Super Millionaire's New Rules Out

[starcade]

Love the two new Lifelines, and they're correctly placed at Tier III.

I think they may need to rename the three-expert Lifeline, but it's a great idea -- it's kinda like a three-pronged equivalent to the PAF on the online version on the two things.

The Double Dip -- esp. Tier III, is MADNESS!!!  Get it to two, and take your shot, but you CAN'T BAIL!!!

[starcade]

Oh God, great point!!!!

Remember, and let's hash this again and again...

50-50 + Double Dip = AUTOMATIC WIN!!!!

You think people paying attention might really be reluctant to pull the trigger on that 50-50 now???  

[starcade]

And one more think on Professor Beverly:

I respect the man for his media background and his expertise here.

I would just suggest, for those who don't like the guy, better him by getting more respect in the field.  Would you have gotten the interviews with Michael Davies for this???

(BTW, with his permission, I'd like him as one of my PAFs should I qualify.)

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Feb 11 2004, 10:52 AM\'] I think they may need to rename the three-expert Lifeline, but it's a great idea -- it's kinda like a three-pronged equivalent to the PAF on the online version on the two things.
 [/quote]
Why? Not one person has explained WHY this name has to be changed. I for one will be very dissappointed if the level of political correctness in this country has sunk to the point of having to avoid using a perfectly legitimate literary reference like "Three Wise Men" because some women got pissed off about it.

(And you can bet your bottom dollar that at least ONE of the Three Wise Men will be female at all times, to avoid this criticism. As a potential contestant I'm okay with that, as it allows for a wider potential base of knowledge, but the ultimate reasoning behind it will be no more than your typical PC crappe.)

Remember, and let's hash this again and again...
50-50 + Double Dip = AUTOMATIC WIN!!!!

You know what, let's _not_ hash it again and again. It's out there, everyone knows it now, I think we can move on.

I would just suggest, for those who don't like the guy, better him by getting more respect in the field. Would you have gotten the interviews with Michael Davies for this???

More crap. I don't have to step in s%!# to know that it stinks. The mass majority of his media "respect" has been wholly manufactured. Once you have the media convinced you're someone important, and you get that foot in the door, you're pretty much in so long as nobody finds out the truth. That's how he gets most of his interviews. As for the conference call, anyone who received the press release and could cite a press credential could have been in on that call, and he ALWAYS makes those sound a WHOLE lot more exclusive then they actually are...in reality, he was probably on the line with a hundred or more actual journalists listening to Davies talk.

It's not hard to do, all you need are the right contacts. I've been out of the business five years, and I'm pretty sure I could still make two phone calls and be in the San Jose Sharks locker room Saturday night in Columbus, if I wanted to be.

(BTW, with his permission, I'd like him as one of my PAFs should I qualify.)

It's your choice, but for the life of me I can't imagine why. As far as we know, the man has two areas of alleged expertise: journalism, and game shows. If I were to waste a PAF on the latter topic (and I'm secure enough in my own knowledge that I wouldn't, but I'm not saying I know more than everyone else, simply that I know enough that the EXTRA knowledge I would obtain from having an expert wouldn't be enough to merit using the slot on that subject), I can think of at least five people here I would READILY take before The Perfesser. As for the former subject, (which, having a minor in journalism myself, I also prolly wouldn't waste on a PAF, but anyhow) based on the various things I've seen The Perfesser do in that field over the years, I think I'd pick Larry Flynt first.

[Jimmy Owen]

Not that I think it should be changed, but "Three Wise Men" could be considered offensive on religious grounds as well as an affront to the fairer sex.

[massman1]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Feb 11 2004, 12:02 PM\'][quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Feb 11 2004, 12:44 AM\'] Now, to answer the second part, let us not forget an Alex Trebek classic, "Pitfall."  Just because someone had a PitPass in hand, that didn't mean that they automatically passed safely over the elevator.  I'd have to say the same with a contestant with $5 million in the bag and the Double Dip and 50-50 lifelines still intact.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd be damned nervous if I were in that situation -- with millions of Americans and Canadians to be watching my every move on television the following night. [/quote]
I thought of this, and you have a definite point. The money ain't won until the contestant realizes they've won it and takes the correct actions to do so.

Wow. Talk about interactivity...twelve million people watching, every ONE of them yelling at the screen that you have it wrapped, and you sit there in the Hot Seat and DON'T REALIZE IT. It'd be Katherine Rahm with that freakin' Pitstop all over again.

Okay. I'm marginally interested again. [/quote]
Or another example - on Weakest Link, even if a team answered enough questions correctly without banking to reach the per round maximum, the next person still had to say "Bank", and do so at the proper time  (I saw at least once where at first it was said too soon, but they did then say it at the proper time).  I never saw anybody forget or say it too late, but if, in that case, the next question was asked I'd hate to be that person if they missed it and lost everything (gee, I wonder who'd be voted off?).

[CaseyAbell]

The best way to end a dispute is to provide facts. It wasn't hard for me to check the ABC media site and find that the Prof was correct in his story on Super Millionaire's rules...at least the rules as they stand now. Maybe we'll see more tinkering before the show actually tapes.

So why all the heavy breathing about an issue that's been resolved? If somebody has personal issues with the Prof, take them to private e-mail. The address: steve@tvgameshows.net.

