The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: toetyper on February 16, 2012, 05:48:19 PM
-
if. during alphabetics they buzz a clue for being illegal; then find out its in the dictionary, what happened? give them the word. ? redo? L
-
Educated guess: if it was the 10th word, the contestant probably wins the jackpot. Otherwise they probably just get the extra $100.
-
Educated guess: if it was the 10th word, the contestant probably wins the jackpot. Otherwise they probably just get the extra $100.
Don't forget, though, the P+ version only docked them $1000 (or appropriate multiplier in the later Kennedy episodes) for an illegal clue. It didn't go the SP route of forfeiting the jackpot.
That said, you're probably right.
-
if. during alphabetics they buzz a clue for being illegal; then find out its in the dictionary, what happened? give them the word. ? redo? L
The easy solution is you don't buzz a clue for being illegal unless it is illegal.
If I'm running the show, replace the word, call backsies and roll tape.
-
Educated guess: if it was the 10th word, the contestant probably wins the jackpot. Otherwise they probably just get the extra $100.
Don't forget, though, the P+ version only docked them $1000 (or appropriate multiplier in the later Kennedy episodes) for an illegal clue. It didn't go the SP route of forfeiting the jackpot.
That said, you're probably right.
Forgot that it was just a 20% penalty...kinda makes it a little more anticlimactic compared to when Pyramid would do a reversal. I could see Allen/Bill/Tom simply saying the contestant gets the full jackpot, cue Mother McKenzie applause (no music or hugs), then the intro of the next opponent...
-
If you were on the last word and time was running out couldn't you just "accidentally" give an illegal clue and still get four grand.
-
If you were on the last word and time was running out couldn't you just "accidentally" give an illegal clue and still get four grand.
The celebrity could (and did) give the password as the clue, the contestant picked up on it and won $4,000.
-
If you were on the last word and time was running out couldn't you just "accidentally" give an illegal clue and still get four grand.
The celebrity could (and did) give the password as the clue, the contestant picked up on it and won $4,000.
That just seems like all sorts of goofy to me. "Whoops! Four thousand dollars!"
-
'If you were on the last word and time was running out couldn't you just "accidentally" give an illegal clue and still get four grand.
The celebrity could (and did) give the password as the clue, the contestant picked up on it and won $4,000.
That just seems like all sorts of goofy to me. "Whoops! Four thousand dollars!"
Well, if there are one or two seconds remaining and it doesn't look like your partner is going to get it, then throw the last password and take the reduced cash reward. Granted, if that became a regular thing, then at some point either the rules would have changed so the entire jackpot was forfeited, or they just would not invite celebrities back who exploited the rule. Now I'm actually seeing why the contestant never got to give the clues.
-
Well, if there are one or two seconds remaining and it doesn't look like your partner is going to get it, then throw the last password and take the reduced cash reward.
Exactly. Loopholes don't make for good television.
-
Here's the problem I have. I don't like a contestant losing out because a celebrity goofed. I also don't like having people exploit games to get paid because of loopholes. I think a happy compromise is that a goof reduces the jackpot accordingly, but saying the answer or doing something like that in the last five(ish?) seconds of the round disqualifies the game outright.
-
Here's the problem I have. I don't like a contestant losing out because a celebrity goofed. I also don't like having people exploit games to get paid because of loopholes. I think a happy compromise is that a goof reduces the jackpot accordingly, but saying the answer or doing something like that in the last five(ish?) seconds of the round disqualifies the game outright.
The problem I have with that is your creating a rule with an exception. "If you do this, then this happens unless you do it this way, then that happens".
-
The problem I have with that is your creating a rule with an exception. "If you do this, then this happens unless you do it this way, then that happens".
That's interesting, because hockey and soccer have yellow/red cards and two/four/five minute minute penalties and nobody is clueless as to why.
-
The problem I have with that is your creating a rule with an exception. "If you do this, then this happens unless you do it this way, then that happens".
