"Veteran" and "rookie" are contract terms of art used by Bunim-Murray Productions Inc to identify one who is offered greater compensation after having successfully participated in two previous challenges at a lower compensation level; i.e., there are two separate contracts offered to RW/RR/FM cast members, based upon the number of challenges each has done. Thus, Robin and Katie, who are tied for the most challenge appearances at seven are paid the same as one who is doing their his or her third challenge. Anyone doing a first or second challenge receives a lesser amount as a weekly stipend.

V1Man gave the true technical version of what a vet is. But Nevaeh, you also seem to want to understand why fans don't consider people who fit that criteria as true vets. This is what I think has happened, and it's just going off what I have read on message boards and from me being a long time challenge watcher (since the beginning). Some fans of the shows don't really like to consider the Fresh Meat people as true veterans because they aren't Real Worlders or Road Rulers, and they have been in the challenge pool for only three years. Also, from what I've seen, some fans feel the "true" vets are the people who have built the challenges into a big entertainment over the years. I think those fans who feel that are most likely people who were watching at least since 2007 and prior. But even back in 2004, people like Veronica (who long was the lone person at the top of challenge appearances), Coral, Mike, Abram, Katie, Rachel, etc, were getting on challenge watchers' nerves because they kept doing back to back challenges. Now, some of those long time challenge watchers compare them to Fresh Meat and the newer seasons of RW/RR and prefer that past group. If you look at RW, people also tend to prefer the older seasons to the seasons today. A season from the past (i.e. RW London) that might have seemed boring back then would now be considered more interesting to a season today. Some of it is a generational thing as well, I think. As for judging if someone is a jerk or not - well, people watch the shows. If they see someone always doing something shady, or calling people names constantly or degrading people - like Kenny or Johnny - then people are going to be upset and they are not going to think too highly of them. This is supposed to be reality TV, after all (even though I am aware people play up their perceived personas more or they may be overdramatic for the cameras). It's true editing can make one dimensional "characters" out of people who are way more complex, but if someone constantly sees mean and bad behavior out of someone over the years, they aren't going to think that person is a good person if they are not seeing anything nice from them. Seeing them outside the shows and judging how they are based on one encounter - not the best way to judge someone, but it's all about the impressions people make on you. The more negative you see, the more negative you're going to think, and the more positive you see, the more positive you're going to think. If you always see a cashier with a frown on their face, you may think the person is always mad, but maybe they just had bad moments. Sometimes celebrities are reported on for not signing autographs and such and such place, and people think they are mean after that. Just what happens sometimes. So if challenge people like, say, Kenny or Johnny, are actually nice people and don't really look down on women, then they shouldn't make all of those mean comments towards them or treat them with disrespect. It's kind of easy to brush off one or two comments here and there, but when you are constantly seeing/hearing stuff like this, as a viewer you might start to think that's who the person is. I guess some of how a person is portrayed on the shows is up to them. I know they can't control editing 100% - I know producers can take a few bad moments and make it seem like that's all that happened with a person, but if after they watch the show they think they look like a jerk, I would guess they could try to let their more affable side show the next time.

"True vets" to me are the ones that done the early challenges like Ruthie, Rachel, Mark, Holly, Coral, Mike,etc...I don't like to put people like Kenny, johnny, Paula in that category with them.

Charmqn;36428 wrote:
"True vets" to me are the ones that done the early challenges like Ruthie, Rachel, Mark, Holly, Coral, Mike,etc...I don't like to put people like Kenny, johnny, Paula in that category with them.

In the formulation I use, if you were not actually on The Real World or Road Rules, you can't be a veteran of The Real World/Road Rules Challenge. Just how my thought process works. :wink2:

Bacchus;36429 wrote:
In the formulation I use, if you were not actually on The Real World or Road Rules, you can't be a veteran of The Real World/Road Rules Challenge. Just how my thought process works.

I agree. :blush:

Thanks for your quick answers! I too have been watching from the beginning so it was a bit frustrating for me to see why some are classified differently than others - I will elaborate more when I am not typing it out on my Blackberry! Thanks again everyone for your input :)

Truthfully I personally know some of these road rulers and real worlders and they kind of get offended when people put them in the same category as anyone from freshmeat. They didn't have a show, Road Rules was over, so they needed new faces. I get that, but they are still Newbies. I consider Vets people who have been on since the beginning. jonny might have done back to back challenges, like veronica, but veronica started when it was on the bus... real world vs road rules challenge: all stars. most of the castmembers are extremely nice, down to earth people. but again you have some castmembers who let the reality thing get to their head and they kind of act like they are better.

