New Scaratings

Agreed. I am not sure we have ever backed into the semifinals of any tournament in quite so flamboyant a way. I am hoping we have our act together in time for our match with the defending champions.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

Stains from the bloodbath:

(1) The Fellowship 34,015
(8) Tipsy Coyote 22,470

(4) Mad River 28,642
(12) Scooters 14,297

(6) The Ragged Rascals 36,689
(3) BWW- Crystal City 22,177

(7) Whisper's 45,145
(2) Big Guys 33,510

Next Tuesday's episode of survivors:

(1) The Fellowship
(4) Mad River

(6) The Ragged Rascals
(7) Whisper's

The Final Four all look like trivia royalty to me.

(In light of this week's scores, someone of more jaundiced perspective might see three hemophiliacs with Rasputin ascendant.)

We plead no contest, but surely we can come up with a better analogy for Whispers. Three ill Victorias with Edward ascendant? Three tubercular Louis XIIIs with Louis XIV ascendant?

In any case, congrats to Whispers on a great run!

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

Another ungodly final question, but is it a sign of the end times when the tropical and polar regions (never mind the number of BWW locations with the game are shrinking?

The results:

(1) The Fellowship 40,435
(4) Mad River 22,068

(7) Whispers 29,920
(6) The Ragged Rascals 16,000

Next Tuesday, the finale:

(1) The Fellowship
(7) Whispers

We may need to invest in some new towels if these bloodbaths are going to become a regular thing.

As we continue to towel off from last night, though, I'd like to tip our hat to last night's opponent Mad River; and to STRO in particular, who has done a terrific job running the tournament.

I'd also like to extend The Fellowship's sincerest best wishes to Whispers, which has proven itself to be a truly formidable team during this tournament. Good skill to all on Tuesday.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

This looks to be the swan song from the crew in Blacksburg. Our BWW told us they are dropping trivia on Nov. 1st, instead of the Nov. 15 that were previously told.

At least we went out with two top 5 finishes in Showdown, and should have given Whispers a run for No.1 on Oct. 22. We neglected to play a sixth box that night, and so got a zero averaged into our score.

I wish best of luck to all players at locations lucky enough to keep the trivia going. It's been a fun time playing. Some of us, Don (DDDON) and myself (VIKING) have been playing for 29 years, since the very beginning.

Did anyone from Mad River ever play at Nickelodeon in Astoria back in the 90s? I remember our rivalry with them (we were playing at Buddy's or Ton 80 at the time, same trivia account, either BUDDYSTON80 or TON80CLUB, depending on the year).

Two current Mad River players played for at least some time at Nickelodeinn (myself and XTRAIN), but neither of us played there in the nineties (I think I started in 2000; XTRAIN in 2001). XTRAIN didn't play the game until then, but in the latter 90's, I played first at Mr. Smith's 2 in Vienna (the first iteration of what is now the BWW Crystal City group), then Maggie Mae's. I certainly remember seeing the team in Blacksburg on the leaderboard often back then.

The only person who played at Nickelodeinn back then who is still playing is SYZYGY, who plays at the Houlihans that was in this tournament.

Putting the melodramatic theme of this thread aside, I really do fear that we're going to see your sad ending repeated often in the next few weeks, long-time groups of friends with no place else to go, until, sooner rather than later, the center cannot hold and the plug gets pulled on all of us. Yes, endings big and small are part of every life, but still, it's sad.

After a couple hours of sleep and watching a couple TV documentaries on my HDD DVD recorder, I thought about the answer to Q41 and decided the Buzztime answer was wrong. See my updated Answer at the SHOWDOWN file.

Best wishes to VIKING and the crew at BWW Blacksburg VA whose knowledge and ability we respect (along with the other Quarter-Finalists in the Sandbag Tournament). Blown calls are part of the game, so we can all commiserate over a pint or two. Feel free to join us at Whispers Pub in Ottawa ON if you are ever in the area.

