Author Topic: TPiR Season 37 changes (Read 72663 times)

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #300 on:** August 23, 2008, 08:36:01 PM »

Wouldn't a change in the contestant selection process help matters as well? Choose people who would be happy to win a washing machine, rather than those who would have no use for one?

TroubadourNando · « **Reply #301 on:** August 23, 2008, 08:47:00 PM »

[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194982\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 08:35 PM\']

Changing the rules to 3 Strikes...twice in two weeks -- whereas the rules were just fine before the changes. Some people won, some people lost.
[/quote]

Sorry John, I gotta disagree respectfully here. I certainly do see your point, but I think something had to be done in some regard to shorten the playing time of 3 Strikes. Only five playings last season, despite being for luxury cars, is two or three too low. I doubt that if they just reduced the stakes without changing something in the rules that it would have increased the game's playing rate anyway.

I just disagree with giving the first number... I think something better could have been done.

clemon79 · « **Reply #302 on:** August 23, 2008, 08:48:13 PM »

[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194982\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 05:35 PM\']
perhaps because I feel I understand the show and the reasons behind it.[/quote]
And it's statements like this that are a HUUUUUGE part of the problem, because it demonstrates the pomposity that allows discussions to get out of hand to start with.

The show serves one purpose, and one purpose only: to attract pairs of eyeballs that will sit and watch the commercials for diabeetus supplies and mobility scooters.

I'm going to repeat that: diabeetus supplies and mobility scooters. And that life insurance that Trebek pimps. Those are the people buying the majority of the ad time the last several years.

That is NOT the sign of a show that is at the height of its success.

ClockGameJohn · « **Reply #303 on:** August 23, 2008, 09:49:28 PM »

[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'194985\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 08:47 PM\']
I think something had to be done in some regard to shorten the playing time of 3 Strikes. Only five playings last season, despite being for luxury cars, is two or three too low.[/quote]

But it was a budgetary issue, not a timing issue. Drew's first season started off (rightfully) with loads of wins. Three Strikes (just as Triple Play and Golden Road) saw no more than 6 playings for the Season -- quite simply because the beginning of the year was front loaded.

Having said that, yes, 3 Strikes does take an insanely long time to play -- but there are things that can be done (hosting) that could speed it up.

TroubadourNando · « **Reply #304 on:** August 23, 2008, 10:27:39 PM »

[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194987\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 09:49 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'194985\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 08:47 PM\']
I think something had to be done in some regard to shorten the playing time of 3 Strikes. Only five playings last season, despite being for luxury cars, is two or three too low.[/quote]

But it was a budgetary issue, not a timing issue. Drew's first season started off (rightfully) with loads of wins. Three Strikes (just as Triple Play and Golden Road) saw no more than 6 playings for the Season -- quite simply because the beginning of the year was front loaded.

Having said that, yes, 3 Strikes does take an insanely long time to play -- but there are things that can be done (hosting) that could speed it up.
[/quote]

Ah, I was unaware at how far-reaching the budget issues were. I stand corrected on that front.

I guess we just disagree on what can be done about 3 Strikes...

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #305 on:** August 23, 2008, 11:29:01 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194962\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 03:11 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194948\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 09:29 AM\']In the case of Barker's Marker$? Hell yes.[/quote]You have yet to successfully back up this statement in any fashion that isn't ad verecundiam.[/quote]
Chris, honest to God...the only conclusion I can draw from this statement is that you don't want me to have a point. Even though I've provided reasoning to back up my case, you've decided to ignore all of it and just accuse me -- in Latin, no less, and I had to look up what the hell you were saying I'd done -- of not doing so in the hopes that it will make you sound smarter than me. And the sad thing is, it's pretty damn hard to fight something like that, because all I can do is repeat what I've already said, and then you'll just go on to ignore it again...and that eventually leads to you winning the argument not necessarily because you were right, but because the other person got sick of talking to someone who's deliberately not listening to them. And that's probably what's gonna happen here, too, because as much as I hate to admit it, that's a pretty damn effective way of making someone get tired of a thread.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #306 on:** August 24, 2008, 12:24:42 AM »

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194992\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 11:29 PM\']And the sad thing is, it's pretty damn hard to fight something like that, because all I can do is repeat what I've already said, and then you'll just go on to ignore it again...and that eventually leads to you winning the argument not necessarily because you were right, but because the other person got sick of talking to someone who's deliberately not listening to them. And that's probably what's gonna happen here, too, because as much as I hate to admit it, that's a pretty damn effective way of making someone get tired of a thread.[/quote]
Steve, believe me when I say that you're not nearly the only person in this thread who's made points you feel have been ignored.

But you're right that this has devolved into Last Poster Standing. At this point, everybody's pretty entrenched into their positions and nobody's going to be changing anybody else's mind. I'm sure that the argument will come up again before too long, but it will have to do so in a new thread. This one's done now.