Page 1 of 1

Carl Williams

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:24 pm
by Martin Gardner
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:44 pm
by Jon Corby
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:38 pm
by Keith Bennett
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:04 pm
by Matt Morrison
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:13 pm
by Jon O'Neill
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?

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:43 am
by Craig Beevers
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:57 am
by Jim Treloar
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:27 am
by Matt Morrison
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:28 am
by Matt Morrison
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?

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:35 pm
by Keith Bennett
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:36 pm
by Mark Deeks
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:37 pm
by Mark Deeks
His 900, however, was.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:46 pm
by Matt Morrison
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:07 pm
by Mark Deeks
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:12 pm
by David Williams
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?

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:01 pm
by Lisa Hermann
I have seen someone in the studio with the 75x table written out on their hand ... now that's cheating!

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:11 pm
by Keith Bennett
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!

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:24 pm
by Craig Beevers
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.

Re: Carl Williams

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

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:57 pm
by Rhys Benjamin
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:58 pm
by Gavin Chipper
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:39 am
by Charlie Reams
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?

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:19 am
by Steve Balog
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:01 am
by David Williams
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 . . .

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:09 pm
by Lisa Hermann
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:34 pm
by Mark Deeks
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?

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:57 pm
by Lisa Hermann
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,......

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:10 pm
by Mark James
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:30 pm
by Gavin Chipper
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?

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:53 pm
by Lisa Hermann
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!

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 4:01 pm
by Mark James
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?

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 4:36 pm
by Clive Brooker
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:28 pm
by Liam Tiernan
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:19 pm
by Charlie Reams
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:37 pm
by Graeme Cole
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:10 pm
by Liam Tiernan
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:34 pm
by Andy Platt
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)

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:10 pm
by Gavin Chipper
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:36 pm
by Graeme Cole
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:57 pm
by Adam Gillard
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:28 am
by Jon Corby
Craig Beevers wrote:Hmm. Someone's trying too hard.
Not likely to be you is it, you fat layabout :mrgreen:

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:11 pm
by Charlie Reams
Gavin Chipper wrote:I've heard that it's happened before as well.
Yep.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:00 pm
by Graeme Cole
Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:I've heard that it's happened before as well.
Yep.
Ow.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:44 pm
by Mark Deeks
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.)

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:06 am
by Jon Corby
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.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:08 pm
by Jordan Leckonby
i think on apterous carl williams is keith williams

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:43 pm
by Innis Carson
Jordan Leckonby wrote:i think on apterous carl williams is keith williams
Interesting, what makes you think that?

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:45 pm
by Phil Collinge
Jordan Leckonby wrote:i think on apterous carl williams is keith williams
Sorry Jordan but I think that's rather unfair on Keith.

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:19 pm
by Graeme Cole
Jordan Leckonby wrote:i think on apterous carl williams is keith williams
Not unless he was playing on apterous while in the studio.

Re: Carl Williams

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

Re: Carl Williams

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:27 am
by Andy Platt
Best. Conspiracy Theory. Ever