Home  

Members  

Join  

Search  

Listings  

 
<<<<   4080   >>>>

Topic: My thoughts on the rules discussion

Message 1 / 4
deanbedfordMar 26, 2010
 

 
Just posted on the blog... but also for here...

The BBC's Feedback programme - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00rbq34 and the Daily Telegraph - have had some fun discussing JAM's rules. I should weigh in.

Essentially a man called Rupert Read from Norfolk is worried about trifling challenges, the repetition of words like "we" and "the", and minor hesitations, he thinks they break up the flow of the game.

His answer is to penalise wrong challenges by taking a point off the challenger.

Nicholas Parsons was interviewed on the subject and although he politely said he'd discuss it with the producers, panellists and the family of Ian Messiter, he made it clear he wasn't rapt with the idea.

Said Nicholas: "I think you're intellectualising it and not thinking about the fun we are trying to generate" "it's not an intellectual game as such". This is his way of saying - ironically given he himself spends so much time on them - that the points don't matter. The purpose of the game is not to decide who is best at speaking within the rules. The key aspect of the game, as then producer Chris Neill said more than a decade ago, is the banter between Nicholas and the players.

Some thoughts...

* with all due respect to Rupert Read - and if you happen to read this Rupert, I thought you debated the issue very intelligently and eloquently with Nicholas - his answer doesn't really address the issue at all. The problem isn't that too many wrong challenges are being made. At the moment, Nicholas is agreeing with many of these trivial challenges, so the penalty for being wrong would not apply. Anyway - the challenge IS correct so applying a penalty for being right - but too petty - seems harsh.

* But for all that some shows do get a bit petty. I think it's mainly with keen newer players. Paul Merton seemed to be the main example used on Feedback, but if he challenges these days it's more likely to be a joke challenge than a petty one.

* The competitive aspect is important I think. It should be part of the challenge to keep to the rules. But I'm not sure the points aspect is all that important to the players. I think they challenge not to gain points but to get involved, realising that the show is really all about banter and verbal argument. It's the arguments that spark most of the humour! That's one of the things that are distinctive about JAM.

* Another thing is the attacks on the chairman. It's possible to get a bee in your bonnet about Nicholas's inconsistency and look back over the years to when similar situations came up and different decisions were made. All I say is that the show would be very different if say a Supreme Court judge or a cricket umpire was in the chair. Nicholas is a performer and his own dithering, inconsistency, or perhaps to use a better word, unpredictability, is a major generator of banter and jokes. That's key to the programme's appeal.

* Discouraging challenges would surely let people speak longer. But with all due respect there aren't many people who can sustain an uninterrupted 60 seconds on a subject and be funny throughout. Paul yes. Kenneth Williams yes. More uninterrupted minutes would in all likelihood be very dull.

The issue having been raised though, I would be very surprised if there wasn't a more laissez faire approach next season and less challenging on repettiion of small words. But personally I hope they don't change things too much. I reckon last season was the best season of all 56 seasons. If it ain't broke...

 
<<<<   4085   >>>>

Topic: Re: My thoughts on the rules discussion

Message 2 / 4
delmelzaMar 26, 2010
 

 
Dean,
I agree with you for the most part. I would like an "unoffical" word to the panelists about challenging on the 'small" words like "Or" unless the person is using it say over 4 times.
I rather like the idea of the Bonus point awarded if the panelist who was challenged just to get a laugh and the person not having a serious challenge and would have gotten through the entire 60 seconds without it but I am not sure it that would help or hinder.
Miriam

