Jeopardy On-Line Test

[TLEberle]

I see it as empathy towards those who were put out.

[clemon79]

I see it as empathy towards those who were put out.

That would indeed be very empathetic of them. They don't need to be empathetic, though. It'd be nice if they did, but to say "they should" implies some kind of obligation.

[TLEberle]

That would indeed be very empathetic of them. They don't need to be empathetic, though. It'd be nice if they did, but to say "they should" implies some kind of obligation.

I meant that I was being sympathetic to the testees (very careful on the spelling there) who missed out on the chance.

As you said, it would be very nice of the show to have a re-do. If they don't I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, because it's just a game show.

[Kevin Prather]

I see it as empathy towards those who were put out.

That would indeed be very empathetic of them. They don't need to be empathetic, though. It'd be nice if they did, but to say "they should" implies some kind of obligation.

Merely playing Devil's Advocate, the show might want to avoid another situation where the press could dog-pile on them like they have at least twice in the last couple years.

I agree with you, Chris, but this is a thought that should at least be considered by TPTB.

[clemon79]

Merely playing Devil's Advocate, the show might want to avoid another situation where the press could dog-pile on them like they have at least twice in the last couple years.

Possibly, but how much did those incidents negatively impact viewership?

[Kevin Prather]

Merely playing Devil's Advocate, the show might want to avoid another situation where the press could dog-pile on them like they have at least twice in the last couple years.

Possibly, but how much did those incidents negatively impact viewership?

Fair counterpoint, but I imagine it's still a headache they'd like to avoid if they can do so easily, which they can.

[clemon79]

Fair counterpoint, but I imagine it's still a headache they'd like to avoid if they can do so easily, which they can.

Why's it all that easy? I imagine some coordination was necessary to set up the first test event considering how adamant they have been that it's a One Night Only sort of thing. What's easy about going to that expense and effort for something that we seem to all agree is only being done out of goodwill?

[PYLdude]

Yes. That's not the point.

Then why do you keep beating this drum?

Not getting in because of technical issues is one thing, not getting in because they didn't give you the proper test is another.

Yep, they screwed a few people, and in so doing they might have screwed themselves out of a few potential contestants. Good thing, then, that they have plenty more (and I mean by a lot) than they need.

So let me see if I have the crux of your argument correctly placed.

I'm selling something to you. Right after you pay for the item, I give you something else which is not the item you paid for and never actually give said item to you. By your logic, I can do that because you already agreed to pay me, right?

It isn't rocket science. They screwed up, and even if it thins out the contestant pool a bit it doesn't make it right that people went in expecting to take one test and ended up taking another. It isn't like these people's computers/mobile devices crashed in the middle of the test.

[clemon79]

So let me see if I have the crux of your argument correctly placed.

I'm selling something to you. Right after you pay for the item, I give you something else which is not the item you paid for and never actually give said item to you. By your logic, I can do that because you already agreed to pay me, right?

Unless there was a registration fee of some kind for this online test (hint: there wasn't), then no, you don't have it correctly placed at all.

[PYLdude]

So let me see if I have the crux of your argument correctly placed.

I'm selling something to you. Right after you pay for the item, I give you something else which is not the item you paid for and never actually give said item to you. By your logic, I can do that because you already agreed to pay me, right?

Unless there was a registration fee of some kind for this online test (hint: there wasn't), then no, you don't have it correctly placed at all.

Well, enlighten me, because I don't understand what your beef is. The test was supposed to be for Sports Jeopardy and some people got a test for regular Jeopardy, and the error is something that they (the production company) is responsble for, so why shouldn't the people who were given the wrong test because of that error be offered a do over? It's not about the test being an "inalienable right", it's about an error that could have (and should have) been avoided.

[BrandonFG]

Let's take away the commerce aspect and simplify it a little. You're in college and you have to pass a history exam in order to graduate. The exam is administered online, but when you sign in, you're given an Algebra exam. When you bring this to the professor's attention, he basically shrugs it off.

No, it's not a God-given right to take the test, but a makeup test would at the very least be fair, since it was the show's screwup. No one is entitled to a makeup, but it's still better than saying "Oh well, sorry for your luck."

/Not just saying all that because I blew my exam and need a Mulligan

[clemon79]

Let's take away the commerce aspect and simplify it a little. You're in college and you have to pass a history exam in order to graduate. The exam is administered online, but when you sign in, you're given an Algebra exam. When you bring this to the professor's attention, he basically shrugs it off.

Again, though, your argument suffers from the same fallacy as Palmer's, which is suggesting that a tangible negative impact results from their mistake aside from "you don't get to be on Jeopardy this time."

We actually all agree more than we don't here: yes, it would be nice of them to offer a second exam. My point is that Jeopardy! is not a charity, it's a business, and that the vibe I am getting from some of the comments is that it's not understood (or being glossed over) that there is a non-zero expense to doing that that I would expect them to get adequate return for before committing to doing it, and I'm not convinced that "it would be nice" is adequate return in and of itself.

(And this doesn't even touch the issue of: do they KNOW which registrants got the wrong test, and if not, why's it any more fair to give the folks who did get the correct one two bites at the apple?)

[parliboy]

Let's take away the commerce aspect and simplify it a little. You're in college and you have to pass a history exam in order to graduate. The exam is administered online, but when you sign in, you're given an Algebra exam. When you bring this to the professor's attention, he basically shrugs it off.

Brandon, you can't take away the commerce aspect.  If the scenario you described happens, then it's actionable; if they refused to fix it and just failed me instead, I could sue for more than enough money to finish my degree at a better school.

Let me ask you a question.  If I fly out to California because I want to see The Price is Right, and the taping gets cancelled because Drew throws out his back when he forgets that he's not really a Seattle Sounder, what actions should I expect CBS to take?

[clemon79]

If I fly out to California because I want to see The Price is Right, and the taping gets cancelled because Drew throws out his back when he forgets that he's not really a Seattle Sounder

Sorry, I just had this sobering thought that it's entirely possible that Brad Evans and Zach Scott might be injured at the same time...

[BrandonFG]

Let me ask you a question.  If I fly out to California because I want to see The Price is Right, and the taping gets cancelled because Drew throws out his back when he forgets that he's not really a Seattle Sounder, what actions should I expect CBS to take?

That's a fair point. I see where you guys are coming from in that regard.