There is no argument from me. I am just joining in with the pedantry that has become a trademark of the thread and is surely in keeping with the show. There have been times when the team knows what the clue at the end of round 2 should be but can't think of an example that fits (e.g. they know it is a film with six letters but can't think of one oops sorry bad example ) ... (e.g. they know it is a band with six members but can't think of one). And are not given it because they need a correct last clue not the connection. Admittedly, VC is probably being more lenient as it is early in the series and may be stricter in the later stages.

Obviously I don't actually care and was largely only saying about this because I was surprised it hadn't been mentioned. Even so, if part of the foundation of your show is pedantry and tricky specific details (such as using abbreviations) it is hardly unreasonable to mention when there is a lack of consistency. Teams have not been given points for slight mistakes or not quite exact answers such as this example several times.

Americans do seem to use the full state name when they see the two letter abbreviation for a state. The person who answered obviously knew the answer and was not guessing and I am sure he would have been able to give the abbreviation if she had challenger him.

In the UK we also sometimes use abbreviations for some counties but if the other clues were e.g. Beds, Berks, and Bucks, the final answer might be Cambs not Cambridgeshire even if some might say it a certain way because that is a specific detail of the way it has been asked.

Also you might be right that "if" asked they would know it was NE but presuming the contestant knows the exact correct answer is not how this (or any) quiz show works. Ultimately VC has been lenient before, especially in early rounds, with as mentioned another example in the same show with George VI. The difference is that she said "exactly correct". If the answer is NE and you say Nebraska that is almost correct, or close enough, but not exactly correct. If she said "that is close enough" it would be far more dubious and more easily dismissed but that is not how it went.

Obviously it would have been harsh to not give the point. Given the use of the word "exact" I expected her to say "look at the other clues and try again". Does it matter? No. Is it pedantry? Yes. Is it fully in line with the show's aesthetic and this thread? I think so. Do I need to get out more? Don't be so rude.

I suspect that was one of those OC questions that worked rather better in somebody's head than it did in reality. The entries should really have all been parts of genuine film franchises. But then you'd have to think of a series that had six letters in its name, and that also had at least six different entries in it, and that would be pretty much impossible - I suppose Batman might just about count, but even that one's a bit contentious.

Obviously Cars IV was the 'giveaway' there - and I think the other team had identified that title as being something that didn't exist - but it's still a rather weak question. I'm sure they could have thought of other themes rather than films. I'm willing to bet that chap had no idea exactly why he was saying George VI...

And I can't believe she was going to allow 'English Writers' as a correct answer to the Playwrights question. It does get a little pedantic here sometimes, but VCM does seem to be all over the place on consistency..

He was extremely lucky to pluck a name and then it actually was a film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066660/?ref_=fn_ft_tt_1

However, he gave a correct answer, even if he had no idea he did, and them's the rules.
He knew it was film names and numbers of letters therein, but I reckon in struggling to think of a 6 lettered film name under pressure and with the use of roman numerals he had George the 6th in his head, and possibly thought of The King's Speech but haphazardly just blurted "George 6" out.

Jammy git though ( not David Mitchell).

Victoria obvious gets information both through her earpiece and through the screen in front of her. She said last night "according to my screen it also says accept ..........." So may be it isn't her decision on what is acceptable and she's just very good at what she does in making it look as if it is.

"George 6" would have been a correct answer, but he said "George the sixth", which wasn't really correct, as the VI referred to the number of letters in the title and not the position of the sequel. And of course in line with the preceding discussion, "George V I" would have been even more correct.

I thought it worked fine. Admittedly that may be because I got it as soon as Cars IV popped up.

They've actually done something very similar before with names which started with a name that suggested some sort of royal connection (Henry V was one of the clues I think) but then threw in a non-royal name as the third clue.

I think the question was pretty simple but was made trickier by the team over-thinking it.

If you want to be pedantic then Djokovic shouldn't have been accepted without the first name given.

Good point. So in fact there were at least 3 dodgy ones in that one show.
And that is without including the (almost) accepting of English writers.

Is this a consequence of moving to BBC2?

No, it's not anything to do with the move to BBC2, there has always been a debate on how tightly the connection is defined and how specific the teams need to be to gain a correct answer.

On what basis would Djokovic not be accepted rather than Novak Djokovic? Do we now have to list every first name of any classical composer as well?

Purely on the basis that the first three clues in the sequence were given as full names rather than surname alone. Very pedantic indeed. I could see the need for pedantry if the first three were Name & Scoreline, then you can't allow name only as the answer. but to insist on the first name as well is a bit "Reykjavik comma Iceland fullstop"

Obviously insisting on also saying Novak is taking it a tad far but I think the crucial factor is that the people running the show have set these standards themselves. They revel in how difficult it is and are the ones who laid the pedantic foundation from the beginning. Whenever I see complaints about certain questions/answers on here it is often more a complaint about consistency. In particularly some of the early series' when they were establishing things there were several occasions when teams were penalized for tiny errors, not that far off missing a comma or whatever.

If you invite pedants into your club, don't be surprised when the club is full of pedants.

No I don't necessarily know all the abbreviations for every state, but you naturally say Wisconsin when you see Madison and similarly Jackson Mississippi and Lincoln Nebraska. They just go together! I wasn't sure about Jefferson City, but I knew MO was Missouri,

To be fair you somewhat back up the point then. The question had a secondary level of difficulty which was being able to convert the state name to the abbreviation which not everyone will manage. This is a common extra level that they add to questions. The fact that you naturally say Lincoln Nebraska but the clues were worded with the abbreviations is actually relevant. You are supposed to be paying attention to the details and will be caught out if you blurt it out as you normally might say it.

A similar example might be if the clues were the symbols on the periodic table for various chemicals. If the last one was He and you said Helium that would be wrong even if you know He is the symbol and might even tend to say Helium when you see He on the periodic table.

Also to be fair, I don't think you would ever hear anyone say Madison W. I. rather than Madison Wisconsin or Lincoln N. E. rather than Lincoln Nebraska. It's easier to say in full and quicker to write the abbreviation, as you would when addressing an envelope.

To get int the pedantic swing, I'd suggest it's a perfectly valid answer IF there's only one male tennis player called Djokovic, because then the answer is unambiguous.

The pedants here would probably want you to say "upper case 'H' lower case 'e' ".

Why do people get so anal about this show? All I'm bothered about is whether I get the correct answer.

Jeez Louise, it's a quiz show with no actual prize. Hardly robbing a team of a potential life changing win.

I like the way that they seem to give Victoria Coren Mitchell a lot of freedom so it is obvious that the team know the answer then she does not have to quibble about details.

My understanding of that round is to say what you would expect to see next. Traditionally, teams have been very particular about saying what should be seen written., right down to the colon or comma etc.

It could be argued that each of the preceding clues should have had the entire State written.

I think most pedants would be capable of distinguishing between trivial and non trivial objections to answers.

It could, and the fact they didn't implies that knowing the particular abbreviation was a requirement for the point in what is after all partly a general knowledge quiz.

That would be my take on it also.