J! Category Choices

[Nick]

Fun fact:  Back in the era I played, if there was a category that required video (Clue Crew, celebrity readers, even still pictures) that category would be pointed out to the players in advance, and we were told that category HAD to be played top to bottom.  Not necessarily consecutively, but in order.  The video servers of the day were loaded that way and couldn't handle the skipping around.  I'm sure that's changed today.

Indeed it has.  I was at a taping in 2014 where there was a brief delay in one such clue being chosen in a non-consecutive order.  In the momentary pause, Alex blurted, "Have to take them in order" when the video suddenly began to play.  His remark was, of course, edited out.

The current production company is trying to massage Jeopardy into a sport.

This really hits the nail on the head and is one part of the problem.  The other I would say is, at the same time, they are "stunt casting" to fit this mold.  I don't watch anymore, so I'm not on the up-and-up with the contestants' occupations Johnny's listing off at the top of each episode; but as I saw more and more contestants were from occupations of a high-risk-tolerance nature (e.g., professional gambler or career stock trader, etc.), what do you see but more "breaking the game" style of play.  They've got people wagering massive bucks as if they don't care because they're used to riding a lot of cash on one horse, and if this horse doesn't pay off, well, they've got others because they're not betting the whole farm.

Contrast that with the bookworm who is trying for the one-in-a-lifetime shot to make more money in a half hour than he'll ever make in the same timespan who is going to play at least conservatively enough to try to stay ahead in the game should he be playing well.  The attitude seems to be the former type of contestant now tests better with the viewing audience than the latter, and the former is going to exploit the game to achieve his ends.  There's also the attitude that seeing the same old top-down, organized, OCD-friendly style of play after 40 years has run its course, so actively putting contestants into the game who will not play that way and, well, spice added, I guess.

I don't know what the best solution is.  We could try going back to Fleming-style and nix the wait time on buzzing in to see how many are jumping the gun and see how much that wrenches the gameplay.  We could try the more relaxed style of gameplay that was the mid '80s where much of the board was still untouched by the time's up beeps.  We could go back to the five-timers limit (what I personally think would be the best solution to maintain the integrity of the game, even though you're going to kill the Internet and media buzz by not giving birth to Ken Jennings, Julia Collins and James Holzhauer types that drive clicks, Tweets and views, which are supposedly measures of relevance).

If nothing else, I think Scott's got it when it comes to the casting: Go back to good-natured contestants familiar with the game than Olympic-style trained competitors.  People who are just going to approach the game in a different way can change a lot about the end product.

[Joe Mello]

If nothing else, I think Scott's got it when it comes to the casting: Go back to good-natured contestants familiar with the game than Olympic-style trained competitors.  People who are just going to approach the game in a different way can change a lot about the end product.

Here's the problem: the Jeopardy contestant pool is already self-selecting people who take the game with some degree of seriousness. I have a hard time believing anyone in 202X who is selected would not do any sort of prep, whether it's research, buzzer practice, or just collaborating with the larger community. It's all on the internet and not hard to find; anyone who chooses to not partake even a little is a fool.

[Nick]

Here's the problem: the Jeopardy contestant pool is already self-selecting people who take the game with some degree of seriousness. I have a hard time believing anyone in 202X who is selected would not do any sort of prep, whether it's research, buzzer practice, or just collaborating with the larger community. It's all on the internet and not hard to find; anyone who chooses to not partake even a little is a fool.

Is this what you call "being a victim of your own success"?

[rjaguar3]

Similar to the way that game shows change in small ways that ar3 large when sen ove4 the corse of generations, I like the freedom afforded by “control of the board” and also am sympathetic to those who want to follow along or would prefer a climactic outcome:

The current production company is trying to massage Jeopardy into a sport. Taken as a whole product, they just are. Box scores, a promotion and relegation ladder—it’s all stuff from soccer and baseball. The same way that they are not going to impose a winnings limit that was the way things were for twenty years, I cannot see the show taking away the weapon for players who want to be elite and to pile up huge prize money in a hurry,

Part of my issue is that game shows as a whole are moving in ways I don’t love. I guess we all have something to bear in a fashion.

