Anyone remember "Weakest Link"?
Estron
I do watch the daytime repeats of Anne Robinson's game show "Weakest
Link."
If anyone else used to watch that show in prime time, or watches it
now, tell me: Do you recall any instance where the contestants
actually formed a chain of eight correct answers and got the $125,000
for the round?
--
All opinions expressed are only that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
Kim
> Although I would really rather have something more remunerative to do,
> I do watch the daytime repeats of Anne Robinson's game show "Weakest
> Link."
>
> If anyone else used to watch that show in prime time, or watches it
> now, tell me: Do you recall any instance where the contestants
> actually formed a chain of eight correct answers and got the $125,000
> for the round?
I watched it at night all the time and don't remember anyone banking that
much money - although I do remember once where they *did* answer the eight
questions in a row but someone had banked and broken the chain.
--
Kim
*"What Would Jesus Do?" may be a good philosophy of life for some, but I
find that it rarely helps me decide how much to tip a hooker. (Charles
Gulledge)*
John Dean
> Although I would really rather have something more remunerative to do,
> I do watch the daytime repeats of Anne Robinson's game show "Weakest
> Link."
>
> If anyone else used to watch that show in prime time, or watches it
> now, tell me: Do you recall any instance where the contestants
> actually formed a chain of eight correct answers and got the $125,000
> for the round?
The British version never aspired to that kind of money, but I have seen
shows in which people got to the maximum amount - usually in Round One. I
don't guarantee it was through an unbroken chain of answers, but I do
recollect unbroken chains where someone banked part way through & AR
delighted in pointing this out at the end of the Round.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
chris greville
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:b74hbv$cp6$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Judging by the idiots in the first series now showing on UK Gold, they are
lucky to take home just over £1,000.
But it has been done in both the US and the UK. Last time I saw it done was
a US Celeb. show in 2nd or 3rd Round.
Chris Greville
DanHW
Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
> If anyone else used to watch that show in prime time, or watches it
> now, tell me: Do you recall any instance where the contestants
> actually formed a chain of eight correct answers and got the $125,000
> for the round?
Yes. I saw a rerun on the Game Show Network a few months ago where they
did that with the first eight questions of the game. The next person
banked, of course, and the first round ended right there, after just
eight questions.
Alas, they didn't get anywhere near the $125,000 for any of the
remaining rounds.
--
--Dan
My blog: http://www.whosefaultyvision.com/blog
"Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things
as they are, not as they ought to be." -Ambrose Bierce
groo
of the Prisoner's Dilemma in the final round: Two contestants worked
together to answer a question, but before they each cast a vote in
secret. If they both voted to share, then they split their winnings, but
if exactly one voted not to share then that contestant got it all. If
both voted not to share, neither got anything. In all three cases that
I saw, one person always voted to screw the other one, or both did. I
thought it was a sad commentary on human nature.
If you were in such a position, for let's say a $20,000 prize, what
would you do?
If the prize was $1,000,000 would it change your decision?
Matt Ackeret
>I do watch the daytime repeats of Anne Robinson's game show "Weakest
>Link."
>
>If anyone else used to watch that show in prime time, or watches it
>now, tell me: Do you recall any instance where the contestants
>actually formed a chain of eight correct answers and got the $125,000
>for the round?
The syndicated one *has* had people bank the whole $25K (??) several
times.. Even several times in a show, but never _all_ rounds.
Unfortunately the syndicated one has been cancelled, but I think they'll
still have another run of new episodes during sweeps.. (of course, if
you haven't been watching it, they're all new to you).
At first I didn't like the host because he wasn't Anne Robinson.. but he's
funny in his own right.
They also rerun the syndicated WL on PAX (I think only once a week), so
it'll probably be around forever too, since the Anne eps still rerun on PAX.
Lesmond
>A month or so ago I came across some game show on TV which had a version
>of the Prisoner's Dilemma in the final round: Two contestants worked
>together to answer a question, but before they each cast a vote in
>secret. If they both voted to share, then they split their winnings, but
>if exactly one voted not to share then that contestant got it all. If
>both voted not to share, neither got anything. In all three cases that
>I saw, one person always voted to screw the other one, or both did. I
>thought it was a sad commentary on human nature.
That would be "Friend or Foe" hosted by the ever annoying Kennedy.
--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.
mistakes were made
>A month or so ago I came across some game show on TV which had a version
>of the Prisoner's Dilemma
Prisoners' dilemma. the Prisoner's dilemma is a paradox whereby a condemned
man works out that he's not going to be hung, only to be hung by surprise.
> in the final round: Two contestants worked
>together to answer a question, but before they each cast a vote in
>secret. If they both voted to share, then they split their winnings, but
>if exactly one voted not to share then that contestant got it all. If
>both voted not to share, neither got anything. In all three cases that
>I saw, one person always voted to screw the other one, or both did. I
>thought it was a sad commentary on human nature.
Mostly, it's a sad commentary on you, that you don't understand how
non-iterative games work.
>If you were in such a position, for let's say a $20,000 prize, what
>would you do?
Vote not to share.
>If the prize was $1,000,000 would it change your decision?
