There's a Summer Place

Last week's Pub Quiz was a tale of two quizzes. Most teams had one round of brilliance. They also had at least one round of awfulness. The key to success was to have than one round of brilliance and only one round of awfulness. The Team that managed that feat was Team # 11 Purple is as Purple Does which held off the field despite scoring a 3 in the final round. They also failed to win the big jackpot which will roll over.

Also of note was the round 4 performance of  Team #7 This is My Brother Bader and This is My Other Brother Bader who won that round in a narrow tie-breaker and provided these categories for our use in Round 3 of next week:

• Omaha, NE
• Seinfeld
• Arrested Development
• Basketball
• Medieval History
• US Counties
• College Football
• Burn Notice
• Caddy Shack
• Malt Liquor
• Physics
• The Enlightenment
• Journey
• Cell Biology
• Gnostic Christianity
• Early (Catholic) Church
• History
• Science Fiction

Results:
Purple is as Purple Does - 31.5
It's Sad We Never Got to See David Carradine's Final Film - Hangkok Dangerous - 30
This is My Brother Bader and This is My Other Brother Bader - 29
The Real Housewives of Goleta - 27.5
The Pregnant Man Had Twins - One Looks Like Jake & The Other Like Chris - 27
We Heart Lunch Boxes - 26.5

Comments

[Pete]

I think a new rule needs to be added. The names on each team's sign-up list each week are the only players allowed to play. No swapping of players should be allowed for any rounds. Should every team then just substitute an additional player who knows the round 3 categories, just for round three? I think that is weak and cheating.

[phil(theyounger)]

I'm o.k. with making it so that teams can't swap teammates just for the sake of substituting someone for round 3. But someone in my team has to leave after round 1, after which another guy, who also pays five dollars, and who just got off work, sits for the rest of the game. This is substitution but I don't think that this is cheating (although I suppose that substituting a ringer for round 3 isn't technically cheating either, since it's not yet in violation of the rules). Anyway, I'm hesitant to endorse a rule prohibiting substitutions of any kind. Suppose that a member of your team gets sick and has to go home in the middle of the game. Is it cheating, or at all against the spirit of the game, to enlist a lone bar patron to take that person's place? So long as everyone pays five dollars, it would seem fine by me. But it's open for debate, I guess.

[Quizmaster Tim]

Pete & Phil, both of you make good points. Where do the substitutions end if this grey area is deemed fully legal? And how can the Quizmaster be expected to monitor such things? Then again, does it really matter that much? Is there really any advantage of switching teammates, when nobody really knows the questions beforehand?

On the other hand, while I never saw much harm in having a player join a team mid-game that has lost a player as long as there were no more than six players per team at a time, it does represent a fair amount of gamesmanship in what should be a friendly game.

I would never label substitutions as cheating per se, but it might stretch the spirit of the rules to their limit and perhaps does strictly violate Rule #1:

http://www.sbtrivia.com/rules.html

It states "Teams may be comprised of no more than six physically present individuals." Which could be construed as "no more than six individuals physically present at a time" - which would seem to allow substitutions

or

it could be read as "no more than six individuals that have to be physically present to play" - which would mean that each team can have no more than six individuals and if one of them has to leave early or go get food or use the loo, then nobody else can be deputized to take their place.

I'd be curious for people not on Pete or Phil's team to weigh in on the comment board regarding this issue before I render a decision.

[Catfish]

Our team sometimes has seven people that want to play. I solve this by having a couple switch off. Usually the seventh talks to other people (like Tim) at the bar during the off rounds, so I think the switching interpretation is correct

Also, what about people that show up late? "no more than six individuals that have to be physically present to play at the start of pub quiz" or "no more than six individuals that have to be physically present to play at the start of round 1". It starts to become ridiculous.

Or, if it is, why not make the winner-selected round number random? It could be announced only following the start of the round. This would quell the worries stated above.

And, I think that trying to enforce this wrinkle of the rule would be near impossible in ways that the other rules aren't.

