Author Topic: Terrible late-game J! strategy (Read 7992 times)

davidbod · « **Reply #30 on:** February 12, 2011, 02:00:30 AM »

"Bad television"

Ladies and gents of the American peoples, where has your game show mojo gone? No wonder even the most half-assed British formats find it so easy to invade your shores at the moment.

Why not go the whole hog and call it "Jeopardy! But Not Too Much Jeopardy! Because Our Viewers Don't Like That!"?

Jep contestants are so well-rehearsed these days the likelihood that (a) a modern-era contestant would forget, and (b) that it would be a game-changer, is pretty rare. However, if it were to happen once every 500 games or so, that is hil-ar-ious. To 'design out' a feature of the game like this not only goes against the grain of what the original format was about, but it stops an 'event' happing.

In my book, 'events' are good things. They are the things that stop episode 217 merging into 218 merging into 219... like an endless barrage of homogenous radioactivity. If a contesants loses out on 20G's because they forgot to put "What is...", sure the audience are going to feel bad for the contesant, BUT they're also going to talk about the show too (compare and contrast when our Chasers started offering NEGATIVE amounts).

Incidentally, the disconnect between the grammar of the clues and answers is widely thought to be one of the main reasons why the show never caught on in the UK, but given that they repeat clues enough already as it is (see http://www.slate.com/id/2282795/ and http://www.slate.com/id/2284678/) I can understand the need.

rjaguar3 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 12, 2011, 03:44:28 PM »

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'257028\' date=\'Feb 12 2011, 12:03 AM\']It really doesn't matter what Enberg said -- rounding to the nearest 5 means that 89 should've been ruled as 90, which means they tied the game...and leaves me wondering what the show did in the event of a tie.

The result as you describe it leaves me thinking that at least early on, the show didn't have any rule in place for that kind of situation.[/quote]

When the score was tied because neither team got the bonus biography, a question about the subject was read as the tiebreaker, for 10 points. (This rule was in place by at least the 1972-73 season.)

Also, my notes (on the computer for the first 6 ESPNC episodes; my other notes are on a sheet of paper I can't find at the moment) show no instances where a team got the biography with 5x + 3 or 5x + 4 seconds left and the final scores were revealed, which means that there would be no way to tell whether the scores were rounded down to the next multiple of 5 or rounded to the nearest multiple of 5. However, if the seconds were always rounded down, then there would be no need to obscure the NFLer's score, as they could be said to have 135 points, as opposed to 140.

TLEberle · « **Reply #32 on:** February 12, 2011, 04:22:55 PM »

[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'256980\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 03:35 PM\']Probably so in a situation similar to what's been mentioned in this thread, you can't chicken-shit your way through it by wagering $0. Now why it's $5 and not $1, I don't know.[/quote]If you allow someone to bet zero on a clue, then why bother to play the clue at all? Every other clue in the game has that risk of "get it wrong and you lose the bet," whether on Opera or Geography of the Brain.

[quote name=\'davidbod\' post=\'257029\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 11:00 PM\']In my book, 'events' are good things. They are the things that stop episode 217 merging into 218 merging into 219... like an endless barrage of homogenous radioactivity.[/quote]But there are enough events, like co-champions, all-tie-on-zero, that gal who made a one-dollar error in her bet, wrote the right response but lost, that to say "Oh! You forgot to indulge our verbal tic, so we're taking away your forty grand" isn't an event, that's foul TV, whether in 1986 or 2011. The difference is that Jeopardy! has been on the air in this country for 27 years. Has anything like that ever happened on Fifteen-to-One?

It is funny when Jeremy Paxman cracks the whip with "Answer me now!" and "You buzzed, you have to answer immediately," so I find that part of the show's charm. It was head-scratching in that episode of The Weakest Link where a contestant said "Pass" instead of "Bank" three times, zeroing out the chain and not getting to answer a question. I don't find it so funny when the judge rules a Final response incorrect because a letter was left out. That irritates me, and I don't like watching a fun quiz show and end up irritated.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #33 on:** February 12, 2011, 05:31:21 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'257048\' date=\'Feb 12 2011, 04:22 PM\']I don't find it so funny when the judge rules a Final response incorrect because a letter was left out. That irritates me, and I don't like watching a fun quiz show and end up irritated.[/quote]
For some reason, there seems to come a point in the development of any hard-quiz when it starts taking itself too seriously. Jeopardy hit that point for me in 2005 when they didn't give a child credit because, with immaculate penmanship, she wrote "Who is Bejamin Franklin?"

