Carl Williams

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

Post Reply
User avatar
Martin Gardner
Kiloposter
Posts: 1492
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Carl Williams

Post by Martin Gardner » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:24 pm

I'm not sure if Carl did cheat, as I've heard rumours about it but no evidence, but even if he did, doesn't take away from his achievements outside of that game. Nobody's prepared to say which game it was, so I don't know if he would have won despite the extra points from the numbers. A few things:
Jon Corby wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:He also admitted at the start of this game that he didn't have the answer when he buzzed in with THWARTING, as discussed here.
Yes. He's a cheat. I actually still found that numbers game (where he blatantly stole his opponent's declaration and made it up on the spot) worse though.
Huh? Certainly there's no rule against buzzing in for a conundrum when you don't know the answer. It's been done before. Also fudging numbers games isn't illegal, I did it once, maybe. I seem to think I declared, forgot what I'd done in the time and just kept going assuming I would remember at some point, and didn't. Of course since I couldn't remember what I'd done at the time, there's no way of knowing if it was the same solution I'd actually used in the game. I remember Jon O'Neill in his Countdown experience said more or less the same thing.

Let's not bandy about words like cheating for stuff that isn't against the rules. I think "ethically dubious" is the right term, I'd also accept "immoral" or "unethical" if you feel strongly enough. I think what Jon's said could be interpreted as lying, that is, deliberately trying to deceive others. I don't interpret it that way mind you, I think he's just got a very extreme view of cheating.
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7918
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Jon Corby » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:44 pm

Martin Gardner wrote:I'm not sure if Carl did cheat, as I've heard rumours about it but no evidence, but even if he did, doesn't take away from his achievements outside of that game. Nobody's prepared to say which game it was, so I don't know if he would have won despite the extra points from the numbers. A few things:
Jon Corby wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:He also admitted at the start of this game that he didn't have the answer when he buzzed in with THWARTING, as discussed here.
Yes. He's a cheat. I actually still found that numbers game (where he blatantly stole his opponent's declaration and made it up on the spot) worse though.
Huh? Certainly there's no rule against buzzing in for a conundrum when you don't know the answer. It's been done before. Also fudging numbers games isn't illegal, I did it once, maybe. I seem to think I declared, forgot what I'd done in the time and just kept going assuming I would remember at some point, and didn't. Of course since I couldn't remember what I'd done at the time, there's no way of knowing if it was the same solution I'd actually used in the game. I remember Jon O'Neill in his Countdown experience said more or less the same thing.

Let's not bandy about words like cheating for stuff that isn't against the rules. I think "ethically dubious" is the right term, I'd also accept "immoral" or "unethical" if you feel strongly enough. I think what Jon's said could be interpreted as lying, that is, deliberately trying to deceive others. I don't interpret it that way mind you, I think he's just got a very extreme view of cheating.
I did link you to the game, you prick. I directly quoted your request and linked back to the spoiler thread for that day. If you want to find a video of it, or look at the game in the wiki, you have the date of the game right there. Don't blame me if you can't click on a fucking link.

The idea of Countdown is to find the longest word/get closest to the numbers in 30 seconds. Declaring something you've spotted well after those 30 seconds is up - indeed, copying your opponent's declaration then trying to find the word/solution, IS CHEATING. The implementation of the rules being what it is presently, means you can get away with it, but IT'S CHEATING. Unless of course, you want to argue that deliberate handball in football isn't cheating if the ref doesn't spot it, etc etc.

As I said, Carl went up in my estimation with the way he acted today. He's actually passed you on the way down, you jizzmonkey.

Keith Bennett
Acolyte
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:26 am
Location: Norwich

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Keith Bennett » Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:38 pm

Martin Gardner wrote:I'm not sure if Carl did cheat, as I've heard rumours about it but no evidence...
None of us are sure Martin, and the only evidence we've all had has been the broadcast shows, so it's a judgement call isn't it?

