Spoilers For Wednesday June 9th 2010

[James Robinson]

Goed hebben wij het laatste voorafgaand van Serie 62 bereikt. Morgen ziet het begin van de finale

Een persoon die duidelijk er morgen zal niet zijn is de huidige kampioen, Scott Gillies, geen kwestie wat hij doet vandaag, als zijn 4 overwinningen niet genoeg zijn om hem in de hoogste 10 te krijgen, zodat hij of zijn tegenstander nog een 12 dagen zal moeten wachten verder hun reis gaan.

Kan hij de controlepost veilig bereiken Ik zal terug met de recapitulatie later zijn.

Ooops, being the Netherlands in the Apterous World Cup has clearly taken some effect on me. It must be all the cannabis.

Here's the English version below:

Well, we have reached the last preliminary of Series 62. Tomorrow sees the beginning of the finals

One person who definitely won't be there tomorrow is the current champion, Scott Gillies, no matter what he does today, as his 4 wins aren't enough to get him in the top 10, so he or his opponent will have to wait another 12 days to continue their journey.

Can he reach the checkpoint safely I'll be back with the recap later.

[Jon O'Neill]

Goed hebben wij het laatste voorafgaand van Serie 62 bereikt. Morgen ziet het begin van de finale

Een persoon die duidelijk er morgen zal niet zijn is de huidige kampioen, Scott Gillies, geen kwestie wat hij doet vandaag, als zijn 4 overwinningen niet genoeg zijn om hem in de hoogste 10 te krijgen, zodat hij of zijn tegenstander nog een 12 dagen zal moeten wachten verder hun reis gaan.

Kan hij de controlepost veilig bereiken Ik zal terug met de recapitulatie later zijn.

Ooops, being the Netherlands in the Apterous World Cup has clearly taken some effect on me. It must be all the cannabis.

Here's the English version below:

Well, we have reached the last preliminary of Series 62. Tomorrow sees the beginning of the finals

One person who definitely won't be there tomorrow is the current champion, Scott Gillies, no matter what he does today, as his 4 wins aren't enough to get him in the top 10, so he or his opponent will have to wait another 12 days to continue their journey.

Can he reach the checkpoint safely I'll be back with the recap later.

Where did you find a translator that did smileys too?

[Marc Meakin]

PRETTIES as a DC equaller in round 3.
PIERCER in round 9

[Marc Meakin]

My favourite in the RE debate. RE-IMBURSE.

[Richard Priest]

I had APTERITES from the audience

[JackHurst]

Nice spot Josh.

[Kirk Bevins]

Nice spot Josh.

Haha yeah and did he move seats as Jeff said right at the back and he was clearly central on screen.

[Josh Hurst]

Nice spot Josh.

Haha yeah and did he move seats as Jeff said right at the back and he was clearly central on screen.

Yeah, I had to move into the middle. I didn't notice at the time that Jeff said "Gentleman right at the back.", so it was quite funny watching it back and I was the gentleman right in the centre.

[Scott Gillies]

nice game

[Matt Morrison]

1st numbers i think the contestant in the black shirt may have had a total mind blank and blagged his way to th total haha

Really? It wasn't evident at all! [/sarcasm]

[Hugh Binnie]

1st numbers i think the contestant in the black shirt may have had a total mind blank and blagged his way to th total haha

I thought the second seemed blaggier.

[James Robinson]

1st Numbers Alt.: ((10 + 9) x (5 - 3)) + 75 = 113

2nd Numbers Alt.: ((100 - 1 - 6 + 5) x 4) - 25 = 367

3rd Numbers Alt.: (75 - 9 - 9 - 1) x 4 = 224

Very well done, Scott. If you'd have got that conundrum, that would've been the highest score of the series, but that I suppose would've just been the icing on the cake.

