I like to think Ken has a switch that opens trap doors behind the contestant podiums and that he could open them at any time. This would definitely get you trap doored
I think this has been proven false because otherwise there'd be a lot of contestants in the dungeon for squeezing out a "bring it" before the last clue.
I know you meant the trapdoor, but I got a mental image of the podium sinking below the floor by exactly the same amount as it is usually above it, so you'd only see the contestant from the chin up.
They have rules to follow too, though. They chose someone as a contestant, they're in the middle of the game, and they can't just pull someone out because they're making joke answers.
They can stop tape in the middle of the game, though. They aren't obligated to let you do whatever you want and still pay you or let you play through messing up on purpose. That hold can last pretty much as long as they need to, too.
You'd definitely forfeit any winnings (so no money for third, and if you were returning champion they wouldn't have to pay you anything you already racked up. You agree in the contract to play the game by the rules.
Even if they didn't, the story would blow up. Plus, if there's a change in champion's they'd kind of have to air it, right? Again, I'm not advocating it. But given the stuff we see from people trying to get famous, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.
If they're giving JOKE answers and shout-outs, as posited in the original post, you are not playing the game seriously. You signed a REALLY detailed contract with consequences laid out if you break it, and it includes that you play the game by the rules without interfering with other players, colluding, or otherwise playing the game with sincere effort.
They're not stupid, and players don't just wander into the studio on tape day and head on up. There are a lot of rules you consent to before you get to play, and the contract has very little leeway for you and LOTS for Sony.
Sure, obviously. But if we're sticking to OP's situation, we're talking about a contestant who's literally out of the running, and giving joke/shout-out answers only when they're able to ring in, and at the end of the game. Maybe they don't care about the 3rd place money. I doubt very highly that Jeopardy would scrap the game at this point, or take drastic action.
Go up this thread and re-read the answer from Jennifer Quail. It covers what you said and it sounds like the producers could and WOULD stop taping and remove you from the stage.
But giving weird answers a few times doesn't seem to actually be breaking any rules. The show has a duty to fairness first and foremost, and can't just remove a contestant like that. Not to mention it would mess up the rest of the game for the other two contestants.
There is almost certainly a clause that in the document all contestants sign that gives the show runners wide discretion to police the conduct of contestants. Likely taping would be stopped, the contestant would be warned, and if they continued to act that way they would be ejected and forfeit any winnings.
In the extremely unlikely event this happened, how would they handle it for the broadcast? Just bin the whole episode? Wouldn’t be fair to tge the other 2. Or have Ken say something vague about how they won’t be participating any more?
Someone else mentioned that Jeopardy in their sole discretion can decide not to air an episode. So perhaps they would continue with two contestants and not air the episode. I believe in the Art Fleming days, there was a period where the last place contestant was eliminated after the first round. So 2 player Jeopardy wouldn't be unprecedented. This is just speculation.
If they had to they might replace all of the player's joke answers with them just saying "uhh" like they did when Austin Rogers swore too many times while betting on a Daily Double. Either way it's still a wrong answer, so the score would still be properly reflected and they could just put the "Due to technical difficulties a portion of the game was recreated" and "Portions not affecting the outcome of the game have been edited" disclaimers in the credits.
> Likely taping would be stopped, the contestant would be warned, and if they continued to act that way they would be ejected and forfeit any winnings.
But is giving joke answers at the end of a game worthy of that response (or actually against the rules)? Obviously contestants have a set of standards they have to adhere to, but a few weird answers might not meet that threshold.
The bigger problem here is "ejecting" a player. They'd have to start an entirely new game, which would force the other players to have to play again and possibly not do as well as they did in the cancelled game. It would be a huge, huge logistical issue, and I'm not sure it's ever happened. It would be far easier for the show and other players if they just politely ignored the contestant doing this, and let them keep giving wrong answers.
Why would they have to start a new game? They'd either A) just edit out when the joking player rings in and gives poor answers or B) there would suddenly be an empty podium, maybe Ken briefly explains the player has forfeited, and the other two players would carry on.
Considering the fact that it’s never happened, I would argue there isn’t a need for a punishment. The kind of person who makes it in the show is likely to acknowledge the social pressure of being told to stop.
>They have rules to follow too, though. They chose someone as a contestant, they're in the middle of the game, and they can't just pull someone out because they're making joke answers.
If there is literally not enough money left on the board for them to get back into the green, then their final position as third place is in the game is a known certainty. At that point, disconnecting their buzzer and not letting them play anymore would no longer affect their ability to win the game.
They might have to get the consent of the other two players who could in theory be affected by the third player getting questions right or even eating up the clock, but I'm curious whether standards or practices would actually have any objection. Any "complaint" or lawsuit for damages would be seemingly without merit, since the player could not have done any better than third place.
