WWTBAM Bored

Now that we've seen how the Ask The Expert lifeline works--with the contestant having no control over which expert they get--how does it compare to the lifeline it replaced?

MarleysGh0st wrote:Now that we've seen how the Ask The Expert lifeline works--with the contestant having no control over which expert they get--how does it compare to the lifeline it replaced?

How about giving the contestant a list of experts to choose from, just like he or she has a pool of PAFs? That would make more sense.

It's all a luck of the draw.

You could get a questions that fits perfectly with the expert and you could get 2 in a row about which you have no clue.

earendel wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:Now that we've seen how the Ask The Expert lifeline works--with the contestant having no control over which expert they get--how does it compare to the lifeline it replaced?

How about giving the contestant a list of experts to choose from, just like he or she has a pool of PAFs? That would make more sense.

Yes, but I presume that would be unworkable, with all the setup required to get Skype working and the requirement to have multiple experts sitting around waiting for a call that might not come. These aren't PAFs who have committed to supporting a friend.

peacock2121 wrote:It's all a luck of the draw.

You could get a questions that fits perfectly with the expert and you could get 2 in a row about which you have no clue.

But if you had a choice of lifelines, before entering the Hot Seat or seeing what questions you get, which would you want?

Definitely, thinking about my own experience when neither of these lifelines existed, I MUCH rather would've had the STQ. Specifically, for the 250K question I walked away from (or, from which I walked away - for any grammar pedants out there) if I had a choice I'd rather have seen another question than have had the opportunity to talk to some random "expert" who may not have known anything about the topic at hand.

It looks like I'm in the minority here. My thought process is that for ATE, you might be able to choose which question you almost certainly will get right. For example, if you have a question about Britney Spears and your ATE is the editor of Us Weekly, you can be fairly (though not certainly) confident that you will get the question right. For STQ, you have no such confidence.

That said, give me either of them. Or neither of them. I won't complain either way if I manage to get in the hot seat.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:It's all a luck of the draw.

You could get a questions that fits perfectly with the expert and you could get 2 in a row about which you have no clue.

But if you had a choice of lifelines, before entering the Hot Seat or seeing what questions you get, which would you want?

If I can have 4. I would want Ask the Audience, 50/50, PaF and Double Dip.

starfish1113 wrote:It looks like I'm in the minority here. My thought process is that for ATE, you might be able to choose which question you almost certainly will get right. For example, if you have a question about Britney Spears and your ATE is the editor of Us Weekly, you can be fairly (though not certainly) confident that you will get the question right. For STQ, you have no such confidence.

That said, give me either of them. Or neither of them. I won't complain either way if I manage to get in the hot seat.

One of the gazillion reasons I love fishie.

peacock2121 wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:It's all a luck of the draw.

You could get a questions that fits perfectly with the expert and you could get 2 in a row about which you have no clue.

But if you had a choice of lifelines, before entering the Hot Seat or seeing what questions you get, which would you want?

If I can have 4. I would want Ask the Audience, 50/50, PaF and Double Dip.

If you had a choice (of the two lifelines I listed in the poll) which (of those two) would you choose?

We had a good discussion, back last summer, about the differences between 50/50 and Double Dip. While there are some, depending on how many choices one can mentally rule on on a question, they're still fairly equivalent. I presume TPTB made that swaps simply so Meredith didn't have to any the "it's not random" accusation, any more.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote: But if you had a choice of lifelines, before entering the Hot Seat or seeing what questions you get, which would you want?

If I can have 4. I would want Ask the Audience, 50/50, PaF and Double Dip.

If you had a choice (of the two lifelines I listed in the poll) which (of those two) would you choose?

We had a good discussion, back last summer, about the differences between 50/50 and Double Dip. While there are some, depending on how many choices one can mentally rule on on a question, they're still fairly equivalent. I presume TPTB made that swaps simply so Meredith didn't have to any the "it's not random" accusation, any more.

I'd choose ask the expert.

I am more likely to think someone knows more than I know.

My only problem with ATE is that they almost always seem to be entertainment "experts," which as someone pointed out earlier, is great if you have a question about Britney Spears. However, I look at ATA as the best lifeline for entertainment questions because they almost always get it right. So if you use ATA on a low level entertainment question like I did, then your entertainment expert becomes less useful. Experts who are game veterans, Ken Jennings, or someone like Bill Nye are much more likely to be helpful on a variety of questions. It seems like the experts should actually be experts in something.

Since MBFFB® has still not been tapped as an Expert, he would rather see the show create a Switch the Contestant lifeline....

