Author Topic: Idiotic Contestants... (Read 5073 times)

Dbacksfan12 · « **on:** March 01, 2006, 06:02:56 AM »

Not sure if I've done this topic or not before, but the lovely search feature isn't much of help.

After reading about the idiotic DOND contestant (I, for one, couldn't be happier), do any of you recall contestants that you were happy to lose?

FOXSportsFan · « **Reply #1 on:** March 01, 2006, 06:57:26 AM »

Definitely...you have to either of a lot of ovarian fortitude to do what she did...but by the same token, you have to me a mortal MORON to not come out of DOND with a 5 figure pay day.

In a complete polar opposite...my girlfriend's sister, Kimmi, has a thing with old people on TPiR. She feels so horribly bad when one of em loses. I, on the other hand, get the biggest laugh out of it. Especially, as Dane Cook said in a much better form, when old granners or grampers looks into the big wheel as if it was the second coming of the Lord.

TLEberle · « **Reply #2 on:** March 01, 2006, 08:16:56 AM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 04:02 AM\']Not sure if I've done this topic or not before, but the lovely search feature isn't much of help.[/quote] It was me, but it's worth revisiting.

Quote

After reading about the idiotic DOND contestant (I, for one, couldn't be happier), do any of you recall contestants that you were happy to lose?
[snapback]111652[/snapback]

I missed the show, but I don't think it's proper to call her 'idiotic'. She had a strategy, and it didn't work out. You don't call the gal that gave back the $46,000 check on "Treasure Hunt" a moron, just particularly unfortunate.

[quote name=\'FOXSportsFan\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 04:57 AM\']Definitely...you have to either of a lot of ovarian fortitude to do what she did...but by the same token, you have to me a mortal MORON to not come out of DOND with a 5 figure pay day.[/quote] It sounds like she stuck around a bit longer than she should have, but it's inappropriate to place mental labels on contestants you don't know.

tvwxman · « **Reply #3 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:02:59 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 08:16 AM\']

Quote

After reading about the idiotic DOND contestant (I, for one, couldn't be happier), do any of you recall contestants that you were happy to lose?
[snapback]111652[/snapback]

I missed the show, but I don't think it's proper to call her 'idiotic'. She had a strategy, and it didn't work out. You don't call the gal that gave back the $46,000 check on "Treasure Hunt" a moron, just particularly unfortunate.
[/quote]

HUGE difference. The gal on THunt didn't pass up an offer tantamount to $46K....in effect winning a lot less.

Last night's contestant, whether she got caught up in the choir, the supporters, or the bright lights and shiny objects, was greedy. She's paying for it now.

And yes, I think what she did was "idiotic". Does that make her an idiot? No. But her nonsensical thinking (again, my opinion), made her pull an idiotic move. I do "idiotic" things daily. Hell, watch my tv show, I made a career out of it. But I'm no idiot. Just a guy who makes morning tv fun.

On a side note, this is the problem with this show. I've openly complained about the lack of psychology playing into the offers, how the producer/banker needs to 'study'' the contestant better to find their pressure point, instead of booking schoolchildren and choirs...

At the contestant search in NYC, they asked everyone this question : If it were down to $20K and the million, do you deal or no deal an offer of $400K? I'm fairly confident that anyone who said Deal, got the boot. I said Deal, and i didn't get a call back.

They want risktakers. But it sounds like they don't want rational folks taking risks.

TLEberle · « **Reply #4 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:46:21 AM »

[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 07:02 AM\']HUGE difference. The gal on THunt didn't pass up an offer tantamount to $46K....in effect winning a lot less.[/quote] Is it though? "The banker offers you $899 for your box. Deal or no Deal." That's what happened twice a day on Treasure Hunt for many years, in essence, though it was without having seen any of the others.

Quote

Last night's contestant, whether she got caught up in the choir, the supporters, or the bright lights and shiny objects, was greedy. She's paying for it now.

