Stupid game play by annoying celebrities

[Kevin Prather]

Robert Hutchinson. Disagree?

Fervently.

Do tell.

[Don Howard]

I'd love to see how you would do on a game show.

I'd love to see how you would do on Torquemada's Rack.

[BrandonFG]

Conversely, I thought I've read about situations similar to Jo Anne's, where a clue didn't literally fit the category was still allowed due to the essence of the answer being conveyed. In other words, it didn't happen in the 70s, but they were events close enough to 1970 (LBJ's presidency) and 1979 (Lennon's murder), to where buzzing would've been nitpicky given it's a word game, not Jeopardy!.

[JasonA1]

We've covered this before, and I think perhaps some people take Dick's wording of the rules a bit too literally. "You must only give a list of things that fit the subject" is more about "only a list" than it is "fit the subject."

While I could see buzzing something like Robert's example, the example itself was far from a good one to prove the point.

-Jason

[clemon79]

While I could see buzzing something like Robert's example, the example itself was far from a good one to prove the point.

Yes, this precisely.

[Jay Temple]

Here's a better example of a factually incorrect clue being disallowed.

Category: SHORT PEOPLE
Clue 1: Wilt Chamberlain
Clue 2: Randy Newman

Both are factually incorrect. (Randy Newman is six feet tall.) Clue 1, hypothetically, wouldn't get buzzed even though it's factually incorrect. I'm 90% certain that Clue 2 was actually given on the 20K, and it was buzzed. It wasn't just factually incorrect; it was also a description, of sorts, of the category. Had this celeb said, "Randy Newman's enemies," it might have been permitted.

[Jimmy Owen]

Here's a better example of a factually incorrect clue being disallowed.

Category: SHORT PEOPLE
Clue 1: Wilt Chamberlain
Clue 2: Randy Newman

Both are factually incorrect. (Randy Newman is six feet tall.) Clue 1, hypothetically, wouldn't get buzzed even though it's factually incorrect. I'm 90% certain that Clue 2 was actually given on the 20K, and it was buzzed. It wasn't just factually incorrect; it was also a description, of sorts, of the category. Had this celeb said, "Randy Newman's enemies," it might have been permitted.

Willie Shoemaker or Billy Barty would have been better clues.

[Kevin Prather]

Willie Shoemaker or Billy Barty would have been better clues.

3/10. You're slipping.

[clemon79]

Willie Shoemaker or Billy Barty would have been better clues.

3/10. You're slipping.

Oh, when I saw it I was thinking 8/10 myself. False obliviousness is more subtle than most of his work.

[Matt Ottinger]

Willie Shoemaker or Billy Barty would have been better clues.

3/10. You're slipping.

Oh, when I saw it I was thinking 8/10 myself. False obliviousness is more subtle than most of his work.

It's a tough game though, isn't it?  I was more on Kevin's side for that one.

[clemon79]

It's a tough game though, isn't it?  I was more on Kevin's side for that one.

It's an interesting dichotomy, really. It's good if he gets bites. But if he gets called on it early, he's much less likely to get bites, which doesn't make it nearly as good.

[toetyper]

Category: SHORT PEOPLE


out of nerdish  curiousity. would 'midgets' get BZzZZZZZED

[chad1m]

would 'midgets' get BZzZZZZZED

Main Entry:    midget
Part of Speech:    adjective
Definition:    short, small
Yes.

[Kevin Prather]

would 'midgets' get BZzZZZZZED

Main Entry:    midget
Part of Speech:    adjective
Definition:    short, small
Yes.

Munchkin would fly though, as far as I can see checking three different online dictionary sources.

[parliboy]

Not every dictionary uses short in the definition for midget, so it might come down to the authority. Regardless, let's just go with your Munchkins and add some Lilliputians.