Make Your Mark Change - Good, Bad or Indifferent?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'195037\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 02:01 PM\']
Approves.[/quote]
Can I finish?

[Fedya]

/Deja Vu isn't just an exotic bar in Seattle...

True dat

[TroubadourNando]

I voted "worse" as it is the closest of the somewhat narrow choices to how I feel about the change.

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'195023\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 12:54 PM\'][quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'195020\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 11:40 AM\']Why give $500 for doing absolutely nothing?[/quote]To facilitate the main decision of the game: keep the money or switch the marker?[/quote]
That wasn't the game's main decision until after they changed the rule.

[Mr. Armadillo]

Before, anyone who was interested in the money and not the prizes would never turn in the cash.

Now, anyone who was interested in the money and not the prizes would never turn in the cash.

Before, most people would assume they get to keep the cash win or lose and be surprised when Bob/Drew asked for it back if they lost.

Now, most people would assume they get to keep the cash win or lose...and be right.

I voted 'no difference', but based on what I just said...hmm, I do think the game is actually slightly better off than it was before.  Not enough to move it into 'positive' territory, though, since very few people should be keeping the cash in the first place.

(My point is that this isn't going to change much...the keeping of the cash isn't going to entice anyone to keep the cash that wasn't going to keep the cash anyway.)

[Neumms]

It always seemed goofy when Bob demanded the money back if a player lost. "Indian giving" was the old schoolyard expression for it. So I voted "yes," it's better.

But geez, they only play the frickin' game once a month, don't they? Cripes!

[JasonA1]

I took the option of indifference, because I hardly envision Drew making a big deal out of the contestant being able to keep the money "win or lose." The function of the cash doesn't really change, it just works a little more fluidly from a presentation standpoint. Meaning, the contestant will lose like before, but they'll get the handshake and Drew saying "but you still get to keep the $500, we'll be right back..." or some such. From a gamesmanship standpoint, yeah, it's money for nothing, but for the show - no big deal.

-Jason

[Robert Hutchinson]

I think it was often goofy when Bob demanded the money back because Bob had just done a poor job of explaining that that might happen. The money should be the temptation, not the money + a clumsy description of the rules.

[ClockGameJohn]

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'195142\' date=\'Aug 25 2008, 03:57 PM\']
Meaning, the contestant will lose like before, but they'll get the handshake and Drew saying "but you still get to keep the $500, we'll be right back..." or some such.
[/quote]

...and this is how this all began.

[Dbacksfan12]

I voted "indifferent".  As I expressed previously, giving a contestant $500 isn't going to make or break the show.  I also fail to see (and have yet to hear a decent argument) as to exactly why this is such a horrible change, other than the inevitable "They're changing things just because!"

The show has other issues that need attention. This is, at best, a non-issue.

[JasonA1]

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'195204\' date=\'Aug 26 2008, 09:23 AM\']
I also fail to see (and have yet to hear a decent argument) as to exactly why this is such a horrible change, other than the inevitable "They're changing things just because!"[/quote]

I voted why I did, again, because this new rule doesn't exactly appear bad on the air. But from the normal standpoint we take on this board of making the game most fair and logical? They're giving the contestant $500 for doing nothing. This isn't a consolation prize for doing something positive in the game - this is money they're getting to keep, even if they do the WRONG thing with it. It doesn't bother me like it does some of the other TPIR fans, but it's pretty clear (to me, I qualify) why it's negative from a logic standpoint.

Frankly, they could stand to dump the cash from the game altogether, or change it to a non-visual $500 bonus for getting all three right on your original picks; which is essentially what the old rules were, but it wasn't executed that way.

-Jason

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'195209\' date=\'Aug 26 2008, 08:16 AM\']
But from the normal standpoint we take on this board of making the game most fair and logical?[/quote]
If that's the normal standpoint we take, then we have a problem, since the goal for them is to make the best television, not the best game. And removing the "You lose! *yoink!*" is better television.

[JasonA1]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'195218\' date=\'Aug 26 2008, 01:10 PM\']
If that's the normal standpoint we take, then we have a problem, since the goal for them is to make the best television, not the best game. And removing the "You lose! *yoink!*" is better television.
[/quote]

Yes, I agree, and said so much in my last two posts. It just seemed to me the way the rule change made the game bad was lost on some people in the last thread. I found that odd, given how in the past, we as a group were quick to judge new rule changes that made for worse games, but better TV. This was noticeable back when people posted proposals, as well.

-Jason

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'195228\' date=\'Aug 26 2008, 12:51 PM\']
I found that odd, given how in the past, we as a group were quick to judge new rule changes that made for worse games, but better TV. This was noticeable back when people posted proposals, as well.[/quote]
In the words of the great philosopher Tonto: "What you mean "we," white man?"

[Mr. Armadillo]

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'195209\' date=\'Aug 26 2008, 10:16 AM\']Frankly, they could stand to dump the cash from the game altogether, or change it to a non-visual $500 bonus for getting all three right on your original picks; which is essentially what the old rules were, but it wasn't executed that way.[/quote]

As best as I can tell, the intent of the old rules were that Roger wanted there to be some 'cost' to switching the marker, since otherwise the game is too easy to win via the Monty Hall problem.  The only way to give a 'cost' was to give the contestant something at the outset that they could later 'spend'.  Hence, the $500.