[Scott Gillies]

1st numbers i think the contestant in the black shirt may have had a total mind blank and blagged his way to th total haha

I thought the second seemed blaggier.

no i had the second, rachel actually apologised to me after that one cause she had a big pause after i said 100-1-6 cause she expected me to go another way cause she started hers that way. lol first one was frightening tho

[Hugh Binnie]

1st numbers i think the contestant in the black shirt may have had a total mind blank and blagged his way to th total haha

I thought the second seemed blaggier.

no i had the second, rachel actually apologised to me after that one cause she had a big pause after i said 100-1-6 cause she expected me to go another way cause she started hers that way. lol first one was frightening tho

Ah, that makes sense. Perhaps Rachel was expecting you to use the method James posted.

[Scott Gillies]

aye, i actually read that after i posted so it must of been that way

[James Robinson]

It seems that Scott's local paper has got in on the act of celebrating its new hero:

http://www.lennoxherald.co.uk/dunbarton ... -26613753/

[Jon Corby]

1st numbers i think the contestant in the black shirt may have had a total mind blank and blagged his way to th total haha

Laugh all you want, it's an absolute cunt's trick Especially when it's fairly clear that you're gonna win comfortably anyway.

[Marc Meakin]

1st numbers i think the contestant in the black shirt may have had a total mind blank and blagged his way to th total haha

Laugh all you want, it's an absolute cunt's trick Especially when it's fairly clear that you're gonna win comfortably anyway.

I wondered when you would respond to this as it is one of your pet hates.
On the subject of blagging it, do you feel that unwritten down solutions should be outlawed? (letters rounds too)

[Jon Corby]

1st numbers i think the contestant in the black shirt may have had a total mind blank and blagged his way to th total haha

Laugh all you want, it's an absolute cunt's trick Especially when it's fairly clear that you're gonna win comfortably anyway.

I wondered when you would respond to this as it is one of your pet hates.
On the subject of blagging it, do you feel that unwritten down solutions should be outlawed? (letters rounds too)

I'm sure we've had the discussion many times, but I'll try and summarise my opinion (again!) :

Letters & numbers games are very different and need to be treated as such.

For letters games - there is no reason whatsoever not to have your word written down within the 30 seconds. Write words as you think of them, you can write as much as you like. The only time you won't have done, is if you haven't actually thought of the word within the 30 seconds - in which case, tough shit. If you're writing as the clock ends, fine - finish writing - it takes < 2 seconds to write a word really, doesn't it?

For numbers games - writing down a legible solution takes far longer. If I instantly see that I can easily get 1 away, it's reasonable not to write this down and spend the time looking for a better answer. If I spot a complex solution late on, there simply isn't time to write it down, and besides it could take ages anyway. Sometimes you've split a multiplication, and added/subtracted bits here and there and it all gets very complicated and takes a bit of thought even to get down what you've kind of vaguely got in your head (very different to writing a word). So I think with numbers it is reasonable not to have it written down within 30 seconds. And I don't think giving you time to write it down adds anything - you simply go first and write it down with Rachel instead. I think the whole situation usually makes it fairly apparent whether you are genuinely giving your solution or just fudging it. So I don't think it's possible to implement any sort of rule change really, but my advice to contestants would definitely be to play honestly - unless you're happy to look like a cheating tosser.

[Michael Wallace]

it takes < 2 seconds to write a word really, doesn't it?

Not if it's OMGIAMSOGOODATCOUNTDOWNOHYESOHYESOHYESBANANAPHONEIUM. I mean dude, get your facts straight

So I don't think it's possible to implement any sort of rule change really, but my advice to contestants would definitely be to play honestly - unless you're happy to look like a cheating tosser.

Yeah - you're also being a dick because you're putting Rachel/Damian/whoever in a really awkward position where they have to make some sort of call to interrupt you or whatever if they think you're taking the piss. I wonder if that happened at Co:Lon, come to think of it...

[Marc Meakin]

I still think that unless you insist on solutions being written down, there will always be a doubt in some peoples mind about fudging.

You could even implement it for the conundrum, although I must admit that not too many people buzz before knowing the answer these days.

BTW I do admire Scott's honesty, after the event.

[Jon Corby]

I still think that unless you insist on solutions being written down, there will always be a doubt in some peoples mind about fudging.

