It's the BBC's PC agenda infesting all progamme areas now. Better get used to it.

Just to answer the debate about the Elton John question, we had various other alternative answers which were acceptable if a team buzzed early.

Miley Cyrus was indeed an answer if they buzzed in after two clues, and if they had buzzed after I we'd have taken anyone with the first name Thomas (just). Also, if a team had come up with an answer that worked that we hadn't thought of, that would be fine as well.

Some people seem to think that we can only accept the answer in the last box but with any sequence question. If a team can give us a valid alternative within the frame of what we were thinking then points to them.

Hope that helps

The question writers are not employed by the BBC and the BBC do not tell us which subjects to write about.

Thanks but I find it hard to believe the BBC don't have any kind of guidelines to be followed.

Obviously all broadcasters have guidelines. But having written for TV (all main channels and some minor), radio, print media and electronic media, nobody has ever asked me for certain subjects to be included,

So I'm not defending the BBC but all media.

Hope that helps

In fairness that's because VCM used to clearly state that she needed to hear exactly what was in the last box and it wasn't necessary to know or understand the sequence. Now we know the 'rules' have changed, that has helped, thanks.

Surely, though, teams should be penalised for guessing incorrectly after gambling to get more points. They could after all ask to see the third clue and settle for one guaranteed. This obviously is unfair on teams who come up with perfectly good sequences and alternative answers that aren't within the frame of what you happened to be thinking.

And with a surname the same as somebody else's given name.

Could you outline what sort of guideline you have in mind in this case please?

[quote=atg;83620131]In fairness that's because VCM used to clearly state that she needed to hear exactly what was in the last box and it wasn't necessary to know or understand the sequence. Now we know the 'rules' have changed, that has helped, thanks.

Surely, though, teams should be penalised for guessing incorrectly after gambling to get more points. They could after all ask to see the third clue and settle for one guaranteed. This obviously is unfair on teams who come up with perfectly good sequences and alternative answers that aren't within the frame of what you happened to be thinking.[/QU]

There has been no rule change. Victoria will still ask for a specific answer when one is required. For example if we are specifically looking for 'winning' rather than 'not losing'. Other times alternative answers are fine. Teams just need to heedthe hosts instructions before the question. Nothing has changed over the 12 series.

You will often hear on other quizzes the host saying they want a specific answer.

I'm sorry that I don't understand your other point. If the team want to gamble after one clue, there's nothing to stop them. The detriment is they lose the chance to get points by hanging on for more clues.

ETA I think I may understand. Are there any examples you were thinking of where teams have buzzed in with other answers which are acceptable but have been denied?

The old "having been told the facts I shall choose not to believe them" tactic.

Thomas? I'm trying to track that one back to Elton but I'm racking my brains..

EDIT: Ah, I see there's a Hannah Thomas on ITV Wales...

I did a quick Wikipedia and could only find Hannah Montana - funnily enough, what with the Miley Cyrus sequence - but no, that one obviously wouldn't really work for the reason you state

Just a quick word of thanks to OCwriter for the clarification...hang around please, I'm sure your input will be required again soon

I really didn't like this question but mainly because I thought it was unfair.
Surely a sequences question needs to be able to be solved after one or two clues but this one you could only really get after 3 clues.
I feel it would have been better for the connections round.

Perhaps more accurately, it needs to look as if can be solved after one or two clues occasionally so people will take a gamble but some will be wrong.

Many round 2 questions are not possible after one clue. Another example from Monday's show is a question where the first clue is Bhat.

We make sure that these are shared equally throughout the series.

And according to social media, quite a lot of people got it right after two clues, so it wasn't unfair.

Anyway hope that clears up a few things for everyone and enjoy the rest of the series.

That's what I couldn't get, as much I as like Thomas Hitzlsperger, I would have thought Justin Fashanu would have been a clue if the answer was first sportsmen in those sports to come out.

I get the impression (via Twitter) that Keegan wasn't that keen on his name being included in the question, or he wasn't impressed with the question full stop.

Great to see you, OCWriter, on this thread. We have missed contributions from "them what knows" since DavidBod left the scene!

Montana Wildhack.

The rule has definitely changed. She always used to be very clear that she wanted to hear exactly what would appear in tbe final box. Now you say something completely different might be acceptable. The question is, how far would you go.

I really don't understand why you don't get the concept that the only correct answer should be the one that you define by all three clues. The logical alternative would be to put "Hannah Something" in the third box.

A team might see two clues and think that there could be two possible answers depending on what the third clue is. You quite often see this when a team knows what the sequence is but isn't completely sure what the exact order or number of terms is, so they ask for the next clue. So in this case, if the team was trailing, they might realise there could be two possible sequences depending on which Hannah you chose and decide to either take a 50% gamble in order to win one (or is it two?) extra points, or to see the third clue and hence know for sure what the correct answer is.

You say it yourself at the end there, it's a gamble if you choose to buzz in early, and it should be just that. You should be penalised for gambling incorrectly, but this idea means that they aren't. The idea that you should be able to correctly identify with certainty the fourth in a sequence just by seeing the first one is a bit ridiculous anyway.

Your ETA(?): Plenty of times over the years teams have given answers which would be valid based on the two clues they have seen, but have not been allowed because the unseen third clue doesn't fit. If you think about it, what you are saying here is, or should be treated, exactly the same.

Why don't they explain what the format is? So far they have 6 winners and apparently just one best runner up that has to play again to go through to the next round. If that's half of the draw as she says then you will have 13 in the second round, which doesn't make any sense at all.

I'm not googling that. Anyone with the forename "Montana" is going to be a porn star.

Well, yes, but safe to Google.

Montana Max from Tiny Toon Adventures

Vicci being very lax there, First Ministers, NOT SNP leaders, nil point.