LEGO Masters USA: Interview with the winning team!
Posted by MeganL,
LEGO Masters finished last month. However, interviews with the final five teams did not happen until after the final episode aired. That, and the confluence of the holidays meant that transcription took longer than expected. We have interviews with all the remaining teams if you care to read:
Fifth place team
Fourth place team
Third place team
Second place team
Read on to learn who won season three of LEGO Masters, and the interview with the winning team after the break.
Through process of elimination (if you've read all the other interviews), plus if you've watched the show, you know the winners were Nick and Stacey, with their build of a bookshelf.
How did you approach coming up with your eventual concept for the final build?
Nick: We actually kind of stumbled upon it a little last minute. We were very focused on each individual challenges and getting through them. So when the final round is here, we were like, “Okay, how can we make sure we're gonna be working on something we’re excited about?” It's 24 hours, you want to be very invested in what you're building. We were each stumbling with some different ideas, and we slowly built on top of each other’s. I think we talked about a nightstand at one point, and then it became a bookshelf. It slowly evolved into something that just really made sense. We liked the bookshelf idea a lot because it felt like it was like a canvas. We would have loved to build all the individual things on the bookshelf. For us to just throw on whatever we were excited and passionate about building.
Stacey: Do you remember I was making that list? Everything you could think of from your childhood that you're excited about. And the list was so long, we could have just kept going.
Nick: It was the opposite of a lot of times when we were struggling to think of an idea. We had way too many ideas.
Stacey: It was so fun to be something life-sized. That was one of the cool things was that everybody at the finale built in different scales. Ours was life-size and our bookshelf fooled a lot of people on set. They thought it was a real shelf.
What details on your builds do you wish had been featured?
Stacey: So I think starting with that final build that we did our bookshelf, we never got to see the back of our bookshelf, and we had things like the missing sock that every kid has behind their bookshelf. We even sketched in Stacy and Nick equals best friends forever.
Nick: And some crayon drawings on there too. Even the sides of the build didn't get a great look at them. We put some wear and tear in them. I think every kid had those glow in the dark stars that you slapped all over your room. We put some of those on the side. That was a little bit of a throwback to the tree house build too. And some small nods to some of the past builds which were very quickly glossed over.
Stacey: Yeah, there's never enough time to show every single detail on the build. It’s too bad because we all put so much time and energy into them. We also incorporated a lot of our past builds into this final build as well that I would have liked to see a little bit more, like our little spaceship shooting out the sky
Nick: Or even the corgi sitting on top of the LEGO organiser.
Stacey: We had lots of fun details like that. And other than that, I would say Episode One, the spaceship challenge which is definitely one of our favourites. Inside our cockpit, we had a whole streaming setup, and we actually had the lights light up the camera and a computer station because we're streaming to the galaxy. And then this beautiful tree inside…
Nick: ….like a maple syrup tree. So the maple syrup is flowing out of the tree and powering those Canada play engines. I even had like little space people floating in there which were supposed to represent our moderators because they go through all sorts of things trying to help organise and keep our streams under control. So of course they were floating around in space, and all sorts of chaos.
What was the most challenging aspect about building on the set versus being at home?
Stacey: I mean, we're just so lucky with how we already build at home with live-streaming. So I think there may be a little bit of an advantage that you're already used to that and so another level. I mean we don't at home have Will coming over making jokes with us and keep things light on set. So I really liked those moments. I like to break up the building to just have some fun banter back and forth.
Nick: It's certainly a marathon experience. Exactly like Stacey said, to have those little moments to just snap you out of it for a second and give you a chance to reset was such a positive thing to have.
Do you have any favourite interactions with Will, Amy, or Jamie?
Stacey: I do at the very end. When we talked to the Brickmasters after we had won, that was a really special conversation. Just getting to hear more in depth their thoughts about our build and just our experience on the show. We love them, admire them and respect them so to be able to have that after chat was amazing.
Nick: I think what brought a lot of funny moments to the show was trying to pull out all of the sass and the smack talk. We're obviously not meant to be doing that. So it was really, really funny just watching Will try to pull these different sides of us, and it was just such a good way to snap us out a little bit of the seriousness of everything. And to remember to have fun, because that's what it was all about at the end of the day.
Stacey: Yeah, he really wanted to get us to smack talk. We did not improve. I think we got worse.
Nick: Probably. I know we always had a lot of fun with him. You could tell like he would recognise when we were really struggling. I think that was evident in the golf challenge that he took some time out to comment on our struggle. He recognised that and really just wanted to encourage us to not let that kind of stuff get to us and to stay positive and stay on top of it. So yeah, the positivity was always there.
Who gets the trophy?
Stacey: We were actually deciding that this morning, but I always knew all along that Nick was gonna get it first for a little bit.
Nick: For a little bit, and then we'll figure out our schedule. You know if I have a weekday she has it weekends, maybe something like that. I'm sure we'll figure something out.
Where do you get inspiration for your builds?
Nick: I think for me, and I think this applies to Stacey as well, is that we just pull from the things that we love. So I've always really enjoyed building like replicas of the things that I enjoyed growing up. That was a little bit more on the Star Wars side, but then like as I got more into gaming, I wanted to build gaming stuff. As I discovered different things that I was interested in and excited about, I found it really really easy to want to build and invest time into bringing those creations into life. So anytime someone asks me how to get started with Lego building - build something you really like to build, something you're excited and passionate about. It'd be so much easier to overcome any barriers that you run into while you're working on it when you're just excited about getting to that end result.
Stacey: I think that's what was so great about our finale build is that we were excited about what we were building the entire time. We would have loved to just kept on building.
Nick: We could have gone on for hours and hours adding more things to that bookshelf. Make it a bedroom.
What are the top three things that makes for a successful LEGO Masters team?
Nick: I was the number one thing is positivity. No matter what you might be going through the competition, you have to stay positive. And Stacey did that for me for so, so much that the competition. I can't sing her praises enough, or how much she kept us in the competition. I think I probably would have more likely than not taken myself out of the competition much sooner except for Stacey just being there saying, “No Nick. We can do this. Let's not give up, we have so much to offer.” That positivity was obviously took us to a great, great place.
