Double Whammys
mb...@swbell.net
things changed and added to. Let me know back what yall think of these
ideas;
1. When you get a WHAMMY, have something happen to the player like it
does now with a DOUBLE WHAMMY. Also maybe have the Costumed Character
WHAMMY come out some & whammy the player themself.
2. DOUBLE WHAMMYS should give you 2 whammys on the board and then
create a DREADED TRIPLE WHAMMY which would then give you 3 whammys on
the board. This would make it easier to whammy out a player and raise
some of the adrenalin level.
3. Create a NEW PRIZE WINDOW called "Transfer a Whammy" this way you
could actually LOSE a whammy and put it on another player. The other
player wouldnt lose any $$$ but might get Whammyed out if they get too
many whammys.
Chuck Gibson
>create a DREADED TRIPLE WHAMMY which would then give you 3 whammys on
>the board. This would make it easier to whammy out a player and raise
>some of the adrenalin level.
Forget it, that's the third dumbest idea alive. Triple Whammy? Lay off the
smack.
>3. Create a NEW PRIZE WINDOW called "Transfer a Whammy" this way you
>could actually LOSE a whammy and put it on another player. The other
>player wouldnt lose any $$$ but might get Whammyed out if they get too
>many whammys.
Bzzz. LAME. That's why you pass spins. And if you're going to have that, why
wouldn't that player lose money? They're getting a Whammy after all.
Man you're bad at ideas. They do either of these NPYL won't be any fun.
>1. When you get a WHAMMY, have something happen to the player like it
>does now with a DOUBLE WHAMMY. Also maybe have the Costumed Character
>WHAMMY come out some & whammy the player themself.
Oh I forgot this one: Seek help. We used to bring this up as a joke, but you're
fucking serious.
Geez, has this place gone stupid lately?
Chuck
ATGS' #1 Cheap Trick fan
http://sport6449.tripod.com/generalblitzinfantry
http://www.gameshowtimes.com
TheShredder
Duh, duh, duh, wich way did he go, wich way did he go? :)
Don Quixote
The rules are fine the way they are. Todd's a good host, Gary's a good
announcer. Can't stand the music, but that doesn't get in the way of
enjoying the program. I never cared for the question round, but that's
okay. I watch the show on tape, so I just FF through it. That makes for
only a 12-minute show for me, but enjoyable nonetheless.
Leave the darned format alone. Eight episodes and people want to change
stuff around already--granted that dishwasher show was a dog.
Chris Lemon
<mb...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3cc800ca...@netnews.attbi.com...
> 1. When you get a WHAMMY, have something happen to the player like it
> does now with a DOUBLE WHAMMY.
Um, no, one is bad enough.
> Also maybe have the Costumed Character
> WHAMMY come out some & whammy the player themself.
eww.
> 2. DOUBLE WHAMMYS should give you 2 whammys on the board and then
> create a DREADED TRIPLE WHAMMY which would then give you 3 whammys on
> the board. This would make it easier to whammy out a player and raise
> some of the adrenalin level.
It's not easy enough to Whammy out now? Considering the number of Whammys
being dished out now, that is such a horribly bad idea on so many levels
that I'm just going to leave it there.
> 3. Create a NEW PRIZE WINDOW called "Transfer a Whammy" this way you
> could actually LOSE a whammy and put it on another player. The other
> player wouldnt lose any $$$ but might get Whammyed out if they get too
> many whammys.
See above.
Brandon Brooks
> things changed and added to. Let me know back what yall think of these
> ideas;
>
> 1. When you get a WHAMMY, have something happen to the player like it
> does now with a DOUBLE WHAMMY. Also maybe have the Costumed Character
> WHAMMY come out some & whammy the player themself.
Terrible idea. They'll tire out quickly.
> 2. DOUBLE WHAMMYS should give you 2 whammys on the board and then
> create a DREADED TRIPLE WHAMMY which would then give you 3 whammys on
> the board. This would make it easier to whammy out a player and raise
> some of the adrenalin level.
Bad idea.
> 3. Create a NEW PRIZE WINDOW called "Transfer a Whammy" this way you
> could actually LOSE a whammy and put it on another player. The other
> player wouldnt lose any $$$ but might get Whammyed out if they get too
> many whammys.
Sick idea.
0-3.
Brandon Brooks
Sherman Potter
Then sit back and watch. Stop trying to tinker with it.
Dan Sadro
>1. When you get a WHAMMY, have something happen to the player like it
>does now with a DOUBLE WHAMMY. Also maybe have the Costumed Character
>WHAMMY come out some & whammy the player themself.
