Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Discuss anything that happened in recent games. This is the place to post any words you got that beat Dictionary Corner, or numbers games that evaded Rachel.

Moderator: James Robinson

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:30 am

Charlie Reams wrote: In this case controversy was avoided because CHOLIAMBS is so obscure, but personally I don't see the need to even introduce this kind of problem.
Controversy, problem....?
Viewing figures last night indicate that around 1.6 million people saw the conundrum round. I'm still waiting to hear from any of them. There's no problem as far as i am concerned. So the conundrum could have been 'choliambs', big deal. Countdown in crisis. ;)

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7927
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jon Corby » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:36 am

D Eadie wrote:Yawn. There's pedantry and there's pedantry. This takes the biscuit on every level. Do me a favour.
Oh sorry, were you agreeing that it was confusing? - I misread. Apologies.

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:42 am

Yeah, ultra confusing, only to the easily confused. I've lost the will to live now. I feel like a salad.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7927
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jon Corby » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:47 am

D Eadie wrote:Viewing figures last night indicate that around 1.6 million people saw the conundrum round. I'm still waiting to hear from any of them. There's no problem as far as i am concerned. So the conundrum could have been 'choliambs', big deal. Countdown in crisis. ;)
No, this one instance isn't a big deal but then you probably didn't receive any 'complaints' about PROMATE or OUTSTEER, outside of this board, did you? I doubt you'd get any complaints if Susie decided to a disallow a very obscure but valid word, but does that mean we shouldn't care or discuss it?

I think on the previous page you tried to say look, stop making this so complicated (that's my own interpretation) - "a conundrum is a shuffled up 9 letter word", but then realised that actually now you need to tack on all those extra riders. You shouldn't need them, and as the setter you're entirely in control. The contestant guidelines shouldn't need several paragraphs to state this. I just don't see the point in it.
D Eadie wrote:Yeah, ultra confusing, only to the easily confused. I've lost the will to live now. I feel like a salad.
Oh okay, you weren't agreeing then. In which case I'm confused.

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:55 am

One way to solve all this is to set the scramble as CHOLIAMBS. However, I think Damian doesn't like this because if the contestant has learned "CHOLIAMBS = SHAMBOLIC" then they are not solving anything, merely remembering two anagrams that equal each other. In my view, if they've took the time to study this, then they deserve 10 points.

Edit: I've just realised that perhaps he doesn't mind using these in heat games, e.g GERANIUMS as a scramble. This would solve most people's problems by setting the other anagram in the scramble.
Last edited by Kirk Bevins on Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Charlie Reams » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:56 am

D Eadie wrote:Viewing figures last night indicate that around 1.6 million people saw the conundrum round. I'm still waiting to hear from any of them.
You're hearing from them now!

Just to be clear, are you saying you knew that it had two solutions, and decided to set it anyway?

Dinos Sfyris
Fanatic
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
Location: Sheffield

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Dinos Sfyris » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:16 pm

D Eadie wrote:Viewing figures last night indicate that around 1.6 million people saw the conundrum round
Just to go off on a tangent for a sec, how are viewing figures calculated?

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:18 pm

Fucking hell this is like being hauled over the coals by my old headmaster. :o
To clarify Jon, we had loads of correspondence from viewers re both promate and outsteer. It would be pretty silly to think that C4C users are the only people who pay attention and listen to the show. There's a whole fraternity out there that perhaps you aren't aware of. I get letters from people who've written for years analysing breakdowns on the letters frequencies, asking where the 'V' has gone, saying there is one G too many etc. Calls from numbers enthusiasts who ring to give alternative solutions about 1 second into the commerical break, emails from linguists who want to know why we didn't spot ROUNDELAY last night. The forum isn't the only place, it's just the fastest and easiest method of communication, but believe me, the topics of discussion and all that stuff with the viewers has been in place since day one, just not electronically via the internet. Yet, still nothing about choliambs. I didn't want to set 'choliambs' because i wanted cash limbo. Listen, if a contestant spots choliambs, they'd be so good as to be so far ahead not to need the 10 pts. I'd congratulate them on an oustanding win, tell them they should have read the guidelines, then move on to the next show. It's pretty much an isolated incident. Take a step back, digest all the facts. It was choliambs, nobody has ever heard of it, it doesn't matter and didn't confuse anyone. Reality check needed.