I am so very sorry to hear this. It seems to me that the Blacksburg team has been a denizen of the Showdown big boards for as long as I can remember. I especially appreciate how you made an effort to participate in tournaments even when it was difficult to find a location that worked for your team.

Of course, you are always welcome to play with The Fellowship if you are ever in the area.

Again, condolences.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

To all involved in the Sandbag Tournament Semi-finals (i.e. members of The Fellowship, Mad River, The Ragged Rascals, and Whispers):

The Quizmaster's Answer to Q41, the Final Jeopardy Question in the SHOWDOWN Game of October 29, 2019, was wrong (see explanation in my post of Q&A in the SHOWDOWN folder).
Normally a wrong answer in the middle of the game might make a difference, but might have to be accepted as part of the game. But this was the Final Jeopardy Question, where a wrong answer can wipe out an entire team with right answers!!! Is it within the rules for this game's results be invalidated for the Sandbag Tournament, with the Semi-Finals to be the game run on November 5 (and Final run on November 12)? This is not the same as re-running a Brexit referendum or a national election until you get the partisan result you want, because we only want a result based on truth, when we still have the option of throwing out a clearly wrong result.

All Player scores over 20,000 in the October 29 game ought to be cut by a factor of 2 to 3, since there ought to be a 50% Deduction for a wrong answer instead of positive Bonus Points.
OTOH, all Players who got dinged by as much as 50% could deserve as many Points as a factor of 2 to 3 higher, depending on how quickly they chose the Arctic Circle or Tropic of Capricorn (both right answers).

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

For example, here are the 6 Player scores for The Fellowship that ought to have been higher:
388. ARBEZ 16,593
413. DAL 15,336
418. NEWSY 15,178
423. LOLLYJ 15,000
453. PHIL 14,403
504. AUDREY 13,682
Average = 15,032 [2(15,032) = 30,064, and 3(15,032) = 45,096 ]

Here are the top 6 Player scores for Mad River that ought to have been higher:
448. SLEEPY 14,476
473. EARL 14,059
480. DAR 13,988
481. EARLZ 13,957
488. RIMARI 13,849
498. RANGER 13,716
Average = 14,007.5 [2(14,007.5) = 28,015, and 3(14,007.5) = 42,022 ]

Although the average for The Fellowship was higher than that for Mad River, if there had been dithering before a Final Choice based on splitting votes after the 3rd Clue, then conceivably Mad River, with fewer Players to split their votes, might have prevailed. We'll never know for sure.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………...……………………………...…...…...…………………………………………


The results for the other Semi-Final are more clear-cut:

For The Ragged Rascals:
414. DUFF 15,274
415. JAX 15,264
429. BRICK 14,825
436. BCNIAN 14,690
442. MEERA 14,615
450. LOONEY 14,446
Average = 14,552.3 [2(14,852.3) = 29,705, and 3(14,852.3) =44,557 ]

For Whispers:
499. GRYFON 13,715
501. CRAXER 13,695
526. BPBOOM 13,270
530. REACH 13,216
539. SWIFT 13,114
549. ITS2 13,012
Average = 13,337 [2(13,337) = 26,674, and 3(13,337) = 40,011 ]


Clearly, The Ragged Rascals would probably have beaten Whispers if the Final Jeopardy Question were thrown out (they probably got the Answer for Q38., John Quincy Adams, right in the Pyramid Round, whereas we Canadians were missing our expert on American history - but that's a legitimate Question, not to be argued against).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Based on past statistics, The Fellowship would probably beat Whispers in the Championship Game, but I for one would not want to win a tainted Tournament. Can The Fellowship, Mad River, The Ragged Rascals, and Whispers (I have not consulted my team members, but they'll perhaps go with a consensus) agree to using the Nov. 5 game as the Semi-Final? A resounding YES by the other teams would help me overcome grumbles from my own team.