EDIT: Maybe I should qualify that advice a little. Of course, if you lead your e-mail to the Prof with "I don't have to step in s%!# to know that it stinks," well, you're probably not going to get very far. But if you have real concerns about his web site, it doesn't do much good to hyperventilate here. He's not going to bother with comparisons of himself to Larry Flynt published on this board. But detailed, reasonable critiques of his work in private e-mail might get a response...and maybe even some changes in his methods, if you think they're needed.

Or maybe not. But you stand a lot better chance with e-mail. A personal story...

On the predecessor to this board I once read a post accusing the Prof of violating the privacy of Randy Amasia's mother by publishing her address on his web site after Randy's death. Seemed pretty tacky to me, so I sent him an e-mail on the issue. He responded at length with his version of events, which by the way was confirmed by another e-mailer. I can't really go into details because he requested confidentiality. Suffice it to say that he made a very good case for his actions, and I might well have done the same in the situation.

Now if you just want to blow off steam by stringing together insults, that's okay. This is the Internet, after all, mankind's most effective invention for blowing off steam by stringing together insults. But if you want to influence the way the Prof does business, reasonably civil private correspondence seems a much better bet.

[Monarx]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Feb 10 2004, 07:39 PM\'] What if someone were to Carpenter and make it to the $10M question with both of those lifelines intact? What should be a Landmark Moment In Television History would be totally anticlimactic, and Davies and his posse would be the goats for blowing it. [/quote]
 Nah, we'd all complain about how easy the stack was and say we'd all have all our lifelines after the first 14.

And everyone's saying that people will have 50:50/DD at 10 million like clockwork.  It's not like the questions will all be 1+1. ;-)

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Feb 11 2004, 12:58 PM\'] And one more think on Professor Beverly:

<snip>

(BTW, with his permission, I'd like him as one of my PAFs should I qualify.) [/quote]
 Been done before---with disastrous results.

[tommycharles]

[quote name=\'massman1\' date=\'Feb 11 2004, 02:50 PM\']
Or another example - on Weakest Link, even if a team answered enough questions correctly without banking to reach the per round maximum, the next person still had to say "Bank", and do so at the proper time  (I saw at least once where at first it was said too soon, but they did then say it at the proper time).  I never saw anybody forget or say it too late, but if, in that case, the next question was asked I'd hate to be that person if they missed it and lost everything (gee, I wonder who'd be voted off?). [/quote]
 Brilliant example, and yes, this has happened.

[J.R.]

Here's an idea for a twist:

If you choose to use both the 50/50 and "DD" on one question and after it is correctly answered, you are then forced to leave the show right then and there.

Another twist idea:

If you don't use either of the 50/50 and "DD" through the first 14, you are not permitted to go for the Jackpot question and you must walk away with *just* $5,000,000.

Just some ideas.
-Joe R.
(PS: I'd go with Merv Griffin as a PAF)

[Matt Ottinger]

As far as using the 50:50 and the Double Dip on the same question, it's entirely possibly that they'll have a specific rule in place to close that little loophole.  If not, I'm sure they've decided that having the possibility of a guaranteed right answer on the upper level will be good for the show.  In other words, we are definitely not the first people to figure out something like that could happen.

[PeterMarshallFan]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Feb 11 2004, 03:56 PM\'] <snip> [/quote]
Personally, I lost respect for SB when he stole pictures of the 1975 You Don't Say from Adam Nedeff's site, told Adam he'd be credited with them when he complained, then just took them down without a second thought. Maybe that's because I haven't read his site as long as some others here. After all, had he checked his facts more closely on 4/1/02, he'd have noticed that Zentertainment and TV Barn credited each other for a story that he put as a headline on his site...."Dick Clark to host Syndicated Millionaire."

Casey, I think you'll find that getting nitpicky with Chris is not a good idea. ;-)

Anyhow, back to the topic.

The 50-50/Double Dip combo gives an interesting spin to the game. It is indeed essentially a free pass on a question if you have both, but as was mentioned above you might be so nervous that you don't use them. I say that if you're good enough to even reach the $10 million level with the 50-50/DD both intact, you deserve the money. These won't be your everyday Millionaire questions.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Feb 11 2004, 12:56 PM\'] But if you want to influence the way the Prof does business, reasonably civil private correspondence seems a much better bet. [/quote]
 The fallacy in your logic is that you think I CARE about how the Professor does business, and WANT him to improve his website. I don't, and could care less if his site were to disappear tomorrow. Starcade suggested that I was unqualified to criticize the Perfesser until I have "more respect in the field". That's a crock, and I said so. I can criticize him all I want, and it's up to each individual poster to decide on their own if my words hold weight or not, and I sleep pretty well at night either way.
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\' Feb 11 2004, 03:17 PM\']Casey, I think you'll find that getting nitpicky with Chris is not a good idea. ;-)[/quote]
Thank you for the support, George, but me and Casey have danced before on other issues, and I'm sure he knows exactly what he's getting into. I respect his argument, but it's based on a false premise.

[SplitSecond]

My goodness.  My cookies for the Game Show Forum site seem to have accidentally logged me into the Drama Queen Forum.

Does anyone with some technical expertise know how to fix this?