"Jeopardy!" SPOILER info
Jon Delfin
I asked Scott what he whispered to the other two players before his FJ question was revealed, and for confirmation that it wasn't an accident:
<< I said "You're welcome."
And yes, it was on purpose, of course. I didn't mind sharing a win, and I thought it was too cool to pass up the chance to make Jeopardy history. >>
Kevin Marousek, RPCV
taught the history of St. Patrick to my students, and all the rest of
the subjects were easy. I didn't miss a question.
And I was right about the big event.
With that, I am off to get drunk. I'd claim it as a victory
celebration, but I was planning to get drunk anyway.
--
Kevin M.
David Bruggeman
From: Jon Delfin <jond...@nyc.rr.com>
To: tvb...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:15:01 PM
Subject: [TV Barn] "Jeopardy!" SPOILER info
So all of you who guessed "three-way tie" win the no-prize.
I asked Scott what he whispered to the other two players before his FJ question was revealed, and for confirmation that it wasn't an accident:
<< I said "You're welcome."
And yes, it was on purpose, of course. I didn't mind sharing a win, and I thought it was too cool to pass up the chance to make Jeopardy history. >>
Thomas Allen Heald
planned to start with the prize money every going to get off the ground?
clamato8
It WAS cool. Although I guess you could argue that he was insulting
his competitors, by implying that he'd rather face them the next day
than take on a group of random opponents.
Dave
Joe Coughlin
Joe Hass
>
> And yes, it was on purpose, of course. I didn't mind sharing a win, and I thought it was too cool to pass up the chance to make Jeopardy history. >>
I posted in the other thread a statement which I'll now post here
without the crypticness. When I saw the scores at the end of Double
Jeopardy, I thought, "There's no (expletive) way it's a three-way-tie
unless Scott does something stupid." I really did assume the guy just
brain-farted and didn't throw the extra buck on there (hence the Cliff
Claven comment I made).
To discover that the gentleman did it deliberately to get a record is
one of the stupidest and shameful things I've ever seen on television,
and I have to sit through the dreck of "Extreme Makeover Home Edition"
whenever my wife wants to watch it live.
To deliberately play in a competition not to win (when there is no
discernable benefit to do so; and artifically setting a record isn't a
discernable benefit in my opinion) is, for me, the second-most
shameful act imaginable. If you don't want to play to win, then sit
the hell down.
I'm just stunned. I plan on watching Monday's show. I hope Scott gets
his clock cleaned.
Joe Hass
Warren, MI
Joe Hass
something. On the Flemming-era Jeopardy!, the second- and third-place
contestants kept the cash they earned. In one of the Jeopardy! books I
have on my shelf at home (where I'm not at; so I'm going off memory
here), one contestant told Art during the interview that he came on
the show to win enough money for an engagement ring. So, when he
reached the certain dollar amount he had in mind, the contestant
simply stopped buzzing in. He wagered nothing in Final Jeopardy, and
walked out with his money. That episode is what inspired the rule in
the Trebek era that second and third place get prizes (now a set cash
amount). I've always found that interesting, and I've always wondered
what would happen now if that rule was put back into play (not to say
it ever will). Will it change the wagering patterns? Would you play
differently if you realized it was your own cash on the table?
Now, onto the responses.
Kevin wrote:
> The fact you think anything that happens on a gameshow is
> "the second-most shameful act imaginable" is a little out of
> sorts. I would accuse you of hyperbole, but people often accuse
> me of that and I'm not wild about it.
Kevin: I erred in editing and removed a phrase that, on first read,
was duplicitous, but I now realize was important. That sentence
should've ended "the second most-shameful act imaginable *within the
bounds of competition.*" Obviously there are lots of other things that
blow that out of the water, and I hope you'll accept my apology for
piss-poor editing.
Pgage wrote:
> Scott did not "throw" the competition - his actions insured that,
> if he was correct, he would win.
You are absolutely correct that Scott did not "throw" the competition
(the most shameful act), and I did not accuse him of that behavior.
But let me take a step back and further explain my belief.
Whenever I watch a competition of any kind (whether it be athletic or
intellectual), I do so with an implicit agreement of two terms.
One: that the game itself is fair. This goes beyond not rigged to the
point that each competitor should have an equal opportunity *under the
rules* to win the game (not to say that David will always beat
Goliath; merely that the rules do not intrinsically favor one over the
other). Yes, a smarter player should beat a dumber player in a game of
knowledge; but making sure the questions all favor areas the smarter
player is comfortable with violates this.
Two: each contestant's goal is to win the competition unless, for an
obvious reason, not winning can be proven to be better than winning
(which, obviously, causes the competition itself to be called into
question). This should not be interpreted as saying you should never
give up in an individual circumstance: for example, I have no problem
with a football team kneeling down at the end of regulation to force
overtime if they feel they have a better shot at winning the game
there.
The moment either of those two terms is violated, I stop watching, and
will refuse to watch again until I can be shown that violation has
been removed.
What Scott did at the end of the game was to violate the second term:
he no longer wanted to win the game*. And let's make it perfectly
clear: he did not win the game. He tied the other two contestants for
first. Jeopardy allows for a tie in a regular season game: if you tie
for first, all tied players come back tomorrow and keep the cash.
*In re my clause of not winning being better than winning, I am not
convinced that not winning improves his lot here: he faces the same
two people tomorrow, and either one could beat him and eliminate the
opportunity for himself to win additional money. Your Ken Jennings
reference is a red herring; he does not know what two contestants will
face him next. If he did, then Jeopardy! would violate the first term,
and should be taken off the air post haste.
The moment he admitted that was what he did, had it been my game show,
I'd have kept the money and told him he could sue if he wanted it
badly enough. From the perspective of the production company, Scott's
decision cost them $29,000 ($32,000 in payouts minus the $3,000 they
would've awarded second and third). I'm very curious (now) if Scott
admitted at any point prior to now to the producers that he
deliberately wanted to play for the tie.
Joe Coughlin wrote:
> Playing for a draw isn't losing and it isn't shameful in the least.
> Chess fans would agree with me.
I'm not entirely familiar with the strategy of chess, but let me throw
a scenario out there: Let's say you have your opponent in a position
where you can make a move to mate him (and when I say a move, I mean
one move). However, you choose not to. Instead, you offer a draw. This
would be considered acceptable?
