Based on this new evidence, I would agree that Family Guy was saved by fan action.

But you will NEVER convince me that Gates McFadden quit.

Right. Unless there is a statute of limitations in effect. That argument probably should have been advanced last week and before the game ended.

As for Gates, the beauty is you aren't the one who needs to be convinced.

I'm unsure what to do with this new information, especially since it (apparently, I haven't checked) will change the final standings.

Can I have people weigh in?

Should we revisit question 1? Yes or no?

Obviously, I say yes, since it should put me in first place.

Officially I vote no. It's a like a sporting event. If a referee misses a call (and here, the ref didn't miss it; nobody presented the argument), you don't go back and change the score after the game is over.

But the game isn't over. The arguing and debating is very much part of the game and that hasn't finished yet. Just because tentative standings have been published, doesn't make the game over. Standings are posted throughout the game and are changed as needed. This is part of that process.

I do think that Palaver is right but the cost of losing the victory is his to bear: the argument that would support him was easily found but he never presented it.

As Red Dog said, this was a missed call. reverie's win might have traces of ignominy, but it's still his win.

Dude, it's the next day.

Yeah, I'm inclined to leave it alone. That supporting evidence was found rather easily, and that question's answers were revealed last Friday.

The crowd has left the stadium. So has the bus with the players. The clean-up crew is working. It's over. This game started last week and it was the first question. There was plenty of time to introduce this argument and the information was from grundlepedia so it's not like it took a lot of research time.


This hearing is over.

Considering that the arguments that were already advanced should have been plenty sufficient to count Family Guy as correct in the first place, I think the results should be changed.

Buying a DVD is not coordinated fan action.

The word "coordinated" was not in the question. Sounds like you are willing to admit that buying DVD's is a fan action... it's just not a coordinated one.

The point is that buying a DVD is not necessarily fan action. Buying a DVD can mean any of a number of things. If I blind buy a DVD, for example, that doesn't automatically make me a fan of the film/tv show.

Somehow it seems to have been decided that the action must be a) organized or coordinated, and b) some sort of mail-in campaign to the network, despite the fact that neither of those conditions is present in the original question.

You stated that you didn't buy the DVDs because you were a fan, but why did you choose to buy Family Guy? There's thousands of TV on DVD options out there, but you chose Family Guy. Was it random chance, or was it the collective influence of a large number of fans spreading good word of mouth on the show?

There's a certain amount of blind buys for every DVD and studio sales projections take that into account. The Family Guy sales went so far above and beyond those projections that they freaking uncanceled the show.

I vote no on changing the standings. Tracer made a ruling, compelling evidence was there, and no one presented it until after the game itself has ended. That's part of what Sheep is about. It's not just having the "right" answers or the "best" answers. It's convincing the person running it to give you more negative points than everyone else who's playing (which is why I don't run Sheep, because I'd do it like a D&D GM and award points to people who make me laugh or send me cashiers checks).

I think the statute of limitations should be the latter of 24 hours after the question is initially counted wrong or the end of the game. If this had been the last question, I think revising would be in order. Since it was the first question and we had gone over this ad nauseum before I happened to scan that Wiki article, I think those who felt wronged (not me -- I said Jericho) had plenty of opportunity to bring this up.

I do think it is important to acknowledge that the answer actually should have been right, though. The standings should not change, but the acknowledgment of the answer as right should happen.

Yeah, don't take my first first place sheep away!

Yeah, I blew the call on the first question.

This is why it's important to present evidence to sway your fellow players to your side and not just rant.

Evidence was presented, but it was somehow determined that millions of people randomly decided to purchase DVDs for a show they had no interest in, then network executives were fooled into thinking those people might be fans of the show and thus brought it back, and then the Nielsen company was fooled into thinking enough of those people actually tuned in to the revived show to keep it on the air for the next several years.

I don't think you blew the call so much as they blew their chance to present a good argument because they were so intent on winning with their bad one.

I agree.

Now, you did blow the call on Gates McFadden, but given that a lot of people were yelling at you that she had quit, I can understand why you'd make the wrong decision in that kind of high-pressure situation.

(But seriously people -- I posted an interview of her saying in her own words that she was fired. What more do you want!?)

Yeah, Gates McFadden was fired.