No. Not sharing ("screw the other player") is always the best decision in a
game with a single iteration. No one winds up better than you, and there's a
good chance you'll wind up better than the other player.
with iteration (that is, the game is played a few more times, or, say, there
are consequences beyond the immediate outcome of the game) as with a true
prisoners dilemma among prisoners, then "sharing" ("cooperate with the other
player" ) is a better strategy, until he decides to screw you. Then, you screw
him for an interation or two until he gets the message, and you go back to
cooperation. Lather, rinse, repeat.
--
."Uh, you talking about me BF? Gosh!"
Joseph Nebus
>If anyone else used to watch that show in prime time, or watches it
>now, tell me: Do you recall any instance where the contestants
>actually formed a chain of eight correct answers and got the $125,000
>for the round?
I do not, but I was only in the U.S. a short while when the Anne
Robinson version was out -- after that I was in Singapore where for
reasons I'm still uncertain about they were willing to pay me to do my
thesis research.
One of the several trillion things that amused me, though, was
that Singapore had its own Mandarin Chinese edition of The Weakest Link,
as well as an English and then Mandarin version of Who Wants To Be A
Millionaire. Last year they also got an English version of The Weakest
Link, as well as a local Wheel of Fortune (English, although there's a
Malay version produced in, well, Malaysia). If it weren't for their
importing the Australian and United States versions of The Price Is
Right I would say Singapore was in danger of running out of game show
contestants.
(Watching Wheel of Fortune and The \$$_ Pyramid in Malay, or any
language you don't speak, is a marvelously surreal experience. One can
follow every important property of the game perfectly without having
any idea what's going on. I recommend it at least once in a lifetime.)
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estron
> A month or so ago I came across some game show on TV which had a version
> of the Prisoner's Dilemma in the final round: Two contestants worked
> together to answer a question, but before they each cast a vote in
> secret. If they both voted to share, then they split their winnings, but
> if exactly one voted not to share then that contestant got it all. If
> both voted not to share, neither got anything. In all three cases that
> I saw, one person always voted to screw the other one, or both did. I
> thought it was a sad commentary on human nature.
That's "Friend or Foe" on the Game Show Network. Former MTV host Kennedy
is the host (the only female game show host I can remember). Each
episode has three teams of two, all of whom eventually split their
winnings (or not) before being eliminated. Selecting "Friend" is voting
to share, selecting "Foe" is voting not to share, with the outcomes as
you have described.
True, most of the teams I've seen have ended up with one (or both)
members going Foe, but think: Each contestant has a 50-50 chance of
winning money or winning nothing, regardless of which selection he makes.
But selecting Friend means you have a 50-50 chance of winning have the
pool, and selecting Foe means there is a 50-50 chance of winning the
entire pool. "Human nature" is not the profit-maximizing choice in that
instance.
--
All opinions expressed above are only that.
Blinky the Shark
> That's "Friend or Foe" on the Game Show Network. Former MTV host Kennedy
> is the host (the only female game show host I can remember). Each
Vicki Lawrence - Win, Lose or Draw
--
Blinky
New April 7 -- Arab TV This Week: http://snurl.com/arabtv
New April 6 -- The Big Game: http://snurl.com/thegame
New April 4 -- The Real WinXP: http://snurl.com/xp_review
mistakes were made
>True, most of the teams I've seen have ended up with one (or both)
>members going Foe, but think: Each contestant has a 50-50 chance of
>winning money or winning nothing,
I'm not at all sure they do. I realize there are four possible outcomes, and
two of them result in you winning nothing and two of them result in you winning
something, but I do not think the probability of each event are equal. After
all, there are two possible outcomes of playing the lottery, you win, or you
lose. Yet, I wouldn't say the odds of winning are even, huh?
> regardless of which selection he makes.
>But selecting Friend means you have a 50-50 chance of winning have the
>pool, and selecting Foe means there is a 50-50 chance of winning the
>entire pool. "Human nature" is not the profit-maximizing choice in that
>instance.
You keep fiddling around like this, you're going to invent game theory all on
your own, but Neumann already did all the hard work for you, so if you're
curious about this kind of thing, I'd check into what he did.
D.F. Manno
I wouldn't play a game show where my winnings were determined in whole
or in part on what other contestants did.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
John Dean
> groo gr...@groo.org Date: 4/10/03 5:51 PM Easte writes:
>
>> A month or so ago I came across some game show on TV which had a
>> version
>> of the Prisoner's Dilemma
>
> Prisoners' dilemma. the Prisoner's dilemma is a paradox whereby a
> condemned man works out that he's not going to be hung, only to be
> hung by surprise.
No - that's the paradox of the unexpected hanging. What's being discussed
here really *is* the prisoners' / prisoner's dilemma. - example at
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PRISDIL.html and about 12,900 other places on-line
--
John 'I will post in praise of Von neumann one day next week but none of you
will know in advance which day it will be' Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
bob geary
news:20030410225825...@mb-fn.aol.com...
<snip interesting iteration discussion, as it's not particularly relevant
to either 'Friend or Foe' or the classic Prisoners' Dilemma>
"Good" chance? Depends on your definition of "good." Suppose that you
discovered, through answering tough questions together as a team, that the
other player was (remember, this is just a thought experiment, use your
imagination) about as smart as you. Your analysis above, leading to the
conclusion that "Foe" is the best option, isn't all that tricky - your
opponent, no dummy he, will have come to the same conclusion, willn't
he've? I mean, it's not just a chance that he'll think of it - if he's
anywhere near as clever as you, and your answer is the right one, he'll
reach the same easy conclusion, you'll both vote Foe, and neither of you
will get anything - it's almost guaranteed.