I just saw this, and when I get a chance (not today). I will study this and render a decision.

I applaud your team for wanting to make sure things are as fair as possible. However, there is something you may not be considering: The wipeout order is different depending on the location and not every team gets the same final two choices, thus some teams had Arctic Circle wiped out early, and others did not have it as a final choice. This is an unfairness that has been built into the system for years that players have complained about to no avail. In any case, a one-size-fits-all solution to this issue introduces new kinds of unfairness. (For the record, I honestly don't remember what the other choice was for us.)



I think you are underestimating yourselves a bit here--in the past four weeks, your team has beaten ours three times. Based on those statistics, I kind of like your chances.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

I have reviewed the issue in question. I commend REACH for his continuous meticulousness in reviewing the weekly Showdown game, a trait that he brought to this problem. He also deserves credit for raising issues and pointing out methodologies for guiding current and future gamerunners, and last, but not least, for presenting arguments against his team's self-interest.

The first issue I will address is "Is it within the rules for this game's results be invalidated for the Sandbag Tournament [due to Buzztime error?]"

For reasons stated below, I need not determine the answer to that question, but I rule that for all future games and tournaments, the gamerunner will have the power to do so. Given that the final will be tomorrow, I will issue temporary rules to be applicable to that game only, with proposed permanent rules to be posted after the tournament is over, with a period allowed for comment. (The temporary rules will be posted separately.)

The second issue is "Was the answer to the final question in error?"

The final question read "It is currently moving southward at nearly 50 feet per year" (my emphasis), so a correct answer must both 1) be moving south, and 2) do so at about 50 feet per year.

I have used the calculator found at the neoprogrammics website mentioned and found what while the Arctic Circle has been moving south the last few years, it has been doing so at a rate several times greater than 50 feet a year. I also checked the measurement of the obliquity of the ecliptic for various periods of time, and it is consistently moving south at slightly less than 50 feet a year.

Now one could say that this measurement does not take into account the yearly nutational variations, but the neoprogrammics website calculator does not measure where the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn are, just the obliquity of the ecliptic. I have checked the programmer's notes, and he does not address the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn at all, though one could reasonably imply that any exact measurement of them would require a nutational adjustment like those required for the polar circles. However, if the adjustment for the tropics circles is anything like that for the polar circles (and we do not readily have the adjustment), that would render all Buzztime answers incorrect. Additionally, the Wikipedia references use terms like "approximately" and "on average" which would seem to exclude the need for adjustment. To the extent Google searches provide other sources of information, they echo what was said in Wikipedia.

We must also acknowledge that it is Buzztime, not NASA, writing these questions and checking them for accuracy. In all likelihood, Buzztime wrote the question based on the Wikipedia reference (the phrase used by Wikipedia in its Tropic of Cancer entry was "the Tropic of Cancer is currently drifting southward at a rate of almost half an arcsecond (0.468″) of latitude, or 15 metres, per year." )

Given all this, I rule that lacking clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, a Wikipedia reference is to be considered a sufficient basis for an answer in this tournament. so I deem the Buzztime answer correct.

Since I have found Buzztime's answer to be correct, all results remain as they were and the final will take place between The Fellowship and Whispers tomorrow evening.

Even though they are inapplicable to this situation, REACH's request raises a number of issues that I believe should be addressed, and I will do so in a subsequent post.

The question has been raised as to whether or not a gamerunner can do anything if Buzztime provides an incorrect answer to a question. I have ruled that the gamerunner may do so for future tournament games. I have also provided a standard for correctness in future tournament games. What I have not yet addressed is what should be done if a gamerunner finds a major Buzztime answer for any tournament game in error.

I believe the following principles should apply, and will use them for the final game tomorrow:

1) Under no circumstance may a gamerunner award a victory to a losing team as a result of his decision. The gamerunner can only confirm the victory or rule that a game be replayed the following tournament week.

