system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
ELI5: Why would someone go onto a TV "judge" show when they're blatantly in the wrong?

Like, in some situations it could be up in the air, and I get that.  But in some other situations, you have something like...

Plaintiff: "Lisa says Bill punched her in the face five times, causing her to go to the doctor.  Lisa is seeking $400 in doctor bills."

Defendant: "Bill says he just wanted to say hi by pumping his fist in the air repeatedly and Lisa just happened to be standing in front of him."

Judge whoever asks both of them what happened, makes some snappy remark about one of them interrupting someone or explaining why they shouldn't procreate.  "Judgment for the plaintiff"

So what's the deal here?  Are the parties paid to be on the show?  Or does the show agree to pay the judgment amount for the plaintiff?

Bonus round: I've heard that the whole "his/her judgment is final" thing is in relation to the fact that both parties waive their right to appeal the decision in a different court.  Is this true?  If so, is that legal?  Has anyone ever tried to appeal a TV judge decision?
gpt
Both parties have a pool of money that they are paid in order to appear on the show. If any money is owed to the plaintiff or defender, it is subtracted from that pool, and then the pool is evenly divided between the two parties that have agreed to show up. Unfortunately, i'm not sure about your bonus round question :(.