My pick - if you think your opponent is a doofus, smile warmly and say soft
soothing things about your children and your dog and how much they trust
you, and how you could never look them in the face again if you didn't do
the Right Thing, and then vote Foe. If your opponent isn't a doofus, then
you have to decide which is greater - your fear of getting screwed, or your
desire for half the pot. If the former, vote Foe and, most likely, go home
empty-handed, but at least nobody put nothin' over on you, you can walk out
with your head held high, not weighed down by money - you didn't win, but
at least you didn't lose. If the latter, vote Friend, and hope that the
clever person across the console did a little more thinking about it too.
bobg
Mark Steese
<john...@frag.lineone.net>, der news:b768te$387$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk
schrieb:
> mistakes were made wrote:
>> groo gr...@groo.org Date: 4/10/03 5:51 PM Easte writes:
>>
>>> A month or so ago I came across some game show on TV which had a
>>> version of the Prisoner's Dilemma
>>
>> Prisoners' dilemma. the Prisoner's dilemma is a paradox whereby a
>> condemned man works out that he's not going to be hung, only to be
>> hung by surprise.
>
> No - that's the paradox of the unexpected hanging.
Actually, if he's going to be hung by surprise, it's the paradox of the
unexpected penile enlargment. ^_^
> What's being discussed here really *is* the prisoners' / prisoner's
> dilemma. -
> example at http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PRISDIL.html and about 12,900 other
> places on-line --
William Poundstone's book _Prisoner's Dilemma_ discusses the problem in
the context of Von Neumann's life and career (and his book _Labyrinths of
Reason_ discusses the Unexpected Hanging, among other paradoxes).
> John 'I will post in praise of Von neumann one day next week but none
> of you will know in advance which day it will be' Dean
Anyone who guesses correctly will get to choose whether to take a
transparent box containing a $1,000 bill, an opaque box that may or not
contain a million dollars, or both.
-Mark Steese
--
there's a ribbon in the willow and a tire swing rope
and a briar patch of berries takin over the slope
the cat'll sleep in the mailbox and we'll never go to town
till we bury every dream in the cold cold ground
cold cold ground -Tom Waits
Paul L. Madarasz
perhaps among other things:
>Although I would really rather have something more remunerative to do,
>I do watch the daytime repeats of Anne Robinson's game show "Weakest
>Link."
>
>If anyone else used to watch that show in prime time, or watches it
>now, tell me: Do you recall any instance where the contestants
>actually formed a chain of eight correct answers and got the $125,000
>for the round?
Estron, Estron... please lie down and put a cold compress on your
forehead. This too shall pass.
Instead of watching this "entertainment," you should be writing
another song. Everyone will benefit.
(Never saw anything remotely resembling this "Weakest Link" thing, and
prolly the better for it)
"Liquor is filling my lifeline,
Psylocybin building a dam;
There's no escaping the puking sphinx"
-- E. Sanders
eb...@pc.tampabay.rr.com
Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
>
> That's "Friend or Foe" on the Game Show Network. Former MTV host Kennedy
> is the host (the only female game show host I can remember).
Except for the topic of discussion: 'Anne Robinson's game show "Weakest Link."'
--
-eben ebQ...@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
GEMINI: Your birthday party will be ruined once again by your explosive
flatulence. Your love life will run into trouble when your fiancee hurls a
javelin through your chest. -- Weird Al,
Estron
> I wouldn't play a game show where my winnings were determined in whole
> or in part on what other contestants did.
Wouldn't that include every game show in which a contestant has to
"buzz in" before an opponent? Your winnings depend on whether your
opponents are slower or faster than you.
For instance, I can always beat my brother in the computer version of
"Jeopardy!" not because I know any more trivia than he does, but
because I happen to be able to read fast, and I can buzz in sooner.
Bob Ward
>In article <MPG.190013818...@news.birch.net>,
>Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
>>
>> That's "Friend or Foe" on the Game Show Network. Former MTV host Kennedy
>> is the host (the only female game show host I can remember).
>
>Except for the topic of discussion: 'Anne Robinson's game show "Weakest Link."'
Damn it - you reminded us! Now we have to work on forgetting it all
over again.
Bob Ward
>
>For instance, I can always beat my brother in the computer version of
>"Jeopardy!" not because I know any more trivia than he does, but
>because I happen to be able to read fast, and I can buzz in sooner.
What is the reward for buzzing in first with the wrong answer?
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> I wouldn't play a game show where my winnings were determined in whole
> or in part on what other contestants did.
There are precious few game shows that *don't* in some manner depend on
what the otehr contestants, from jeopardy, wher ethe other contestand get
more money than you if they are better at it, to .. well, actually that's
most game shows isn't it?
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Matt Ackeret
Estron <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
>For instance, I can always beat my brother in the computer version of
>"Jeopardy!" not because I know any more trivia than he does, but
>because I happen to be able to read fast, and I can buzz in sooner.