That's interesting, because hockey and soccer have yellow/red cards and two/four/five minute minute penalties and nobody is clueless as to why.
Tom Kennedy didn't host soccer. :)
-
$4,000 was still a lot of coin in 1979. I would've reduced the jackpot by far more, celebrity goof or not. I'm honestly not a fan of making it so that celebs could only give, but again that 20% penalty is not really a penalty. $2,500 is a little more feasible, or if you give the contestant the option to give, it becomes $100 a word regardless.
-
but again that 20% penalty is not really a penalty.
Well now there Mr. Moneybags, why don't you come on out to Seattle on your private jet and fork over that $1,000 since it isn't "really a penalty."
:)
For serious, I'd like to point out that I thought it was a little dumb to continue playing Super Password if the jackpot was disqualified.
And it grated on my whenever Regis would say "Now, (example) would be a correct password for (answer)." The reason why should be self evident.
-
That's interesting, because hockey and soccer have yellow/red cards and two/four/five minute minute penalties and nobody is clueless as to why.
Tom Kennedy didn't host soccer. :)
Yeah, saying "but hockey has rules!" is a really poor argument. Ask a newbie to explain what happened to make the ref blow his whistle on an icing call and you'll see why. :)
-
For serious, I'd like to point out that I thought it was a little dumb to continue playing Super Password if the jackpot was disqualified.
While I understand what you are saying, there still was $100-per-word at stake for whatever remaining letters had not yet been played. The contestant should still be able to pick up whatever remaining coin was there in spite of the illegal clue. I mean, that would really suck if the illegal clue was given on the first word so the contestant was prevented from even attempting to collect the remaining $900 possible.
JakeT
-
The contestant should still be able to pick up whatever remaining coin was there in spite of the illegal clue.
Yes, you're correct: that money still exists. If the contestant is no longer able to win Forty Thousand Dollars, I really don't care much about another $700.
-
The contestant should still be able to pick up whatever remaining coin was there in spite of the illegal clue.
Yes, you're correct: that money still exists. If the contestant is no longer able to win Forty Thousand Dollars, I really don't care much about another $700.
Do you think the Winner's Circle should end when the $100 box is botched?
-
Do you think the Winner's Circle should end when the $100 box is botched?
Course not: the winners circle is a competition in itself. Both players have a chance to rack up money.
-
Do you think the Winner's Circle should end when the $100 box is botched?
Course not: the winners circle is a competition in itself. Both players have a chance to rack up money.
Fair point. I forgot that the players on SP don't compete for highest score in the bonus round.
-
'If you were on the last word and time was running out couldn't you just "accidentally" give an illegal clue and still get four grand.
The celebrity could (and did) give the password as the clue, the contestant picked up on it and won $4,000.
That just seems like all sorts of goofy to me. "Whoops! Four thousand dollars!"
Well, if there are one or two seconds remaining and it doesn't look like your partner is going to get it, then throw the last password and take the reduced cash reward. Granted, if that became a regular thing, then at some point either the rules would have changed so the entire jackpot was forfeited, or they just would not invite celebrities back who exploited the rule. Now I'm actually seeing why the contestant never got to give the clues.
Perhaps the possibility for exploiting that rule could explain why, when Super Password came on in 1984, they changed it so that with ANY illegal clues the jackpot went down the porcelain...
-
The contestant should still be able to pick up whatever remaining coin was there in spite of the illegal clue.
Yes, you're correct: that money still exists. If the contestant is no longer able to win Forty Thousand Dollars, I really don't care much about another $700.
And I guess that is what makes us different...while I would hate to lose the $40,000, my tummy would still be thrilled with the groceries that extra $700 would provide...I suppose that's what years of living on a fixed income can do to a fellow...
JakeT
-
And I guess that is what makes us different...while I would hate to lose the $40,000, my tummy would still be thrilled with the groceries that extra $700 would provide...I suppose that's what years of living on a fixed income can do to a fellow...