Stacey: Also teamwork. I mean, we're both here for a reason. So really lean on each other's strengths and dive into those and really encourage your partner to bring their best selves to build.
Nick: Give other room to let those strengths shine. Like me letting Stacey bring out so much story, like building a ballerina for a bull rider. I don't think I would have thought of that on my own. So I'm so glad Stacey suggested it. It got to be a build I would have never worked on a billion years, but it was so much fun. I'm so glad that we got to do that. We did that for each other at different times as well. Then with the finale, it was like perfect harmony. We both were so excited and passionate about it.
Stacey: We had so much story and heart and I think that's really important. Because that's what you're doing when you're building these LEGO creations. You're creating a whole world, a story to tell. So really just dive deep into that and make it something fun.
You were in the bottom two for several episodes. How did you find the fun and excitement again, after those setbacks?
Nick: I think we reflected on some of what was working really well for us in the earlier challenges. We talked about “Hey, what did you do with the tree house that made it stand out? Why did you find so much success with that build? What made it easier for us to work on it?”. And it was good just like dialling back and thinking about what is it that allows me and Stacey to bring out our best, and we're just building stuff we were so excited about. I think we got a little distracted along the way with some of the other ideas and when a challenge comes at you. It can be hard to separate what the challenge is asking for and what you might want to do with it. When you can find a way to bring those two together I think it makes a really big difference.
Stacey: What Nick said, We just thought about our first challenges and what made those work and started to like lean back on those ideas. For me the racecard challenge was when things really turned around because I was like, “Let's get back and have fun.” We had such a blast on that challenge and working with another team. It reminded us why we love LEGO and that's what we brought in the next few challenges.
What are you going to do with the money?
Nick: I feel like we both haven't actually thought a ton about that because there's so many other things that we consider like better prizes, like the family we gained from it. Just the overall experience. I recently got engaged. We're of course kind of looking towards next steps you know, finding a home together and stuff. So I won't deny it’s definitely to be very helpful for that.
Stacey: I'm not sure exactly what I'm gonna do, but I'm always looking for ways to level up my shows or start new shows on Amazon or Twitch. So I'll probably be putting a little bit there to see what I can create next.
What's your favourite build of the season that another team built?
Nick: I know that one pretty quickly. I loved Brendan and Greg's Thor build. They absolutely knocked it out of the park. I definitely think that it's on par with what some people would probably spend months working on to bring to display on at a convention. It's really a credit to how quick and how accurate they can be when they want to with building. That really really blew me away, and it was it was even more impressive in person.
Stacey: There's so many! I really love the firefighters spaceship build. That had a lot of personality and a lot of love and I think got a lot of kids really excited about their fire station going through space. So I thought that was a really cool build.
What you think is your most underrated build?
Stacey: I actually feel like Bella the ballerina deserves a little bit more recognition because she stayed on that bull the second longest, which I thought was very, very impressive. I thought the story was really great. I loved everything about that build. We thought it was just so perfect how she was in fourth position, which is also what you do when you ride a bull. I just love the message and the story and the fact that it lasted.
Nick: For me I think I was a little sad we didn't get a bit of a closer look at some of the details in our castle build. What kind of castle can you really build for someone who lives you know, in the Arctic, right? You really are kind of limited to just go into the white but we did take a lot of time and effort to make sure that there were things that did stand out with our build. We built polar bears for snow guardians.
Stacey: And Nick did all these Huskies. They have so much emotion and feeling, and they were so perfect. People in the room were just like, “Oh, I love it. I want to take that home with me.” And you really didn’t get to see it.
Nick: We actually had a bunch of light bricks at various locations around the build. It's just fun little details like that. You guys have no idea how much you miss out on in everybody's build in every challenge.
What advice do you have for people starting out in the hobby?
Nick: One of the pieces of advice I'd like to give - I really love Creator 3 in 1 sets. I think they are really great because you have more than one thing to build from them. If you can find a Creator 3 in 1 set related something that you're really into, you might find a little bit of inspiration for building all three models. You have a great selection of pieces work with to build more of that kind of thing. If you get a great Creator parts set, there's infinite possibilities, not just a three in one set. There's infinite possibilities. So I do always like to recommend those a great set to get started with.
Stacey: Absolutely and again, just find something you like, there's so many amazing LEGO sets out there.
Nick: Don't be afraid to slow down while you're building those sets too. We all really enjoy the nice therapeutic process of building and it can be very relaxing. But it also might mean while you're building, you're missing out on some of those finer details and techniques. If you step back and think about how you apply that or how the designer came up with that technique, that can be something you might be able to carry forward into your own building.
36 likes
33 comments on this article
Could you make it clear which nation's LEGO Masters the article is about in the title and/or introduction?
@Paperdaisy said:
"Could you make it clear which nation's LEGO Masters the article is about in the title and/or introduction? "
It's the American one.
Great interview!
Since the finale I've started watching some of Nick's livestreams on Twitch. He has a great positive energy and it's very neat to be able to chime in and interact with him as he's building.
Funny thing about the trophy question—recently when the trophy was shipped to them it unfortunately arrived broken, but they took that as good luck since the producers are shipping another trophy in its place and meanwhile, Nick is planning to try to repair the broken one so they can each have one to keep.
If I recall (which I might be mis-remembering because this aired so long ago), they announced on the show that the winning design would be featured at Legoland New York. They did that for Season 1 too (which ended up airing long before the NY park opened thanks to COVID and construction delays.)
Anyway, I went to Legoland New York in June. The winning model from Season 1 was indeed on display...in a hallway to the hotel elevators. I figured they'd have it presented in some special place inside the park with lights on it and a little information plaque. Nope. It was in a plexiglass box on the way to the hotel elevators. Not even a little ceiling spotlight. So disappointing.
@PDelahanty said:
"If I recall (which I might be mis-remembering because this aired so long ago), they announced on the show that the winning design would be featured at Legoland New York. They did that for Season 1 too (which ended up airing long before the NY park opened thanks to COVID and construction delays.)
Anyway, I went to Legoland New York in June. The winning model from Season 1 was indeed on display...in a hallway to the hotel elevators. I figured they'd have it presented in some special place inside the park with lights on it and a little information plaque. Nope. It was in a plexiglass box on the way to the hotel elevators. Not even a little ceiling spotlight. So disappointing."
