Wednesday, April 10, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

[Austin Powers]

Those who know more but decline to disclose can perversely revel, which is fine, but they can't dust off their hands with a facebook post and say, "See? Mystery solved!"

I mean... we could...

[harrumph]

If it is determined that Holzhauer did indeed create the site his status for the TOC will come into serious doubt.

I think this is very doubtful. James is going to be a popular champ who may be one of the greatest players ever. It's going to take something a whole lot more egregious than that to keep him out of the TOC.

Were there genuine spoilers on the site? Stuff that would violate the non disclosure agreement?

[TheSunWillComeOut]

If it is determined that Holzhauer did indeed create the site his status for the TOC will come into serious doubt.

I think this is very doubtful. James is going to be a popular champ who may be one of the greatest players ever. It's going to take something a whole lot more egregious than that to keep him out of the TOC.

Were there genuine spoilers on the site? Stuff that would violate the non disclosure agreement?

Yes, there were, which is why past contestants are asking questions, not because "they are haters." It's people rightfully wondering whether somebody else, a contestant or an audience member, violated the contractual rules of secrecy by which we abided, and by which all of our studio guests abided.

[twelvefootboy]

So someone denying something on Facebook is proof positive?

Yes, yes. The only thing more certain is when Putin denies hacking, Kim Jong-Un denies (anything), or the MBS didn't order a reporter dismembered. Then comes Fox News, and then comes Facebook posts. The bottom of the credibility pile is US Intel agencies and international scientific consensus. Below that, well, there's twelvefootboy's posts .

Like breaking news, I will just wait. So far his persona is quite likeable. He should get the benefit of the doubt. Even better, imho, just forget the doubt and wait for the reveal.

[twelvefootboy]

Yes, there were, which is why past contestants are asking questions, not because "they are haters." It's people rightfully wondering whether somebody else, a contestant or an audience member, violated the contractual rules of secrecy by which we abided, and by which all of our studio guests abided.

Just as FYI, I posted my experience earlier as an audience member in December 2017, and the subject of non-disclosure NEVER came up. Not in writing, not in the waiting line, not in warmup. I do agree with hbomb that this tiny demographic of diehards is probably not on TPTB radar.

[TheSunWillComeOut]

Yes, there were, which is why past contestants are asking questions, not because "they are haters." It's people rightfully wondering whether somebody else, a contestant or an audience member, violated the contractual rules of secrecy by which we abided, and by which all of our studio guests abided.

Just as FYI, I posted my experience earlier as an audience member in December 2017, and the subject of non-disclosure NEVER came up. Not in writing, not in the waiting line, not in warmup. I do agree with hbomb that this tiny demographic of diehards is probably not on TPTB radar.

I can clarify what I meant: It is regularly implied to contestants that any friends and family they bring to taping have a responsibility to keep the silence about your results, or else your own winnings may be forfeit. Is that the case or not? Because if not, and if audience members do indeed have free rein to speak, is there any obligation for anyone to avoid spoilers in 2019? Can contestants now come home and tell everyone, "I won on October 8, check it out"?

[Austin Powers]

If it is determined that Holzhauer did indeed create the site his status for the TOC will come into serious doubt.

I think this is very doubtful. James is going to be a popular champ who may be one of the greatest players ever. It's going to take something a whole lot more egregious than that to keep him out of the TOC.

Were there genuine spoilers on the site? Stuff that would violate the non disclosure agreement?

Yes, there were, which is why past contestants are asking questions, not because "they are haters." It's people rightfully wondering whether somebody else, a contestant or an audience member, violated the contractual rules of secrecy by which we abided, and by which all of our studio guests abided.

This is a fair point.

As some of you know, I have to tell terrible news to people all too often thanks to my work. The other day I looked at someone’s fingernails and told them something absolutely awful but unfortunately ultimately proven to be true. If you ever run into me - the stories I could tell.

These are such sad scenes. I can’t sleep sometimes because of this stuff. (Contrary to rumor, I have a soft underbelly).

Two days ago, I told a family some devastating news. No-getting-around-it impossible-to-fix news. Just a gut punch. It was a big mess.

But I softened the blow with a little bit of good news. “It could be worse. Someone could have created a fan webpage for a TV game show, referring to the defeated as the ‘humbled.’ It might have even violated a nondisclosure agreement that’s the very underpinning of the show’s long term commercial sustainability. So you have that going for you, which is nice.”

They looked at me like I was an utter loon. Note to self: don’t say that again in that situation.

[TheSunWillComeOut]

If it is determined that Holzhauer did indeed create the site his status for the TOC will come into serious doubt.

I think this is very doubtful. James is going to be a popular champ who may be one of the greatest players ever. It's going to take something a whole lot more egregious than that to keep him out of the TOC.

Were there genuine spoilers on the site? Stuff that would violate the non disclosure agreement?

Yes, there were, which is why past contestants are asking questions, not because "they are haters." It's people rightfully wondering whether somebody else, a contestant or an audience member, violated the contractual rules of secrecy by which we abided, and by which all of our studio guests abided.

This is a fair point.