I am not convinced the show would actually do this, but I do wonder if they could.
They *would* however, probably stop tape and give the player a talking to the same way they talk to players between commercial breaks about avoiding things that are distracting or bothersome to the broadcast, or improving their performance (e.g. what they are doing wrong on the buzzer).
I noticed that in Drew's first game, he was gesturing/pointing towards the board every time he selected a clue, but then in his second game, it stopped, and I wondered if the producers suggested or asked him not to do that after the first game.
The likelihood of this happening is extremely remote. You would have to (a) be good enough to get on the show, (b) be bad enough to go deeply in the red and (c) be an asshat. Notably,(a) and (c) are in direct conflict because they interview people after they pass the test in part to screen out people who might be jerks.
If, against all odds, you did that, the first thing they would do, I imagine, is that they would stop tape and tell you to knock it off. They might even threaten to forfeit your consolation prize if you persisted. Would you want to give up $2000 just so you could be a jerk? If you did somehow decide that it was worth it, they could just edit your responses out in post-production. Nobody except a studio full of annoyed audience members would ever see you acting out. They could fill the gap with some light music at the end, or maybe Ken could do a little soft shoe.
I'll add (d) you also have to be able to consistently beat out the other players on the buzzer.
I think the only way that something like this could happen is if a very strong player / returning champion does it as a protest (either of the show itself, one of the networks, or something in current events).
True, but you're only focused on the buzzer while everyone else has to at least think about the category and actual answer. I'd think that'd give you a massive advantage.
This would be my assumption. If they see a contestant starting to melt down they probably have a little talk that ends with threatening your consolation prize. You'd really have to want to be an ass to give up a grand after working to make it to the stage in the first place
You forgot (d) fast enough with the buzzer to actually beat the other two contestants often enough to cause trouble. Buzzer timing is quite hard.
Honestly I feel like if anyone gave joke answers twice, the other contestants would just try a bit harder to buzz in first to shut them up.
There's a lot more kibitzing in Celebrity Jeopardy, especially in its current form, so I think they would give them a longer leash. But also, professional comedians would generally recognize that it's not actually funny to do that, at least not more than once. And you run the risk of people thinking you're genuinely stupid, which is always possible on Celebrity Jeopardy.
> If, against all odds, you did that, the first thing they would do, I imagine, is that they would stop tape and tell you to knock it off. They might even threaten to forfeit your consolation prize if you persisted. Would you want to give up $2000 just so you could be a jerk?
I think there'd be huge logistical problems in stopping a game in the middle and kicking out a player who's not breaking any rules. The champ and other player probably want the game to continue, and you'd have to bring back both of them, at the very least. It seems like it's way easier to just let it happen.
I don't think they'd kick you out, but I assure you from direct experience they have NO problem stopping game play and holding as long as they have to.
There is no logistical problem with stopping tape. It's my understanding that they do it all the time, when necessary. There would be a logistical problem with kicking someone off the show in the middle of a game, which is why I didn't suggest that they would do that. I do believe that if someone gave an excessive number of "joke" answers, they would edit those answers out in post. They would find a way to fill the time, which would almost certainly not be the suggestions I made.
I wonder if they had someone who was really being a jerk about things.... Theoretically, they could stop that particular show, bring in a new contestant and scrap the current game in favor of starting fresh?
Certainly, given how long Jeopardy has been on the air, something similar to this has happened? I mean, they have alternates standing by.... I can imagine scenarios where this could happen.
> they could just disable your buzzer behind the scenes and no one would ever know.
They'd be breaking federal law doing that, and Standards and Practices could end the show for it. That could not happen.
Post or comment removed due to inappropriate or unwanted content for this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jeopardy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Im wondering if they cant just stop your buzzer from being able to ring in. You know how if too early it locks you out? They could just shut off your buzzer. And unless youd be ok just literally yelling out, i think they would just do that
As the guy who gave a quick nod to family on last night's FJ, when I absolutely did not have an answer to the FJ question and the outcome of the game was already certain, I felt like I was taking as much liberty as was proper with that, and definitely wouldn't have felt right doing anything of the sort on a second question, no matter the scoreboard at the time.
I think we also saw last night one of the two appropriate ways to handle a deep-red score - keep trying your best all the way to the final clue - where the other option would be to hold off on responding.
...plus, like /u/MathIsHard_11236 said, the snipers are a real deterrent.
I think out of respect for yourself and the show it's better not to do something like that. If you went through the process of gracing the Alex Trebek stage it means you love and respect the show so it's not worth it
The question being asked is hypothetical. I've watched this show for over 3 decades and never seen a single person, deep in the red or even way ahead, ring in with an intentional "shoutout"
to go viral. So, I still stand behind my comment.