But the computer version of Jeopardy(*) is incredibly lame because it
is a multiple choice question... err answer.. err question.. you get the
idea.. heh
(*) Presuming it's just like every other computer version of Jeopardy I've
seen over the years. A version that required you to type in your answer
and come as-close in spelling as they do in Final Jeopardy would be great.
Jim Ellwanger
Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
> Estron wrote:
>
> > That's "Friend or Foe" on the Game Show Network. Former MTV host Kennedy
> > is the host (the only female game show host I can remember). Each
>
> Vicki Lawrence - Win, Lose or Draw
And from a quick look through "The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows":
Betty White, "Just Men!" (and she also occasionally filled in as host
on "Password" so Allen Ludden could play as a celebrity)
Elaine Joyce, "The Dating Game" (circa 1986)
Arlene Francis on a couple of long-forgotten shows of the '50s (this is
apart from her more familiar appearances as a panelist)
The list of female assistants (e.g., Lynne Thigpen), models (Carol
Merrill), and hostesses (Vanna White) is fairly long, but add Anne
Robinson's name, and I think this post mentions every woman who's ever
hosted a nationally televised game show in the U.S.
--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com>
<http://trainman1.home.mindspring.com> welcomes you daily.
"The days turn into nights; at night, you hear the trains."
Blinky the Shark
> In article <slrnb9cor0....@dora.blinkynet.net>, Blinky the
> Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>> Estron wrote:
>> > That's "Friend or Foe" on the Game Show Network. Former MTV host Kennedy
>> > is the host (the only female game show host I can remember). Each
>> Vicki Lawrence - Win, Lose or Draw
> And from a quick look through "The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows":
Good deal. Thanks!
> Betty White, "Just Men!" (and she also occasionally filled in as host
> on "Password" so Allen Ludden could play as a celebrity)
Worked with Betty a couple of months ago. She's goin' strong. I
wonder, with a name like "Just Men" if that show somehow was a spinoff
from her Sue Ann character in MTM.
> Elaine Joyce, "The Dating Game" (circa 1986)
> Arlene Francis on a couple of long-forgotten shows of the '50s (this is
> apart from her more familiar appearances as a panelist)
I remember her as a panelist, but didn't know she ever got a host shot.
Jim Ellwanger
Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Ellwanger wrote:
> > Arlene Francis on a couple of long-forgotten shows of the '50s (this is
> > apart from her more familiar appearances as a panelist)
>
> I remember her as a panelist, but didn't know she ever got a host shot.
The shows she hosted were "Blind Date" (no relation to the more recent
show by that title), "By Popular Demand," "That Reminds Me," and "Who's
There." The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows also lists her as having
filled in for Bill Cullen on "The Price Is Right" at least once...that
one's obviously not included in the "long-forgotten" category.
During the '50s, she also hosted a daytime talk show called "Home," and
then its replacement, a variety show called "The Arlene Francis Show."
Blinky the Shark
> In article <slrnb9eu6c....@dora.blinkynet.net>, Blinky the
> Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>> Jim Ellwanger wrote:
>> > Arlene Francis on a couple of long-forgotten shows of the '50s (this is
>> > apart from her more familiar appearances as a panelist)
>> I remember her as a panelist, but didn't know she ever got a host shot.
> The shows she hosted were "Blind Date" (no relation to the more recent
> show by that title), "By Popular Demand," "That Reminds Me," and "Who's
I didn't remember an earlier version of BD. I filled in on today's BD,
once, spending a day in the studio just shooting Roger's wrap-arounds.
Bo-ring. Yikes!
> There." The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows also lists her as having
> filled in for Bill Cullen on "The Price Is Right" at least once...that
> one's obviously not included in the "long-forgotten" category.
I forgot Bill did TPIR. I did "Joker's Wild" with him, for (Jack) Barry
and (Dan) Enright.
Jim Ellwanger
Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Ellwanger wrote:
>
> > The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows also lists her as having filled
> > in for Bill Cullen on "The Price Is Right" at least once...that
> > one's obviously not included in the "long-forgotten" category.
>
> I forgot Bill did TPIR. I did "Joker's Wild" with him, for (Jack) Barry
> and (Dan) Enright.
Game Show Network has aired reruns of the Bill Cullen "TPIR" within the
past couple of years. It was one of NBC's first programs to regularly
air in color, but all that are left are black-and-white kinescopes, so
GSN aired it as part of their block of black-and-white shows. (They've
since lost the rights to rerun any version of "TPIR.")
Did you get to talk to Bill Cullen much while you were working on
"TJW"? At least from my perspective of watching him on TV, he always
seemed like he was having a good time, whether he was hosting the
various shows he worked on in the '80s, or (in reruns I've since seen
on GSN) sitting on panels or hosting in the '50s through the '70s.
Blinky the Shark
> Did you get to talk to Bill Cullen much while you were working on
> "TJW"? At least from my perspective of watching him on TV, he always
> seemed like he was having a good time, whether he was hosting the
Yeah, he was having a good time, like all of us. I didn't see any ego
problems at all.
ctc...@hotmail.com
> A month or so ago I came across some game show on TV which had a version
> of the Prisoner's Dilemma in the final round: Two contestants worked
> together to answer a question, but before they each cast a vote in
> secret. If they both voted to share, then they split their winnings, but
> if exactly one voted not to share then that contestant got it all. If
> both voted not to share, neither got anything. In all three cases that
> I saw, one person always voted to screw the other one, or both did. I
> thought it was a sad commentary on human nature.