They're so bad at self promotion sometimes
First, I will say that I really enjoy the show. It is fun.
With that said, this season showed me just how much they decide the outcome in advance. If they want this show to succeed, they need to do a better job of hiding the "management" process.
@MaxA said:
"First, I will say that I really enjoy the show. It is fun.
With that said, this season showed me just how much they decide the outcome in advance. If they want this show to succeed, they need to do a better job of hiding the "management" process."
How so? What do you mean they decided in advance?
@MaxA said:
"First, I will say that I really enjoy the show. It is fun.
With that said, this season showed me just how much they decide the outcome in advance. If they want this show to succeed, they need to do a better job of hiding the "management" process."
As much as I truly enjoy Australian edition and seasons 1&2 US, this series was a really unfunny joke.
Nick and Stacey were great despite their missteps. Loved their energy. But they learned and moved on and delivered a great (and fun!) build that was deserving of the win for that episode...which would give them the title :)
@PDelahanty said:
"If I recall (which I might be mis-remembering because this aired so long ago), they announced on the show that the winning design would be featured at Legoland New York. They did that for Season 1 too (which ended up airing long before the NY park opened thanks to COVID and construction delays.)
Anyway, I went to Legoland New York in June. The winning model from Season 1 was indeed on display...in a hallway to the hotel elevators. I figured they'd have it presented in some special place inside the park with lights on it and a little information plaque. Nope. It was in a plexiglass box on the way to the hotel elevators. Not even a little ceiling spotlight. So disappointing."
It used to be in the BIG Shop inside the park, but probably the same plexiglass box, nothing too special. And yes, I remember them announcing this year's winner would also be on display at LLNY.
@monkyby87 said:
" @MaxA said:
"First, I will say that I really enjoy the show. It is fun.
With that said, this season showed me just how much they decide the outcome in advance. If they want this show to succeed, they need to do a better job of hiding the "management" process."
How so? What do you mean they decided in advance?
"
It might have just been the editing, but I got the same feeling about the competition being somewhat curated. It was probably just the editing.
@ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @MaxA said:
"First, I will say that I really enjoy the show. It is fun.
With that said, this season showed me just how much they decide the outcome in advance. If they want this show to succeed, they need to do a better job of hiding the "management" process."
How so? What do you mean they decided in advance?
"
It might have just been the editing, but I got the same feeling about the competition being somewhat curated. It was probably just the editing."
I agree with the editing, that you can tell who is going to be in the bottom and make predictions. I wouldn’t say the show is scripted, I think they just edit in a way that leads to you know what’s going to happen.
@monkyby87 said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @MaxA said:
"First, I will say that I really enjoy the show. It is fun.
With that said, this season showed me just how much they decide the outcome in advance. If they want this show to succeed, they need to do a better job of hiding the "management" process."
How so? What do you mean they decided in advance?
"
It might have just been the editing, but I got the same feeling about the competition being somewhat curated. It was probably just the editing."
I agree with the editing, that you can tell who is going to be in the bottom and make predictions. I wouldn’t say the show is scripted, I think they just edit in a way that leads to you know what’s going to happen.
"
Yes and no. In a way, they edit it to try and throw off casual viewers to make it more exciting. But, it is clear that they know who they want to keep from the very beginning. It's probably too much to explain, and I don't know that anybody would accept any "proof" anyway. But, if anyone is curious, it is somewhat easy to figure out based on the editing, and the responses from the people interviewed after they are sent home. As an example, you'll hear in a post-show interview that a contestant will say "I really wish they hadn't left out that you needed to use exactly 11 minifigures... it explains why we were so focused on that point". Seems innocuous, but when you watch the show again, you realize that the winners from that week also forgot to have 11 minifigures; they edit out that requirement so they can justify keeping who they want. (this is just an example, not a specific situation)
I don't want to make this a bigger deal than it is. It is a subjective competition. It's a reality show. They're almost all scripted. Why do they pick certain people to win? Target market demographics. They're going after more exposure by who they select.
With that said, I still REALLY like this show. We watch it as a family and are always excited for it. Also, the winners are great builders. Almost all of the teams are... it's not really a grand conspiracy. It's more of a comment on how to improve the enjoyment of an already fun show.
I don’t think it’s clear they know who they want to keep, again, it’s just editing. The interviews are all done after the fact, and maybe at the end of everything, not even just the particular episodes.
@MaxA said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @MaxA said:
"First, I will say that I really enjoy the show. It is fun.
With that said, this season showed me just how much they decide the outcome in advance. If they want this show to succeed, they need to do a better job of hiding the "management" process."
How so? What do you mean they decided in advance?
"
It might have just been the editing, but I got the same feeling about the competition being somewhat curated. It was probably just the editing."
I agree with the editing, that you can tell who is going to be in the bottom and make predictions. I wouldn’t say the show is scripted, I think they just edit in a way that leads to you know what’s going to happen.
"
Yes and no. In a way, they edit it to try and throw off casual viewers to make it more exciting. But, it is clear that they know who they want to keep from the very beginning. It's probably too much to explain, and I don't know that anybody would accept any "proof" anyway. But, if anyone is curious, it is somewhat easy to figure out based on the editing, and the responses from the people interviewed after they are sent home. As an example, you'll hear in a post-show interview that a contestant will say "I really wish they hadn't left out that you needed to use exactly 11 minifigures... it explains why we were so focused on that point". Seems innocuous, but when you watch the show again, you realize that the winners from that week also forgot to have 11 minifigures; they edit out that requirement so they can justify keeping who they want. (this is just an example, not a specific situation)
I don't want to make this a bigger deal than it is. It is a subjective competition. It's a reality show. They're almost all scripted. Why do they pick certain people to win? Target market demographics. They're going after more exposure by who they select.
With that said, I still REALLY like this show. We watch it as a family and are always excited for it. Also, the winners are great builders. Almost all of the teams are... it's not really a grand conspiracy. It's more of a comment on how to improve the enjoyment of an already fun show."