Hey, I wouldn't turn up my nose at $700; that's a mortgage payment and condo dues. But I'm still irked about the $39,000 that I didn't get.
-
Well, if there are one or two seconds remaining and it doesn't look like your partner is going to get it, then throw the last password and take the reduced cash reward.
Exactly. Loopholes don't make for good television.
Repeated loopholes. If it only happens once or twice, I think it's alright...Cletus says to Josephine "Heh, that's pretty clever." and everyone moves on with their lives.
-
I recall one Alphabetics, with Greg Morris giving, where they were down to the word "nearsighted". Greg did his best to clue it fairly until there were about five seconds left, then went with "farsighted...", got bleeped, and the contestant got it and won $4000.
I say all this only to get to what happened later: Allen complimented him on his strategy in going for the reduced jackpot. I was surprised.
-
I recall one Alphabetics, with Greg Morris giving, where they were down to the word "nearsighted". Greg did his best to clue it fairly until there were about five seconds left, then went with "farsighted...", got bleeped, and the contestant got it and won $4000.
I say all this only to get to what happened later: Allen complimented him on his strategy in going for the reduced jackpot. I was surprised.
I would think in a situation like that, where you can still salvage $3,100 more for your partner and there aren't too many clues that could fit the word to begin with, it's the best thing to do as the clue giver.
That's why I didn't like it when they went to that no opposites rule. To me it felt like change just for the sake of it.
-
That's why I didn't like it when they went to that no opposites rule. To me it felt like change just for the sake of it.
I may be in the minority here, but I liked the "no opposites" rule. Having opposites just made the game way too easy. I agree when Ludden said at the time that it made the game more "pure".
/Wow. Post #4700. Should approach 5000 some time in 2015 at the rate I'm going.
-
I may be in the minority here, but I liked the "no opposites" rule. Having opposites just made the game way too easy. I agree when Ludden said at the time that it made the game more "pure".
We actually play "no opposites" when we play at game night, for exactly this reason.
-
I may be in the minority here, but I liked the "no opposites" rule. Having opposites just made the game way too easy. I agree when Ludden said at the time that it made the game more "pure".
We actually play "no opposites" when we play at game night, for exactly this reason.
I don't see the increased purity in disallowing opposites; they seem perfectly valid clues to me. Now, if you had a rule allowing multiple-word clues and then revoked it, I'd buy that argument.
Want to talk "pure" Password? Axe the rule allowing that the password be a phrase or acronym. Yes, "eye" and "network" would get me to think of "CBS," but I don't think "CBS" is one word.
-
I don't see the increased purity in disallowing opposites; they seem perfectly valid clues to me.
They are too easy. Disallowing them encourages creativity in your clue-giving, which is *absolutely* pure Password.
Want to talk "pure" Password? Axe the rule allowing that the password be a phrase or acronym. Yes, "eye" and "network" would get me to think of "CBS," but I don't think "CBS" is one word.
"The Password is always a SINGLE word, not hyphenated and NOT a proper noun." So it is written, so it shall be, and anyone who fails to heed this rule is merely pretending. Period. :)
-
That's why I didn't like it when they went to that no opposites rule. To me it felt like change just for the sake of it.
I may be in the minority here, but I liked the "no opposites" rule. Having opposites just made the game way too easy. I agree when Ludden said at the time that it made the game more "pure".
I'll join you in the minority. I wouldn't call it purer, but I'd say it was more interesting.
Here's the trade-off, to me. Even during P+, it was apparent that viewers had a shorter attention span than before, because they shortened it from six clues per password to four. It doesn't make for good television if too many passwords (or worse, puzzles) go unsolved. At the same time, having too many puzzles solved on one or two clues not only hurts the budget but makes the puzzles less interesting. And a lot of interesting puzzles were possible because of passwords for which an opposite was the best, if not the only clue.