Yeah but with the numbers - like I said - what's the point? You're gonna be going first anyway so you may as well "write it down" with Rachel - in front of everybody and all the cameras - rather than be given a few more seconds 'in private' to work it out. With numbers it's entirely possible (common in fact) to get a solution but not have it written down in 30 seconds. Letters - it's not. You either have the word (in which case you can commit it to paper in <2 secs), or you don't. Plain as.

[Michael Wallace]

you may as well "write it down" with Rachel - in front of everybody and all the cameras - rather than be given a few more seconds 'in private'

I love how I don't even have to put in any inverted commas myself.

[Charlie Reams]

You either have the word (in which case you can commit it to paper in <2 secs), or you don't. Plain as.

Completely agree.

[Ryan Taylor]

You either have the word (in which case you can commit it to paper in <2 secs), or you don't. Plain as.

If you spot the word on the 30 second mark, wouldn't it look dodgier to pick up your pen and write after the time than to just say "not written down"?

[Jon Corby]

you may as well "write it down" with Rachel - in front of everybody and all the cameras - rather than be given a few more seconds 'in private'

I love how I don't even have to put in any inverted commas myself.

I wonder, reading back, what distinction I made in order to give one single quotes and one double quotes...

Edit: oh yeah, I see now.

[Jon Corby]

You either have the word (in which case you can commit it to paper in <2 secs), or you don't. Plain as.

If you spot the word on the 30 second mark, wouldn't it look dodgier to pick up your pen and write after the time than to just say "not written down"?

No. Somebody would have to make the call on whether you started writing after the 30 seconds were up, but this is probably kinda rare. What I'm trying to catch is people making stuff up well after the time, often based on their opponent's declaration. Not differentiating between a genuine spot at 29.8 seconds and a genuine spot at 30.2 seconds.

[Jon Corby]

I had APTERITES from the audience

I saw that too

(And I also knew that RUDECUNT = UNDERCUT )

[Ryan Taylor]

You either have the word (in which case you can commit it to paper in <2 secs), or you don't. Plain as.

If you spot the word on the 30 second mark, wouldn't it look dodgier to pick up your pen and write after the time than to just say "not written down"?

No. Somebody would have to make the call on whether you started writing after the 30 seconds were up, but this is probably kinda rare. What I'm trying to catch is people making stuff up well after the time, often based on their opponent's declaration. Not differentiating between a genuine spot at 29.8 seconds and a genuine spot at 30.2 seconds.

I think there will always be grey area here and it will continue. There were times when I genuinely spotted a word just before the time but didn't write it down. Then there was a time I did spot a word after the time but being me, I couldn't just ignore the fact I'd spotted an 8 when I had a 7 written down, and so would declare "8 not written down". I suppose what causes these decisions is morality, as I'm sure you once said to me that you spotted DOLOMITE after the time but didn't declare it.

One possible way round this is if you do indeed spot a longer word than you have written down within the time, you could press a button (1-9) to declare the length of the word you have just spotted. These buttons would only function in the 30 seconds (eliminating a contestant's declaration being based on what they hear there opponent say). Seems like a lot of work though for a situation that doesn't happen often.

[Marc Meakin]

The declaration button would be a neat idea.

[Jon Corby]

There were times when I genuinely spotted a word just before the time but didn't write it down.

Yeah, but if the rules were that you had to have it written down, you'd have written it down, wouldn't you...

Then there was a time I did spot a word after the time but being me, I couldn't just ignore the fact I'd spotted an 8 when I had a 7 written down, and so would decalre "8 not written down".

...and you wouldn't have written this one down, because you spotted it after the time, and as such it shouldn't have been valid anyway. So having a rule of "your words have to be written down, pens down on 30 seconds but you can finish writing a word if you've started" takes care of both of these situations satisfactorily. The idea that people would deliberately pretend to be writing a word on 30 seconds to gain an extra second just isn't worth worrying about.

I suppose what causes these decisions is morality, as I'm sure you once said to me that you spotted DOLOMITE after the time but did't declare it.