Reality shows being scripted or preplanned in any way not explicitly shown to the viewer is one of the absolute biggest myths of television and based solely on innocent ignorance. It is literally illegal to do that. Federally illegal. Law 47 U.S.C. 509 prohibits any intentional rigging/scripting of nationally aired television/radio competitions that have a prize and involve knowledge, skill or chance. And the FCC does not mess around. TV shows have literally been scrapped before airing simply because of a threat to investigate them for potentially violating this law. Look into "Our Little Genius" for an example. Any producer caught would essentially have their career ended, and they'd probably get jail time too. There's therefore not even a point to try and get away with it. In fact, shows do the opposite by ensuring they have proof that there is no rigging/scripting. Shows like American Idol and AGT use neutral 3rd parties who answer to the FCC to count their votes. Shows like Survivor invite reporters from various media outlets to come and watch tapings. So not only can they legally not rig or script anything, all of them have measures in place to show the FCC that they aren't.
Now, can editing show favoritism and who is getting sent home? Sure. But is there any reason at all for them to reveal an elimination before it happens? Absolutely not. That would go against every advertising, marketing and storytelling tactic ever.
In most weeks it was obvious to more experienced fans who the worst build was, regardless of editing. So I think you're just conflating knowing who it was going to be deep down through your knowledge with them "showing you" through editing.
@TheBrickGuru24 said:
Are you familiar with that law? It’s really only ever been applied to quiz-based shows. Never against a subjective competition.
That’s because it doesn’t apply. Even when Survivor was accused of cheating, they never had an investigation around that law.
Our Little Genius related to literally providing answers to questions. In shows like Lego Masters, there is no expectation of objectivity, so none of that would apply.
Shows like this can be and absolutely are “rigged”. It is not illegal, and there is no what for it to be considered illegal. The judge is Lego about what Lego they think is the most Lego. How would any jury ever be convinced that Lego is misrepresenting things?
Thanks for the interviews! I won't watch another season of US Lego Masters anymore though, it was 90% about the show aspect and 10% about Lego. They barely even comment on the models. Definitely the worst of all versions from different countries I have watched.
@MaxA said:
" @TheBrickGuru24 said:
Are you familiar with that law? It’s really only ever been applied to quiz-based shows. Never against a subjective competition.
That’s because it doesn’t apply. Even when Survivor was accused of cheating, they never had an investigation around that law.
Our Little Genius related to literally providing answers to questions. In shows like Lego Masters, there is no expectation of objectivity, so none of that would apply.
Shows like this can be and absolutely are “rigged”. It is not illegal, and there is no what for it to be considered illegal. The judge is Lego about what Lego they think is the most Lego. How would any jury ever be convinced that Lego is misrepresenting things?"
I've written a research paper on it Max. You sound like you just read about it for five minutes, and not well. It absolutely applies. Here's a scholarly article all about how the FCC fights fake REALITY shows with this law: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/chapman-law-review/vol22/iss2/12/
What Our Little Genius was accused of is just one of the MANY illegal activities the law covers. These violations include: prearranging an outcome, predetermining an outcome, bribery, intimidation and providing special and/or secret assistance that automatically leads to a predetermined/prearranged outcome. That goes for anyone involved in the show, including judges.
I mean seriously, if anyone actually bothered to go read the law, it's right there in plain sight:
"To engage in any artifice or scheme for the purpose of prearranging or predetermining in whole or in part the outcome of a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance."
It's only been used against quiz shows because hardly any show has even dared to go against it since the Quiz Show scandals of the 50's. And it wasn't discussed in the Survivor cheating accusations because it didn't apply. Any legitimate accusations about cheating in Survivor involved contestants breaking the rules of the game on their own, and the only accusations involving showrunners have been baseless claims by former contestants with zero proof behind them. If you believe any of them without proof, such as the contestant that accused the show of promising to pay taxes on his winnings in an effort to not go to prison for refusing to pay his taxes, that's just confirmation bias my friend.
You and anyone upvoting you who believes in these claims without proper research are just being lazy. Please think critically and logically, not with your emotions. It's 100% illegal to do what you're implying. Subjectivity may be able to hide it for a while, but not forever. I HIGHLY doubt Amy and Jamie willingly signed up to potentially have their careers ruined were the FCC to get suspicious and ask them to painstakingly explain their thought processes (along with asking plenty of other experts for their opinions), instead of, you know, signing up to genuinely judge something they are experts in. And like I've mentioned, did we as viewers not know who the clear worst build was most weeks anyways? Their decision was often not that hard aside from the sadness of sending people home.
Occam's Razor. Use it more.
I really enjoyed Nick & Stacey's builds. The ballerina riding the bull was so creative. Their final build was great, it looked like a real cabinet and the toys they built looked like they belonged in the cabinet.
I think this season had a lot of good builders. The challenges were fun to watch and I looked forward to each show. I wish Fox would not mess around with the show schedule, that was very frustrating. Amy & Jamie are really good judges. They give advice to the teams to improve areas that are lacking to help them succeed. They are sad to say goodbye to the losing team, and the teams are sad too. This gives the show a real heart and soul for me. Will has some off the wall humor that I enjoy as well and I think helps the builders to have fun while building.
Thank you Megan for these exit interviews. It is nice to see and hear how well the teams all get along and wish each other well. Also that they stay connected even after the show. LEGO Masters has really done a lot to validate adults enjoying & playing with LEGO. Showing that LEGO is not just for kids. Hopefully there will be another season.
@TheBrickGuru24 said:
Well, though I could fall back on “as soon as the other person results to ad hominem, the outcome has become clear”… I think you might find it interesting that I am familiar with that article.
You see, my experience with this topic goes beyond the theoretical or academic (not with game shows, but with contests and sweepstakes). As such, I’ve had to work with lawyers on this exact statute. From the article you posted, here is a relevant passage that I’d like you to address:
“ the FCC appears to agree with Professor Podlas’s interpretation of the “intellectual” element, and narrowly defines the skills that are sufficiently “intellectual” enough to qualify a contest for enforcement. Contests that exploit non-intellectual skills, like singing, dancing, or even comedy, receive no protection under the statute, with the Commission summarily dismissing such complaints without any investigation.”