How about a choice ATE or use a second PAF. Gives you a better shot if the ATE is editor of US Weekly and your question is on Super Bowl winners

starfish1113 wrote:It looks like I'm in the minority here. My thought process is that for ATE, you might be able to choose which question you almost certainly will get right. For example, if you have a question about Britney Spears and your ATE is the editor of Us Weekly, you can be fairly (though not certainly) confident that you will get the question right. For STQ, you have no such confidence.

That said, give me either of them. Or neither of them. I won't complain either way if I manage to get in the hot seat.

Add me to that list. It's their game and their rules, but I still want my shot no matter how they tweak it. Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out how to delay an important vendor audit in NJ until NYC audition season.

As far as the poll question goes, my heart prefers STQ, but even with an Expert in a totally different area than the question posed, there is still the chance that they know the answer anyway. The odds of that are probably just as incalcuable as those of your STQ question being as unanswerable for you as the one you avoided. To me, I guess, it's the difference between relying on your own knowledge vs. the knowledge of someone virtually unknown to you (or, in the case of an editor for Self magazine, totally unknown).

I see a lot of people trying to find ways to make it easier for the contestant, but nobody offering to contribute to the _TPTB_ contestant payout fund.......

_TPTB_ wrote:I see a lot of people trying to find ways to make it easier for the contestant, but nobody offering to contribute to the _TPTB_ contestant payout fund.......

I thought hiring these "expert" was part of the _TPTB_ Contestant Non-Payout Plan!

macrae1234 wrote:How about a choice ATE or use a second PAF. Gives you a better shot if the ATE is editor of US Weekly and your question is on Super Bowl winners

These alternate suggestions are interesting, but like ear's suggestion to have a menu of multiple experts, I suspect this would be a non-starter for TPTB. When an expert* accepts this assignment, there's no dedication to help out a particular friend. There is the expectation that they'll get some air time, several times during the afternoon's taping of their week of shows.

If contestants were allowed to say that they have no interest in hearing anything the editor of Whatever Magazine had to say, said experts might take offense and turn off their Skype connection.


*I'm talking about the celebrity-style experts, not the veteran contestant experts, here.

gsabc wrote:

starfish1113 wrote:It looks like I'm in the minority here. My thought process is that for ATE, you might be able to choose which question you almost certainly will get right. For example, if you have a question about Britney Spears and your ATE is the editor of Us Weekly, you can be fairly (though not certainly) confident that you will get the question right. For STQ, you have no such confidence.

That said, give me either of them. Or neither of them. I won't complain either way if I manage to get in the hot seat.

Add me to that list. It's their game and their rules, but I still want my shot no matter how they tweak it.

The question of how far we'd be willing to have TPTB bastardize the show, so long as we got our chance, is an entirely different poll.

I think it would depend on whether other circumstances remain the same. The only show I've seen this year is Meisha's, but I understand that the Category Tree and Clock came into being at the same time as the ATE.

Whether the Category Tree and Clock were still in place would make a difference.

Clock: If you think you can get a handle on it, but need a bit of time to suss it out, you can vamp while Meredith gabs with the Expert and they prattle on a bit to get a little more face time for themselves. Plus, you never know what somebody might know just because they happened to hear it somewhere and it's totally unrelated to their professions, or whatnot. Like Dr. Joyce Brothers and boxing, who'da thunk that?

Category Tree: If the STQ is going to be in the same category, you'd have a better confidence rate at whether or not to use the STQ. If it's something like science or (say it with me, y'all!) geography, I wouldn't be too quick to use the STQ, because my chances aren't good that I can answer the next one, either. If it's something like Humanists of the Italian Renaissance or Hair Bands of the 80's, the odds are much better that the first question was just something I didn't know and I'll have a pretty good shot at getting the next one if I use the STQ.

Also, ontopicosity two days in a row for me! YAY!!!!11

WheresFanny wrote:Also, ontopicosity two days in a row for me! YAY!!!!11

TWEET!!!

Excessive Ontopicosity infraction on Fanny! That's a 15 JJC Point penalty, we will replay the down... 47846732833rd down....

Referee Phil Luckett wrote:

WheresFanny wrote:Also, ontopicosity two days in a row for me! YAY!!!!11

TWEET!!!

Excessive Ontopicosity infraction on Fanny! That's a 15 JJC Point penalty, we will replay the down... 47846732833rd down....

Go long, Smitty, go long!!!!!11

Okay, I think I fixed that pesky ontopicosity streak I had going on there.

JJ would be so proud.....

WheresFanny wrote:Okay, I think I fixed that pesky ontopicosity streak I had going on there.

JJ would be so proud.....

More offtopicosity.....

VH1C is on fire today! Beastie Boys, Travelling Wilburys and Wall of Voodoo back to back to back! My time off is finally worth it!!!!!

lb13