Similarly, the folks at NAQT -- who provide our show and many other tournaments with terrifically written questions -- have what I believe is an overly officious rulebook for the tournaments they host themselves.* They say it's because the teams that participate at the upper levels take the game so seriously that such rules are necessary. And they have a point. It's one of the reasons I don't tend to accept requests to moderate outside tournaments. I still remember being lectured to a couple of years ago by a sixteen-year-old about the proper way to read a math question. Still, somebody needs to tell these students to lighten up and enjoy playing the game, and it might as well be the people organizing the game.

On our show, you're best off being right. If you're close, you might get credit for it or you might not. That's what a judge is for. And just like a referee at a sporting event, the call might go your way or it might not. On another day, something similar might get judged differently. We have rules about what to do when OUR material is flat-out wrong, but beyond that, you accept the judge's decision and that's it. We've had some very disappointed players (a game turned the other day on a player not getting credit for 'commutative' when what he said was 'communative') but by having fewer rules we give ourselves more leeway and, we think, provide a much more enjoyable experience for all concerned, including the viewers.

*Don't even get me started about the Big Hairy Deal they make over the difference between 'Invisible Man' and 'The Invisible Man'.

ten96lt · « **Reply #34 on:** February 12, 2011, 07:36:52 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'257050\' date=\'Feb 12 2011, 04:31 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'257048\' date=\'Feb 12 2011, 04:22 PM\']I don't find it so funny when the judge rules a Final response incorrect because a letter was left out. That irritates me, and I don't like watching a fun quiz show and end up irritated.[/quote]
For some reason, there seems to come a point in the development of any hard-quiz when it starts taking itself too seriously. Jeopardy hit that point for me in 2005 when they didn't give a child credit because, with immaculate penmanship, she wrote "Who is Bejamin Franklin?"

Similarly, the folks at NAQT -- who provide our show and many other tournaments with terrifically written questions -- have what I believe is an overly officious rulebook for the tournaments they host themselves.* They say it's because the teams that participate at the upper levels take the game so seriously that such rules are necessary. And they have a point. It's one of the reasons I don't tend to accept requests to moderate outside tournaments. I still remember being lectured to a couple of years ago by a sixteen-year-old about the proper way to read a math question. Still, somebody needs to tell these students to lighten up and enjoy playing the game, and it might as well be the people organizing the game.

On our show, you're best off being right. If you're close, you might get credit for it or you might not. That's what a judge is for. And just like a referee at a sporting event, the call might go your way or it might not. On another day, something similar might get judged differently. We have rules about what to do when OUR material is flat-out wrong, but beyond that, you accept the judge's decision and that's it. We've had some very disappointed players (a game turned the other day on a player not getting credit for 'commutative' when what he said was 'communative') but by having fewer rules we give ourselves more leeway and, we think, provide a much more enjoyable experience for all concerned, including the viewers.

*Don't even get me started about the Big Hairy Deal they make over the difference between 'Invisible Man' and 'The Invisible Man'.
[/quote]
Question, since I believe Jeopardy! has a panel of judges, (if anyone knows) what happens if there is a question about a response given, but one group of the judges believe it should side one way and another group believes it should be sided another way? Does Harry Friedman have tiebreaker authority then or how do they come to a decision if there is no consensus with the judges on how to rule?

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #35 on:** February 12, 2011, 11:12:35 PM »

[quote name=\'ten96lt\' post=\'257057\' date=\'Feb 12 2011, 07:36 PM\']Question, since I believe Jeopardy! has a panel of judges, (if anyone knows) what happens if there is a question about a response given, but one group of the judges believe it should side one way and another group believes it should be sided another way? Does Harry Friedman have tiebreaker authority then or how do they come to a decision if there is no consensus with the judges on how to rule?[/quote]
I don't know what the specific procedure is, it wasn't explained to contestants. We were just told that there may be times when the game is stopped for the judges to make a ruling. There have been stories of lengthy stops while the writers actively researched an unexpected response. I doubt it's as set-in-stone as a Supreme Court vote, but I bet that if it did come down to breaking a tie, the head writer -- not Friedman -- would make the final call.