Fact is that when Carl first appeared he seemed to get away with a couple of things in his first 2 or 3 shows that most players don't even try, and his card's been marked ever since. Plus he's came across as a bit smug, and unlike many players who apperently learn about Apterous when they go on the show, he hasn't joined in. So he was never going to get much sympathy on here.

But all this may be partly down to Jeff's approach.

I only saw a couple of the infamous Hansford shows, but in one them Des O'C disallowed his hesitation after buzzing on a conundrum. And on Monday this week Nick Hewer, in one of his first recordings, quite correctly prompted a contestant to get on with it over a numbers solution.

Everybody likes Jeff Stelling - like many others I think he's the best presenter the show's ever had - but his one weakness may just be that he's been too tolerant over speed of declarations and number solutions. Maybe that's because having watched highly competitive sports people at close quarters he understands better than most the pressure contestants are under and is willing to make allowances.

From what I saw this week it is certainly something Nick Hewer does not (yet) fathom - after a missed conundrum he turned to the audience with something like "After that abject failure...." Hopefully I haven't misquoted him there. Maybe that will be edited out (though I'm not sure if it can be) but even if it is I hope he will learn fast that it's not exactly an understanding attitude.

Like others I do think Carl's approach was a bit dodgy at times, but he's been allowed to get away with it, and there's not much that can be done about that if the Producer and his team are happy with it.

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Matt Morrison » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:04 pm

Keith Bennett wrote:Nick Hewer does not (yet) fathom - after a missed conundrum he turned to the audience with something like "After that abject failure...."
Bring back Jeff.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4162
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Jon O'Neill » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:13 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Martin Gardner wrote:I'm not sure if Carl did cheat, as I've heard rumours about it but no evidence, but even if he did, doesn't take away from his achievements outside of that game. Nobody's prepared to say which game it was, so I don't know if he would have won despite the extra points from the numbers. A few things:

Huh? Certainly there's no rule against buzzing in for a conundrum when you don't know the answer. It's been done before. Also fudging numbers games isn't illegal, I did it once, maybe. I seem to think I declared, forgot what I'd done in the time and just kept going assuming I would remember at some point, and didn't. Of course since I couldn't remember what I'd done at the time, there's no way of knowing if it was the same solution I'd actually used in the game. I remember Jon O'Neill in his Countdown experience said more or less the same thing.

Let's not bandy about words like cheating for stuff that isn't against the rules. I think "ethically dubious" is the right term, I'd also accept "immoral" or "unethical" if you feel strongly enough. I think what Jon's said could be interpreted as lying, that is, deliberately trying to deceive others. I don't interpret it that way mind you, I think he's just got a very extreme view of cheating.
I did link you to the game, you prick. I directly quoted your request and linked back to the spoiler thread for that day. If you want to find a video of it, or look at the game in the wiki, you have the date of the game right there. Don't blame me if you can't click on a fucking link.

The idea of Countdown is to find the longest word/get closest to the numbers in 30 seconds. Declaring something you've spotted well after those 30 seconds is up - indeed, copying your opponent's declaration then trying to find the word/solution, IS CHEATING. The implementation of the rules being what it is presently, means you can get away with it, but IT'S CHEATING. Unless of course, you want to argue that deliberate handball in football isn't cheating if the ref doesn't spot it, etc etc.

As I said, Carl went up in my estimation with the way he acted today. He's actually passed you on the way down, you jizzmonkey.
Oh dear, Mrs. Corby not putting out again?

User avatar
Craig Beevers
Series 57 Champion
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 am
Contact:

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Craig Beevers » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:43 am

Innis Carson wrote:Also, credit where credit's due, Carl did extremely well to get as far as he did, and was very magnanimous in defeat. Great player, and definitely the most successful troll this forum has ever seen.
Jon Corby wrote:I did link you to the game, you prick. I directly quoted your request and linked back to the spoiler thread for that day. If you want to find a video of it, or look at the game in the wiki, you have the date of the game right there. Don't blame me if you can't click on a fucking link.

