Just A Minute
JAM Series | JAM Stats | JAM Today | JAM Group
Does anyone know......
1)When NP started giving panelists the "benefit of the doubt"?
2)When NP started awarding bonus points because "we enjoyed the interruption"?
dagi
I can't say for sure, but it was within the first three seasons. He started doing (1) first and then (2) if I recall correctly.
The rules have certainly changed over time and have been applied with greater and lesser levels of strictness and accuracy...
--- In just-a-minute@..., "dagi_uk" <dgnews@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know......
>
> 1)When NP started giving panelists the "benefit of the doubt"?
>
> 2)When NP started awarding bonus points because "we enjoyed the interruption"?
>
> dagi
>
Well, he gave a point for "being clever" in the first episode of season 2, and I have a feeling it also happened before that: I vaguely remember thinking it odd at the time.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: sabrewolfy@...
Sent: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:59:03 -0000
To: just-a-minute@...
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Does anyone know......I can't say for sure, but it was within the first three seasons. He started doing (1) first and then (2) if I recall correctly.
The rules have certainly changed over time and have been applied with greater and lesser levels of strictness and accuracy...
--- In just-a-minute@..., "dagi_uk" <dgnews@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know......
>
> 1)When NP started giving panelists the "benefit of the doubt"?
>
> 2)When NP started awarding bonus points because "we enjoyed the interruption"?
>
> dagi
>
Try FREE IM ToolPack at www.imtoolpack.com
Capture screenshots, upload images, edit and send them to your friends
through IMs, post on Twitter®, Facebook®, MySpace™, LinkedIn® – FAST!
I've just listened again to the very first episode and lo!
One of the female panelists was talking about "pores" and Clement challenged for "pause" and Nicholas gave a bonus point for "being clever" - and I must say it was a jolly astute challenge. And it was the first bonus point for an invalid but amusing challenge.
Also a JAM Milestone*, that was the only show in which Nicholas took a point away from a contestant. It happened because Clement started talking without permission from the chair.
Cheers!
Mark
*Patent Pending. All Rights Reserved.
-----Original Message-----
From: dgnews@...
Sent: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:40:25 -0000
To: just-a-minute@...
Subject: [just-a-minute] Does anyone know......Does anyone know......
1)When NP started giving panelists the "benefit of the doubt"?
2)When NP started awarding bonus points because "we enjoyed the interruption"?
dagi
Send your photos by email in seconds...
Try FREE IM ToolPack at www.imtoolpack.com
Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.
I enjoyed this post.
the longer I listen to JAM, the more I think to try and chart points where
rules changed is a pointless (intentional pun) exercise. Nicholas is
inconsistent. Always has been, always will be, bless him. But there is usually
an element of rough justice to his decisions...
Tis easier to chart changes in the programme by panellist. The arrivals of
Peter Jones and Paul Merton are turning points in the style of the humour, I
think.
From: nylon net
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: [just-a-minute] Does anyone
know......
I've just listened again to the very first episode and
lo!
One of the female panelists was talking about "pores" and Clement
challenged for "pause" and Nicholas gave a bonus point for "being clever" - and
I must say it was a jolly astute challenge. And it was the first bonus
point for an invalid but amusing challenge.
Also a JAM Milestone*, that
was the only show in which Nicholas took a point away from a contestant.
It happened because Clement started talking without permission from the
chair.
Cheers!
Mark
What constitutes "repetition" seems to change over the course of the series too. Nicholas was quite relaxed at the start, then they allowed only two or three repetitions, then they allowed repetition of (some) of the words in the topic. Then he started allowing challenges about an action or event which is repeated -- something like "Every morning I have a cup of coffee" could be successfully challenged as repetition.
I've also noticed that "deviation" seems to be somewhat loosely adjudicated as well. Strictly I imagine it should be deviation from the topic, but quite often Nicholas allows challenges where the "deviation" is very minor or trivial or, sometimes, not even there.
