J! Category Choices

[SuperMatch93]

I was fuzzy on the details of that incident, so I looked through the Wikipedia edit history of the Temptation article and found this from when the show was still on:

A large amount of controversy erupted after the October 20, 2006 episode in which Lainie kept buzzing in during the mad minute without necessarily knowing the answers. Eventually, Charles became the champ, winning by $20 over Harry while Lainie (who finished on just $10) admitted, "I helped Charles, I hope." Harry, dismayed (as can be seen after the final siren), missed out on winning a $20,000 holiday to Japan, but still left with over $12,000 in cash and prizes. After the episode went to air, there were many complaints made either in the news or directly to Grundy, the company that owns Temptation, demanding that Harry be reinstated as champion. The Nine Network's A Current Affair reported that Grundy executives had decided that Harry would not be coming back. Despite this decision, a phone poll was conducted to see whether or not Harry should come back. 94% of the fourteen thousand entries agreed that Harry should come back. Grundy then re-reviewed its decision, but it is still unchanged as it was clear during the footage that Harry did not once 'simultaneously' buzz with Lainie, instead not attempting to buzz in at any time at all.

And a report from Extra:

[Jeremy Nelson]

Grundy then re-reviewed its decision, but it is still unchanged as it was clear during the footage that Harry did not once 'simultaneously' buzz with Lainie, instead not attempting to buzz in at any time at all.

It feels like this reasoning actually makes Harry's case, especially if Lainie's answers were off center enough to suggest she had no idea what the question was looking for.

The smoking gun was definitely her admitting she hoped she was helping Charles. This would not fly in the US.

[MSTieScott]

The smoking gun was definitely her admitting she hoped she was helping Charles. This would not fly in the US.

Collusion doesn't fly in the U.S. (and is explicitly forbidden). Forfeiting your chances of winning in order to help or hinder another player -- so long as it wasn't done with the expectation of sharing in the champion's winnings -- is permissible so long as the rules of the game are followed.

See, for example, any Press Your Luck contestant who was in third place and passed the final spin. Or that Wheel of Fortune contestant from 2015 who started making terrible guesses in the speed-up round (for reasons that were never revealed, although one hypothesis was that she wanted one of her opponents to win additional consolation money). Or a Price Is Right contestant deliberately overbidding on a showcase because they already won enough nice prizes and they want their opponent to win something.

If it's possible for a game show contestant to ruin another contestant's chances of winning through legal in-game actions, then it indicates a flaw in the game and/or a flaw in the contestant selection process. It's true that what Lainie did goes against the spirit of Temptation, but that's the risk the producers took when they played a game in which an incorrect answer immediately ends a scoring opportunity. The spirit of Jeopardy! is to play to win, but when too many contestants started wagering to tie rather than add that extra dollar, the exploit was patched. But until that time, playing in a manner not in the spirit of the game is completely legal.

[clemon79]

If it's possible for a game show contestant to ruin another contestant's chances of winning through legal in-game actions, then it indicates a flaw in the game and/or a flaw in the contestant selection process. It's true that what Lainie did goes against the spirit of Temptation, but that's the risk the producers took when they played a game in which an incorrect answer immediately ends a scoring opportunity. The spirit of Jeopardy! is to play to win, but when too many contestants started wagering to tie rather than add that extra dollar, the exploit was patched. But until that time, playing in a manner not in the spirit of the game is completely legal.

I don't think anyone's questioning the legality. You nailed it when you brought up the contestant selection process.

[alfonzos]

Back on topic: I floated this idea during a tape stop at a J! taping last week. Kennings, after giving a rote speech about how like baseball the rules are adapting constantly, expressed his disdain for the idea. Watson ruined the game for me as a viewer.

[TLEberle]

What was off topic, Al?