The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: vexer6 on May 25, 2021, 02:13:04 AM
-
Curious if anyone on here has seen this series? It's a pretty fascinating account of not just the Ingram scandal, but also shows how Millionaire came to be and shows that the Ingram family were not alone and there was a whole network of people dedicated to getting an advantage on the show, I had no idea it was this elaborate.
I also must commend the actors as they really nailed their real-life counterparts, the guy who played Chris Tarrant was especially good, and I was impressed with the small details they got right(then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner bowing down before the head of ITV before buying the rights to Millionaire was a real thing that actually happened, I know this as I recently finished reading "DisneyWar" which chronicled Eisner's tenure as CEO). I also like that series didn't totally demonize the Ingram's, they were a family with financial issues so I can understand why they'd be willing to take such a risk. I said a decade ago that I couldn't help but be impressed at them for having the guts to carry out such a plan, and watching this series i'm even more impressed after seeing the sheer lengths they went to to even get on the show, that took serious dedication and Adrian Pollock practicing with his own homemade Fastest-Finger Question device reminded me a lot of what Michael Larsen did, and their defense in court is actually kinda convincing and i've jumped back and forth between genuinely believing they cheated and thinking that maybe they weren't guilty after all, I still haven't quite made up my mind on that, either way this is a fascinating show that I highly recommend.
I'd love for the U.S. to get a similar mini-series about Michael Larsen's time on Press Your Luck, i'd definitely tune in for that.
The show is on Amazon Prime with an AMC subscription if anyone is interested, I subbed for this show alone when I got offered a sweet deal to get AMC with Prime for 2 months for only $0.99, what a steal!
-
I watched it when AMC showed in on air last year. I thought it was very good. I liked that they showed how Millionaire came to be. I remember that at one point there was going to be a movie about Michael Larson and I think Bill Murray was going to play Larson. But, nothing happened.
-
I watched it when AMC showed in on air last year. I thought it was very good. I liked that they showed how Millionaire came to be. I remember that at one point there was going to be a movie about Michael Larson and I think Bill Murray was going to play Larson. But, nothing happened.
Murray would've been a perfect choice.
I'm also reading the book that inspired this show("Bad Show: The Quiz, The Cough, The Millionaire Major") and the more I read the more i'm convinced that the Ingram's were innocent and that this whole thing was a tragic miscarriage of justice, if you only ever watched the documentary "Major Fraud"(which is a well made doc to be sure, but definitely leaves out a lot of information that points to the Ingrams likely innocence) I can see why one would think Charles was guilty, but the book expertly deconstructs all the arguments that the courts made to him being guilty. Honestly at this point I hope their appeal to overturn their guilty verdicts gets granted and that Ingram finally gets that million pounds he deserves.
-
Really? My takeaway is that they were arrogant and too smart for their own good. If Chas. stops at £125,000 he would still be found out.
-
Listen to the audio from the episode, and you can clearly see there’s shenanigans afoot.
There’s been dozens of stories told about this and at least one US television investigation done into it.
Then again I’m responding to the one guy who found The Chamber to have redeeming value.
-
Really? My takeaway is that they were arrogant and too smart for their own good. If Chas. stops at £125,000 he would still be found out.
You think so? I always felt like if he walked at £250,000, they wouldn't have pursued it.
-
Shhhh ... here's the whole series. :)
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1plwKAmZ4dEXmn4ADFE2LKHuHtN31g7te
-
Listen to the audio from the episode, and you can clearly see there’s shenanigans afoot.
There’s been dozens of stories told about this and at least one US television investigation done into it.
Then again I’m responding to the one guy who found The Chamber to have redeeming value.
I have in fact listened to the episode multiple times and as the book points out, that audio was enhanced to highlight the coughs, if the episode was ran on TV that's not how it would've sounded, therefore it was not obvious in the original tape, the fact that Tarrant himself admitted under oath that he didn't notice any coughing whatsoever despite sitting across from Ingram strongly points to his innocence. Tecwen Whittock also had multiple actual diagnosed coughing conditions which made him liable to cough at any time, not just on the right answers, why on earth would Ingram rely on someone who was prone to coughing at any time and not someone without a cough who could control themselves? It simply does not make sense.