The idea of Countdown is to find the longest word/get closest to the numbers in 30 seconds. Declaring something you've spotted well after those 30 seconds is up - indeed, copying your opponent's declaration then trying to find the word/solution, IS CHEATING. The implementation of the rules being what it is presently, means you can get away with it, but IT'S CHEATING. Unless of course, you want to argue that deliberate handball in football isn't cheating if the ref doesn't spot it, etc etc.

As I said, Carl went up in my estimation with the way he acted today. He's actually passed you on the way down, you jizzmonkey.
Hmm. Someone's trying too hard.

Jim Treloar
Rookie
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:58 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Jim Treloar » Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:57 am

Regarding Nick Hewer, I was at his very first recording last month and when the contestants didn't get the conundrum he turned to the audience where one member, in fact, gave the wrong answer. His comment - "don't be ridiculous" in a nasty tone of voice. I only hope that it was edited out and the producers lectured him on good manners.

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Matt Morrison » Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:27 am

Hewer seems exactly like the utter cock he is on the Apprentice. That's a shame. Still, an excuse to hold back on my application for another couple of years.

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Matt Morrison » Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:28 am

Craig Beevers wrote:Hmm. Someone's trying too hard.
And what of people who just accuse others of trying too hard without even bothering to congratulate a fucking fantastic and deserving series winner? How hard are they trying?

Keith Bennett
Acolyte
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:26 am
Location: Norwich

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Keith Bennett » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:35 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:Hewer seems exactly like the utter cock he is on the Apprentice. That's a shame. Still, an excuse to hold back on my application for another couple of years.
I don't personally think he's a cock on the Apprentice - the guys and girls who go on that show with (in most cases) their highly over-inflated view of their own abilities get exactly what they deserve from Nick, Karen and previously Margaret. But with very few exceptions Countdown contestants are humble and intelligent and sometimes nervous wrecks. I don't think any waltz in to the studio with a "I'm the best and nobody but me should win" attitude. He will need to adapt to that.

From the shows I saw recorded I have one or two other observations but I'll save them until we're ready to roll again, and see how it's edited too. I cetainly don't want to pre-judge the guy; he needs some time to get into it. Maybe when HE sees the shows he'll adjust anyway. I only mentioned the one above now because it seemd relevant in the current context.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1795
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Mark Deeks » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:36 pm

It's difficult for me of all people to speak on this subject, given that doing so will unfailingly make me seem like a sore loser. But at the same time, I am perhaps the most able to answer the question of what he does and why. So I ought try.

As far I can best express it, Carl's approach to the game can be described as "doing whatever it takes to win." He prided himself in that. I don't think his fudges were all that hideous - save for the 900, which was just blatant - but Carl's "determination" transpired both on and off the screen.

I am not prepared to air any specific dirty laundry, but there is a reason me and Graeme have different opinions of him, and it's not because of our respective results. I also think he took losing in the final as well as he did because he had done what he had set out to do, and beat me. What he did that week made it pretty clear that that was his aim. The article in his local newspaper seems to confirm as much.

However, while I don't think he played the game in the right spirit, I don't think he did what he did out of any maliciousness, other than just what he views as being within the rightful confines of the natural art of competition. I don't think Carl either knew, cared, or both, that what he was doing rather undermines the basic tenet of Countdown, that of its familial atmosphere. I think he's just a competitive man who wanted to win at the cost of being liked.

That, in itself, is not cheating.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1795
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Mark Deeks » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:37 pm

His 900, however, was.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Matt Morrison » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:46 pm

Keith Bennett wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:Hewer seems exactly like the utter cock he is on the Apprentice.
I don't personally think he's a cock on the Apprentice - the guys and girls who go on that show with (in most cases) their highly over-inflated view of their own abilities get exactly what they deserve from Nick
Yeah, I can't stand the contestants on that show for the reasons you point out - massively inflated egos of smugness.
But I can't stand Nick on that show for the very same reason, the way he reacts to their massively inflated egos of smugness just shows he also has a massive inflated ego of smugness.

