Hmm. Well, I can see drinking people assuming that a tip jar on the bar would be for bar staff, and I can see bar staff having a problem with that. So I don’t think that’s the solution. Still pondering.
Personally, I don’t imagine that, if I were sitting in the audience, and I saw a tip jar, that I would gasp and go, “That means a corrupt host!”
I’m sure that would occur to the occasional person, but the occasional person always finds something to complain about. Besides, the fact that a group that I sit with before the quiz, and that I often leave with, wins pretty frequently, is already an “appearance of impropriety.” So it’s not anything I don’t think I can handle.
So I’m probably gonna talk to the owner about a tip jar. I mean, the chick who calls the bingo numbers puts one out, and I do WAY more work than her. Plus I’m probly broker than her, since I’m broker than everyone else.
I think the tip jar idea is worth pursuing – I just really have no idea how it’s going to go over. None of the trivia hosts I’ve seen at other bars have ever had tip jars; maybe that just means you’re thinking smart.
Or they’re getting paid more than beer for their participation. If you have no luck with the tip jar, and would like more cash, look at other venues.
I got an offer from the Ravenna Alehouse, and I told him it would be cash, not beer, so we’ll see what the response to THAT is. (Just sent that email, so I haven’t heard back yet.) Odd thing is, Ravenna Alehouse and Old Pequliar are owned by the same guy. So maybe I could work out some kind of franchise deal with him. I deal with the respective bars’ managers though, so far.
I got another early-morning page for misbehaving software. Coincidentally enough, just like last time, I’ve been up since 2:45 this morning. I don’t know whether or not I’m going to make it tonight. Say fifty-fifty.
My internet’s back up, working on what is shaping up, I think, to be a good one. Well, parts of it are giving me that feeling of smug satisfaction that makes for a good trivia quiz. Gird up y’all!
Well THAT sucked. I should know better than to get excessively complicatious. Plus, it’s a confidence thing: if an early round doesn’t fire on all cylinders, it affects my “mood” for the rest of the game: I’m more likely to be oversensitive to weak moments.
Oh well, another fresh mistake to add to my quiver. As it were.
Also, non-exhaustive fact checking raised some ugly heads. If I find a trivia question/fact somewhere, I fact check for at least one other source that says the same thing. I don’t exhaustively plumb the 'net for contradictory opinions and analyze all possible interpretations. I find a fact(oid), find a confirming source, and move on.
Case in point, Loch Ness. Found a this-day-in-history site that said it was first sighted in 1933. I googled it, found another site that said the same thing. I didn’t keep googling, looking for other interpretations of “previous” sightings. I moved on to the next factoid. At some point you gotta go with “you can’t prove a negative” and get to the next question.
My interpretation is that the first “recorded sighting” was in 1933, and then cryptozoologists dug further back for historical passages that MIGHT be interpreted as earlier sightings.
FWIW, Wiki seems to agree:
So, valid debate notwithstanding, I’m sticking to 1933 as the first “official” sighting, insofar as it’s even possible to say such a thing in this context.
Just to repeat, I’m really not bitching about losing a point on Nessie. My cryptozoological phase was about 20 years ago, so I remembered the story about the monk but wouldn’t have known any current research.
And I didn’t think you sounded bad. The “one of these things” round was a great idea, but probably too open to interpretation.