Bryan wrote:
> [H]ow would a contestant on Jeopardy know what the other two
> contestants in the final round are doing, bidding-wise, in order to
> "tie" them? Would that mean they discussed the amount they
> were bidding in order to come up with a three-way tie? Or am I
> missing something?
Generally, in Jeopardy!, when two players are tied, the wager is
everything, because any lesser amount allows your opponent to win if
they bet everything. Scott (who obviously knows his betting theory)
knew this and bet accordingly.
PGage posted this comment from Scott:
> A schoolteacher present at the game came up to me and said
> I taught the kids a great lesson in sportsmanship and generosity.
Let's take these terms (sportsmanship and generosity) one at a time.
Sportsmanship is respecting that your opponent will play the best he
or she could. Sportsmanship is knowing that your opponent is expecting
your very best. And sportsmanship is knowing that some days will be
yours, and others will be your opponents. That no one deserves
humiliation, or embarrassment, or scorn for failing despite giving
their best effort. Anders and Jamey gave their best effort. It is
entirely possible to give your best effort and not win. When they both
sat there for the brief moment with $16,000, I'm sure they were
thinking, "Hey, nothing to sneeze at; we went to the wire, and Scott
still has to answer correctly."
What Scott did wasn't sportsmanlike. In fact, I would describe it as
an unsportsmanlike act. This is, in my view, the problem we've run
into now as a society: we're all good; once we posit that one person
is better than another, it's a bad thing because the person that's
behind now feels bad. Ladies and gentlemen, that is bullshit. Every
one of the 148 people who lost to Ken Jennings gave their best effort.
They lost. There's no shame in losing: the fact that you got on that
podium is a conversation-stopper for a lifetime. Sportsmanship is
beating them, and shaking there hand and smiling and saying (and
meaning), "Hey, great game, thank you for challenging me!"
If my kid was told that sportsmanship is defined as everyone being
equal, even by artificial means, I'd spend as long as it took to erase
that thought from his or her mind.
As for the generosity comment: I've always learned that being generous
involves giving up something of your own. Will Scott be reimbursing
King World for the $29,000? Until the answer is yes, don't even think
of mentioning the word.
PGage wrote:
> In this particular game (and more often that we realize in life)
> one person winning does not have to mean that everyone else loses.
Allow me to take this in two parts: the non-parenthesized portion and
then the comment in parentheses.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you: yes, in a true competition, there
are winners and losers; that's why you compete. Someone has to win,
and someone has to lose (unless, in the immortal words of Casey
Stengel, it rains). That is the essence of a competition. It's why we
watch such stupid things as people running, or trying to kick a ball
into a net, or spelling words, or even showing that they know more
about beers in green glass bottles. Because it gives us order in a
world where there really is none, there is a level of comfort within
it that is reassuring.
As for the "more often than we realize in life" comment: This may
shock those who've read this post, but I believe that, in life as
whole, there are no winners and losers; only the living and the dead
(and we're all gonna eventually move from one category to the next).
The idea of life being a zero-sum game is absurd. I know someone close
to me who thinks each one of us has a finite amount of love to give:
if you want to give love to one person, you must deduct it from
another. I find such thinking heart-breaking because it's so limiting.
There is no scoreboard; success is measured only by our own personal
standards.
I went to a funeral yesterday for my former high-school physics
teacher who was also a private pilot. Don Solmes was a wonderful
teacher, because he realized that every damn time he imparted a
thought or emotion, he was sharing a bit of his own wacky self. I
would run into Mr. Solmes at the airport, and he would give me grief
about how I was doing, even though he wasn't my instructor, because he
knew that, even in his smart-ass way, it was still a vibe of
reassurance, of laughter. Mr. Solmes knew that life was never zero-
sum; every kind word, every positive is added to someone else without
costing you a thing. Would the world be a better place if more people
realized this.
Is this a lot of thought for a stupid game show? Yeah, it probably is
(especially since I'm supposed to be putting together a PowerPoint
file right now instead). When I wrote what I wrote, I really didn't
think it'd stir up the hornet's nest it did; but I don't doubt for a
moment a word I wrote (saving, of course, the removing of the words as
I mentioned at the beginning).
Joe Hass
Warren, MI
Kevin Marousek, RPCV
--
Kevin M.
Thomas Allen Heald
> of fair and honest competition. He gave himself every possible benefit
> he would have realized had he bet an additional dollar, and
> intentionally or not gave himself some additional benefits as well. In
> trivial way I am glad to see that principle getting some airplay.
Little did they know we had planned our actions for months. We continued
tying for the next three months, beating the record take set by Ken
Jennings. When everything was added up, we took the show for over $9.3
million dollars. Barney invested his in suits and the entire set of
"Battlestar Galactica." Ted used his to finally marry Robin.
And me, I used mine for a trip to Vegas and blew it all in an hour on
hookers and blow. And that kids, is finally "How I Met Your Mother."
Jim Ellwanger
> Two: each contestant's goal is to win the competition unless, for an
> obvious reason, not winning can be proven to be better than winning
> (which, obviously, causes the competition itself to be called into
> question).
"Jeopardy!" contestants have intentionally bet to tie before -- back
when contestants had to leave after their fifth win, there would
occasionally be one who, on their fifth day, would bet exactly the
same way Scott did. It wouldn't always work out (because the second-
place contestant would have to bet it all and get Final Jeopardy!
correct), but if it did, one contestant would retire as a 5-time
undefeated champion, and the other contestant would get to return as
a 1-day champ.
If you want, you can look at it this way: as is true of many game
shows, "Jeopardy!" uses the term "champion," not "winner," and the
rules of the game allow for there to be co-champions in non-
tournament games. So I don't have a problem if someone goes in with
the mindset that they'd rather be a "champion" than a "winner."
But if I ever get called to be a contestant on the show, I'm pretty
sure I wouldn't bet to tie unless the beneficiary was an attractive
female.
--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@ellwanger.tv>
<http://www.ellwanger.tv>
PGage
In this particular game (and more often that we realize in life) one
person winning does not have to mean that everyone else loses.
Joe wrote…
What Scott did at the end of the game was to violate the second term:
he no longer wanted to win the game*. And let's make it perfectly
clear: he did not win the game. He tied the other two contestants for
first. Jeopardy allows for a tie in a regular season game: if you tie
for first, all tied players come back tomorrow and keep the cash.