I don't think it's much of a commentary at all on human nature. If someone
captures the opposing pieces in chess or checkers, does that mean they
have a violent nature?
> If you were in such a position, for let's say a $20,000 prize, what
> would you do?
Well, am I only playing the game once? Do I have any relationship with
the partner? Based on your observations, I would go with not share, or
preferable get a real job and not play game shows to make money.
> If the prize was $1,000,000 would it change your decision?
Not if I couldn't collude with the partner.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
D.F. Manno
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > I wouldn't play a game show where my winnings were determined in whole
> > or in part on what other contestants did.
>
> There are precious few game shows that *don't* in some manner depend on
> what the otehr contestants, from jeopardy, wher ethe other contestand get
> more money than you if they are better at it, to .. well, actually that's
> most game shows isn't it?
OK, I didn't make myself clear. Let me rephrase: I wouldn't play a
game show where my winnings were determined by the other contestants
based on factors extrinsic to the game.
In "Weakest Link," you could get all the answers right, and still win
nothing because the other contestants didn't like the way you part
your hair. Or you could get nothing because the contestant following
you doesn't bank and gets the answer wrong.
I'm not a game-theory expert, but I don't see a rational strategy to
playing "Link." If you do too well, eventually the other players will
see you as a threat and vote you out. But if you miss questions to
avoid that fate, you could get voted out for being wrong.
Estron
> >For instance, I can always beat my brother in the computer version of
> >"Jeopardy!" not because I know any more trivia than he does, but
> >because I happen to be able to read fast, and I can buzz in sooner.
> What is the reward for buzzing in first with the wrong answer?
It's a negative reward, but I am able to say that that more than 70
percent of the time, I have the right answer. That will lead to positive
scores.
--
All opinions expressed above are only that.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> In article <n8Fla.864$rn.7...@newshog.newsread.com>,
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>> D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> > I wouldn't play a game show where my winnings were determined in whole
>> > or in part on what other contestants did.
>>
>> There are precious few game shows that *don't* in some manner depend on
>> what the otehr contestants, from jeopardy, wher ethe other contestand get
>> more money than you if they are better at it, to .. well, actually that's
>> most game shows isn't it?
> OK, I didn't make myself clear. Let me rephrase: I wouldn't play a
> game show where my winnings were determined by the other contestants
> based on factors extrinsic to the game.
> In "Weakest Link," you could get all the answers right, and still win
> nothing because the other contestants didn't like the way you part
> your hair. Or you could get nothing because the contestant following
> you doesn't bank and gets the answer wrong.
> I'm not a game-theory expert, but I don't see a rational strategy to
> playing "Link." If you do too well, eventually the other players will
> see you as a threat and vote you out. But if you miss questions to
> avoid that fate, you could get voted out for being wrong.
It's that dirty little word: politics. You have to have a gut level
appeal to people. Survivor is similar. I take it you'd never want to
play in any similar game?
Estron
> Except for the topic of discussion: 'Anne Robinson's game show "Weakest Link."'
(dumbfounded pause)
Oh yeah, she is female, isn't she?
Sorry about that; I was typing that post after 1:00 this morning.
--
All opinions expressed are only that.
Estron
> Instead of watching this "entertainment," you should be writing
> another song. Everyone will benefit.
I give myself from the time I wake up to 11 a.m. to think up a new
song. If it isn't happening by then, I go turn on the Iron Lady.
And I'm sure that, if I could get on a show, I could benefit big time.
Of course, I'm answering questions in the no-audience, no-pressure
atmosphere of my home.
Blinky the Shark
> I give myself from the time I wake up to 11 a.m. to think up a new
> song. If it isn't happening by then, I go turn on the Iron Lady.
Interesting name for your SO. Still, I'm sure she enjoys the attention.
mistakes were made
>
>Estron wrote:
>
>> I give myself from the time I wake up to 11 a.m. to think up a new
>> song. If it isn't happening by then, I go turn on the Iron Lady.
>
>Interesting name for your SO.
It was either that, or "Spike."
D.F. Manno
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> It's that dirty little word: politics. You have to have a gut level
> appeal to people.
And you have to have time to demonstrate that appeal, which you don't
have on "Link," since you don't meet your fellow contestants until the
start of the game.
> Survivor is similar. I take it you'd never want to play in any similar game?
If I were ever to stoop so low as to agree to appear on a reality
series, I hope one of my friends would have the decency to kill me
before the taping.
I'd like to try out for "Jeopardy" one of these days.
David Zeiger
>In article <xuyma.1206$001.9...@monger.newsread.com>,
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
>> It's that dirty little word: politics. You have to have a gut level
>> appeal to people.
>
>And you have to have time to demonstrate that appeal, which you don't
>have on "Link," since you don't meet your fellow contestants until the
>start of the game.
Are you sure? I thought they had a chance to talk with one
another for a little while before the show started, making
it more like a short session of the Avalon-Hill "Diplomacy"
board game.