Not quite - in my game against Charlie I declared seven first, and as soon as I heard him declare the 8 I spotted it (annoyingly, I love the word and I don't think I've ever missed it other than in that game!) Had I declared second though, I wouldn't have changed my declaration. I probably would have made a point of saying that I had now spotted it but was sticking with seven, just to make myself look good, because I'm like that Of course, you only have my word for all this.

One possible way round this is if you do indeed spot a longer word than you have written down within the time, you could press a button (1-9) to declare the length of the word you have just spotted. These buttons would only function in the 30 seconds (eliminating a contestant's declaration being based on what they hear there opponent say). Seems like a lot of work though for a situation that doesn't happen often.

...or, just make the rule that all words have to be written down. You haven't come up with a situation yet that it doesn't catch which your buttons would.

[Ryan Taylor]

The rule where you MUST have your word written down would work and like you say if you spot a word after 30 seconds it is invalid and spotting it before you can start to write and finish after. So yes that would work, no need for buttons (just off top of my head, I didn't give it much thought). How do you get around the numbers game though where it takes a long time to write down a solution?

Edit: Especially when you can fudge the numbers game easier than letters as demonstrated.

[Michael Wallace]

How do you get around the numbers game though where it takes a long time to write down a solution?

Lie detector. They could even get Jeremy Kyle in (it is him that does lie detectors, right? I'll admit I'm not particularly up-to-date on my chat shows).

[Ryan Taylor]

How do you get around the numbers game though where it takes a long time to write down a solution?

Lie detector. They could even get Jeremy Kyle in (it is him that does lie detectors, right? I'll admit I'm not particularly up-to-date on my chat shows).

Yeah he does the lie detector shit. I went through a spell of watching it every morning in the summer of 2008. They often turn out to be disappointing results from the lie detector.

[Marc Meakin]

Has there ever been a poll on validity of "not written down" declarations?

[Jon Corby]

The rule where you MUST have your word written down would work and like you say if you spot a word after 30 seconds it is invalid and spotting it before you can start to write and finish after. So yes that would work, no need for buttons (just off top of my head, I didn't give it much thought). How do you get around the numbers game though where it takes a long time to write down a solution?

Dunno - but I think numbers works okay in the sense that you're instantly put on the spot if you are trying to fudge (based on your oppo's declaration) and usually people will either fail or be shown up for what they've done. I don't see how writing it down would help here - a complex split solution seriously could take a good 10 seconds to write down clearly, so all you're doing is effectively giving somebody another 10 seconds to work on it. If they've now got it after those 10 seconds, they've completely hidden the fudge and you're none the wiser (which is bad IMO). If they still haven't got it after that time they can still go for the fudge anyway while pretending to read, or just concede defeat and they're no worse off. What you definitely can't do is apply the same strictness as you can on the letters - I've seen a few electronic implementations ruined (including the NDS one) by such a constraint. It basically gives you about 10-15 seconds (if that) to actually work out your solution, as keying it in (roughly equivalent timewise to writing it down) takes that long. If you've spotted a complicated split multiplication solution, you can pretty much kiss the points goodbye because you'll never get it down in time.

There could be grey areas around "was that genuine or did (s)he fudge it?" - although none spring to mind actually; I think all the ones we've called on here that have been answered, we've been right on - but nonetheless it would be difficult to disallow on such a basis. A friendly note in the contestants guidelines about not doing it should do the trick really (although personally I would have thought looking like a cheating prick on TV would also have done it, but apparently not.)

[Jon Corby]

Has there ever been a poll on validity of "not written down" declarations?

How do you mean?

[Marc Meakin]

Has there ever been a poll on validity of "not written down" declarations?

How do you mean?

I mean has there been a poll, on this forum, asking whether " not written down solutions" should be outlawed or not.

Choices could be

Yes
No
Only letters solutions
I miss Damo
Only if you cannot write.

[Ryan Taylor]

Hmmm yeah numbers is always gonna be dodgy, you can't just say it must be written down because that limits you to like 20seconds to find a soltuion. You can't extend time to 40 seconds cos that is unthinkable (even though I just thought it). FWIW, when Scott apparently fudged I didn't think he looked like a "cheating prick" and I thought it looked quite natural that he had got the solution just at the last second - the 113 target on Wednesday's show I'm referring to.

