Backpedaling

[tvwxman]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 01:05 PM\']
And my contention on AI season two is that Marine Josh Gracin was going to be the winner (remember, my belief and contention is that the voting process is so FUBAR that the producers can pick the winner cleanly -- and script entirely how we get there...), and the President declaring the war "over" had a lot to do with them changing horses midstream.

[snapback]61027[/snapback]

[/quote]

Wow. I'd like to hear your theories about how Paula Abdul was, in fact, the second gunman in Dallas.

[parliboy]

Won't go that far, Starcade.  I can see them taking Gracin on as a contestant, even though he wasn't talented enough to win (and he wasn't, he didn't have any breadth.)  Since that part is the arbitrary decision of the show anyway, oh well.

But I don't see them deviating from the voting results that way.  I can see that they may have the ABILITY to do it (I doubt there are enough controls in place to prevent it), but once we get to the audience voting, the show's clean.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 04:08 PM\']Wow. I'd like to hear your theories about how Paula Abdul was, in fact, the second gunman in Dallas.

[snapback]61037[/snapback]

[/quote]
C'mon, Matt, admit it... you just want to see Paula's grassy knoll. :-D

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 02:05 PM\']All I was asking Matt about is why people have been saying that J!'s mega-run has been rigged -- not that there's any evidence to the effect.[/quote]
Sorry, I'd lost sight of this thread.  But this is a pretty easy one.  People accuse Jeopardy of rigging, even though it isn't true and there's no evidence.  You're accusing AI of rigging, even though it isn't true and there's no evidence.   As I see it, it's pretty much the same thing.  

People believe what they want to believe, that's why I've given up trying to convince you otherwise.  The depth and breadth of the rigging you're accusing AI of is so monumentally removed from what the rest of us call "reality" as to not be arguable anymore.  Connecting it to Bush's campaign is where you officially lost me.

As for the two Jeopardy books and the differences between them, my best guess has always been that the second book was the compromise that avoided a lawsuit.  Friedman pulled the things he couldn't absolutely prove and Sony put what could have been a public relations nightmare behind them.

[tvwxman]

[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 04:35 PM\'][quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 04:08 PM\']Wow. I'd like to hear your theories about how Paula Abdul was, in fact, the second gunman in Dallas.

[snapback]61037[/snapback]

[/quote]
C'mon, Matt, admit it... you just want to see Paula's grassy knoll. :-D

[snapback]61042[/snapback]

[/quote]

Audience?

(Crowd Roars) : " Line....of....the....day!!!!!!"

[starcade]

[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Oct 17 2004, 05:50 AM\'][quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 04:35 PM\'][quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 04:08 PM\']Wow. I'd like to hear your theories about how Paula Abdul was, in fact, the second gunman in Dallas.

[snapback]61037[/snapback]

[/quote]
C'mon, Matt, admit it... you just want to see Paula's grassy knoll. :-D

[snapback]61042[/snapback]

[/quote]

Audience?

(Crowd Roars) : " Line....of....the....day!!!!!!"

[snapback]61085[/snapback]

[/quote]

Ouch...  Nothing more to say on that one...

[starcade]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 05:28 PM\'][quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 02:05 PM\']All I was asking Matt about is why people have been saying that J!'s mega-run has been rigged -- not that there's any evidence to the effect.[/quote]
Sorry, I'd lost sight of this thread.  But this is a pretty easy one.  People accuse Jeopardy of rigging, even though it isn't true and there's no evidence.  You're accusing AI of rigging, even though it isn't true and there's no evidence.   As I see it, it's pretty much the same thing.  

People believe what they want to believe, that's why I've given up trying to convince you otherwise.  The depth and breadth of the rigging you're accusing AI of is so monumentally removed from what the rest of us call "reality" as to not be arguable anymore.  Connecting it to Bush's campaign is where you officially lost me.

As for the two Jeopardy books and the differences between them, my best guess has always been that the second book was the compromise that avoided a lawsuit.  Friedman pulled the things he couldn't absolutely prove and Sony put what could have been a public relations nightmare behind them.

[snapback]61045[/snapback]

[/quote]

I think, once again, it's plausible deniability.  People don't *WANT TO THINK* it's rigged -- else, they then question whether anything is really on the up and up.  (And, once you get past TPiR, Wheel, and J!, that would be a somewhat good question...)

I think the big problem is:  How can a system which allows flood voting to the point where no hope of all the votes being registered be, in any degree, fair?  Then, add that the voting system will not be changed (too convenient for the producers), and the fact that the producers can choose the winner in a FUBAR situation, and you get a scheme for rigging AI -- one that should be easy for anyone to figure out.

Of course, I'd like to ask one question of you and the others opposing me:  Would you have said the same kind of thing to Herb Stempel after his loss to Charles van Doren?

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 19 2004, 10:39 PM\']I think, once again, it's plausible deniability.  People don't *WANT TO THINK* it's rigged -- else, they then question whether anything is really on the up and up.  (And, once you get past TPiR, Wheel, and J!, that would be a somewhat good question...)

[snapback]61443[/snapback]

[/quote]
Maybe people don't *WANT TO THINK* it's rigged because *IT'S NOT RIGGED*.  But as Matt points out, you will never be convinced otherwise, no matter what.  The fact that you have not one scintilla of evidence to demonstrate that the show is rigged will not stop you.

I think the big problem is:  How can a system which allows flood voting to the point where no hope of all the votes being registered be, in any degree, fair?

The fact that flood voting is possible means that supporters of ANY contestant can engage in it.  It's a flaw, to be sure, but a flaw that's exploitable by any or all contestants equally.  Hence, no rigging in favor of one contestant or another.

Then, add that the voting system will not be changed (too convenient for the producers), and the fact that the producers can choose the winner in a FUBAR situation, and you get a scheme for rigging AI -- one that should be easy for anyone to figure out.

The producers can choose the winner in a FUBAR situation on any show; unless I've missed something, "the decisions of the producer are final" or similar language is standard for any aired competition.  It takes a HUGE leap to get from there to declaring that actual rigging is going on... and you don't get there, again, without one scintilla of evidence.

Of course, I'd like to ask one question of you and the others opposing me:  Would you have said the same kind of thing to Herb Stempel after his loss to Charles van Doren?

Unlike Herb Stempel, you were not a contestant on the show you're accusing of rigging; therefore you have no firsthand knowledge and -- again -- not one scintilla of evidence.  Moreover, I don't recall Herb Stempel accusing Barry and Enright of trying to take the heat off President Eisenhower by making Charles Van Doren "win."

You want to float conspiracy theories?  Fine.  But don't expect them to be taken with any greater level of seriousness than, say, a newspaper bearing the headline "SPACE ALIENS ENDORSE CLEMENTSON/OTTINGER TICKET FOR 2004 ELECTION."