(SNIP)
I wholeheartedly disagree with you: yes, in a true competition, there
are winners and losers; that's why you compete. Someone has to win,
and someone has to lose (unless, in the immortal words of Casey
Stengel, it rains). That is the essence of a competition. It's why we
watch such stupid things as people running, or trying to kick a ball
into a net, or spelling words, or even showing that they know more
about beers in green glass bottles. Because it gives us order in a
world where there really is none, there is a level of comfort within
it that is reassuring.
PGage writes…
You have not provided any support for your claim that Scott was not
trying to win, and did not in fact win, the game. Can you tell us how
Scott would have been situated differently had he bet 1$ more? I grant
your point that the producers would have been better off (though of
course, they have probably realized more than 100 times whatever it
cost them in free advertising, but that is besides the point). Scott
won the game – he got to keep all of his money (which he would not
have had he not won) and he got to come back and play again (which he
would not have had he not won). The fact that his bet resulted in 2
other players being able to keep their money and come back too changes
precisely nothing.
Are you saying that this game will not be counted in the official
Jeopardy statistics as a "win" (i.e., if that was his 3rd game, would
he have been considered a 3-time champion)? I don't know the rules
enough to know the answer to that question, and will bow to your
knowledge if that is the case, but I don't see how changes things in
terms of your original post.
You are simply wrong about all games being zero-sum. There are
perfectly legitimate games in which Casey is just wrong (baseball,
famously, is not one of them). In Jeopardy it is manifestly clear that
somebody (singular) does not have to win and somebody does not have to
lose. You may be saying that you only enjoy zero sum games, which is
fine; but while it may feel that way when it violates our own
preferences, there is nothing immoral about Scott choosing to pursue a
win in a non-zero sum manner in accordance with the rules of the game.
Joe wrote…
What Scott did wasn't sportsmanlike. In fact, I would describe it as
an unsportsmanlike act. This is, in my view, the problem we've run
into now as a society: we're all good; once we posit that one person
is better than another, it's a bad thing because the person that's
behind now feels bad. Ladies and gentlemen, that is bullshit.
PGage writes…
I think you are misunderstanding both what I am saying and what Scott
did. The point is not that nobody should ever lose, or even that it is
bad when somebody loses. But in a game situation in which a player can
make a decision that allows another player to benefit without hurting
his own chances to win, it is nice when they choose to do so, at least
once in a while (every 20 years or so) and we must certainly at least
defend his right to do so.
Interestingly, last week the parent of a boy on the basketball team
that lost to my son's came up to me after the game irate that our team
had kept playing even when the lead got into double digits. In point
of fact our team was not running up the score, as they only increased
the lead by 4 points during the entire second half, but they did keep
playing the game – they passed the ball, they shot the ball, they
played defense. I told the parent that it would be more disrespectful
if our team had purposely let his team score, or had stopped playing
offense. My point is, I agree with you that there is no merit in
letting an opponent win just to increase their self-esteem. I disagree
with you that the instant case is an example of that.
If I am in a game where I can win and you can win, I don't see
anything bad about choosing a strategy that would allow that to happen
- note that Scott did not purposely answer the question incorrectly to
arrange the tie, nor did he whisper the correct answer to his
competitor.
Darren Glass
Scott did not lose a single dollar.
Well, technically he did lose a single dollar by not betting one dollar more.
That said, I would have done the same thing in the situation he was in. Its a special kind of geek who finds nice symmetry in things like three-way ties in Jeopardy or fascination with quirks in the electoral system or the elaborate tie-breakers needed when athletic divisions all end in a tie, but I am that kind of geek and it seems to me that Scott is as well.
Also, he showed several times in earlier games that he has a Ken Jenningsesque desire to end with round numbers, so that alone could have made it an appealing wager to make.
d
Darren Glass
This should not be interpreted as saying you should never
give up in an individual circumstance: for example, I have no problem
with a football team kneeling down at the end of regulation to force
overtime if they feel they have a better shot at winning the game
there.
The distinction you are trying to make between this example and not wanting to take a Jeopardy game to the closest thing they have to overtime is one that is eluding me.
From the perspective of the production company, Scott's
decision cost them $29,000 ($32,000 in payouts minus the $3,000 they
would've awarded second and third).
This is where your argument goes silly, in my opinion. Something tells me that KingWorld would gladly trade all of the publicity that this move has given them for the $29K. Lots of people on the internet and the local news and in my paper are talking about Jeopardy now for the first time since Ken Jennings -- and that was the first time they had done so in a decade or two. The publicity and ratings that they are getting is certainly worth more than the $29K, and I would wager quite a bit on that fact.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the publicity and attention that Scott himself, both now and as the answer to a trivia question for the rest of his life, is getting is worth more than the $1 he would have gotten by wagering a bit more. So it seems to me that, even from a game theoretic point of view, he probably did the rational thing.
d
PGage
Scott did not lose a single dollar
Darren wrote...
Well, technically he did lose a single dollar by not betting one dollar more.
PGage writes...
True - I thought of that after I sent it. I should re-word my
argument: "Scott's game play cost him exactly a single dollar".
Joe Hass
that the contestants have a limited amount of time to determine their
wager for Final Jeopardy. This is incorrect: a contestant has as much
time as they want or need, and the producers will stop tape if needed
to allow as such.
PGage wrote...
> You have not provided any support for your claim that Scott
> was not trying to win, and did not in fact win, the game.
Second part first. Webster's Third New International Dictionary,
Unabridged defines the verb "win" as "to gain the victory in a
contest; overcome an opponent." Would you say that, if two contestants
score the same number of points in a competition, that they are both
victorious? I propose no, and point to the sports section: no one
would ever say, "The Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts both won the
game, 21-21." Neither team achieved victory. Neither team overcame
their opponent. There's no win there. So if you have three people,
each with the same score, no one won. They tied.
Now, under the rules of Jeopardy! (as I understand it), when there is
a tie for first place, each is declared a champion, each keeps his/her
money, and each comes back to play in the next regularly scheduled
game. If you're argument is that they won because they're declared a
champion, I would proffer that the two terms are not synonyms. You can
be a champion, and not win. An example is college football
conferences. If Michigan and Ohio State each finish the season with a
conference record of 8-1, each will say they are *a* Big Ten champion.
But outsiders (media/neutral fans/etc.) will not say that both won the
Big Ten championship; they shared it. They may use a tiebreaker to
determine who gets the benefits associated with the championship if
such benefit is only available to one team (you can't tell USC they
have to play both Michigan and Ohio State). This used to trip me up
myself: I thought the tiebreaker determined the champ.
