Make Your Mark Change - Good, Bad or Indifferent?

[tpirfan28]

[quote name=\'Mr. Matté\' post=\'196146\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 04:35 PM\']
Followed by the obligatory animated .gif: http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6817/3s...sfailfangl9.gif
[/quote]
I like it (yeah, it's directed at me), but I don't get the "F" in the first slot.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'196148\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 04:43 PM\']
[quote name=\'Mr. Matté\' post=\'196146\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 04:35 PM\']
Followed by the obligatory animated .gif: http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6817/3s...sfailfangl9.gif
[/quote]
I like it (yeah, it's directed at me), but I don't get the "F" in the first slot.
[/quote]
Giving away the first position in 3 Strikes, perhaps...to spell out FAIL?

[Mr. Matté]

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'196150\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 04:45 PM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'196148\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 04:43 PM\']
I like it (yeah, it's directed at me), but I don't get the "F" in the first slot.
[/quote]
Giving away the first position in 3 Strikes, perhaps...to spell out FAIL?
[/quote]
[LudlowBaxter]That is correct, Alex.[/LB]

[TroubadourNando]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196138\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 02:12 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'196137\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 11:04 AM\']
But I can certainly see why people would object to letting that happen on a TPIR game.
[/quote]
I could too...if it hasn't already been happening for over 25 years. (See Number, Any, or Chances, Ten.)
[/quote]

25? Are you sure you're counting correctly?

Despite my usual opinions (seeing 'fanb0i' turns my stomach) looking at this through the LMAD lens really changed my mind, now that I think about it.

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196078\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 08:31 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196073\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:31 PM\']This kind of thing needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.[/quote]No, it really doesn't. If you're saying that you can look at one game and say "oh, it's okay there" and look at another and say "OH NOES NOT THERE", then there must be some kind of metric by which you are making that decision.[/quote]
I've already made an entire post -- the one you just responded to, in fact -- explaining why that isn't the case.  Not every pricing game is comparable to every other pricing game -- they all have different prizes and different structures, and some of those combinations of prizes and structures work better with bailout options and consolation prizes than others do.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196163\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 03:37 PM\']
I've already made an entire post -- the one you just responded to, in fact -- explaining why that isn't the case.  Not every pricing game is comparable to every other pricing game -- they all have different prizes and different structures, and some of those combinations of prizes and structures work better with bailout options and consolation prizes than others do.[/quote]
That doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me. But maybe I'm missing something, so I'll try asking again: what quality does Barkers Markers possess that makes it incompatible to a consolation prize (and, again, I *really* want to stress that all I'm interested in is that precise taking-something-away-even-if-someone-lost situation, as opposed to taking-something-away-for-voluntarily-quitting) that Let 'Em Roll or Money Game apparently doesn't have? Are you arguing that it's okay to give someone consolation money for failing to win a car and it's not for five-to-seven-grand-or-so in prizes?

EDIT: Actually I went back and looked at your earlier post, the gist of which I boiled down to "because it's a car and not a gazebo." Which still doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me, but in response I refer you back to my comments -- in the post *you* just responded to, in fact -- about "then you need contestants who just want to win *something*, or prizes that don't completely blow."

[TheLastResort]

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196163\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 06:37 PM\']Not every pricing game is comparable to every other pricing game -- they all have different prizes and different structures...[/quote]

The fact that you would use a word like "structure" to describe what are basically a bunch of juvenile guessing games tells me you are taking this WAYYY too seriously.

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196164\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 06:53 PM\']That doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me. But maybe I'm missing something, so I'll try asking again: what quality does Barkers Markers possess that makes it incompatible to a consolation prize (and, again, I *really* want to stress that all I'm interested in is that precise taking-something-away-even-if-someone-lost situation, as opposed to taking-something-away-for-voluntarily-quitting) that Let 'Em Roll or Money Game apparently doesn't have? Are you arguing that it's okay to give someone consolation money for failing to win a car and it's not for five-to-seven-grand-or-so in prizes?[/quote]
Actually, I'm arguing what I've been arguing since the first thread -- that you're intentionally ignoring the part of my argument that makes you look wrong.  But you already knew that.