Fingers crossed he streamlines his personality for Countdown and that the whole air of superiority he walks about smirking with on the Apprentice is just something the producers make him play up to that he'll get out of the habit of.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1795
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Mark Deeks » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:07 pm

Jeff was pretty awkward for his first couple of series, then went on to take the show to a level it has never seen before and will be lucky to see again.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

David Williams
Devotee
Posts: 959
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by David Williams » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:12 pm

By and large I'm in the same camp as everyone else here, but there is another point of view. Some people might suggest that spending hundreds of hours practising rather goes against the spirit of Countdown. I imagine some would be delighted to see a non-apterite win a series, and might even be prepared to cut him a little slack. (I'm not suggesting that happened - the 'cheating' was long before he would have been seen as a serious challenger.) Of course, if Carl is as single-minded as is suggested, he's probably got multiple aliases on apterous!

And should the stuff about Nick Hewer be in a different thread?

Lisa Hermann
Rookie
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Lisa Hermann » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:01 pm

I have seen someone in the studio with the 75x table written out on their hand ... now that's cheating!

Keith Bennett
Acolyte
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:26 am
Location: Norwich

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Keith Bennett » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:11 pm

David Williams wrote: And should the stuff about Nick Hewer be in a different thread?
Any lengthy discussion should be yes, and doubtless will be in a week or so. I introduced one aspect of it to this thread because it seemed relevant in the context of the discussion about the host allowing excessive hestitation. Hope that's OK with you.

Your comments about practice remind me of Flanders and Swan's Song of Patriotic Prejudice:

The English, the English, the English are best:
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest! .......

And all the world over, each nation's the same,
They've simply no notion of Playing the Game:
They argue with umpires; they cheer when they've won;
And they practise beforehand, which ruins the fun!

User avatar
Craig Beevers
Series 57 Champion
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 am
Contact:

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Craig Beevers » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:24 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Craig Beevers wrote:Hmm. Someone's trying too hard.
And what of people who just accuse others of trying too hard without even bothering to congratulate a fucking fantastic and deserving series winner? How hard are they trying?
Meh. Seen about 10 minutes of about 2-3 shows in this past series. So fuck off and have a nice day whoever you are.

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Matt Morrison » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:43 pm

Craig Beevers wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:
Craig Beevers wrote:Hmm. Someone's trying too hard.
And what of people who just accuse others of trying too hard without even bothering to congratulate a fucking fantastic and deserving series winner? How hard are they trying?
Meh. Seen about 10 minutes of about 2-3 shows in this past series. So fuck off and have a nice day whoever you are.
Image

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1931
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:57 pm

According to David von Geyer, Damian wanted Jeffrey Hansford to be disqualified a few years ago but it was only down to a popular vote from the audience that he was kept in. I don't think that has happened with Carl, so, sadly, it looks as if he has got away with it.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8396
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:58 pm

David Williams wrote:By and large I'm in the same camp as everyone else here, but there is another point of view. Some people might suggest that spending hundreds of hours practising rather goes against the spirit of Countdown. I imagine some would be delighted to see a non-apterite win a series, and might even be prepared to cut him a little slack. (I'm not suggesting that happened - the 'cheating' was long before he would have been seen as a serious challenger.) Of course, if Carl is as single-minded as is suggested, he's probably got multiple aliases on apterous!
On here, not being an Apterite doesn't just mean that you won't get as much support as Apterites - apparently it's actually a crime itself!
Keith Bennett wrote:Plus he's came across as a bit smug, and unlike many players who apperently learn about Apterous when they go on the show, he hasn't joined in. So he was never going to get much sympathy on here.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9377
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Charlie Reams » Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:39 am

David Williams wrote:Some people might suggest that spending hundreds of hours practising rather goes against the spirit of Countdown.
Some people might suggest lots of things. Are you actually advocating this position?