Do you have a response to that? Or, do you have your own published paper that you could share?
@MaxA said:
" @TheBrickGuru24 said:
Well, though I could fall back on “as soon as the other person results to ad hominem, the outcome has become clear”… I think you might find it interesting that I am familiar with that article.
You see, my experience with this topic goes beyond the theoretical or academic (not with game shows, but with contests and sweepstakes). As such, I’ve had to work with lawyers on this exact statute. From the article you posted, here is a relevant passage that I’d like you to address:
“ the FCC appears to agree with Professor Podlas’s interpretation of the “intellectual” element, and narrowly defines the skills that are sufficiently “intellectual” enough to qualify a contest for enforcement. Contests that exploit non-intellectual skills, like singing, dancing, or even comedy, receive no protection under the statute, with the Commission summarily dismissing such complaints without any investigation.”
Do you have a response to that? Or, do you have your own published paper that you could share?
"
Jesus, someone likes to hear themselves talk. The bottom line is, you have no evidence, anymore than I do, if the show is or isn’t scripted. The editing each episode does tend to show who will be sent home, but that’s editing, not the show being rigged.
@monkyby87 said:
" @MaxA said:
" @TheBrickGuru24 said:
Well, though I could fall back on “as soon as the other person results to ad hominem, the outcome has become clear”… I think you might find it interesting that I am familiar with that article.
You see, my experience with this topic goes beyond the theoretical or academic (not with game shows, but with contests and sweepstakes). As such, I’ve had to work with lawyers on this exact statute. From the article you posted, here is a relevant passage that I’d like you to address:
“ the FCC appears to agree with Professor Podlas’s interpretation of the “intellectual” element, and narrowly defines the skills that are sufficiently “intellectual” enough to qualify a contest for enforcement. Contests that exploit non-intellectual skills, like singing, dancing, or even comedy, receive no protection under the statute, with the Commission summarily dismissing such complaints without any investigation.”
Do you have a response to that? Or, do you have your own published paper that you could share?
"
Jesus, someone likes to hear themselves talk. The bottom line is, you have no evidence, anymore than I do, if the show is or isn’t scripted. The editing each episode does tend to show who will be sent home, but that’s editing, not the show being rigged. "
Lol, I guess I’ll give the same response to you… resorting to ad hominem proves nothing, and your response that I don’t have any “evidence” is a little odd. I haven’t presented any, but I will point out that evidence is not the same as proof. Do I have proof? No, but there is evidence.
@MaxA said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @MaxA said:
" @TheBrickGuru24 said:
Well, though I could fall back on “as soon as the other person results to ad hominem, the outcome has become clear”… I think you might find it interesting that I am familiar with that article.
You see, my experience with this topic goes beyond the theoretical or academic (not with game shows, but with contests and sweepstakes). As such, I’ve had to work with lawyers on this exact statute. From the article you posted, here is a relevant passage that I’d like you to address:
“ the FCC appears to agree with Professor Podlas’s interpretation of the “intellectual” element, and narrowly defines the skills that are sufficiently “intellectual” enough to qualify a contest for enforcement. Contests that exploit non-intellectual skills, like singing, dancing, or even comedy, receive no protection under the statute, with the Commission summarily dismissing such complaints without any investigation.”
Do you have a response to that? Or, do you have your own published paper that you could share?
"
Jesus, someone likes to hear themselves talk. The bottom line is, you have no evidence, anymore than I do, if the show is or isn’t scripted. The editing each episode does tend to show who will be sent home, but that’s editing, not the show being rigged. "
Lol, I guess I’ll give the same response to you… resorting to ad hominem proves nothing, and your response that I don’t have any “evidence” is a little odd. I haven’t presented any, but I will point out that evidence is not the same as proof. Do I have proof? No, but there is evidence.
"
Except there isn't. At all. Your argument is ridiculous and chock full of cherry picking. Such as, what on earth do singing and dancing have to do with LEGO Masters? If LEGO building isn't a contest of knowledge and intellectual skill then by all means, tell me what it is. I would love to know.
Also, that quote indicates nothing. It's literally just a guess. We don't know what exactly the FCC deems as "skill", though we do know two, very obvious things. One, there's not a single person on this planet who thinks that singing, dancing and comedy aren't skills, unless they are stretching a country mile to satisfy an argument. By the definition of the word, skill is a learned ability. These people aren't coming out of the womb knowing how to sing or dance or tell jokes. Those are 100% skills. And if you want to add intellectual to the mix, that just means mental. Name me one person who can sing or dance without using their brain. Heck, what is a quiz show about? Knowledge and memorization. What do singers, dancers and comedians draw from to perform routines? Knowledge and memorization. It's common sense.
And two, if a competition show is sketchy enough to where it starts getting press for being sketchy, the FCC will absolutely investigate it. There are zero positives and a lot of negatives to not doing so simply because of some definition. I actually highly doubt they have a specific set definition they follow, seeing as they can effectively do whatever they want within the limits of their jurisdiction, and investigating any show they deem in potential violation of any law is not only within their jurisdiction, it's why they were created in the first place. Like, be real here. They don't even let a single curse word go. Credible (which is a key word here) accusations of rigging/scripting? Not a chance.
Lastly, to use ad hominem is to target a person rather than the argument that person is making. Calling people lazy for not doing proper research is explicitly addressing both, therefore, not ad hominem. And even though "someone likes to hear themselves talk" is indeed ad hominem, I wholeheartedly agree. Kindly get off your obnoxious holier than thou high horse. It isn't impressing anybody.
@TheBrickGuru24 said:
[[ @MaxA said:
[[ @monkyby87 said:
[[ @MaxA said:
[[ @TheBrickGuru24 said:
Well, though I could fall back on “as soon as the other person results to ad hominem, the outcome has become clear”… I think you might find it interesting that I am familiar with that article.
You see, my experience with this topic goes beyond the theoretical or academic (not with game shows, but with contests and sweepstakes). As such, I’ve had to work with lawyers on this exact statute. From the article you posted, here is a relevant passage that I’d like you to address:
“ the FCC appears to agree with Professor Podlas’s interpretation of the “intellectual” element, and narrowly defines the skills that are sufficiently “intellectual” enough to qualify a contest for enforcement. Contests that exploit non-intellectual skills, like singing, dancing, or even comedy, receive no protection under the statute, with the Commission summarily dismissing such complaints without any investigation.”
