Mass Noun Plurals

[David Williams]

Not wishing to bring down the wrath of the spoiler police, the other day Susie allowed a mass noun plural that I think she's disallowed before. I know that in the past we have had different verdicts on POTEENS. Mass noun plurals aren't tried that often, but here are a couple that have come up twice - and members of this forum remember, but apparently the production team doesn't. Why not keep a list of words that have been allowed and disallowed? Why not include it in the contestants' briefing notes, where it would be a good illustration of where the dividing line falls?

[Lesley Hines]

They do put it in the contestants' briefing notes, and it's the identical information at the start of the ODE2r (where in fact Countdown is specifically mentioned ).

[Gavin Chipper]

They do put it in the contestants' briefing notes, and it's the identical information at the start of the ODE2r (where in fact Countdown is specifically mentioned ).

If they're going to specifially mention Countdown anyway, it wouldn't be much effort for them to specify in each case whether it's pluralisable. And what exactly is the "it" that they put in the briefing notes/ODE2r?

[Charlie Reams]

They do put it in the contestants' briefing notes, and it's the identical information at the start of the ODE2r (where in fact Countdown is specifically mentioned ).

Right, but it's pretty useless information when it's not even applied consistently by the same person on different days. I think what David is suggesting is a list of precedents so that at least a given word won't change status from episode to episode. Sounds like a good idea to me, and now it's been suggested here we can pretty much guarantee it won't happen.

[Mike Brown]

Right, but it's pretty useless information when it's not even applied consistently by the same person on different days. I think what David is suggesting is a list of precedents so that at least a given word won't change status from episode to episode. Sounds like a good idea to me, and now it's been suggested here we can pretty much guarantee it won't happen.

And I seem to recall that at one time Damian was marking his copy of the ODE with any decisions that had been made, but then the dictionary changed and he stopped. Personally I reckon we could come up with a list ourselves (after some bickering and banter, no doubt), but I suspect our producer chum prefers an element of unpredictability (see MAIZES the other day for a good example).

[D Eadie]

Just think, if Countdown hadn't disassociated itself from this forum, then this thread would more than likely run into dozens of pages in length.

Never mind eh. Talk amongst yourselves.

[Graeme Cole]

I think what David is suggesting is a list of precedents so that at least a given word won't change status from episode to episode. Sounds like a good idea to me, and now it's been suggested here we can pretty much guarantee it won't happen.

I can see one problem with such a list of precedents being its relative inflexibility.

Suppose a contestant offers a mass noun plural, for example MAIZES. Say it's in the list of precedents as allowable, because it's been allowed before. But then suppose Susie/Damian/whoever rereads the definition and decides that on reflection, MAIZES is nonsense; if you could refer collectively to several varieties of maize as maizes, would the dictionary not include a sense as a (non-mass) noun? Even if everyone on the production team then agrees that MAIZES shouldn't be allowed under the rules and it's a complete nonsense word that was once incorrectly allowed, any subsequent attempt to disallow it would be met quite understandably with "but it's on your list".

Sure, there could be a note in the guidelines saying "we have the right to overrule precedent if necessary", but then you're back to "if you pluralise a mass noun that you wouldn't normally find on a menu you're taking a risk", which, broadly, describes the status quo.

I'm not sure you should really be allowed two "poteens" either. I've never seen a bar offer illicitly distilled whisky on their menu.

[Charlie Reams]

I think what David is suggesting is a list of precedents so that at least a given word won't change status from episode to episode. Sounds like a good idea to me, and now it's been suggested here we can pretty much guarantee it won't happen.

I can see one problem with such a list of precedents being its relative inflexibility.

Suppose a contestant offers a mass noun plural, for example MAIZES. Say it's in the list of precedents as allowable, because it's been allowed before. But then suppose Susie/Damian/whoever rereads the definition and decides that on reflection, MAIZES is nonsense; if you could refer collectively to several varieties of maize as maizes, would the dictionary not include a sense as a (non-mass) noun? Even if everyone on the production team then agrees that MAIZES shouldn't be allowed under the rules and it's a complete nonsense word that was once incorrectly allowed, any subsequent attempt to disallow it would be met quite understandably with "but it's on your list".

Sure, there could be a note in the guidelines saying "we have the right to overrule precedent if necessary", but then you're back to "if you pluralise a mass noun that you wouldn't normally find on a menu you're taking a risk", which, broadly, describes the status quo.

I'm not sure you should really be allowed two "poteens" either. I've never seen a bar offer illicitly distilled whisky on their menu.

You'd have to clear the precedents with each new edition anyway, so even a blatant mistake would only stick around for a few years. Not perfect, but better than the current crapshoot I think.

[John Bosley]

Just think, if Countdown hadn't disassociated itself from this forum, then this thread would more than likely run into dozens of pages in length.

Never mind eh. Talk amongst yourselves.

As a newishbie here and one without all the inner knowledge that many of you guys have (not counting Damian, who clearly is the actual producer of the knowledge and a sort of god) can I be told what happened to cause Countdown to disassociate itself from this forum. Was it ever officially associated? I thought it was all Charlie.

[Mike Brown]

You'd have to clear the precedents with each new edition anyway, so even a blatant mistake would only stick around for a few years. Not perfect, but better than the current crapshoot I think.