As for knowing whether Scott was not trying to win: I can't get into
the man's head, but I can use this path of his behaviors, which I
believe to be rational: As you enter Final Jeopardy, if you are the
sole leader, two things must happen to *ensure* you win as defined in
the definition above: you must give a correct response, and you must
wager enough that if the player(s) in second place wager everything,
you would finish ahead of them. You can't really control the first
part, but you can definitely control the second part.
If Scott wanted to, as Webster says, "gain the victory in the contest;
overcome the opponent," he had to bet at least $2,401. If he bets any
amount less than that, he runs the risk that his opponent may
correctly answer the question and wager enough to beat him.
Scott did not do so. Why? To quote his posting: "It was an intentional
bet. I counted on Anders and Jamey betting rationally and wagering
everything. I thought it would be really cool to be a part of Jeopardy
history."
So he admits that his plan was to play for the tie, which I've proved
above is not a synonym for a win. Therefore, he did not play for a
win.
> I grant your point that the producers would have been better
> off (though of course, they have probably realized more than
> 100 times whatever it cost them in free advertising, but that
> is besides the point).
I believe that if you're running a competition, and you discover that
a contestant is not playing to win, no amount of "free publicity"
outweighs the fact that the competition is tainted. The fact that
everyone knows your competition (or watched it) doesn't wash that
away.
> Are you saying that this game will not be counted in the
> official Jeopardy statistics as a "win" (i.e., if that was his 3rd
> game, would he have been considered a 3-time champion)?
It is worth noting what Johnny Gilbert announces at the start of the
broadcast when introducing the returning contest: "And, our returning
champion. A software engineer from Salt Lake City, Utah, Ken Jennings,
whose 74-day cash winnings total $2,520,700."
Note the use of the term "our returning champion" instead of
"yesterday's winner."
Jeopardy's records are based on days as champions. I'm not disputing
that Scot, Anders, and Jamey can all claim that they were Jeopardy!
champions. But, as I stated earlier, it'd be more accurate to say they
shared a Jeopardy! championship.
> You are simply wrong about all games being zero-sum. There
> are perfectly legitimate games in which Casey is just wrong
> (baseball, famously, is not one of them).
An example, please?
> You may be saying that you only enjoy zero sum games, which is
> fine; but while it may feel that way when it violates our own
> preferences, there is nothing immoral about Scott choosing to
> pursue a win in a non-zero sum manner in accordance with
> the rules of the game.
I'm not saying it's immoral (because each person has his/her own set
of morals to judge upon). I'm saying that Scott violated the intrinsic
rules of a competition.
In many professional sports, there is a catch-all rule against unfair
acts (for college football, the rule is 9.2.3 on page FR-124 of the
2006 rule book) that effectively allows the official the ability to
penalize a contestant in any means necessary for behavior that, while
not technically against a rule, is an unfair act. For an example of
how this rule should've been applied, look up the Wisconsin/Penn State
football game (http://snipurl.com/1de84) from last November, where
Wisconsin used a loophole in the timing rules to effectively kill the
last 23 seconds of the first half by repeatedly going offside on the
kickoff.
What the official had every right to do (and should've done) in that
situation is to announce that, while Wisconsin was, in fact, offside,
the application of that rule would effectively reward the penalized
team; therefore, the rule will not be enforced.
This was, effectively, an unfair act to the game itself (while
obviously not unfair to the two opponents). The contestant admitted
it. He should be penalized.
The question I asked in a previous answer, and I'd pose it to Scott
directly if I could: "Did you tell the production staff at any point
prior to the air date that you deliberately wagered to create a tie?"
> If I am in a game where I can win and you can win, I don't see
> anything bad about choosing a strategy that would allow that
> to happen.
In life, this is completely true. But this is a competition where the
objective is to win. If you're not playing to win, then get the hell
off the field.
You mentioned the story of your son's basketball game. I've felt for a
long time that the biggest problem in youth sports is that we've
become obsessed with win/loss at a level when the objective should be
learning the sport. My six-year-old niece is playing soccer for the
first time this spring, in a three-on-three "league." I hope they
don't keep score. I hope they just run a clock for sixty minutes, and
at the end of the day they learn how to play and have fun.
Darren wrote in response to my argument that Scott's behavior cost the
production company $29,000:
> This is where your argument goes silly, in my opinion.
> Something tells me that KingWorld would gladly trade all the
> all of the publicity that this move has given them for the $29K.
> Lots of people on the internet and the local news and in my
> paper are talking about Jeopardy now for the first time since
> Ken Jennings -- and that was the first time they had done so
> in a decade or two. The publicity and ratings that they are
> getting is certainly worth more than the $29K, and I would
> wager quite a bit on that fact.
In a competition, all you have are the two things I mentioned at the
beginning: the game is fair, and the contestants want to win. The
moment you hedge on that; the moment you step off that line and make
someone wonder if everything is on the up-and-up, you're done; you're
just professional wrestling sans the sweat.
I believe that the Jeopardy staff did not know that Scott wagered
deliberately to create the tie. I believe they didn't know it until
after the airdate, when Scott shared it. If it can be shown to me they
did know it, and they still promoted this as a fair competition and a
true outcome, then I'll never watch the show again.
> Also, I'm pretty sure that the publicity and attention that Scott
> himself, both now and as the answer to a trivia question for
> the rest of his life, is getting is worth more than the $1 he
> would have gotten by wagering a bit more. So it seems to me
> that, even from a game theoretic point of view, he probably
> did the rational thing.
Two stories to look up: Bob Sura (the basketball player who, in 2004,
deliberately missed a shot at his own basket to get the rebound to
become the first player in seven years to get three straight triple-
doubles) and Nykesha Sales (the UConn player who, in 1998, after
suffering a season-ending Achilles Tendon injury, played in one
additional game where she was allowed by the opponent to stand under
the basket and make a simple layup to break the school scoring
record). Sura was fined by his own team and the rebound was erased;
Sales and her accomplices (the two head coaches) were absolutely
ripped to shreds (I, at the time, said to anyone who would listen that
I thought it set women's sports back 10 years because it validated
every Neanderthal thug's thought that women didn't really play as hard
as men), though the record was allowed to stand.
Joe Hass
Warren, MI
Mark J.
