FULL RECAP - TPiR 06/02/2008

[starcade]

I think you need to realize that they're not rigging the show.  The definition of rigging the show is pre-determining the outcome in advance.  In other words, it's scripting the show.  By asking him not to give advice, they are NOT rigging the show.  They are within their rights to do so, and they always reserve the right to do so.  This is a subject that's in a gray area, and I think they did the best possible thing they could do in this gray area.

Actually, I'm familiar with the law -- they don't even have to completely pre-determine the result.  All they have to do is do it in part.

By disallowing all advice which is coming from people known to the production to be probably correct, the show is deliberately setting up a situation where the contestants will probably end up misled, confused, and probably going to lose.

Again, if he's seen as a "card-counter" type, then TPiR doesn't want to give away that many prizes, and is only allowing certain (wrong or confusing) information to come to the contestant.  That's disingenuous to the contestant, if not a clear set-up for the contestant to lose.

Their only real recourse is to end audience participation, at this point.  They've opened up a serious can of worms where any losing contestant, bitter enough, might be able to cry foul.

[SteveGavazzi]

I mean, let's rewrite that scenario that that one person put out there:

You get on the show, get on the showcase, and get to within $230.  Drew tells you you win both showcases unless your opponent (who was in a group and receiving instructions from one certain member of the group through hand signals) is closer.  He's $200 away, and DSW's.

You make the same charge to Roger that the poster who gave the original scenario did.  How, now, are the two scenarios different?  The only difference would be that the show knows about someone like Voltron, and does not know about this other person.

Not remotely parallel.  John Holder's scenario specifically included having seen the guy on TV several times before.  You're substituting in someone who you acknowledge as a random member of a random group.

You are blowing this MASSIVELY out of proportion, whether you think you are or not.

[NickintheATL]

Actually, I'm familiar with the law -- they don't even have to completely pre-determine the result.  All they have to do is do it in part.

By disallowing all advice which is coming from people known to the production to be probably correct, the show is deliberately setting up a situation where the contestants will probably end up misled, confused, and probably going to lose. ...

Again, you do not know what rigging is.  The clear cut definition, for this particular show, of what is considered rigging is if they script the OUTCOME OF THE GAME to whether or not they win or lose.  The advice given by an audience DOES NOT MATTER to what goes on with a contestant on stage.  It is still in the hands of the contestant what decision they make on stage.  What the audience does is completely irrelevant.

Look at it this way: quiz shows of the 1950s got in trouble for giving the contestants the questions and the answers in advance, telling them how to act, when to pat their forehead, etc.  THAT is rigging.  Simply sending someone who is obviously in cahoots with a lot of audience members at previous shows to the back of the audience and said person was asked by the producers to stop giving advice is NOT rigging the show.  The budget issue is secondary to all of this.

[starcade]

Not remotely parallel.  John Holder's scenario specifically included having seen the guy on TV several times before.  You're substituting in someone who you acknowledge as a random member of a random group.

You are blowing this MASSIVELY out of proportion, whether you think you are or not.

I disagree completely.  In John Holder's (thank you -- I forgot who the original poster was) scenario, the fact that he saw the person on TV (and, hence, asked to get suggestions from him/her) several times before establishes only that the person has assisted other contestants in wins, and that the person providing the suggestions knows their stuff.

What stops, from other methods, a group (who probably is planning to attend TPiR several weeks/months in advance) from having one of their number watch the show, read golden-road.net, etc. to gain the same level of information that the person providing suggestions in Holder's scenario, creating the same unfair advantage?

The only real difference, as in the real-life case, is that the show might know about the former and not about the latter.  If it is unfair for a segment of the audience to have a "go-to guy/gal" who knows his or her stuff, what difference does it make how the person came to know his or her stuff, as long as they committed no (other?) illegal acts while onsite?

Steve, I'm not mad at you.  I want to make that clear.  I disagree with you completely, and I do think this is a major deal.  It will impact whether I attend another taping or not.

[SteveGavazzi]

Gah...missed this before...

It's time for someone from the show to come on here and make a policy statement.

For reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with this situation, that is extremely unlikely.

[NickintheATL]

It's time for someone from the show to come on here and make a policy statement.

I don't think CBS legal would allow them to do such a thing, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

[starcade]

Again, you do not know what rigging is.  The clear cut definition, for this particular show, of what is considered rigging is if they script the OUTCOME OF THE GAME to whether or not they win or lose.  The advice given by an audience DOES NOT MATTER to what goes on with a contestant on stage.  It is still in the hands of the contestant what decision they make on stage.  What the audience does is completely irrelevant.

Tell Voltron that.  Tell him that, on the basis of how he's been treated the last several times he's been to the show.

What you are saying here is categorically false, or this situation would never have happened -- there'd be no perceived unfair advantage.

And, as far as that goes, you can rig a game for certain contestants to win, or for all contestants to lose.  (Now, sometimes, best laid plans of mice and men, blah blah blah...  Look at pro wrestling and it's history if you don't believe that to be possible.)  What I'm saying (especially with this show in the hands of one of the greatest production-scam artists (Fremantle, with American Idol) in recent American history) is that I don't trust Fremantle not to tamper with the results, and see this as going down that road.

You cannot silence one person on the basis of that they do know their stuff and that people around them do as well (unless you wish to accuse that person of arranging a split of prizes should any of the people so contacted get on the show -- but that's a separate issue...) without silencing the rest -- unless you wish to mislead, deceive, and potentially screw over the contestant.

Any action by the producers which disallows a legal act from taking place with respect to gameplay alters the result of the game or has potential to do so.  That's enough to at least start down the road to a rigged program.