There's also logical explanations for the questions everyone points to as evidence of his guilt, on the "Craig David" question you can hear an audible gasp from the audience(Which unlike the coughs was not "enhanced")when Ingram says A1, which was a likely telltale sign that they knew he'd guessed wrong, so it made perfect sense for him to change his answer in that instance. As for the "Baron Hauseman" question, Tarrant kind of unintentionally guided Ingram in that instance as when he says he's sure its Berlin, Tarrant is all "10 minutes ago you were sure it was A1"which intended or not, likely gave Ingram a clue that he was going down the wrong path and thus changed his answer. For the last question when Ingram said he was going for Googol because he'd never heard of it, Tarrant was like "that's kind of how you arrived at Paris" again unintentionally hinting that Ingram was going the correct path and convincing him to go for that answer.
Also I fail to see how me liking a show that you don't like somehow magically automatically means i'm wrong, that's some insane troll logic if I ever heard it, at least read this book and watch the show before blindly assuming i'm wrong, it's written by someone much smarter then you or me:https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Show-Cough-Millionaire-Major-ebook/dp/B00SOVGFJ2
Those investigations were fraught with many issues as the book indicates, proper procedure was not allowed in many instances leading to strong doubts. So having dozens of investigations does not really mean anything if they are all based on a shaky foundation to begin with.
-
I haven’t watched this particular series, but I remember 20/20 or one of those type shows, when they covered the scandal about a year after it happened. From what I remember, they got arrogant and a little greedy and it came back to bite them.
Not a mini-series, but GSN did a docu on the Larson controversy. Don’t know what else can be said.
Then again I’m responding to the one guy who found The Chamber to have redeeming value.
Eh. Different strokes I guess. At least Fox knows the one person to thank. :P
-
I haven’t watched this particular series, but I remember 20/20 or one of those type shows, when they covered the scandal about a year after it happened. From what I remember, they got arrogant and a little greedy and it came back to bite them.
Not a mini-series, but GSN did a docu on the Larson controversy. Don’t know what else can be said.
Then again I’m responding to the one guy who found The Chamber to have redeeming value.
Eh. Different strokes I guess. At least Fox knows the one person to thank. :P
That they do, for this and several other shows that they cancelled too soon like Drive, Wonderfalls, War at Home, Greed, It's Your Chance of a Lifetime, etc.
-
I know what I saw.
Everyone else who saw it knows what they saw.
He obviously heard the coughs regardless of how loud they actually were. (And I am well aware of Tecwen’s so called coughing problem; I found it a convenient excuse then and I do so now because the coughs come for the correct answers to every question. Every time. That cannot be coincidence. That’s why you’re wrong. Not because of your opinion regarding a show that damn near killed the genre for no reason other than pure shock value. The physical evidence says otherwise.)
He cheated. It’s not rocket science, he cheated.
-
I know what I saw.
Everyone else who saw it knows what they saw.
He obviously heard the coughs regardless of how loud they actually were. (And I am well aware of Tecwen’s so called coughing problem; I found it a convenient excuse then and I do so now because the coughs come for the correct answers to every question. Every time. That cannot be coincidence. That’s why you’re wrong. Not because of your opinion regarding a show that damn near killed the genre for no reason other than pure shock value. The physical evidence says otherwise.)
He cheated. It’s not rocket science, he cheated.
I'd say having someone who is liable to cough at any time is pretty damned inconvenient(and BTW he was diagnosed by an actual expert)
Also Charles never even met Whittock before the trial and it was only by pure chance that Whittock was even in the FFF area on the second show, there was no possible way for the Ingrams to have rigged that.
You're wrong because you've not read the book so now you don't know for an absolute fact what happened on the show.
LOL at the idea that a show that hardly anyone remembers like "The Chamber" almost killed the genre, that's just nonsensical, how could a show that got such low ratings that hardly anyone remembers possibly have almost killed the genre, you got any actual receipts for that claim or are you just talking nonsense? As if I don't already know the answer. >:(
It's not rocket science, he didn't cheat, let me guess, you haven't read the book because you're afraid it'll change your mind and prove me right? ;D
Also you're incorrect, it wasn't "every time" the trial even said that there no coughing during the "Emmanthal", "Polo" and "Anthony Eden" questions, if you're going to act delusional at least get your facts right.
