Author Topic: Big Jeopardy! Change (Read 12819 times)

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #15 on:** July 23, 2003, 12:16:18 PM »

this may be a stupid question, but at one point, wasn't there some sort of rule/law regarding a 5-time limit in game shows? I thought it came into affect after the Van Doren incident.

zachhoran · « **Reply #16 on:** July 23, 2003, 12:23:06 PM »

I don't recall the limit on number of wins ever being a certified law. After the scandals, Concentration had a 20 game limit, and that's more than 5(only one person won the 20 games). Other shows had other limits on number of wins or on the amount a player could take home.

tommycharles · « **Reply #17 on:** July 23, 2003, 01:17:43 PM »

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Jul 23 2003, 11:23 AM\'] Concentration had a 20 game limit, and that's more than 5 [/quote]
Are you sure, really - is 20 more than 5??

clemon79 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 23, 2003, 01:58:32 PM »

[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 23 2003, 09:16 AM\'] this may be a stupid question, but at one point, wasn't there some sort of rule/law regarding a 5-time limit in game shows? I thought it came into affect after the Van Doren incident. [/quote]
Yeah, it's a stupid question. (See McKee, Thom)

combsisthebest · « **Reply #19 on:** July 24, 2003, 01:39:14 AM »

If a contestent lasts five or more days do you still think they will get to choose a car?

clemon79 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 24, 2003, 02:05:51 AM »

[quote name=\'combsisthebest\' date=\'Jul 23 2003, 10:39 PM\'] If a contestent lasts five or more days do you still think they will get to choose a car? [/quote]
No.

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #21 on:** July 24, 2003, 07:23:00 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 23 2003, 12:58 PM\'] [quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 23 2003, 09:16 AM\'] this may be a stupid question, but at one point, wasn't there some sort of rule/law regarding a 5-time limit in game shows? I thought it came into affect after the Van Doren incident. [/quote]
Yeah, it's a stupid question. (See McKee, Thom) [/quote]
That's it. I'm callin' ya out on this one. Tell me why it's so stupid. Is it really that unlikely? Talk to me.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #22 on:** July 24, 2003, 07:48:12 PM »

Well, in the first place, you seem pretty upset considering all Chris did was agree with your own assessment that you may have asked a stupid question. I doubt very seriously that he would have used the word \"stupid\" had you not specifically offered it.

His specific point was that Thom McKee became very famous as a game show contestant who stayed on his show for a long time. Closer to the \"Van Doren incident\", it's already been discussed that Concentration had a twenty-game limit, which would have taken much more than five days to get through. (Partly because, as it's been explained to me, 20 is more than 5...) And if Bill Cullen's TPIR had a limit for returning champions I'm not sure I ever heard about it (not that it was all that likely that a player would rack up too many consecutive appearances).

Networks established various total-earnings limits, in large part due to the scandals, but the choice to limit returning champions -- or even to HAVE returning champions -- was left to the individual show.

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #23 on:** July 24, 2003, 09:17:05 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jul 24 2003, 06:48 PM\'] Closer to the \"Van Doren incident\", it's already been discussed that Concentration had a twenty-game limit, which would have taken much more than five days to get through. (Partly because, as it's been explained to me, 20 is more than 5...)[/quote]

That was discussed after i posted my question.

Quote

And if Bill Cullen's TPIR had a limit for returning champions I'm not sure I ever heard about it (not that it was all that likely that a player would rack up too many consecutive appearances).

There is no way I could've known that, since i wasn't alive in the 1960s.

Quote

Networks established various total-earnings limits, in large part due to the scandals, but the choice to limit returning champions -- or even to HAVE returning champions -- was left to the individual show.

That's what i kind of figured. That's why I posted the \"stupid question\" disclaimer. But it really drives me up the wall when people say my question is stupid, and don't back it up clearly.

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #24 on:** July 24, 2003, 09:27:35 PM »

Quote

(Matt Ottinger @ Jul 24 2003, 06:48 PM)
Closer to the \"Van Doren incident\", it's already been discussed that Concentration had a twenty-game limit, which would have taken much more than five days to get through. (Partly because, as it's been explained to me, 20 is more than 5...)

Quote

That was discussed after i posted my question.

True.

Quote

And if Bill Cullen's TPIR had a limit for returning champions I'm not sure I ever heard about it (not that it was all that likely that a player would rack up too many consecutive appearances).

There is no way I could've known that, since i wasn't alive in the 1960s.

You could've known that because I knew that. You just didn't, which is fine.

Quote

Networks established various total-earnings limits, in large part due to the scandals, but the choice to limit returning champions -- or even to HAVE returning champions -- was left to the individual show.

Quote

That's what i kind of figured. That's why I posted the \"stupid question\" disclaimer. But it really drives me up the wall when people say my question is stupid, and don't back it up clearly.

Then don't call your own question stupid. If you didn't know it, you didn't know it. There's nothing wrong with that. Don't give people fodder.

Brandon Brooks

clemon79 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 24, 2003, 11:13:32 PM »

[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 24 2003, 06:17 PM\'] That's what i kind of figured. That's why I posted the "stupid question" disclaimer. But it really drives me up the wall when people say my question is stupid, and don't back it up clearly. [/quote]
You asked if it was stupid. I answered. I THEN backed it up by citing Thom McKee as an example, and really, the most blatant one. The REASON I didn't say more, frankly, is because I didn't feel I should have to; not knowing who Thom McKee is, in the context of this group, is roughly akin to going into a baseball group and asking \"What did Babe Ruth ever do that was so friggin' important?\"

So if you don't want people saying your questions are stupid, you have two options:

1) Don't ask stupid questions.

2) If you insist on continuing (1), at least PRETEND to think it's a legitimate question, because we'll be more than happy to help you figure it out if you're not sure.

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #26 on:** July 24, 2003, 11:45:35 PM »

ok. deal.

That Don Guy · « **Reply #27 on:** July 25, 2003, 09:40:53 PM »

[quote name=\'reason1024\' date=\'Jul 22 2003, 10:22 PM\']Harder FJs would, I imagine, limit insanely long reigns in the new format by making the day's leader less likely to go on and win the day.[/quote]
On the contrary - wouldn't the better players be more likely to get obscure FJs correct? FJs should be easier if you want to prevent long runs. For example, who would be more likely to know that there was no US Vice-President in 1964?

-- Don

TheInquisitiveOne · « **Reply #28 on:** July 25, 2003, 10:23:40 PM »

Relating to this topic, I have heard that the participants in the next Tournament of Champions will be determined by how many days he or she has reigned as champion.

For some reason, I still see a flaw in this schematic.

The Inquisitive One

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #29 on:** July 25, 2003, 11:03:17 PM »

[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Jul 25 2003, 09:23 PM\'] Relating to this topic, I have heard that the participants in the next Tournament of Champions will be determined by how many days he or she has reigned as champion.

For some reason, I still see a flaw in this schematic. [/quote]
Well... elaborate.

Brandon Brooks

Author Topic: Big Jeopardy! Change (Read 12819 times)

tommycharles