--- In just-a-minute@..., "deanbedford" <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
> Just posted on the blog... but also for here...
>
> The BBC's Feedback programme - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00rbq34 and the Daily Telegraph - have had some fun discussing JAM's rules. I should weigh in.
>
> Essentially a man called Rupert Read from Norfolk is worried about trifling challenges, the repetition of words like "we" and "the", and minor hesitations, he thinks they break up the flow of the game.
>
> His answer is to penalise wrong challenges by taking a point off the challenger.
>
> Nicholas Parsons was interviewed on the subject and although he politely said he'd discuss it with the producers, panellists and the family of Ian Messiter, he made it clear he wasn't rapt with the idea.
>
> Said Nicholas: "I think you're intellectualising it and not thinking about the fun we are trying to generate" "it's not an intellectual game as such". This is his way of saying - ironically given he himself spends so much time on them - that the points don't matter. The purpose of the game is not to decide who is best at speaking within the rules. The key aspect of the game, as then producer Chris Neill said more than a decade ago, is the banter between Nicholas and the players.
>
> Some thoughts...
>
> * with all due respect to Rupert Read - and if you happen to read this Rupert, I thought you debated the issue very intelligently and eloquently with Nicholas - his answer doesn't really address the issue at all. The problem isn't that too many wrong challenges are being made. At the moment, Nicholas is agreeing with many of these trivial challenges, so the penalty for being wrong would not apply. Anyway - the challenge IS correct so applying a penalty for being right - but too petty - seems harsh.
>
> * But for all that some shows do get a bit petty. I think it's mainly with keen newer players. Paul Merton seemed to be the main example used on Feedback, but if he challenges these days it's more likely to be a joke challenge than a petty one.
>
> * The competitive aspect is important I think. It should be part of the challenge to keep to the rules. But I'm not sure the points aspect is all that important to the players. I think they challenge not to gain points but to get involved, realising that the show is really all about banter and verbal argument. It's the arguments that spark most of the humour! That's one of the things that are distinctive about JAM.
>
> * Another thing is the attacks on the chairman. It's possible to get a bee in your bonnet about Nicholas's inconsistency and look back over the years to when similar situations came up and different decisions were made. All I say is that the show would be very different if say a Supreme Court judge or a cricket umpire was in the chair. Nicholas is a performer and his own dithering, inconsistency, or perhaps to use a better word, unpredictability, is a major generator of banter and jokes. That's key to the programme's appeal.
>
> * Discouraging challenges would surely let people speak longer. But with all due respect there aren't many people who can sustain an uninterrupted 60 seconds on a subject and be funny throughout. Paul yes. Kenneth Williams yes. More uninterrupted minutes would in all likelihood be very dull.
>
> The issue having been raised though, I would be very surprised if there wasn't a more laissez faire approach next season and less challenging on repettiion of small words. But personally I hope they don't change things too much. I reckon last season was the best season of all 56 seasons. If it ain't broke...
>

 
<<<<   4087   >>>>

Topic: Re: My thoughts on the rules discussion

Message 3 / 4
kj.naughtonMar 26, 2010
 

 
For what it's worth, my hunch is that the so-called "problem" of petty challenges is probably a result of the larger number of performers that appear on the show these days.

Like it or not, an appearance on JaM for a new performer is a chance to put yourself before a large global audience - remembering that JaM is on the World Service - and that they find it important to be heard. I think being skillful at JaM takes some practice so the best way for a new performer to make an impact is to be humourous rather than a making the more difficult "correct" challenges.

Being a success on JaM can lead onto more bookings for the lucrative comedy panel show circuit - the BBC are making more and more of them and even Murdoch's Sky TV are making them now...

When we had the four "regulars" then there was much less need for them to "sell" themselves on the programme. That and, of course, they were all more practised at the game and therefore (usually) had no need of the easier challenges.

I also remember Chris Neill (one of my favourite panellists) who (and I paraphrase) pretty much admitted that the main way he felt he could get involved in the show was to go for the bonus point. I'm not sure that's entirely true as he is a good "proper" challenger as well.


So, in my humble opinion, the rise of the "bonus point culture" or the "petty challenge" is simply a function of the way the show is moving. And, for the reasons others have outlined, changing the way points are distributed won't work as panellists don't play for points. The only way to go back to the old challenges is to go back to the old format of four regular players. And I'm not in favour of that.