User avatar
Steve Balog
Acolyte
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:18 am
Location: neither here nor there

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Steve Balog » Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:19 am

Lisa Hermann wrote:I have seen someone in the studio with the 75x table written out on their hand ... now that's cheating!
Pretty sure that 75 times X up to its remotely reasonable for the show 14 is memoriseable in less than 5 minutes. This is hilarious and I suspect this player didn't make it far in their respective games.

As for Carl, it's an odd case, especially from the POV of a non-native follower and a numbers specialist (given the most egregious round seems to be that 900 round).

The "thwarting" round I see, in all seriousness, as something that I'd actually do if I were on the show and facing a crucial I needed to get to win. It's debatable with the decorum of the show, yea, but in a pressure situation, where you HAVE to solve it to advance -- and with that -ING just being there, I can see me buzzing, going for 3 or so seconds more of desperation, and just sighing and admitting I've gone wrong if I don't see it.

Copying letters is a lot more bizarre to me. I'd never declare a word I don't see in the 30 seconds. I will, however, on the site input dodgy words when declaring second that I will only submit if my opponent has a word of the same length.

As for numbers ... when I play, I declare not immediately obvious targets anyways, and re-evaluate about 10s before the time is out. I will openly admit to fudging rounds that I just "know" are "not so hard, I just am looking in the wrong place". Sometimes it pays off, sometimes my opponent mops up an easy 7.

But the 900 round is where, literally, apterous is not Countdown. If I were on the show, I'd see the 90X solution immediately, write it as a contingency, and if my opponent only finds 900, great, easy 7 points if I can't get to 910. On apterous, you HAVE to declare what you've found or trying to find. You can't declare conditionally based on your opponent's declaration (like you can in letters). This is a hyperobvious fudge, and if it's not welcome, that's not cool.

Of everything I've seen so far, though, I think the most damning accusation is his girlfriend badgering Mark into playing a suboptimal game. If that's true, he's bringing outside parties into a show which is supposed to be one vs. one. And then it isn't. That's absolutely wrong, and if this was in any way intentional then Carl is a titanic jerk.

tl;dr: Carl is really not an ideal Countdown contestant based on what he's done, but he brings up important things you really can't fix with the show.
There are no such things as methods. Only madness.

David Williams
Devotee
Posts: 959
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by David Williams » Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:01 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
David Williams wrote:Some people might suggest that spending hundreds of hours practising rather goes against the spirit of Countdown.
Some people might suggest lots of things. Are you actually advocating this position?
David Williams actually wrote:By and large I'm in the same camp as everyone else here, but there is another point of view. Some people might suggest that spending hundreds of hours practising rather goes against the spirit of Countdown.
Before I went on I'd thought through the tactics, worked out a methodology for six small and practised it, and made an abortive attempt with a Scrabble word list to do words with RETAINS (fell apart rather quickly when I found out ARTESIAN was only in the COD in combination, and FAINTERS wasn't there at all). So I'd be something of a hypocrite to condemn apterites - I'd have been one without a doubt. There's also a big difference between trying to be the best you can, and bending or breaking the rules.

But, still . . .

Lisa Hermann
Rookie
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Lisa Hermann » Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:09 pm

Can confirm that the 75x table contestant did not get far.
What would people's views be of the following though:-
1. writing 2 dodgy words down, choosing which one to declare and then changing your mind as your opponent declares the other one and you are ahead (In fact both words were fine so it didn't make any difference)
2. spotting in principle how to do a numbers game in the dying seconds but not having time to write it down or even double-check it - declaring it and then being intensely relieved when it does actually work!
3. having a giggling fit which puts your opponent off and subsequently making a comment about their ability to do the numbers game ie "Do you like numbers? Yes, but unfortunately so do they!" which again could be construed as off-putting
I did all three of these when I was recording. (Fortunately 1 and 2 didn't affect the result of the shows - I think 3 may have done.)
I did all three in the course of my four shows.

