Talk:Unan1mous

Copyright violation

What was the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardenusa (talk • contribs)

Replacement article written

I have written a replacement article from scratch. There should be no copyright issues with this one: Unan1mous/Temp -- MisterHand 19:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Lemme be the first to say, omg, this show looks friggin awesome! Kudos to Lincoln Hiatt, J.D. Roth and Todd Nelson for coming up with this genius idea. I can't wait. JeffyP 00:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the IMDB site for this show is, i couldn't find it? Any ideas about the psychology/game theory aspect of this show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.42.119 (talk • contribs)

Here is the IMDB site: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780444/ Tazz765 18:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added this to the article. -- MisterHand 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just like to point out that the IMDB link has been in the article ever since I merged the infobox over  ;) --SSTwinrova 01:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well sure, it's basic human nature. *Everybody* wants money (which, incidently, can be exchanged for shelter, food, and shiny things - the basic driving forces of all humans, all over the world), but the participants must vote unanimously to give the money to someone else. Nobody wants to simply give away such a large sum of money when it's possible that they might be able to convince others to give it to them. (As an example - handing over the prize money to a worthy chairity would be a very noble cause, but you'd have to convince everyone *else* that it was a noble cause as well.) Also, the participants appear to have been very carefully chosen in order to actively stimulate conflict (we know, not more than ten minutes into the premiere broadcast, that the Religious Woman(tm) and the Gay Guy(tm) will never vote for /each other/. Their placement in this game couldn't /possibly/ have occurred by sheer coincidence.) Plus, there's a time limit. Additionally, the temperature of the Bunker appears to be a great deal warmer (and possibly more humid) than the human body is naturally used to, which is known to stimulate conflict and hostility. Really, it's kind of one big psychological experiment; I suspect, when it's all done in the end (when the participants manage to vote unanimously, or the money supply runs dry, whichever comes first), we'll all learn that "people are self-serving animals". 207.96.8.128

I agree with JeffyP, this show is great! The only thing that needs to change is instead of the show being 30 minutes it should be 1 hour long. That's the only thing FOX needs to change. 216.110.254.167 19:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. But I think that this show is like the best reality show EVER!!!- Masterwiki 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Add one more; I really enjoyed this show and I do hope that FOX will bring it back, but, agreeing with both comments above, you can do more things in an hour. They just know when to pause for a commercial break at the right moments! Mattderojas 02:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The article should remain here. We don't need to specifiy (TV series) in the title unless there is another article called "Unan1mous" that isn't about a TV series. -- MisterHand 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) the article should remain here: "Remember the disambiguator should only be added 'if multiple articles would normally have the same name. If the title of the TV program is the most common usage of the phrase, let it be the title of the article" (emphasis mine). -- MisterHand 02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that part: I'll copy over the infobox from the other article and set up a redirect to this one instead. --SSTwinrova 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! The article is much improved now. -- MisterHand 03:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting

How did you figure out who voted for who? I didn't see anything on the show. Robot Chicken 04:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's recording on the official site: http://www.fox.com/unanimous/votes/ -- MisterHand 04:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This can't be real, right?

I'm fascinated by this show because of how fake it looks. I mean, I've been watching Japanese Super Sentai series that were more convincing than the people on this show. Even if it's real, at least one of these people has to be an actor (cf. Space Cadets)...I'd frankly be more likely to mistake The Prisoner for "reality TV".

I'm gonna keep watching, just to see the big "gotcha" when they reveal it's all a big joke.--Tenka Muteki 19:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

it's real yo Wardenusa 21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

List of participants

Currently, we are using the following system:

Boxes with red backround and white text for people who have left;

Boxes with green backround and white text for people who are active;

Boxes with red backround and white text for people who are outcast.

Although this is a very minor change, what do think of changing the boxes to a yellow backround and black text for outcasts?

PeteShanosky 02:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think yellow/black should be reserved for the players that have left since that's similar to the show (player's name in yellow), and keep the green/white and red/white for active and outcast, respectively. (Note: This is how I made it look after my last edit.) --SSTwinrova 03:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Decreasing Money Rate

Did it look like to anyone else that after Kelly left, the money decreased at about half the rate that it had been before? I think that may be to keep the total time until the money runs out the same instead of have it happening almost twice as soon. --SSTwinrova 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw that too. At first, I thought it was something exponential, but then the money would essentially never run out. Is that really important enough to put in the article? Bduddy 23:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I brought it up because of the phrase "The money begins to constantly decrease at a rate of approximately $1 every 1/3 of a second", so if the starting rate is important enough, then mentioning that it slowed down probably is also. IMO, the whole rate thing should be be taken out and saying the the money begins to constantly decrease is enough. --SSTwinrova 23:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Somebody removed the section about the participants being actors. Adam definitely is because here is his IMDB page: Adam's IMDB page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.99.45 (talk • contribs)

• I have removed everything from the controversy section that wasn't a verifiable fact. Wikipedia is not the place for rumors, speculation, and original research. I have also retitled the section "Trivia." -- MisterHand 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The Tarah on Unan1mous is Tara Smith, as seen in her website http://www.tarahsmith.com/home.htm. This does not appear to be Tarah Paige at http://www.tarahpaige.com or http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1395985/, as we are led to believe in the Trivia section. Note that Tara Smith has a cleft chin, while Tarah Paige does not. Also, if the handbag designer were Tarah Paige, instead of just having "As seen on FOX" on her webpage, she would probably make reference to the movie "Stick It."