What they "saw" was an enhanced version of the tape highlighted to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion, not how the actual episode would've sounded if it made it to air.
Also funny how you completely dodged the fact that Tarrant said he didn't notice anything(and he also contradicted the claim that Charles and Diana had an argument after his win, saying he didn't notice them acting unusual in any way) how on earth could Charles hear the coughs but not Tarrant himself? answer me that genius.
-
Hey - can we turn the tone of the conversation more towards facts and opinions about the topic vs facts and opinions about each other?
-
I'd say having someone who is liable to cough at any time is pretty damned inconvenient(and BTW he was diagnosed by an actual expert
And he only volunteered this after the fact that he got caught. Sorry, convenient excuse.
Also Charles never even met Whittock before the trial and it was only by pure chance that Whittock was even in the FFF area on the second show, there was no possible way for the Ingrams to have rigged that.
You can’t say that with any certainty because you weren’t there.
You're wrong because you've not read the book so now you don't know for an absolute fact what happened on the show.
I didn’t read any books on a lot of subjects, and still saw their outcomes with my own two eyes.
Also you're incorrect, it wasn't "every time" the trial even said that there no coughing during the "Emmanthal", "Polo" and "Anthony Eden" questions, if you're going to act delusional at least get your facts right.
Well shut my mouth. Three times out of how many?
“Oh, but your honor, I may have thrown fifteen punches at that guy but only twelve of them landed; that mitigates everything.”
What they "saw" was an enhanced version of the tape highlighted to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion, not how the actual episode would've sounded if it made it to air.
Okay, and what does that change? Major Ingram obviously still heard Tecwen coughing the right answers regardless of how many times he did it.
It’s possible Tarrant actually didn’t notice, but I believe there was someone in his ear telling him that they believed something was up and to just carry on like normal. He may say that he didn’t notice, but I find it hard to believe.
I again choose to let the actual evidence be my guide. And it’s clear, based on that, that Tecwen’s coughing was not coincidental and Major Ingram would not have won the million quid had Tecwen not been there.
I don’t care if he had a condition; if he really did have such a problem why wasn’t he coughing more often?
-
I'd say having someone who is liable to cough at any time is pretty damned inconvenient(and BTW he was diagnosed by an actual expert
And he only volunteered this after the fact that he got caught. Sorry, convenient excuse.
Also Charles never even met Whittock before the trial and it was only by pure chance that Whittock was even in the FFF area on the second show, there was no possible way for the Ingrams to have rigged that.
You can’t say that with any certainty because you weren’t there.
You're wrong because you've not read the book so now you don't know for an absolute fact what happened on the show.
I didn’t read any books on a lot of subjects, and still saw their outcomes with my own two eyes.
Also you're incorrect, it wasn't "every time" the trial even said that there no coughing during the "Emmanthal", "Polo" and "Anthony Eden" questions, if you're going to act delusional at least get your facts right.
Well shut my mouth. Three times out of how many?
“Oh, but your honor, I may have thrown fifteen punches at that guy but only twelve of them landed; that mitigates everything.”
What they "saw" was an enhanced version of the tape highlighted to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion, not how the actual episode would've sounded if it made it to air.
Okay, and what does that change? Major Ingram obviously still heard Tecwen coughing the right answers regardless of how many times he did it.
It’s possible Tarrant actually didn’t notice, but I believe there was someone in his ear telling him that they believed something was up and to just carry on like normal. He may say that he didn’t notice, but I find it hard to believe.
I again choose to let the actual evidence be my guide. And it’s clear, based on that, that Tecwen’s coughing was not coincidental and Major Ingram would not have won the million quid had Tecwen not been there.
I don’t care if he had a condition; if he really did have such a problem why wasn’t he coughing more often?
Convenient my ass
Neither were you, you can keep spouting the same asinine drivel all the live long day and it won't magically make you any more correct.
You saw what the people in charge of the program WANTED you to see with your "own two eyes", you didn't see how the episode would've looked if those coughs weren't enhanced, funny how you keep conveniently dodging answering that part eh?
Three times proves the guy didn't need to cheat to get ahead genius.