How many good clues are even possible for "south"?
ETA: Clay, I'm also with you on the passwords themselves. My rule when I make up puzzles is, if at all possible, don't have a password that wouldn't be legal as a clue.
-
How many good clues are even possible for "south"?
Other than cardinal directions (minus north of course), all I can think of is saying the name of a southern state with a southern drawl.
-
I don't see the increased purity in disallowing opposites; they seem perfectly valid clues to me.
They are too easy. Disallowing them encourages creativity in your clue-giving, which is *absolutely* pure Password.
How does it encourage creativity, honestly? If there's a word where the best clue or only clue that would lead you to the identity of the word is an opposite, wouldn't that take away from the gameplay?
-
How many good clues are even possible for "south"?
Other than cardinal directions (minus north of course), all I can think of is saying the name of a southern state with a southern drawl.
Or possibly saying the word "direction" and let your voice trail off.
-
How does it encourage creativity, honestly? If there's a word where the best clue or only clue that would lead you to the identity of the word is an opposite, wouldn't that take away from the gameplay?
Then you either pass it away and plan to steal it on the rebound or deflect and say something that doesn't point right at the password if your partner bungles it. As long as the clue logically links to the password, you're good. So maybe you set aside "direction" and "Dakota" and start with "Due", and inflect appropriately.
Not every password needs to be a one-hit kill.
-
How many good clues are even possible for "south"
Confederacy comes to mind immediately.
-
This was a problem with P+ and Super Password. Words were chosen to describe the subject of the puzzle, not because they were intrinsically interesting words to play. Before the "no opposites" rule, a password which could easily be played with an opposite (e.g. "cold" or "down" or "left") would be used to wrap up a match in a hurry, or in the Lightning Round.
Then there was the time Howard ruled that "cat" was the opposite of "dog". Allen called him on it, and rightfully so. I'm not sure how much of that incident was left in the show. Anybody? I seem to recall Allen remarking that it was a rare occurrence indeed for Howard to admit he was wrong.
BTW, if anyone has asked for a copy of the P+ bible and hasn't received one, please send me a message.
-
How does it encourage creativity, honestly?
Because...it forces you to come up with another clue aside from the braindead obvious one, because a braindead obvious word isn't nearly as fun? We don't like it when a team gets the play/pass option on an automatic point. That isn't strategy, that's luck. Password should be a game of skill and strategy. We'll pull out Can't Stop if we want luck.
If there's a word where the best clue
If the "best" clue has been deemed illegal, well, it isn't the best clue anymore, is it? I mean, by that definition, the BEST clue is the word itself, as that SNL skit keeps milking.
or only clue that would lead you to the identity of the word is an opposite
I have played a lot of Password. I mean, a LOT of Password. We have yet to come across a Password, in all the games we have played (so we're probably talking at least a couple thousand words at the minimum, although I strongly suspect we have played a fair bit more than 100 games in the years I have been playing games with my friends) where the *only* clue we could come up with was an opposite. In fact I daresay we have never seen a Password that we could come up with only one clue for, period, and I would further posit that if such a word exists it would be crappy material to include in the game.
-
We have yet to come across a Password, in all the games we have played (so we're probably talking at least a couple thousand words at the minimum, although I strongly suspect we have played a fair bit more than 100 games in the years I have been playing games with my friends)
I remember nights when it was you, me and the brothers and we'd barnstorm through ten packets before we stopped to take a breath. A hundred games seems light. There were a few groaners, but never one where it was so bad that there was but a single angle to a password, and never one that you could only get it through a direct antonym.
Restricting what you can do is what makes the game Password, because if you don't you're only two steps away from Pyramid. The challenge of the restrictions is the fun.
-
I remember nights when it was you, me and the brothers and we'd barnstorm through ten packets before we stopped to take a breath. A hundred games seems light.