I'm glad that the "penalty" rounds didn't last long. The game is difficult enough as it is :)
--- In just-a-minute@..., "Dean" <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
> I enjoyed this post.
>
> the longer I listen to JAM, the more I think to try and chart points where rules changed is a pointless (intentional pun) exercise. Nicholas is inconsistent. Always has been, always will be, bless him. But there is usually an element of rough justice to his decisions...
>
> Tis easier to chart changes in the programme by panellist. The arrivals of Peter Jones and Paul Merton are turning points in the style of the humour, I think.
Ah, those penalty rounds. I think *everyone* hated those - especially the panellists - and they contributed nothing to the game.
I think Kenneth nuzzling his neighbours, or Clement glowering at his opponents was quite penalty enough
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: sabrewolfy@...
Sent: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:58:25 -0000
To: just-a-minute@...
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Does anyone know......What constitutes "repetition" seems to change over the course of the series too. Nicholas was quite relaxed at the start, then they allowed only two or three repetitions, then they allowed repetition of (some) of the words in the topic. Then he started allowing challenges about an action or event which is repeated -- something like "Every morning I have a cup of coffee" could be successfully challenged as repetition.
I've also noticed that "deviation" seems to be somewhat loosely adjudicated as well. Strictly I imagine it should be deviation from the topic, but quite often Nicholas allows challenges where the "deviation" is very minor or trivial or, sometimes, not even there.
I'm glad that the "penalty" rounds didn't last long. The game is difficult enough as it is :)
--- In just-a-minute@..., "Dean" <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
> I enjoyed this post.
>
> the longer I listen to JAM, the more I think to try and chart points where rules changed is a pointless (intentional pun) exercise. Nicholas is inconsistent. Always has been, always will be, bless him. But there is usually an element of rough justice to his decisions...
>
> Tis easier to chart changes in the programme by panellist. The arrivals of Peter Jones and Paul Merton are turning points in the style of the humour, I think.
Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth
the longer I listen to JAM, the more I think to try and chart points where rules changed is a pointless (intentional pun) exercise. Nicholas is inconsistent. Always has been, always will be, bless him. But there is usually an element of rough justice to his decisions...
I agree! I nearly always understand *why* he ruled as he did, it just sounds inconsistent there and then. But usually there is indeed a rough justice to what he decides. Either in relation to earlier this show, how many minutes a given panellist has been given so far, how good he/she has been so far etc. Nicolas really is the circus ringmaster.
With one decade as exception: The 90s. I really think he was bad in many shows during that decade. Some totally meaningless rulings, not to mention his favorism of Merton, who received a bonus point what seemed to be every single time he opened his mouth. Regardless of how good he was (and Merton is VERY good in those years) it just wasn't right at all.
At the same time I think the 90s has some of the absolute highlights of JAM. To me it is the decade of highs and lows.
I got the impression that the rules were not strictly applied in the early series, allowing panel members to speak rather freely, in terms of lack of challenges from others or rulings from the Chairman, and thus the penalty rounds appeared to be there to provide a challenging game. As soon as all parties adopted the rules to create a challenging game the penalty rounds went. But that's my impression. I am no student of the early years.
Dave
From: nylon net <nylon@...>
To: just-a-minute@...
Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2011 4:22 AM
Subject: RE: [just-a-minute] Re: Does anyone know......
Ah, those penalty rounds. I think *everyone* hated those - especially the panellists - and they contributed nothing to the game.
I think Kenneth nuzzling his neighbours, or Clement glowering at his opponents was quite penalty enough
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: sabrewolfy@...
Sent: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:58:25 -0000
To: just-a-minute@...
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Does anyone know......What constitutes "repetition" seems to change over the course of the series too. Nicholas was quite relaxed at the start, then they allowed only two or three repetitions, then they allowed repetition of (some) of the words in the topic. Then he started allowing challenges about an action or event which is repeated -- something like "Every morning I have a cup of coffee" could be successfully challenged as repetition.