No he did not "obviously" hear anything just because you some random dude on the internet says so.
Tarrant actually was not in fact wearing an earpiece because he does not like doing so as he finds them distracting, so that's not in fact true, nobody was telling him to carry on or anything like that, plain and simple he did not notice anything untoward going on, if he had, he would not have signed the check(and the checks on the show were real and not props) and he said that in his own words.
I also choose to let the evidence be my guide and to me it points to the major being innocent, but unlike you i'm not so close-minded and afraid of being proven wrong that i'm refusing to read a book.
He wasn't coughing during this time in the hot seat because according to medical diagnosis coughs are prone to changing depending on the temperature in a room, and logically Whittock would have less reason to cough once getting out of the hot audience area and with him having to concentrate on actually answering the questions he'd be more focused and therefore less likely to cough. I can attest to that myself as during times when I was sick and doing something that required a lot of concentration, I barely even noticed my sickness and coughed a lot less.
-
Is this pissing match really going anywhere? The man cheated. Does it really matter how it went down?
-
Is this pissing match really going anywhere? The man cheated. Does it really matter how it went down?
No, it really doesn’t, and I’m sorry for dragging this out by responding a second time. I thought that would be enough but apparently not.
My apologies for wasting everyone’s time.
-
Is this pissing match really going anywhere? The man cheated. Does it really matter how it went down?
The problem here is that one side's saying it doesn't matter "how it went down" because there was no cheating, period.
And, on that note, I have two cents to add...
Three times proves the guy didn't need to cheat to get ahead genius.
Three times proves the guy didn't need to cheat on those questions.
He wasn't coughing during this time in the hot seat because
Ah, but per the context that's not what was being said. If Tecwen really did have a coughing issue, why wasn't he coughing more while in the audience?
you can keep spouting the same asinine drivel all the live long day and it won't magically make you any more correct.
Like, say, thinking The Chamber was a good show?
I also choose to let the evidence be my guide and to me it points to the major being innocent, but unlike you i'm not so close-minded and afraid of being proven wrong that i'm refusing to read a book.
A book that, per several Amazon reviews, is very much biased towards the Ingrams and Tecwen not only being innocent but victims of a conspiracy (as opposed to laying out all the facts and statements and letting the reader decide for themselves whether cheating occurred).
But fine, you say there's evidence they're innocent. Lay it on us.
-
Is this pissing match really going anywhere? The man cheated. Does it really matter how it went down?
I don't think he did after reading that book, so yes it does matter, because an innocent person got convicted for a crime he did not commit and i'm sorry if me actually having a problem with that bothers you, but I refuse to drink the kool aid.
-
Perhaps tabling the discussion then is in order? Neither of you appear to want to budge from your positions, so the back and forth is just getting old at this point.
-
I don't think he did after reading that book, so yes it does matter, because an innocent person got convicted for a crime he did not commit and i'm sorry if me actually having a problem with that bothers you, but I refuse to drink the kool aid.
Relax. It's a Friday and it's a 3-day weekend, so none of this bothers me. Nor do I think you're drinking Kool Aid, because frankly I don't give enough damns about this story. I just think the conversation was going off the rails unnecessarily.
If you're gonna get this defensive over every little thing, maybe you should take another break and return in 2031. Regardless, take a deep breath and enjoy the weekend.
-
Is this pissing match really going anywhere? The man cheated. Does it really matter how it went down?
The problem here is that one side's saying it doesn't matter "how it went down" because there was no cheating, period.
And, on that note, I have two cents to add...
Three times proves the guy didn't need to cheat to get ahead genius.
Three times proves the guy didn't need to cheat on those questions.
He wasn't coughing during this time in the hot seat because
Ah, but per the context that's not what was being said. If Tecwen really did have a coughing issue, why wasn't he coughing more while in the audience?
you can keep spouting the same asinine drivel all the live long day and it won't magically make you any more correct.
Like, say, thinking The Chamber was a good show?
I also choose to let the evidence be my guide and to me it points to the major being innocent, but unlike you i'm not so close-minded and afraid of being proven wrong that i'm refusing to read a book.
A book that, per several Amazon reviews, is very much biased towards the Ingrams and Tecwen not only being innocent but victims of a conspiracy (as opposed to laying out all the facts and statements and letting the reader decide for themselves whether cheating occurred).