Gee... we don't hear the word Whammy enough so you feel you have to
emphasize it? Double Whammies are annoying and childish, and take away
from the game. The costumed character is silly, childish, and would bring
this show down to a 2nd grade level.
>2. DOUBLE WHAMMYS should give you 2 whammys on the board and then
>create a DREADED TRIPLE WHAMMY which would then give you 3 whammys on
>the board. This would make it easier to whammy out a player and raise
>some of the adrenalin level.
Two or three whammies on a single spin? Adrenaline levels being raised by
Triple Whammies? Man, you want to kill this show, don't you?
Here's $250, go and buy yourself a fucking clue.
>3. Create a NEW PRIZE WINDOW called "Transfer a Whammy" this way you
>could actually LOSE a whammy and put it on another player. The other
>player wouldnt lose any $$$ but might get Whammyed out if they get too
>many whammys.
While I think the idea is interesting, and shows that you've put some
thought into it... it's way too powerful.
--Dan
TADXN
"Your Opponents' Money + one spin" -- any player who hits that gets to take all
the money and prizes their *opponents* have away from them, and add that loot
to *their* total.
How about THAT?
Chris Lemon
news:20020425224251...@mb-co.aol.com...
No. Blows the game wide open with a single spin, and allows a player to
manufacture who gets passed spins. Horrifyingly bad idea.
Chuck Gibson
>all
>the money and prizes their *opponents* have away from them, and add that loot
>to *their* total.
>
>How about THAT?
>
Even lamer. Guys: And this goes to everyone with some programming idea for the
New PYL: SHUT THE FUCK UP! ALL OF YOU!
It's staying the way it is. The only I'd like to see is returning champions
but you don't tinker with a fucking good show.
You all might want to apply to Fremantle in case they revive something else:
Then you can fuck up the show all you want.
The Avocado Avenger
>Even lamer. Guys: And this goes to everyone with some programming idea for the
>New PYL: SHUT THE FUCK UP! ALL OF YOU!
Now, who can argue with such a well-stated case as this?
Stacia * The Avocado Avenger * Life is a tale told by an idiot;
http://www.flinthills.com/~stacia * Full of sound and fury,
There is no guacamole anywhere. * Signifying nothing.
Chuck Gibson
Hey Guacamole Girl: Read the group a little more: Try the Google archives and
learn the history of ATGS.
Be gone newbie.
David J. Lynch
> Guys: And this goes to everyone with some programming idea for the
> New PYL: SHUT THE FUCK UP! ALL OF YOU!
We know Mandel does at least some lurking, so if anyone can come up with
a potential improvement (while I'm at it, I'll toss "$2,000 or two
spins" into the ring as my attempt), it has, from the perspective of the
group, a significantly better chance of being read by someone associated
with the show than if it were about, say, WBSM.
It can't hurt to try. If you don't like it, ignore the thread.
--
David J. Lynch
unrealtor @ unreal - estate . net
Still waiting for the other David Lynch to tell him who killed Laura Palmer.
Chuck Gibson
>a potential improvement (while I'm at it, I'll toss "$2,000 or two
>spins" into the ring as my attempt), it has, from the perspective of the
>group, a significantly better chance of being read by someone associated
>with the show than if it were about, say, WBSM.
>
>It can't hurt to try. If you don't like it, ignore the thread.
After what I've learned about Mandel over the past few days I could give a
flying frog fart about him.
I don't care what he thinks or does. As long as he doesn't start posting
because I'm on battle alert to shred him to bits if he does.
And as for you David: Enough already. Stuff your proposals right next to where
KentB3 keeps his.
Ex-NY Dragons Firedancers Fan
"Chuck Gibson" <general...@aol.comandgetit> wrote in message
news:20020426165908...@mb-md.aol.com...
> And as for you David: Enough already. Stuff your proposals right next to
where
> KentB3 keeps his.
Let's not get Kent involved in this...his GSN schedule proposals aren't even
in the same category (they're exactly what he called them: dream schedules).
And if you could've been here in this NG's early days...about half the posts
were GSN dream schedules, and everyone offered only constructive criticism,
as was the case when I made proposals for a 2nd GS channel in early '97.
Food for thought...
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
Chuck Gibson
>were GSN dream schedules, and everyone offered only constructive criticism,
Because back then no one would call these ideas what they were: Idiotic.
You want to program your own channel? Apply for a Programming gig at a TV
station. Otherwise: Stick it.
The Avocado Avenger
>>Now, who can argue with such a well-stated case as this?
>Hey Guacamole Girl: Read the group a little more: Try the Google archives and
>learn the history of ATGS.