That's absolutely undisputed. I would submit that a reasonable strategy is to bail out as soon as there's only one "right" amount on the board, otherwise you're just begging for this to happen. And to be offered a second chance at $80,000 doubly so.

Quote

And yes, I think what she did was "idiotic". Does that make her an idiot? No. But her nonsensical thinking (again, my opinion), made her pull an idiotic move.

I didn't think there was a distinction, though you're absolutely right. Is there a difference between a contestant who writes the same answer for "Ten Chances" twice and a contestant who passes up an obvious Deal? Or someone who names a previously guessed letter on "Wheel of Fortune"?

Quote

I do "idiotic" things daily. Hell, watch my tv show, I made a career out of it. But I'm no idiot. Just a guy who makes morning tv fun.

If your morning show is anything like your Weakest Link appearance, I can only imagine.

Quote

On a side note, this is the problem with this show. I've openly complained about the lack of psychology playing into the offers, how the producer/banker needs to 'study'' the contestant better to find their pressure point, instead of booking schoolchildren and choirs...

I think the "Banker's Deal" portion of the game could be compelling television, and because of the banker's isolation from the stage, it falls completely flat. Put the man out on stage, where he can gauge the player as the boxes are opened. He's supposed to be the opponent, but the game still feels like Man against the House.

Quote

They want risktakers. But it sounds like they don't want rational folks taking risks.
[snapback]111661[/snapback]

Then we're in for a week of six-figure and one-figure wins, I would wager.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #5 on:** March 01, 2006, 11:07:51 AM »

[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 10:02 AM\']At the contestant search in NYC, they asked everyone this question : If it were down to $20K and the million, do you deal or no deal an offer of $400K? I'm fairly confident that anyone who said Deal, got the boot. I said Deal, and i didn't get a call back.[/quote]
In my regular life, I am a remarkably honest person. When applying to be on a game show, however, my priorities change. I want to give them the answers they want to hear. (I'm also two for two, so I must be doing something right.)

Given that situation as a contestant, I absolutely take the $400K. Given that question on a contestant exam -- I lie.

tvwxman · « **Reply #6 on:** March 01, 2006, 12:13:47 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 11:07 AM\']Given that situation as a contestant, I absolutely take the $400K. Given that question on a contestant exam -- I lie.

[snapback]111673[/snapback]

[/quote]
Absol-frickin-lutely....but I had just spent my moment in the sun explaining how the last time I was on a game show, I was starting a new marriage, and now I wanted to appear on a game show to help start a family....so the rationality was 'show some guts, but don't lose sight of responsibility'. Plus, in my group of 10 morons (and yes, they were dingbats), I thought I would stand out by using a bit of reasoning....

Shows what I know.

tvwxman · « **Reply #7 on:** March 01, 2006, 12:14:46 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 11:07 AM\']Given that situation as a contestant, I absolutely take the $400K. Given that question on a contestant exam -- I lie.

[snapback]111673[/snapback]

[/quote]
Absol-frickin-lutely....but I had just spent my moment in the sun explaining how the last time I was on a game show, I was starting a new marriage, and now I wanted to win on a game show to help start a family....so the rationality was 'show some guts, AND some responsibility'. Plus, in my group of 10 morons (and yes, they were dingbats), I thought I would stand out by using a bit of reasoning....

Shows what I know.

goongas · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2006, 01:27:16 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 07:02 AM\']Not sure if I've done this topic or not before, but the lovely search feature isn't much of help.

After reading about the idiotic DOND contestant (I, for one, couldn't be happier), do any of you recall contestants that you were happy to lose?

[snapback]111652[/snapback]

[/quote]

There was a woman who on the syndicated WWTBAM was able to see the 500K by guessing correctly at a couple high level questions. She guessed at 500K and got it wrong, and she did not seem fazed one bit. She said she was having a wonderful time and was a gambler.

clemon79 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 01, 2006, 02:05:10 PM »

So this begs a policy question:

I Tivoed last night's show, because Tuesday nights are one of my game nights. I haven't had a chance to watch it yet, and as a result have been studiously avoiding the thread in Show Summaries so that it wouldn't be spoiled for me.