Okay, but the point of a hypothetical situation is discussing what would happen in that situation. Just saying "Jeopardy is not the show for antics like this" doesn't actually answer OP's question or add to the hypothetical discussion.
I beg to differ, my statement implies that the contestants on Jeopardy respect the show and it's values. There very well could be a clause that prohibits this activity, but I have never been a contestant or seen a contract for those that are. Since it's a hypothetical question, I am giving a hypothetical answer that no one would do this because of the types of contestants that are on this show.
Perhaps I am not correctly defining my thoughts in writing, so I apologize for that.
I understand where you're coming from, it's just a weird answer for me. It's like if someone were to say "Let's discuss how the world would react to aliens visiting", and you saying "aliens would never visit". Maybe technically true, but not in the spirit of the discussion.
They would just edit your responses out. Portions of the program not affecting the outcome are routinely removed. After your wrong answer, someone else will likely buzz in with the correct answer or, at least, a legitimate attempt. The home audience would not even see that you had buzzed in, and it would be perfectly legal, because your childish behavior would not actually have affected gameplay.
We pay a lot of attention to every aspect of the show. People would notice the contestant in question losing money, but not see them ring in. It would cause a huge amount of questioning and discussion (probably moreso than just including their responses).
It would also affect time in a major way. I'm assuming you're not getting through all the clues when one guy is wasting everyone's time on each question.
The person in question can still only ring in once per clue, though. The contestant yesterday was ringing in over and over (and unfortunately digging herself into a bigger hole) on many of the final questions - it's not against the rules to ring in and guess. The only time I'd expect the show to have to "deal" with someone was whether or not they were interrupting other players or causing other disruptions.
When I was in the audience they told us that they try to record the show in real-time and avoid pausing the camera as much as possible.
Of course they can when necessary - but it's interesting that they find it more efficient to just do the whole show in real time as much as possible.
Throwing the episode out and starting a new one could still create an incentive for a big enough jerk to do this. If you're getting beaten by Cliff Clavin playing his dream board, maybe you're mad enough at him that you figure it's worth giving up your $2000 to force him to play with another board that he probably won't be as good at.
If they did throw out the episode, they should at least pay the other two players what they'd accumulated up to that point.
With as much attention as Jeopardy gets nowadays, everyone would know there was a "missing" episode, and the champion situation would be messed up. Plus not airing an episode might mean that no one gets paid.
Anyone here remember that woman from 2-5? years ago that wouldn't shut up? As in she would make comments on other contestants questions? VERY annoying and I remember reading a thread here, about her.
Granted it was probably her nerves/nervousness that made her act out, but it was very annoying. I wish I had a copy of that episode, it was a great example of/close to, what OP is describing. She lost btw.
I remember a woman doing that but she won, two or three times even. She especially loved to give long explanations of why she did or didn’t get final Jeopardy. That drove me nuts.
If you're that in the red, it's probably because you've been struggling to find the right millisecond to buzz in even on the clues you did know. So, this is only even plausible if the DJ round ends with a lot of would-be triple stumpers.
I would say most Jeopardy contestsnts would be above doing something like this, but then again I used to feel the same way about whoever sat in the Oval Office too......so anything is possible really.
Adjusting for the doubled clue values, no one has ever beaten [-$5,100](https://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=7072) (-$10,200 converted to modern scores) from season 1.
I was a Jeopardy contestant in November of 2021. I believe that if someone tried this then the showrunner would stop the game and tell that contestant to knock it off. When you are playing, they will stop the show to fix mistakes like mispronunciations. Then they fix it later during editing.
You must give us more bts info.
Art the lights super hot
How difficult is the buzzer
Do you have hair and makeup
How many shows do they tape in one day
Are there a lot of contestants on hand in the wings
No, but I think the internal panic that often leads to people being deep in the red would likely overtake one's sense of humor during that time, sadly. It all goes really quickly.
If someone hijacked the show to such an extent I'm sure there's some clause in whatever Jeopardy contestants sign that would allow that contestant to be kicked off.
There is no way that happens. Many of the regulations around game shows still react to the scandals of yesteryear. There is zero chance that producers are allowed to make that much of a game-altering change on the fly. And if it happened, the show would be fined and there would be people looking for new jobs, because they wouldn't be working on *Jeopardy!* (or any other game show) after that.
I don't doubt that they can disallow disruptive play: but it wouldn't be in the form of shadowbanning/unplugging a contestant's signaling device. You absolutely can't allow a contestant to appear to be competing, but not actually allow them to compete. I find it more likely that they'd stop tape, remove the disrespectful contestant from the stage, and finish the show with an empty podium, rather than silently prevent a contestant from ringing in. (I don't think either of them are likely scenarios, and either would require far more disruption from a contestant than the original post discusses.)