I agree; one of the elements of being good at Countdown is knowing what's in the dictionary, but when it comes to mass noun plurals, you can up end playing poker with Susie (possibly not a bad thing in itself, but maybe not so good for your score).

[David Williams]

It's a long time since I had contestant's briefing notes, but they had a list of the types of mass nouns that could be pluralised - things that there are different types of, things that you might order portions of. There were a few examples given - LAGERS, for example. If MAIZES is OK, put it in this list. If, say, POTEENS isn't, put it in the equally useful list of words that are disallowed (and maybe say why). If you get a new dictionary, go through the list and check them out. If you change your mind about a word it's not fair to spring it on a contestant who's been told it's OK, but it's fine to put in future briefing notes that it now falls the other side of the borderline (and why).

Keep reading, Damian. You might just find something useful.

[Kai Laddiman]

Shameless plug.

[D Eadie]

Keep reading, Damian. You might just find something useful.

Nope, nothing so far. keep trying.

[Gavin Chipper]

As a newishbie here and one without all the inner knowledge that many of you guys have (not counting Damian, who clearly is the actual producer of the knowledge and a sort of god) can I be told what happened to cause Countdown to disassociate itself from this forum. Was it ever officially associated? I thought it was all Charlie.

It was never officially associated but Damian used to read and post on here quite a lot (normally to say he'd never be posting again).

[Charlie Reams]

Was it ever officially associated? I thought it was all Charlie.

No, it was never officially associated. I don't know what this talk of disassociation is all about, especially since Damian is still posting here. I wouldn't say it was all me though, many people have been involved over the years, including Gevin, Stewart Holden, Gary Male and the current co-mods Ben Wilson, Jim Bentley and the indefatigable Mike Brown.

Incidentally, can anyone recall any suggestion or feedback that was taken on board by the production team in the near-decade that this forum and its predecessors have been around?

[Liam Tiernan]

I'm not sure you should really be allowed two "poteens" either. I've never seen a bar offer illicitly distilled whisky on their menu.

90% Alcohol by volume and legal. BTW, poteen is not a whisky, it's an entirely different animal. (Animal being the operative word. Never, ever again. )

[D Eadie]

I don't know what this talk of disassociation is all about, especially since Damian is still posting here.

I am posting here from time to time sure. Probably managed about 5 or 6 in half a year. There's nothing to say. I've read the place from time to time and its clear that the vast majority of posters have nothing to say either.

Incidentally, can anyone recall any suggestion or feedback that was taken on board by the production team in the near-decade that this forum and its predecessors have been around?

Nope.

[Charlie Reams]

I don't know what this talk of disassociation is all about, especially since Damian is still posting here.

I am posting here from time to time sure. Probably managed about 5 or 6 in half a year. There's nothing to say. I've read the place from time to time and its clear that the vast majority of posters have nothing to say either.

Incidentally, can anyone recall any suggestion or feedback that was taken on board by the production team in the near-decade that this forum and its predecessors have been around?

Nope.

If you hate it so much, why do you still read it? You only ever contribute to put people down and I really can't imagine what you get out of it.

[Lesley Hines]

Incidentally, can anyone recall any suggestion or feedback that was taken on board by the production team in the near-decade that this forum and its predecessors have been around?

Nope.

Yeah, there was a TTT suggestion.

Yeah, that's it. But the question was any...

Hope you're keeping ok, Damian

[D Eadie]

If you hate it so much, why do you still read it? You only ever contribute to put people down and I really can't imagine what you get out of it.

Who said i hate it? Thanks for telling me how i feel.

As for me only ever contributing to put people down, that's not only very inaccurate, but quite hilarious coming from you. I actually laughed.
I've contributed enormously down they years in this forum, it's not my fault it ended up shooting itself in the foot. The 'General' section is like a ghost-town these days. As i said, there's nothing to say so it seems. A few years ago, this thread would have seen me post explanation after explanation, counter-arguments, reasonings, the whole kit and caboodle. None of it was anything to do with putting people down Charlie. Of course, i had my moments, but by and large the contribution was a valid one. Nowadays it doesn't happen, because the same headline-grabbing windbags trot out the same tedious gripes with monotonous regularity. I love the assumption that we don't keep lists of pluralisable mass nouns, and that 'maybe we can all get together and make our own'. Do me a favour. Maizes was disallowed last time, and in hindsight i wasn't happy with it, so this time it was allowed. Nothing to do with pieces of paper, crapshooting, or the lack of input from C4C forumites. It was a change of heart, one which i'd rather run with, than keep on making the same mistake, even if it does run the risk of incurring the Thelma Barlow-esque wrath of David Williams.

And Lesley, yes i am fine, thanks for asking, never been better and back at ya. There WAS a TTT thread, but most of the suggestions were x-rated filth and it wasn't taken seriously. Jack Hurst posted a brilliant one though IIRC. Now back to anonymity for a few months for me. I've given the attention seekers far too much time already. Gotta love the great suggestion though about keeping a list on a piece of paper. NASA will come head-hunting soon, surely.

[Charlie Reams]

As for me only ever contributing to put people down, that's very inaccurate, but quite hilarious coming from you. I actually laughed.