Do you have a response to that? Or, do you have your own published paper that you could share?
]]
Jesus, someone likes to hear themselves talk. The bottom line is, you have no evidence, anymore than I do, if the show is or isn’t scripted. The editing each episode does tend to show who will be sent home, but that’s editing, not the show being rigged. ]]
Lol, I guess I’ll give the same response to you… resorting to ad hominem proves nothing, and your response that I don’t have any “evidence” is a little odd. I haven’t presented any, but I will point out that evidence is not the same as proof. Do I have proof? No, but there is evidence.
]]
Except there isn't. At all. Your argument is ridiculous and chock full of cherry picking. Such as, what on earth do singing and dancing have to do with LEGO Masters? If LEGO building isn't a contest of knowledge and intellectual skill then by all means, tell me what it is. I would love to know.
Also, that quote indicates nothing. It's literally just a guess. We don't know what exactly the FCC deems as "skill", though we do know two, very obvious things. One, there's not a single person on this planet who thinks that singing, dancing and comedy aren't skills, unless they are stretching a country mile to satisfy an argument. By the definition of the word, skill is a learned ability. These people aren't coming out of the womb knowing how to sing or dance or tell jokes. Those are 100% skills. And if you want to add intellectual to the mix, that just means mental. Name me one person who can sing or dance without using their brain. Heck, what is a quiz show about? Knowledge and memorization. What do singers, dancers and comedians draw from to perform routines? Knowledge and memorization. It's common sense.
And two, if a competition show is sketchy enough to where it starts getting press for being sketchy, the FCC will absolutely investigate it. There are zero positives and a lot of negatives to not doing so simply because of some definition. I actually highly doubt they have a specific set definition they follow, seeing as they can effectively do whatever they want within the limits of their jurisdiction, and investigating any show they deem in potential violation of any law is not only within their jurisdiction, it's why they were created in the first place. Like, be real here. They don't even let a single curse word go. Credible (which is a key word here) accusations of rigging/scripting? Not a chance.
Lastly, to use ad hominem is to target a person rather than the argument that person is making. Calling people lazy for not doing proper research is explicitly addressing both, therefore, not ad hominem. And even though "someone likes to hear themselves talk" is indeed ad hominem, I wholeheartedly agree. Kindly get off your obnoxious holier than thou high horse. It isn't impressing anybod
@MaxA said:
Something that nobody can read because your comment got cut off. Good thing there was likely no point in reading it anyways!
@TheBrickGuru24 said:
" @MaxA said:
Something that nobody can read because your comment got cut off. Good thing there was likely no point in reading it anyways!
"
Aw, man... that's rough. Oh well, it wasn't that long of a reply.
First, the article that you provided is where that quote came from. In it, the author explains that singing, dancing and comedy would not be considered "intellectual" skill by the FCC. It isn't about what is or is not a "skill", it is talking about "intellectual" skill, which the author clearly defines and supports from FCC filings and decisions.
Now, you can disagree with the article, obviously. However, I don't understand why you would post the article only to reject the author's premise.
Do you have a case or article you can cite where the initial law you brought up has ever been applied to a competition that wasn't a "trivia" competition or sweepstakes/drawing?
Second, calling someone lazy is absolutely ad hominem. It is an attack on character based on your opinion. Your agreement with the insult does not change what it is.
You're obviously free to continue insulting me, but what does that do? Does it make you feel better?
@MaxA said:
" @TheBrickGuru24 said:
" @MaxA said:
Something that nobody can read because your comment got cut off. Good thing there was likely no point in reading it anyways!
"
Aw, man... that's rough. Oh well, it wasn't that long of a reply.
First, the article that you provided is where that quote came from. In it, the author explains that singing, dancing and comedy would not be considered "intellectual" skill by the FCC. It isn't about what is or is not a "skill", it is talking about "intellectual" skill, which the author clearly defines and supports from FCC filings and decisions.
Now, you can disagree with the article, obviously. However, I don't understand why you would post the article only to reject the author's premise.
Do you have a case or article you can cite where the initial law you brought up has ever been applied to a competition that wasn't a "trivia" competition or sweepstakes/drawing?
Second, calling someone lazy is absolutely ad hominem. It is an attack on character based on your opinion. Your agreement with the insult does not change what it is.
You're obviously free to continue insulting me, but what does that do? Does it make you feel better?"
Buddy, it's not opinion that people are too lazy to look up the law for themselves lol. And it absolutely applies to the argument. If someone does not do proper research for their argument and it shows, saying that is absolutely not ad hominem. It is pointing out the facts.
Now, in that very article, the author does in fact NOT state that. The author, George Brietigam, cites another individual, Podlas, who guesses. Assumes. Makes up a potential definition based on what they know. That is not a credible source in the slightest, much less official. Don't try and act like it is.
Furthermore, I already laid out, loud and clear, that adding "intellectual" to "skill" is basically redundant since every skill requires a brain to accomplish. Don't ignore that and think you can get away with it.
I also specifically stated that no, there is not an example, but only because nobody had dared to try and defy it since the 50's, back when quiz shows and shows of chance were the only type of "reality show" that existed, and that the absence of such an example was not proof whatsoever that the law didn't apply to any reality show that tries to break it. Don't ignore that either.
You are terrible at this, but think you are great at it. It's both sad and incredibly annoying.
And honestly, the fact that you didn't even get the author right, who ends the article with this:
A plain reading
of the statute, and one case that was summarily dismissed by the
FCC, suggests that the statute might only be applicable only to
contests of a narrowly defined “intellectual” nature, or contests of
pure chance. But, without any appellate level court decisions on
the matter, it is still impossible to say with certainty if the
statute is really so limited.
...has me thinking you're just plain full of crap.
@TheBrickGuru24 said:
@TheBrickGuru24 said:
******
I’m sorry I summarized in a way that was confusing. However, the author did cite that person, and goes on to say that the FCC did seem to agree in practice. The statement you quoted at the end of your post does nothing to refute that point; only stating that there is no case law so it isn’t proven.