My guess is that 1 and 2 are tactics/playing the game - 3 might be seen as cheating - I cringed when I watched the show although it was 100% unintentional.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1795
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Mark Deeks » Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:34 pm

Lisa Hermann wrote:1. writing 2 dodgy words down, choosing which one to declare and then changing your mind as your opponent declares the other one and you are ahead (In fact both words were fine so it didn't make any difference)
That's fine. You still spotted the word yourself within the time.
2. spotting in principle how to do a numbers game in the dying seconds but not having time to write it down or even double-check it - declaring it and then being intensely relieved when it does actually work!
Again, fine. Spotted it yourself in the time, even if it's only just in time. Done this myself.

3. having a giggling fit which puts your opponent off and subsequently making a comment about their ability to do the numbers game ie "Do you like numbers? Yes, but unfortunately so do they!" which again could be construed as off-putting
I did all three of these when I was recording. (Fortunately 1 and 2 didn't affect the result of the shows - I think 3 may have done.)
I did all three in the course of my four shows.

My guess is that 1 and 2 are tactics/playing the game - 3 might be seen as cheating - I cringed when I watched the show although it was 100% unintentional.

Not sure I really understand what you mean here. You put your opponent off by mistake?
Last edited by Mark Deeks on Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

Lisa Hermann
Rookie
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Lisa Hermann » Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:57 pm

Not sure I really understand what you mean here. You put your opponent off by mistake?

Suppose so - my opponent ought by rights to have been able to give me a very good game, if not wipe the floor with me, and didn't. Afterwards watching the show I thought a couple of times in the program my manner was offputting and the numbers game comment came across as a bit agressive/dismissive towards my opponent - although that certainly wasn't my intention at the time!!

Don't know what point I was trying to make actually,......

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1196
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Mark James » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:10 pm

Don't worry Lisa. Now that you've joined apterous no one will give a shit what you do. You've got total immunity now.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8396
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:30 pm

Steve Balog wrote:[I'd never declare a word I don't see in the 30 seconds. I will, however, on the site input dodgy words when declaring second that I will only submit if my opponent has a word of the same length.

As for numbers ... when I play, I declare not immediately obvious targets anyways, and re-evaluate about 10s before the time is out. I will openly admit to fudging rounds that I just "know" are "not so hard, I just am looking in the wrong place". Sometimes it pays off, sometimes my opponent mops up an easy 7.
I presume you are just talking about Apterous here. My basic thoughts on Apterous are that you can do anything - such as fudging numbers solutions. I think Apterous differs from normal Countdown partly because it's more "objective". The amount of time you have to fudge a numbers solution is the same all round, and it's not down to the subjective opinion of a host as to whether you're taking too long. If people bring their morals into Apterous, then it makes the game more uneven because different players are playing to different standards. By saying anything goes, it makes it fairer. Obviously if something seems like an unintended loophole, then report it to Charlie, however. But by fudging solutions and playing for time on the actual show, you're putting the host in a difficult situation and I think it's a different kettle of fish all round really.

Having said all that, one thing you can do on Apterous that I've done a couple of times and feel a bit bad about is when you're struggling to find a word and at the end of the time you just hit a letter to start a word and then use the "extra" time to find a word that begins with that letter. But is that really any worse than fudging a numbers round?

Lisa Hermann
Rookie
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Lisa Hermann » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:53 pm

Don't worry Lisa. Now that you've joined apterous no one will give a shit what you do. You've got total immunity now.

Oh dear, I haven't - don't have time .... but apterous wasn't invented when I was on so I was probably OK!!!! Congratulations to all the series 65 finalists!