I've also noticed that "deviation" seems to be somewhat loosely adjudicated as well. Strictly I imagine it should be deviation from the topic, but quite often Nicholas allows challenges where the "deviation" is very minor or trivial or, sometimes, not even there.
I'm glad that the "penalty" rounds didn't last long. The game is difficult enough as it is :)
--- In just-a-minute@..., "Dean" <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
> I enjoyed this post.
>
> the longer I listen to JAM, the more I think to try and chart points where rules changed is a pointless (intentional pun) exercise. Nicholas is inconsistent. Always has been, always will be, bless him. But there is usually an element of rough justice to his decisions...
>
> Tis easier to chart changes in the programme by panellist. The arrivals of Peter Jones and Paul Merton are turning points in the style of the humour, I think.
![3D Earth Screensaver Preview]()
Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth
I wonder what a show with both Kenneth and Paul would have been like. I also wonder why it never happened when it could have. I read somewhere that Paul contacted the BBC after Ken passed away.
My guess is that Ken would not have been too keen on Paul.
I wonder if Paul and Ken ever appeared on the same bill, such as a chat show, ever? Anybody?
Dave
From: Dean <dbedford@...>
To: just-a-minute@...
Sent: Saturday, 22 October 2011 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Does anyone know......
I enjoyed this post.
the longer I listen to JAM, the more I think to try and chart points where
rules changed is a pointless (intentional pun) exercise. Nicholas is
inconsistent. Always has been, always will be, bless him. But there is usually
an element of rough justice to his decisions...
Tis easier to chart changes in the programme by panellist. The arrivals of
Peter Jones and Paul Merton are turning points in the style of the humour, I
think.
From: nylon net
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: [just-a-minute] Does anyone
know......
I've just listened again to the very first episode and lo!
One of the female panelists was talking about "pores" and Clement challenged for "pause" and Nicholas gave a bonus point for "being clever" - and I must say it was a jolly astute challenge. And it was the first bonus point for an invalid but amusing challenge.
Also a JAM Milestone*, that was the only show in which Nicholas took a point away from a contestant. It happened because Clement started talking without permission from the chair.
Cheers!
Mark
IMO, a panel can not afford to have too many boisterous, aggressive players otherwise it ends up as a mess: a feeling I often have watching QI where they sometimes compete strongly to get heard over the top of each other, which I find annoying and wasteful of talent.
I have a feeling that Kenny and Paul on the same episode might've ended in sulking and bad tempers - unless the other 2 players were quiet types.
Kenny played well against Clement and Peter (who were usually quiet) with only Derek with whom to compete for airtime.
But having said that about Peter, listening recently to some of the Gang of Four episodes (late 70s), I was struck by the players' (even Peter's) aggression and bullying and the way they'd tell each other to "shut up" quite forcefully. (e.g. Jam-1977-01-12@230=Bangs). I did not like those exchanges.
The game is far more respectful, civilized and friendly nowadays.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: pondydave@...
Sent: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
To: just-a-minute@...
Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Does anyone know......I wonder what a show with both Kenneth and Paul would have been like. I also wonder why it never happened when it could have. I read somewhere that Paul contacted the BBC after Ken passed away.My guess is that Ken would not have been too keen on Paul.I wonder if Paul and Ken ever appeared on the same bill, such as a chat show, ever? Anybody?Dave
From: Dean <dbedford@...>
To: just-a-minute@...
Sent: Saturday, 22 October 2011 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Does anyone know......I enjoyed this post.the longer I listen to JAM, the more I think to try and chart points where rules changed is a pointless (intentional pun) exercise. Nicholas is inconsistent. Always has been, always will be, bless him. But there is usually an element of rough justice to his decisions...Tis easier to chart changes in the programme by panellist. The arrivals of Peter Jones and Paul Merton are turning points in the style of the humour, I think.From: nylon netSent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 1:39 PMSubject: RE: [just-a-minute] Does anyone know......