Looking at the IMDB page it does look very much like her. Most actors don't use their real name, so it could be her. Brissie 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Tarah Smith, the handbag designer, is 25. Tarah Paige, the actress, is 23 (will be 24 in July). They are NOT the same people. Please remove this from the trivia section.

Removing gay porn link?

The gay porn link for one of the contestants in relevant (somewhat), but FAR, FAR beyond unencyclopedic. Wikipedia does not need to be offering links to free smut. Children will disreguard the 18+ link. I will remove it, but I will return it if two or more people disagree.

• If children could have accessed that link, then they surely can access similar pornography without the help of Wikipedia links through the "Unan1mous" listing. Put the link back, as it is illuminating of the type of characters in this show. Wikipedia is not here to act as a parent to children. That is the job of their parents. Wikipedia is here to offer information, and that is what the link provided.
• Please read the Wikipedia is not censored guideline page. -- MisterHand 04:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tarah (Smith or Paige)

If anyone watched the finale of Unan1mous, right when Tarah opens the box to get her check for the cash, if you look very closely you can see the check is made out to Tarah Smith.

Second Season?

Will there be a second season? I really hope so. Masterwiki 21:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Shorter than 30 minues

Each episode is actually 28 minutes, in order to accomodate an extra two minutes of American Idol. I've changed the info box. Locarno 04:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Optimal Strategy

I have removed the following section from the article:

The payoff matrix is almost impossible to calculate for the situation where there is not an apparent consensus for an upcoming vote, since it is very unlikely that any such vote will be unanimous. However, the situation where the group seems to be at a consensus to vote for a certain player is common. Assuming there is some value in awarding the money to another player, but that winning the money oneself is much preferable, the interesting payoff matrix is seens not convering one's vote versus the other votes, but rather one's vote now versus the chances of regaining eligibility (if outcast) as well as gaining unanimous support from the other players. In the actual game in 2006, this situation happened three times, with an apparent consensus on Steve in vote 2, Jameson in vote 6, and Tarah in vote 7. In votes 2 and 6, Jonathan and then Adam voted against the consensus in the hopes of later winning the game themselves. In vote 7, Adam was persuaded that he could not win the game in a future vote (it was announced that there would be no more votes) and thus voted with the consensus, resulting in a unanimous vote.

In this scenario, here is the payoff matrix for a non-consensus player, such as Jonathan in vote 2.

	Player A always votes with apparent consensus	Player A always votes against apparent consensus
Other players vote for a consensus pick in a vote, but unanimously support Player A in a later vote	Consensus pick wins big, all other players win satisfaction, all players go home early	Player A wins big later, all other players win satisfaction, all players go home late
Other players vote for a consensus pick in a vote and do not unanimously support Player A in a later vote	Consensus pick wins big, all other players win satisfaction, all players go home early	Nobody wins, no player is satisfied, all players go home late

Assuming there is a small payoff ("1") in going home early, a larger payoff ("2") in the satisfaction of awarding the money, and a very large payoff ("9") in winning the money, the matrix for Jonathan in vote 2 becomes:

	Player A always votes with apparent consensus	Player A always votes against apparent consensus
Other players vote for a consensus pick in a vote, but unanimously support Player A in a later vote	3	9
Other players vote for a consensus pick in a vote and do not unanimously support Player A in a later vote	3	0

Thus we see that Jonathan (or any other player) has the optimal decision to vote against apparent consensus when there is some chance that he/she can garner unanimous support in a later vote before anyone else does, otherwise, vote for the consensus. Both Jonathan and Adam appeared to follow this optimal play. For vote 2, Jonathan hoped to still win, but Adam believed that, as an outcast, he could not win; thereafer, Jonathan judged that he was very unlikely to ever garner unanimous support, but Adam held out hope that he could reenter the game and also garner support until vote 7. Thus Jonathan and Adam each voted against consensus in the hopes of winning big.

This strategy is only optimal for one player when the other players have an apparent consensus. The actual best strategy for the game involves using persuasion and charisma to become the consensus pick at a time when any players attempting the optimal strategy have given up hope of winning big. If all players continually attempt this "optimal" strategy, there is nothing close to a consensus and no one will win unless a unexpected, likely random-chance unanimous vote is cast. Thus the suspense in the game and possibility of someone winning the game requires that most participants convincingly claim to be willing to vote to one player, thus creating an apparent consensus.

This section is pure original research and, unfortunately, does not belong in a Wikipedia article. -- MisterHand 19:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)