Cheers

kJ

--- In just-a-minute@..., "deanbedford" <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
> Just posted on the blog... but also for here...
>
> The BBC's Feedback programme - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00rbq34 and the Daily Telegraph - have had some fun discussing JAM's rules. I should weigh in.
>
> Essentially a man called Rupert Read from Norfolk is worried about trifling challenges, the repetition of words like "we" and "the", and minor hesitations, he thinks they break up the flow of the game.

 
<<<<   4090   >>>>

Topic: Re: My thoughts on the rules discussion

Message 4 / 4
Robert TorresMar 26, 2010
 

 

I heartily agree with much of what has been mentioned here.  I definitely think that its less about gaining points and more about getting involved and being part of things.  I'm actually quite glad about this, because sometimes it seemed like some panelists would come on the program and not say anything, which begs the question 'what the hell are they doing here in the first place?'  the same could be applied even to those who interrupt virtually everything just to say something, and they don't have anything of particular interest to say.    I do hope that in the next season that while the interaction between panelists and chairman continues, that a more fluid flow can be established with less trivial interruptions.  --- On Fri, 3/26/10, deanbedford <dbedford@...> wrote: From: deanbedford <dbedford@...> Subject: [just-a-minute] My thoughts on the rules discussion To: just-a-minute@... Date: Friday, March 26, 2010, 6:00 PM   Just posted on the blog... but also for here... The BBC's Feedback programme - http://www.bbc. co.uk/iplayer/ console/b00rbq34 and the Daily Telegraph - have had some fun discussing JAM's rules. I should weigh in. Essentially a man called Rupert Read from Norfolk is worried about trifling challenges, the repetition of words like "we" and "the", and minor hesitations, he thinks they break up the flow of the game. His answer is to penalise wrong challenges by taking a point off the challenger. Nicholas Parsons was interviewed on the subject and although he politely said he'd discuss it with the producers, panellists and the family of Ian Messiter, he made it clear he wasn't rapt with the idea. Said Nicholas: "I think you're intellectualising it and not thinking about the fun we are trying to generate" "it's not an intellectual game as such". This is his way of saying - ironically given he himself spends so much time on them - that the points don't matter. The purpose of the game is not to decide who is best at speaking within the rules. The key aspect of the game, as then producer Chris Neill said more than a decade ago, is the banter between Nicholas and the players. Some thoughts... * with all due respect to Rupert Read - and if you happen to read this Rupert, I thought you debated the issue very intelligently and eloquently with Nicholas - his answer doesn't really address the issue at all. The problem isn't that too many wrong challenges are being made. At the moment, Nicholas is agreeing with many of these trivial challenges, so the penalty for being wrong would not apply. Anyway - the challenge IS correct so applying a penalty for being right - but too petty - seems harsh. * But for all that some shows do get a bit petty. I think it's mainly with keen newer players. Paul Merton seemed to be the main example used on Feedback, but if he challenges these days it's more likely to be a joke challenge than a petty one. * The competitive aspect is important I think. It should be part of the challenge to keep to the rules. But I'm not sure the points aspect is all that important to the players. I think they challenge not to gain points but to get involved, realising that the show is really all about banter and verbal argument. It's the arguments that spark most of the humour! That's one of the things that are distinctive about JAM. * Another thing is the attacks on the chairman. It's possible to get a bee in your bonnet about Nicholas's inconsistency and look back over the years to when similar situations came up and different decisions were made. All I say is that the show would be very different if say a Supreme Court judge or a cricket umpire was in the chair. Nicholas is a performer and his own dithering, inconsistency, or perhaps to use a better word, unpredictability, is a major generator of banter and jokes. That's key to the programme's appeal. * Discouraging challenges would surely let people speak longer. But with all due respect there aren't many people who can sustain an uninterrupted 60 seconds on a subject and be funny throughout. Paul yes. Kenneth Williams yes. More uninterrupted minutes would in all likelihood be very dull. The issue having been raised though, I would be very surprised if there wasn't a more laissez faire approach next season and less challenging on repettiion of small words. But personally I hope they don't change things too much. I reckon last season was the best season of all 56 seasons. If it ain't broke...