Was This Line Recently Added to the Eligibility Requirements

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
mellowmom
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:18 pm

Was This Line Recently Added to the Eligibility Requirements

#1 Post by mellowmom » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:55 am

"Millionaire reserves the right to limit the number of times a person may audition for the show." :shock:

I just noticed it on the Millionaire site. Guess I've never noticed it before. How long has it been there and has anyone here been refused the opportunity to audition because it was deemed they had auditioned too many times?

Sorry if I'm bringing up old news.. I just never noticed that line before.

User avatar
silvercamaro
Dog's Best Friend
Posts: 9608
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Was This Line Recently Added to the Eligibility Requirem

#2 Post by silvercamaro » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:30 am

mellowmom wrote:"Millionaire reserves the right to limit the number of times a person may audition for the show." :shock:

I just noticed it on the Millionaire site. Guess I've never noticed it before. How long has it been there and has anyone here been refused the opportunity to audition because it was deemed they had auditioned too many times?

Sorry if I'm bringing up old news.. I just never noticed that line before.
I think it was added several years ago. At my last audition in New York in 2003, we encountered a group of young men who had taken the test several times a week for a month or more. One of their group finally passed the test that day, finally having encountered a sufficient number of questions he had seen before. Anyway, I always figured that the rule was added as a way of saying "enough is enough" to the people who showed up in the studio day after day, but I haven't heard of anyone who actually has been turned away. It may be nothing more than some kind of legal protection if they feel the need to eject returning disruptive, cheating, or crazy would-be contestants.

I'm certain they would never refuse an audition to anyone who traveled from out of town to see the show and take the test in the studio, even if he or she had attended road auditions earlier in the year or in the past.
Now generating the White Hot Glare of Righteousness on behalf of BBs everywhere.

User avatar
MarleysGh0st
Posts: 27966
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Was This Line Recently Added to the Eligibility Requirem

#3 Post by MarleysGh0st » Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:32 am

silvercamaro wrote:
mellowmom wrote:"Millionaire reserves the right to limit the number of times a person may audition for the show." :shock:

I just noticed it on the Millionaire site. Guess I've never noticed it before. How long has it been there and has anyone here been refused the opportunity to audition because it was deemed they had auditioned too many times?

Sorry if I'm bringing up old news.. I just never noticed that line before.
I think it was added several years ago. At my last audition in New York in 2003, we encountered a group of young men who had taken the test several times a week for a month or more. One of their group finally passed the test that day, finally having encountered a sufficient number of questions he had seen before. Anyway, I always figured that the rule was added as a way of saying "enough is enough" to the people who showed up in the studio day after day, but I haven't heard of anyone who actually has been turned away. It may be nothing more than some kind of legal protection if they feel the need to eject returning disruptive, cheating, or crazy would-be contestants.

I'm certain they would never refuse an audition to anyone who traveled from out of town to see the show and take the test in the studio, even if he or she had attended road auditions earlier in the year or in the past.
Yes, that line has been there for years. I've never heard of it being applied--and if they haven't used it on me, I think any BB is safe. :roll:

The APs are proficient enough at the quick brush-off not to need this, except perhaps in cases as SC mentions.

Post Reply