--
David Zeiger dze...@the-institute.net
Whenever I find myself in a difficult situation, I ask myself "What
Would Jesus Do?" The mental image of my opposition being cast into
pits of hellfire for all eternity *is* comforting, but probably not
what the inventors of the phrase had in mind.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> In article <xuyma.1206$001.9...@monger.newsread.com>,
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>> It's that dirty little word: politics. You have to have a gut level
>> appeal to people.
> And you have to have time to demonstrate that appeal, which you don't
> have on "Link," since you don't meet your fellow contestants until the
> start of the game.
Many peeps have discussed that some people have a form of natural charisma
that works pretty rapidly, ie there are some peeps that are likable pretty
much on sight.
>> Survivor is similar. I take it you'd never want to play in any similar game?
> If I were ever to stoop so low as to agree to appear on a reality
> series, I hope one of my friends would have the decency to kill me
> before the taping.
Ah, well that explains it: The thing about weakest link is that it's a
blend of traditional game show and reality TV: and it's the realtity TV
part that bugs you, correct?
> I'd like to try out for "Jeopardy" one of these days.
Jeopardy is mostly about speed on the clicker. Some people are inhumanly
fast, meaning that you only get the questions they don't want, which puts
you at a distinct disadvantage.
D.F. Manno
<D7A955A1D87CCBBB.14E9C882...@lp.airnews.net>,
dze...@the-institute.net (David Zeiger) wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:27:25 -0400, D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >And you have to have time to demonstrate that appeal, which you don't
> >have on "Link," since you don't meet your fellow contestants until the
> >start of the game.
>
> Are you sure? I thought they had a chance to talk with one
> another for a little while before the show started, making
> it more like a short session of the Avalon-Hill "Diplomacy"
> board game.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that federal law
required that there be no contact among game show contestants prior to
the game.
(And if you're wondering why there's a federal law relating to TV game
shows, it's a result of the quiz show scandals of the '50s.)
David Zeiger
>I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that federal law
>required that there be no contact among game show contestants prior to
>the game.
Well, found some interviews with contestants at
http://www.chris-lambert.com/LINK/linkinterview.html
where they talk about meeting up with each other well before
the show, though it appears that there are 12 contestants at
that point, and only 8 of them are picked out of a hat just
before the show starts.
Jim Ellwanger
D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that federal law
> required that there be no contact among game show contestants prior to
> the game.
There's (usually) no problem if contestants are allowed to talk to each
other before a show, and in practice, most shows keep all the
contestants they called for one day's taping session together in the
same green room, and/or together in the audience watching the shows
being taped.
The big problem would be contact between a contestant and someone who
knows the game material (a writer, a researcher, or the show host), but
I don't think Federal law gets as specific as listing who should be
kept apart from whom. Those decisions tend to fall to the networks'
standards and practices departments.
John Dean
> In article
> <D7A955A1D87CCBBB.14E9C882...@lp.airnews.net>,
> dze...@the-institute.net (David Zeiger) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:27:25 -0400, D.F. Manno
>> <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And you have to have time to demonstrate that appeal, which you
>>> don't
>>> have on "Link," since you don't meet your fellow contestants until
>>> the start of the game.
>>
>> Are you sure? I thought they had a chance to talk with one
>> another for a little while before the show started, making
>> it more like a short session of the Avalon-Hill "Diplomacy"
>> board game.
>
> I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that federal law
> required that there be no contact among game show contestants prior to
> the game.
>
> (And if you're wondering why there's a federal law relating to TV game
> shows, it's a result of the quiz show scandals of the '50s.)
They sometimes show US episodes on BBC and there's a disclaimer in the
credits that contestants may have formulated strategies with each other. And
anyway, apart from the chance of getting together at the start, there are
plenty of breaks in filming where contestants can chat.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Estron
> I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that federal law
> required that there be no contact among game show contestants prior to
> the game.
No; it simply prohibits sexual intercourse between the contestants for
purposes of demonstration to minors.
Blinky the Shark
> start, there are plenty of breaks in filming where contestants can
> chat.
In the taping.
But what I'm really here for is: is there really a clock at Oxford
(possibly in a church) that is rather ceremoniously kept at five minutes
earlier or later than GMT?
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Blinky the Shark
> I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that federal law
> required that there be no contact among game show contestants prior to
> the game.
Every time we start a new show, a lawyer from a "compliance" firm that
specializes in this gives everyone *working* on the show a presentation
on "don't talk to the contestants", don't this, don't that, and if you
see a contestant anywhere where they don't belong (since answers or help
could conceivably be there), tell a producer *immediately*. They're very
serious about that. We have to sign off on all of that, with a
several-page compliance form. (And a representative of the compliance
company is onstage for all tapings.)
One of those is Sullivan Compliance Company. They don't seem to have a
website (why would they, with such a specialized Hollywood product?),
but here's a Google where they turn up with some game shows:
As for contestants, they also get (and sign off on) the rules'n'stuff,
by another person who specializes in that, every day. As a group. But
they don't put up figurative fences *between* contestants, that I know
of -- just between them and non-contestants.
Blinky the Shark
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:00:10 -0400, D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that federal law
>>required that there be no contact among game show contestants prior to
>>the game.