In your last 20 posts, we have:-

1) you ripping Kirk a new one for using the phrase "I'm not a fan of".
2) you threatening to sue me if I made an apterous feature that you didn't like.
3) you glibly dismissing David's idea with no constructive comment whatsoever.
4) you advertising how you've never listened to a single suggestion in 10 years, which is your right of course, but it's funny that you'd think of that as something to be proud of.
5) you saying "the vast majority of posters have nothing to say".

and I'm sure I could find more if I looked. No doubt I'm sometimes obnoxious to certain people on certain topics, but it's nothing compared to the constant stream of negativity from you. Everyone here who's met you would acknowledge what a phenomenally nice guy you can be and I don't know why this forum seems to bring out your worst side. I know that you'll reply with something dismissive rather than acknowledge anything I'm saying, but maybe in one of your more reflective moments you might consider what the point of your contributions actually is.

[D Eadie]

As for me only ever contributing to put people down, that's very inaccurate, but quite hilarious coming from you. I actually laughed.

In your last 20 posts, we have:-

1) you ripping Kirk a new one for using the phrase "I'm not a fan of".
2) you threatening to sue me if I made an apterous feature that you didn't like.
3) you glibly dismissing David's idea with no constructive comment whatsoever.
4) you advertising how you've never listened to a single suggestion in 10 years, which is your right of course, but it's funny that you'd think of that as something to be proud of.
5) you saying "the vast majority of posters have nothing to say".

and I'm sure I could find more if I looked. No doubt I'm sometimes obnoxious to certain people on certain topics, but it's nothing compared to the constant stream of negativity from you. Everyone here who's met you would acknowledge what a phenomenally nice guy you can be and I don't know why this forum seems to bring out your worst side. I know that you'll reply with something dismissive rather than acknowledge anything I'm saying, but maybe in one your more reflective moments you might consider what the point of your contributions actually is.

Is this a campaign to boost the forums post count?
1. The Kirk thing was a typical C4C reaction, I'm not a fan of......... Very few people use this place to be fans of anything. It's riddled with hypercriticism. Quite laughable that some people can rip a new DC guest for playing along and nitpick, yet those same people would readily come on the show and offer something like MANTICORE instead of cremation, just to look superior. Get with it.

2. Nobody threatened to sue you mate, but at the end of the day you're making £15 a punter on the back of a format you have no ownership of. That doesn't bother me one iota, but when you're site strips the whole game down to the smallest of atoms, then i feel i should say something. Is that wrong?

3. LOL - i glibly dismissed what idea? Keeping a list on a piece of paper? Are you shitting me?

4. I advertised nothing. You asked if any ideas had been taken on board, i said none. Again Charlie, you go all presumptuous and imply i never actually read or listened to any of these big ideas. Remind me, what WERE these pearls of wisdom that were so vital to the show's future? Was it keeping notes on pieces of paper by any chance? I do remember trivial stuff like moving the Susie slot to a different place, but aside from that, nothing. While we're at it........i presume you and others here watch other TV shows. Would you care to list all the improvements you've made between you to the rest of British Television?

5. You're the stats expert, not me. But i'm pretty sure if you did one of your pie-chart things, it would show that the general section in this forum is far quieter these days that it used to be. I didn't mean those who post have nothing to say, as in their content is not important, i meant in general, nobody really seems to have anything to say. Even Corby rarely bothers any more.

As for me considering what the point of my contribution is, i don't need to consider anything. The point of my contribution depends on what's being asked or said. The mass noun thread here is an absolute joke. Graeme Cole, a relative newbie, got it spot on with his reply, for which i applaud him. Changing the adjudication doesn't mean we are incapable of keeping a list of words on a piece of paper for heaven's sake.

Lastly, it's nice to note that you quoted just one line of my reply and conveniently ignored the rest. You'll make a great politician mate.

PS - in my last 20 posts, i also acknowledged the perception of Chris Davies with the unsightly conundrum and commented on Stella Ice by Mike Brown. Nothing negative, but you be as selective as you like, i'm fine with it.

[Kirk Bevins]

Is this a campaign to boost the forums post count?
1. The Kirk thing was a typical C4C reaction, I'm not a fan of......... Very few people use this place to be fans of anything. It's riddled with hypercriticism. Quite laughable that some people can rip a new DC guest for playing along and nitpick, yet those same people would readily come on the show and offer something like MANTICORE instead of cremation, just to look superior. Get with it.

I said I'm not a fan of guests pretending they got words when they didn't - and it being obvious. I enjoy those who say "I didn't get it, Susie did" or just "we have MODISTES for 8 here...Susie, explain?" but to say "I saw HOUBARAS which I think is a word, am I right?" sounds odd. I love the guests having a go and I said to Colin Murray in an interval whilst I was on that I think it's great that he's having a go and he told me he was so happy to get the numbers. Things like this make me smile. I'm not slating Countdown, I'm trying to say something I dislike about it, and maybe get people into a discussion on it. You might even think "yeah, I see their point" and debrief new guests, I've no idea. I'm not trying to do your job mate, I'm just saying what, as a viewer, it comes across to me as.