1. No more that 6 - count the people at the table.

2. No cell phones - look for cell phones

3. Quizmaster is right - don't farking argue, dickhead

Rule number one would, as arguments mounted, eventually end up with each teams members having to arrive before the start of pub quiz and the door being locked at 6:55, pictures being taken of each team member before the start and those pictures compared to each team before the start of each round. No changes of clothing allowed. No visits to the bathroom during rounds. And we would need shotguns.

In all honesty, maybe some sort of peer pressure would be more successful in this instance? Point out the teams that are being ridiculous and people can make fun of them until they stop.

[Josh]

This is totally unrelated to the above discussion, but the category "Basketball" was supposed to be "BASEketball", the movie.

[Alison]

Remember, this is supposed to be fun, dammit. I seriously doubt teams are pulling in ringers for round 3. As someone who plays often, is occasionally late, and enjoys the social aspect as well as the competitive aspect of pub quiz, I think the rules as they stand now are just fine. Although, if you want me and Catfish to have shotguns, bring it on!

[Quizmaster Tim]

Why the hell choose BASEketball, the movie? I'd much rather watch Super Troopers or Eurotrip.

[Wendy]

Isn't round 3 won by the team that wrote the categories a HUGE percentage of the time? The best, and really the only way to have an edge in that round is to win round 4 the week before. It makes your whole team ringers. How to have an edge in round 4 is another story, one we clearly haven't read yet.

[Catfish]

Tim: Why the hell choose BASEketball, the movie? I'd much rather watch Super Troopers or Eurotrip.

What about Beerfest?

[phil(theyounger)]

Well, I think it's a little bit of an overstatement that the only way to have an edge in round 3 is to win round 4, although that is the best way. Everyone knows the categories beforehand. Suppose, then, that the categories consists of The Big Lebowski, Gossip Girl, and/or Van Morrison. It's a sure bet that Tim will pick those categories, as is his right. So it would be possible, although against the spirit of the game, to enlist persons that don't usually play but who know those categories, sitting them out and then playing them exclusively for round 3. (I don't think anyone is actually doing this, so the point is somewhat academic, but what's the harm in engaging in a little academics on a trivia geek discussion board?)

Also, Tim you have never been able to convince me of the merit of Eurotrip. In order to like the movie is it necessary that one see Harriet the Spy's boobs? Because I think I might have went to the bathroom during that part.

[Vince]

I guess the real question is whether the $5 everyone ponies up is for the individual person to play or if it is buying a spot on a team. If it is the former, then anyone who plays, regardless of how many rounds they play, should be paying $5. If it is $5 per spot, then you can have anyone play on your team you want, so long as the number of players on your team doesn't exceed the amount of money the team has put in.

I definitely don't think the teams who've posted thus far are cheating by swapping players around. It sounds like you're either doing it to stay competitive, or to be more social, and not to gain any sort of advantage over another team.

I suppose, hypothetically speaking, there are ways for a less scrupulous team to have an advantage without breaking rules. Teams with "bench players" sitting at the bar could field their best 6 for round 3 categories, it's true. In another scenario, two competitive teams friendly to each other could also work it so that the team with the higher score could switch players in late rounds and make a push for the money.

But, of course, this is all hypothetical, and it seems that any teams who would jump through this many hoops to win drinks and a meager amount of cash could more easily just cheat outright.

That said, Tim regularly encourages teams with more than 6 players to have those extras join other teams with spots available, or start their own teams. The implied nature of these statements, at least as far as I read them to mean, seems to be that everyone in the pub should be on a team, and that those teams should consist of six or less players.

It looks like some teams think it is $5 per player buy-in and others think it's $5 per spot. From my point of view, $5 per player seems less problematic.

For instance, Phil's team is paying $35 instead of $30 because one player leaves early and is replaced by a sub, then it increases the pot, and it helps them keep competitive, so it's a win-win. If a team has two extra players who show up would rather sit at the bar and wait their turn to play on their friends' team rather than play on their own or join up with strangers, if they pay $5 to play, then this team has put in $40, and negates whatever advantage could ostensibly be had by having a "bench".

Perhaps all of this is much ado about nothing, but for rules discussion purposes, perhaps it's better to clarify it, because if it is $5 per spot, Phil's team is paying extra needlessly.

[Catfish]

Do we have any lawyers that could fill out the rules better for us?