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1196
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Mark James » Sun Dec 18, 2011 4:01 pm

Lisa Hermann wrote:Don't worry Lisa. Now that you've joined apterous no one will give a shit what you do. You've got total immunity now.

Oh dear, I haven't - don't have time .... but apterous wasn't invented when I was on so I was probably OK!!!! Congratulations to all the series 65 finalists!
You know when you're typing a reply you can scroll down through the previous posts and click the quote button so that it puts the quotes in the fancy box?

User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 502
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Clive Brooker » Sun Dec 18, 2011 4:36 pm

You're playing Countdown on television, in a numbers round you have nothing sensible to declare. Your opponent declares first, not written down. A routine scenario so far. The best chance of salvaging a share of the round must be to match the declaration, also not written down. Standard procedures then give you a few more seconds to find a method if you can - if you can't you just feign innocence and move on. It could be embarrassing if the method you find requires you to add or subtract a number at the end to move away from the target - all good fun.

I actually found the recent finals as entertaining as any I can remember, not least because we had Carl shaking things up a bit. But if in the future most serious players start to use methods that stretch the rules to the limit I think it will start to look bad.

Liam Tiernan
Devotee
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Liam Tiernan » Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:28 pm

Clive Brooker wrote:You're playing Countdown on television, in a numbers round you have nothing sensible to declare. Your opponent declares first, not written down. A routine scenario so far. The best chance of salvaging a share of the round must be to match the declaration, also not written down.
Did Graeme not do the same thing, but in a letters round, with WORRISOME? Haven't seen anybody accuse him of cheating though.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9377
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Charlie Reams » Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:19 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: I presume you are just talking about Apterous here. My basic thoughts on Apterous are that you can do anything - such as fudging numbers solutions. I think Apterous differs from normal Countdown partly because it's more "objective".
Pretty much agree with this, although there are still some dick things you can do (such as refusing to finish games) that are quite hard to resolve in an objective way.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1528
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Graeme Cole » Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:37 pm

Liam Tiernan wrote:
Clive Brooker wrote:You're playing Countdown on television, in a numbers round you have nothing sensible to declare. Your opponent declares first, not written down. A routine scenario so far. The best chance of salvaging a share of the round must be to match the declaration, also not written down.
Did Graeme not do the same thing, but in a letters round, with WORRISOME? Haven't seen anybody accuse him of cheating though.
No. I genuinely saw WORRISOME on about 28-29 seconds, and had WORRI written down when the time ran out. Carl had already seen it quite a while earlier, and did have it written down.

Liam Tiernan
Devotee
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Liam Tiernan » Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:10 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Liam Tiernan wrote:
Clive Brooker wrote:You're playing Countdown on television, in a numbers round you have nothing sensible to declare. Your opponent declares first, not written down. A routine scenario so far. The best chance of salvaging a share of the round must be to match the declaration, also not written down.
Did Graeme not do the same thing, but in a letters round, with WORRISOME? Haven't seen anybody accuse him of cheating though.
No. I genuinely saw WORRISOME on about 28-29 seconds, and had WORRI written down when the time ran out. Carl had already seen it quite a while earlier, and did have it written down.
I only spotted the 9 immediately after Carls declaration (it helps a lot to know that there is a 9) and before Jeff asked for yours. I got the impression from Jeffs comment that you'd done the same. My apologies.