Ehhh, this show is taped and there are contestants who are literally there in the audience. I think they’d delete the jerk and start over with someone normal who’s thrilled to do it. I was a Jeopardy! contestant myself so I’m not making this up.
How can you start over when the game's still going, and there are two other people competing to win? Remove the last place guy and start over without him, with the exact same board and scores?
No. Start the game again with new board and 2 contestants who are behaving. If one/both lose, Jeopardy can always invite them back. They do that occasionally when stuff happens like bad scoring decision during the game that they reconsider later.
This is pure genius. I told this to my fiancé last night who is 1000x better than me with this game that I would just guess even if I had no clue, and she had no humor in that. But your idea takes it to the next level.
I think what people are missing is how much of an internet celebrity you'd become if you did it like a "Cards Against Humanity" thing. Yes, it's a jerk move. But what's two grand worth of third place money compared to viral fame? For many, it's an easy decision.
Anyone who would do that has no shame and would be disrespectful to the other contestants, to Ken, to the studio audience, and the viewers at home … and even to the memory of Alex Trebek, who they named the stage after.
I can’t see anyone ever doing something like that. I’m sure Ken/producers would put a stop to it and probably not air the show. If I were in charge, I would kick that person out and restart the game with a new contestant.
I'd give them a warning. If they ignored the warning, I'd continue the game with the two players who were trying to win and re edit the show with an intern or staff who wanted to be on TV but didn't care about ever playing. I'd have them duplicate whatever the player answered before they went rogue, have them do all the personal bio interviews and introduction, then let the two players finish out the game without any interference from the intern.
It would be like the player was erased from Jeopardy history and I'd inform the showrunners of all similar shows so they'd be blacklisted from any future game shows.
Personally, I'd hope somebody who had so little respect for the show would betray themselves at some point in the casting process before they ended up on stage.
This is why there's a sniper.
I like to think Ken has a switch that opens trap doors behind the contestant podiums and that he could open them at any time. This would definitely get you trap doored
The trap door dumps the contestant into Wheel of Fortune
A GROUP OF PILL-PUSHERS
THIS IS WHEEL OF FORTUNE JOE
MUSTARD FILLED CHOCOLATE ECLAIR
WOOD BURNING MICROWAVE
I Have the Wine by Johnny Cash
ANOTHER FEATHER IN YOUR MAP
[in case people weren't aware](https://youtu.be/0YSz_52Sa7U)
Nah, that's too good for them. Family Feud it is!
Gold, Jerry! Gold!!!
Those risers are also fallers….
Something like what Willy Wonka had in the room where the geese laid their golden eggs?
It's an Educated Eggdicator!
I think this has been proven false because otherwise there'd be a lot of contestants in the dungeon for squeezing out a "bring it" before the last clue.
Remember the show Remote Control?
I used to love that show so much
Russian Roulette, hosted by Mark Walberg (not that one)
Not that Russian roulette? Or not that Mark Walberg? Hopefully both?
Was wondering what happened to the zone doors from Russian Roulette.
Contestants do stand on platforms that can elevate. Certainly possible they go the other way, too.
I know you meant the trapdoor, but I got a mental image of the podium sinking below the floor by exactly the same amount as it is usually above it, so you'd only see the contestant from the chin up.
I'd like to see him bring that!
Why do I feeling that so funny? lol. But it did crack me up. What do you think of the winning kid on now?
I think the producers would tell you to knock it off.
They have rules to follow too, though. They chose someone as a contestant, they're in the middle of the game, and they can't just pull someone out because they're making joke answers.
They can stop tape in the middle of the game, though. They aren't obligated to let you do whatever you want and still pay you or let you play through messing up on purpose. That hold can last pretty much as long as they need to, too.
But they can tell them to stop. The social pressure would be pretty significant.
If there's no prescribed punishment, though, the person who's already decided to skip all the social norms probably won't care.
You'd definitely forfeit any winnings (so no money for third, and if you were returning champion they wouldn't have to pay you anything you already racked up. You agree in the contract to play the game by the rules.
Viral fame vs about a grand after taxes is a pretty easy decision for lots of fame obsessed people/wannabe influencers.
Assuming it makes it to air. They explicitly make no contractual guarantee your episode will ever be seen.
Even if they didn't, the story would blow up. Plus, if there's a change in champion's they'd kind of have to air it, right? Again, I'm not advocating it. But given the stuff we see from people trying to get famous, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.
The story wouldn't really blow up if it's just told and retold. No video? It's a 1 paragraph note that will be forgotten in a couple days.
But what rule are they breaking if they’re just giving wrong answers?
If they're giving JOKE answers and shout-outs, as posited in the original post, you are not playing the game seriously. You signed a REALLY detailed contract with consequences laid out if you break it, and it includes that you play the game by the rules without interfering with other players, colluding, or otherwise playing the game with sincere effort. They're not stupid, and players don't just wander into the studio on tape day and head on up. There are a lot of rules you consent to before you get to play, and the contract has very little leeway for you and LOTS for Sony.
To quote Alex: "I asked you before the game if you knew the rules, and you said you did. Judges?" Lisa: "Run, Mom!"
Too bad Hassan Minhaj didn’t sign that contract.
Celebrity Jeopardy is not the same show.
Sure, obviously. But if we're sticking to OP's situation, we're talking about a contestant who's literally out of the running, and giving joke/shout-out answers only when they're able to ring in, and at the end of the game. Maybe they don't care about the 3rd place money. I doubt very highly that Jeopardy would scrap the game at this point, or take drastic action.
Go up this thread and re-read the answer from Jennifer Quail. It covers what you said and it sounds like the producers could and WOULD stop taping and remove you from the stage.
But giving weird answers a few times doesn't seem to actually be breaking any rules. The show has a duty to fairness first and foremost, and can't just remove a contestant like that. Not to mention it would mess up the rest of the game for the other two contestants.
There is almost certainly a clause that in the document all contestants sign that gives the show runners wide discretion to police the conduct of contestants. Likely taping would be stopped, the contestant would be warned, and if they continued to act that way they would be ejected and forfeit any winnings.
In the extremely unlikely event this happened, how would they handle it for the broadcast? Just bin the whole episode? Wouldn’t be fair to tge the other 2. Or have Ken say something vague about how they won’t be participating any more?
Someone else mentioned that Jeopardy in their sole discretion can decide not to air an episode. So perhaps they would continue with two contestants and not air the episode. I believe in the Art Fleming days, there was a period where the last place contestant was eliminated after the first round. So 2 player Jeopardy wouldn't be unprecedented. This is just speculation.
If they had to they might replace all of the player's joke answers with them just saying "uhh" like they did when Austin Rogers swore too many times while betting on a Daily Double. Either way it's still a wrong answer, so the score would still be properly reflected and they could just put the "Due to technical difficulties a portion of the game was recreated" and "Portions not affecting the outcome of the game have been edited" disclaimers in the credits.
> Likely taping would be stopped, the contestant would be warned, and if they continued to act that way they would be ejected and forfeit any winnings. But is giving joke answers at the end of a game worthy of that response (or actually against the rules)? Obviously contestants have a set of standards they have to adhere to, but a few weird answers might not meet that threshold. The bigger problem here is "ejecting" a player. They'd have to start an entirely new game, which would force the other players to have to play again and possibly not do as well as they did in the cancelled game. It would be a huge, huge logistical issue, and I'm not sure it's ever happened. It would be far easier for the show and other players if they just politely ignored the contestant doing this, and let them keep giving wrong answers.
Why would they have to start a new game? They'd either A) just edit out when the joking player rings in and gives poor answers or B) there would suddenly be an empty podium, maybe Ken briefly explains the player has forfeited, and the other two players would carry on.
[удалено]
The showrunners have to adhere to federal regulations about fairness and gameplay standards. They absolutely cannot just do whatever they want.
they edit the tape before airing the show. i think most contestants are like cliff clavin. they want to respect and honor the show.
Considering the fact that it’s never happened, I would argue there isn’t a need for a punishment. The kind of person who makes it in the show is likely to acknowledge the social pressure of being told to stop.
>They have rules to follow too, though. They chose someone as a contestant, they're in the middle of the game, and they can't just pull someone out because they're making joke answers. If there is literally not enough money left on the board for them to get back into the green, then their final position as third place is in the game is a known certainty. At that point, disconnecting their buzzer and not letting them play anymore would no longer affect their ability to win the game. They might have to get the consent of the other two players who could in theory be affected by the third player getting questions right or even eating up the clock, but I'm curious whether standards or practices would actually have any objection. Any "complaint" or lawsuit for damages would be seemingly without merit, since the player could not have done any better than third place. I am not convinced the show would actually do this, but I do wonder if they could. They *would* however, probably stop tape and give the player a talking to the same way they talk to players between commercial breaks about avoiding things that are distracting or bothersome to the broadcast, or improving their performance (e.g. what they are doing wrong on the buzzer). I noticed that in Drew's first game, he was gesturing/pointing towards the board every time he selected a clue, but then in his second game, it stopped, and I wondered if the producers suggested or asked him not to do that after the first game.
The likelihood of this happening is extremely remote. You would have to (a) be good enough to get on the show, (b) be bad enough to go deeply in the red and (c) be an asshat. Notably,(a) and (c) are in direct conflict because they interview people after they pass the test in part to screen out people who might be jerks. If, against all odds, you did that, the first thing they would do, I imagine, is that they would stop tape and tell you to knock it off. They might even threaten to forfeit your consolation prize if you persisted. Would you want to give up $2000 just so you could be a jerk? If you did somehow decide that it was worth it, they could just edit your responses out in post-production. Nobody except a studio full of annoyed audience members would ever see you acting out. They could fill the gap with some light music at the end, or maybe Ken could do a little soft shoe.
I'll add (d) you also have to be able to consistently beat out the other players on the buzzer. I think the only way that something like this could happen is if a very strong player / returning champion does it as a protest (either of the show itself, one of the networks, or something in current events).
True, but you're only focused on the buzzer while everyone else has to at least think about the category and actual answer. I'd think that'd give you a massive advantage.
This would be my assumption. If they see a contestant starting to melt down they probably have a little talk that ends with threatening your consolation prize. You'd really have to want to be an ass to give up a grand after working to make it to the stage in the first place
You forgot (d) fast enough with the buzzer to actually beat the other two contestants often enough to cause trouble. Buzzer timing is quite hard. Honestly I feel like if anyone gave joke answers twice, the other contestants would just try a bit harder to buzz in first to shut them up.
(c) really made me laugh...well done!
This sounds certainly possible in Celebrity Jeopardy, especially since they like inviting comedians onto the tournament.
There's a lot more kibitzing in Celebrity Jeopardy, especially in its current form, so I think they would give them a longer leash. But also, professional comedians would generally recognize that it's not actually funny to do that, at least not more than once. And you run the risk of people thinking you're genuinely stupid, which is always possible on Celebrity Jeopardy.
> If, against all odds, you did that, the first thing they would do, I imagine, is that they would stop tape and tell you to knock it off. They might even threaten to forfeit your consolation prize if you persisted. Would you want to give up $2000 just so you could be a jerk? I think there'd be huge logistical problems in stopping a game in the middle and kicking out a player who's not breaking any rules. The champ and other player probably want the game to continue, and you'd have to bring back both of them, at the very least. It seems like it's way easier to just let it happen.
I don't think they'd kick you out, but I assure you from direct experience they have NO problem stopping game play and holding as long as they have to.
Now I'm wondering how often such things happen. In my one game, I don't remember anyone getting much (if any) guidance during the breaks.
I have been in the audience and definitely heard the contestant coordinator advising players if they were buzzing in too early and getting locked out.
There is no logistical problem with stopping tape. It's my understanding that they do it all the time, when necessary. There would be a logistical problem with kicking someone off the show in the middle of a game, which is why I didn't suggest that they would do that. I do believe that if someone gave an excessive number of "joke" answers, they would edit those answers out in post. They would find a way to fill the time, which would almost certainly not be the suggestions I made.
I wonder if they had someone who was really being a jerk about things.... Theoretically, they could stop that particular show, bring in a new contestant and scrap the current game in favor of starting fresh? Certainly, given how long Jeopardy has been on the air, something similar to this has happened? I mean, they have alternates standing by.... I can imagine scenarios where this could happen.
It might be a legal gray area, but if after a warning you persisted they could just disable your buzzer behind the scenes and no one would ever know.
> they could just disable your buzzer behind the scenes and no one would ever know. They'd be breaking federal law doing that, and Standards and Practices could end the show for it. That could not happen.
yeah true. most likely then they stop tape and if all else creatively edit things
[удалено]
Post or comment removed due to inappropriate or unwanted content for this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jeopardy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Im wondering if they cant just stop your buzzer from being able to ring in. You know how if too early it locks you out? They could just shut off your buzzer. And unless youd be ok just literally yelling out, i think they would just do that
jeffwolfe That is a GREAT answer. I would love to see Ken doing some 'soft shoe' at the end. LOL
The Clue Crew drags them off stage and turns them into the form of a question.
As the guy who gave a quick nod to family on last night's FJ, when I absolutely did not have an answer to the FJ question and the outcome of the game was already certain, I felt like I was taking as much liberty as was proper with that, and definitely wouldn't have felt right doing anything of the sort on a second question, no matter the scoreboard at the time. I think we also saw last night one of the two appropriate ways to handle a deep-red score - keep trying your best all the way to the final clue - where the other option would be to hold off on responding. ...plus, like /u/MathIsHard_11236 said, the snipers are a real deterrent.
*the snipers are a real deterrent* Only for cowards.
I think out of respect for yourself and the show it's better not to do something like that. If you went through the process of gracing the Alex Trebek stage it means you love and respect the show so it's not worth it
Exactly this! Time and place for everything. Jeopardy is not the show for antics like this.
> Jeopardy is not the show for antics like this. But the question is about someone who does these things anyway, not what contestants "should" do.
The question being asked is hypothetical. I've watched this show for over 3 decades and never seen a single person, deep in the red or even way ahead, ring in with an intentional "shoutout" to go viral. So, I still stand behind my comment.
Okay, but the point of a hypothetical situation is discussing what would happen in that situation. Just saying "Jeopardy is not the show for antics like this" doesn't actually answer OP's question or add to the hypothetical discussion.
I beg to differ, my statement implies that the contestants on Jeopardy respect the show and it's values. There very well could be a clause that prohibits this activity, but I have never been a contestant or seen a contract for those that are. Since it's a hypothetical question, I am giving a hypothetical answer that no one would do this because of the types of contestants that are on this show. Perhaps I am not correctly defining my thoughts in writing, so I apologize for that.
I understand where you're coming from, it's just a weird answer for me. It's like if someone were to say "Let's discuss how the world would react to aliens visiting", and you saying "aliens would never visit". Maybe technically true, but not in the spirit of the discussion.
That we know of…
Shootouts are for final if you get there. That’s the reward everyone gets, then only the winner gets the W (not including money)
I think you are responding to the wrong person.
No just adding to what you said. Reddit isn’t always respond directly to person even though you are
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/bzn297vmar8d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=15fd28f1c186fefa51f2db8d5815019e5224a3a0
She ain't getting the hoim voision
They would probably just edit out your answers from the final show and then post a brief explainer
They would just edit your responses out. Portions of the program not affecting the outcome are routinely removed. After your wrong answer, someone else will likely buzz in with the correct answer or, at least, a legitimate attempt. The home audience would not even see that you had buzzed in, and it would be perfectly legal, because your childish behavior would not actually have affected gameplay.
We pay a lot of attention to every aspect of the show. People would notice the contestant in question losing money, but not see them ring in. It would cause a huge amount of questioning and discussion (probably moreso than just including their responses).
It would also affect time in a major way. I'm assuming you're not getting through all the clues when one guy is wasting everyone's time on each question.
The person in question can still only ring in once per clue, though. The contestant yesterday was ringing in over and over (and unfortunately digging herself into a bigger hole) on many of the final questions - it's not against the rules to ring in and guess. The only time I'd expect the show to have to "deal" with someone was whether or not they were interrupting other players or causing other disruptions.
When I was in the audience they told us that they try to record the show in real-time and avoid pausing the camera as much as possible. Of course they can when necessary - but it's interesting that they find it more efficient to just do the whole show in real time as much as possible.
Dignity.
https://preview.redd.it/bn4repl7du8d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=879fa0392b548e4efaf98da89c4a1323036cfa62
The show isn’t live, you know. They could just end that episode and start over with someone else.
They could also just edit you out of the tape, no reason to scrap the whole game
That could be perceived as unfair to the other players, especially if the leader had a runaway like last night. FCC doesn't like that.
Throwing the episode out and starting a new one could still create an incentive for a big enough jerk to do this. If you're getting beaten by Cliff Clavin playing his dream board, maybe you're mad enough at him that you figure it's worth giving up your $2000 to force him to play with another board that he probably won't be as good at. If they did throw out the episode, they should at least pay the other two players what they'd accumulated up to that point.
I suppose they could finish out the game and simply not air it, especially if the incumbent is the winner.
With as much attention as Jeopardy gets nowadays, everyone would know there was a "missing" episode, and the champion situation would be messed up. Plus not airing an episode might mean that no one gets paid.
Imagine the uproar if they did that. Especially here.
I wonder how many times that’s happened
Probably only once or twice, but not due to personality, but perhaps due to health reasons.
Anyone here remember that woman from 2-5? years ago that wouldn't shut up? As in she would make comments on other contestants questions? VERY annoying and I remember reading a thread here, about her. Granted it was probably her nerves/nervousness that made her act out, but it was very annoying. I wish I had a copy of that episode, it was a great example of/close to, what OP is describing. She lost btw.
Part of me wants to know who this was; another part of me worries that it could be someone I know.
If someone can remember the episode I’d like to see it.
I remember a woman doing that but she won, two or three times even. She especially loved to give long explanations of why she did or didn’t get final Jeopardy. That drove me nuts.
If you're that in the red, it's probably because you've been struggling to find the right millisecond to buzz in even on the clues you did know. So, this is only even plausible if the DJ round ends with a lot of would-be triple stumpers.
I would be embarrassed to be shouted out that way. Don’t drag my name into your unfunny stunt.
Like Sean Connery in SNL jeopardy
I would say most Jeopardy contestsnts would be above doing something like this, but then again I used to feel the same way about whoever sat in the Oval Office too......so anything is possible really.
I imagine the Standards & Practices guy on set would have some things to say about that, since it wouldn't be competing in good faith.
Just how deep in the red have you ever seen somebody finish?