Look at it this way: quiz shows of the 1950s got in trouble for giving the contestants the questions and the answers in advance, telling them how to act, when to pat their forehead, etc.  THAT is rigging.  Simply sending someone who is obviously in cahoots with a lot of audience members at previous shows to the back of the audience and said person was asked by the producers to stop giving advice is NOT rigging the show.  The budget issue is secondary to all of this.

I disagree completely, but since we are at lager-heads here, we're basically going to have to disagree.

[SteveGavazzi]

What stops, from other methods, a group (who probably is planning to attend TPiR several weeks/months in advance) from having one of their number watch the show, read golden-road.net, etc. to gain the same level of information that the person providing suggestions in Holder's scenario, creating the same unfair advantage?

1.)  This scenario is ridiculously unlikely.

2.)  It is even less likely that such a person would go to the show frequently enough over a short enough period of time that the staff would start to recognize him as someone who might present the same issues as Voltron did...and even if that happened, it's also unlikely that the person's pricing skill would be of such a calibre that such action would prove necessary.

While what you're proposing is theoretically possible, it is being presented with a degree of paranoia scenarios of which don't usually prove to be accurate unless their accuracy is essential to the plot of the movie that they've been presented in.

[starcade]

Gah...missed this before...

For reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with this situation, that is extremely unlikely.

I can at least answer both you and Nicholas here, for he said the same thing pretty much immediately after you did...

At some point, there's going to be an incident due to this.  I'm not going to say it's going to be me (right now, I have some doubts as to whether I am going to attend another taping) -- but, if they've made a policy to silence certain members of the audience over this kind of information, someone's not going to take it very well.  I've seen more than a couple of p'ed off people leaving the studio (even after the 2nd SCSD) in recent visits.  What if someone comes in and is basically identified as a "Human Price List" and things go south in a hurry?

I can understand why you say a statement on this is unlikely, and it might well be.  But for those who have posted a lot here and don't have that spinning gold star below their name, this could become a very major issue if the show has basically said that people with certain levels of information (even if not totally "inside information") may no longer give out that information, nor (in practical terms) ever expect to be contestants...

[SteveGavazzi]

At some point, there's going to be an incident due to this.  I'm not going to say it's going to be me (right now, I have some doubts as to whether I am going to attend another taping) -- but, if they've made a policy to silence certain members of the audience over this kind of information, someone's not going to take it very well.

Well, that isn't the show's problem...and frankly, if somebody is stupid enough to start a fistfight over something like this, they deserve to get banned from the studio.

But for those who have posted a lot here and don't have that spinning gold star below their name, this could become a very major issue if the show has basically said that people with certain levels of information (even if not totally "inside information") may no longer give out that information, nor (in practical terms) ever expect to be contestants...

What do you think the odds are that the staff even knows who most of those people are?

[NickintheATL]

Look, all this boils down to is one simple thing.

It's one thing to shout out answers in the audience.

It's another thing to coach 50 to 100 people out in the line and then tell them that you're their go to person.  That's wrong.

And since you're obviously missing the point, I choose to end this argument now.

[starcade]

1.)  This scenario is ridiculously unlikely.

Only because Americans are stupid (I am not including you in this discussion, Steve -- I'm speaking general Americans here...).  Any person with enough of a brain and enough of an idea of what's going on, given the amount of time a group would have to schedule such an event in advance to gain group status, could potentially think of such a scenario.  Didn't take me five minutes.

2.)  It is even less likely that such a person would go to the show frequently enough over a short enough period of time that the staff would start to recognize him as someone who might present the same issues as Voltron did...and even if that happened, it's also unlikely that the person's pricing skill would be of such a calibre that such action would prove necessary.

The point I'm making is that the staff wouldn't know about such a person, but the same perceived "unfair advantage" could then result.

What about someone with a great memory, or someone who decides, over the course of a month or six weeks, to pore over golden-road.net and this very subforum (First Run TPiR), for as much information as they can glean?

[SteveGavazzi]

What about just accepting that these would all be ridiculously isolated incidents and aren't realistically going to happen?

[starcade]

Look, all this boils down to is one simple thing.

It's one thing to shout out answers in the audience.

It's another thing to coach 50 to 100 people out in the line and then tell them that you're their go to person.  That's wrong.

And since you're obviously missing the point, I choose to end this argument now.

NO IT'S NOT!!!

You're obviously missing the point yourself.  It is no different to make such an arrangement (unless that arrangement comes with the implication of a split of prizes or the like, but again, that's a separate issue!) than it is for a group to do the same exact thing, knowing that 30 sets of hands from that group might be confusing to said contestant.

If Voltron, in making that statement, did nothing illegal but that which was made illegal ex post facto (after the fact), then the show basically has to radically change from an audience participation show to a straight quiz or something to that effect.

But it is no different for people to shout suggestions independently or as a group's go-to person (whether that group is a recognized group of 25, or an informal "group" of people who someone like Voltron has spoken to).

[Voltron291]

What has happened to me should NOT dissuade any of you from attending a taping - you should not expect something like this to happen to you. 

I'll admit I may have let my emotions and my family get in the way of what the show was trying to hint at me - which was don't help contestants.  But would it have hurt for someone to tell me any sort of reason why I shouldn't? I didn't have any idea of their point of view nor did I think I was doing anything wrong until I was told before this taping.  If I had done nothing - I don't think that I would've been pulled out of line and given me a line of reasoning from the show's point of view - and I still would've been moved to the back without me knowing any sort of reason, leaving me just as clueless as the previous day's taping and on the 2 previous MDS's I attended.  With the formal warning on today's show, I complied and did what was asked of me during this taping, and although I understood their point of view - I can't say that I was thrilled with the limitations they gave me, nor was I thrilled that it took four tapings before I could be told why I can only sit in the back.