From the comments on the finale posted on MTV.com: "THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE MISSING...MELINDA, DANNY, ALEX, CT, DIEM, AND ALL THE OTHER VETS.....WHERE ARE THEY?" For real? Melinda, Danny, and Diem are "vets"? And I'm not even entirely sure who Alex is...

Moonpaw;36709 wrote:
From the comments on the finale posted on MTV.com: "THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE MISSING...MELINDA, DANNY, ALEX, CT, DIEM, AND ALL THE OTHER VETS.....WHERE ARE THEY?" For real? Melinda, Danny, and Diem are "vets"? And I'm not even entirely sure who Alex is...

My sentiments exactly. LOL. Alex is from the Denver season. And that's sad they group him into the veteran label when he's been on one challenge and sucked *** at that. And every single Austin cast annoys the hell out of me when they show their faces on a challenge, with the exception of Wes.

cystic;36722 wrote:
My sentiments exactly. LOL. Alex is from the Denver season. And that's sad they group him into the veteran label when he's been on one challenge and sucked *** at that. And every single Austin cast annoys the hell out of me when they show their faces on a challenge, with the exception of Wes.

The fact that people think cast members from the 16th season of The Real World are veterans aids in the points I made here.

cystic;36722 wrote:
My sentiments exactly. LOL. Alex is from the Denver season. And that's sad they group him into the veteran label when he's been on one challenge and sucked *** at that.

Was he the one who gave up in that first Gauntlet in G3 against Nehemiah? I vaguely remember that dude, and nothing about him. Calling him a vet is an INSULT.

in my eyes i would like to label a "true" veteran as somebody who actually does shit for the challenges competition wise, and deserves to win. Colies next challenge will be considered a veteran, but honestly i dont think she would deserve it. she is just one example. I also like to think of the last generation as veterans and the new challeners as rookies, even if they have done 4 challenges back to back, or whatever. Just because I grew up watching the first real challenge, which wasnt even its own season/show or anything-it was in the middle of a season. The whole challenges started with real world boston and rr islands doing an obstacle course/net thingy in puerto rico(lol its been so long but i could be wrong on the location). I think something happened in miami season before boston, but it wasnt a straight up competition like boston/islands. so i guess my answer is based on generations, experience, and worth.

cystic;36722 wrote:
My sentiments exactly. LOL. Alex is from the Denver season. And that's sad they group him into the veteran label when he's been on one challenge and sucked *** at that. And every single Austin cast annoys the hell out of me when they show their faces on a challenge, with the exception of Wes.

Once again, you have to have been on two challenges to no longer be officially a rookie. For those in need of the technical explanation, here it is: http://vevmo.com/f187/what-defines-a-veteran-2404/#post36363

V1man;36732 wrote:
Once again, you have to have been on two challenges to no longer be officially a rookie. For those in need of the technical explanation, here it is: http://vevmo.com/f187/what-defines-a-veteran-2404/#post36363

Right, but I don't think we are looking at this from a technical perspective. ;) For instance, Jacoby Ellsbury was on two playoff teams with the Red Sox and one of those teams won the World Series. Next year I don't think they will start referring to him as a veteran (although after 45 days on the active roster in the MLB you are no longer considered a Rookie.) I think the same type of case can be made for the newer class of challenge competitors that might have crossed a technical threshold but are not "true vets." My practical definition would divide the competitors into three classes: Rookies, Regulars and Veterans.

Bacchus;36735 wrote:
My practical definition would divide the competitors into three classes: Rookies, Regulars and Veterans.

Other than for the joy in having the conversation, it's pointless. The only game in town is owned by MTV. Their game; their rules. The technical definition could be changed, but when was the last time BMP/MTV showed any real interest in a viewer perspective?

Moonpaw;36726 wrote:
Was he the one who gave up in that first Gauntlet in G3 against Nehemiah? I vaguely remember that dude, and nothing about him. Calling him a vet is an INSULT.

Yes, Alex gave up in the first mission (where they were in that mud pit and had to grab those balls) as well, when he basically let Adam take the ball he was carrying. Then in the gauntlet with Nehemiah, he was trying at first, but after awhile he gave up in that too.

ghnstry;36743 wrote:
Yes, Alex gave up in the first mission (where they were in that mud pit and had to grab those balls) as well, when he basically let Adam take the ball he was carrying. Then in the gauntlet with Nehemiah, he was trying at first, but after awhile he gave up in that too.

I thought Alex was only on Gauntlet 3? He was one more than one challenge?

tjhallow;36979 wrote:
I thought Alex was only on Gauntlet 3? He was one more than one challenge?

Yes, he was only on The Gauntlet 3. All of what I had said happened in the season premiere, the only time he was there