Yuku free message boards

I am absolutely flabbergasted by two things going on right now:

1) Corrine winner picks

Holy shit, guys and gals. I cannot even fathom a reason why she is not 100% eliminated at this point. Even worse, I can't see why she is anyone's winner pick. Looking at the guidelines, I can't see it (INV=Death in all but one case EVER). Looking at it logically, I can't see it (Pagonging of NuKota is looking plausible). Looking at historically similar edits, I can't see it (Jerri and just about every other "Mean and Nasty Female Schemer" that has lost). Looking at the logic of her edit, I can't see it (Given that Corrine won, why would they edit her in an overwhelmingly negative light that highlights her strategic ineptitude and lack of social skills?).

2) The amount of backpedaling going on

Come on, Edgic. Let's not split hairs here. We all got totally fooled by Marcus and he was the overwhelming and dominant pick for the majority of the season (starting with episode one). Nearly every poster was labeling him the clear pick of Edgic. Yes, there were some people who were saying that Ken and Matty were not 100% eliminated, but even they acknowledged the strength of Marcus's edit. However, just because 17/18 people were not eliminated does not mean that a pick was not made. When you look back and read what has gone on in this thread, the unbending support for Marcus is undeniable. He was Edgic's pick up until the final vote that booted him was read.

So what would we have said about the success of Edgic if Marcus had gone on to win? Would we have said "Well we thought he was winning, but because Matty and Ken got officially eliminated by Edgic so late, it's only a partial victory. Also, because not 100% of people had Marcus as their winner by the merge, we still didn't quite get it right."

Of course not! Edgic would have RIGHTFULLY claimed victory for having nailed the winner from episode one. I can't imagine any reason to deny this, because we all know it's true (as it should be). Therefore, where's the logic in denying ownership now that it did not work out that way? If the early and near-unanimous pick goes on to win, it's considered a homerun. If they lose in mid-swing, shouldn't it be seen as a strikeout?

There's no logical support for this backpeddling argument. The way it works, Edgic cannot fail. If we're right, Edgic is brilliant. If we're wrong, well we never really picked that person anyway.

When Marcus was eliminated and the shower of haters arrived, many people did it right: "Hey we got it wrong, but we're happy about it. Edgic isn't perfect and this is a valuable experience. Laugh all you want, but it doesn't upset us!" However, now there are some people who are saying "Well there wasn't a merge yet TECHNICALLY so TECHNICALLY we didn't get it wrong yet! Ken is the merge pick!"

Ok, fine. We'll go down that road. Say there is a twist in a future season and the official merge occurs at the final 4. Are you suggesting to me that if Edgic can get it right when there are 5 people left, it is "successful?" Take it the other way. Say a season occurs where they merge immediately. To "succeed," should Edgic be expected to have it figured out after the first episode, then?

Say we reverse the order of Marcus/Charlie being booted. Marcus still loses, but does so one episode later. Does Edgic as a whole fail THEN? What's the big difference? After Marcus's boot episode, the only reason he was eliminated was that he was voted out - nothing else about that episode would have eliminated him or made Ken/Matty a frontrunner above him. Therefore, the only reason Edgic "got it right by the merge" was that an incorrect pick was eliminated in time to change the pick immediately before the "deadline."

In a game where the merge can (and does) come at WIDELY variable times, using it as an absolute measurement of success is problematic. I hope these examples demonstrate this.

I'm not trying to be one of the "haha you got it wrong" haters, here. Hell, I know that what I'm saying doesn't even apply to everyone here. I'm just saying that Edgic's original response to the Marcus boot was the right one. This revisionism and backpeddling some people are doing only serves to show haters that people here DO care if they got it right or not and ARE upset when people call them out on it. Edgic is better served by openly admitting that picking Marcus was a mistake and that this season was not, as a whole, successful. The true success in this season should come from examining Marcus's edit for ways to prevent such a blunder from ever happening again. Rewriting history to suggest that Ken/Matty were right up there with Marcus all along does not serve improvements to Edgic.

So in my opinion, arguing that Edgic was successful this season on what is essentially a technicality based in the use of an arbitrary and flawed criteria for success only serves to preserve our own egos (hey, I thought he won, too). The question, then, is: Why do we need to do that?

Thanks for reading. Looking forward to thoughts on this issue.