If you were able to use Google archives you'd know I've been on Usenet
so long my first posts were so long ago they aren't in their so-called
"complete" archive. But that was a hell of a nice try, Chuck! Calling
someone a "newbie" in an ad hominem attack is pretty good.
I have never read atg-s without seeing dozens of posts about what people
would like to see on a game show. No one has to agree with them, sure,
but I enjoy seeing people getting into a show that much.
Still hate the first round of "Whammy!", though. I feel people should
have to win their spins, not just get them for being on the show.
you know who
degrees away from what we'd love to be doing. To the best of my
knowledge, there's no XboX Beggars & Choosers disc out, so this is as
close to the real thing as any of us are likely to get.
Also, don't forget that the "dream schedule" threads offered a chance
to those "in the know" to discuss the intricacies of clearances,
rightsholding, and other "inside baseball" legal stuff preventing
various DS permutations from ever coming to fruition, discussions
which might not normally come up very often in the normal course of
events.
I'm sure they seem "idiotic" to people who, in fact, deal with having
to cobble together a broadcast schedule each and every day, but it's
the only opportunity we have to indulge our impulses.
"Chuck Gibson" <general...@aol.comandgetit> wrote in message
news:20020427141323...@mb-fp.aol.com...
Chuck Gibson
>so long my first posts were so long ago they aren't in their so-called
>"complete" archive. But that was a hell of a nice try, Chuck! Calling
>someone a "newbie" in an ad hominem attack is pretty good.
It's the first time I've seen you here, I could care less about your other
usenet postings.
But that said: To each their own on Whammy I guess. Ate least what you said
was opinion and not "This is what should be done."
The next person to dictate what SHOULD be done is getting smacked with a tube
sock full of wood screws.
Chuck Gibson
>It's a "dream" schedule. Most of us have careers that take us 180
>degrees away from what we'd love to be doing.
I guess I'm lucky then: I'm #2 in line to the top gig at my station.
>Also, don't forget that the "dream schedule" threads offered a chance
>to those "in the know" to discuss the intricacies of clearances,
>rightsholding, and other "inside baseball" legal stuff preventing
>various DS permutations from ever coming to fruition, discussions
>which might not normally come up very often in the normal course of
>events.
No, they don't. When was the last time you worked in the media? Up here where
I work, we'll listen but then when it's over we snicker behind their backs
saying "what, does this guy know how to do our job better than we do?" Most
often they don't for reasons I can't get into here. (Confidentiality reasons,
the arbitron numbers outside of 12+ aren't for public consumption.)
Remember: We're a small cross section of fans, we have more knowledge about
some of the shows we want than the general public ever will. In fact, the only
show anyone I talk to remembers that is currently running is Press Your Luck.
Unless it's a rare gem thought to be lost like CBS TJW and Classic Squares, it
isn't likely to generate much interest outside of here. LMAD maybe, but I'd
like to see the numbers for the 7:30 PM airing.
>I'm sure they seem "idiotic" to people who, in fact, deal with having
>to cobble together a broadcast schedule each and every day, but it's
>the only opportunity we have to indulge our impulses.
People's impulses have been going way way over the line lately. GSN finally
has a quality product on the air, and I'm not going to begrudge them. Unlike
people who:
A) Said "This is how PYL should be revived" even after the shows started
taping.
B) Feel it necessary (KentB3) to chime in with a new dream schedule only days
or weeks after a new one is announced or implimented.
Those are idiotic, and should be dealt with as such.
And remember these shows cost money. Some of them, a lot. GSN isn't exactly a
powerhouse network yet, and what they have will get them by for a few more
years, especially if their originals take off the way Whammy! appears it could.
And another thing: Don't hide behind phony E-Mail. You'll have a lot more
credability if you show your face.
you know who
"Chuck Gibson" <general...@aol.comandgetit> wrote in message
news:20020427185500...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> And another thing: Don't hide behind phony E-Mail. You'll have a
lot more
> credability if you show your face.
I understand and realize that the Usenet Nom de (digital) Plume will
always and everywhere be second-rate. However, having seen what
happens when too much information (like, real e-mail addresses, real
names, etc.) gets passed along, and what someone with severe emotional
problems and too much time on his hands can do with that information,
well, I';m gun-shy. My g/f was nearly the victim of an "internet
stalker" who cobbled together enough info about her from her postings
and made his way in her direction.
The guy was dumb enough to announce his intentions in advance, and got
nabbed..... and then kicked back out with a warning.
I've had quite enough experience, thank you, with taking off the masks
Usenet allows us to wear. Sometimes they're abused, but mostly, they
exist to protect us.
