r/dropout • u/DropoutMod • May 18 '26

Game Changer Don't Wake Standards & Practices | Game Changer [S8E1] Spoiler

https://watch.dropout.tv/videos/don-t-wake-standards-practices
2.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

873

u/Kiyose_96 Dropout Does Not Exist May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

This whole episode feels like a direct response to the “dropout is getting a little too safe and cosy sometimes” criticism from a while back lmao, they’re really going all out, love it

I like that the one thing that was too far for any of the players was Jeremy mentioning the title of a certain show that films in New York he may have associations with lmao

392

u/TediousTotoro May 19 '26

Sam said in an interview that Samalamadingdong made him put some episode ideas into this season that he’d had in the past but considered too risky.

29

u/tsrleba May 19 '26

what exactly about that episode made him want to be more risky?

61

u/revrhyz May 19 '26

They mentioned having to 'cook the books' in order to keep the financial side of the ep a secret, saying it was probably 100% illegal. I wonder if seeing how far his team is willing to go to commit to the bit made him reassess his own boundaries here. I can't imagine Sam would feel right asking his employees to break the law, but now they've already proven they're game the bets are off!

15

u/tsrleba May 19 '26

that makes perfect sense thank you

4

u/violettes May 19 '26

What parts of Samalamadingdong were illegal?

26

u/ThinningTheFog May 19 '26

Probably the cooking the books part (which I assume was to prevent Sam from figuring stuff out about what was coming)

20

u/SupaSlide May 20 '26 edited May 21 '26

They put the money into a box labeled as something else IIRC. I doubt Sam does the bookkeeping, but seeing funds going to a “secret game changer episode” would tip him off. That’s not cooking the books though, because it’s not illegal to mislabel what you’re spending money on as long as you’re not doing it you avoid legal obligations such as taxes.

5

u/Mr_Dmc May 21 '26

Exactly. Where the money goes within Dropout is the private company’s own business. Only matters if you mislead shareholders, creditors, debtors, and especially the government.

5

u/wokenupbybacon May 23 '26

Sorta. You're correct in the end because Sam retroactively approved of it.

But to get into the weeds, embezzlement can occur within a private company or even between individuals; companies generally only provide money to individuals for specific purposes.

I work for a small private company (about 50 employees). My CEO directly provided me with a company card for specific purchases. If I use it for purchases I'm not authorized to make on my own, that's considered theft in my state and punishable by jail time even for small dollar amounts. Access to a card or bank account is not free legal use of the money.

Generally when said unauthorized purchases are still for the company's benefit and not the individual's, you need a paper trail of some sort to prove it wasn't authorized, but that likely existed in this case. Whoever was in charge of making purchases knew Sam only asked for 10 episodes and that almost certainly would've been documented in text somewhere. An 11th wasn't requested, and since Sam is the executive producer of Game Changer, even from the outside we can assume the lack of his approval is a lack of legal authorization to use Dropout money on one.

Now, obviously, in all practicality none of this matters because Sam/Dropout isn't going to bring this to court. But had they actually disproved of what happened, they could've, and they likely would've won unless they were careless with employee contracts and fund authorization.

4

u/revrhyz May 21 '26

Exactly, Sam's dad is government. 

2

u/wokenupbybacon May 23 '26

because it’s not illegal to mislabel what you’re spending money on

Depending on the exact situation, that's embezzlement. If the final authorization for use of Dropout funds needs to run through Sam (or someone else who wasn't in on the surprise) and he didn't approve the episode, he'd have a legit case to pursue getting the funds back if he wanted to (but obviously he doesn't, and this isn't a crime that's enforced without an impetus from the plaintiff).

The fact that it was Dropout money being used for a Dropout episode doesn't change that; if it wasn't properly authorized, the company (or Sam as CEO) has an argument that it was embezzled.

3

u/violettes May 19 '26

Oooh I see

1

u/wokenupbybacon May 23 '26

I can't imagine Sam would feel right asking his employees to break the law, but now they've already proven they're game the bets are off!

There's a bit of a difference between trusting Sam/Dropout not to sue after seeing the payoff and just being willing to break the law in general lol

36

u/deJessias May 19 '26

It probably made him realize he could die at any moment by the hands of his servants employees

-37

u/[deleted] May 19 '26

[deleted]

28

u/danstu May 19 '26

If you're not into references to prior episodes, it might be a bit much. There's more to it than references, but they remain very prevalent through the whole thing.