AYSTA5G review

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'147665\' date=\'Mar 8 2007, 04:17 PM\']
That...is something.[/quote]
Gets worse.  Take a quote from the story:

"A Fox spokesman assures me the five kids aren't getting any help to answer questions before or during episodes."

Well, that's only technically true.  According to the disclaimer, the kids are quizzed from "workbooks" before the show, and some of the questions in those workbooks could become actual game material.  In other words, the producers can find out what the kids know, and only ask those questions.  That is eerily similar to the way some of the rigging of the fifties quizzes was originally done.

Yes, you can make the case that the kids aren't contestants, and why shouldn't they be as helpful as possible to the adults who are?  Still, there's an awful lot of manipulation wrapped up in that disclaimer, and pretty much glossed over by the spokesman's quote.  The show also doesn't say anything about the kids being actors.  For what it's worth, it also appears the kids are wearing earpieces, and more than one person has suggested to me that there could easily be something fishy going on with that.  

I'm not remotely saying we're headed in the direction of another scandal.  For one thing, today's jaded audience wouldn't really care as much as they did back then.  Still, there's a lot of stuff that's obviously going on behind the scenes, so I can't help but wonder how much less-obvious stuff could be happening.

[Robert Hutchinson]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'147668\' date=\'Mar 8 2007, 04:46 PM\']Well, that's only technically true.  According to the disclaimer, the kids are quizzed from "workbooks" before the show, and some of the questions in those workbooks could become actual game material.  In other words, the producers can find out what the kids know, and only ask those questions.  That is eerily similar to the way some of the rigging of the fifties quizzes was originally done.[/quote]
The kids are like lifelines for the adult contestants, right? And the contestants are playing against the house?

In that case, I'd be more worried about the producers' ability (not desire, but ability) to switch to a set of questions that they're more confident the kids don't know, to trip up particular contestants.

[Allstar87]

Perhaps someone (either FOX or the producers) were afraid of the kids freezing up on camera and looking nervous. By getting kids who had experience in front of a TV camera, they don't have to worry about that sort of stage fright.

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'Allstar87\' post=\'147673\' date=\'Mar 8 2007, 06:22 PM\']
Perhaps someone (either FOX or the producers) were afraid of the kids freezing up on camera and looking nervous. By getting kids who had experience in front of a TV camera, they don't have to worry about that sort of stage fright.
[/quote]

Counter-example: Jeopardy!'s Kids' Week.  There are plenty of 10-12 year olds who won't freeze up.  All you have to do is look.  Fox really doesn't seem to care about that or the actual game poriton of the "game show" as much as they do the show and displaying human stupidity.

[DrBear]

I'm not saying this as a slap at Brian - as I've seen another use or two of it here - but it is my considered opinion that anyone using the acronym AYSTA5G should be forced to listen to fifth graders until this show goes off the air.

[Jeremy Nelson]

I saw the whole "we give the kids the material beforehand" as not too much different than what happened with Hollywood Squares. I don't think they should give the kids harder material, but the same material without the earpieces. I'm sure some of the kids will get tripped up on the current question difficulty.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'147680\' date=\'Mar 8 2007, 08:53 PM\']
I saw the whole "we give the kids the material beforehand" as not too much different than what happened with Hollywood Squares.
[/quote]
Except, and I think I've said this about fourteen times now, that the whole thing with Hollywood Squares was that the briefing of the celebrities did not directly affect the player (unless they did one of those "Trust me, I'm not lying to you, I totally know this" things that happened WAY too often on the Bergeron show), whereas this (and the briefing on Donnymid) ABSOLUTELY affects the player. All the Squares thing is is a different way of presenting a true / false question to the player.

[cyberjoek]

</delurk>
Let me go on the record as saying that 5th Grader is an enjoyable comedy show (much more so than any Game Show Like Device (tm) Comedy Central has put out since Win Ben Stein's Money).  Is it a great game show?  Not in my book, as others have said it needs to go faster (Matt - how many questions a night is QuizBusters up to now?  When I played we were doing about ~55-65) and not try and pull stupid tricks (I'm looking at you hold the answer reveal until next week).

But the question this thread has evolved to is does it matter that the kids see some of the material in advance?  To me it doesn't.  To me it's no different than having phone-a-friends on Millionare who are using Google.  As long as each stack contains the same number of questions (at the same difficulty levels) that the kids have been preped for then it doesn't matter to me.  As long as it gives an equal playing field to each player does it exactly matter what the field is?  One Vs 100 changed its rules on-air without informing the audience of the change.  This to me is a much bigger offence.

-Joe Kavanagh
<back to lurking now>

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'147687\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 12:11 AM\']
But the question this thread has evolved to is does it matter that the kids see some of the material in advance?  To me it doesn't.  To me it's no different than having phone-a-friends on Millionare who are using Google.
[/quote]
Except...who you have on a PAF list and how well they are prepared is at least somewhat under your control, and not touched by the people controlling the money. Whereas it's entirely possible (and in fact very easy) for the producers to back off on "preparing" the kids actors (and let's say that again: ACTORS. These are people hired and paid by the production. If you don't think it's going to cross a kid's mind at least once that they'd better dodge a $500K question because it might affect their re-hire potential, you're just plain not thinking.) if they decide they need to close the pursestrings a little.