I'm glad you feel safe enough to "let it all hang", but I hope you see
why some of us prefer not to.
n'Zink
So long as you don't use your anonymity merely as a cover to make
unfounded accusations or otherwise take shots at others, I certainly
understand. A decent person is decent whether or not he's anonymous;
however, IMO a scumbag who hides behind a cloak of anonymity is even
worse than one who doesn't, because it proves that he's a chickenshit as
well.
And no, I'm not calling you a scumbag or a chickenshit. :-)
-- DZ
--
David Zinkin's Happy Fun World - http://www.davidzinkin.com
CompuZink Computer Consulting - http://www.compuzink.com
Fox News fan sites: http://www.eddonahey.com, http://www.donnafiducia.com,
http://www.billmccuddy.com (NEW!) and http://www.juliethuddy.com (NEW!)
you know who
"Chuck Gibson" <general...@aol.comandgetit> wrote in message
> >
> >It's a "dream" schedule. Most of us have careers that take us 180
> >degrees away from what we'd love to be doing.
>
> I guess I'm lucky then: I'm #2 in line to the top gig at my station.
Congratulations.
> >Also, don't forget that the "dream schedule" threads offered a
chance
> >to those "in the know" to discuss the intricacies of clearances,
> >rightsholding, and other "inside baseball" legal stuff preventing
> >various DS permutations from ever coming to fruition, discussions
> >which might not normally come up very often in the normal course of
> >events.
>
> No, they don't. When was the last time you worked in the media? Up
here where
> I work, we'll listen but then when it's over we snicker behind their
backs
> saying "what, does this guy know how to do our job better than we
do?" Most
> often they don't for reasons I can't get into here. (Confidentiality
reasons,
> the arbitron numbers outside of 12+ aren't for public consumption.)
Look, I've never worked in the media, although I have friends who
have, from college stations in LA and Tempe to the pros. I know they
take the gee-whiz fanboy stuff with more than a mere "snicker".
But, hey, we =are= fans. That's why we find this stuff fascinating. We
sit out on the periphery and imagine what it would be like to live our
dreams. It's why some of us follow sports, some of us obsess over
models/actor-actresses/HOTTies, some of us read the business pages,
and some of us spend our time indulging a passion for games and the
media.
> Remember: We're a small cross section of fans, we have more
knowledge about
> some of the shows we want than the general public ever will. In
fact, the only
> show anyone I talk to remembers that is currently running is Press
Your Luck.
> Unless it's a rare gem thought to be lost like CBS TJW and Classic
Squares, it
> isn't likely to generate much interest outside of here. LMAD maybe,
but I'd
> like to see the numbers for the 7:30 PM airing.
From casual conversations with less fanatical folks than myself, I'd
add MG, Password, WML, NG and DG to that list of "games in public
consciousness". If recent reports of the bump W! has given to GSN
prime time are accurate, though, there is a fair-sized group of people
beyond just this NG with interest in classic games. The average pre-W!
PT household number was 0.5. It's always tough to tell from which
universe the number is drawn unless sourced. Assume, then, that it's
only the 45-million-home universe of GSN subscribers. That =still=
means that something like a quarter-million people, on average, have
enough interest in and knowledge of games that haven't aired in decent
versions in years to a) seek them out and b) watch them.
This is purely speculation, but wouldn't it seem logical that many of
these people indulge in the same fantasies that a few people here
express?
> >I'm sure they seem "idiotic" to people who, in fact, deal with
having
> >to cobble together a broadcast schedule each and every day, but
it's
> >the only opportunity we have to indulge our impulses.
>
> People's impulses have been going way way over the line lately. GSN
finally
> has a quality product on the air, and I'm not going to begrudge
them.
I'm not sure how much "quality product" there is when an hour of NG
still runs in prime-time for both coasts (which I assume will come to
a halt in June), but the point is taken.
> Unlike
> people who:
>
> A) Said "This is how PYL should be revived" even after the shows
started
> taping.
No show is ever perfect (no, not even MG7x or Daly WML). There are
always ways to tweak a show to make it better.
The fact that most of the ideas tossed out here would fail miserably
in their efforts to do so doesn't change that fact. To issue blanket
dismissals of =all= suggested changes as "idiotic" encourages the
tossing out of the baby with the (admittedly fetid and copious)
bathwater.
> B) Feel it necessary (KentB3) to chime in with a new dream schedule
only days
> or weeks after a new one is announced or implimented.
Tweaking. There's always room for tweaking. Sometimes the "tweaking"
gets out of hand, naturally, and those who get absurd need to be
called on their absurdity.