On Mar 19, 10:51 am, "Joe Hass" <hassgoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that the Jeopardy staff did not know that Scott wagered
> deliberately to create the tie. I believe they didn't know it until
> after the airdate, when Scott shared it. If it can be shown to me they
> did know it, and they still promoted this as a fair competition and a
> true outcome, then I'll never watch the show again.
The contestant coordinators stand behind the contestants while they
make their wagers, basically to record the figures and get them to the
game board operator and to Chyron so that everything will be covered
immediately. It would seem to me that Scott would've have to have
kept his plans to himself, because if he had said anything, the
contestant coordinators would have told him to replace the wager.
Those partitions between the podia for Final Jeopardy! are there for a
reason.
Joe Coughlin
--
+++++++++++++++
Joe Coughlin
Happy Accidents
http://inturnaround.vox.com
Joe Hass
> This should not be interpreted as saying you should never
> give up in an individual circumstance: for example, I have no problem
> with a football team kneeling down at the end of regulation to force
> overtime if they feel they have a better shot at winning the game
> there.
Darren Glass wrote:
> The distinction you are trying to make between this example and not wanting
> to take a Jeopardy game to the closest thing they have to overtime is one
> that is eluding me.
The implication is that playing to win does not mean it's unacceptable
to lose a battle to win the war. Just like, in chess, it's okay to
sacrifice a pawn to capture a higher ranked piece of your opponent.
And remember: there is no "closest thing to overtime" in a regular
season game. It's a tie. Tomorrow, they reset the scores and start a
new game.
Joe Hass
Warren, MI
Joe Hass
> The contestant coordinators stand behind the contestants while they
> make their wagers, basically to record the figures and get them to the
> game board operator and to Chyron so that everything will be covered
> immediately. It would seem to me that Scott would've have to have
> kept his plans to himself, because if he had said anything, the
> contestant coordinators would have told him to replace the wager.
> Those partitions between the podia for Final Jeopardy! are there for a
> reason.
I may have been unclear; my apologies. I have absolutely no doubt that
Scott didn't lean over the partition to tell the others what he's
going to do. I have absolutely no doubt that the contestant
coordinators did everything by the book during the actual game play
(though I'm sure whomever was watching Scott had to be careful not to
raise his/her eyebrows over the wager).
Where I say the problem could've occurred is if, after the game, Scott
went to the coordinators and said he deliberately played for the tie.
If the producers knew that the player did this deliberately, and
didn't penalize him for it, and, in fact, promoted this event in spite
of that knowledge; *then* we have a problem.
Joe Hass
> J! isn't a sport. A tie in sports isn't the same as a win because there are
> standings implications and you have a responsibility to your fans to at
> least make it a good competition.
And I never say that Jeopardy! is a sport. But it is a competition.
And while Scott may not have had a legion of fans, there are fans of
the show who expect certain standards to be upheld, just as I may be a
fan of baseball and be disappointed about something that happens
within the sport that doesn't directly affect the Cubs (for which I am
also a fan).
> The definition of victory is different to some people. For some it's to get
> one more point that an opponent. For others, it's simply to finish the race.
> I say one can be victorious and not have to defeat anyone.
You're welcome to your own definition. I go by Webster. What you refer
to is what I call a "moral victory."
> The tie wasn't solely because of Scott's wager anyway.
I disagree. He, and he alone, could've prevented the tie in a rational
way via wagering (the others could've wagered less money, but we've
discussed previously the idea that it makes no sense to do so).
Obviously, any wrong answer would've changed the outcome, but the
discussion I believe has never been about the choice to answer; it's
been about the choice of wager amount.
> In the end, Scott will continue to defend his championship, a championship
> he currently shares with two other people. I reject any other notion that
> not winning is losing in this game. He didn't cheat. He didn't lie and he
> didn't steal. I support what he did. I continue to think it was pretty cool.
Again, I did not say he lost. I simply say he didn't win. As I said in
my response to PGage, you can be a champion and not win. And he will,
indeed, play another day. Where (as I said previously) I hope he gets
jond...@nyc.rr.com
list. Curiously, they're all pretty sanguine on the topic, and we're
all looking forward to seeing Scott at the crossword tournament this
weekend.
Jon
Joe Coughlin
On Mar 19, 12:05 pm, "Joe Coughlin" <inturnaro...@gmail.com > wrote:
> J! isn't a sport. A tie in sports isn't the same as a win because there are
> standings implications and you have a responsibility to your fans to at
> least make it a good competition.
And I never say that Jeopardy! is a sport. But it is a competition.
And while Scott may not have had a legion of fans, there are fans of
the show who expect certain standards to be upheld, just as I may be a
fan of baseball and be disappointed about something that happens
within the sport that doesn't directly affect the Cubs (for which I am
also a fan).
> The definition of victory is different to some people. For some it's to get
> one more point that an opponent. For others, it's simply to finish the race.
> I say one can be victorious and not have to defeat anyone.
You're welcome to your own definition. I go by Webster. What you refer
to is what I call a "moral victory."
Ed Dravecky
> I propose no, and point to the sports section: no one would ever say, "The
> Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts both won the game, 21-21." Neither
> team achieved victory. Neither team overcame their opponent. There's no
> win there. So if you have three people, each with the same score, no one
> won. They tied.
I propose that you're overlooking a competitor in part of this
equation: the show "Jeopardy!" itself, including its team of writers
and producers. You do acknowledge that the producers are out an
additional $29K. If one goal of the players is to extract as much
money from the game show as possible, then taking a chance that you
can make them pay out $48K instead of $19K is a clear win for the
players over the show.
Is this so different from a basketball player passing a ball to a
teammate chasing a contractual performance bonus rather than taking
the shot himself? It doesn't mean that one player is cheating or
throwing the game or, possibly, even altering the final outcome of the
on-court game in any way but they do get a "win" over the ownership
who has to pay out the bonus? I'd say it's not.
--
Ed Dravecky III
Allen, Texas USA
Joe Hass
> I propose that you're overlooking a competitor in part of this
> equation: the show "Jeopardy!" itself, including its team of writers
> and producers. You do acknowledge that the producers are out an
> additional $29K. If one goal of the players is to extract as much
> money from the game show as possible, then taking a chance that you
> can make them pay out $48K instead of $19K is a clear win for the
> players over the show.
I wholeheartedly disagree. They are the officials for the competition.
If the objective of the competition is to take as much money from the
production company as possible (as you suggest), then why aren't the
players who finish second and third allowed to keep their winnings? I
interpret that as a fundamental statement that the players are playing
against each other. If you enter this competition with the objective
that you want the production company to spend as much money as
possible, you run the risk that you may not be in a position to do so.