Upon further review, I agree, since we almost never play fewer than three games at a throw, so that's 60 words right there. One three-game session every five weeks or so over the seven years I've known them is right around 200 games right there. And I suspect that is still estimating low.
-
How many good clues are even possible for "south"?
Other than cardinal directions (minus north of course), all I can think of is saying the name of a southern state with a southern drawl.
Or possibly saying the word "direction" and let your voice trail off.
"Dixie"
-
"Dixie"
Cup.
/k, sorry.
-
Austral, at least if I were playing with Tony Randall.
-
Then there was the time Howard ruled that "cat" was the opposite of "dog". Allen called him on it, and rightfully so. I'm not sure how much of that incident was left in the show. Anybody? I seem to recall Allen remarking that it was a rare occurrence indeed for Howard to admit he was wrong.
While I don't remember the "dog/cat" incident, I do remember that Ross Martin once gave a clue of "winter" for "summer" and got the do-do-do-do. The judge ruled that they were opposite seasons, and Allen rolled his eyes to the camera.
A loophole that worked at least once was saying "knight" in a rising voice to elicit "day" as a response. Tom Kennedy remarked that that's why it was a legal clue. I was then waiting for a celeb to use "daze" to get their partner to say "nights."
Brendan
-
I can see why winter and summer may be considered opposites. One is a cold season and the other a warm season. However, the seasons are not direct opposites, just times of the year in succession. It's like saying November and July are opposites.
-
I can see why winter and summer may be considered opposites. One is a cold season and the other a warm season. However, the seasons are not direct opposites, just times of the year in succession. It's like saying November and July are opposites.
Disagree. If you think of the seasons as a cycle, which it is, winter and summer are directly opposite each other, as are autumn and spring.
-
Summer is the three-month period in which the days are longest and nights are shortest.
Winter is the three-month period in which the days are shortest and nights are longest.
They don't get more opposite than that.
The interesting side question is whether spring and fall are opposites. They're both defined by equinoxes, which means simply that the day and night are as nearly equal as they're going to get. The difference is that the lengths are trending in opposite directions on those two days.
-
Summer is the three-month period in which the days are longest and nights are shortest.
Winter is the three-month period in which the days are shortest and nights are longest.
They don't get more opposite than that.
The interesting side question is whether spring and fall are opposites. They're both defined by equinoxes, which means simply that the day and night are as nearly equal as they're going to get. The difference is that the lengths are trending in opposite directions on those two days.
The context with which spring or fall are passwords do not necessarily translate to the seasons. You could say bounce for spring or stumble for fall without the season being a consideration.
-
"Dixie"
Cup.
/k, sorry.
Now, a red Solo cup is the best receptacle...
-
The context with which spring or fall are passwords do not necessarily translate to the seasons. You could say bounce for spring or stumble for fall without the season being a consideration.
You could say "spine" for "back", too, but I assure you your ass is still gonna get buzzed if you try "front" in a no-opposite's game.
-
The context with which spring or fall are passwords do not necessarily translate to the seasons. You could say bounce for spring or stumble for fall without the season being a consideration.
You could say "spine" for "back", too, but I assure you your ass is still gonna get buzzed if you try "front" in a no-opposite's game.
I agree, that's the flaw in Password Plus. If the puzzle clue password is "fall" and the puzzle is "Humpty Dumpty," the word fall does not refer to the season of fall but the action.
-
Wouldn't "autumn" be a more appropriate password if you wanted the season? At least that word doesn't have a double meaning.
-
Wouldn't "autumn" be a more appropriate password if you wanted the season? At least that word doesn't have a double meaning.
Yes. Perfect clue!
-
On a related note, has anyone on Password ever gotten away with a clue for a homophone of the word? For instance, a clue for "flower" when the word is "flour"?
-
On a related note, has anyone on Password ever gotten away with a clue for a homophone of the word? For instance, a clue for "flower" when the word is "flour"?