Yes Charlie, i knew it had another illegal answer, but only 1 legitimate answer, and still set it anyway. Why not? Sure, you guys are viewers, i understand. Can somebody remind me exactly what the problem was with any of this, because i've long since forgotten. Was it that it could confuse somebody who saw choliambs but didn't want to buzz in? I'm really not sure exactly what the issue was about in the first place.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7927
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jon Corby » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:25 pm

D Eadie wrote:To clarify Jon, we had loads of correspondence from viewers re both promate and outsteer.
Ooh, okay cool. I (obviously) didn't know that. That pleases me. You should write back to people and suggest they join here :)
D Eadie wrote:Was it that it could confuse somebody who saw choliambs but didn't want to buzz in?
Not in this instance, but I've tried to compare it to other situations that could theoretically arise under the guidelines. Obviously though as the setter, you're in control of all that. I thought your stance was coming across as "well the rules are there and if we trip people up with them, tough shit" whereas now I'm reading it more as "I'm aware of the issues, and I took the chance on this one because the plural solution was ultra-obscure, but I wouldn't do a controversial one so it's not a problem" - am I right? If so, I am finally at peace :)

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:25 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:
D Eadie wrote:Viewing figures last night indicate that around 1.6 million people saw the conundrum round
Just to go off on a tangent for a sec, how are viewing figures calculated?

The Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB), the company jointly owned by ITV and the other major broadcasters, uses a panel of 5,100 homes – representative of the UK population – to keep track of the nation's viewing habits.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Charlie Reams » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:29 pm

Jon Corby wrote:now I'm reading it more as "I'm aware of the issues, and I took the chance on this one because the plural solution was ultra-obscure, but I wouldn't do a controversial one so it's not a problem" - am I right? If so, I am finally at peace :)
Me too.

User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by D Eadie » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:41 pm

Jon Corby wrote:Not in this instance, but I've tried to compare it to other situations that could theoretically arise under the guidelines. Obviously though as the setter, you're in control of all that. I thought your stance was coming across as "well the rules are there and if we trip people up with them, tough shit" whereas now I'm reading it more as "I'm aware of the issues, and I took the chance on this one because the plural solution was ultra-obscure, but I wouldn't do a controversial one so it's not a problem" - am I right? If so, I am finally at peace :)

That's exactly it, am not going to try and trip somebody up on purpose. This was so rare as not to matter, but i'd never do something like SENILPRAT for STRAPLINE, just because triplanes and traplines are invalid under the plural rule. Okay, there are 17000 others to choose from, but that's beside the point. I try to make conundrums apterous-free wherever possible, and this one was just that. Blame it all on Reams, the bastard.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7927
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jon Corby » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:43 pm

D Eadie wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:Not in this instance, but I've tried to compare it to other situations that could theoretically arise under the guidelines. Obviously though as the setter, you're in control of all that. I thought your stance was coming across as "well the rules are there and if we trip people up with them, tough shit" whereas now I'm reading it more as "I'm aware of the issues, and I took the chance on this one because the plural solution was ultra-obscure, but I wouldn't do a controversial one so it's not a problem" - am I right? If so, I am finally at peace :)

That's exactly it, am not going to try and trip somebody up on purpose. This was so rare as not to matter, but i'd never do something like SENILPRAT for STRAPLINE, just because triplanes and traplines are invalid under the plural rule. Okay, there are 17000 others to choose from, but that's beside the point. I try to make conundrums apterous-free wherever possible, and this one was just that. Blame it all on Reams, the bastard.
Hooray! See, despite your exasparation, I'm glad we finished this discussion off and got to this point. Genuinely :) Now go and have that salad.

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1297
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by JackHurst » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:46 pm

D Eadie wrote:
Dinos Sfyris wrote:
D Eadie wrote:Viewing figures last night indicate that around 1.6 million people saw the conundrum round
Just to go off on a tangent for a sec, how are viewing figures calculated?

The Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB), the company jointly owned by ITV and the other major broadcasters, uses a panel of 5,100 homes – representative of the UK population – to keep track of the nation's viewing habits.
Charlie Brooker gave a satirical explanation of it on screen wipe about a year or so ago. They plug this little black box into their tv that records what channels they are on at what time and the information gets sent somehwere and the viewing figures are calculated.

With regard to this whole argument about conundrums, I think rd 15 should be replaced with a 6 large hyper numbers.

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1297
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by JackHurst » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:37 pm

Was this the episode where Susie made that great pun about verbing, and it went completely unappreciated?

User avatar
Jason Larsen
Postmaster General
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jason Larsen » Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:46 am

Looking at Heather Badcock, I would never have guessed that she was a Bible study teacher.

Think of this, a redhead who likes Guns 'N Roses and singing karaoke?

She's a nice person, but I guess you can just judge a book by its cover.

I'm not sure if Charlie knows this, but she now lives in Cambridge. She apparently had no idea of Charlie or this forum, though! I wonder how that happens? The people come around and discover Apterous without knowing anything about Charlie or his forum and then eventually they appear on the show?

By the way, she just might come here soon. I'm sure you will all enjoy getting to know this interesting person a little better.

David Williams
Devotee
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by David Williams » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:48 pm

Only just watched this, so I missed all the CHOLIAMBS stuff. Have to say, like Damian, I think it's a total non-issue. But it did get me wondering whether if you wrote in about something like that you'd get a reply, and if so whether it would be similar to the response you get here. I do hope so.