2) A gamerunner will not order teams to replay a game due to Buzztime or other error (i.e., malfunctioning equipment) simply because he has ordered other teams to do so. If it is reasonably clear that the winning team would have won anyway regardless of the error, the gamerunner will confirm the win and the winning team will have a bye for the week other team(s) are replaying games.

3) A gamerunner will not order a game to be replayed due to Buzztime error unless it is seems more likely than not that the losing team would have won otherwise. Any reasonable numerical analysis may be used, provided it is described with the decision.

4) Only questions with large point totals qualify for this determination. While I will leave it to future gamerunners to decide where they wish to draw the line, for the final tomorrow, only Pyramid and the Final Question will qualify for this determination.

5) As a general rule of thumb, the gamerunner should let the original results stand unless there is good reason not to.

Let me illustrate these principles with an example: IF I had ruled that the answer to last week's final question incorrect, how would I have applied them to the teams that played last week?

The Fellowship/Mad River

I can only confirm the victory of the Fellowship or order the game replayed. I will not order the game replayed if I order the other semifinal replayed. A Final Question qualifies for the determination. Final Questions are unique in that scores are considerably lower if you end up with the wrong answer than if you change to the right answer at the last moment. I agree that REACH's methodology is a good way to approximate what-ifs in this situation; I agree with ANON that this isn't going to necessarily work all the time. Here, both the Fellowship and Mad River had at least six boxes that completely missed the question. The Fellowship scores were generally higher than Mad River's.

In this situation, I would have ruled that the Fellowship would have won the game excluding the final question based on the evidence and confirmed the victory. I would consider that determination a close call that reasonable men could disagree with, but there is no convincing evidence pointing to a Mad River victory. Since there is no good reason to think Mad River would have won, the original victory should stand. Either way, the Fellowship would advance to the final.

Ragged Rascals/Whispers

I can only confirm the victory of Whispers or order the game replayed. I would not order the game replayed if I ordered the other semifinal replayed. A Final Question qualifies for the determination. Final Questions are unique in that scores are considerably lower if you end up with the wrong answer than if you change to the right answer at the last moment. I agree that REACH's methodology is a good way to approximate what-ifs in this situation; I agree with ANON that this isn't going to necessarily work. Here, both the Ragged Rascals and Whispers had at least six boxes that completely missed the question. The Ragged Rascal scores were all higher than the Whispers scores.

In this situation, I would have ruled that the Ragged Rascals would have likely won the game. I cannot declare them winners; I can only order a replay and that is what I would do. The two teams would play again on November 5, and the Fellowship would not have to play Mad River again, but have a bye week and play the winner of the replayed match on November 12.

Finally, being gamerunner in these tournaments have stopped being a mere accounting exercise. so the issue of conflicts of interest raises its ugly head. Like Caesar's wife, a gamerunner should be above suspicion, which is not the case when I have no choice but to decide the fate of my own team. If the role of gamerunner is to be expanded to deciding what to do with decisions involving one's own team, either the gamerunner should be allowed to recuse himself and select a member from another team to make the decision, or the gamerunner should not be someone playing for a team likely to be involved in the competition.

Hey, ANON, don't you miss being the Commish?

I actually sent a note to STRO weeks ago to the effect that, while I never like losing a tournament, one of the silver linings is that I am blissfully on the sidelines for headache-inducing issues like this.

My sincerest compliments to STRO for his thoughtful, thorough, and judicious arbitration of this. He has been an excellent Tournament Commissioner, and has given us much to discuss going forward.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

The trivia god sighed. Twice.

Not because of the results of the tournament. The well-earned victory by the Odins of Ohio was the usual result; it had been his group's win last year that had been the black swan. Whispers had been a brilliant Cinderella, but one of the laws of these competitions: the favorite usually wins, reasserted itself.