Yes. Fairly routinely in the 70s version, as I recall.
-
On a related note, has anyone on Password ever gotten away with a clue for a homophone of the word? For instance, a clue for "flower" when the word is "flour"?
There's nothing to get away with. You can say any single word (within the boundaries of a legal clue) that you want. Nowhere in said boundaries does it say that it must be a logical clue for the word inside of the wallet.
-
I agree, that's the flaw in Password Plus. If the puzzle clue password is "fall" and the puzzle is "Humpty Dumpty," the word fall does not refer to the season of fall but the action.
I fail to see where that's a flaw, if you're capable of mentally disconnecting the clue-giving and puzzle-solving parts of the game, which I would suggest is a quality a good P+ player should have.
-
On a related note, has anyone on Password ever gotten away with a clue for a homophone of the word? For instance, a clue for "flower" when the word is "flour"?
There's nothing to get away with. You can say any single word (within the boundaries of a legal clue) that you want. Nowhere in said boundaries does it say that it must be a logical clue for the word inside of the wallet.
I think the surprise is more in the fact that a homophone is a legal clue to begin with. I, for one, wouldn't have thought so until you told me otherwise.
-
Just make sure they're actually homophones... (http://"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8Rlrx-AQbQ")
-
On a related note, has anyone on Password ever gotten away with a clue for a homophone of the word? For instance, a clue for "flower" when the word is "flour"?
There's nothing to get away with. You can say any single word (within the boundaries of a legal clue) that you want. Nowhere in said boundaries does it say that it must be a logical clue for the word inside of the wallet.
I think the surprise is more in the fact that a homophone is a legal clue to begin with. I, for one, wouldn't have thought so until you told me otherwise.
Not quite. The question is whether one can give a clue that leads to a homophone of the password. In the example given, if the password is "flour," the giver might choose to say "tulip" in hopes that his partner would reply "flower," which is a homophone of the password.
-
Ah, so I was the one that misread. Not the first time that's happened, and certainly far from the last.
Carry on.
-
I agree, that's the flaw in Password Plus. If the puzzle clue password is "fall" and the puzzle is "Humpty Dumpty," the word fall does not refer to the season of fall but the action.
I fail to see where that's a flaw, if you're capable of mentally disconnecting the clue-giving and puzzle-solving parts of the game, which I would suggest is a quality a good P+ player should have.
Here's a hypothetical-The password is "reign." The clue given is "sunshine" Would that merit a buzz from the judge?
-
Here's a hypothetical-The password is "reign." The clue given is "sunshine" Would that merit a buzz from the judge?
I would say no. Now if the password was "sunshine", and the player tried to argue he was saying "reign", auto-buzz.
-
Wait, why would "rain" be the opposite of "sunshine"? For example, it's quite possible to encounter them both at the same time.
-
Wait, why would "rain" be the opposite of "sunshine"? For example, it's quite possible to encounter them both at the same time.
Reason number whatever why the "no opposites" rule should never have been used, IMO. I don't buy cat/dog as opposites, either.
(The Harry/hairy thing reminds me — we had a discussion on the Jeopardy! forums this past week as to whether or not "don" and "dawn" are homophones. I've always said Harry and hairy the same way myself.)
-
Wait, why would "rain" be the opposite of "sunshine"? For example, it's quite possible to encounter them both at the same time.
Reason number whatever why the "no opposites" rule should never have been used, IMO. I don't buy cat/dog as opposites, either.
(The Harry/hairy thing reminds me — we had a discussion on the Jeopardy! forums this past week as to whether or not "don" and "dawn" are homophones. I've always said Harry and hairy the same way myself.)
Along those lines, had an interesting conversation last night about the pronunciation of 'Barry' 'bury' and 'berry'. And yes, they like 'Harry' and 'hairy' have different pronunciations.
-
Reason number whatever why the "no opposites" rule should never have been used, IMO.
I am *so* glad we disagree on this.