But fine, you say there's evidence they're innocent. Lay it on us.
There were at least 192 coughs that day, and Whittock only made 19 of them, which heavily points to him not being guilty. Also only his coughs during questions were enhanced, the other coughs he made were not because they didn't help the prosecutions case any. Not to mention there were similar coughs during both previous Millionaire winners questions when they were listing out answers, yet they were never suspected of fraud. Also when Tarrant was another TV program and was asked about the episode, he said the sound on the tape shown to the jury was nothing like it was on that night.
I fail to see how me liking a show you don't like is somehow "asinine drivel", though your post certainly is troll. I really don't get this weird obsession with people on here over what I think of this one game show, it's downright bizarre, it's like why are you obsessed with my opinion over this one show? It's actually kind of funny how seriously you are taking my opinion :D
Oh please, all books(and pieces of media in general) are "biased" in some way, there's no such thing as an "unbiased" piece of media, so I fail to see how that automatically means the book is bad or wrong. Maybe actually try reading it yourself before making baseless assumptions? Also the reviews are still mostly positive, so clearly it resonated with a lot of people.
Have you not been reading this entire thread? I've been laying out evidence for why they are innocent from the beginning, don't know you could've possibly missed it, but fine i'll list more if that'll make you stop whining.
First off this whole crazy idea that there was some aborted plan to strap pagers to Charles body and have them get rung to provide him with the correct answer, both of the Ingrams were searched after their win and neither of them had pagers on them, not to mention provided a perfectly logical explanation for ringing the pagers in the first place, they also did not have a phone to the studio(if they did sound engineers would've detected it) and the phone records only showed phone calls between Diana and Charles and nobody else, and in fact Charles, Diana and Whittock never actually owned a pager themselves, only their brother-in-law Adrian did.
Second why on earth would the prosecution call Tarrant as a witness when nothing he said pointed to the Ingrams being guilty? Simple, so that the defense could not call on him as a witness, as if they did the jury almost certainly would've been convinced of the Ingram's innocence.
Third none of the other Fastest-Finger-First contestants besides Whitehurst(who BTW has changed his story several times, first saying he didn't suspect anything suspicious was going on until the final question and then saying he was aware of the coughs throughout Ingram's entire run, strikes me as very shady that he would suddenly change his story like that for no real reason) testified to hearing any coughing whatsoever.
Fourth, the fact that Paul Smith was called as a witness despite him not actually being present during either taping of Ingram, yet two other executives who were there that night were not called as witnesses(David Briggs and Adrian Woolfe)
Fifth, the fact that the tapes were not immediately handed over to the cops and instead the production team was allowed to mess around with them, which is not traditionally how gathering evidence for a case is supposed to go, if a murder happens, you don't play around with the murder weapon before the cops get there for example.
Sixth all of the audience members were questioned and not a single one of them heard any coughing.
Seventh, the claim that Whittock coughed a "No" during the penultimate question, that's a claim that was not presented until much later on in the case, when officers interviewed the Ingrams they said nothing about that claim and none of the audience members testified to hearing a "No" that day and when the senior sound technicians made their initial statements they too said nothing about hearing a "No", and according to the actual transcript of that case that "No" was not at all present in ITV's original evidence.
Eighth, the fact that unlike most cases, there was no visit to the "scene of the crime" which is almost always done to give jurors an idea of what the environment was like, now why on earth would they not want jurors to visit the alleged scene of the crime?
Ninth, the original verdict by the jury was that Diana was found not guilty, and the jury were ordered to change their verdicts, which strikes me as highly unethical.
I could list many more examples, but I think i've proved my point for now.
-
I don't think he did after reading that book, so yes it does matter, because an innocent person got convicted for a crime he did not commit and i'm sorry if me actually having a problem with that bothers you, but I refuse to drink the kool aid.
Relax. It's a Friday and it's a 3-day weekend, so none of this bothers me. Nor do I think you're drinking Kool Aid, because frankly I don't give enough damns about this story. I just think the conversation was going off the rails unnecessarily.
If you're gonna get this defensive over every little thing, maybe you should take another break and return in 2031. Regardless, take a deep breath and enjoy the weekend.