User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Clive Brooker » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:00 pm

David Williams wrote:Only just watched this, so I missed all the CHOLIAMBS stuff. Have to say, like Damian, I think it's a total non-issue. But it did get me wondering whether if you wrote in about something like that you'd get a reply, and if so whether it would be similar to the response you get here. I do hope so.
Do you mean "...you're talking bollocks"?

User avatar
Jason Larsen
Postmaster General
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jason Larsen » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:16 pm

If Heather read this, she would be very offended!

User avatar
Alec Rivers
Devotee
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Alec Rivers » Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:21 pm

Jason Larsen wrote:Looking at Heather Badcock, I would never have guessed that she was a Bible study teacher.
Think of this, a redhead who likes Guns 'N Roses and singing karaoke?
She's a nice person, but I guess you can just judge a book by its cover.
Jason Larsen wrote:If Heather read this, she would be very offended!
Too bloody right she would. Unless I am very much mistaken, you are insinuating that simply owning red hair, or liking Guns 'n' Roses, or partaking in karaoke makes a person irreligious or indeed bad in some way. That's likely to offend a great many people. By the same token, you are blindly accepting that someone involved in Bible studies is a good person. Seeing as religion has caused, amongst many indiscretions, the deaths of many millions of people throughout history, I find it hard to place religious people above atheists, agnostics, or any other group. There's good and bad everywhere.

User avatar
Jason Larsen
Postmaster General
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jason Larsen » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:11 pm

I don't know how to take that

User avatar
Brian Moore
Devotee
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
Location: Exeter

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Brian Moore » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:28 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:I find it hard to place religious people above atheists, agnostics, or any other group.
You obviously don't have what it takes to be a judge then.

User avatar
Jason Larsen
Postmaster General
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jason Larsen » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:40 pm

Heather Badcock. You..., you..., you... nice, innocent, smiling lady!

Ralph Gillions
Devotee
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: South Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Ralph Gillions » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:43 pm

True one can't (shouldn't) judge a book by its cover.
If Heather had appeared on 'What's My Line' an old quiz game, I would not have guessed she was a religious studies teacher.

User avatar
Alec Rivers
Devotee
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Alec Rivers » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:57 pm

Brian Moore wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote:I find it hard to place religious people above atheists, agnostics, or any other group.
You obviously don't have what it takes to be a judge then.
Wow, that is disgusting (IMO).

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Sun Feb 21, 2010 12:28 am

Ralph Gillions wrote: If Heather had appeared on 'What's My Line' an old quiz game, I would not have guessed she was a religious studies teacher.
Or even BBC2s Identity, hosted by Donny Osmond, where they had 12 people on podiums and a list of 12 identities and they had to match the correct person with the correct identity. I wore an anorak to try as they wanted to give my identity away a little easier and she thought I was the window cleaner as I was too young to be the trainspotter. She eventually found me out.

User avatar
Jason Larsen
Postmaster General
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jason Larsen » Sun Feb 21, 2010 12:30 am

If her hair were darker, I wouldn't have been as surprised

User avatar
Alec Rivers
Devotee
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:36 pm
Location: Studio 57, Cheriton (Kent)
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Alec Rivers » Sun Feb 21, 2010 12:42 am

Jason Larsen wrote:If her hair were darker, I wouldn't have been as surprised
Jason, when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

Ralph Gillions
Devotee
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: South Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Ralph Gillions » Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:10 am

Kirk, I have not seen `Identity` (not even heard of it.)
Was your appearance meant to give hints as to your identity/job/hobby?
Or was it intended to disguise it?

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Kirk Bevins » Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:24 am

Ralph Gillions wrote:Kirk, I have not seen `Identity` (not even heard of it.)
Was your appearance meant to give hints as to your identity/job/hobby?
Or was it intended to disguise it?
Yes sometimes. There were a few easy ones, e.g. on my show there was "a bench press champion" and it was a woman with massive muscles stood next to me. They have 3 lifelines, one of which is "ask the experts" - there are 3 experts sat watching analysing body language and smiles when they said "I think number 7 is the bus driver" for instance. It was on a few years ago. I can't remember much as it didn't last long and although I taped my episode, I've not seen it since and it's on VHS not DVD. My show was screened 28th August 2007.

Here is an example of the show on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYezkqsFQZE

Ralph Gillions
Devotee
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: South Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Ralph Gillions » Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:32 am

Thanks for the information Kirk - and for the link.
Appreciated.

User avatar
Jason Larsen
Postmaster General
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jason Larsen » Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:16 am

I wasn't trying to insinuate anything!

Ralph Gillions
Devotee
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: South Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Ralph Gillions » Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:22 am

I didn't think you were Jason.

User avatar
Jason Larsen
Postmaster General
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 17th Feb

Post by Jason Larsen » Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:15 am

Of course

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests