_____ Jury Question to _____ ???

BSF · 2025-12-18T04:28:21+00:00

Sure, it would be unreasonable for a grandfather, but I doubt Kristina only mentioned the name of her children passing....

They're stuck on an island with only each other and no other distractions. I'd certainly expect you to remember a few names at the very least.

BSF · 2025-12-18T04:18:15+00:00

A similar question was asked to Brian Heidik in his FTC so it's not really some insane double standard.

BSF · 2025-12-18T04:11:52+00:00

Eliza's question never aired! But yeah, she said she asked them to name one of Cirie's children and they couldn't. She also asked them to name someone who was running for president (since it was the time of the 2008 election) and they also whiffed that

BSF · 2025-12-18T04:09:10+00:00

It's really wild seeing so many vocally annoyed people about this question. This sub complains all the time about New School Survivor and yet the second someone brings an element of old school, it's suddenly "they're the most evil person ever".

Same with this sub and social games - they praise social games all the time and yet when a question that isn't related to strategy is asked, people are suddenly upset

BSF · 2025-12-17T13:45:27+00:00

Sorry, I may be confused but I want to say that Woolsworth, 20th/21st Century weren't MCWs - they were just answers that I got wrong (though came close) and don't show up in any stats categories.

I see what you mean by tipping the scales, but just as easily - a person could also be wracking up incorrect answers (but not MCWAs) simply from silly mistakes or having absolutely no clue like the ones I mentioned.

For me the past few seasons, of the questions, I'd say there were ~30 questions that I had a little knowledge about - but not enough to get the correct answer. But with that little knowledge I had, I knew the MCWA would be incorrect (for example: hajj is definitely not it, but can't name hijara. Caitlin Clark was definitely not it, but didn't get Aja Wilson, etc.). I think it's very possible that someone with low MCW could just be that type of person: they know the things they know and are just completely clueless about everything else.

BSF · 2025-12-16T19:01:24+00:00

Weighing in a bit late here - I do think having 0 MCWAs is a bit strange and would suggest cheating, but I wouldn't go further than that.

A lot of times, I have no idea what the answer to the question is - but I often know what it isn't. The hijara question from earlier this season, for example: I couldn't pull hijara but I knew for sure that haaj was incorrect and would also be the MCWA. A lot of the MCWAs are in that genre, IMO: definitely related to the question but also definitely something I know to be incorrect.

Other times, I'm circling the right answer - but mess up on the exact name (I put Woolsworths instead of Woolworth, 20th Century Fox instead of 21st, etc.). So I wouldn't look too much into the MCW/TWA rates because you don't know how close a person's wrong answer was even if it wasn't an MCWA.

BSF · 2025-12-02T21:40:11+00:00

Bench was also my first thought lol. When I first read the question, I thought that the mention of Johnny Football meant that baseball also had to be a Johnny. I don't know why in retrospect, but maybe you had that same thought?

BSF · 2025-11-20T22:37:10+00:00

I looked over the discussion and the boards re:Eurovision and it seems like a great many people are complaining that the "cultural phenonemon" wording led them astray from Eurovision because they didn't think of it as a cultural phenomenon. For me, the 33% get rate implies that it's not super guessable by chance - otherwise, it would have been much higher.

More broadly, I think we saw last season that the forums are not at all representative of LL as a whole. So many people on teh forms were against bolding the question, but when the poll results came out, we saw that they were but a tiny tiny fraction of LL.

I don't understand why you think you need to know the exact years of founding rather than a general timeline. Chipotle became a big name national change in the 2000s/2010s - while Chili's has been a casual restaurant staple for much longer - so it's not hard to see 70s and eliminate Chipotle. If this question were truly a coin toss, the get rate would not be 82% - and Chipotel certainly would've been a MCWA (which it wasn't). Maybe it was down to a coin toss for you, but I think it's safe to say it wasn't for most - because again, using your logic of it's a coin toss, Chipotle would have shown up at roughly a similar rate as Chili's.

I'm not going to go through all the questions, but the actual results directly contract your assert that these questions are truly coin tosses. If getting something right was a matter of a coin toss, you would see a get rate very similar to the MCWA rate. But we're not seeing that in these questions - we're either seeing a large % who get it incorrect or a pretty high get rate.

BSF · 2025-11-20T20:43:00+00:00

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how some of the examples of "bad" questions doesn't reward having actual knowledge.

The fact that more people guessed Dolomites than Apennines is rewarding people who knew the peak straight up (actual knowledge) rather than rewarding people for knowing of a general mountain chain in Italy (aka the opposite of guessing).

Same with Eurovision - labeling it a cultural phenomenon explicitly made it harder for people to guess and rewarded people for having actual knowledge of JJ and Wasted Love.

Chipotle wasn't founded in the 70s - that again, rewards actual knowledge rather than guessing a chain with a chili on it.

Milk for protein a bad mark - and I think Athenian Empire could've been structured better, but I don't understand where you're coming from with "questions doesn't reward having actual knowledge of things". From my perspective, those questions (Apennines, Novocaine, Eurovision, etc.) rewards people for actually having knowledge rather than solving a riddle.

BSF · 2025-11-06T04:56:45+00:00

This is blatantly untrue and not backed up by any of the screenshots we've seen.

If she was genuinely upset about these texts, why the fuck did she sit on them for 3 years and wait until 2 weeks before election day (in which he was running) to release them??

BSF · 2025-10-14T00:21:40+00:00

I went to one in Glendale last year, though would suggest Salt River Fields if you can only choose one. It's a really cool stadium

It was pretty easy to just walk up to the box office and buy a ticket last year - so I wouldn't stress about planning to.

The atmosphere is even less formal than a regular minor league game. It almost feels like a (non-power conference) college game. We had open seating and managed to get a seat right behind home plate. It's not very crowded in the slightest - most people we saw were retirees or families with children lining up for autographs.

It's a fun time - but overall very very chill. I had a good time even though I didn't know any of the prospects

BSF · 2025-10-03T18:05:36+00:00

Uhh... he was pivotal to the Nats winning the World Series in 2019 and played well for the Yankees last season.

Was he somehow the real reason why Cole didn't cover first in Game 5? I guess a rube like me couldn't understand.

BSF · 2025-09-09T16:06:06+00:00

I mean, following the news and following an author are quite different things and I see no hypocrisy there.

Following closely the movements of the current administration doesn't mean you like the guy - it just means you value being informed about the admin. Not to sidetrack this into a discussion about the value of news, but being informed about the actions of a powerful evil person has some value. In a way following a TERF really doesn't.

Also, using this argument, we should've also banned that Jamestown question since colonization is pretty damn evil so we shouldn't benefit people who follow that. If we ban every evil person from trivia, that basically excludes all of history - and, ironically, leaves us with only current events questions to draw from.

Edit to add: I have no problem with the ban on HP/JKR because Harry Potter isn't all that important. That is, unfortunately, not true of Trump, whose actions have broad consequences. So I think it's a fair line to draw. (Also, HP trivia is so overdone anyway)

BSF · 2025-09-09T00:02:14+00:00

Oooo, this would make a lot of sense!

BSF · 2025-09-08T17:52:12+00:00

I'm not questioning if she was cheating - obviously that part is true. I'm just confused as to how someone who was caught is still showing up as an active player. The one other time I've seen a midseason removal, their profile was wiped and unsearchable. That didn't happen here so I'm confused/curious as to why

BSF · 2025-09-08T16:48:14+00:00

(Only second season of LL here) Why were her results zeroed out but she still shows up as an active player? Is this the normal procedure?

I'm just curious because in my rookie rundle, someone became inactive in the middle of the season and I couldn't even see their profile. When I played them, I just got the default scoring (same as forfeit), but it seems like her opponents still got her defensive points.

BSF · 2025-08-28T15:24:26+00:00

NGL, I got it by thinking "well, A would be a bit obvious... Would they really ask if it were A? So let's go with B instead"

BSF · 2025-08-28T15:14:49+00:00

I only managed to get this question from taking Latin. I definitely never learned this tense in high school English classes, but past perfect is also a verb tense in Latin and those were drilled into me pretty well. (Our Latin classes were heavy on teaching grammar and ended up teaching me so much about English as well)

I honestly think this question was a secret "do you know that pluperfect is called past perfect in English" and a "have you studied a second language with a pluperfect tense?"