> Those are idiotic, and should be dealt with as such.
Starting every response to an "idiotic" post with "You're an idiot"
hardly engages the substance of their ideas, or allows them to see
where the idiocy of their idea lies. If anything, as the "returning
champion" thread is showing, all it does is make people irrationally
defensive of their idea.
> And remember these shows cost money. Some of them, a lot. GSN
isn't exactly a
> powerhouse network yet, and what they have will get them by for a
few more
> years, especially if their originals take off the way Whammy!
appears it could.
I still say Super Decades coulda been a winner, if only they would
have changed that bonus game a little.... listen here...... <activate
sarcasm detector>
you know who
"n'Zink" <dzin...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dzinkin1-78753E...@typhoon4-1.nyroc.rr.com...
> And no, I'm not calling you a scumbag or a chickenshit. :-)
Um.... thanks...? :)
n'Zink
"you know who" <you.kn...@you.know.where> wrote:
I thought you'd have figured out through the process of elimination that
I was calling you a decent person. :-)
you know who
> In article <etHy8.898$%N3.1...@eagle.america.net>,
> "you know who" <you.kn...@you.know.where> wrote:
>
> > "n'Zink" <dzin...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:dzinkin1-78753E...@typhoon4-1.nyroc.rr.com...
> > > And no, I'm not calling you a scumbag or a chickenshit. :-)
> >
> > Um.... thanks...? :)
>
> I thought you'd have figured out through the process of elimination
that
> I was calling you a decent person. :-)
Hey, there are a lot of other nasty names that weren't ruled out.....
I mean, you could be thinking I'm, like a closet Tomarkenite or
something.... :)
(Taping Peter's 1990s infomercials doesn't make you a Tomarkenite....
that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)
Dan Sadro
Avocado Avenger) wrote:
>>Hey Guacamole Girl: Read the group a little more: Try the Google archives and
>>learn the history of ATGS.
>
> If you were able to use Google archives you'd know I've been on Usenet
>so long my first posts were so long ago they aren't in their so-called
>"complete" archive. But that was a hell of a nice try, Chuck! Calling
>someone a "newbie" in an ad hominem attack is pretty good.
Er... regardless of your history on other newsgroups, you're still a newbie
in ATGS. If I started posting to a newsgroup you frequent (and it's not
too strange; I already lurk in one of them), I'd be considered a newbie to
that NG, regardless of the length of my history elsewhere.
Nobody here cares how long you've been on Usenet (the fact that the Google
Archives doesn't have some of your stuff means that you have no proof that
you actually posted them, but I digress) because it's irrelevant to your
two-week history on ATGS.
> I have never read atg-s without seeing dozens of posts about what people
>would like to see on a game show. No one has to agree with them, sure,
>but I enjoy seeing people getting into a show that much.
> Still hate the first round of "Whammy!", though. I feel people should
>have to win their spins, not just get them for being on the show.
Interesting opinion. I mostly disagree.
--Dan
The Avocado Avenger
>Er... regardless of your history on other newsgroups, you're still a newbie
>in ATGS. If I started posting to a newsgroup you frequent (and it's not
>too strange; I already lurk in one of them), I'd be considered a newbie to
>that NG, regardless of the length of my history elsewhere.
I go to a lot of groups and am not one bit interested if you post to
them or not. But being a newbie to Usenet is a whole lot different than
being a newbie to just one group. You won't see someone who has been on
Usenet for nine years post in all caps, or top-post, or anything else that
would be rude in *any* group, not just atg-s.
>Nobody here cares how long you've been on Usenet (the fact that the Google
>Archives doesn't have some of your stuff means that you have no proof that
>you actually posted them, but I digress)
Now that's just weird. I guess you know people who would fake posts
from 1993 to prove something?
>because it's irrelevant to your two-week history on ATGS.
I would like to point out that I don't know how long my "history" on
atg-s is, nor do I care. You obviously do. Further, you and others have
made it abundantly clear that you care very much about who is or is not a
newbie and judge them as such. Simply, whether a person is a newbie or
not is not the point. To dismiss an opinion based on how long a person
has posted to a group is laughable, and to point out someone is a newbie
in an attempt to prove them wrong is an ad hominem attack.
It would be different if I had come here, asking you guys to change the
culture of the group. But a few opinions about Whammy! and a comment
about HS - the sum total of my contributions here - are not threatening to
you or the group at all.
Guess we newbie gurlz have to fight to be accepted on a Usenet groups
about game shows. Yeah, that sounds like Usenet, all right.