California Lottery cancels 'Make Me a Millionaire'

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240475\' date=\'May 6 2010, 05:55 PM\']Chris, do you remember the video well enough to say?[/quote]
Honestly, I don't, not definitively. I feel good saying that if the wheel was in motion, it wasn't very much motion, as they were usually pretty good about estimating if the wheel was still traveling enough for the ball to roll. (But, again, this was the VERY early days of the roll-prone wheel.)

[parliboy]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240475\' date=\'May 6 2010, 07:55 PM\']If the wheel was still in motion you would have to prove to me that the jumping, and not the motion of the wheel, caused the ball to jump. If the wheel had come to a halt you're going to have an easier time convincing me it was the contestant's jumping. Chris, do you remember the video well enough to say?

There are two issues here: One is whether the sore loser should have been awarded the money on the California lottery show, and the other is whether there is any point to game/reality shows making contestants agree to written rules if a sore loser can go to court and have those rules overturned. That is a HUGE deal for producers of game/reality shows.[/quote]
Whether the wheel has 100% stopped moving or not would be irrelevant to my argument,  were I in her position.  An employee of the lottery declared me a jackpot winner; I took actions that I would have not otherwise taken; and those actions denied me the jackpot.  Therefore, the employee's action is the proximate cause of my loss, and his employer is responsible.  But you are right that the jury would have to consider as part of their deliberations whether any movement of the wheel influenced the ball.  In this case, the jury, having viewed the tape (probably a lot) decided that the wheel's movement was not the problem here.

And I don't think this affects all rules of all game shows.  This affects situations where a contestant relies on the verbal cues of a representative of the show.  Compound that with the likelihood (and this is speculation, but you know enough about contestant prepping to correct me if I'm wrong) that staffers asked contestants to be excited and jump around a lot if they won, and you have a problem.  A court might find it unconscionable that any game or reality show can willfully disregard its own instructions to a contestant (which it did do here) because it wants to save a buck.

Finally, notwithstanding my Cube comparison earlier, this wasn't any game show.  This was a lottery game show, which required that an entry fee be paid for the opportunity to appear on the show.  There's a certain expectation of performance that enters into play once I give the lottery $1 for a ticket.  The fact that $1 is way less than I would have to pay to fly into L.A. to appear on a conventional game show is irrelevant.

Now, I can turn my entire argument around by saying that the producers set a trap for themselves by not drilling into Jeff's head that under no circumstances should he make noises about winning until the five seconds have firmly elapsed. In that case I find the producers guilty of stupidity but I still find Geoff Edwards to be one of the finest emcees ever.

No disagreement there.  He was caught in the middle of a situation where someone, somewhere, did something boneheaded.  It just happened to be an expensive mistake.  Also, Starcade FTW.

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'240491\' date=\'May 7 2010, 08:58 AM\']This was a lottery game show, which required that an entry fee be paid for the opportunity to appear on the show.[/quote]Incorrect.  You paid $1 for the lottery ticket itself.  The "value" of the ticket is likely less.  Additionally, you aren't forced to redeem it.

This is why, at least here in Iowa, if a ticket is declared to be void or invalid, you get $1 back, not the top prize.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'240493\' date=\'May 7 2010, 10:09 AM\']Incorrect.  You paid $1 for the lottery ticket itself.  The "value" of the ticket is likely less.  Additionally, you aren't forced to redeem it.[/quote]
You are speaking from a distinct lack of information, unless you have some kind of law degree you've been holding out on us.

[chris319]

parliboy - you make some interesting points, but they are largely based on misconceptions or erroneous assumptions. I won't repeat myself by addressing those points again here.

[That Don Guy]

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240381\' date=\'May 5 2010, 07:29 AM\'][quote name=\'Kniwt\' post=\'240377\' date=\'May 5 2010, 09:14 AM\']and that there are no plans to bring back "The Big Spin" or any other format.[/quote]
So that's it, then? First they can The Big Spin then, when poor ratings lead them to can Make Me A Millionaire, they decide not to bring back the show it replaced. Guys, you tried to replace the long-running hit with something else, and it didn't work -- I've seen this happen before.[/quote]
There hasn't been a need for a scratch ticket based TV game since California became a MegaMillions state while keeping its own Lotto game as well.

I have a feeling the real problem isn't the format of the shows, but that nobody is playing "scratcher" tickets any more.

-- Don

[That Don Guy]

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240435\' date=\'May 5 2010, 09:37 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'240431\' date=\'May 6 2010, 12:02 AM\']

(the WWN article almost directly says that the whole thing was Geoff's fault for not enforcing the five-second rule before declaring Doris the winner of $3,000,000)

This...might be true. Assuming that Geoff was ever told that he should always wait until the win was official before making the call, as opposed to trusting the dramatic timing of a 20-year veteran host. And I am willing to entertain the possibility that he wasn't told that and that the Lottery made him a scapegoat.[/quote]
Based on the info provided, here's a timeline of what happened (if you saw this incident, please feel free to correct any of this as necessary). And remember, all of this takes place within (at most) three minutes:

1) Doris spins the wheel
2) Wheel makes the required three revolutions for the spin to "count"
3) Wheel slows down
4) Ball lands in $3,000,000 space
5) Geoff Edwards immediately declares Doris Barnett the winner of $3,000,000
6) Doris jumps around in excitement
7) Excited jumping shakes the wheel[/quote]
Was it ever proven that the wheel was shaken by her jumping?  You would think that one of the things the lottery commission would have done was to create a wheel where anything short of touching it would not cause any part of the wheel to move.

(I have seen the incident on tape, and, as I recall, it wasn't just Geoff that reacted; they started playing the music and dropping the balloons well before the five seconds were up.)

Also, I believe that one of the reasons she won the suit was, she supplied videos of other contestants being declared winners of amounts when the ball fell out before five seconds elapsed.

-- Don

[chris319]

Was it ever proven that the wheel was shaken by her jumping?

That's the first question to ask.

You would think that one of the things the lottery commission would have done was to create a wheel where anything short of touching it would not cause any part of the wheel to move.

That's easily done. Just have the contestant stand directly on the studio floor and the game be up on a platform, just like most of the TPIR games.

I believe that one of the reasons she won the suit was, she supplied videos of other contestants being declared winners of amounts when the ball fell out before five seconds elapsed.

If that's the case then they clearly shot themselves in the foot by establishing a precedent of not following their own rules. Do you remember if the amounts awarded were greater or lesser than the ones the ball fell out of?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'240510\' date=\'May 7 2010, 06:56 PM\']Also, I believe that one of the reasons she won the suit was, she supplied videos of other contestants being declared winners of amounts when the ball fell out before five seconds elapsed.[/quote]
You would be wrong.