You're not playing by the stated rules, and I'd say you shouldn't be
playing. If you want to treat this as some sort of "moral victory" or
protest as has been mentioned in the past, that's fine; don't expect
the officials to be particularly thrilled at you.
Think of it as the equivalent of card counting in blackjack in Las
Vegas. There are no rules within the game that prohibit you from
keeping track of the cards that have been dealt, and the state of
Nevada has said that counting cards in and of itself is not cheating.
That being said, the casino officials have decided that it's an unfair
act, and reserve the right to prohibit you from playing the game.
> Is this so different from a basketball player passing a ball to a
> teammate chasing a contractual performance bonus rather than taking
> the shot himself? It doesn't mean that one player is cheating or
> throwing the game or, possibly, even altering the final outcome of the
> on-court game in any way but they do get a "win" over the ownership
> who has to pay out the bonus? I'd say it's not.
That's a red herring, because you're confusing a competition with an
employment contract; also, you mention cheating and "throwing the
game," which I've never mentioned as something Scott did.
Scott should've won the game. He made a conscious decision to
deliberately not wager enough money. He decided not to play to win ;
that was the offensive act. And had he played it stupid (i.e., not
mentioned he did it deliberately), I'd be laughing at the guy with the
tone of, "Boy, I'm glad my mistakes aren't aired in national
syndication. When Scott leaned back to the other two contestants, I
assumed it was a comment along the line of "I can't believe I just did
that!"
Joe Hass
Warren, MI
Joe Coughlin
Joe Hass
Warren, MI
Joe Hass
> When Scott leaned back to the other two contestants, I assumed
> it was a comment along the line of "I can't believe I just did that!"
Joe Coughlin wrote:
> According to him, he said, "You're welcome."
Had I been standing next to him, and discovered that the guy who
could've beaten me didn't, did it on purpose, then told me, "You're
welcome," my initial reaction would've been to pop him. Obviously, it
wouldn't have been a particularly good reaction, nor would it have
been correct, but that'd be the first thing that went through my mind.
I'll add this: I just ventured over to the Jeopardy! message board. I
would not be surprised if the producers respond to this reaction this
episode has had by instituting one-question playoffs in regular season
games.
Joe Hass
Warren, MI
David Bruggeman
David
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
Pollak, Melissa F.
Joe Hass
> According to him, he said, "You're welcome."
David wrote:
> Sure looked that way when I watched the game.
Just to be clear to all: I don't dispute or question what Scott said
("You're welcome."). What I mentioned a few posts back was what, upon
initial viewing, without any other information, my guess was as to
what he said.
> I still don't buy the argument that not playing to win is offensive.
> Maybe dumb, but I can't seem to get up much more of a feeling
> on the tie than "all that publicity for *this*?"
FWIW, I believe that the producers are, at this moment, channelling
Sally Field in Smokey and The Bandit: "Did you expect this? I mean,
all this?" I think they thought we'd all go, "Hey, that's pretty
cool," and move on appropriately. It was when Scott posted on the
Jeopardy! message board that he did it deliberately that it went from
quirky event to major philosophical debate. At least that's what did
it for me.
Joe Hass
Warren, MI
Joe Coughlin
Joe Hass wrote:
> When Scott leaned back to the other two contestants, I assumed
> it was a comment along the line of "I can't believe I just did that!"
Joe Coughlin wrote:
> According to him, he said, "You're welcome."
Had I been standing next to him, and discovered that the guy who
could've beaten me didn't, did it on purpose, then told me, "You're
welcome," my initial reaction would've been to pop him. Obviously, it
wouldn't have been a particularly good reaction, nor would it have
been correct, but that'd be the first thing that went through my mind.
I'll add this: I just ventured over to the Jeopardy! message board. I
would not be surprised if the producers respond to this reaction this
episode has had by instituting one-question playoffs in regular season
games.
Joe Hass
Warren, MI
Jon Delfin
Joe Hass
> Had he been literally handing you $16,000 in cash while he was doing so,
> would that change your mind?
To answer your direct question: I'd look and see where he hid it.
To answer your indirect question (what I would've done had I been in
Jamey and Anders shoes): I would've gone to the contestant coordinator
the moment tape stopped and said, "I had absolutely no knowledge of
this in advance." Then I would've shut my cake hole and waited to see
what the hell happened. If the producers said they had no problem with
it, I'd take the $16,000 and make Scott regret his decision the next
game. I would've gone along with any decision based on the fact that I
had nothing to do with this.
> I don't think [the elimination of regular season ties will] happen.
> I think people who are galled at what happened will voice their
> displeasure and those who think it was cool will generally leave
> it at that. More or less silent majority as I see it.
I'm not disagreeing with the likelihood of it happening (very small).
But if it did happen, I wouldn't fall out of my chair and say I didn't
see it coming. Sometimes loopholes are discovered (e.g., you use the
same six "random" sequences to determine which space is lit on a game
board), and you have to make an adjustment to close them after someone
exploits it.
Joe Hass
Warren, MI
Darren Glass
I believe that if you're running a competition, and you discover that
a contestant is not playing to win, no amount of "free publicity"
outweighs the fact that the competition is tainted.
Maybe it's tainted to you. I would not try to convince you otherwise. I know that to the people who I have talked to, far more people think what he did was cool than think it was wrong, and I would be surprised if the majority of Jeopardy fans -- or the public more generally -- didn't agree with me. "Tainted" is something that gets to be determined by the audience as a whole, and I have heard very few people agree with you that this is a case of that.
In life, this is completely true. But this is a competition where the
objective is to win. If you're not playing to win, then get the hell
off the field.
I would guess that most people would say it is a competition to win money -- not to win the title of 'undisputed Jeopardy champion'. That's why so many popular game shows don't even have opponents but have people playing against the game (Millionaire,. DOND, Are You Smarter Than Jeff Foxworthy...). Maybe it is this distinction where you and I see things differently, but I would bet that most game show players would rather win an extra $1000 and not have the title than have the title but go home with less cash. If you see things this way, your argument falls apart.
d
Thomas Allen Heald
> I would guess that most people would say it is a competition to win
> money -- not to win the title of 'undisputed Jeopardy champion'. That's
> why so many popular game shows don't even have opponents but have people
> playing against the game (Millionaire,. DOND, Are You Smarter Than Jeff
> Foxworthy...). Maybe it is this distinction where you and I see things
> differently, but I would bet that most game show players would rather
> win an extra $1000 and not have the title than have the title but go
> home with less cash. If you see things this way, your argument falls
> apart.