Anyway, well played Scott getting 100+ score and 9 today. And was that one of the Hursts? (I get 'em mixed up). Also I love Marina and the Diamonds too, her songs are fucking awesome. Thought I had ANLAGENS as beater but it's invalid

[Marc Meakin]

I suppose 4 large would become something of a rarity if all solutions had to be written down.

[Jon Corby]

I suppose 4 large would become something of a rarity if all solutions had to be written down.

Because the large numbers take so much longer to write down?

[Jon Corby]

when Scott apparently fudged I didn't think he looked like a "cheating prick" and I thought it looked quite natural that he had got the solution just at the last second

I didn't think it looked natural at all, but anyways it's obviously worth bearing in mind that I chuck such insults around like confetti. I'll pour the same level of vitriol on someone for putting an 'H' in my name that others would reserve for mass murderers I don't wish Scott any specific harm, but I don't think it's a nice thing to have done - particularly, as I said, when it was already fairly apparent that he was going to win the game at a canter.

[Jon Corby]

Has there ever been a poll on validity of "not written down" declarations?

How do you mean?

I mean has there been a poll, on this forum, asking whether " not written down solutions" should be outlawed or not.

Choices could be

Yes
No
Only letters solutions
I miss Damo
Only if you cannot write.

Okay, although I think you probably want to be a little clearer on what you're asking. I don't have a problem with not-written-down declarations, if that's literally all they are. It's continuing to look after the time, particularly when based on your opponent's declaration, that I find unsavoury. Forcing you to have your word written down takes care of all this so easily, that I genuinely can't see why anyone would object. There's pretty much the same discussion here, started by you actually.

[Marc Meakin]

Oh yeah.
I seem to be suffering from old timers disease.

[Scott Gillies]

hmmmm

[Jon Corby]

1st numbers i think the contestant in the black shirt may have had a total mind blank and blagged his way to th total haha

Laugh all you want, it's an absolute cunt's trick Especially when it's fairly clear that you're gonna win comfortably anyway.

Just to back up my comment although it’s not going to make your opinion any different, I did actually know what route I was going when I was reading it out wasn’t random. Basically just after the time I thought I’d got it. I was unsure as my head was spinning in circles so technically it was slightly blagged. The rules of the game are as far as I’m aware if Jeff says “what u got” and you reply “I think I’ve got it” you then go to Rachel and get to the target you get 10pts. Basically the exact same as when I declared egested a couple of days before, as I was taking my eyes away from the monitor I spotted it so technically that’s 33 seconds or something. Does that not count? U trying to tell me I’m meant to declare the 6 I’ve written beforehand?

Technically yeah, with the setup as it is, you can do all those things. I think it's a bit rich to claim it's "in the rules" as I'm fairly sure "the rules", if they even mention it (which they probably don't) will tell you to declare what you have found in the 30 seconds. That's just obvious, isn't it? If you overheard Susie & the DC guest whisper a good word to each other and nobody realised I guess you could claim it. "In the rules" though? Of course not.
I don't think it's really in the spirit of the game, and personally I don't think it would take much to tighten up on it a little bit using the methods described above.
To clarify though, no I don't think you should declare a word you've spotted 3 seconds out of time.

[Scott Gillies]

yep

[Michael Wallace]

I have seen numerous people do the exact same thing as I done and clearly its allowed or it wouldn’t continue to be done.

To be fair, just because people get away with something doesn't mean it's allowed, it might just mean there isn't an easy way to stop them doing it.

[Marc Meakin]

I have seen numerous people do the exact same thing as I done and clearly its allowed or it wouldn’t continue to be done.

To be fair, just because people get away with something doesn't mean it's allowed, it might just mean there isn't an easy way to stop them doing it.

Apart from banning 'not written down' solutions.

[Michael Wallace]

I have seen numerous people do the exact same thing as I done and clearly its allowed or it wouldn’t continue to be done.