I've just listened again to the very first episode and lo!
One of the female panelists was talking about "pores" and Clement challenged for "pause" and Nicholas gave a bonus point for "being clever" - and I must say it was a jolly astute challenge. And it was the first bonus point for an invalid but amusing challenge.
Also a JAM Milestone*, that was the only show in which Nicholas took a point away from a contestant. It happened because Clement started talking without permission from the chair.
Cheers!
MarkShare photos & screenshots in seconds...
Try FREE IM ToolPack at www.imtoolpack.com
Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.
I think you're right.
--- In just-a-minute@..., Dave B <pondydave@...> wrote:
>
> I got the impression that the rules were not strictly applied in the early series, allowing panel members to speak rather freely, in terms of lack of challenges from others or rulings from the Chairman, and thus the penalty rounds appeared to be there to provide a challenging game. As soon as all parties adopted the rules to create a challenging game the penalty rounds went. But that's my impression. I am no student of the early years.
>
> Dave
I wonder if Kenneth was even aware of Paul’s existence. Paul really first
came to widespread prominence on Whose Line Is It Anyway which started on TV a
few months after Kenneth’s death.
It’s always fascinating to think of what it would have been like if they
were on together. I’m absolutely sure Kenneth would have taken an instant
dislike to him, but had Paul gone on to prove himself on the show, I’m just as
certain Kenneth would have grown to admire him, as he did the truly talented. Of
course having Kenneth around might have made it more difficult for Paul to
settle in – remember it took him four or five years to really find his feet
anyway.
Still it’s sad we never heard them on JAM together. What a great show it
might have been if they’d been on with say Clement and Peter.
From: Dave B
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Does anyone
know......
I wonder what a show with both Kenneth and Paul would have been like.
I also wonder why it never happened when it could have. I read somewhere that
Paul contacted the BBC after Ken passed away.
My guess is that Ken would not have been too keen on
Paul.
I wonder if Paul and Ken ever appeared on the same bill, such as a
chat show, ever? Anybody?
Dave
Message History
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 10 | 23 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 19 | 12 | 31 | 4 | 14 |
| 2018 | 4 | 7 | 21 | 8 | 9 | 37 | 9 | 5 | 19 | 25 | 5 | 14 |
| 2017 | 4 | 34 | 22 | 12 | 17 | 20 | 4 | 19 | 23 | 44 | 23 | 16 |
| 2016 | 13 | 49 | 39 | 57 | 60 | 87 | 10 | 32 | 24 | 12 | 9 | 23 |
| 2015 | 51 | 97 | 32 | 49 | 41 | 54 | 20 | 28 | 0 | 14 | 31 | 16 |
| 2014 | 9 | 75 | 68 | 33 | 28 | 33 | 52 | 82 | 51 | 32 | 38 | 79 |
| 2013 | 463 | 251 | 98 | 87 | 81 | 192 | 88 | 98 | 86 | 38 | 54 | 27 |
| 2012 | 92 | 121 | 180 | 199 | 125 | 88 | 71 | 155 | 118 | 166 | 125 | 144 |
| 2011 | 112 | 78 | 71 | 73 | 134 | 225 | 252 | 152 | 62 | 183 | 165 | 63 |
| 2010 | 142 | 117 | 153 | 94 | 69 | 49 | 69 | 183 | 82 | 71 | 68 | 75 |
| 2009 | 67 | 45 | 42 | 97 | 90 | 149 | 110 | 70 | 63 | 42 | 35 | 39 |
| 2008 | 200 | 120 | 175 | 120 | 70 | 109 | 87 | 115 | 71 | 45 | 58 | 38 |
| 2007 | 165 | 447 | 132 | 99 | 95 | 57 | 140 | 118 | 74 | 88 | 125 | 99 |
| FAQ | Contact | Services | Terms | Privacy | Credits |
[Page generated in 0.0772 seconds under 1.54% server load]
© 2012-2025 TVRDb.com. All rights reserved.