Fairness vs. equitability

[rjaguar3]

Herr Ottinger brought up in the "let's pretend" thread about a distinction between fairness and equitability.  Apart from shows like 100%, no game is really fair.  For example, on Keynotes, it is quite unfair that a team that loses the first two songs can win the game outright by identifying the third mystery tune.  It's also unfair, to some extent, that a player in the lead can lose the game by hitting a whammy, or that one player can get three daily doubles and the other none.

The problem I have is when shows have inequity when dealing with contestants in roles that otherwise appear identical.  I don't have a problem with shows like Whew! and 1 vs. 100, as it is clear that one player is a Charger and the other is a Blocker, and one role might win more often.  There is nothing wrong with that per se.  The inequity problem arises when equal contestants are treated differently under the rules, or when a game with inequitable roles has the roles assigned in an inequitable way.  For example, one of my pet peeves on Tic-Tac-Dough is that the player in the X position does have a significant (and I would say game-breaking) advantage by being able to move first in every game.  This would not be a problem if the role was assigned at random, or by a toss-up question, or the like.  But instead, it is arbitrarily assigned to the player who won the last game, giving the challenger the shaft in an inequitable fashion.  Similarly, on Whew!, the returning champion can play the advantaged role twice, requiring the challenger to win with the disadvantaged role.  On the other hand, the spoiler format for Merv Griffin's Crosswords may be horribly broken and unfair, but since the roles of front-row player and spoiler are clearly distinguished and assigned at random, it is not inequitable.  Similarly, Jeopardy!'s Daily Doubles may all go to one player, but, before the categories are revealed, each player has an equal chance of getting each daily double, so that is not inequitable either.

Fair game shows are really, really boring.  But it's possible to create fair game shows without having to resort to inequitability in the game format.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'236987\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 02:52 PM\']For example, one of my pet peeves on Tic-Tac-Dough is that the player in the X position does have a significant (and I would say game-breaking) advantage by being able to move first in every game.  This would not be a problem if the role was assigned at random, or by a toss-up question, or the like.  But instead, it is arbitrarily assigned to the player who won the last game, giving the challenger the shaft in an inequitable fashion.[/quote]

The thing is, every X player played (and won) their first game as the O player. To the victor goes the spoils. I always thought that was a brilliant way to help along long streaks like Thom McKee's, that's not as unfair as, say, staking the champ to a $100 lead on Joker's Wild.

Perhaps it would be more equitable, if they play one game to a tie, let O go first the next.

Also, a "Whew!" question--was there a big disparity in how often Chargers won vs. Blockers?

[TLEberle]

I have a much bigger problem with the One vs. Mob than the X-always-goes first on Tic Tac Dough. The Mob may be better players (like Larry and Ned, who had strings of right answers) but the One has a better sob story or is more expressive. The One can end the game voluntarily at several spots, but the Mob has to stick it out all the time and hope that the One will be wrong at some points. The whole format was covered in wrong sauce no matter how the money was awarded.

In the old days, it didn't matter who went first on TTD because as long as you got your questions right, the game would end in a tie. It was only when one player goofs that the other can open up an advantage and win the game. After the Double/Nothing and Bonus Question boxes were introduced, that went out the window. Would I have preferred a jump-in for first pick, and jump-in for the center box? Yes. But that's not what they did, and the show lasted for eight years.

I think that fair and equitable are so nearly synonymous that you're splitting hairs in trying to make them different. Especially if you want to call the Crosswords spoiler snip "equitable."

[Ian Wallis]

I always thought the scoring on Hollywood Squares was not fair - at least for the Bergeron version and last year of the Davidson version.  It's possible that one contestant might win two games, lose the third and still lose the day.  In fact, I remember one episode of Bergeron where one contestant won three games and had $4000.  They lost the fourth game and the tie-breaker question.  So they won three out of four games and still lost.

But, as the OP stated, if there was no way to catch up I guess the conclusion of the show would be kind of boring, wouldn't it?

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'237073\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 12:31 PM\']I always thought the scoring on Hollywood Squares was not fair - at least for the Bergeron version and last year of the Davidson version.  It's possible that one contestant might win two games, lose the third and still lose the day.  In fact, I remember one episode of Bergeron where one contestant won three games and had $4000.  They lost the fourth game and the tie-breaker question.  So they won three out of four games and still lost.[/quote]
A lot of people keep bringing up examples like this to describe something "unfair", and I don't think I'm splitting hairs to say this isn't the case.  It's fair as long as both contestants continue to have essentially equal chances to win each game.

We drift into "unfair" formats when the players have different opportunities.  The idea that the champion always goes first in Tic Tac Dough smacks of being unfair, albeit on a relatively low level.  I'd be interested in the breakdown of charger vs blocker in Whew!.  Since the players are not given an equal number of opportunities at each position, that might be unfair because the roles are so strikingly different.

[Brig Bother]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'237082\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 06:18 PM\']A lot of people keep bringing up examples like this to describe something "unfair", and I don't think I'm splitting hairs to say this isn't the case.  It's fair as long as both contestants continue to have essentially equal chances to win each game.[/quote]

Mmm, "fair" but not neccessarily "just"...