To be fair, just because people get away with something doesn't mean it's allowed, it might just mean there isn't an easy way to stop them doing it.

Apart from banning 'not written down' solutions.

Right, which as discussed, isn't really a viable option.

[Jon Corby]

I get your point and I’m sure u get my point as well, technically I’ve done nothing wrong and I wouldn’t change anything as if I had I’m sure they would’ve stopped recording and said something i'm guessing. I have seen numerous people do the exact same thing as I done and clearly its allowed or it wouldn’t continue to be done.

I think usually people fail when they try and fudge numbers so it ends up not really mattering. Yes, "technically" you haven't done anything wrong, but you really didn't squirm at all when you watched it back? You wouldn't change anything? You wouldn't have let that lady have her victory on a numbers round that she really should have had for the sake of beating her 96-47 instead of 106-47? Out of interest, if you had declared first, would you have still declared 113?

I guess it's a question of ... what's the word? Morals or ethics sounds a bit strong for something which isn't really that important in the grand scheme. Sportsmanship, I guess. I just don't really like a "win-at-all-costs" mentality. And I don't think it sits well in a gentle afternoon gameshow.

[Jon Corby]

Apart from banning 'not written down' solutions.

Right, which as discussed, isn't really a viable option.

It's totally viable for letters rounds.

[Michael Wallace]

Apart from banning 'not written down' solutions.

Right, which as discussed, isn't really a viable option.

It's totally viable for letters rounds.

Well yeah, but the issue at hand was a numbers round. Don't make me argue with you about apterous conundrums again

[Innis Carson]

Considering how much of the thinking is done before the 30 seconds begin, it's not really a completely strict time limit anyway so I can kind of understand why people would generally be inclined to declare something they see fractionally after the clock stops rather than make the conscious decision to declare less than what they actually have (although it would be very commendable to do the latter) and while it's maybe slightly outwith the spirit of the game I wouldn't blame anyone for it.

(Within reason obviously, it's clearly a bit unfair to declare something you only see because of your opponent's declaration or anything like that)

[Jon Corby]

(Within reason obviously, it's clearly a bit unfair to declare something you only see because of your opponent's declaration or anything like that)

Yeah, that's definitely my main gripe. And how do you stop that? By having everything written down! And then you've got rid of all late declarations too, as an added bonus. Hooray!

[JackHurst]

I hate it when contestants try to fudge the numbers, I'll trust Scott's word that he did here though.

Innis has a very good point about the 30 seconds time limit not being absolute because of all the time you get before the clock starts, and while the selection is being pick (in letters rounds).

Just a question out of curiosity here, but is it perfectly valid to write down your solution with bidmas and brackets, not working out any of the intermediate steps yourself?

eg
100 75 50 25 2, 1 ==> 936

((75*25)-1-2)/(100/50)

I can quite easily do that in my head without working out the middle bits, but if I had to say what the middle bits were when I was giving my solution I would be a bit fucked.

[Ryan Taylor]

is it perfectly valid to write down your solution with bidmas and brackets, not working out any of the intermediate steps yourself?

Course it is.

[Gavin Chipper]

is it perfectly valid to write down your solution with bidmas and brackets, not working out any of the intermediate steps yourself?

Course it is.

I don't think James Martin worked out the intermediate stages in that solution that's on YouTube. I seem to remember Carol working it out (no I'm not checking).

While I can see John's point, he's also pretty much admitted that he's quite binary in terms of harshness and I don't think it was that bad what Scott did.

Is the etiquette different on Apterous? I've always assumed that you can blag all you want in the numbers. It also makes it far more consistent as it means the playing field is level. Although this reasoning doesn't work on the show because the nature of it means that the declaration system isn't as consistent and rigid as Apterous.

[Ryan Taylor]

While I can see John's point

Oh.

[Scott Gillies]

It seems that Scott's local paper has got in on the act of celebrating its new hero:

http://www.lennoxherald.co.uk/dunbarton ... -26613753/

where the fk/ how the fk did u come across that? lol