Sounds like the others are the one getting "Defensive" here LOL, i'm not the one who's so afraid of being proven wrong that I refuse to read a book that might contradict my own views.
-
Perhaps tabling the discussion then is in order? Neither of you appear to want to budge from your positions, so the back and forth is just getting old at this point.
Maybe, if the mods want to close this thread I won't argue.
-
One thing I don't understand about the whole "they were innocent" viewpoint, which I haven't seen an answer to: why would Celador slant things against the trio if the latter did nothing wrong? What would Celador gain?
I fail to see how me liking a show you don't like is somehow "asinine drivel",
It's not that you like a show I don't. It's that said show is The Chamber, which bordered on televised torture, and that you seem to like it unironically.
It's actually kind of funny how seriously you are taking my opinion :D
This sentence just about sums up your replies in this thread.
-
Maybe, if the mods want to close this thread I won't argue.
The mods are not here to babysit every discussion.
I've already had to lock one of your threads. I have no interest in having to make that a regular occurrence. Please conduct yourself in a manner where threads won't need to be locked.
-
One thing I don't understand about the whole "they were innocent" viewpoint, which I haven't seen an answer to: why would Celador slant things against the trio if the latter did nothing wrong? What would Celador gain?
I fail to see how me liking a show you don't like is somehow "asinine drivel",
It's not that you like a show I don't. It's that said show is The Chamber, which bordered on televised torture, and that you seem to like it unironically.
It's actually kind of funny how seriously you are taking my opinion :D
This sentence just about sums up your replies in this thread.
They'd save themselves from having to give away a million pounds for one thing, also the documentary "Major Fraud"(which is full of lies) was one of the UK's most succesful TV events in history with 16 million viewers, so i'd say Celador had quite a lot to gain from demonizing the Ingrams.
There's plenty of reality shows far worse then "The Chamber", like this one new show Pooch Perfect that basically encourages animal abuse of dogs, i'd say that's FAR worse then some cheesy game-show where contestants voluntarily subject themselves to strenuous situations and I find it far less morally bankrupt then other stuff on TV such as likes of Dr. Oz(whom millions of people watch for some godforsaken reason) who routinely spouts dangerous myths that can easily get people killed or put them in the hospital.
So I say judging me for liking The Chamber seems very silly and a nice convenient way to totally disregard any point I have about the Ingrams being innocent.
-
Maybe, if the mods want to close this thread I won't argue.
The mods are not here to babysit every discussion.
I've already had to lock one of your threads. I have no interest in having to make that a regular occurrence. Please conduct yourself in a manner where threads won't need to be locked.
I think you should be asking the users to conduct themselves better as well, as I was just defending myself against users for getting needlessly upset over me not agreeing with them.
-
I think you should be asking the users to conduct themselves better as well, as I was just defending myself against users for getting needlessly upset over me not agreeing with them.
That goes both ways, sir. Please remember what you just said when someone disagrees with you about a 2002 game show that took place in a torture chamber.
Consider this a friendly reminder to you and everyone that all posts here need to be mindful of the Eligibility Requirements (http://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,25562.0.htm). Thank you all in advance for your continued cooperation.
-
I think you should be asking the users to conduct themselves better as well, as I was just defending myself against users for getting needlessly upset over me not agreeing with them.
That goes both ways, sir. Please remember what you just said when someone disagrees with you about a 2002 game show that took place in a torture chamber.
Consider this a friendly reminder to you and everyone that all posts here need to be mindful of the Eligibility Requirements (http://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,25562.0.htm). Thank you all in advance for your continued cooperation.
OK then.
-
I'm posting these in the open for all to read. Everyone using this forum is bound by them.
Eligibility Requirements
The Game Show Forum exists for the discussion of television game shows and related topics by fans and industry professionals alike. To become and remain a member in good standing you must read and agree to the following Eligibility Requirements:
1. ALL MEMBERS ARE EXPECTED TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN A CIVILIZED AND ADULT-LIKE FASHION IN THIS FORUM AND IN ALL DEALINGS WITH OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AND MODERATORS, BOTH PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY.
