Kirk's debut

[Ben Wilson]

This is bugging me, the amount of people who are questioning it, so I'll lay out the arguments.

FOR
-It's undeniably the highest ever score for a challenger.
-Damian himself told Kirk his score was a record when asked.

AGAINST-
-Technically not Kirk's debut.

Personally I'm very much in the 'for' camp, largely due to the two points above.

[Michael Wallace]

If I was being pedantic I would say no. But in reality I Just Don't Care (so if that could be an option...).

[Matt Morrison]

Fucking amazing game, yes.
Fucking amazing contestant, yes.
Highest score for a challenger, yes.
But highest score for a debut, no.

I'm less bothered about the actual record, more the use of the word 'debut' - I'd love to see the record retitled 'challenger' and it given to Kirk, I think he deserves it.
Despite Damien's importance, I don't think his opinion carries enough weight to change the actual FACT that it clearly wasn't a debut.

[Michael Wallace]

Actually, Matt has taken me out of the Don't Care count and into the 'no' camp. It just isn't his debut, and I don't really see a way around that.

[Nicky]

Technically, it isn't his debut. However, also technically, people aren't allowed a second try on the show. So logically every challenger is debuting. So, if people are going to be technical and pedantic, Kirk shouldn't be there at all.

However, as Kirk is god, and and therefore omnipotent and omnipresent, he can go anywhere he bloomin' well likes. And he was the challenger. Therefore, it is technically his debut, according to the rules.

[Michael Wallace]

I think we have a new challenger for the title of thread with the most misuse of the word 'technically'...

[Matt Morrison]

There is literally no way to call it a debut in my eyes.
It's merely the fact that we're talking about Kirk that is swaying you all, you wouldn't call it a debut for anyone else.

I mean how many times have we had (in the grand scheme of things) fairly pointless discussions in threads about people misinterpreting the definition of words?
And you're going to sit there and call this a debut? Reach out to your beloved ODEs, people.

[Charlie Reams]

I think we have a new challenger for the title of thread with the most misuse of the word 'technically'...

Yeah, the rules don't "technically" even say that you can't go on twice, as far as I know.

However I voted yes, despite the database aggro this will cause me. It may not be his debut in the every-day sense of the word, but it's clearly going to function as his debut for every possible purpose within the show. For example, whatever his points total ends up being, it won't include the 69 points from his previous appearance, nor will Jeff introduce him today as "Kirk Bevins, with a record of 1 win and 1 loss." So it makes sense to have anything else within the context of the show treated exactly as if it were his debut, including records and so forth.

[Allan Harmer]

I class it as his debut in this series, pretty much in line with Charlie's thinking.

[Michael Wallace]

Ffs, there's only one way to settle this, and that's get someone to go on and beat 127 in their first show. What's Amey Deshpande up to these days?

[Matt Morrison]

It may not be his debut in the every-day sense of the word, but it's clearly going to function as his debut for every possible purpose within the show. For example, whatever his points total ends up being, it won't include the 69 points from his previous appearance, nor will Jeff introduce him today as "Kirk Bevins, with a record of 1 win and 1 loss." So it makes sense to have anything else within the context of the show treated exactly as if it were his debut, including records and so forth.

That's the only sensible argument 'for' that I've heard yet.
The key is "treated exactly as if it were his debut" - it's not his debut but I can understand the reason to treat it as if it is on the show.
I was surprised that it wasn't mentioned that he'd been on before, though perhaps I shouldn't have been.

The best comparison I can come up with is a footballer returning to a club he's played for before, a situation which happens a fair bit.
His first comeback match will, at most, be referred to as a 'second debut' but more often than not it's just a 'return' and I've never heard anyone call it a plain 'debut'.
Equally, his two periods at the club will be represented in history by two distinct statistical collections, just like Kirk's is now.
When these stats need merging (total goals for a particular club, or total points on Countdown), they'll be his "career record" rather than his "record".

[Steve Durney]

You don't lose your virginity twice.

[Michael Wallace]

I was surprised that it wasn't mentioned that he'd been on before, though perhaps I shouldn't have been.

IIRC they rarely (if ever?) mention it when people are on again. Presumably because of the hoo-hah it could cause with people watching who'd been on before and lost and thinking "oh, I'll reapply".

[Matt Morrison]

I was surprised that it wasn't mentioned that he'd been on before, though perhaps I shouldn't have been.

IIRC they rarely (if ever?) mention it when people are on again. Presumably because of the hoo-hah it could cause with people watching who'd been on before and lost and thinking "oh, I'll reapply".

Yeah, that sounds right. I added the "though perhaps I shouldn't have been" caveat because I think it was the first time I'd been aware whilst watching that it wasn't the challenger's debut.
I joined the forum just after Junaid's return I think. Although I've been watching the show for so many years, it wasn't until signing up here and meeting you lovely lot that the contestants themselves really meant anything to me.

[Martin Gardner]

Again, it's down to definitions. I suspect Ben is at least partially referring to how I worded it on the Countdown Wiki. I'm certainly not against someone editing it and putting a better definition of 'debut'.

[Ben Hunter]

Yesterday I was in the yes camp but Michael and Matt have put forward some good arguments. I think a good compromise would be to say Jonathan Coles holds the record for highest debut score and Kirk Bevins holds the record for highest challenger score. Two different records, and Jonathan even gets to keep his so it's smiles all round.

[Matt Morrison]

Yesterday I was in the yes camp but Michael and Matt have put forward some good arguments. I think a good compromise would be to say Jonathan Coles holds the record for highest debut score and Kirk Bevins holds the record for highest challenger score. Two different records, and Jonathan even gets to keep his so it's smiles all round.