As some of you know, I have to tell terrible news to people all too often thanks to my work. The other day I looked at someone’s fingernails and told them something absolutely awful but unfortunately ultimately proven to be true. If you ever run into me - the stories I could tell.

These are such sad scenes. I can’t sleep sometimes because of this stuff. (Contrary to rumor, I have a soft underbelly).

Two days ago, I told a family some devastating news. No-getting-around-it impossible-to-fix news. Just a gut punch. It was a big mess.

But I softened the blow with a little bit of good news. “It could be worse. Someone could have created a fan webpage for a TV game show, referring to the defeated as the ‘humbled.’ It might have even violated a nondisclosure agreement that’s the very underpinning of the show’s long term commercial sustainability. So you have that going for you, which is nice.”

They looked at me like I was an utter loon. Note to self: don’t say that again in that situation.

Please. Either contracts are legally binding or they're not. This has nothing to do with scale, it has to do with people questioning whether the terms of an agreement they signed are not regularly enforced, and if so, what this means for the show going forward. Which is an appropriate question to debate on a forum devoted to *that TV show*.

[Austin Powers]

Yes, there were, which is why past contestants are asking questions, not because "they are haters." It's people rightfully wondering whether somebody else, a contestant or an audience member, violated the contractual rules of secrecy by which we abided, and by which all of our studio guests abided.

Just as FYI, I posted my experience earlier as an audience member in December 2017, and the subject of non-disclosure NEVER came up. Not in writing, not in the waiting line, not in warmup. I do agree with hbomb that this tiny demographic of diehards is probably not on TPTB radar.

I can clarify what I meant: It is regularly implied to contestants that any friends and family they bring to taping have a responsibility to keep the silence about your results, or else your own winnings may be forfeit. Is that the case or not? Because if not, and if audience members do indeed have free rein to speak, is there any obligation for anyone to avoid spoilers in 2019? Can contestants now come home and tell everyone, "I won on October 8, check it out"?

So, this website was only discovered because the show promoted a megachampion. Had it not been for that ad, no one would have known to look.

Indeed, the show has spoiled stuff quite a bit. A careful viewer would have known about the $110k if they just paid close attention to some of the ads being run.

So, no, Sony does not care about the site.

And I hasten to add that the folks pushing the website are those posting it in various fora because they want to make Holzhauer look arrogant. (I haven’t seen anyone who is a fan of James linking it anywhere.)

So this “omg how dare there be spoilers” talk seems a bit breathless and ironic.

[This Is Kirk!]

Clearly the show needs the non-disclosure hammer to avoid spoilers, but it seems to me they are also very unlikely to wield that hammer unless absolutely necessary. I'm sure the wording indicates you may forfeit winnings, not that you shall forfeit them.

[TheSunWillComeOut]

Yes, there were, which is why past contestants are asking questions, not because "they are haters." It's people rightfully wondering whether somebody else, a contestant or an audience member, violated the contractual rules of secrecy by which we abided, and by which all of our studio guests abided.

Just as FYI, I posted my experience earlier as an audience member in December 2017, and the subject of non-disclosure NEVER came up. Not in writing, not in the waiting line, not in warmup. I do agree with hbomb that this tiny demographic of diehards is probably not on TPTB radar.

I can clarify what I meant: It is regularly implied to contestants that any friends and family they bring to taping have a responsibility to keep the silence about your results, or else your own winnings may be forfeit. Is that the case or not? Because if not, and if audience members do indeed have free rein to speak, is there any obligation for anyone to avoid spoilers in 2019? Can contestants now come home and tell everyone, "I won on October 8, check it out"?

So, this website was only discovered because the show promoted a megachampion. Had it not been for that ad, no one would have known to look.

Indeed, the show has spoiled stuff quite a bit. A careful viewer would have known about the $110k if they just paid close attention to some of the ads being run.

So, no, Sony does not care about the site.

And so I return to my earlier point, which goes beyond James or anything related to him; the King James site is being used as a test case for the purposes of this particular post:

Do future contestants - and I include many of the people posting and lurking on this board, as I did - have any expectation that there will be consequences if their friends and family promote a long run on social media well in advance? This isn't something I would do because I still enjoy the kayfabe of it all, but we've spent DECADES operating under that gentlemen's agreement as far as J! and Wheel are concerned, and it would certainly change the dynamics of Jeopardy! as a viewing experience, for everyone.

It's an interesting question, and could have a direct impact on viewer numbers for any given episode.

[hbomb1947]

If it is determined that Holzhauer did indeed create the site his status for the TOC will come into serious doubt.

I think this is very doubtful. James is going to be a popular champ who may be one of the greatest players ever. It's going to take something a whole lot more egregious than that to keep him out of the TOC.

Were there genuine spoilers on the site? Stuff that would violate the non disclosure agreement?

Yes, there were, which is why past contestants are asking questions, not because "they are haters." It's people rightfully wondering whether somebody else, a contestant or an audience member, violated the contractual rules of secrecy by which we abided, and by which all of our studio guests abided.

On Twitter a few people from the J! / trivia community were saying that if the website wasn't his, he should publicly say so. Now he's done that and people are moving the goalposts.

