[KLUG Members] GJ followup (was Meeting Notes)

[Robert G. Brown]

On 30 Oct 2003 21:20:37 -0500, Andrew Thompson <tempes@ameritech.net>wrote:

>On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 11:12, Bruce Smith wrote:
>>>When the top point questions are "cruised" we have no feeling for how hard
>>>things get with increased point value, we're simply doing a numbers play.
>>>One of the nice things about Jeopardy is that running a category allows th
e
>>>player to guage how much harder things are getting during the run.
>>
>>It would be fine with me if the rules were changed so the categories
>>were read in order from top to bottom.
IMO a bad idea... it constrains the team with board control too much.
Nice try, though.

>It would save a lot of time!
Hey, you're in a hurry, catch a bus! :)

>Actually, I had an idea about this earlier today. There had been a
>little discussion after the meeting about passing control to the next
>team over if the team in control picked, say, three answers in a row
>that no one dared question. I think I might have a better alternative,
>though: when a team picks an answer and no one buzzes in, the team that
>picked either MUST answer or LOSE the point value (or perhaps some
>fraction thereof, if the full value seems draconian). It might
>discourage the cruising a little when there's a potential cost attached.

This is the right kind of thinking, IMO. I don't like the fractional
business, but that's a judgement call. Perhaps we also also need rules
about who gets control of the board in that case.

I also beleive that the members list is no longer a real great place for
this thread, but that any other ideas about how Geek Jeopardy can be evolved
be sent to the Program Director, at programdirector@kalamazoolinux.org

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---