I would argue that the author (and you) makes the point that the FCC is aggressive in their enforcement. I agree. That makes the lack of cases noteworthy and supportive of my point.
You’ve stated that you believe that the reason for a lack of cases is because nobody has dared to break that law. That seems to strain credulity, because laws are always reactive. They aren’t created in anticipation, they are created because of things that have already happened. Moreover… name a law that exists that hasn’t ever been broken. I sincerely doubt it’s just that nobody has tried. So, considering that the FCC does like to expand its influence and this specific law is cited quite often, it is logical to surmise that the FCC does not believe the law applies to non-quiz, non-lottery broadcasts. Because there have been civil cases against shows like Survivor and music competitions. Yet, the FCC has never once pursued it. An argument from silence isn’t exactly damning, but it is suspicious.
The reason for that, I believe, is that it would be impossible to prove. How would one even accuse Lego of a deceptive practice? They are judging their own show on their own IP? What would the basis of the complaint be? Lego is lying about what they like?
@MaxA said:
" @TheBrickGuru24 said:
@TheBrickGuru24 said:
******
I’m sorry I summarized in a way that was confusing."
Lol. No. You don't get to do that. You did not summarize in a way that was "confusing". You outright gave false info. Multiple times. And I QUOTE,
"First, the article that you provided is where that quote came from. In it, the author explains that singing, dancing and comedy would not be considered "intellectual" skill by the FCC. It isn't about what is or is not a "skill", it is talking about "intellectual" skill, which the author clearly defines and supports from FCC filings and decisions.
Podlas makes those claims and draws those conclusions, NOT the actual author. The author never proves that the FCC things of things the same way, and their premise is clearly that of research and speculation, NOT conclusion. The first sentence is the only true part of this entire paragraph. The rest of it is wrong. Strike one.
Not only that, the article SPECIFICALLY mentions Survivor as a show that likely qualifies under Podlas' strict definition of intellectual skill due to all its various challenges and the psychological strategy required to win. Yet here you are lumping it in with the rest. Strike two.
Furthermore, significant portions of this article go over the following:
-With the law being written so long ago with all-encompassing language covering all types of reality shows at the time, it is very likely that the government intended for all types of reality shows to fall under the rule, both back then and in the future (which is far more plausible than your crappy theories about what "intellectual" means).
-The fact that there hasn't been a single civil case for a TV show that has been dismissed underneath this law, every single one of them has been dismissed under something else (meaning that there is indeed not a single case in TV in which this law has had to come into play).
-Multiple "singing, dancing, etc." reality shows referencing the law in their various legal texts, giving the sense that they at least believe that they are underneath it.
...all of which you just completely have not acknowledged. Strikes three, four and five.
And the law in its current form indeed exists because of those quiz show scandals from the 50's, which we have literally mentioned several times, so that argument is out of the window and I genuinely have no clue why you even thought it was a good one. Strike six. Congrats, you got yourself out twice.
I already explained how they could go about easily proving fraudulent judging in this competition by asking for detailed explanations from the judges and get as many opinions as they wanted to from other experts, not to mention the fact that the audience knew who was going home most weeks anyways, and yet you have again chosen to just ignore my words.
But that's honestly not what I'm concerned about anymore. You have claimed yourself to be an apparent professional with experience in the subject who as such should be able to reference this article correctly and fairly, and yet at every turn you have either quoted it out of context, either purposefully or incidentally missed key portions of it, or just straight lied about it. It reminds me quite a lot of a kid who skims a book and then tries (and fails) to do a book report.
What's more, is you have in fact seemingly abandoned the whole "I know I'm right because I've dealt with it" facade and instead delved into this article completely, arguing with me about its various points without uttering a single piece of knowledge about the law or law in general that isn't common sense, in the article or easily searchable. Which seems pretty weird for someone who should know quite a lot of applicable things that don't fall under any of those categories.
So here's MY conclusion: You're a fraud and a waste of time. Get lost.
@TheBrickGuru24 said:
Lots to unpack here:
1. Yes, the author was quoting someone else. However, they didn’t refute that person and then summarized later that the FCC could go either way. So, it could go either way. From the quote you provided: “But, without any appellate level court decisions on the matter, it is still impossible to say with certainty if the statute is really so limited.” So, because the author comes down on the side of “it could go either way”, I think it is fair to say that they don’t disagree. If you want to say that is lying, i guess that’s fine. This site tends to drop posts and I have had to retype multiple replies and I get shorter each time. However, I wasn’t intentionally trying to mislead, just typing fast and cutting things while editing.
2. Shows like to cover their butts… I’m ignoring it because I don’t think it is relevant. Corporations regularly go overboard when trying to protect themselves from lawsuits. Regardless, just because the suits have been dismissed doesn’t mean the FCC, which can prosecute proactively, has no grounds to go after the shows (if they thought there was a valid reason).
3. Yup, the law is old, and they haven’t ever decided to change it. I think that is telling.
I’m not sure what you’re referencing with the statement that “the audience knew…”. Can you clarify? Multiple threads crossing and I am not sure what this is about.
And, I haven’t abandoned anything. Did you need me to repeat it? I have dealt with this scenario multiple times. No, I’m not a lawyer. No, I’m not involved in Hollywood at all. I work in corporate America and these things are fairly common. I didn’t think it was that big of a deal. You remembered that I said it… I’m not sure why you think I abandoned that point? It was only mentioned to explain why it is an interesting topic for me.
What it comes down to is that you say the article is firmly on your side. However, it clearly states that that the law could be interpreted either way. Can you at least acknowledge that?
@MaxA said:
" @TheBrickGuru24 said:
Lots to unpack here:
1. Yes, the author was quoting someone else. However, they didn’t refute that person and then summarized later that the FCC could go either way. So, it could go either way. From the quote you provided: “But, without any appellate level court decisions on the matter, it is still impossible to say with certainty if the statute is really so limited.” So, because the author comes down on the side of “it could go either way”, I think it is fair to say that they don’t disagree. If you want to say that is lying, i guess that’s fine. This site tends to drop posts and I have had to retype multiple replies and I get shorter each time. However, I wasn’t intentionally trying to mislead, just typing fast and cutting things while editing.