> Well, found some interviews with contestants at
> http://www.chris-lambert.com/LINK/linkinterview.html
> where they talk about meeting up with each other well before
> the show, though it appears that there are 12 contestants at
> that point, and only 8 of them are picked out of a hat just
> before the show starts.
I do game shows. See my response to D.F., just posted.
Blinky the Shark
> The big problem would be contact between a contestant and someone who
> knows the game material (a writer, a researcher, or the show host), but
> I don't think Federal law gets as specific as listing who should be
> kept apart from whom. Those decisions tend to fall to the networks'
> standards and practices departments.
And specialized compliance companies that the shows contract.
John Dean
> John Dean wrote:
>
>> start, there are plenty of breaks in filming where contestants can
>> chat.
>
> In the taping.
I'm an old man - filming / taping - all the same to me. Moving pictures are
recorded by a process I but dimly comprehend and can be made visible in my
living room.
>
> But what I'm really here for is: is there really a clock at Oxford
> (possibly in a church) that is rather ceremoniously kept at five
> minutes earlier or later than GMT?
Ceremoniously?
1. Pertaining to, or consisting of, ceremonies or outward forms and rites;
2. Full of ceremony; accompanied with rites, religious or showy.
3. According to prescribed or customary formalities or punctilios.
Nope. Any clocks in Oxford that are set 5 minutes behind GMT are so set in
all seriousness - nothing ritual or showy to see here, folks, move along
please. (This doesn't apply to the clock on my computer which is often 5
minutes adrift from GMT because I forget to set it.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2001/08/30/ec
fpio30.xml
''When the Great Western Railway (sometimes then called God's Wonderful
Railway) reached Bristol in 1841, Bristolians who set their clocks by local
time found they kept missing the trains, which ran on London time. As a
result, "railway time" and the station clock took over from the clocks on
the town hall and the church. One of the last bastions of resistance was
Christchurch College at Oxford, where the clock on Tom Tower had two minute
hands, one showing railway time, and the other, five minutes behind, showing
Oxford time.''
http://greenwichmeantime.com/info/oxford.htm
''The co-ordinates at Oxford, England are: 51° 44' 60" North (of the
Equator), 1° 15' 24" West (of Greenwich). So Oxford Time is 5 minutes and 2
seconds behind Greenwich Time.
At 9.05pm (9pm "Oxford Time") every evening Great Tom, Christ Church
College's famous bell, rings out 101 times. This dates from the foundation
of the college when the bell rang once for each of the college's original
101 students, in order to tell them to return to the college before the
gates were locked. The bell then remains silent until 8am the next morning
when it returns to striking every hour, on the hour (Greenwich Time) until
9pm in the evening.''
http://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/cathedral/present/misc.html
''Christ Church, however, has continued to keep to the old Oxford Time,
which had been calculated by Oxford's own Observatory, now part of Green
College. As Oxford lies 1 ź degrees to the west of Greenwich, and as one
minute is lost each ź degree west of Greenwich you go, Oxford's own local
time is calculated as 5 minutes behind G.M.T. ''
So Great Tom shows GMT but rings the 9pm curfew at Oxford Time. AFAIK there
is no clock inside the Cathedral (which is inside the college) showing
'Oxford Time' but it wouldn't surprise me to discover that there is some
kind of running joke amongst the officials and choristers that, eg, 'Choir
Practice at 6pm' is understood to mean Oxford Time and anyone who arrives
for 6pm GMT is made to eat a live swan or something.
However, I have a colleague who has forgotten more about Oxford than I have
forgotten so I'll double check with her and get back to you. A trade of
information may not be out of the question since she is interested in all
things game show (having appeared on some on TV over here) and you, happy
coincidence!, are a game show worker.
D.F. Manno
Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that federal law
> > required that there be no contact among game show contestants prior to
> > the game.
>
> Every time we start a new show, a lawyer from a "compliance" firm that
> specializes in this gives everyone *working* on the show a presentation
> on "don't talk to the contestants", don't this, don't that, and if you
> see a contestant anywhere where they don't belong (since answers or help
> could conceivably be there), tell a producer *immediately*. They're very
> serious about that. We have to sign off on all of that, with a
> several-page compliance form. (And a representative of the compliance
> company is onstage for all tapings.)
>
> One of those is Sullivan Compliance Company. They don't seem to have a
> website (why would they, with such a specialized Hollywood product?),
> but here's a Google where they turn up with some game shows:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9mur
>
> As for contestants, they also get (and sign off on) the rules'n'stuff,
> by another person who specializes in that, every day. As a group. But
> they don't put up figurative fences *between* contestants, that I know
> of -- just between them and non-contestants.
OK, so I was wrong. Thanks for the information.
But I still wouldn't try out for "Link."
Estron
> But what I'm really here for is: is there really a clock at Oxford
> (possibly in a church) that is rather ceremoniously kept at five minutes
> earlier or later than GMT?
There's one in my car like that, only it's local time, and I don't
stand on ceremony. Especially not in a moving car.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> John Dean wrote:
>>> start, there are plenty of breaks in filming where contestants can
>>> chat.
>> In the taping.
> I'm an old man - filming / taping - all the same to me. Moving pictures are
> recorded by a process I but dimly comprehend and can be made visible in my
> living room.