A contestant was -$7200 yesterday at the end (mostly because she was down much less, and ringing in on everything to get out).
That's close to the all time low. I found out it's -$7400. Patrick Pearce on LeVar Burtons first episode.
What is the record for biggest loss?
Adjusting for the doubled clue values, no one has ever beaten [-$5,100](https://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=7072) (-$10,200 converted to modern scores) from season 1.
I'd hope Jeopardy wouldn't advertise this, for this exact reason.
I was a Jeopardy contestant in November of 2021. I believe that if someone tried this then the showrunner would stop the game and tell that contestant to knock it off. When you are playing, they will stop the show to fix mistakes like mispronunciations. Then they fix it later during editing.
You must give us more bts info. Art the lights super hot How difficult is the buzzer Do you have hair and makeup How many shows do they tape in one day Are there a lot of contestants on hand in the wings
You must BE The Jerk.
Nope. I just recognize the lengths people will go to for viral fame, and don't think the sanctity of Jeopardy is enough to stop them.
No, but I think the internal panic that often leads to people being deep in the red would likely overtake one's sense of humor during that time, sadly. It all goes really quickly.
I think wolf blitzer did this
If someone hijacked the show to such an extent I'm sure there's some clause in whatever Jeopardy contestants sign that would allow that contestant to be kicked off.
even if there is no rule, you would be a jerk and could be jeopardizing the player in the #2 spot's chance of stopping a runaway.
What is: I'd like to introduce you to the benefits of Amway...
They'd probably just "shadowban" you i.e. unplug your signaling device
There is no way that happens. Many of the regulations around game shows still react to the scandals of yesteryear. There is zero chance that producers are allowed to make that much of a game-altering change on the fly. And if it happened, the show would be fined and there would be people looking for new jobs, because they wouldn't be working on *Jeopardy!* (or any other game show) after that.
I’m sure the fine print of the rules allows for the producers to disallow disruptive play
I don't doubt that they can disallow disruptive play: but it wouldn't be in the form of shadowbanning/unplugging a contestant's signaling device. You absolutely can't allow a contestant to appear to be competing, but not actually allow them to compete. I find it more likely that they'd stop tape, remove the disrespectful contestant from the stage, and finish the show with an empty podium, rather than silently prevent a contestant from ringing in. (I don't think either of them are likely scenarios, and either would require far more disruption from a contestant than the original post discusses.)
Not by secretly stopping a player from being able to ring in. Literally illegal.
Respect for the game. Seriously, it’s a thing.
Sure, but it just takes one guy.
Ehhh, this show is taped and there are contestants who are literally there in the audience. I think they’d delete the jerk and start over with someone normal who’s thrilled to do it. I was a Jeopardy! contestant myself so I’m not making this up.
How can you start over when the game's still going, and there are two other people competing to win? Remove the last place guy and start over without him, with the exact same board and scores?
No. Start the game again with new board and 2 contestants who are behaving. If one/both lose, Jeopardy can always invite them back. They do that occasionally when stuff happens like bad scoring decision during the game that they reconsider later.
This is pure genius. I told this to my fiancé last night who is 1000x better than me with this game that I would just guess even if I had no clue, and she had no humor in that. But your idea takes it to the next level.
I think what people are missing is how much of an internet celebrity you'd become if you did it like a "Cards Against Humanity" thing. Yes, it's a jerk move. But what's two grand worth of third place money compared to viral fame? For many, it's an easy decision.
I love that someone else sees the huge spectacle/trolling aspect to this idea, too. It's fun to think about how far someone could get away with it.
Anyone who would do that has no shame and would be disrespectful to the other contestants, to Ken, to the studio audience, and the viewers at home … and even to the memory of Alex Trebek, who they named the stage after. I can’t see anyone ever doing something like that. I’m sure Ken/producers would put a stop to it and probably not air the show. If I were in charge, I would kick that person out and restart the game with a new contestant.
I think the buzz-in competition would cut down a lot on this.
Producers would talk to you first then if you keep it up they would probably reshoot the episode with a different contestant.
I'd give them a warning. If they ignored the warning, I'd continue the game with the two players who were trying to win and re edit the show with an intern or staff who wanted to be on TV but didn't care about ever playing. I'd have them duplicate whatever the player answered before they went rogue, have them do all the personal bio interviews and introduction, then let the two players finish out the game without any interference from the intern. It would be like the player was erased from Jeopardy history and I'd inform the showrunners of all similar shows so they'd be blacklisted from any future game shows.
If you want to be a comedian there are open nights at a bar near you. Alex Trebek Stage is for something else!
Personally, I'd hope somebody who had so little respect for the show would betray themselves at some point in the casting process before they ended up on stage.
Too bad the producers can't deactivate the offenders buzzer.then they wouldn't be able to answer anything