Quite possibly the fairest resolution. As far as I know, we (the Countdown-appreciating mass) are the ones assigning these records, rather than some official governing body, so we've got the power.
p.s. have you changed your "yes" to a "no" yet Ben?

[Dinos Sfyris]

You don't lose your virginity twice.

What about if you're bi?

[Michael Wallace]

Discussed this with the other half whilst we were out hunting for lunch. What is the 'point' of a highest debut score? Is it to reflect doing rather well (as well as getting lucky, etc. etc.) under an entirely *new* experience? The very first time you're on the show is (probably) going to be a bit more nervy because it's new and you're not as sure what's going to go on, etc. Kirk had already had this, which (it seems to me) is going to confer at least some advantage over someone who has *never* experienced it before.

[Dinos Sfyris]

Discussed this with the other half whilst we were out hunting for lunch. What is the 'point' of a highest debut score? Is it to reflect doing rather well (as well as getting lucky, etc. etc.) under an entirely *new* experience? The very first time you're on the show is (probably) going to be a bit more nervy because it's new and you're not as sure what's going to go on, etc. Kirk had already had this, which (it seems to me) is going to confer at least some advantage over someone who has *never* experienced it before.

tbh I think there are bigger factors at play such as 9 availability

[Michael Wallace]

tbh I think there are bigger factors at play such as 9 availability

Huh?

Edit: Misread your post. Obviously there are bigger factors at play, but then what's the point of having a highest debut score? What is it supposed to reflect? Why not have highest second game score, or seventh game score?

[Junaid Mubeen]

Discussed this with the other half whilst we were out hunting for lunch. What is the 'point' of a highest debut score? Is it to reflect doing rather well (as well as getting lucky, etc. etc.) under an entirely *new* experience? The very first time you're on the show is (probably) going to be a bit more nervy because it's new and you're not as sure what's going to go on, etc. Kirk had already had this, which (it seems to me) is going to confer at least some advantage over someone who has *never* experienced it before.

I'd argue that Kirk is under more pressure this time round, the sheer weight of expectation is ludicrous (but totally justified).

It's definitely a record of some kind and deserves recognition.

[Matt Morrison]

It's definitely a record of some kind and deserves recognition.

Yup, that'll be "Highest Challenger Score"

[Joseph Bolas]

I think a good compromise would be to say Jonathan Coles holds the record for highest debut score and Kirk Bevins holds the record for highest challenger score. Two different records, and Jonathan even gets to keep his so it's smiles all round.

I definitely agree with this. It's a win-win situation.

[Michael Wallace]

Just watched the opening to today's show - hahahahahaha no.

[Howard Somerset]

I'd say "yes", and retitle the event "highest score by a challenger".

[Kathleen Batlle]

I must have missed something here, but how did Kirk manage to get on the show twice?

[Ben Hunter]

I must have missed something here, but how did Kirk manage to get on the show twice?

Plastic surgery.

[JimBentley]

However I voted yes, despite the database aggro this will cause me. It may not be his debut in the every-day sense of the word, but it's clearly going to function as his debut for every possible purpose within the show. For example, whatever his points total ends up being, it won't include the 69 points from his previous appearance, nor will Jeff introduce him today as "Kirk Bevins, with a record of 1 win and 1 loss." So it makes sense to have anything else within the context of the show treated exactly as if it were his debut, including records and so forth.

What Charlie said. Amey Deshpande (to take an example at random) made the finals in Series 56 with 8 wins and 718 points, but he couldn't then say "Ahh, but I also got 38 points in the year 2000, then another 44 points in 2002 as part of a special show, so I've really got 800 points and should be the number one seed", could he? I hope he tried, though.

[Michael Wallace]

What Charlie said. Amey Deshpande (to take an example at random) made the finals in Series 56 with 8 wins and 718 points, but he couldn't then say "Ahh, but I also got 38 points in the year 2000, then another 44 points in 2002 as part of a special show, so I've really got 800 points and should be the number one seed", could he? I hope he tried, though.

I don't really understand the relevance of this, though. No-one (as far as I can tell) has explained what the point of having a 'highest debut score' record is if we don't have a 'highest second game' (or whatever) record as well. What is it that makes your debut score at all special if it's not the fact that it's your very first experience of being in that position?

Alternatively - suppose that they changed the rules and let losing finalists (say) from the previous series come back in subsequent ones. Would we still call their first games in later series their 'debut'? What if it was someone's 5th or 6th time out?

Edit: Having reread Charlie's post, I see his point about it being within the context of the show, but that still doesn't sit well with me, and I'll rephrase my last question to make it fit the scenario of being within that context - if an octochamp from a previous series managed to sneak back on, would we still consider their opening game as a debut score?

[Clive Brooker]

Edit: Having reread Charlie's post, I see his point about it being within the context of the show, but that still doesn't sit well with me, and I'll rephrase my last question to make it fit the scenario of being within that context - if an octochamp from a previous series managed to sneak back on, would we still consider their opening game as a debut score?

Alternatively, it could be asked which of Terry Rattle's two appearances (excluding his special) should be considered his debut? Unlike Kirk, it is of course his earlier appearance which is most remembered.

[Jon Corby]

You don't lose your virginity twice.

Or once apparently, if you're into Countdown. (I read it on lesbilicious)

Edit to add that the Raccoon Boy speaks perfect sense on this matter. I utterly agree with him.

Double edit to add that Clive makes an excellent point in the post right above this one.

[Kai Laddiman]

They basically should change it to highest challenger's score.