[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'196171\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 08:45 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196163\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 06:37 PM\']Not every pricing game is comparable to every other pricing game -- they all have different prizes and different structures...[/quote]The fact that you would use a word like "structure" to describe what are basically a bunch of juvenile guessing games tells me you are taking this WAYYY too seriously.[/quote]
Now, y'see, this has no actual bearing on the argument -- it's just an insult designed to make me look like a obsessive fanboy.  I'm not really sure why it's supposed to surprise anyone, either -- I mean, given that I wrote this thing, I don't think it takes a genius to see that I take the show a bit more seriously than most people.  And you're allowed to think that's silly if you want to...but again, it's totally irrelevent as far as whether or not my statement was accurate.

[WhammyGuy28]

[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'196171\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 04:45 PM\']
The fact that you would use a word like "structure" to describe what are basically a bunch of juvenile guessing games tells me you are taking this WAYYY too seriously.
[/quote]

17 pages and counting tells me this whole thing is being taken WAYYY too seriously.  There's a consolation prize in Make Your Mark now, and TPIR hasn't died in a fire because of it.  Feeling relieved that that hasn't happened, now we all can get on with our lives & our clever 'fail' gif creating...

/Perhaps the $500 should be hereby designated 'fail money'?
//Aw crap, now it's just going to continue with people arguing the pros & cons of using the term 'fail money' to describe a consolation prize that shouldn't be there.  But then other people are going to argue consolation prizes are nothing new, and it doesn't matter much.  Then still other people who hate change are going to argue that it's bad because it's change.  Then people are going to start throwing barbs at the other people.  Then the other people are going to start throwing barbs back.  aaaaaaaAAAAHHHHH!!!! *blows brains out*

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196191\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 08:53 PM\']
Actually, I'm arguing what I've been arguing since the first thread -- that you're intentionally ignoring the part of my argument that makes you look wrong.  But you already knew that.[/quote]
Okay, Steve. I've really made a concerted effort to give you the benefit of the doubt here and tried very hard to debate this with you in an adult manner. I see now that that was a mistake.

C'est la vie.

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196191\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 10:53 PM\']
And you're allowed to think that's silly if you want to...but again, it's totally irrelevent as far as whether or not my statement was accurate.[/quote]Well, from personal experience, I can say that when there's a subject that I care deeply about that is getting dissed, I tend to defend it to the death, sometimes straying from rational arguments.

Not that I'm taking either persons' side in this argument.

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196218\' date=\'Sep 6 2008, 06:32 AM\']I've really made a concerted effort to give you the benefit of the doubt here and tried very hard to debate this with you in an adult manner.[/quote]
Oh, ya did not, and you know it.  Your entire style of "debate" revolves around ignoring any statements that might put a dent in your case if you actually acknowledged them and then trying to talk around them loudly enough to keep anyone from noticing that that's what you're doing.  You're a master of rhetoric, really -- when you run into something you can't refute with a straight argument, you're able to spin your words in such a way that even though you're not making any kind of actual case for yourself, it still sounds like you are.

I'm not going to pretend I'm the most mature person in the world...but for you to act as though the statements of mine that you don't want to bother dealing with were never made and then accuse me of being childish is at the very least the pot calling the kettle black.

[clemon79]

I am *utterly* speechless.

(Except for that. Okay, *now* I'm speechless.)

[TroubadourNando]

Methinks 17 pages might be a good point to end this at....

[TheLastResort]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196274\' date=\'Sep 6 2008, 02:58 PM\']
I am *utterly* speechless.[/quote]

And I am speechlessly utterless!

Actually, there are quite a few things I could say to Steve right now, but I'd end up getting sent to the Shirley Booth.

/OK, that was stupid.