2. Identity
Anyone who deliberately uses a false or misleading identity to obtain access to this forum will be removed from the forum. If you wish to maintain your anonymity on the board you may post using a handle; however, a valid email address must be disclosed to the Executive Producers upon application.
3. On-Topic Posts
All posts must be relevant to the topic of television game shows or a directly-related topic. Posts regarding videotape trading transactions between private parties are considered off-topic.
4. Net Games
Net games may not be conducted on the board.
5. Distasteful Posts
Posts deemed to be offensive, in generally bad taste or inflammatory in nature, will subject the author to disciplinary action. Posting messages which are harrassing, insulting, belittling, threatening or derisive to other board member(s), or which contain or incite personal attacks against other board member(s), will be considered grounds for disciplinary action. Posts which are harrassing, insulting, belittling, threatening or derisive to the Executive Producers, or which contain or incite personal attacks against the Executive Producers, or which otherwise undermine an Executive Producer's authority, will result in the offending member being banned from the board. A pattern of excessive and gratuitous use of foul language shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action.
6. Harassment of Members
Harassment of board members via email or by any other means on or off the board will be considered grounds for disciplinary action. Ad-hominem attacks against board management will result in immediate expulsion from the board.
7. False or Misleading Information
Posting information which, in the determination of the Executive Producers, is posted with the deliberate intent on the part of the poster to deceive or mislead readers, will be considered grounds for disciplinary action.
8. Libel, Slander, Invasion of Privacy
Posting messages which are libelous or slanderous, or which invade an individual's privacy, will be considered grounds for disciplinary action.
9. No Advertising
Advertising products or services of any kind is prohibited.
10. References to Commercial Entities
Posting a message under the guise of a commercial entity, e.g. a false news story speciously attributed to a news wire service, network or other commercial entity, will result in immediate disciplinary action.
11. Copyrighted Material
Copyrighted material may not be excerpted in its entirety in any message on the board. Brief excerpts from copyrighted material may be posted provided that the source is properly attributed. Links to copyrighted material are acceptable.
12. Spoilers
A member who is present in the studio for the taping of a game show, or who has advance knowledge of the content of a game show obtained by any other means, may not divulge the outcome of game play on this board, nor any notable incidents occurring in connection with game play, nor may they post a link to an alternate web site containing the outcome of game play or related incidents, until after such game play or incident has been broadcast in the U.S. Pacific time zone. Any spoilers posted after the west coast airing must be clearly labelled as spoilers. Spoiler information must be contained within the message body and not be contained in the subject header.
Examples of "notable incidents occurring in connection with game play" include:
- A contestant fell while spinning the Big Wheel
- Something broke down
- The prizes used in a TPIR pricing game
- WWTBAM had a question about __________.
Examples of permissible spoiler information which does not disclose details of game play or related incidents:
- TPIR played Lucky Seven (not considered notable)
- TPIR introduced a new pricing game (does not deal specifically with game play)
- A new record was set on this show (permissible provided it does not deal specifically with game play)
The above rule applies to the outcome of game play or related incidents only. Members of this board are permitted to post information about changes in production elements, behind-the-scenes changes or even the actual pricing games played during an episode of TPIR provided such information does not describe the actual playing of a game or the outcome thereof.
Disciplinary Action
Disciplinary action may consist of a) the issuance of warning(s) to offending members; b) temporary placement of a member in the Isolation Booth (revocation of posting privileges); c) placing a member on permanently-moderated status (all posts require approval by an Executive Producer before appearing on the Forum); or d) permanent expulsion from the Forum.
Disciplinary action is subject to the discretion of the Executive Producers.
Isolation Booth
The Executive Producers may place a member who has violated the Eligibility Requirements in the Isolation Booth. Placement in the Isolation Booth means that member loses his or her posting priveleges for a period to be determined by the Executive Producers.
By participating in this forum you agree that all decisions of the Executive Producers shall be final.
The Executive Producers reserve the right to amend the Eligibility Requirements at any time without notice.
PRIVACY STATEMENT
The administrators and moderators of this forum have access to the email address under which your membership was validated. Your email address will not be disclosed to anyone for any reason whatsoever.
Forum members may send each other email. Your email address will not be revealed to the sender when composing or sending email. The Forum does support private messaging for registered members.