At the end of the day, if the show is not watchable or interesting, it won't survive, irrespective of whatever competitive or strategic merits it may have. If players regularly went full-Holzhauer for weeks on end, for instance, and viewers revolted, the producers' hand would practically be forced, and they'd have to address the issue.

Even televised sports face this pressure too.

PS: One merit of the five-day limit was that if you had an annoying contestant or a contestant who makes the game not fun to watch, they'll be gone in a week at most.

[Neumms]

PS: One merit of the five-day limit was that if you had an annoying contestant or a contestant who makes the game not fun to watch, they'll be gone in a week at most.

Herb Stempel was born 50 years too early.

[alfonzos]

The Onion A.V. Club covers this very subject: https://www.avclub.com/jeopardy-technique-james-holzhauer-forrest-bounce-1850935799

[Neumms]

Would it help if they went back to the Art Fleming and season one rule of being allowed to ring in upon reveal of the clue rather than waiting for the light? Maybe one avoids choosing weaker categories. Maybe it would take away an advantage the returning champion always has: Getting good at reacting to the light, rather than the speed of your thinking being measured. (Same problem with the new Split Second.)

Or maybe it wouldn't help.

[clemon79]

Or maybe it wouldn't help.

Um, go with this.

[BrandonFG]

Would it help if they went back to the Art Fleming and season one rule of being allowed to ring in upon reveal of the clue rather than waiting for the light? Maybe one avoids choosing weaker categories. Maybe it would take away an advantage the returning champion always has: Getting good at reacting to the light, rather than the speed of your thinking being measured. (Same problem with the new Split Second.)

I personally hate when game shows allow the contestant to ring in. Even though it adds risk to a show like “Split Second” or J! (“And that’s the Jeopardy…”), something about it feels like it’s rude to interrupt the host(ess) mid-question.

[jage]

Depends on the show for me. It works on Sale of the Century because the questions are much easier and it sometimes leads to some funny moments. But a show that is 100 percent Q&A, or A&Q I guess, would have the pacing thrown off severely.

[clemon79]

something about it feels like it’s rude to interrupt the host(ess) mid-question.

If it's part of the game, I promise you the host(ess) isn't taking any offense.

[BrandonFG]

jage makes a good counterargument. With the right format, making the contestant answer right then and there is the better option IMO.

Years ago there was an Aussie Temptation contestant who sabotaged the champ playing for The Lot. The champ was in second place going into the speed round, and the third contestant kept ringing in during the question, basically locking out the champ.

I realize that's one very specific scenario, but it never sat right with me. Point taken.

[clemon79]

Years ago there was an Aussie Temptation contestant who sabotaged the champ playing for The Lot. The champ was in second place going into the speed round, and the third contestant kept ringing in during the question, basically locking out the champ.

I realize that's one very specific scenario, but it never sat right with me. Point taken.

I posit that isn't on the format, that's on the contestant coordinator for not sniffing out someone willing to pull a dick move like that and letting them even get close to that buzzer.

[Kevin Prather]

I posit that isn't on the format, that's on the contestant coordinator for not sniffing out someone willing to pull a dick move like that and letting them even get close to that buzzer.

If I remember the story correctly, the producer (or contestant coordinator or whoever) straight up told this contestant "You're not going to win, so just enjoy your last minute on TV." If that's true, then the whole thing was entirely their fault.

[clemon79]

If that's true, then the whole thing was entirely their fault.

While that's sorta a tone-deaf thing to say, there's also a better way to interpret something like that than "so feel free to blow up the entire production."

This is the Monopoly problem, right? Not that I am holding Monopoly up as the pinnacle of board game design, but it applies to most any game with player-to-player interaction: if one player at the table decides they simply aren't going to interact, or if all other players at the table agree that they aren't going to interact with one specific player, the game is broken. A basic tenet of games is that it's assumed that everyone at the table at least wants to play the game in the spirit the game wants to be played in.

That dude essentially flipped the table. They really probably should have stopped down tape and told him to quit it with his temper tantrum.