Nor was the issue of a possibly incorrect Buzztime answer any problem. This trivia god welcomed seeing some passion for the game, and the possibility that Buzztime could be wrong about something was hardly shocking to him. He saw this as a good opportunity to create a framework to handle the issue in the future, because while the competent solve problems, the intelligent anticipate them.

No, he sighed twice for two other reasons. The first was not unexpected; he had read the transcript of the Buzztime earnings call. I'll talk about this elsewhere, but it looks like most of the wild winged buffalo are going to vamoose and Buzztime's future plans are less than convincing.

The second reason was unexpected: the silence, the lack of response to this thread, so much different than it had been twenty years ago back in the badbart era. So few comments, so little activity, with that punctuated with location obituaries! REACH pleaded for comment from the remaining competing teams as to his belief that the Buzztime answer was wrong. Nothing, besides me having to answer him, and no serious reaction to that, either.

Enough cheerfulness. The official results are:

Red Fox: 56,368
Whispers: 53,611

Congratulations to Red Fox for preventing me from having to ship a big bulky trophy internationally and exploring the exquisite pleasures of Canadian customs, with equally fervent congratulations to Whispers for making the usual suspects sweat due to a remarkable tournament run which included three straight Showdown wins.

Early next week, I will post a revised set of rules for this contest, which will incorporate the decisions and guidance I posted the other day. When I do, PLEASE say something about them, good, bad or indifferent. You may think they were much ado about very little, but believe me, it's better for everyone to have something already in place than to put someone on the spot to make hasty decisions if it does. The future gamerunner will make the final decisions for next year's tournament, but if public discussion is a good idea for governmental rules, why not here?

The Fellowship would like to extend its sincerest congratulations and admiration to Whispers for its excellent tournament run. We thought the final results were fitting: the finalists going 1-2 for the network, well ahead of the rest of the field. In a moment that might seem odd in other competitive endeavors but is entirely consistent with the Showdown Tournament community, in the moments between the splash screen that told us our network ranking was #1 and the screen that gave all the rankings, there were several Fellowshippers who were softly saying "Whispers...Whispers...c'mon, Whispers!"--rooting for Whispers to come in a close second. You did not disappoint, and you have our admiration and our thanks for a great tournament. Should Buzztime still exist this spring, we hope to see you in the McCarthy Cup--but we hope not too early in the knockout round.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

I can't speak for anyone else, STRO, but my (temporary) silence was not from lack of interest. It actually came from a rule I set for myself after my first stint as tournament commissioner all those years ago. You may remember that there was. . .let's say, "spirited". . .debate over the rules that The Fellowship created for the tournament and whether I should be allowed to run the tournament that way at all. I had no problem with absorbing the criticism that came my way for enforcing the rules my team asked me to implement; but I resolved then and there that no matter what happened in the future, I would never publicly question the rules set by a Tournament Commissioner in the future, nor would I publicly try to sway the Commissioner's decisions during a tournament unless I believed that they were flagrantly at odds with the rules set at the beginning. Some Commissioners privately asked my opinions on certain issues--which I gladly gave--but I was not about to make any Commissioner's life any harder than it had to be on the forums. To put it simply, I did not want to step on your toes.

Now that the tournament is over, though, I am quite happy to weigh in. As I mentioned above, I think you did a great job attending to this issue, and in running the tournament in general. Kudos to you and to Mad River for being a great custodian of the Cup and its traditions.

As for the substance of your proposals, I agree entirely with the five principles you articulated so succinctly regarding how future Commissioners should adjudicate similar issues. It will help make life a lot easier to have these guidelines on which to rely. I would be happy to vote to ratify them in toto.

If there is any part of your proposal with which I might disagree, it is the last part. Part of the charm and appeal of these tournaments is the fact that the prize for winning is not just the trophy, it is also the right/responsibility to keep the tournament going. Indeed, since the first McCarthy Cup, it has been pretty much the only constant rule: the winners get to run the tournament the next year in whatever manner they see fit. Some winners have elected to select a third party to run the tournaments on their behalf, which was their right; but I would be reluctant to establish a rule that deprives a winning team of the chance to run the tournament themselves. For all the frustrations that attend being Commissioner, the role is also a privilege and an honor--and even (dare I say it?) fun. At least at times.