[Joe Mello]

I have no problem with the champion getting privileges a challenger doesn't.  Consider it another reward for winning.  It felt strange to me that winners at WoF or PYL didn't have a fixed seat, while most of the other relevant game shows did.

I think the issue comes when reward is disproportionate to effort, like in the MGC or 1v100 examples mentioned above.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'237073\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 09:31 AM\']I always thought the scoring on Hollywood Squares was not fair - at least for the Bergeron version and last year of the Davidson version.[/quote]Especially when one person leads 1000-0 and Jm J. Bullock won't put a sock in it and answer the question, so game three gets two questions in and the horn sounds.

For shows like Name That Tune and Hidden Temple, it isn't like the contestants are playing for the Golden Snitch or anything. Both teams know that Bid-a-Note or the Team game will be the one to win, and the other two are preamble. And since everyone knows this, I don't have a big problem with it.

The thing is that in these cases you have to pick from compelling television and a proper game. I wouldn't blame any producer that decided to go for compelling television as long as the actual game is interesting/exciting.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Brig Bother\' post=\'237087\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 02:55 PM\']Mmm, "fair" but not neccessarily "just"...[/quote]
Yes.  I like this.  

You English and your "words" with their "meanings".

[Loogaroo]

What about Identity? A player is given three helps at the start, one of which serves as a "free miss". If the player got to a point where only two people and two identities were left, they'd lose the free miss, even if they didn't use it. Granted, not taking it away would mean that the player would win the top prize automatically, but you don't fix a broken game by breaking it further.

[dale_grass]

[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'237138\' date=\'Mar 8 2010, 08:36 AM\']What about Identity? A player is given three helps at the start, one of which serves as a "free miss". If the player got to a point where only two people and two identities were left, they'd lose the free miss, even if they didn't use it. Granted, not taking it away would mean that the player would win the top prize automatically, but you don't fix a broken game by breaking it further.[/quote]
One of the rule-writing hurdles to jump when your show involves n given correct anwers and the object is to systematically eliminate them one at a time.

Not surprisingly, students tend to do much better on tests composed of multiple-choice or matching questions as opposed to open-ended questions.

[TimK2003]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'237127\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 09:19 PM\']I have no problem with the champion getting privileges a challenger doesn't.  Consider it another reward for winning.  It felt strange to me that winners at WoF or PYL didn't have a fixed seat, while most of the other relevant game shows did.[/quote]


While it was odd that the returning champ could be in any of the 3 PYL seats to start, I never saw an "reward" -- or lack of a reward -- for the returning champ on that show.  Round 1 always went by who had the least amount of spins, so it was always based on speed an knowledge.  If you knew the answers, you always had at a minimum of least 4 spins.  There were so many play factors, I really don't see how a returning champ would have a clear advantage or disadvantage at the start of the first Big Board Round.

Now in Wheel's not too distant past, the worst-case scenario for a returning champ was that they wouldn't begin playing until round 3 (if the first 2 players ran the board in the first 2 rounds and high water marks have already been set).  And depending on the era, many factors could affect the amount of time the champ had to play "catch up".  But again, it was all the luck of the draw.

[beatlefreak84]

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'237145\' date=\'Mar 8 2010, 11:01 AM\']While it was odd that the returning champ could be in any of the 3 PYL seats to start, I never saw an "reward" -- or lack of a reward -- for the returning champ on that show.  Round 1 always went by who had the least amount of spins, so it was always based on speed an knowledge.  If you knew the answers, you always had at a minimum of least 4 spins.  There were so many play factors, I really don't see how a returning champ would have a clear advantage or disadvantage at the start of the first Big Board Round.[/quote]

Really, the only time where this became an issue is if there was a tie for spins in Round 1 or money in Round 2; then, the leftmost tied player went first.  Only in this case did it make more sense, if you wanted to give the champion a very slight advantage, to place him/her in the rightmost seat.

Otherwise, yeah; although the jostling of positions on PYL was strange, it really wasn't all that detrimental to the game and certainly was fair, given the tie-break procedure above.

Anthony

[Unrealtor]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'237128\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 10:28 PM\'][quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'237073\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 09:31 AM\']I always thought the scoring on Hollywood Squares was not fair - at least for the Bergeron version and last year of the Davidson version.[/quote]Especially when one person leads 1000-0 and Jm J. Bullock won't put a sock in it and answer the question, so game three gets two questions in and the horn sounds.

For shows like Name That Tune and Hidden Temple, it isn't like the contestants are playing for the Golden Snitch or anything. Both teams know that Bid-a-Note or the Team game will be the one to win, and the other two are preamble. And since everyone knows this, I don't have a big problem with it.

The thing is that in these cases you have to pick from compelling television and a proper game. I wouldn't blame any producer that decided to go for compelling television as long as the actual game is interesting/exciting.
[/quote]

Maybe I'm in thel minority among the TV audience, but I feel like you're trading a more compelling end to the game by sucking any interest out of the beginning when you can win the day by losing the first x rounds miserably and then winning the last round. "Legends" made the first two rounds matter by eliminating players each time.

I actually think the 1x-1x-2x-4x scoring system from Davidson/Bergeron Squares strikes a decent balance. Because the 2nd-4th rounds are the sum of the amounts in the previous rounds, no lead is ever completely out of reach, but the best anyone can do by only winning one round is force a tiebreaker question.