And it seems we can blame not Scott, but a curious/mischievous kid in
the audience during the commercial break who asked if final jeopardy had
ended in a tie, says Alex.
PGage
http://cmc.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/3/1/110
PGage writes...
They make a point I have not seen discussed elsewhere, but have been
most worried about myself. Most of the time I hear people worried that
CSI will help defendants because juries expect state of the art (and
beyond) forensics. But I think at least as often (probably more) CSI
helps the prosecution create the (illusion) that scientific evidence
presented at trial is "objective" and "speaks for itself" - and that
the technicians, police officers and prosecuting attorneys are for the
most part disciplined, conscientious and excruciatingly honest
pursuers of objective truth (rather than at least as influenced by
personal bias, careerism, self-interest and political pressure as
those working for the defense).
One (huge) flaw I see in the article is illustrated here:
"At trial, these lawyers are also beginning to exploit the lack of
scientific proof to plant doubt in the jury's mind, even when
eyewitness accounts, confessions or other forms of compelling evidence
are presented (Stockwell, 2005)."
This seems to suggest that eyewitness accounts and confessions are
particularly credible and useful sources of evidence at trial. What we
have learned over the last 15 years or so is that both eye-witness
testimony and confessions are particularly vulnerable to a host of
distorting factors, and that juries tend to give much more weight to
these sources of evidence than they deserve.
PGage
Second part first. Webster's Third New International Dictionary,
Unabridged defines the verb "win" as "to gain the victory in a
contest; overcome an opponent." Would you say that, if two contestants
score the same number of points in a competition, that they are both
victorious? I propose no, and point to the sports section: no one
would ever say, "The Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts both won the
game, 21-21." Neither team achieved victory. Neither team overcame
their opponent. There's no win there. So if you have three people,
each with the same score, no one won. They tied.
PGage writes…
I find this topic to be inherently interesting, and will pursue it a
little further than perhaps is justified by the topic and list below.
My short response is this: I think you are making a mistake in
equating all games with games like baseball and football (two games I
am big fans of myself). A football game that ended in a 21-21 tie
clearly has no winner, while a Jeopardy game that ends in a
10,000-10,000-10,000 tie clearly has three winners (or three players
who tied for first place, or three champions, as you prefer). This is
because there simply is not one kind of game, there are many kinds of
games, and Jeopardy And Football belong to different types. I do
recognize however that you have clearly and effectively stated your
aesthetic preference for zero-sum games in which there can only be one
winner. You apparently thought that Jeopardy was this kind of game,
and since most of the time the strategies employed in playing Jeopardy
are similar to those that would be employed in a zero-sum game, you
are able to enjoy it. Scott's game play illustrated a relatively rare
instance in which Jeopardy strategy might deviate from zero-sum game
strategies, and it detracted from your enjoyment of the game. It did
not detract from my enjoyment of the game – indeed it significantly
enhanced it – but that is an individual preference.
The word "game" is literally the paradigmatic example of a word for
which it is difficult (if not impossible) to provide a clear
definition (see Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations). Terms
like game can be defined by a set of overlapping characteristics, no
single subset of which is required for an instance to qualify. Even in
a listing of such characteristics, I do not believe that "single,
exclusive winner" would rank very high.
Dictionaries may not be the best source for defining terms like this,
but we can explore it a little.
*****************************
I don't have the 3rd New International handy, but Merriam Webster's
online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/game) includes
(among others) the following definitions for "game":
"3 a (1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to
rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other (SNIP)
2 a : a procedure or strategy for gaining an end"
The OED includes the following:
3. a. An amusement, diversion, pastime. 4. a. A diversion of the
nature of a contest, played according to rules, and displaying in the
result the superiority either in skill, strength, or good fortune of
the winner or winners.
******************************
For what it might be worth I note that the last definition provided
from the OED specifically indicates that a game may have more than one
winner.
In game theory (here I do not have a specific citation, others can
correct me if I am off as I freely admit that I am not an expert in
this field) I think a game is typically seen as a some kind of
structured situation in which players seek to maximize their outcome
according to rules. I think that is clearly what Scott did on
Jeopardy, and I don't see anyway in which his behavior can be said to
violate either the letter or spirit of the Jeopardy game.
BTW – did I read somewhere on this list that when a word like
Jeopardy! Includes an odd punctuation or other mark in its title, one
does not have to continually reproduce it when discussing it in
writing? That exclamation point was messing me up, so I just took it
out.
Jim Ellwanger
> BTW – did I read somewhere on this list that when a word like
> Jeopardy! Includes an odd punctuation or other mark in its title, one
> does not have to continually reproduce it when discussing it in
> writing? That exclamation point was messing me up, so I just took it
> out.
Back when I was closed-captioning "Jeopardy!" and was careful to
include the exclamation point, it would be handled as in the
following manner...
THIS IS "JEOPARDY!" (no additional punctuation to indicate the end
of the sentence)
YESTERDAY ON "JEOPARDY!",
FRED PICKED UP $12,000. (comma after the quotation mark)
LET'S SET UP THE BOARD
FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY! (again, no additional punctuation, even though
it kind of looks like Alex is shouting)
TODAY IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!,
THESE CATEGORIES... (comma after the exclamation point)
HERE'S THE CATEGORY
FOR FINAL JEOPARDY!... (but in this instance, an ellipsis after the
exclamation point, the ellipsis specifically being an indication that
Alex is going to say something that we're not going to caption
because it duplicates an on-screen graphic)
--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@ellwanger.tv>
<http://www.ellwanger.tv>
PGage
THIS IS "JEOPARDY!" (no additional punctuation to indicate the end of
the sentence)
PGage writes...
If a contestant said during the interview, with great enthusiasm and
emphasis: "I can't believe I'm on Jeopardy!" would you consider using
two exclamation points?
Jim Ellwanger
> If a contestant said during the interview, with great enthusiasm and
> emphasis: "I can't believe I'm on Jeopardy!" would you consider using
> two exclamation points?
I think so, although that was so long ago (I think the company I
worked for lost the "Jeopardy!"/"Wheel of Fortune" captioning
contract in 2001, and it's been almost two years since I was employed
as a captioner).