[D Eadie]

Is this a campaign to boost the forums post count?
1. The Kirk thing was a typical C4C reaction, I'm not a fan of......... Very few people use this place to be fans of anything. It's riddled with hypercriticism. Quite laughable that some people can rip a new DC guest for playing along and nitpick, yet those same people would readily come on the show and offer something like MANTICORE instead of cremation, just to look superior. Get with it.

I said I'm not a fan of guests pretending they got words when they didn't - and it being obvious. I enjoy those who say "I didn't get it, Susie did" or just "we have MODISTES for 8 here...Susie, explain?" but to say "I saw HOUBARAS which I think is a word, am I right?" sounds odd. I love the guests having a go and I said to Colin Murray in an interval whilst I was on that I think it's great that he's having a go and he told me he was so happy to get the numbers. Things like this make me smile. I'm not slating Countdown, I'm trying to say something I dislike about it, and maybe get people into a discussion on it. You might even think "yeah, I see their point" and debrief new guests, I've no idea. I'm not trying to do your job mate, I'm just saying what, as a viewer, it comes across to me as.

Sure, i get exactly what you say. I just tire of reading what people are not fans of. I get the impression sometimes, not with you, but generally, that it can be a habit of people to look for that 1% of something they don't like as opposed to crediting the 99% they do like. Cest la vie. My post to you on that particular subject was extremely blunt, but i post as though i'm saying it to your face, you can see my manner, hear my intonation etc etc. It's not half as bitchy as it looked, believe me. Nice of Charlie to jump to your aid though, that's a true friend.

[Charlie Reams]

Lastly, it's nice to note that you quoted just one line of my reply and conveniently ignored the rest. You'll make a great politician mate.

That's because you edited your post from its original two sentences while I was replying to it, but since you insist I reply to every point you make, here goes:-

1. The Kirk thing was a typical C4C reaction, I'm not a fan of......... Very few people use this place to be fans of anything. It's riddled with hypercriticism. Quite laughable that some people can rip a new DC guest for playing along and nitpick, yet those same people would readily come on the show and offer something like MANTICORE instead of cremation, just to look superior. Get with it.

I'll let people read your original post and see for themselves whether your reaction was proportionate.

2. Nobody threatened to sue you mate, but at the end of the day you're making £15 a punter on the back of a format you have no ownership of. That doesn't bother me one iota, but when you're site strips the whole game down to the smallest of atoms, then i feel i should say something. Is that wrong?

You can't own a format. Again, here's your original post so people can decide whether it sounds like a legal threat.

3. LOL - i glibly dismissed what idea? Keeping a list on a piece of paper? Are you shitting me?

It's irrelevant whether the idea was good or not, the point is that you posted in here just to say how you didn't care. Why post that? What's the benefit?

4. I advertised nothing. You asked if any ideas had been taken on board, i said none. Again Charlie, you go all presumptuous and imply i never actually read or listened to any of these big ideas. Remind me, what WERE these pearls of wisdom that were so vital to the show's future? Was it keeping notes on pieces of paper by any chance? I do remember trivial stuff like moving the Susie slot to a different place, but aside from that, nothing. While we're at it........i presume you and others here watch other TV shows. Would you care to list all the improvements you've made between you to the rest of British Television?

We've made hundreds of suggestions and you've never listened to any of them. So again, why post about it? It's like you keep calling someone up to say you don't want to talk to them.

5. You're the stats expert, not me. But i'm pretty sure if you did one of your pie-chart things, it would show that the general section in this forum is far quieter these days that it used to be. I didn't mean those who post have nothing to say, as in their content is not important, i meant in general, nobody really seems to have anything to say. Even Corby rarely bothers any more.

Maybe, I have no idea about the post count. The objective was never to rack up as many posts as possible.

PS - in my last 20 posts, i also acknowledged the perception of Chris Davies with the unsightly conundrum and commented on Stella Ice by Mike Brown. Nothing negative, but you be as selective as you like, i'm fine with it.

Okay, so you also replied to two pieces of overt flattery. That's really my point. You expect this forum to be a temple to Countdown and to constantly compliment your own brilliance, and then you fly off the handle as soon as anyone posts the mildest criticism of anything. No other television producers do this. What's the point?

[Clive Brooker]

The mass noun thread here is an absolute joke.

I'm surprised you say that. I've certainly been educated - my instinctive reaction was that precedent must be king, but I now see there's more to it. Isn't that how these threads are supposed to work?

Nevertheless, surely precedent must count for something. Suppose that before the end of the current series there is a round where TONNAGES is the only possible 8 found by either player - hardly a far-fetched scenario. Player 1 knows the history and follows the most recent precedent by declaring 7. Player 2 knows nothing of this and blithely declares 8, which Susie now judges to be good.

If player 1 appeals (I know the guidelines tell you not to argue, but it must be OK a least to ask a question) then I hope the result would be a re-shoot and a tied round. Personally I'd like to see the drama played out in full, but I can see why that wouldn't be allowed.

