"clouddreamer" wrote
> They can't reveal who got 1, 2, and 3 on the quiz cause the Mole always is
> first (ie they know the most about themselves and always get 100%% in the
> quickest time).
There are plenty of ways they could easily deal with that to include the
mole in the top three on occasion without giving away who is the mole and/or
who isn't the mole.
>And some of the questions can be very obscure....I've seen ones like "Where
>was the Mole sitting at dinner?" or "What is the Moles sign?" - and in that
>case, you have to get personal information from them...and hope they don't
>lie to you.)
I like the former question but not the latter. It seems they should all be
privy to the correct answer.
> Telling the competitors their score would confirm whether their suspicions
> about the Mole were right and they can't do that.
"Can't do that" or wouldn't do that? If I knew I placed first but didn't
know how many questions I answered correctly and shared answers with another
player, I wouldn't necessarily be able to figure out which of my answers
were correct but it might give me something to work with. I also couldn't be
confident that the person I'm sharing with is giving me his honest answers.
That's where I see an element of strategy coming into play.
>If they did, the last few would know for sure and do everything possible to
>keep the Mole from sabotaging the challenges and there's no fun in that.
I actually think it might be fun if one or both of the final players knew
who the mole was, which would force the mole to be extremely clever and
subtle in his sabotage attempts. Then if the final quiz was detail-oriented,
the winner would be the one who paid the closest attention to every move the
mole made.
>In most of the Moles I watched, the loser had picked the winner as the
>Mole...so even down to the wire, they still were not right about who the
>Mole was...and got that far only cause everyone else was wrong too.
Which sounds like a very unsatisfying ending to me if someone can win the
game without even figuring out who the mole is.
> Not participating in the competition isn't an option because the group
> would win no money and if you win the whole game, you'd have nothing. No
> point in that. Besides, you need to play in order to determine who the
> Mole is. The Mole is trying to lose the challenges, but not always. If you
> don't play them out, you can't figure it out.
Explain this to me. Two guys sat out the last challenge but the bank still
earned money, just less. I'm not saying it's a good idea to sit out the
challenges but in theory, a person could do that and still win the money all
the other players contributed to. In fact, a monkey could play this game and
possibly win.
> AFAIK, the quizzes are scored point for point. The simple fact of the
> matter is that if you don't know who the Mole is, you don't know.
But as I've said, there's no way to ever really know for sure even at the
very end of the game, which is why I'd like to see some progress reports.
Heck, even if the players didn't have access to that information it would be
nice if the viewers did. I want to play along somehow but since I can't, I
skip the pointless 10 minute chunk devoted to the quiz and go right to the
red screen.
> It is completely an individual game...and the best player wins.
According to what you've said, quite often it's merely the luckiest player
who wins.
Before anybody pipes in with "If you don't like the show, don't watch it,"
I'm just commenting that right now it's a decent show when there's nothing
else to watch but I think with some minor modifications it could be a great
show and frankly I'm surprised that the low ratings it's always had haven't
caused the creators to tweak it a little bit.