Jon Delfin
"I can't believe I'm on 'Jeopardy!'!" perhaps.
Pedantically yours,
jd
dsi...@yahoo.com
> At 02:07 AM 3/20/2007, you wrote:
>
> >Jim wrote...
> >THIS IS "JEOPARDY!" (no additional punctuation to indicate the end of
> >the sentence)
With the definitions flying hot and heavy, I don't think anyone
mentioned what happened on Monday's show. Did the guy win or get
trounced?
--Dake Sikula
Tom Wolper
>
> With the definitions flying hot and heavy, I don't think anyone
> mentioned what happened on Monday's show. Did the guy win or get
> trounced?
Scott (returning champ, Jon's pal, etc) lost to Jamey by getting the
Final Jeopardy question wrong.
Tom W
Joe Hass
of me.
PGage wrote:
> BTW - did I read somewhere on this list that when a word like
> Jeopardy! Includes an odd punctuation or other mark in its title, one
> does not have to continually reproduce it when discussing it in
> writing? That exclamation point was messing me up, so I just took it
> out.
My recollection of that discussion involved trying to replicate a
graphical interpretation of the brand name (for example, "[adult
swim]"). Since the actual name of the program includes the exclamation
point, I use it. However, I don't use it in the discussion of a
particular round. So: "I appeared on Jeopardy!, but after I failed to
phrase my response in the form of a question in the Double Jeopardy
round, I was called wrong." The show likes to promote itself in all-
caps ("JEOPARDY!"), which I interpret as violating the aforementioned
rule.
> My short response is this: I think you are making a mistake in
> equating all games with games like baseball and football (two games
> I am big fans of myself).
The change in terms concerns me. I've used the phrase competition
repeatedly because that's what we've been talking about. A game and a
competition are two similar yet different things in my mind. The
difference is what happens at the conclusion: generally, the winner of
a game is just a winner of a game. A competition offers some kind of
reward. So if my wife and I sit down and play Monopoly, we're playing
a game. When my brother and I and our friends play cards for money,
I'd call that a competition. That's why competition can convert into
an adjective, competitive ("There's really such a thing as competitive
mini golf?")
Each of us chooses how we handle the difference between games and
competitions. My brother-in-law is pretty friendly in a game; put
something of value on the line, and he's as intense as a laser. People
tell me how funny and nice I am right up to the point where we start
to play a game, at which point I'm an ass. (I'll pause here while you
pick yourselves off the floor at that fact).
The idea that what transpires in Culver City with Alex Trebek is a
game doesn't sit right with me. The *first* entry for "game" in
Webster's Collegiate is "an activity engaged in for diversion or
amusement;" a definition that seems to be lighter than a big-money
game show.
As I mentioned earlier, the change in terms from "game" to
"competition" is a red flag, because the nature of the terms isn't the
same. There's the old chestnut about the very early days of ESPN
(obligatory TV reference) that they'd show competitive tiddlywinks if
someone'd be willing to do it in front of a camera. The key word is
competitive. When I watch any game show, I expect to see a
competition.
Here's an example: find a game show geek, and watch their eyes roll
when you mention "Celebrity Weeks." Watching three people who have no
vested interest (except winning money for their "favorite charity") on
a game show is like watching a *game* of Monopoly. There's no
competition there: they're playing a game (that just happens to be
aired on TV)
> In game theory (here I do not have a specific citation, others can
> correct me if I am off as I freely admit that I am not an expert in
> this field) I think a game is typically seen as a some kind of
> structured situation in which players seek to maximize their
> outcome according to rules. I think that is clearly what Scott did on
> Jeopardy, and I don't see anyway in which his behavior can be said
> to violate either the letter or spirit of the Jeopardy game.
I'm just going to have to fundamentally disagree with this, based on
what I've posted in this thread previously (I kept typing arguments,
only to remember I posted it before).
I think, PG, we've hit one of those stalemates that inevitably degrade
into "yo' mama" snaps. You're welcome to a final word if you are so
inclined. Thanks for the conversation.
On Mar 20, 1:23 am, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe wrote...
> Second part first. Webster's Third New International Dictionary,
> Unabridged defines the verb "win" as "to gain the victory in a
> contest; overcome an opponent." Would you say that, if two contestants
> score the same number of points in a competition, that they are both
> victorious? I propose no, and point to the sports section: no one
> would ever say, "The Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts both won the
> game, 21-21." Neither team achieved victory. Neither team overcame
> their opponent. There's no win there. So if you have three people,
> each with the same score, no one won. They tied.
>
> PGage writes...
> I find this topic to be inherently interesting, and will pursue it a
> little further than perhaps is justified by the topic and list below.
> My short response is this: I think you are making a mistake in
> equating all games with games like baseball and football (two games I
> am big fans of myself). A football game that ended in a 21-21 tie
> clearly has no winner, while a Jeopardy game that ends in a
> 10,000-10,000-10,000 tie clearly has three winners (or three players
> who tied for first place, or three champions, as you prefer). This is
> because there simply is not one kind of game, there are many kinds of
> games, and Jeopardy And Football belong to different types. I do
> recognize however that you have clearly and effectively stated your
> aesthetic preference for zero-sum games in which there can only be one
> winner. You apparently thought that Jeopardy was this kind of game,
> and since most of the time the strategies employed in playing Jeopardy
> are similar to those that would be employed in a zero-sum game, you
> are able to enjoy it. Scott's game play illustrated a relatively rare
> instance in which Jeopardy strategy might deviate from zero-sum game
> strategies, and it detracted from your enjoyment of the game. It did
> not detract from my enjoyment of the game - indeed it significantly
> enhanced it - but that is an individual preference.
> BTW - did I read somewhere on this list that when a word like
Jim Ellwanger
> The idea that what transpires in Culver City with Alex Trebek is a
> game doesn't sit right with me. The *first* entry for "game" in
> Webster's Collegiate is "an activity engaged in for diversion or
> amusement;" a definition that seems to be lighter than a big-money
> game show.
Definitions in Webster's Collegiate are in chronological order (the first
definition listed for each word is the sense in which the word was first
used), not in order of frequency of current use, or "correctness."
PGage
I think, PG, we've hit one of those stalemates that inevitably degrade
into "yo' mama" snaps. You're welcome to a final word if you are so
inclined. Thanks for the conversation.
PGage writes...
Thanks for the last word:
"Yo Mama is so stupid she saw her reflection in the television and
thought she was on Jeopardy"