Beyond all of that, though, one of the strongest arguments against establishing such a rule is (seemingly paradoxically) the example of your own actions. You were faced with a problem in which the self-interest of your team conflicted with your interpretation of the rules. Yet you forthrightly, judiciously, and with great equanimity rendered what I believe to be the correct decision even though it had the effect of letting the elimination of your team stand. Such sportsmanship is noteworthy, but has been a hallmark of these tournaments in the past. Given the nature of a continent-wide competition with no real policing power, these tournaments have always been on the honor system; and with rare exception, they have gone off without any serious question of violation of that code. I think this is also part of the charm of these tournaments: the acceptance and trust that all the teams participating are playing by the rules, or sometimes even going beyond them to give up a walkover win for a replay in the name of sportsmanship.

Now if a Tournament Commissioner faced with a similar situation wants to recuse him/herself or invoke the Buzztime equivalent of the 25th Amendment, I don't think anyone would object. But to make it a requirement that the Commissioner should not be someone involved in the tournament seems to me to be perhaps a bit overly-cautious.

So that's my two cents. I look forward to hearing other opinions on this.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

Well we got a 1 or 2 week reprieve from our BWW in Blacksburg. After telling us last week that the boxes were being sent back on Nov. 1, I luckily noticed some activity for our location on Sat. Nov. 2 on the Buzztime site, and one of our players (JUNKIE) double checked that the game was working, so we were able to get a team together at the last minute.

Still, it seems we are back to the expected Nov. 15 end of Buzztime at our BWW. Since the nearest non BWW locations to us are Summersville, WV (127 miles away) and Kernersville, NC (134 miles), I don't anticipate us being able to play as a team anywhere.

I (and everyone else) appreciate the empathy for our situation, and for the invitations to visit if we are ever in the areas of our competitors. I passed both along to my teammates last night.

Alas, as has already been said, I fear this is the first domino of many players being in this situation, and I commiserate with all.

Thanks again,
Bill AKA VIKING

I like the new rules that STRO has proposed for future commissioners. In regard to point 5, it seems like allowing the gamerunner to recuse him/herself should be an option, but should not be required. ANON makes an excellent point about the Sandbag and McCarthy tournaments being run on the honor system. That has worked well for a long time; I don't see any immediate value in fixing something that isn't broken yet.

In different news, the Kzoo Krew was pleased to discover last week that our newest new home, Brewster's Junction, now has 10 boxes instead of 6. There is some cause for optimism in western Michigan.

Thanks for the rare good news, RedArrow!

I have started a separate thread for this discussion so that people who aren't following the Sandbag Thread may have a better chance to see it.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

Sad news Bill, much the same here in Gaithersburg MD. It seems we will be losing 3 BWW that are the 3 closest BT bars including our home BWW.

However, I am not going to assume that's it and we're done. I'm going to start making a list of new locations that would be good for BT. Bars with plenty of TVs and good seating for up to 10 or so. I'll print out the front page of players for our BWW from the BT website to show the number of players looking for a new place to spend money 3+ nights a week. I'll print some other info pages from the BT website. I'll take these "sales packets" around to the good choices. Then I'll submit all the bars into the BT website to be contacted for a quote etc. Probably call BT too to talk with someone in sales to facilitate their contacting the bars. (Should start a new thread about tactics to get BT in new bars after BWW dies)

I'm sure there are a ton of prospects to visit in Blacksburg. Good Luck.

_________________
BUD - Stained Glass Pub Silver Spring MD
OC BUD - Grotto Pizza DE near Ocean City MD

LET'S GO ....Caps and Os!!!!