Conversely, after just 5 games, there's already a sizable and growing fan base of regular viewers that's swooning over James on places like the J! FB page. Frankly, I'm surprised there haven't been any fanfics written about him yet (that I know of). Imagine how obsessed a fan could get who saw James at one or more tapings a hypothetical 10 or more games further into his run, when his accomplishments would be more astonishing by an order of magnitude than they already are. Last week, OntarioQuizzer presented evidence that the site was created by a 20-something southern Californian. But really, whoever it is, it's not the burden of the wrongfully accused to prove who the real perpetrator is.

[floridagator]

I still enjoy the kayfabe of it all,

I had to look up kayfabe. Thanks for improving my vocabulary, Jennifer!

[AndyTheQuizzer]

Am I convinced that the operator of the website is not James? Yes.
Am I convinced that the operator of the website has had zero contact with James prior to the run starting? No.
Could question #2 ever be answered? Maybe some intrepid reporter will start to wonder and start digging and find something.

Still, the fact of the matter is: even if there was no website, there are still a number of people who have been disrespected in the past by the current champion, some nearly to the point of being slandered, and their experiences are being ignored and dismissed by a large number of people. And others are rightfully angry with this.

[LucarioSnooperVixey]

54 R (Missed St. Louis Blues, Gilda Radner, Lisa, and John Lewis.)
DD: 3/3
FJ:
LT: (Bill of Rights), Morning Glory, (Conch), Argonauts, Bull Run

Laura is going to get roasted on social media for mispronouncing John CENA.

[TheSunWillComeOut]

Yes, there are haters. And on Twitter a few people from the J! / trivia community were saying that if the website wasn't his, he should publicly say so. Now he's done that and people are moving the goalposts.

Well, no, he didn't say, "The website is not mine"; he said:

"Friendly reminder that this is the ONLY fan page on the internet that is actually authored by me."

Which I thought was interesting wording, because it still doesn't rule out the possibility that it's someone he knows, or who's doing it on his behalf. I could pay someone to research and write a book about a subject, and I wouldn't be "the author," but it would be also be incorrect to say "I was not involved in the creation of this book," ya know?

But really, whoever it is, it's not the burden of the wrongfully accused to prove who the real perpetrator is.

Indeed not, but this continues to be curious, particularly in his lack of surprise that someone should create such an involved fan page in his name for unclear reasons (as opposed to, for instance, posting on a site like this), which would be my first concern if I were him. If the champ were a woman, would we not all be considering the strong likelihood that this person has developed an obsessive romantic fixation, and may intend to escalate? Could it not be the same for a man, and if so, wouldn't that be something we should take more seriously instead of dismissing it as no big deal, as his friends seem to be doing at the moment? They've made it clear that they're not fazed by this, and are insistent that we shouldn't be, either, and yet I'm seeing no clear evidence for why that should be the conclusion.

[Austin Powers]

Indeed not, but this continues to be curious, particularly in his lack of surprise that someone should create such an involved fan page in his name for unclear reasons (as opposed to, for instance, posting on a site like this), which would be my first concern if I were him. If the champ were a woman, would we not all be considering the strong likelihood that this person has developed an obsessive romantic fixation, and may intend to escalate? Could it not be the same for a man, and if so, wouldn't that be something we should take more seriously instead of dismissing it as no big deal, as his friends seem to be doing at the moment? They've made it clear that they're not fazed by this, and are insistent that we shouldn't be, either, and yet I'm seeing no clear evidence for why that should be the conclusion.

You've mentioned this before, but it doesn't really follow.

Let's say it is an obsessed, "crazy" fan. Does it really make sense to antagonize that fan? Does it even make sense to vindicate the obsession by contacting that fan? It would seem the actions taken make complete sense given the argument you've just made.

[Austin Powers]

Still, the fact of the matter is: even if there was no website, there are still a number of people who have been disrespected in the past by the current champion, some nearly to the point of being slandered, and their experiences are being ignored and dismissed by a large number of people. And others are rightfully angry with this.

Those folks are big kids now. They can fend for themselves, if they feel the need to, without the need of a Facebook/Twitter posse.

I had some opinions about that affair years ago, but honestly why should I give a shit at this point?

Besides, the whole "I hope James forfeits hundreds of thousands of dollars" response is a bit disproportionate, yes? Perhaps a good thing I will never be on the show - I'd have folks on Twitter trying to repossess my house.

[Robert K S]

I kinda admire the "I have a profession that involves me giving devastating news to people so game show stuff doesn't matter even though I post regularly on a game show forum" angle. Not as much as the "You're witnessing history, so lie back and think of England" angle, but definitely more than the "It could've been me, but pity, I no longer have the tiger blood" angle.

[Austin Powers]

I kinda admire the "I have a profession that involves me giving devastating news to people so game show stuff doesn't matter even though I post regularly on a game show forum" angle. Not as much as the "You're witnessing history, so lie back and think of England" angle, but definitely more than the "It could've been me, but pity, I no longer have the tiger blood" angle.

My decades of posting here are really just a long love letter to you.