User avatar
Andy Platt
Kiloposter
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:00 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Andy Platt » Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:34 pm

I am about 75+% sure Carl got worrisome by overhearing dictionary corner, going on his body language (probably you didn't see this on camera). Not that this is in anyway cheating or his own fault, not complaining or anything, I think it's happened before, but I just thought I'd mention it. It could be that he saw dictionary corner's body language (Susie couldn't be bothered doing anything after about 10-15 sec) and he realised there was a 9 there (as Liam said, it definitely helps to know)

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8396
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:10 pm

Andy Platt wrote:I am about 75+% sure Carl got worrisome by overhearing dictionary corner, going on his body language (probably you didn't see this on camera). Not that this is in anyway cheating or his own fault, not complaining or anything, I think it's happened before, but I just thought I'd mention it. It could be that he saw dictionary corner's body language (Susie couldn't be bothered doing anything after about 10-15 sec) and he realised there was a 9 there (as Liam said, it definitely helps to know)
I've heard that it's happened before as well. Surely it's not hard for them to just write stuff down.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1528
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Graeme Cole » Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:36 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Andy Platt wrote:I am about 75+% sure Carl got worrisome by overhearing dictionary corner, going on his body language (probably you didn't see this on camera). Not that this is in anyway cheating or his own fault, not complaining or anything, I think it's happened before, but I just thought I'd mention it. It could be that he saw dictionary corner's body language (Susie couldn't be bothered doing anything after about 10-15 sec) and he realised there was a 9 there (as Liam said, it definitely helps to know)
I've heard that it's happened before as well. Surely it's not hard for them to just write stuff down.
As far as I know, they do. I certainly never overheard anything DC gave. To be honest I can't see any evidence to support the suggestion that Carl overheard WORRISOME, either.

User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Adam Gillard » Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:57 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:I certainly never overheard anything DC gave. To be honest I can't see any evidence to support the suggestion that Carl overheard WORRISOME, either.
If memory serves, Carl seemed to have spotted WORRISOME really early on in that round and there was no hint of cheating in my opinion. I never overheard anything from Susie sitting in the Champions' Chair (not that I was trying to!). Susie also had a word with Jonathan Maitland after his first ever show in DC for speaking too loudly (he pretty much shouted words out so I had to scramble for alternatives), so she knows where it's at, and I'm sure Jon did by this point as well.
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7918
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Jon Corby » Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:28 am

Craig Beevers wrote:Hmm. Someone's trying too hard.
Not likely to be you is it, you fat layabout :mrgreen:

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9377
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Charlie Reams » Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:11 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:I've heard that it's happened before as well.
Yep.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1528
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Graeme Cole » Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:00 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:I've heard that it's happened before as well.
Yep.
Ow.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1795
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Mark Deeks » Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:44 pm

As far as I could tell - and while I wasn't really looking, you can sort of see - Carl had ORGASMIC and AROUSING way before Susie revealed them. We both did. (She never actually said AROUSING that I could hear, but she did giggle pretty loudly at about the 15 second mark, which was a clue. I think Carl was already there though.)
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7918
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Jon Corby » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:06 am

Interesting to see that Martin Gardner posted this and fucked off, seeing as his OP was an utter load of shite. At the very least he should have the good grace to apologise for his own lies.

Jordan Leckonby
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 9:10 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Jordan Leckonby » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:08 pm

i think on apterous carl williams is keith williams

User avatar
Innis Carson
Devotee
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Innis Carson » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:43 pm

Jordan Leckonby wrote:i think on apterous carl williams is keith williams
Interesting, what makes you think that?

Phil Collinge
Acolyte
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:33 pm
Location: Southend-on-Sea via Burnley

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Phil Collinge » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:45 pm

Jordan Leckonby wrote:i think on apterous carl williams is keith williams
Sorry Jordan but I think that's rather unfair on Keith.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1528
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Graeme Cole » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:19 pm

Jordan Leckonby wrote:i think on apterous carl williams is keith williams
Not unless he was playing on apterous while in the studio.

User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Michael Wallace » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:21 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Jordan Leckonby wrote:i think on apterous carl williams is keith williams
Not unless he was playing on apterous while in the studio.
Exactly the level of deviousness we've come to expect from the cad! :o

User avatar
Andy Platt
Kiloposter
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:00 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Carl Williams

Post by Andy Platt » Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:27 am

Best. Conspiracy Theory. Ever

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests