Next Jeopardy! on-line test

Message

earendel · #26 Post by **earendel** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:41 pm

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:I think that I am going to take the test again. I took it in March 2006.

There's a J! thread that discusses family members being on J! (Maddie and jsuchard were mentioned). If you make it, I think you might be the first "threesome" of family members to be on the show. Heck, that might even be a hook.

Buffacuse · #27 Post by **Buffacuse** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:55 pm

I soooooooo want to do this...but the ban on former contestants is still in effect.

Ritterskoop · #28 Post by **Ritterskoop** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:51 pm

Buffacuse wrote:I soooooooo want to do this...but the ban on former contestants is still in effect.

Well, yeah. There are plenty of qualified contestants who should get on the show before anyone should be brought back (except for judging errors). Bringing people back on Jeopardy is to reward them for being excellent (Tournaments of Champions) or make up for errors (flawed questions, or answers later revealed to be correct). Contestants are not brought back just because they would like to play again. That wouldn't be fair.

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #29 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:53 pm

earendel wrote:
PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:I think that I am going to take the test again. I took it in March 2006.
There's a J! thread that discusses family members being on J! (Maddie and jsuchard were mentioned). If you make it, I think you might be the first "threesome" of family members to be on the show. Heck, that might even be a hook.

When I auditioned last time, I mentioned the fact that I was one of the few people on Earth who had both given birth to and had sex with a Jeopardy contestant (but not at the same time.)

They thought it was funny.

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #30 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:54 pm

Ritterskoop wrote:
Buffacuse wrote:I soooooooo want to do this...but the ban on former contestants is still in effect.
Well, yeah. There are plenty of qualified contestants who should get on the show before anyone should be brought back (except for judging errors). Bringing people back on Jeopardy is to reward them for being excellent (Tournaments of Champions) or make up for errors (flawed questions, or answers later revealed to be correct). Contestants are not brought back just because they would like to play again. That wouldn't be fair.

For purely selfish reasons, I would like anyone who played against Ken Jennings to be brought back.

Jeff would probably say the same.

MarleysGh0st · #31 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:16 am

earendel wrote:
MarleysGh0st wrote:
silvercamaro wrote:I just found the answers to my own questions. The 2008 on-line test are scheduled for Jan. 29, 30, and 31. Last year's final on-line test was Jan.25.
So, all of us who took the first online test in March 2006 will finally be able to take it again...and so will all of the smaller group who took it in Janary 2007 but didn't get an audition invitation.
More to the point, those of us who couldn't take the March test because we were already in the pool can take it and hope for the best.

I think there are a lot more people affected by my point than your point!

MarleysGh0st · #32 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:19 am

Ritterskoop wrote:
Buffacuse wrote:I soooooooo want to do this...but the ban on former contestants is still in effect.
Well, yeah. There are plenty of qualified contestants who should get on the show before anyone should be brought back (except for judging errors). Bringing people back on Jeopardy is to reward them for being excellent (Tournaments of Champions) or make up for errors (flawed questions, or answers later revealed to be correct). Contestants are not brought back just because they would like to play again. That wouldn't be fair.

Thank you, Skoop.

The end of the line, for those wanting a second chance, is waaaaay back there, somewhere.

Buffacuse · #33 Post by **Buffacuse** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:29 pm

For the record, when I did Jeopardy it was 1984--the first year back under Alex. I was a broke grad student and I got no sleep for two days before the show. Won the first day anyway, lost the second day. And, I'll make the point again, the contestant rules at the time that I signed ALLOWED me a second chance at the show after three years. THEY changed the rules, not me.

My statement that I would love a second chance is made entirely w/o prejudice to anyone else wanting to be on the show. I meant no offense, and, frankly, it is a little disheartening to have people posting thinking I'm some kind of a greedhead.

silvercamaro · #34 Post by **silvercamaro** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:32 pm

Buffacuse wrote: My statement that I would love a second chance is made entirely w/o prejudice to anyone else wanting to be on the show. I meant no offense, and, frankly, it is a little disheartening to have people posting thinking I'm some kind of a greedhead.

Buff, I didn't think you were "a greedhead." I suspect that virtually every quiz show contestant except perhaps Ken Jennings and the Millionaire winners harbors regret about something -- the luck of the stack, the opponents, the strategy used, whatever -- and wishes he or she could go back one more time.

Ritterskoop · #35 Post by **Ritterskoop** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:27 pm

Buffacuse wrote:For the record, when I did Jeopardy it was 1984--the first year back under Alex. I was a broke grad student and I got no sleep for two days before the show. Won the first day anyway, lost the second day. And, I'll make the point again, the contestant rules at the time that I signed ALLOWED me a second chance at the show after three years. THEY changed the rules, not me.

My statement that I would love a second chance is made entirely w/o prejudice to anyone else wanting to be on the show. I meant no offense, and, frankly, it is a little disheartening to have people posting thinking I'm some kind of a greedhead.

