TPiR: Make Your Mark retired

[Casey Buck]

Remember last season when Make Your Mark (formerly Barker's Marker$) had its rules changed so that the $500 that was given out at the beginning of the game was still won, if the contestant decided to leave the markers in their original positions, and lost? We had quite a heated argument over this.

Well, Steve Gavazzi posted last night that:

Actually, it turns out that the rules to Barker's Marker$ were never supposed to be changed.  Drew explained the game incorrectly on the air, and the staff decided on the fly to make his wrong rules the "new rules," partly to avoid embarrassing him and partly because nobody wanted to be the one who had to tell him he'd made a mistake.  The game was subsequently retired specifically because of this incident.

[Mr. Brown]

It got Super Saver'd, 'cept by production and not the host (which isn't completely fair, since Bob was production too).

And is the staff really that afraid of him? Is he really a dictator around the set? Is Bob wearing a Drew Carey costume?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Mr. Brown\' post=\'225668\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 12:01 PM\']And is the staff really that afraid of him? Is he really a dictator around the set? Is Bob wearing a Drew Carey costume?[/quote]
Depends on who you ask, from the looks of it. And it seems like those furthest away from the situation purport to have the best knowledge of it.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'225667\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 02:36 PM\']We had quite a heated argument over this.[/quote]
We sure did.  And now in retrospect, this statement finally makes sense:
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194636\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 05:04 PM\']Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.[/quote]
But of course at the time, it was so much more important to play the "I know something you don't know" card.

[CarShark]

...? Uhhhhh, huh? At least we know why they changed the rules to a game and then didn't play it the rest of the season. I'm surprised no one thought of it before. The thing is, I don't see how dropping a game entirely enters the equation unless, like $uper $aver, lawyers or Standards and Practices gets involved. Do rules changes have to be cleared with S&P first?

[J.R.]

Great, more ammunition for the "Droofus Sucks" crowd.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'225667\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 02:36 PM\']Remember last season when Make Your Mark (formerly Barker's Marker$) had its rules changed so that the $500 that was given out at the beginning of the game was still won, if the contestant decided to leave the markers in their original positions, and lost? We had quite a heated argument over this.[/quote]
Hmm...that's a pretty rare occurrence around here...

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'225679\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 04:07 PM\']Great, more ammunition for the "Droofus Sucks" crowd.[/quote]
You're not helping.

[chris319]

Do rules changes have to be cleared with S&P first?

Generally yes, but in this case it doesn't disadvantage the contestant. They may have cleared the rule change (and rewritten the bible) after the fact.

[J.R.]

I should know better. Being Pro-Drew is too much of a disadvantage in these endless TPIR wars.

[Kevin Prather]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'225687\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 03:08 PM\']

Do rules changes have to be cleared with S&P first?

Generally yes, but in this case it doesn't disadvantage the contestant. They may have cleared the rule change (and rewritten the bible) after the fact.
[/quote]
Does that mean that as long as the contestant doesn't get disadvantaged, S&P doesn't care? Is this the logic behind Barker's "Oh, what the heck, you win!" moments?

[Sodboy13]

If that's the reason for the game getting shelved, wow, that's really dumb, by all parties involved.

That being said, I do consider the source.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'225689\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 06:27 PM\']I should know better. Being Pro-Drew is too much of a disadvantage in these endless TPIR wars.[/quote]
You are trying way too hard to lose your "good guy" status.

If you want to comment on the job Drew is doing, go right ahead.  If your viewpoint happens to be in the minority, so be it.

If, on the other hand, you want to make snarky comments about the debate because you're not happy about your minority viewpoint, you can learn to do that through a moderator's filter.  As Don said, you're not helping.

BTW, this is coming from somebody who, if pushed, is probably ever-so-slightly on the pro-Drew side too.

[J.R.]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225692\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 06:03 PM\']You are trying way too hard to lose your "good guy" status.[/quote]
You are right. I've worked too hard to get that status and I don't want to lose it. (See posts from 2003 to around 2007 if you want to know how obnoxious I used to be)

I'll try not to let disagreements affect me too personally. I have a bad tendency to get too passionate when I'm on a "minority" side of an opinion.

Thank you for that reality check. I do genuinely appreciate it.

[CarShark]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225692\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 07:03 PM\']If, on the other hand, you want to make snarky comments about the debate because you're not happy about your minority viewpoint, you can learn to do that through a moderator's filter.[/quote]Wow. So you can be as snarky and vitriolic towards Drew as you wish, but if you voice your displeasure over the constant tainting of TPIR threads because of the people who are snarky and vitriolic towards Drew, you get threatened? Nice.