So this morning, I check the messages on the board (still carefully avoiding said thread), and click on this seemingly innocuous thread called "Idiotic Contestants...Happy to see them lose." And, boom, First post, show ruined, not so much as a warning. I'm a little ticked, but not terribly. But a little.

So my question is, should I only expect show spoilers to remain confined to the appropriate thread in Show Summaries during the same day, and am I taking my life in my hands (just an expression, I am fully aware it's a freakin' game show, ultimately) if I read the board at all the following morning?

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 01, 2006, 02:48:15 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 02:05 PM\']And, boom, First post, show ruined, not so much as a warning. I'm a little ticked, but not terribly. But a little.
[/quote]
As said first poster, unless a mod edited my post, I don't recall typing anything else but what is there.

Now, I may be mistaken, and if I am, please correct me--but I was under the impression that if it was after the west coast airing--and off the "Show Summaries" thread, then it was fair game.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2006, 02:58:09 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 03:05 PM\']So my question is, should I only expect show spoilers to remain confined to the appropriate thread in Show Summaries during the same day, and am I taking my life in my hands (just an expression, I am fully aware it's a freakin' game show, ultimately) if I read the board at all the following morning?[/quote]
As always, what you would like to see happen and what you should expect aren't always exactly the same thing. Most people are pretty good about leaving results out of topics here, but we can't absolutely, positively guarantee that it's not going to happen. I'm in exactly the same boat as you, BTW, and equally ticked (which is to say only a little, but still).

I've edited out the worst of it. It's particularly disappointing since the specificity wasn't necessary to the thread, and was in fact SO tangential as to blindside those of us who hadn't watched yet. By the same token, it also wasn't deliberately intended to spoil things, it just worked out that way.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #12 on:** March 01, 2006, 03:01:34 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 03:48 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 02:05 PM\']And, boom, First post, show ruined, not so much as a warning. I'm a little ticked, but not terribly. But a little.
[/quote]
As said first poster, unless a mod edited my post, I don't recall typing anything else but what is there.[/quote]
Seconds ahead of your post, a mod did. Your original post gave the specific result of one of the games, and the fact that you don't recognize the difference just proves that spoiling the result was not your intention.

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 03:48 PM\']Now, I may be mistaken, and if I am, please correct me--but I was under the impression that if it was after the west coast airing--and off the "Show Summaries" thread, then it was fair game.[/quote]
I would urge you to understand the difference between "fair game" and "really wasn't necessary". Being ever so slightly aware that some of us timeshift, especially when the result was so unnecessary to your main point, would have been appreciated.

clemon79 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 01, 2006, 03:04:51 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 11:58 AM\']So my question is, should I only expect show
I've edited out the worst of it. It's particularly disappointing since the specificity wasn't necessary to the thread, and was in fact SO tangential as to blindside those of us who hadn't watched yet. By the same token, it also wasn't deliberately intended to spoil things, it just worked out that way.

[snapback]111686[/snapback]

[/quote]
Fair enough. I guess I just want to know when I'm justified in muttering "thanks, you freakin' idiot" to myself and when I'm not. I suppose, ultimately, it doesn't matter either way, and I can understand why you wouldn't want to draw a hard-and-fast line, because the second you do there will be nimrods lined up with stopwatches to start pissing wars when someone crosses it by 40 seconds. And we get plenty of pissing wars around here over other stuff.

clemon79 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 01, 2006, 05:58:42 PM »

[quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Mar 1 2006, 10:27 AM\']There was a woman who on the syndicated WWTBAM was able to see the 500K by guessing correctly at a couple high level questions. She guessed at 500K and got it wrong, and she did not seem fazed one bit. She said she was having a wonderful time and was a gambler.

[snapback]111680[/snapback]

[/quote]
Proving what we have learned over and over again from GSWitch: ignorance is bliss.