Zero rule in Ten Chances

[therealcu2010]

It is completely fair to criticize a contestant's poor performance.

It is not, however, okay to call them "stupid", "stubbornly dumb", or anything offensive. They're people too, you know.

You can be the most prepared person in the world, and know the games in and out, but when those lights come on and the cameras start rolling, nerves can kick in and it all turns to mush. It happens.

[GuyWithFace]

Of course, some contestants are clearly not picked for their pricing knowledge.

even if prices end in 0 more often than not, that doesn't mean $42 is 100% wrong.

I should note that the so-called "Zero Rule" has been in place since approximately the mid-1980s. For the record, it is as follows:
1) All prices end with a zero.
2) If zero is not one of the number choices, the last number is always 5.
3) If neither 0 nor 5 are present among the choices, the staff has discarded the Zero Rule, likely to decrease the win percentage.

As such, $42 will remain 100% wrong until the staff decides otherwise.

[JokerFan]

This is a non-issue. The zero rule used to award LFATs, it doesn't anymore. I refuse to pick a choice because none of them agree with my point, that being that it isn't a problem.

How does the zero rule no longer award LFATs?  As an aside, don't the two "no" answers (or at least the first one) basically say keep things the same since there is no problem with not revealing the zero rule?

[PriceBusterXL]

I know I might be a tad late on this subject, but just because you have contestants who are oblivious to the "zero rule" on 10C doesn't really mean it should go away. I know that 2 people this season weren't able to notice it (and I think you can thank the nuts for that), but I'm sure that there are LFaTs who might come to the show and might get the "chance" to play 10 Chances that are aware of the "zero rule".

I say keep it..............I'm sure someone (And by someone, I mean someone who watch the show more than once) will get it eventually.

[Punchboard91]

As such, $42 will remain 100% wrong until the staff decides otherwise.

But you took out the part of my quote that made my point...

If you have never seen the game, whose to say 42 is a worse guess than 40?

I get that you're saying in Ten Chances currently, $42 is 100% wrong. But if you've never seen the game, to you, $42 is a logical guess and really isn't that dumb.

As has been noted in this thread, with all the tricks the current staff uses (ie 9s in Lucky Seven), trying to "Stop The Dob" for lack of a better term by not picking prices ending in 0 makes sense in some games. While this isn't one of them, contestants aren't that dumb by realizing not every single price ends in 0.

[PIR85]

I feel it's like the Now or Then & Cliffhangers "unwritten rules". We may know what it is based on observation or research, but the contestants need not be told during gameplay. Hopefully if they don't know, the peanut gallery can steer them in the right direction, but based on a recent Ten Chances playing whereby half or more of the audience was holding up a "4" for the last digit, I wouldn't be so confident.

[boagman]

Not when you go over the top like that. Seriously, re-read his post and then say it is fair to say that. Nobody deserves to be told they are "incredibly stupid" or "stubbornly dumb" for not winning a game on The Price is Right.

First, I didn't tell the guy, but would I if he were part of the conversation?  Sure.  I wouldn't back down from it, just as I wouldn't chastise someone who'd call *me* stupid/dumb if I did something of that nature.  I mean, *really*?  Everybody watches the show in their own way, and as long as you're not beyond the pale of showing a modicum of intelligent thought, I root for just about everyone.  This particular contestant, however?  No...were it mathematically possible, I wish he hadn't been able to get the two-digit prize.  Cameras, schmameras...this guy lacked the ability to put the square peg in the square hole and the round peg in the round hole, purposely using as little problem-solving as possible.  I shudder to think what he'll do with the ability to create fire with the range.

As to your secondary point about nobody deserving to be called out?  I believe that axiomatically, we're going to have to agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

[boagman]

Seriously, just imagine you weren't a LFAT and you got up on stage once and were nervous and wrote $795 for a prize and suddenly everyone started calling you stupid and saying you look like a moron? That is ridiculous and should not be happening - and I'm confounded as to why you are defending it.

This isn't the same thing, and you darned well *know* it.  Eschewing the zero rule for a moment, I could *easily* see how someone of sound mind and judgment would try $795.  That's an actual-sounding price.  If the numbers here were 5,7,9, and 0, and someone went the $795 route, I would *completely* understand that (heck, I'd be understanding of $579!).  It's when you start getting into the realm of them doing garbage stuff like $957, $507, or the like that I become completely unsympathetic, and perhaps begin to root against them.  There's a host trying to *help* you.  There's a SCREAMING THRONG OF 300 who are trying to instill a shard of wisdom into your brain...it takes a certain stubborn foolishness to be that ridiculous in view of all of this.

It doesn't take being a LFAT to understand that the screaming, booing mass of people *might* have a better clue than you do when you're failing at an astronomical rate, and smiling like a silly person the whole time through, with the host trying his level-best to be rooting for you, but not able to actually *tell you* that you're behaving like there's a synaptic disconnect going on, just gazing into the camera, slowly revealing that you're wrong...for the umpteenth time.

There!  See?  I used "silly person" instead of a more proper word!  Is that somehow more redemptive, now?  I think not.

[therealcu2010]

ENOUGH. This is getting way out of hand.

We greatly frown upon talking about contestants in such a manner- even if it's only such terms as "dumb" or "stupid". Additionally, as has been mentioned, unless you've been on that stage yourself, it is extremely unfair to judge contestants based on perceived gameplay ability. You could be the most prepared person in the world going into the show, but once the show starts, nerves kick in. I speak from experience, having worked in television...I'm hardly what you'd call camera-friendly. I could read over something a thousand times, and have it ready to go...but once those lights turn on and the cameras start rolling, and I realize that people are actually watching, my brain goes to complete mush and what comes out is garbled nonsense. It happens. I don't need "wisdom instilled into my brain" or anything like that.

For all you know, that contestant could hold a Ph.D. from an Ivy League university. You never know. I'd hardly consider someone with a Ph.D. from any accredited educational institution "dumb". Nervous in front of an audience of millions? Sure. Stupid? Hardly.

Always attack the idea, never the person.

Let's get back to the discussion at hand, please...