[D Eadie]

Too many quotes Charlie.
Suffice to say, i'm starting to lose the will to live a little.
Tell me, again, one more request, what EXACTLY are these points that have been made over the last 10 years that i've turned a blind eye to? I really want to know. The arrogance that exudes from the pores of your post makes it impossible for me to rest easy. Have i missed something so mind-fuckingly creative that things could have been so different? Let's hear them. The trouble is mate, when people put up a suggestion, and i tear it to shreds, it's done so with good reason - That reason being it wasn't a good suggestion. If people can't handle rejection then don't come to the table with an idea. I've got all night. Let's hear these things that the forumites have thrown at me. Firstly, i don't ever remember having received an email with a mind-blowing idea from anyone in 15 years, so if they were so great, these suggestions, then those who created them obviously didn't have the belief to come battering down my door so to speak.

"You can't own a format". Right. I cant wait to get into work tomorrow. The geezer who works upstairs from me, the one who's sold Come Dine With Me to about 20 different countries, i'll tell him it's all off, forget the bonus mate, these countries can make the show regardless and they don't have to pay for it, Charlie says so.

As for me replying to 2 pieces of overt flattery, don't be such a pillock. I pointed out in Mike Browns recap that i sometimes egosurfed here by searching Damian, to see what it was i had or had not done. Those were the last 2 posts with my name in, the rest being old recaps from when i used to be in DC. I congratulated Chris for connecting UNSIGHTLY with UGLY HINTS. I'd have replied, probably, even if the 2 posts were negative and not, as you stupidly call it, overt flattery. One was from Mike Brown, and i've liased on and off with him for 10 years, and the second was from Chris Davies, probably the most grounded, sensible, level-headed, polite and respectful contestant we've ever had on the show, a gentleman in every sense of the word. I am quite fond of both of them.

I'll keep refreshing for the rest of the night to read about these 100's of suggestions you've made, well not just you but everybody else. And in the meantime i'll wait for the post whereby you tell me the other great suggestions you've made to the rest of British TV.

Mate, i run a TV show, you run a website. One of us takes himself so seriously it's not true.

[Michael Wallace]

Mate, i run a TV show, you run a website. One of us takes himself so seriously it's not true.

[Charlie Reams]

"You can't own a format". Right. I cant wait to get into work tomorrow. The geezer who works upstairs from me, the one who's sold Come Dine With Me to about 20 different countries, i'll tell him it's all off, forget the bonus mate, these countries can make the show regardless and they don't have to pay for it, Charlie says so.

Those formats are not protected by law, TV licensing is a business manoeuvre, it's not a legal issue. You can work it out for yourself: the three branches of intellectual property law are 1) Trademark. Nope, we don't use the trademark. 2) Patent. Nope, no patents owned. 3) Copyright. Nope, you can't copyright games. You can ask your legal team about this if you want.

Mate, i run a TV show, you run a website.

This is such a great way to end a post about how I'm really arrogant.

[Jon Corby]

and the second was from Chris Davies, probably the most grounded, sensible, level-headed, polite and respectful contestant we've ever had on the show, a gentleman in every sense of the word.

You didn't see that game with Rodolf then.

[David Williams]

But I've still got your vote, right? You do support these policies?

Haha, I like how you were so transparently disappointed that no one took the bait of your original post. Keep trying dude!

Success! And without even trying!

Does anyone (Gevin?) remember a thread years ago where Damian asked for examples of good ideas suggested by forum-ites, and I mentioned three. He went absolutely ballistic and was not heard of again. For a while.

[D Eadie]

Mate, i run a TV show, you run a website.

This is such a great way to end a post about how I'm really arrogant.

God i'm actually realising what it is i've been missing for 6 months. Does it get any better than this?
Again it's selective ripostes, but hey i don't care a fig really. The last quote isn't supposed to read how you've made it read. Basically Charlie, what i'm saying is that i don't tell you how to run your various ventures, yet because some of you guys have been on the show, i'm supposed to change it to incorporate some of these "hundreds of suggestions", even though i've yet to see any evidence as to their credibility. I actually like you, don't get me wrong. I could ruffle your hair, buy you a pint and take the piss out of you at great length, of course expecting it all back along the way, but i can't help think that you've your pants in a twist over something that doesn't exist. Still waiting for the 100's of ideas. As i said, Graeme Cole, wiser than the lot of you in this thread. Perhaps it's embarassment spurring you on? Out-thought by a newbie? These bastions of Countdown jumping to absurd conclusions as to how we produce the show, when really, all along, all we've done is rethink a past mistake. Graeme Cole made a perfectly correcty assumption about the adjudication of maizes, based on level-headed across-the-board thinking, and not an outright negative slant, as is with the original poster. If only you'd recognise this and saw things in a different light. Now, where did i leave my piece of paper?

[Kai Laddiman]

c4c is killing Countdown.

[D Eadie]

Does anyone (Gevin?) remember a thread years ago where Damian asked for examples of good ideas suggested by forum-ites, and I mentioned three.

U mentioned three shit ideas David, let's not confuse fantasy with reality. I have to say though, keeping a list on a piece of paper is your best to date. Improving with age, like the fine whine you are.

OH LOOK - A THREAD WITH OVER 30 REPLIES IN JUST 2 DAYS. THE FORUM'S BACK !!

Okay, maybe not. Carry on griping.

[Kai Laddiman]

It's odd how possibly 3 of the greatest Countdowners ever have turned against each other. Makes for good reading though.