WarioBarker · « **Reply #36 on:** February 13, 2011, 09:21:57 AM »

Quote from: Matt Ottinger on February 12, 2011, 05:31:21 PM

For some reason, there seems to come a point in the development of any hard-quiz when it starts taking itself too seriously. Jeopardy hit that point for me in 2005 when they didn't give a child credit because, with immaculate penmanship, she wrote "Who is Bejamin Franklin?"

October 14, 2005. Alex said the misspelling changed the pronunciation, but still...ow.

Quote from: Matt Ottinger on February 12, 2011, 05:31:21 PM

*Don't even get me started about the Big Hairy Deal they make over the difference between 'Invisible Man' and 'The Invisible Man'.

The 2007 Camouflage seemed to have a similar situation where they didn't accept the first contestant's answer because he prefaced it with a "the" (which wasn't on the board). I don't know whether the answer had to be said exactly as it was on the board, but it still struck me as odd.

I accept being pwned by the below.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 13, 2011, 08:39:41 PM »

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'257075\' date=\'Feb 13 2011, 09:21 AM\']didn't accept the first contestant's answer because he prefaced it with a "the" (which wasn't on the board). Ignoring the idiotic uploader comments, I blame Roger Lodge for incorrectly assuming what the contestant's answer was -- in that context, one would naturally preface the answer with a "the".[/quote]And if its not on the board on "Wheel of Fortune", its counted wrong; naturally prefaced or not.

Furthermore, if the puzzle was in reference to the 2005 remake, "The" does NOT appear anywhere in the title. Nice try, Dan.

clemon79 · « **Reply #38 on:** February 13, 2011, 10:26:15 PM »

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'257075\' date=\'Feb 13 2011, 06:21 AM\']Ignoring the idiotic uploader comments, I blame Roger Lodge for incorrectly assuming what the contestant's answer was -- in that context, one would naturally preface the answer with a "the".[/quote]
And since you have so much insight on this topic, perhaps you can tell us whether the contestants were told in their briefing that puzzles must be solved exactly as they appear on the board.

Can you do that, Dan? Because I would think you'd look awfully silly holding this up as a comparison if you couldn't.

davidbod · « **Reply #39 on:** February 13, 2011, 11:57:10 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'257064\' date=\'Feb 13 2011, 04:12 AM\']I don't know what the specific procedure is, it wasn't explained to contestants.[/quote]

From background reading, my understanding is that one of the writers takes a line judge role to bat back around 90% of the judging yea/nays - with a tape stop only usually happening when a scheduled break was due to occur or, rarely, when it's at a particularly critical point in the game.

I'd be extremely surprised if Friedman didn't get involved in at least some of the rulings. He ought to be involved if only for the sake of consistency over episodes, but more importantly if his name's over the door then ultimately he needs to be happy that everything's above board. I've never heard of any UK game show where the producer's completely delegated the judging role to the minions, my shows included.

TLEberle · « **Reply #40 on:** February 14, 2011, 01:33:24 AM »

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'257075\' date=\'Feb 13 2011, 06:21 AM\']Ignoring the idiotic uploader comments, I blame Roger Lodge for incorrectly assuming what the contestant's answer was -- in that context, one would naturally preface the answer with a "the".

(EDIT: No, I'm afraid I don't know whether the answer had to be said exactly as it was on the board. I apologize for the error, and retract my statement.)[/quote]Horsepucky. You said it and got caught. Own your pwnage.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #41 on:** February 14, 2011, 11:05:37 AM »

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'257075\' date=\'Feb 13 2011, 09:21 AM\'](EDIT: No, I'm afraid I don't know whether the answer had to be said exactly as it was on the board. I apologize for the error, and retract my statement.)[/quote]
When you're at your computer wondering about why we have a problem with your posts, think about how often anybody has to retract a statement, and how regularly you do.