2. Shows like to cover their butts… I’m ignoring it because I don’t think it is relevant. Corporations regularly go overboard when trying to protect themselves from lawsuits. Regardless, just because the suits have been dismissed doesn’t mean the FCC, which can prosecute proactively, has no grounds to go after the shows (if they thought there was a valid reason).
3. Yup, the law is old, and they haven’t ever decided to change it. I think that is telling.
I’m not sure what you’re referencing with the statement that “the audience knew…”. Can you clarify? Multiple threads crossing and I am not sure what this is about.
And, I haven’t abandoned anything. Did you need me to repeat it? I have dealt with this scenario multiple times. No, I’m not a lawyer. No, I’m not involved in Hollywood at all. I work in corporate America and these things are fairly common. I didn’t think it was that big of a deal. You remembered that I said it… I’m not sure why you think I abandoned that point? It was only mentioned to explain why it is an interesting topic for me.
What it comes down to is that you say the article is firmly on your side. However, it clearly states that that the law could be interpreted either way. Can you at least acknowledge that?
"
So your argument basically boils down to "nobody knows for sure, so I'm going to assume this and agree with this person because it fits my viewpoint" and the appeal to authority fallacy. That's a terrible argument my friend. It backs me up because if you were to actually read the entire thing, you'd understand that it is not merely about interpretation, it is discussing the FCC's activities with said law and tries to figure out their interpretation to no avail. Most laws that should be changed just don't get changed. Doesn't mean the government didn't clearly intend for all reality shows back then and in the future to be covered under the law when they wrote it, and if the government of today wasn't honoring that, I'd be shellshocked.
And you are the one trying to cover your butt by trying to make a convincing argument that you didn't think she was the author, and utterly failing. It's up there in plain sight dude. You wrote it. You then reiterated it in the next paragraph. Don't give me that editing crap.
It was a waste of time talking to you. So foolish and stubborn and yet educated enough to sound smart. The worst combination. You should run for the government.
@TheBrickGuru24 said:
" @MaxA said:
" @TheBrickGuru24 said:
Lots to unpack here:
1.
What it comes down to is that you say the article is firmly on your side. However, it clearly states that that the law could be interpreted either way. Can you at least acknowledge that?
"
So your argument basically boils down to "nobody knows for sure, so I'm going to assume this and agree with this person because it fits my viewpoint" and the appeal to authority fallacy. That's a terrible argument my friend. It backs me up because if you were to actually read the entire thing, you'd understand that it is not merely about interpretation, it is discussing the FCC's activities with said law and tries to figure out their interpretation to no avail. Most laws that should be changed just don't get changed. Doesn't mean the government didn't clearly intend for all reality shows back then and in the future to be covered under the law when they wrote it, and if the government of today wasn't honoring that, I'd be shellshocked.
And you are the one trying to cover your butt by trying to make a convincing argument that you didn't think she was the author, and utterly failing. It's up there in plain sight dude. You wrote it. You then reiterated it in the next paragraph. Don't give me that editing crap.
It was a waste of time talking to you. So foolish and stubborn and yet educated enough to sound smart. The worst combination. You should run for the government."
Again, address the author’s own summary at the end, which states exactly what I said: it can be interpreted either way. You are the person who said the article supported your viewpoint when it does not.
I have said it before and you have evidence from your comment about my cut-off post that shows why I hastily responded in a confusing way. The author provides the quote and does not refute it. To me, that is at least agreement to the possibility.
You can keep jumping to “you’re stupid” or whatever insults you want, but you still have not answered that basic question: if the author for the article you chose, at best, states that it could be interpreted either way, why do you think it sided with you? To your own point, the article doesn’t even come to a solid conclusion.
I’m not the one who said the article agrees with me. You chose it and said it agreed with you. It does not. My position is and has been that it does not disagree with me.
@MaxA said:
" @TheBrickGuru24 said:
" @MaxA said:
" @TheBrickGuru24 said:
Lots to unpack here:
1.
What it comes down to is that you say the article is firmly on your side. However, it clearly states that that the law could be interpreted either way. Can you at least acknowledge that?
"
So your argument basically boils down to "nobody knows for sure, so I'm going to assume this and agree with this person because it fits my viewpoint" and the appeal to authority fallacy. That's a terrible argument my friend. It backs me up because if you were to actually read the entire thing, you'd understand that it is not merely about interpretation, it is discussing the FCC's activities with said law and tries to figure out their interpretation to no avail. Most laws that should be changed just don't get changed. Doesn't mean the government didn't clearly intend for all reality shows back then and in the future to be covered under the law when they wrote it, and if the government of today wasn't honoring that, I'd be shellshocked.
And you are the one trying to cover your butt by trying to make a convincing argument that you didn't think she was the author, and utterly failing. It's up there in plain sight dude. You wrote it. You then reiterated it in the next paragraph. Don't give me that editing crap.
It was a waste of time talking to you. So foolish and stubborn and yet educated enough to sound smart. The worst combination. You should run for the government."
Again, address the author’s own summary at the end, which states exactly what I said: it can be interpreted either way. You are the person who said the article supported your viewpoint when it does not.
I have said it before and you have evidence from your comment about my cut-off post that shows why I hastily responded in a confusing way. The author provides the quote and does not refute it. To me, that is at least agreement to the possibility.
You can keep jumping to “you’re stupid” or whatever insults you want, but you still have not answered that basic question: if the author for the article you chose, at best, states that it could be interpreted either way, why do you think it sided with you? To your own point, the article doesn’t even come to a solid conclusion.
I’m not the one who said the article agrees with me. You chose it and said it agreed with you. It does not. My position is and has been that it does not disagree with me. "
It's almost as if I was always talking about the content discussed in the text and not the author's own personal conclusion at the end. One that basically isn't even a conclusion at all, it's just an open ended statement and in no way negates the rest of the text, which is very much obvious when you read the entire thing. You aren't even trying anymore lol.
And I'm never going to believe that you knew who the author actually was, so just stop trying. Your words were not rushed nor did they even look like it. You were just wrong, again, and refuse to accept it.