[Oliver Garner]

Talk amongst yourselves.

OK

Nope, nothing so far. keep trying.

I am posting here from time to time sure. Probably managed about 5 or 6 in half a year. There's nothing to say. I've read the place from time to time and its clear that the vast majority of posters have nothing to say either.
Nope.

Who said i hate it? Thanks for telling me how i feel. etc

Is this a campaign to boost the forums post count? etc

Sure, i get exactly what you say. I just tire of reading what people are not fans of. I get the impression sometimes, not with you, but generally, that it can be a habit of people to look for that 1% of something they don't like as opposed to crediting the 99% they do like. Cest la vie. My post to you on that particular subject was extremely blunt, but i post as though i'm saying it to your face, you can see my manner, hear my intonation etc etc. It's not half as bitchy as it looked, believe me. Nice of Charlie to jump to your aid though, that's a true friend.

Too many quotes Charlie. etc

God i'm actually realising what it is i've been missing for 6 months. Does it get any better than this?
Again it's selective ripostes, but hey i don't care a fig really. The last quote isn't supposed to read how you've made it read. Basically Charlie, what i'm saying is that i don't tell you how to run your various ventures, yet because some of you guys have been on the show, i'm supposed to change it to incorporate some of these "hundreds of suggestions", even though i've yet to see any evidence as to their credibility. I actually like you, don't get me wrong. I could ruffle your hair, buy you a pint and take the piss out of you at great length, of course expecting it all back along the way, but i can't help think that you've your pants in a twist over something that doesn't exist. Still waiting for the 100's of ideas. As i said, Graeme Cole, wiser than the lot of you in this thread. Perhaps it's embarassment spurring you on? Out-thought by a newbie? These bastions of Countdown jumping to absurd conclusions as to how we produce the show, when really, all along, all we've done is rethink a past mistake. Graeme Cole made a perfectly correcty assumption about the adjudication of maizes, based on level-headed across-the-board thinking, and not an outright negative slant, as is with the original poster. If only you'd recognise this and saw things in a different light. Now, where did i leave my piece of paper?

U mentioned three shit ideas David, let's not confuse fantasy with reality. I have to say though, keeping a list on a piece of paper is your best to date. Improving with age, like the fine whine you are.

OH LOOK - A THREAD WITH OVER 30 REPLIES IN JUST 2 DAYS. THE FORUM'S BACK !!

Okay, maybe not. Carry on griping.

Letting us talk amongst ourselves, eh

[Mike Brown]

I love the assumption that we don't keep lists of pluralisable mass nouns, and that 'maybe we can all get together and make our own'. Do me a favour.

Only trying to be constructive, cos I think it would be great if contestants knew exactly what was valid before their games start. Who comes up with the list is immaterial, it would just be nice if there was one and everyone could see it. Anyway, I'll get my coat.

[David Williams]

I love the assumption that we don't keep lists of pluralisable mass nouns, and that 'maybe we can all get together and make our own'. Do me a favour.

Only trying to be constructive, cos I think it would be great if contestants knew exactly what was valid before their games start. Who comes up with the list is immaterial, it would just be nice if there was one and everyone could see it. Anyway, I'll get my coat.

Yes. Graeme Cole's original point was as to what happened if, say, on reflection it was decided that MAIZES was not valid. To me it's unfair on the contestant who remembers it being OK, to disallow it. And it's unfair to allow it if his opponent has decided (correctly now) that it should not be allowed. So put it the contestants' notes that it's OK. And take it out when you change your mind.

I think the fact that we know of a couple of words where contradictory positions have been taken supports the assumption that there isn't a list. But if there is, why not let contestants see it? It can't be that long, because it's really not a big deal.

[Gavin Chipper]

Does anyone (Gevin?) remember a thread years ago where Damian asked for examples of good ideas suggested by forum-ites, and I mentioned three. He went absolutely ballistic and was not heard of again. For a while.

Haha - no sorry I don't remember that specific thread. But to be honest, there are so many examples of very similar things happening that they merge into one.

The trouble is mate, when people put up a suggestion, and i tear it to shreds, it's done so with good reason - That reason being it wasn't a good suggestion. If people can't handle rejection then don't come to the table with an idea.

Just because you don't like an idea it doesn't make it rubbish. Granted, in your position you get some say in what happens but this doesn't make you the arbiter of what is actually good.

[D Eadie]

Just because you don't like an idea it doesn't make it rubbish. Granted, in your position you get some say in what happens but this doesn't make you the arbiter of what is actually good.

It doesn't make it rubbish, just not very good, otherwise it would be adopted. 10 years worth of good ideas?

Come on guys, surely you wrote them all down, kept a list? The silence is deafening. There were hundreds apparently.

[Jon Corby]

Come on guys, surely you wrote them all down, kept a list?

We did, but we keep changing our minds, and you're not allowed to see the list.

[Oliver Garner]

We did, but we keep changing our minds, and you're not allowed to see the list.

We all know you dislike Derren Brown. Keep this kind of stuff in the off-topic section in future.

[John Bosley]

Hello there, John. What actually is this Countdown you are always watching?
Oh it's a game with lots of letters and words all jumbled up and largely quite meaningless
Well what exactly is that c4countdown forum you go on?
Oh ! That's the same.