As long as it gives an equal playing field to each player does it exactly matter what the field is?

Again, in terms of actual game legality? No. But nobody has made that claim. The fact is that they are doing this, and then representing to the audience, the people who they are counting on to watch this show, that they are doing something ELSE. That's the problem here. Nobody is accusing them of rigging. We're just suggesting that the potential for such is much MUCH MUCH higher the way they are doing it, and that they're not open about it with the viewer at home raises a huge red flag.

One Vs 100 changed its rules on-air without informing the audience of the change.  This to me is a much bigger offence.

This flabbergasts me. The difference is that at least IvC is playing a game straight, and all they did  was neglect to tell people with no financial interest that they changed things....but still, they're playing the game straight. I don't see how you can EVEN think to compare the two.

[parliboy]

I think last night's show pretty much sealed my vote that this show isn't being played straight.  Spoilage is required, so I'm linking to another thread.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'147694\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 11:25 AM\']
If you don't think it's going to cross a kid's mind at least once that they'd better dodge a $500K question because it might affect their re-hire potential, you're just plain not thinking.[/quote]
This is the one part of your analysis I'm not sure I agree with.  I just don't think a ten-year-old, even a precocious one with a SAG card, is going to make that leap of logic on his own.  I'm more willing to believe that the producers can just ask questions that the kid missed on his "workbook".

On the other hand, there is no financial incentive for the kid to help the player, so if the kid wants to screw up on purpose, there's nothing stopping him.  I didn't see the Thursday show, but if what parliboy says is true, then it's curious at the very least, and seven kinds of suspicious at worst.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'147701\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 09:42 AM\']
This is the one part of your analysis I'm not sure I agree with.  I just don't think a ten-year-old, even a precocious one with a SAG card, is going to make that leap of logic on his own.
[/quote]
Fair enough. But how about a stage mom making that leap for them?

Yeah, I realize we're treading deep into tinfoil-hat territory here, but the sad fact is: Fox has a rep for this, and while back in the day there was S&P to reassure us that something like this could Never Ever Happen, that trust is pretty much shot now.

[Jimmy Owen]

Mark Burnett wasn't even born when "Dotto" was pulled.

[cyberjoek]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'147694\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 12:25 PM\']
[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'147687\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 12:11 AM\']
As long as it gives an equal playing field to each player does it exactly matter what the field is?
[/quote]
Again, in terms of actual game legality? No. But nobody has made that claim. The fact is that they are doing this, and then representing to the audience, the people who they are counting on to watch this show, that they are doing something ELSE. That's the problem here. Nobody is accusing them of rigging. We're just suggesting that the potential for such is much MUCH MUCH higher the way they are doing it, and that they're not open about it with the viewer at home raises a huge red flag.

One Vs 100 changed its rules on-air without informing the audience of the change.  This to me is a much bigger offence.

This flabbergasts me. The difference is that at least IvC is playing a game straight, and all they did  was neglect to tell people with no financial interest that they changed things....but still, they're playing the game straight. I don't see how you can EVEN think to compare the two.
[/quote]
These two quotes are the ones that interest me.  You profess to have a problem with 5th Grader keeping rules from the viewer (and, I'll give FOX / Burnett the benefit of the doubt, telling the player about them) and you don't have a problem with 1vs100 doing the same.  It doesn't matter if the game is being played for comedy or for serious quiz value I think that as long as the playing field is fair between contestants who play the game and each players is given an equal shot at the grand prize.  Until someone can show that 5th Grader has been rigged (or even point to a particular moment as say it was most likely rigged) I'm going to give the show the benefit of the doubt.  Any of these shows could be easily rigged if that's what the producers wanted yet, as far as is known, none of them have been.

-Joe Kavanagh

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'147708\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 01:09 PM\']
These two quotes are the ones that interest me.  You profess to have a problem with 5th Grader keeping rules from the viewer (and, I'll give FOX / Burnett the benefit of the doubt, telling the player about them) and you
don't have a problem with 1vs100 doing the same.
[/quote]
Yes. Because, unless I'm missing something REALLY major (I admit I don't watch IVC, so maybe I am), the difference is that IVC isn't trying to represent themselves as anything other than what they are, whereas 5th Grader clearly is. If anything, IVC is guilty of omission, whereas 5th Grader is guilty of flat-out deception. You DO see the difference, right?

I think that as long as the playing field is fair between contestants who play the game and each players is given an equal shot at the grand prize.

Again, never once have I suggested that 5th Grader is running a rigged game. I've made the "as long as the rules are the same for everyone, it's fair" argument myself, so I don't dispute that in the least. I'm just saying the potential for tampering is there, and that it's reprehensible from a respect-your-audience standpoint that they feel the need to hide (or at least, not be the least bit forthcoming about) this dirty little secret.  

Until someone can show that 5th Grader has been rigged (or even point to a particular moment as say it was most likely rigged) I'm going to give the show the benefit of the doubt.  

Good, you do that. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has done that yet. We're just bothered that the production is being somewhat underhanded about what they are presenting, and that leads us to wonder if we have cause to distrust other facets of the production as well. Hey, more Kool-Aid for you, right?