past champ question at tryouts

[koozbane]

At a few of my several in-person tryouts, the coordinators have asked something to the effect of "What have you learned from talking with past champions?" Do you think they're really interested in the answer to that question, or are they somehow trying to weed out those that have actullay done that--contacted past champions. Is that activity frowned upon by the powers that be?

[econgator]

At a few of my several in-person tryouts, the coordinators have asked something to the effect of "What have you learned from talking with past champions?" Do you think they're really interested in the answer to that question, or are they somehow trying to weed out those that have actullay done that--contacted past champions. Is that activity frowned upon by the powers that be?

Seems an odd question to just ask out of the blue. Most people have no access to past champs. There had to be something in the bio or the 5 interesting things that would prompt that. As to your last question, I don't really think that they care one way or the other.

[dhkendall]

How did you answer the question?

[Paucle]

How did you answer the question?

"Oh, they told me not to let on that I've had any contact with them... dOH!"

[billy pilgrim]

How did you answer the question?

I've memorized 'The Prisoner of Trebekistan'.

[Budphrey]

are they somehow trying to weed out those that have actullay done that--contacted past champions. Is that activity frowned upon by the powers that be?

seaborgium, care to comment?

[Austin Powers]

If this is true - this is disconcerting, but not surprising. They seem to favor contestants who play very green. A "gunner" might hop around and be aggressive, and that's no fun!!!

[dhkendall]

If this is true - this is disconcerting, but not surprising. They seem to favor contestants who play very green. A "gunner" might hop around and be aggressive, and that's no fun!!!

I can't say I like that kind of presumption. While I definitely am not "green" (as a long-time boardie and online friends with several champs through the board) I don't like "jumping" either - my only idiosyncrasy when I play (as in Wii Jeopardy) is usually starting at the middle row clue, one to get a feel for the category (if I like it I'll go higher, if not, lower), two to give me more control of the board (top-row clues are usually buzzer races) and three to go for the clues with more money, saving the smaller values for last if at all possible. It is a happy coincidence that it's usually the 3rd or 4th row that the DD lands in, but I don't consider it "DD hunting" as that's not my objective, despite the fact that it would probably appear that way to my opponents and Alex.

[Bamaman]

I wouldn't jump in the middle of a category, especially if the category title is in any way punny or possibly misleading. It would be horrible to get a clue totally different than what you expected. If you took "Vikings" for $1,600 and hit a Daily Double, would you bet a lot of money? Then imagine the clue said "In 1992, he became the first African American to be elected to the Minnesota Supreme Court".

[dhkendall]

I wouldn't jump in the middle of a category, especially if the category title is in any way punny or possibly misleading. It would be horrible to get a clue totally different than what you expected. If you took "Vikings" for $1,600 and hit a Daily Double, would you bet a lot of money? Then imagine the clue said "In 1992, he became the first African American to be elected to the Minnesota Supreme Court".

a) Taking risks is part of the game - hell, it's the freakin' name of the game!

b) This would be the fault of the clue writers for trying to get "cute" then.

c) There's a definite non-zero chance I hit the DD no matter where I start, even at the top of the board.

d) Far, far greater players than I don't take the board in a "top-down" approach. Hasn't hurt them.

In short, I remain unconvinced.

[Woof]

I wouldn't jump in the middle of a category, especially if the category title is in any way punny or possibly misleading. It would be horrible to get a clue totally different than what you expected. If you took "Vikings" for $1,600 and hit a Daily Double, would you bet a lot of money? Then imagine the clue said "In 1992, he became the first African American to be elected to the Minnesota Supreme Court".

Spoiler

Who is Alan Page?

ETA: Lucky guess on a 50/50 with Carl Eller

[Austin Powers]

Again, the point of the question would be to try to find people who seem very interested in the show, and who might have an idea or two of how to "play" it. This might mean they are just worried about contestants who are too serious. Because, really, why ask the question unless you want to filter those people out? It's not like there has been a rash of contestants who are friends with ex-contestants. They certainly don't seem to be actively seeking such contestants - out of the TCONA event last year, one contestant made it, and the showrunners aren't coming back this year, or so I hear.

The recent model seems to be attempting to take as many non-hardcore contestants as possible. Or so they think. It's not like you just try out for Jeopardy, as WWTBAM does with those sidewalk cattle calls. These people do pub trivia and play Learned League. If they didn't like trivia they'd be trying out for Price Is Right.

But these contestants just aren't "obvious" about it, and the question suggests to me there is something wrong in being "obvious" about it.

So if you try out, lie about knowing former contestants, quiz bowl experience, and so forth. Pretty simple. They can't verify it and it's not an actual problem, despite what they think.

