxford comma changes the meaning of a sentence, rewrite the damn sentence!

There are plenty of generic examples (where genuine confusion can arise even with context) that have ambiguity with the comma, ambiguity without the comma, or ambiguity either way.  And yes, in most of those cases, there is a way to rewrite the sentence.  That's certainly the best solution.

My pet peeve is just the people who uphold the Oxford comma as the be-all-end-all when it really isn't the case!

The real solution is parentheses and commas.  We invited (JFK, Stalin, Strippers) to the party.  The "Oxford comma" is in there without the and.  Programmers assure us that this makes more sense, but you could write a script to parse " and" as a comma.

[Minotaur]

Oxford Literally, aka Legally Blonde 3.  After having become President or whatever the hell whatsherface did, she goes back to school to do English and stuff.  She is literally the smartest person ever now, omigod.