[Ian Fitzpatrick]

Well that livened up the place last night.

It does seem that this place is getting less and less about the Television show and more about people's own egos. It seems people now train for Countdown rather than just practice almost like it was a professional game.

I used to enjoy Damian's contibutions on here, after all he makes the show day in day out.

[Gavin Chipper]

Just because you don't like an idea it doesn't make it rubbish. Granted, in your position you get some say in what happens but this doesn't make you the arbiter of what is actually good.

It doesn't make it rubbish, just not very good, otherwise it would be adopted.

No - it just means that you don't think it's very good. Big difference.

10 years worth of good ideas?

Come on guys, surely you wrote them all down, kept a list? The silence is deafening. There were hundreds apparently.

People have suggested moving Susie's thing to after the second numbers game. But you don't like it so it's not a good idea. Some people would prefer four numbers games rather than three. There are a lot of ideas that some people agree with and some don't, and because you don't agree with them you say they're not good ideas because you seem to see yourself as some sort of objective arbiter of goodness. I would susggest that moving Susie's bit probably would get >50% of support, however.

[Jon Corby]

Having some kind of "wrong!" light/buzzer on the conundrum board isn't a bad idea, as there could still be tension when Jeff says "let's see if you're right" whereas now there is none.

Neither is shutting off the monitors on buzzing to prevent Hansfording.

IMO.

[D Eadie]

People have suggested moving Susie's thing to after the second numbers game. But you don't like it so it's not a good idea. Some people would prefer four numbers games rather than three. There are a lot of ideas that some people agree with and some don't, and because you don't agree with them you say they're not good ideas because you seem to see yourself as some sort of objective arbiter of goodness. I would susggest that moving Susie's bit probably would get >50% of support, however.

50% support from who? The position of Susie's slot is a matter of preference, as is the amount of numbers games per show. I don't really class these as ideas, they are preferences. Introducing Susie's slot was my idea, placing it where it is was my preference. I don't see myself as an arbiter of goodness, i simply see myself as the Series Producer who's paid to run the show as i see fit, not as you see fit. I you can't grasp that concept then it's not my problem.

Again, still not seen any evidence of great ideas. You've highlighted a few gripes about existing situations rather than come up with something new or innovative, yet this is classed as 10 years of constructive genius falling on deaf ears apparently. How very bizarre.

[D Eadie]

Having some kind of "wrong!" light/buzzer on the conundrum board isn't a bad idea, as there could still be tension when Jeff says "let's see if you're right" whereas now there is none.

Neither is shutting off the monitors on buzzing to prevent Hansfording.

IMO.

Actually that's not a bad idea at all Jon. I can see it as definite improvement.

[Ben Hunter]

Having some kind of "wrong!" light/buzzer on the conundrum board isn't a bad idea, as there could still be tension when Jeff says "let's see if you're right" whereas now there is none.

I like it, it would also help to rub it in a bit if somebody says something like raspilled or gandiseeg, and you have to dwell on the matter for a few seconds before the timer resumes. Also, how about instead of a "wrong!" light, a bucket filled with gunge is turned onto the contestant? Only during crucial conundrums mind.

[Jon Corby]

Having some kind of "wrong!" light/buzzer on the conundrum board isn't a bad idea, as there could still be tension when Jeff says "let's see if you're right" whereas now there is none.

Neither is shutting off the monitors on buzzing to prevent Hansfording.

IMO.

Actually that's not a bad idea at all Jon. I can see it as definite improvement.

Awesome. Can you call it the Conundral Corbometer in honour of me?

[Jon Corby]

The position of Susie's slot is a matter of preference

I know where I'd prefer it...

[Gavin Chipper]

50% support from who?

The viewers?

The position of Susie's slot is a matter of preference, as is the amount of numbers games per show. I don't really class these as ideas, they are preferences.

I'm not sure there is a clear dividing line but anyway other ideas people have come up with include clearing up the mass noun thing. There was a thread about it around here somewhere.

I don't see myself as an arbiter of goodness, i simply see myself as the Series Producer who's paid to run the show as i see fit, not as you see fit. I you can't grasp that concept then it's not my problem.

Read your posts. You have said that ideas have not been included because they were not good, not because you are the series producer and you happen not to like them. So yes, you have written posts as if you are the arbiter of goodness.

Again, still not seen any evidence of great ideas. You've highlighted a few gripes about existing situations rather than come up with something new or innovative, yet this is classed as 10 years of constructive genius falling on deaf ears apparently. How very bizarre.

This has only just come up and you expect all the ideas over the last ten years to be recalled immediately. How very bizarre.

[David Williams]

Off the top of my head, a few things that have been mentioned hereabouts that have changed since. Doesn't mean that they were changed because they were mentioned here, but presumably it does mean they were good ideas.

You must say beforehand if you haven't written a word down. It used to happen occasionally that people would say "Same word, but I didn't write it down" - and they'd be trusted.

Susie credits the gallery with the occasional word. Perfectly natural, and truthful, but it never used to happen.

Carol had a bad habit of getting ahead of contestants' solutions. Once in a while she'd be finishing off and awarding ten points, while in the background you could hear a hapless contestant going astray. Rachel is scrupulous about not doing this.