[Austin Powers]

I for one would love it if the show went with a real black hat type character, a villain that everyone loves to root against, like Tom Brady.

[Rafferty Barnes]

They asked me how I knew Eugene Finerman at my last tryout, but mostly they just wanted to gush about how much they loved him. They also brought up me being on WWTBAM too, and I still got on the show. Maybe it helped that I didn't do that well on BAM.

It is a good question why they ask if you know former contestants. Wouldn't it be more helpful to ask if you know anybody else who had an audition that year, to make sure they don't schedule you against them?

[Mark B]

In a Webbed-up world, how should one answer the question "Do you know anyone who has been on the show or is in the pool?" One tends to want to reply, Clintonianly, "that depends on what the definition of 'know' is."

[Austin Powers]

The more I think about it, a "black hat" would have real possibilities. What if someone was just the most obnoxious contestant ever, but kept winning, enough to inspire real hate? I bet ratings would rise. For the potential black hat, some suggestions:

1) Obviously Forrest Bounce

2) Announce you are DD hunting. "Let's see if the Daily Double is located at Trees for $600, Alex."

3) When you have a lead, obviously stall.

4) Be obnoxiously sure of answers, by combining the answer into the request for the next question. "Since the answer is Oscar Wilde, could I have Trees for $600, Alex?" This plays into the stalling, too.

5) Provide way too much info. "Since the answer is Oscar Fingal O'Flaherty Wills Wilde, could I have Trees for $600, Alex?"

6) Fist pump

7) Dance around the podium when you get a DD, then fist pump.

8) Make remarks on the other contestants. "I better save Italian cuisine for David, so let's take Trees for $600." (David is a big fellow)

9) Talk with an affected lisp, especially if one of your opponents has one. (This is for TPH)

10) If you have a lock in FJ, don't even bother with the answer - make some obnoxious remark, ie, "Another day, another $30,000."

11) Pretend it is like poker, by wearing shades, a jacket with brand names on it, and announcing "I'm going all in" on Daily Doubles.

12) When you win, "raise the roof."

And so on.

[alietr]

Beware The Wrath of Maggie!

[Magna]

A contestant could be absolutely obnoxious by giving absolutely all responses in question form.

Alex: "Fred here had an embarrassing incident at a fancy restaurant on his honeymoon. Tell us about that."
Fred: What is, I tripped on the dessert cart and accidentally hit my new wife in the face with a chocolate cream pie?
Alex: She wasn't happy, I take it.
Fred: What are separate rooms for the rest of the trip?

[Rex Kramer]

The more I think about it, a "black hat" would have real possibilities. What if someone was just the most obnoxious contestant ever, but kept winning, enough to inspire real hate? I bet ratings would rise. For the potential black hat, some suggestions:

1) Obviously Forrest Bounce

2) Announce you are DD hunting. "Let's see if the Daily Double is located at Trees for $600, Alex."

3) When you have a lead, obviously stall.

4) Be obnoxiously sure of answers, by combining the answer into the request for the next question. "Since the answer is Oscar Wilde, could I have Trees for $600, Alex?" This plays into the stalling, too.

5) Provide way too much info. "Since the answer is Oscar Fingal O'Flaherty Wills Wilde, could I have Trees for $600, Alex?"

6) Fist pump

7) Dance around the podium when you get a DD, then fist pump.

8) Make remarks on the other contestants. "I better save Italian cuisine for David, so let's take Trees for $600." (David is a big fellow)

9) Talk with an affected lisp, especially if one of your opponents has one. (This is for TPH)

10) If you have a lock in FJ, don't even bother with the answer - make some obnoxious remark, ie, "Another day, another $30,000."

11) Pretend it is like poker, by wearing shades, a jacket with brand names on it, and announcing "I'm going all in" on Daily Doubles.

12) When you win, "raise the roof."

And so on.

I have never wanted AP on the show more than I do now.

Two more suggestions:

- Whenever an opponent gives a wrong response, snicker, roll your eyes, or cough into your fist the word "Moron!"

- Whenever an opponent gives a correct response, mutter, "I knew that!" Or even better, whisper some pretentious but irrelevant additional information: "What is a mouse?" <"Mus musculus!"> "Who is Steve Allen?" <"Married to Jayne Meadows!">

Rex

[gloriaclemente]

Maybe this is the right place to ask this... in the contestant packet is a sheet that says if you know someone who wants to be on the show, you can email Corina with their name. "We're always looking for great contestants" or something along those lines.

I assume they still need to take the test, and go through the audition process. But then I started wondering if this would actually hurt someone's chances, since you're outing them as knowing a previous contestant. Does that make any sense to anyone? I've been encouraging some co-workers to take the test when it's given again; I'd love to give them a boost if I can, but would I be dooming them instead?