Big mistake on Jeopardy!

[xavier45]

On Monday's Jeopardy!, a contestant named Jeff Kirby was a contestant on the show. He didn't do very well and went home with the consolation prize of $1,000. Fine. Problem here is, he was once a contestant on the show back in 1999. The producers of the show say they had no clue about this. The people at the Jeopardy! boards caught this quickly pointing at one thing the guy did the same. He wore the same tie on Monday that he wore on his initial appearance back in '99. So obviously, he will not be receiving that $1,000.

The producers made a statement about this. Here it is at Buzzerblog.

[bandit_bobby]

Well, at least "The Price is Right" can now say they're not the only show to have this kind of a problem happen.

[chad1m]

Our post on it at About: Game Shows has a link to an interview he did with his local paper where he would have a clear opportunity to mention a past connection with the show and did not, so he was definitely trying to pull a fast one. As someone who works in education, it saddens me that Kirby is supposed to be the model and a person to look up to for elementary school kids.

[colonial]

Given the longevity of the program, you would think J! would maintain some kind of database of all past contestants and check it before each taping to see if someone is trying to "beat the system."

Could Mr. Kirby face legal action for fibbing on his application and legal forms?

JD

[chad1m]

[quote name=\'colonial\' post=\'228551\' date=\'Oct 15 2009, 10:17 AM\']Could Mr. Kirby face legal action for fibbing on his application and legal forms?[/quote]He could, but Sony/Jeopardy probably doesn't want to go down that road. (They never sued a 5-time champ in the 80s who bounced around on game shows with various identities to skirt eligibity requirements.) Just take his money away and make sure he never comes the studio again.

[Jimmy Owen]

[quote name=\'colonial\' post=\'228551\' date=\'Oct 15 2009, 10:17 AM\']Given the longevity of the program, you would think J! would maintain some kind of database of all past contestants and check it before each taping to see if someone is trying to "beat the system."

Could Mr. Kirby face legal action for fibbing on his application and legal forms?

JD[/quote]


Well, if people are truthful, the staff doesn't need a database. Even if they don't maintain such a database, the fans will let them know, and Sony thanks them for it.  The guy had to give back the grand and is being publicly humiliated, so isn't that punishment enough?

[dale_grass]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'228553\' date=\'Oct 15 2009, 09:30 AM\']Well, if people are truthful, the staff doesn't need a database. Even if they don't maintain such a database, the fans will let them know, and Sony thanks them for it.[/quote]
I think the consensus is that he shouldn't have been allowed to play in the first place, which (in this case) a database would have prevented.

[chris319]

Could Mr. Kirby face legal action for fibbing on his application and legal forms?
He could

In practice, no.

[Matt Ottinger]

I'm loving the fact that in his two appearances a decade apart, he wore the same necktie.  That could have been his own private way of thumbing his nose at the producers, it could have been oblivious coincidence, or it could have just shown that he has a spectacularly limited wardrobe.

[TheLastResort]

I wonder if he wore anything else that was the same as last time...and if the garment(s) had ever been taken off.

[ChrisLambert!]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'228553\' date=\'Oct 15 2009, 10:30 AM\']Well, if people are truthful, the staff doesn't need a database. Even if they don't maintain such a database, the fans will let them know, and Sony thanks them for it.  The guy had to give back the grand and is being publicly humiliated, so isn't that punishment enough?[/quote]

People sign up for far worse humiliation all the time for the chance to be on TV.

There's really no excuse for the staff not to have a database.

[JakeT]

[quote name=\'ChrisLambert!\' post=\'228600\' date=\'Oct 15 2009, 06:01 PM\']There's really no excuse for the staff not to have a database.[/quote]

Of course you're absolutely right and it amazes me that anyone would think otherwise.  To suggest that a database wasn't really necessary as long as all contestant applicants were honest AND as long as the public did their duty as the corruption watchdogs for the production team and was sure to report any evildoers that managed to sneak past the producers at some point in the process...BUT...since this would be kinda a silly, naive and, might I add, rather foolish and dangerous, way to conduct business of any type, large or small, the answer is always as such...if you have a rule, requirement, guideline, etc. in place for any reason whatsoever. but especially in cases where this rule is considered to be one of the major conditions of your process,  the only prudent thing to do is put SOMETHING...ANYTHING...in place that kinda works along in the background in an effort to provide assurance that, whenever possible, all rules and such in place are being followed and in cases where something goes wrong, either purposely or accidentally, those safeguards can easily alert the necessary parties that a situation has arisen that requires attention.  Many many times for things like this, safeguards as simple and mundane as databases are relied upon and are often preferred since they can do so much and require so little time, effort or expense to maintain.  

In this specific instance, how difficult would it have been for the contestant coordinators to have maintained a database consisting of just two items of information (contestant name and contestant SS#)?  Then, either when screening all applicants or maybe even just the actual eventual chosen contestant pool, any name or SS# duplication would be discovered immediately, giving everyone involved ample opportunity to nip the problem in the bud and definitely not let something like this go as far as it did this time.  

Just kinda seems like a big ole duhhhhhhh to me...

Jake

[Jimmy Owen]

I was being somewhat facetious.  Of course they should have a database of people who have appeared on the show, but unless there's been a complete turnover in coordinators, it's funny that nobody caught it except the game show geeks.  Heck, maybe Alex or Johnny should have remembered the dude.  

Of course, if the database was on 3x5 cards, who'd go to the trouble putting that stuff on computer?

[JakeT]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'228616\' date=\'Oct 15 2009, 07:22 PM\']Of course, if the database was on 3x5 cards, who'd go to the trouble putting that stuff on computer?[/quote]

Now, unless you were being somewhat facetious again here, I think we could agree that an actual proper database, especially considering the technical innovations that have come along since the show premiered in 1984, would never be on 3x5 cards.  In fact, I don't think that tons of tons of 3x5 cards accumulated over the years could even be considered a database.    That being said, if they did want to create a database using just the two contestant items I mentioned before and if the only place those items could be gotten from was tons of 3x5 cards, it would still be reasonably easy to do.  There have been less than 5000 total contestants used during this series and, while perhaps tedious and truly boring as hell, so pulling together this information into one reliable location wouldn't take very long to do at all.  Hell, I've gone through the nightmare of having to create extremely detailed databases that pulled together mind-boggling amounts and types of data and even the worst of them never was all that tough when all was said and done.

And even if it were freakin enormous amount of trouble to put this database together, well, that's just too bad since, trouble or not, it is needed to protect the show from making such preventable and careless mistakes in the future.

Jake

[Jimmy Owen]

For that matter, you would think all those forms people filled out over the years would be in a file somewhere.  Just the routine act of form filing should have pointed to a previous appearance.