Nothing major, but then again how many major changes have there been in nearly 30 years? One could take the comments as carping criticism, but I'd see them as constructive.

[Oliver Garner]

50% support from who? The position of Susie's slot is a matter of preference, as is the amount of numbers games per show. I don't really class these as ideas, they are preferences. Introducing Susie's slot was my idea, placing it where it is was my preference. I don't see myself as an arbiter of goodness, i simply see myself as the Series Producer who's paid to run the show as i see fit, not as you see fit. I you can't grasp that concept then it's not my problem.

Again, still not seen any evidence of great ideas. You've highlighted a few gripes about existing situations rather than come up with something new or innovative, yet this is classed as 10 years of constructive genius falling on deaf ears apparently. How very bizarre.

I agree with you Damian. To paraphrase Charlie, even if there is/was a poll, Countdown is not a democracy and you should entirely intend to ignore the outcome. As a (former) contestant, I liked the OoW slot where it is cos it allows you to relax before a potentially important round and the break isn't too long after round 10, which it probably would be if Susie's slot was moved.

[D Eadie]

Thanks Oliver. It seems some cannot understand the process of me running with what i think's best in a professional capacity. I'll credit the non-approvers with one last benefit of my reasoning behind the OOW's slot.
Rds 6 7 8 9 are letters. So it feels natural to have a word related segment after rd 9. Rd 10 is numbers - and from time to time, this carries over into the start of P3 if Rachel is coming back with one she solved in the break.

If OOW's was after Rd 10, you get letters in 9, numbers in 10, back to words after 10, then possibly back to Rachel for more numbers solving if it carries over, then back to words for Rd 11. Its messy. That's why it's after Rd 9 and that's why it's staying there, and i was well aware of the respite factor for the contestants also. Some would prefer it after Rd 10, you, like me, prefer it after Rd 9. What am i supposed to do? Take a referendum on it and follow what everybody else thinks, or do what i think is right, which is what i'm employed for? It staggers to me to see that some think i ought to do what they say, purely because they've said it. This whole debate started with a quip from Charlie that since a suggestion had been made on this forum, you could guarantee it wouldn't be adopted. I've asked for the brainwaves that i have been accused of ignoring, yet none have been forthcoming, apparently down to the fact that its so long ago and nobody has had time to recall them.
That in itself tells me they can't have been very good if they are forgettable, but what do i know.

[D Eadie]

Off the top of my head, a few things that have been mentioned hereabouts that have changed since. Doesn't mean that they were changed because they were mentioned here, but presumably it does mean they were good ideas.

Therefore, Charlie's swipe of 'now that it's been mentioned here you can guarantee it will be ignored', was a nonsense remark made unnecessarily. At last, we've come full circle and i can go back to making the show again. Amen.

[Charlie Reams]

Sure, I exaggerated a little to be provocative or amusing (looks like I succeeded on at least one count). Presumably you'd also be willing to acknowledge your own sarcastically-delivered errors here

Incidentally, can anyone recall any suggestion or feedback that was taken on board by the production team in the near-decade that this forum and its predecessors have been around?

Nope.

and here

"You can't own a format". Right. I cant wait to get into work tomorrow. The geezer who works upstairs from me, the one who's sold Come Dine With Me to about 20 different countries, i'll tell him it's all off, forget the bonus mate, these countries can make the show regardless and they don't have to pay for it, Charlie says so.

[D Eadie]

Hehe you and Gavin are masters are posting these incriminatory links when it suits, but conveniently can't find these masterpieces of ingenuity that i've cocked a snoop at for 10 years.

Anyway, it's time to go, busiest thread on here for 6 months perhaps? I'll waive my fee this time, the pleasure has been all mine. And for what it's worth Charlie, even when the debate reached its most heated, i never once stopped loving you.

[Kirk Bevins]

I think the clock should flash for a 9 letter word. Was there a particular reason this stopped? I read that the clock hasn't changed for years but have the electronics?

Edit: Actually I think I mean the set should flash. I misremembered.

[David Williams]

Off the top of my head, a few things that have been mentioned hereabouts that have changed since. Doesn't mean that they were changed because they were mentioned here, but presumably it does mean they were good ideas.

Therefore, Charlie's swipe of 'now that it's been mentioned here you can guarantee it will be ignored', was a nonsense remark made unnecessarily. At last, we've come full circle and i can go back to making the show again. Amen.

Well, Charlie can defend himself if he wishes. But I've somehow formed the impression (forgive me if I'm wrong) that you believe that no good ideas have ever come out of this or any other forum, so I can see why he might have made that post, particularly as you hadn't entered the debate when he made it.

I could also infer now that you think the things I mentioned were good ideas after all, which rather weakens what I believe to be your position.

Incidentally

Does anyone (Gevin?) remember a thread years ago where Damian asked for examples of good ideas suggested by forum-ites, and I mentioned three.

U mentioned three shit ideas David, let's not confuse fantasy with reality.

Do you actually remember what they were? If you do I'd be happy to be reminded. If not . . .

In the interests of balance, the biggest change in recent years is Susie's spot, which was an excellent idea and I don't recall anyone on this or any other forum suggesting it, so I can't imagine where the idea for that came from.