Yuku free message boards

Separate post, separate thought. If M is so confusing, I vote to kill it. I think it has merit, obviously, and is not confusing, but I would rather have clear concise data collected. So end it if that is a majority opinion. Better to go that route than have a divide, or people not using it, which dilutes it anyway.

Michael

I think the point I am making is that sometimes a character is presented both a P and N manner in one 60 minute episode, meaning that in one episode a player received both. Nothing more, nothing complex included. Not tied to rating or visibility. Seeing it tells me that character got a Tone rating, where seeing neutral tells me a player did not.

It addresses a specific concern, letting us know the character was given a Tone in an episode. There's no evidence that there is too P to win, nor too N, by the way, just that over the course of a season they should normally have both. (Danni not so much, but...). It's the lack of Tone that kills. Mixed immediately shows Tone was present in one episode where a neutral does not. If a very P player gets an M rating, that is that little bit of immediate knowledge that some N crept in, and that's better than seeing a neutral because there is no other option.

You said all meaningful edits are Mixed in Tone. That's a season view. M is per episode. I know you know it, but it seems I need to draw that out. Viewing the season as a whole, seeing an episode with neutral doesn't conjour anything. Seeing an M reminds me that that player was shaped with Tone, and I'd better review why.

SPV already helps guide a viewer to a Tone. Someone is called lazy and is shown lazy, he's N. He's called lazy, he's shown working hard, the speaker is wrong. Please watch it closely, but Tone is meant to give an emotional reaction. Of course not everyone agrees. That's okay.

Michael

One last observation. Sorry for the length of the post. Have a few minutes to type at work then I am gone for a weekend of recording some new songs and maybe playing a show, amazingly enough.

I have seen the theory that Mixed makes you less likely to give out Tone. I don't agree. But it needs to be applied correctly. The idea I think I'm hearing is that Mixed makes one less likely to give out any Tone at all. No, it doesn't, and shouldn't. If you see nothing, vote neutral. If both Tones are strongly enforced, vote Mixed. Otherwise, apply the proper Tone.

Here's the heart of the guidelines on page one. And I guess I have a big concern about it that is spilling into this arena.

3) Typically the winner is not overly Positive or Negative.

What does that mean, folks? The winner is not "overly" positive. Was Tom overly Positive? You certainly might think so by the end of the season of the heroic fireman if you count P's. He had a ton of very layered, positive episodes. Fans clearly were meant to root for him. He was the "stand up guy." The balance was that he also clearly went N a few times. Not often, but enough to make you weigh what you thought about him. To see both sides. Meaningful edit. The winner could be Positive 12 out of 13 episodes. But it's that one opposite response, bringing everything into question that separated Tom from Stephenie. Counting the number of P episodes doesn't get to the crux of "overly positive."

The scenario I wrote earlier about the all Tom episode was extreme to make a point. The balance may come as it did there, but also could easily occur alongside something where an alternate Tone would apply. To cop out and say neutral would be a mistake. Seeing Mixed tells me the editors did something with the character. That's why I think it is useful. When applied correctly, which is the heart of this debate, in my mind, Mixed lets me know that a character truly earned a Tone response. Nothing about rating or visibility, but that Tone was important to the character in that episode, and that I should weight that when looking at the character overall, and compared to other possible winners.

From four seasons of data, I do think being Mixed early is very bad, and if often given to a player is an Edgic eliminator. Winners are, over time, not "overly" P or N, but not based on the number of episodes. The "overly" part means that we see both sides, to make a well rounded, three dimensional player in front of the jury. Mixed helps me see that there was some rounding in any one episode that Willard never got, for instance.

I'm done with this pretty much, I know I'm repetitive. I think when applied properly, Mixed is helpful. I do not believe it keeps anyone from issuing P or N when they otherwise could have. I remember seeing all the P's Amber got in Allstars and wondering how so many kept being given out. I think we, or a portion of we at least, try to decipher when the editors really try to make point with Tone. Just smiling at someone and hugging them, which might have elicited sympathy in season 5, won't cut it. We're looking for concrete moments. Certain times when Tone is intended. When Pastordice had to defend the lack of Tone in episode 1 of Guatemala, he gave a great answer - that's how he saw the episode. If you see it, call it. But don't force it. I don't the system is broken. By dropping watchdogs, which I think is happening now that the need isn't great, by re-reading the guidelines, I think you'll find we are moving forward correctly. I just don't feel that Tone as it has been applied recently has proven harmful at all. If that's a minority opinion, or a majority, it's all good. From Parvati back to Aras, we know what we're doing, and most had Todd on the radar. We are doing things fine, by my estimation.

But I'm glad all want to improve it. We have a little time for refinements before the Gabon season starts. Why not make a recommendation if there is something concrete you want to change in the guidelines and simply give FLF some ability to approve it if consensus is there, so progress can be made.

Michael