Comments on: Silencing the Crickets, At Least for Awhile

By: Craig Texeira

Craig Texeira — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:37:49 +0000

I been reading ur blog for around three days. really like what you posted. by the way i will be doing a research about this subject. do you happen to know any other good sites or perhaps online forums where I might get more info? thanks in advance.

By: CaseyMay

CaseyMay — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:38:43 +0000

Hang on Dan…the point of the bonus round would be to allow all the teams to compete for the final 3 or 5 questions, Minus whatever mulligans they used in regulation play. If a team takes a stab in the dark during rounds 1-10 and doesn’t get the answer right, their score reflects that; if they do get the answer right their score reflects that too. If a team uses a Mulligan in regulation play, then that Reduces their available Mulligans at the bonus round. So, conceivably a team would need to decide, round by round, whether using a Mulligan is worthwhile for that round or whether to save them for the final round…where the question topic may (OR may not) be more favorable to the team.

By: Dan at BFS

Dan at BFS — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:55:50 +0000

Now that I think about it, the bonus round probably wouldn’t work. In any given match there are at least ten questions that a team has absolutely no clue what the answer is. There would be no reason to take a stab in the dark just to save a mulligan and qualify for the bonus round where you may or may not get more points when you can use the mulligan in regulation and be assured of getting the points.

The only solution is to ban mulligans, just as baseball has banned steroids so that players don’t have to subject themselves to ethically suspect behavior in order to stay competitive with their morally bankrupt competitors.

By: Rock-Robster

Rock-Robster — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:41:28 +0000

But if you didn’t buy any Mulligans (because you are a trivia purest, and it’s against your faith to purchase such heretic trinkets) then you cannot participate in the extra round . . . correct? So that would FORCE Dan and his ilk to make these misbegotten purchases part of their routine . . . correct? But, I guess the purchase then just becomes a de facto additional surcharge on the price of admission – as the righteous team would not deem to use any of them during the actual contest . . .

By: CaseyMay

CaseyMay — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:28:20 +0000

I’ll wait to see what yellowdog says…he’ll have an opinion.

I like the idea of the Non Mulligan users getting a chance to “even the score” at the end, and I like the idea of everyone paying a little more to help the host agency – I like Dan’s idea of the $11 entry fee…but that doesn’t alleviate the possibility of Mulligans. My approach may do that…

By: Russ

Russ — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:59:02 +0000

If mulligans MUST be used, this is the way to do it. I’ll add it to the bylaws.

By: Dan at BFS

Dan at BFS — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:16:37 +0000

Case,

I’m intrigued by your bonus round plan.

I think the asterisk idea should be implemented immediately.

Dan

By: CaseyMay

CaseyMay — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:36:14 +0000

Dan, Russ, et all

I think I may have a reasonable suggestion for how to deal with the mulligan issue. As one of the trivia purists (I’m still willing to go to the mat over that question about when Lincoln was buried!)I have to confess that the idea of using a mulligan is complete hogwash to me…but I do recognize the needs of the various organizations that host trivia events and their need to raise cash by any (reasonable) means possible. Hence, my suggestion:
1. Each trivia team may purchase up to X number of mulligans, for whatever going rate the host chooses (I suggest a max of 3 or maybe 5).
2. Said Mulligans may be used in any trivia question round to essentially “cancel out” a wrong answer (if the team correctly answers 8 out of 10, but uses a Mulligan in the round, the group score for that round is 9).
3. Only one Mulligan can be used per group of questions.
4. Each round’s score will be displayed on the overhead scoreboard with an * to reflect when a team uses a Mulligan in that round (I like the shame aspect of this rule). Teams not using a Mulligan will have their score appear without the tainted *.
5. At the end of Round 10, there will be a bonus round. The bonus round will consist of 3 questions (or 5 – whatever the max # of Mulligans was for that game). Teams will be able to answer up to the number of available Mulligans that they still have in their possession. If a team used all of their Mulligans, then they are SOL in the bonus round. If they used none, then they get a crack at all the bonus round questions.

This approach will promote the purchase of the max # of Mulligans (which will benefit the trivia host) and will also offer a level of redemption/equalization for teams not using Mulligans along the way.

This will require the trivia question writer to draft a few additional questions for each event, but I know you all and you can handle the burden.

Ok all…what say you to my suggestion?

Case

By: Rock-Robster

Rock-Robster — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:50:41 +0000

MB_
nope – it was the last 8 years that did this economy in . . but thanks for playing . . !

By: M.B.

M.B. — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:11:38 +0000

Another example of partisanship influencing how one interprets information.

I could be wrong but I thought Krauthammer bashed Bush on a regular basis, which if that is the case makes him pretty objective.

Hmmm, maybe I don’t read his stuff close enough because I don’t like his picture.

By the way Rock, I recall that the economy was in a strong downturn at the end of Clinton’s administration and rallied tremendously in Bush’s first term. So maybe our current economic state was in the making for the last 12-16 years.