I know you are not trying to get ahead of current qualifiers. What sounds problematic -- to me -- is that you bring up this topic so often.

SC is correct. Most of us think we could do better the next time around, by having learned the game better, or learned more facts, or whatever. But these are one and done shows. It's too bad they changed the rules on you, but they did.

I just feel like at some point you would be happier if you could stop wishing for it. Maybe wish for something else that will happen.

fantine33 · #36 Post by **fantine33** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:38 am

So who is higher on the Disgruntled Scale of Hate? Those who haven't been on but apparently don't take the auditions seriously enough or those who have already been on and think they or people with whom they have had relations should get to go again?

I can see being pissed if the rules allowed for another appearance (although maybe not for 23 years but, then again, I'm still mad the car dealer didn't make good on a rebate for a car I bought in 1988), but I don't think how much sleep one had should have any bearing on whether it's deserved or not. I wonder if they put in that clause at the time because they weren't sure if people would even go for that old game show and they might need all the contestants they could get?

I can't see thinking one should get another crack just because they went up against an opponent who was better than them (that day, at least). Luck of the draw kind of goes in the same category as whether you slept or not. The sentiment is mitigated by noting that it's selfishness, not some misplaced sense of entitlement (I am not referring to the first case by that).

peacock2121 · #37 Post by **peacock2121** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:49 am

Everytime Sting and I watched WoF, he says "Are you sure they won't let you back on?" It does not come from regret or greed or anything other than "Baby you are really good at this show."

I am.

It would be fun to play again.

the end

peacock2121 · #38 Post by **peacock2121** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:51 am

On the other end of the spectrum, I have no thought, wish, desire to be on BAM again.

hmmmmmm

MarleysGh0st · #39 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:35 am

fantine33 wrote:So who is higher on the Disgruntled Scale of Hate? Those who haven't been on but apparently don't take the auditions seriously enough or those who have already been on and think they or people with whom they have had relations should get to go again?

That's easy. The answer is TPTB, who make up their subjective rules about who makes a "great" contestant (even so far as to give them back-to-back stunt appearances on two different shows) that cover ever game show now in existance.

But once upon a time, there was this shining city on a hill called Camelot...

And, Buff, I wasn't calling you a greedhead.

gsabc · #40 Post by **gsabc** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:41 am

peacock2121 wrote:Everytime Sting and I watched WoF, he says "Are you sure they won't let you back on?" It does not come from regret or greed or anything other than "Baby you are really good at this show."

I am.

It would be fun to play again.

the end

Sting is more tolerant than GW. I still tune into WoF occasionally, but only when she's not in the room. She informed me after my appearance that she got royally sick of the show while I was in preparation mode. I have now learned her "tolerant" face, and limit my 'BAM discussions around her so as not to annoy her further during my current game show obsession.

If this is the worst of her complaints about me, I'm in pretty good shape as a spouse. That's a mighty big "if", though.

ulysses5019 · #41 Post by **ulysses5019** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:41 am

Hey, I'm the only Greedhead around here!

minimetoo26 · #42 Post by **minimetoo26** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:44 am

I might just *gasp!* actually take that test now that my computer is updated to their specifications (bye-bye chisel and stone tablet...)

If they want more female contestants, perhaps they need more female question writers. A bunch of questions about The Wiggles should weed out those MAWGS!!!!

Of course, when TOPG tried to get more women, they lost me on order of steps in a facial. Like I ever had a facial....

earendel · #43 Post by **earendel** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:52 am

minimetoo26 wrote:I might just *gasp!* actually take that test now that my computer is updated to their specifications (bye-bye chisel and stone tablet...)

If they want more female contestants, perhaps they need more female question writers. A bunch of questions about The Wiggles should weed out those MAWGS!!!! Of course, when TOPG tried to get more women, they lost me on order of steps in a facial. Like I ever had a facial....

I think your avatar is sufficient proof of that.

peacock2121 · #44 Post by **peacock2121** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:03 am

gsabc wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:Everytime Sting and I watched WoF, he says "Are you sure they won't let you back on?" It does not come from regret or greed or anything other than "Baby you are really good at this show."

I am.

It would be fun to play again.

the end
Sting is more tolerant than GW. I still tune into WoF occasionally, but only when she's not in the room. She informed me after my appearance that she got royally sick of the show while I was in preparation mode. I have now learned her "tolerant" face, and limit my 'BAM discussions around her so as not to annoy her further during my current game show obsession.

If this is the worst of her complaints about me, I'm in pretty good shape as a spouse. That's a mighty big "if", though.

Not only is he tolerant, he celebrates my ability and my love for the game. He is not at all tolerant when I want him to play games with me - he HATES it and will only do it when he HAS to. He does love to watch me play though.

It also helps that we got what we consider a "big haul' from my interest in game shows.