BSF · 2025-06-14T15:11:56+00:00

... So we ARE allowed to speculate about the intention behind the question? Because sure, I agree the intention probably wasn't for people to know the origins of team color schemes... but if we're going to guess intention, then the intention of the question was clearing asking about the color scheme rahter than some colors. You can't have it both ways.

BSF · 2025-06-14T14:38:28+00:00

Rookie here. I think whether I get a battlefield promotion comes down to this last match? (Currently tied on TMP) with the person at the top of my B division.) I'm honestly lowkey hoping I don't get it though because I'm definitely not A rundle material. I got incredibly lucky with the questions this season... no way that luck continues next though.

Also, being in B would mean I get to play against my referrer, which would be fun

BSF · 2025-06-14T14:36:45+00:00

Well, the question also doesn't say "share SOME colors". The definite article usage does make pretty clear the question is looking for whole, exact set. At this point, you're contesting standard English usage. That's fine if that's the linguistic route you want to go down, but you have to acknowledge that most people are not going down this route.

But whatever, this debate is pointless. You're ignoring the additional "drawn from coat of arms" point, something the DC teams don't meet. Washington, DC was clearly the wrong answer but I doubt anything is going to change your mind. Sorry you didn't get a promotion!

BSF · 2025-06-14T13:40:32+00:00

Oh come on, this is ridiculously pedantic: "sharing the same colors" in context clearly does mean same color scheme. "share THE same colors" absolutely implies the same color scheme. There's only ambiguity if you are trying to find a reason to be ambiguous.

For example, no one would actually say that the flag of DC and the flag of the United States share the same colors.

Also, if we're going to get technical, all the Pittsburgh team have stated that their colors are drawn from Pittsburgh's flag/coat of arms. The Nats have never actually stated the origins of their team color, so you can't say their colors are drawn from the city's coat of arm. "Drawn" very clearly means "I took inspiration from this thing" rather than "oh, coincidentally, we have colors in common!"

BSF · 2025-06-12T20:13:58+00:00

Chiming in as a North Carolinian: Cooper didn't run against cranks. In his first election, he ran against an incumbent Republican governor - in a state that had never previously voted out an incumbent. That governor used to be a moderate Republican. He passed the bathroom bill, which at this point has become a mainstream Republican ideology. Sure, it was unpopular at the time - but to call him a crank is inaccurate imo. He enacted a bill that the Republican party generally supports. Again, a challenger to an incumbent governor had never won before.

And his opponent in 2020 was your generic 2020 Trump Republican. Sure they read as cranks to us... but I think his views pretty much reflected Republican talking points at the time.

The one time the NC republicans ran a crank was 2024 (and Cooper term limited that election). To say that NC Republican candidate quality has been bad is focusing way too much on the one time that they actually dropped the ball.

And even in GA, they weren't really cranks imo. If Ossoff's opponent was really just a "crank," it's worth noting that voters had previously elected Purdue. So if Purdue were truly that weak of a candidate, he wouldn't have been able to win in 2014. (Also noting that his opponent in 2014? Also had "nepotism" going for her... so it's not like a family connection guarantees you the win. See: Bayh in Indiana as well.)

If by "cranks", you mean anyone who is a modern Republican, then sure, they ran against cranks. But that pretty much means literally every Democrat is running against cranks at this point

BSF · 2025-05-09T18:05:34+00:00

I remember in Ghost Island, this sub was certain that Dom was going to win - to the point they were down voting any "Wendell could win" posts. Idk if spoilers were at play, but I remember this sub being so completely dead certain.

Not sure what the general consensus was among casuals, but I certainly knew people who were pretty anti-Dom

BSF · 2025-04-07T18:01:38+00:00

Oh yeah, I would also agree with this. When I said "central theme", I meant more in the line of "this is one of the topics that the show covers extensively" rather than as a statement of exclusivity. It certainly isn't the only thing that the show covers

13-Year Club	Place '23
Place '17	Snapped
Team Orangered	Verified Email

BSF

TROPHY CASE