Don't mind me (I'm 55, myself) -- go put something nice on the Victrola.
>> But what I'm really here for is: is there really a clock at Oxford
>> (possibly in a church) that is rather ceremoniously kept at five
>> minutes earlier or later than GMT?
> Ceremoniously?
> 1. Pertaining to, or consisting of, ceremonies or outward forms and rites;
> 2. Full of ceremony; accompanied with rites, religious or showy.
> 3. According to prescribed or customary formalities or punctilios.
> Nope. Any clocks in Oxford that are set 5 minutes behind GMT are so set in
> all seriousness - nothing ritual or showy to see here, folks, move along
> please. (This doesn't apply to the clock on my computer which is often 5
> minutes adrift from GMT because I forget to set it.)
Gorcha. I thought it was more of a ritualistic-commemorative-anarchic kind of
thing, rather than just being Pure Modern Timekeeping Policy.
<tick><tock><tick><tock>
[Later] And having read the stuff you were so kind as to dig out
(snipped for brevity, below), I think I'm going back to my original
reitualistic-commemorative-anarchic scenario.
<multiple snippages from here on out>
> At 9.05pm (9pm "Oxford Time") every evening Great Tom, Christ Church
> College's famous bell, rings out 101 times. This dates from the foundation
Yikes!
> However, I have a colleague who has forgotten more about Oxford than I have
> forgotten so I'll double check with her and get back to you. A trade of
> information may not be out of the question since she is interested in all
> things game show (having appeared on some on TV over here) and you, happy
> coincidence!, are a game show worker.
If that's who booked me last. If not, I'm a something else worker.
Jim Ellwanger
Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Ellwanger wrote:
>
> > The big problem would be contact between a contestant and someone who
> > knows the game material (a writer, a researcher, or the show host), but
> > I don't think Federal law gets as specific as listing who should be
> > kept apart from whom. Those decisions tend to fall to the networks'
> > standards and practices departments.
>
> And specialized compliance companies that the shows contract.
More information for people who care: the specialized companies
(Sulllivan Compliance Company is the most notable example) tend to be
hired by the producers of game shows that are going to air either in
syndication or on smaller networks that may not have an actual
standards and practices department.
However, even some syndicated shows use the services of network S&P:
"Wheel of Fortune" and "Jeopardy!" are both overseen by ABC, for
example, because the ABC owned-and-operated stations group is the
largest group that airs those shows (although they don't air on all the
ABC O&O's nationwide, for various reasons).
mistakes were made
>mistakes were made wrote:
>> groo gr...@groo.org Date: 4/10/03 5:51 PM Easte writes:
>>
>>> A month or so ago I came across some game show on TV which had a
>>> version
>>> of the Prisoner's Dilemma
>>
>> Prisoners' dilemma. the Prisoner's dilemma is a paradox whereby a
>> condemned man works out that he's not going to be hung, only to be
>> hung by surprise.
>
>No - that's the paradox of the unexpected hanging.
Well, you're right about that, although I have seen the unexpected hanging
called the prisoner's dilemma.
mistakes were made
>"Good" chance? Depends on your definition of "good."
Looking back, I don't think the chances can be correctly determined from the
information given, but the correct strategy remains the same.
> Suppose that you
>discovered, through answering tough questions together as a team, that the
>other player was (remember, this is just a thought experiment, use your
>imagination) about as smart as you. Your analysis above, leading to the
>conclusion that "Foe" is the best option, isn't all that tricky - your
>opponent, no dummy he, will have come to the same conclusion, willn't
>he've? I mean, it's not just a chance that he'll think of it - if he's
>anywhere near as clever as you, and your answer is the right one, he'll
>reach the same easy conclusion, you'll both vote Foe, and neither of you
>will get anything - it's almost guaranteed.
Right. So I might want to strongly imply I'll come over and egg his house if
he votes Foe, and then vote Foe, or otherwise introduce some unpleasant
consequence into the game, and it turns out to be iterated after all.
>My pick - if you think your opponent is a doofus, smile warmly and say soft
>soothing things about your children and your dog and how much they trust
>you, and how you could never look them in the face again if you didn't do
>the Right Thing, and then vote Foe. If your opponent isn't a doofus, then
>you have to decide which is greater - your fear of getting screwed, or your
>desire for half the pot. If the former, vote Foe and, most likely, go home
>empty-handed, but at least nobody put nothin' over on you, you can walk out
>with your head held high, not weighed down by money - you didn't win, but
>at least you didn't lose.
Right, okay. Voting Foe gives me better consequences regardless of what the
other person does.
> If the latter, vote Friend, and hope that the
>clever person across the console did a little more thinking about it too.
Yes, but...if I vote Foe, and he did a little more thinking about it, too,
then I get all the pot. So, "Foe" is always your best strategy, unless you'd
feel really bad about turning out some orphans or you think that person might
hire a few thick necked fellows to throw a bag over your head and beat you with
sticks for half an hour, that is, there was some iteration or other way to
punish cheating to the game after all.
The reason why this doesn't really reflect on human nature is it's not
iterated, while human nature bascially is. You can also see where there's a
survival advantage attached to peeps that can internalize co-operation, and an
actual disadvantage to being a cheater, in iterated games or such, which makes
me suspect there may be group selections after all, at least among people.